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.

I've been reverting back and forth between a User:Wikipedian06 and an anon at Ocarina of Time over the inclusion of a GameRankings style reviews collation site. Wikipedian06, even though originally vehemently arguing against listing any form of rankings at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_34#Potential_issue_with_GameRankings.2FMetaCritic_--_add_language_to_guidelines.3F, is now firmly pro-ranking websites, having added them to GTA IV, and now at Ocarina of Time.

He insists on adding a link to TopTenReviews, I have removed it on multiple occasions because its an unreliable source which relies on user-reviews. Now, the website doesn't claim this, but if you look at the expert reviews, you'll find that it draws the final score from websites such as http://www.world-of-video-games.com. Reviews from World of Video Games, are user submitted, at http://www.world-of-video-games.com/contact.shtml, although I guess the site is no longer live. TopTenReviews takes into account all the reviews at http://www.world-of-video-games.com/n64/review/legend_of_zelda_o_of_time.shtml to generate their collated score for Ocarina, yet other aggregators take absolutely nothing from World of Video Games. That's because their reviews, start like such:

Hello, everyone! My name is Kenny Flynn and this is my first review of any game, so please be nice. - http://www.world-of-video-games.com/n64/reviews/legend_of_zelda_kenny.shtml

This is why TopTenReviews should not be cited in the reception section of articles, and it is why it should be removed from Template:VG Reviews. Any further thoughts, please discuss. - hahnch e n 00:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That"Hello, everyone! My name is Kenny Flynn and this is my first review of any game"is a user review is speculation.Any reviewer has written his "first" review.-- 43.244.132.168 ( talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit, the contact page I've linked to above is the submit reviews page. That's all that World of Video Games entails. And TopTenReviews wasn't added to Template:VG Reviews without any discussion or consensus, unlike the bulk of the sources which were discussed when the template was created. The games section on TopTenReviews does not have the same traffic as Game Rankings, and nor does it have the industry influence as Metacritic - http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=metacritic&btnG=Search+News. The only argument for TopTenReviews, is that it includes absolutely every possible review going for the product, this isn't exactly a strength, as I've shown above. - hahnch e n 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that having what appear to be user reviews like those from World of Video Games is poor style, I've yet to see a database entry for a current-gen game (e.g. SMG, GTAIV) with any questionable reviews listed. Maybe the TTR editors simply weren't aware of the WoVG reviews, in which case we should notify them via the contact form. Also, just because those reviews look unprofessional doesn't mean that all the ones listed on Game Rankings are -- after all, the Cubed3 review that stirred up so much controversy last week due to a scoring system change was written by a 15-year-old (at the time of publication--check his birthdate and then the review's publication date)! Even Kenny Flynn's review is at least twice as long and detailed as A. V. Club's two-paragraph reviews! Simply put, anyone with a professional-looking website can apply to be listed on GR and MC.

TTR is clearly a notable aggregator, with more Google search results than Game Rankings, as well as a higher Alexa traffic ranking than Gamerankings and Metacritic. TTR is clearly reliable, as I haven't seen any questionable reviews listed for recent games, and it is also the only one that is not run by an editor who has a personal interest in video games (unlike Metacritic's Marc Doyle and Gamerankings' Lee Alonsi, both of whom are gamers with personal opinions and prone to data tweaking.) The last reason to support TTR's inclusion is that it's not a CNET-operated website, and exclusively referencing CNET websites here is not good practice per WP:NPOV. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the discussion but it dont like how much profanity it in this one discussion. Gears Of War 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahnchen has had a long history of using inappropriate language on this site. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 02:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my language is usually directed at situations and arguments, not people. [1]. - hahnch e n 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the fact that you used profanity is the problem, young kids edit on Wikipedia also so why should they have to read your curses? Gears Of War 02:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored However, discussions are supposed to be civil, so swearing at a person is discouraged. -- MASEM 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont exactly like seeing profanity being the first thing on my watchlist(I have also left him a message). Gears Of War 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The influence that TTR has is nothing in comparison to Metacritic. Microsoft are culling their Xbox Live service based on Metacritic, Steam lists Metacritic, there's a whole load of Metacritic references in Google News, hardly any for TopTenReviews. The Google test is flawed because TopTenReviews has spammed every possible version of its domain into the Google index. And Alexa does not show TTR having any real lead other the CNET sites, especially when we look at its current and past performance. You have to take into account that 100% of Game Rankings traffic is going to games, and from Alexa, only 10% of TTR traffic is going to games. And what do you know of TTR's editorial process, what do you know of Metacritic's ranking system? - hahnch e n 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And I cannot believe that you're using review length as any indication of a review's quality. Edge and Famitsu have short reviews, it doesn't stop them from being infinitely more reliable, influential and better than Kenny Flynn's darling first effort and every other user review on TTR. - hahnch e n 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is Metacritic, which even has the advantage of being the oldest of the three sites. Metacritic's Alexa traffic rank is currently 4,568, lower than TopTenReviews' 3,616 -- and yet, because Metacritic doesn't use separate subdomains for different media types, you don't know what fraction is actually going to games. In any case, we're not disputing whether Metacritic is notable, but rather why TopTenReviews is NOT notable -- and by a statistically significant margin. TTR has been cited by sources like Business Week and ABC and has been named a finalist in the American Business Awards. If we want to bring up non-notable aggregators, ones like Game Ratio and MobyRank are far less notable. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 02:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Game Ratio or MobyRank shouldn't be mentioned, why did you add it to Grand Theft Auto IV [2]? Or are links and references only good when they disparage Ocarina? - hahnch e n 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

hahnchen has a point, comparing review length is not a reliable method of determining reliability. And per WP:SET, "Search engines cannot: 1) Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false). 2) Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance. 3) Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses."

While this doesn't prove or disprove the reliability of TTR, I do think it should not be included in articles and the Review template until this issue is resolved. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm sensing some WP:COI issues here... -- Izno ( talk) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole debate is kinda curious... We're discussing whether TopTenReviews is a reliable source, yet it is not a source to begin with. TopTenReviews, GameRankings, Metacritic, and Wikipedia itself all have one thing in common: they are not sources, but aggregators of sources. Each source (like World of Video Games) should be assessed individually; there's nothing wrong with TopTenReviews in itself. If it appears that an aggregate score, wherever it comes from, is based on both reliable and unreliable sources, then I think it shouldn't be mentioned. Only the scores from reliable sources should. Kariteh ( talk) 08:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not look into the websites' way to calculate aggregate score, because aggregate score in itself depends on the stance of the websites. The same game receives different numbers of reviews and different websites' reviews on TopTenReviews,GameRankings, and Metacritic. Even on the same aggregator website,games receive diffrent numbers of reviews and diffrent websites' reviews respectively. So aggregate score in itself is nonsense,and looking into how the aggregate score is calculated is also nonsense.the important thing is notability.TopTenReviews,GameRankings, and Metacritic are all enough notable, and helpful for wikipedia.-- 43.244.132.168 ( talk) 09:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We do not know whether TopTenReviews is more notable than GameRankings and Metacritic, and whether GameRankings and Metacritic are more notable than TopTenReviews, so they should be treated impartially. On GameRankings and Metacritic,old games have few reviews, so as for old games, GameRankings and Metacritic are not reliable. But on TopTenReviews, even old games have many reviews, so for gamers who like new games and old games equally, TopTenReviews is a important website.-- 133.2.9.162 ( talk) 07:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I've yet to find any potentially questionable sources listed on TTR for any games starting from the sixth (GCN/Xbox) generation. Unless you can prove me wrong, I think it's better to inform them about the N64 sources and have them fix it rather than ban the site entirely. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 08:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability is absolutely not a litmus test for reliability. Many tabloids are notable; few are reliable. The fact that TTR posts anachronistic user reviews, with an apparent lack of fact-checking, does NOT lend credibility or utility to the site; if anything, the opposite. And since this is apparently the context in which the site is being used instead of MC and GR, I would say that it probably isn't reliable for Wikipedia. This is not a judgment against other potential aggregate sources, however. Just find one that is based on actual and then-current publications (e.g. magazines, for older games) instead of user contributions that are written retrospectively. (Well-sourced retrospection can be used to comment about a game's legacy, which is a slightly different subject than its critical reception.) Ham Pastrami ( talk) 10:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to find any potentially questionable sources listed on TTR for any games starting from the sixth (GCN/Xbox) generation. Unless you can prove me wrong, I think it's better to inform them about the N64 sources and have them fix it rather than ban the site entirely.

While we're on the subject of reliability, let's inspect Metacritic's sources on Ocarina of Time (N64):

Gaming Maxx 100 - Leads to online Flash games portal

Hot Games 100 - Leads to online Flash games portal

AVault 100 - PAGE NOT FOUND

Electric Playground 100 - PAGE NOT FOUND

Nintendorks 100 - PAGE NOT FOUND

TotalGames.net 100 - PAGE NOT FOUND

Games Domain 100 - Redirects to Yahoo!

At least the WoVG pages actually lead somewhere. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic missing reviews

Now, let's take a look at Metacritic's own rules:

The counted list of Metacritic publications is available here.

All five publications below are on the "allowed list" and yet conveniently exempted from OoT's page:

Nintendo Power (Magazine): 9.5 out of 10

Computer & Video Games (Magazine): 9.0 out of 10

Games Master UK (Magazine): 97%

netjak: 9.5 out of 10

RPG Fan: 95%

How about we remove all reviews from GTAIV's page** that are under 100 instead?

(**I hardly care about GTAIV; just using as an example) Wikipedian06 ( talk) 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All that stuff there regarding Metacritic's rules and ranking algorithm's is original research. You could go through every review on Metacritic and check which sources are missing, I'm sure there will be loads, but that doesn't alter the fact that Metacritic is well established as the industry standard, and Top Ten Reviews aren't. - hahnch e n 00:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, your analysis of TTR appearing to allow user reviews is also original research. You shouldn't apply double standards here. Besides, as I said above, having links to "unprofessional" reviews that actually go somewhere looks far more professional than a bunch of 404s and redirects to spam sites. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that they aggregate user reviews is less of a jump than dictating which sources an aggregator should be using. You'll also note how any original research I might do, never goes into the article. - hahnch e n 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say aggregate scores of the three aggregator websites are less reliable than user voting because they uses different numbers of reviews and different websites' reviews for each game while user voting is statistically correct. For calculating fair scores they should use the same numbers of reviews and the same websites' reviews. The important part of aggregator website is that we can get many reviews easily, not the aggregate score because aggregate score is crap as I mentioned above.If we consider whether a review is reliable or not,why don't we consider whether aggregate score is reliable or not?,and it is obviously not.So if TopTenReviews is going to be removed, why don't we give up using aggregate score for wikipedia?furthermore,Metacritic seems less reliable than TopTenReviews-- 43.244.132.168 ( talk) 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The user votes on Metacritic aren't counted in the metascores. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it,I just said user voting is more reliable than metascores-- 43.244.132.168 ( talk) 12:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• TopTenReviews even though it has a similar Alexa rank to GameRankings and Metacritic, has way less influence in the games industry, just try googling for articles. And just going from your own experiences, how often is a TopTenReview score quoted for a game, against Metascores and GameRanking averages?

Their sources for games such as Ocarina of Time have been shown to come from user reviews, which we do not take into account. I mentioned above, at #Giant_Bomb_as_reliable_source.3F, that it wasn't just reliability which was the issue with sources, but influence. The TTReview score for Ocarina has none of those. - hahnch e n 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.toptenreviews.com/news-releases.html Looks like plenty of TTR citations from well-known third party sources. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 01:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And pretty much all of them are irrelevant. The only citations in its entire history related to video games, are three which regard video game rental services. Compare that with Metacritic and GameRankings. I cannot believe that anyone could argue that TTR is anywhere near reliable in the case of Ocarina, given its use of user reviews. And in the case of Ocarina, given its status as a featured article, the onus of discussion is placed on the person adding the disputed material, not the one removing it. - hahnch e n 09:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: are you trying to push for TTR's exclusion from the OoT article or from ALL gaming articles?

No, I'm not disputing that TTR has potentially questionable reviews for OoT. However, has any similar issue been found for a sixth generation or later game? If not, would it be acceptable to cite TTR as an alternative to CNET-operated aggregators on articles for sixth and seventh generation games?

Wikipedian06 ( talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On Metacritic, some of the reviews of oot do not work.Metacritic is less reliable than TopTenReviews. This is why Metacritic should not be cited in the reception section of articles, and it is why it should be removed from Template:VG Reviews. -- 43.244.132.168 ( talk) 05:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument is totally irrelevant. If a link is dead, it means the site of the reviews changed the location of the review and the aggregator didn't update its link. It has nothing to do with reliability. A simple Google or Internet Archive search will retrieve all of these reviews. Kariteh ( talk) 07:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, on n-philes.com,the page of oot does not have a review article. [3]. Verifiability is the most important thing when considering a source is reliable or not.-- 43.244.132.168 ( talk) 08:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is your friend: [4]. These reviews are clearly verifiable, even if one has to think fourth-dimensionally to see them. Kariteh ( talk) 08:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we use The Internet Archive-searched page as a reference for wikipedia? I do not know about it.-- 43.244.132.168 ( talk) 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We can; the archives are unmodified so they're reliable, and there's even a parameter for citing archives in the template:cite web. Kariteh ( talk) 08:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of Archive. Some cached reviews turn up; others don't. In any case, having a bunch of 404's and spam site redirects without any explanation is simply unprofessional--IMO, Metacritic should either (1) remove the dead sites, (2) store cached copies of said reviews for verification purposes, or (3) add a footnote explaining what's going on. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm only just coming in to this now, but as far as I can see, the argument is not about the significance of Metacritic (that's well established), or how they can improve, but the significance of TopTenReviews. What reviews Metacritic references shouldn't be an issue - it is often referenced by a wide range of media sources. TopTenReviews is not. That should be the end of the discussion. As per Hahnchen above. Fin © ™ 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, not anymore. If Metacritic has issues like 404s and spam redirects, we may need to reconsider its reliability for the Video Games wikiproject. After all, Metacritic is used for a wide range of media, and most of the outside references are about its movies, not its games. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"most of the outside references are about its movies, not its games." - that's completely incorrect. Both EA and Microsoft have recently used Metacritic ratings to change their business practices (EA with a focus on quality, MS to delist underperforming XBLA games). Metacritic is referenced constantly in the gaming press (I could find more, but I'm not bothered). If you think its reliability is in question, branch a discussion away from this, which is only about TopTenReviews. Fin © ™ 22:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to TopTenReviews, too. For example, GamingNexus.com published an article about TTR and rankings of game rental companies. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are not plenty. Of the press mention list on TTR the only articles pertaining to games, were the rankings of games rental services, not the games themselves. Whereas for Metacritic, you have references to Microsoft's Live Arcade game listing policy, numerous mentions from industry executives and analysts. - hahnch e n 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

no, if Metacritic is as reliable as or less reliable than TopTenReviews , and TopTenReviews is removed from Template:VG Reviews,Metacritic should be removed too. we do not need to make a new section about it because the issues are about aggregators' reliability and should not be separated. Metacritic seems unprofessional and unreliable-- 133.2.9.161 ( talk) 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to approach this from a different angle. We need to question why we including review links and aggregate review links in our reception section; I think answering that clearly will make sense of what needs to be done.

In the former case of single review links, we want to link to review sources that are generally "reliable" in that there is some editorial control on the review, that their past body of review work has generally been considered the best, and there's no easy evidence of biasing. This is generally why we don't permit user blog reviews, and generally are looking at the major gaming sites and key print magazines for these. This doesn't mean that, say, the New York Times isn't worthwhile - the newspaper as a whole is as reliable as these sites if not more, but it just isn't the best comprehensive coverage of video games. The other point is that we don't fill the reception section with every video game review we can find; we want to hit the major sites, and then make sure that if there are extremes from reliable sources, they are covered as well as to source what problems or pluses were in the game. Thus, a typical article today should probably have between 5 to 7 single review points to paint the larger picture.

Now, why do we provide aggregrate review links? Well, to the above point, since we are not providing every review under the sun, as a tertiary source, we should point to where an interested reader can find more reviews of similar source quality. This means we don't want tons of blogs or the like (we would never, for example, link to GameFAQS' or Amazon's user reviews). Thus, when we project-wise select which aggregriates to use, we consider what their general makeup is. At this point, this is what separates MC and GR from TTR. MC is generally better (there's a few "blog" type review sites) than GR, but both have a better ratio of reliable sourcing reviews compared to TTR. The other big plus that these sites immediate get that TTR does not have is that they include print journals, which are often ignored (not necessarily a negative, just a fact) for modern games, but are important data points. As to another point, just like we don't need to include every single review source, we don't need to include every aggregriate point, and thus if we are limiting ourselves, MC would be highest priority, followed by GR. TTR is just not the greatest site to include when there are these other two resources available that are better overall. Only in the case if neither MC or GR have a game should the fallback be TTR. -- MASEM 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I haven't found any potentially questionable reviews listed on TTR for sixth generation games and beyond. Why don't we use TTR, but on articles for sixth generation and later games only? I agree that WoVR reviews shouldn't be included, but why penalize the entire website for one problem source? There are 346 N64 games in TTR's database; what about the other 34,000+ that we can use? Wikipedian06 ( talk) 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you think Metacritic's 404's and spam redirects make it look professional? What about all those missing reviews that should be on OoT's page per the site's own rules, but aren't? Coincidentally, they all happen to be lower-scoring ones, too. Maybe the sourced review sites themselves aren't biased, but Metacritic's editor is? How can Wikipedia rely on a source whose editor may be tweaking the data to his heart's content?

At the very least, I know TTR isn't biased because the site founder has no personal interest in video games. The WoVR inclusion was simply an oversight--it was added to all N64 games for which reviews were available. Wikipedian06 ( talk) 06:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Em, how do you know the founder has no personal interest in video games? Fin © ™ 12:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say about the lack of OoT reviews is that anything on MC published before 2001 (the year the site came into being) is probably going to be lacking certain print and long-dead sources, simply because collecting information about past events is more difficult about what happens now. There's absolutely nothing wrong with 404 or spam links as long as the original "See original review" link was originally where it was supposed to go, but either because the site disappeared or they reorganized material (improperly) is nothing that MC should be expected to fix. But you're missing the larger point. In general, MC is the best snapshot we have for capturing the aggregate score - it certainly hasn't shown day to day biasing that GR (see what happened when Super Mario Galaxy came out and suddenly there were changes in numbers to keep OoT on top) and captures most of the key top gaming sites and print journals. It may be missing a few, I would not be surprised that GR and TTR are too. That's ok - we just want to make sure that the aggregate is the best snapshot across as many types of sources as possible to be helpful to the reviewer. -- MASEM 12:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If a notable review is missing, just add it to the table above the aggregate scores. The template is made to support both aggregate and individual scores. Kariteh ( talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding whether TTR should be used for recent reviews, if their recent reviews do not cite user reviews, then I would not be for a blanket ban. I would consider the source less notable and influential than the CNet aggregators. I cannot think of a single game which would be served better with a TTR link over a Metacritic one. I do not think there is a need for both, it is the CNet aggregators which have become the de-facto industry standard. - hahnch e n 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a quick browse through the template, there seems to be a large number of nn review sites for games (The Cincinnati Enquirer), review sites of dubious notability (reviewers without wiki articles) and non-en sites (Jeux Video, Meristation). Is there any existing consensus as to what constitutes a notable review site? The few discussions I've found are short-lived, without consensus. Thanks! Fin © ™ 22:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep the Cincinnati Enquirer on the basis that it is (or at least appears to be, I'm in the UK so I've not got a clue whether its the equivalent of the Telegraph of the Daily Star) a reputable newspaper, and in my experience is rather rare in that it reviews video games. -- Sabre ( talk) 22:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WTH? Since when does a source have to be WP:Notable for us to cite it? Anomie ⚔ 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What Anomie said. If the sources meet WP:V/ WP:RS we can use them, regardless of the status of their article. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this lead to articles that are overflowing with reviews from minor websites, fan websites and blogs? You have to draw the line somewhere. Fin © ™ 10:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... explain how these minor websites, fansites, or blogs meet WP:V? Has anyone reliable asserted their reliability as a source? If not, then no. If yes, then yes, we can use them, which is a good thing. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 10:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, bad example. Take The Irish Times, a notable, verifiable newspaper of record in Ireland. They most certainly aren't a notable games reviewer though - should they still be included in a review table, and in the reception text? Fin © ™ 10:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. No, they don't have to be, and if their review is a one line "Age of DHMO is the best video game ever", then they shouldn't be. But if they do a high quality, IGN-esque (dodges tomatoes of those who dislike IGN) review, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be included. Thing is, I doubt they will. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 10:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool so! They won't, the Times doesn't even have game reviews, I was just making a point =) Fin © ™ 11:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and a good point it was. I think we both get what the other is trying to say now. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 11:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary that sites aren't notable, it is just that when we provide reviews of modern games, there as some sites over others that should be stated, and only these should be listed. That doesn't prevent people from using, say, the Cincinnati Enquirer in the table if it is appropriate, though in the "rev1" keyword portion. However, with that many parameters, it encourages people to try to fill them all in, when really, we should only have the GR/MC cumulative rating, any appropriate paper magazine (PC World, OXM, OPM, EGM, Nintendo Power, Famitsu, Edge, etc) and from 4 to 6 reviews from web sources that are used in the reception section to explain the critical response in more detail, or failing that, from well-established top-tier game sites (1UP, IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, Eurogamer, etc.) -- MASEM 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think non-English publications such Famitsu or Jeux Video are relevant when the game was first published in a non-English country (Japan, France, etc.). If the game was first published in an English country, there's no reason to use non-English reviews IMO. Kariteh ( talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually setting up for a double standard. A lot of games are published in Japan, but the bulk of the reviews on it are from English sources because of the ease of reading them for a casual editor. Under what you said though, they should technically be ignored because it was clearly not a US game from the getgo. Any review of any sort should be valid if it comes from a verifiable source, despite the language.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 13:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Kariteh ( talk) 13:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is a source like Famitsu is no less relevant when a game is American made opposed to Japan: it gives a different culture's reception on it. Excluding it as irrelevant entirely is the equivalent of saying we should exclude EGM's reviews on any Japanese games. I do however agree with the person below, that some care should be exercised, especially in the case where the foreign publication is just a variant of a US magazine, such as the OPM example.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 14:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point! Kariteh ( talk) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think non-en reviews shouldn't be included, unless they are notable for some reason (the unusually high score for Haze from Famitsu, for example). If it's decided any review of any language is ok for inclusion (as long as it's verifiable), what's to stop all regional variations of magazines being included (OPM:UK, OPM:FR, OPM:DE, OPM:ES, OPM:IT, etc)? Fin © ™ 13:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; the simple fact that a (reliable) review comes from a different country is already a sign of importance. If a British review praises the graphics of a British game and a Japanese review also praises them, then I think both reviews should be mentioned. If you have too much reviews at hand they don't even have to be mentioned individually; you could just say "The graphics were praised by both British and Japanese critics", for instance. As for regional variations of magazines, I think they should be counted as a single entity since they're published by the same corporations. If one of them happen to say something notably different than the rest of them, it can be mentioned individually though. Kariteh ( talk) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'll guess you mean wikt:notable rather than WP:Notable (since the word "notable" on Wikipedia usually refers to WP:Notable, I try to always either use "[[wikt:notable]]" for the common definition or use a synonym such as "relevant"). I don't think there's any need for a slippery slope argument, just common sense is needed. Since this is the English Language Wikipedia, we generally reference English language sources. But if there is something relevant to the topic that needs to be sourced to a non-English source, such as your Haze example, we go ahead. Anomie ⚔ 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about non-en reviews being included in Reception sections if notable, I think that already happens when appropriate. I mean their inclusion in the review table - shouldn't only oft used, notable, relevant, verifiable and (maybe) en-language be included? Fin © ™ 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the review table, personally I think it's just a matter of space. If the non-English reviews can be included in the table without stretching it too much vertically (if the game is old or obscure, etc.), then why not put them? But generally there are already plenty of English reviews to put in the table, so I agree we shouldn't include everything in these cases. By the way, it might not be directly related to this discussion, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some very interesting explanations about regional bias. Kariteh ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That page about bias is fair interesting alright! Back on topic, there's two problems with adding a large number of reviewers to the table - 1) the fact that the reviewer is in the table means people are more inclined to include that review score, leading to bloated tables on gamepages (GTA IV fell victim to this, and the table was culled), 2) there already exists a method to add reviewers not already included in the template to individual tables. If non-en reviews are to be added on a case-by-case basis, doesn't it make sense not to include them in the table, but rather have them added individually to the articles that require it? Fin © ™ 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources that we demonstrate the reliability of all of the sources listed; those with question marks are candidates for removal barring we cannot prove they meet the criteria of WP:RS. I suggest once this list is pruned/reinforced, we then sync the publications over to the reviews template, axing some of the less notable sources. I also suggest we keep out non-video gaming websites and newspapers to keep the list slim. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that using non-English review scores may be fine, but actually citing the text of a non-English review poses a problem. Either the text is quoted directly, in which case it's non-English and not useful to most readers, or someone is doing a translation plus paraphrase which can't be verified by most editors. It's almost better to cite an English website where someone has looked at the (for example) Japanese reviews and themselves paraphrased or summarized them. -- Slordak ( talk) 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up. There's a big debate over the inclusion of a C-Class rating to the assessment scheme over at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. A proper discussion will be commencing soon, so I thought I'd alert the project. -- .: Alex :. 10:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Start and B class aren't enough to show the difference between Stub and A/GA/FA? xD -- Izno ( talk) 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait until the D class article debate starts; lulz. Or better yet, rename Start to D, and Stub to F; that'll show 'em.-- 十 八 10:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the options being discussed is precisely to rename Start class to C class, since the word "start" can mislead people into thinking only recent articles should be in that class. Kariteh ( talk) 11:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the biggest gap in our assessed articles is between Start and B, I wouldn't mind differentiating those articles which are basically a full plot summary (start) from those that have some "real" information but otherwise need massive cleanup (C). Nifboy ( talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For the longest time I thought "start" was first and then you'd upgrade to "stub" class, since "start" connotates beginning, whiel "stub" connotates, you know, a stub. hbdragon88 ( talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I got very bored, and decided to convert several lists to be similar to the F-Zero/Castlevania titles lists. Any input/opinions/comments/contributions?

1. List of Pokémon video games
2. List of Wario video games
3. List of The Legend of Zelda titles
4. List of Metroid titles
5. And I plan to do the same to List of Kirby video games, List of Donkey Kong games, and List of Mega Man games - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I can think of some other lists that would be possible. As a question though, is it preferable to produce "List of.." articles or "... (series)" articles? When sould one be used instead of the other? Which is more appropriate? Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that "List of Y games" is appropriate when it is strictly just a list, as the examples above are given, and there's little more about the series beyond the game list. "Y (series)" should be to discuss the overall series (including history, develop, gameplay commonalities, etc.) in more depth. -- MASEM 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:FFtitlebox should be used instead of the direct wikicode, so that editing is easier for newcomers. Kariteh ( talk) 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also isnt List of Y "titles" preferred over List of Y games? Salavat ( talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends. "Titles" implies that there is more media beyond just the video games in the list (see List of Castlevania titles). I can see cases where you would want the video games separate from other forms of media (say List of Naruto video games should be separate from List of Naruto manga volumes, List of Naruto episodes, etc.). Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be standardized. List of Final Fantasy media uses "media" instead of "titles". Also, should "games" be used instead of "video games" when possible? Kariteh ( talk) 09:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions for standardizing it. "Media" seems to be a more descriptive word. Like in the FF and KH lists, they include the games, soundtracks, manga, companion books, etc. I used "titles" for the Castlevania list because it was mostly games, but included compilations and the upcoming movie. If it extends beyond video games in any capacity, should we use "media"? ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

I think the disparity between "titles" and "media" is that the former excludes soundtracks, manga, companion books, etc., with the movie in List of Castlevania titles being the exception. If you want to use "media", then you're including everything concerning that game/franchise that you're focusing on: manga, soundtracks, strategy guides, everything (per List of Kingdom Hearts media). Ultimately, it comes down to a case-to-case basis, as there's times where a "media" list would be inappropriate, say in the case of the Naruto or Bleach lists where video games are not the primary part of the franchise. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that "CVG" is still around quite a bit these days, and although its usage has been greatly reduced, I'm wondering if we should really start to try to phase out it's usage, particularly on templates and redirects. I believe the interchangable use of CVG alongside VG is confusing (particularly to newer editors), and we should at least try to phase out its usage for the {{ WikiProject Video games}} template. This page shows an absurd amount of pages that redirect from CVG names. I can completely understand having the redirects to main project pages like assessment and deletion discussions, as they likely still used, but are links such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review/Yoshi really necessary? Can we not get rid of them to consolidate resources and not have a whole sea of redirects? There are even some redundant pages lurking in there. -- .: Alex :. 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap and basically not worth looking into for any duration of time (for instance, this CVG/PR redirect is linked to from this very inactive page, and fixing it is entirely too much work for too little benefit). I change the template name to {{ vgproj}} whenever I do assessments, though, due to how my assessment script works (it doesn't recognize any other template name, {{ cvgproj}} being the most common). Nifboy ( talk) 04:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. I don't doubt there are some redirects being used inappropriately, but short of checking each one individually, I don't know how to deal with finding them. This sounds like it'll be a long-term issue that may best be dealt with by addressing it as we find them; something members are just going to have to keep in the back of their minds as they edit. I'm sure by 2010, CVG will have been phased out complete, I just hope we're still going by VG then. :-p ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

IIRC this Wikiproject has a "Reliable sources" sub-page - but no link to it. Why not? Philcha ( talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's there, but it's kind of buried. See the side-menu, under "Manual Style" there's a link called "Sources". I agree that it's not very easy to seek out for something that would otherwise be quite helpful. Randomran ( talk) 23:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, i wouldn't say it's been very helpful, as I've had to justify every source on that page; but hopefully the RS criteria rationales will be added and improved so we can just point to it for defense of sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was looking over some stuff on the legal side of video games and I was wondering how much of it comes under our scope. I realise that many of us will not be able to write about many of these aspects, but should they be in our scope? For instance, Jack Thompson, an American lawyer who has campaigned against violent video games such as GTA with varying degrees of success, is not listed under our scope (his article's currently GA, although a look into its edit history shows that Mr. Thompson dubbed a lot of its content as inaccurate a few years back). However, the Byron Review, a review conducted on behalf of the British Government that looks into the rating systems of the BBFC and PEGI, along with various other video game and online content issues, is listed as within our scope. Do we add these sorts of articles to our scope or not, leaving them only to those WikiProjects dealing with legal articles? This probably is coming from the fact we don't appear to define our scope anywhere beyond what can be obviously deduced from our WikiProject name. -- Sabre ( talk) 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say most articles like that are within our scope (per our project page: "topics related to video games"), though I'd say the importance of such article are up for debate. Articles like Jack Thompson, Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., and ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion are about things that go on behind the scenes of video games and directly impact the industry. They are also arguably more encyclopedic in scope than our normal video game articles. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Whoa dudes this is haarious and kinda disturbing news. So I'm chilling out wtaching Xplay, and they start talkin about MGS4, now I'm happy cause I'm gonna get a look at an awesome up-coming game. So they're talkin then the mention a 90 mnute cut scene in the middle of MGS4. So I'm like o my f----- God. So they say that there are some other iffy thing goin on with the game. So they keep talkin and they say the MGS4 publishers told EGM and other reviewers to not mention the cutscenes and other problems in their reviews. So bottom line, EGM gave the game a un-straight forward review(which sucks). So now Xplay brings some dude on stage to discuss this. And he says that the publisher has the right to say dont mention this...and yet the reviewer can say screw you I'm doin what I want. So now MGS4 may be getting some un-straight forward reviews. I thought this news it would be a awesome addition to the MGS4 article because will anybody else follow the way of MG's publisher. Sorry for the long message but this is wierd and disturbing news. Gears Of War 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait it is already in the article well at least you know now see here for more info. Gears Of War 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

from WikiProject Video games

Link I don't want to start fighting again but please GAMEFAQs, GAMESTOP, TOYSRUS. are not sources they seem to be I also thought they were sources until I went to SSBB (Super Smash Brother Brwal) page and they were all yelling at me for adding GAMEFAQs, GAMESTOP, TOYSRUS as sources.--Lbrun12415 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, be quiet. After you continuously vandalized my statement, I have decided to be done with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are Gamefaqs, GAMESTOP, TOYSRUS sources ?-- Lbrun12415 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to release dates for games that aren't out yet, they're not reputable. GameFAQs is a user-submission site, just like Wikipedia (such sites are never used as sources if there's better alternatives). Vendors like GameStop and TRU always use "best guess" release dates until companies actually give actual confirmed ones. If the game is already out, they could probably be used, but it's best to get a better source at that point anyways, since there would be a lot more sites, including more reputable ones, who give the same data. WP:VG/DATE has more information on all this. Arrowned ( talk) 21:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot are usually fairly good at detailing information about release dates, if that's what you're after. The SSSB information that you were looking for can be found here. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we wont be making a Activision task force anytime soon, why dont we try out a Guitar Hero taskforce. You guys have got to admit, that over the last month the Guitar Hero world has grown hugely and is just getting bigger. With the announcement of World Tour and then Mettalica(that was actually released), and On Tour AND Aerosmith, GH is ready for it's own taskforce. And if not, dont forget about making a even huger task force (Activision Task Force). What do you guys think. And pretty much the only problem should be the fact that not alot of the Guitar Hero game articles are at GA or FA status...that could present us with a problem, so whats you guys thoughts. Gears Of War 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I take that back, almost every article in the series is FL or FA of GA, so there should be no problem we just need someone to lead it. Gears Of War 23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, GoW, we don't need task forces for every single series or company you can think up. Taskforces are only useful to help coordinate members- if no one else is actively using them, they're just wastes of space. Proposals like this need to be thought out first- and the fact that you said that none of the articles were GA+ and then immediately retracted it to say that they all were makes it very clear that you've put no thought or time into the idea, and probably won't do too much with the project after it's made, either. -- PresN ( talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Task forces are set up because there's already a good momentum for editing a particular topic and to organize that momentum. They're not created in the hope of generating more momentum; task forces and wikiprojects which have been set up for that purpose have always failed to get any decent activity. Kariteh ( talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, just a suggestion. Gears Of War 22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I say no. The primary task of a task force is to clean up a large amount of related articles through a collaborative effort so that they can become of GA or FA/FL quality. Seeing as how this has already been achieved sans a task force, there's no need.-- 十 八 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is 231 kilobytes long.-- Lbrun12415 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Any thread older than 7 days is automatically archived. Unless we want to put it down to 5 days or something.-- 十 八 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well anything that works that page does seem very long.-- Lbrun12415 04:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It gets long because people argue on it. ;) Not unnecessarily, sometimes, but this is just because of the fact it is centralized. -- Izno ( talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been fighting over the inclusion of Australian release dates on lists of video games by console. Some want it in, some want them out. Anyone want to comment (here)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragging more people into your edit war is also the wrong way to go about this. It's not a vote, it never will be. So far there are two that I see that want the dates removed and five or six that want them to stay AND they are the ones offering alternative means to make everyone happy. Please work with them on a solution that satisfies everyone involved. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 05:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the dates should stay they are very important, and I believe pages should be moved from # - N and 0 - Z.-- Lbrun12415 05:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even discussing that right now, Lbrun. The only thing I've asked is the inclusion of Australia, which many people seem to disagree with for whatever reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen nothing that says Australian dates should be omitted, just add them. What's stopping you? -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 06:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it would make the article way, way, way too large? And it would take several hours to gather release dates for all games that apply? And the fact that I've been too busy arguing against a couple people who don't seem to care about Australia (and that would include you, who considers the problem of Australia's absence to be trivial banter). - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ergo, the split proposal. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The number of games is not substantial enough to REQUIRE it. Size issues should not be dealt by splitting the article, but first finding what fat can be cut. I mean, if a video game article were too big, and it had, say, a list of weapons, do we split the article, or delete the weapons? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is neither, and the "list of games" is never taken into account when splitting an article. The article's total size is taken into account. This is why when you edit the article it alerts you to its size after so many bytes. And at 145 kilobytes it is highly recommended that an article be split... possibly in more than two ways. There's even a link to the Wiki guidelines regarding article size. In some rare occasions large articles are okay, but for the most part (As in this case where there can be a dividing line in the alphabet) articles need to be kept to a smaller size to allow people with slower computers and iffy internet connections to view the page without timing out. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 06:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be split at the drop of a hat. If there's unnecessary content that can be cut to achieve the same means as splitting the article would, THAT is preferred. It makes navigation easier for the reader. A split may be possible - and the only thing it says is that it may be appropriate. If there's a way to avoid the split, that's another option, the only problem is that people do not want to choose that option at all.

Regardless, the only thing the article needs is a list of what regions the games are released in. This can be accomplished by providing one column, containing NA/EU/AUS/JPN/KOR/etc. This reduces the kb size, the literal size, and removes any need for a split. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's not a goal to look for reason to keep articles from spliting. And the only that happened at the drop of a hat tonight was the sudden, unexplained removal of notable material from the article, the split is actually being discussed. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 06:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is A lot of the people here like the way the list is now adding more thing will merge everything together making it hard for people to read.-- Lbrun12415 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't omit legitimate content because people like it the way it is. Australia is a necessary region in gaming. Most games are released in Australia. All systems are released in Australia. There's no reason to omit at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the release dates on there are examples of three places that get them three exapmles is good. I still don't understand why you want other places on there you say its not fair. Was it fair that whites took over blacks NO. Its life I believe that it should be split into two pages. Nothing taken off.-- Lbrun12415 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If Australian release date are in the artical itelf then there is no need to add them to the table.-- Lbrun12415 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There was hardly a need to invoke Godwin's law in this. A Link to the Past may not have any interest in having Australia there other than in fairness, I personally would like it there if only because Australia is for the most part treated as a different continent (which it is) and on most occasions has a seperate release schedule from Europe despite both using the PAL format. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 06:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My theory is if you have a australian release date add it, if you dont have one or it is the same as europe you the PAL tag instead. and remember AUS inst just australia its Australasia. Maybe for the header instead of "Europe" have "PAL region" then underneath that have "(Europe/Australasia)" to allow for the potential different releases Salavat ( talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page of the article: a split isn't needed at this time. Size isn't an issue. As for Australia: I'm all for adding it, as long as it can be done in a neat way. Perhaps something like Salavat suggested, would work. RobJ1981 ( talk) 11:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats the problem adding it will mess up the page everything will be sumshed into on word making it hard for people to read and understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrun12415 ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Europe and Australia have different release schedules, as have been stated already.
2. That's not a good reason to exclude content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting to not include it. It looks clear for entry. The only thing holding it back would be how to implement it and your insistence on trimming the page to keep it below 100kb. I'm thinking to WP:IAR it as far as article size is concerned. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would give my two cents but I have no idea what article you're all discussing about. Kariteh ( talk) 15:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lbrun has been suggesting we not include it throughout this entire convo, and List of Wii games, Kariteh. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kariteh- The gist of it is that in List of Wii games we'd like to include the release date for games in the Australasian region as well as the already included Euro/Jap/US release dates.

ALttP-Thus far that's only one dissenting voice. It sounds like consensus is all go for Aussie inclusion, actually. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Salavat's idea is the most pratical. We could have a "PAL region" column and simply put the European release dates in it; if there is a distinct Austral(as)ian release date for an entry, then we could just add it below the European release date, like how the Publisher column has more than one item sometimes (in Action Girlz Racing's row for instance). Kariteh ( talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Course AUS dates should be included (as should all EN release dates, per this thing - Use the first..release in the game's country of origin...any English-language release dates available.) There's no reason to exclude them at all. Unless, of course, the EUR date is the same, in which case the date can just have PAL slapped over it. I think AUS release dates should also be incorporated with NZ ones, if the same. Fin © ™ 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I misunderstood the question. I think Australia should be recognised as another gaming territory, when different from EUR releases (if not, they can all be called PAL). Ignoring it completely is a bit much. Fin © ™ 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) Wow, this discussion is a bit hard to follow. I agree with Link that the list can be trimmed (trying to look at the edit differences almost crashed my browser), however I do think a games release date is something that should be included in a list. But a question comes to mind, why are three release dates given in the list? It seems to me that only one column is necessary and it should list the first release date. The regions seems like they should be listed in a single, separate column. Anything beyond that can be found in a game's article.

In short, I don't see much purpose behind list the release dates by region and having them sortable. It adds a bit of unnecessary info that I think very few people would bother to sort other than to see the novelty of it. My two cents. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Well that's one problem. Just mentioning regions just confirms that a game is being released in that region. The reason for including the other release dates is because you can get games like SSBB that has wildly varying release dates for the US/Jap/Euro(admittedly not as wide a gulf between Euro and Aus as I thought actually but whatever :P), and presumably some of us would like to know which was released or will be released when. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree there, I think it'd be a better idea to just have one column, with the game's country/region of origin and first release date. If people want individual region dates, they can go to the game's article. Fin © ™ 16:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Chan Yin Keen- I can see your point, but I still think that level of information is best found in a game's article, and not in a list that should only cover brief information. I see no reason why the various regions can't be listed as NA, PAL, EUR, AUS, JAP, etc in a single "Region" column. I think this would be a good compromise as it would list the necessary information but trim the excess whil hopefully bringing down the page size. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Quite true. This looks quite settled, but we'll see if anyone else has anything to say. I'm going to start looking at turning all the redlinked games into stubs and articles in preparation of the eventual fallout from the potential removal of most of the release dates on the list :P Chan Yin Keen | Talk 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we do what List of PSP games did? We add flags? The dates should stay, also all the other list of games did not add Australian release dates I really don't see why we should now it makes no sence at all.-- Lbrun12415 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

for example we could add Title, Release date, Developer, Publisher, Released Regions, Exclus. -- Lbrun12415 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That kind of what we're proposing. We plan on keeping release dates, just only using the earliest date. by using that, we minimize the need for excessive regions. If a game was released in Europe only, list EUR, if it was released in Europe and Australia, list PAL, if only Australia, list AUS. This should keep the most pertinent info while reducing the amount of text and code needed to convey it.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the flags. Using graphics like that can slow down load times for pages. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Why can't we just put other for Australia and Europe ?-- Lbrun12415 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow edit conflicts are the bane of my life atm. Because Australia and Europe are seperate continents, with seperate release schedules, much like Japan and America. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 17:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Australia Is the thing that is messing this up we don't have to add it just b/c one person thinks its not fair all the other list of games did not add it.-- Lbrun12415 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't put Other for Australia and Europe because they are not "other" regions. They are just regions, like North America and Japan. Australian readers don't consider themselves inhabitants of "other" regions. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. Kariteh ( talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As others have already stated, Australia is gaming territory like any other, no reason to exclude it for the sake of ease.

And I think listing "other" might cause confusion as to whether it was released in Korea, Europe, Australia, or all of the them. No need to exclude that level of info, if we're willing to list "other", why not take that extra step to explain what "other" is. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

I implore you to look at your List of PSP games you brought up earlier, Lbrun12415. What you'll notice, is that among the little flags there, Australia is one of them. So, to say that other lists don't add it, is patently false. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW only one list Australia the others don't for example List of Xbox 360 games and List of PlayStation 3 games. -- Lbrun12415 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to bring out a list of lists which list more than just EU/JP/US, but citing that a list does not include a major gaming region is hardly grounds for non-inclusion. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lbrun, given the current proposal, AUS may not even show up on lists (I don't know of any games that were released in Australia and not in Europe), but if it does I see no reason to exclude it. And the reason other lists don't use AUS is because this is probably the first an issue has been made of its exclusion. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, I'm not really happy with any solution, including the current one.

• Only listing JAP, EUR and NA release dates excludes AUS release dates.
• Not listing any release dates at all, well, has the disadvantage of not listing any release dates at all.
• Splitting the list would make the sortable feature of the tables completely useless.
• Only listing the first release date of any given region sounds like a compromise, but raises a couple of problems. First, sorting that part of the table will be kinda pointless, too, since we'd compare apples and oranges then. Secondly, what about games that have been released in on region but not yet in the other? Should we add the flag of those countries, too? If we do, we mislead our readers into thinking the game has already been released, if we don't, we mislead the reader into thinking that the game will not be released in that region at all. We could probably add the flags in parenthesis, tho. Thirdly, some games take a very long time until they're released in all regions. Ōkami was released in April 2006 in Japan, and in February 2007 in Europe, for example.

-- Conti| ✉ 18:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: List of PSP games has one way of dealing with future releases. Games in new regions are listed there with the release date of the region, and then the region is added as a flag to the main list once they are released. MrKIA11 ( talk) 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article doesn't make sorting ineffective, it just means that you'll be sifting through # to M in one article and N to Z in the other or however the split takes shape. If someone's looking for a title then they should be able to narrow their search to one or the other before needing to sort. I think it's interesting, and I pointed this out on Talk:List of Wii games, that there's both a sortable table and a table of content; using one makes the other useless as the code for both doesn't work together. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't need a sortable table to find a certain title. But if you want to find all games by a certain publisher, or all games that were released in a certain month, two separate lists aren't very helpful. The TOC only works when the table is sorted by title, obviously, yes. (Alternatively, we could have separate TOC's by developer, publisher etc., but that would be rather silly.) -- Conti| ✉ 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

It sounds like reducing the releases dates and adding in a region column is the best compromise for now that most people are gravitating towards. And while we're reducing the amount of information regarding the release dates, I honestly think it won't cause more problems than it solves.

• Should reduce page size and in turn load times.
• Reduced size will allow the content to remain on a single page.
• Addresses the Australia issue.
• Still allows titles to be organized by release date, though on a global scale instead of regional.

Something I think we get caught up in general is trying to make things as blatantly obvious for readers as possible. In my opinion, this is a good example of trying to accommodate everyone who might look at the list. And while making information as accessible as we can is a good goal, making it accessible for everyone is not possible. I see no reason to include excess information to accommodate a minority (readers looking for a table sortable by regional release dates), when such information already is available in each game's separate article, though not in a sortable, consolidated format.

I'd say let's try out the format on List of Wii games, and if it works out, apply it to similar game lists. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

I like this idea of having a region column and having either a single first release date or doing away with it altogether. Although whether we'll actually get to implement it or not remains in question considering Lbrun12415's and A Link to the Past's difficulty in even coming to terms with each other's issues. And to sate anyone's curiousity over whether there are games that are released in the AU region instead of the EU, the PS2 and Xbox had AFL Premiership 2006 and other games within it's series which were exclusive to Australia. Come to think of it, the bigger question right now is if we can't have the Australasian region included alongside all release dates, in a toss up between either, do we want to know where the game is being released, or when it is being released? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep the status quo

I'm fine with listing the release dates of the three largest markets. The Australia issue, quite frankly isn't an issue. We're not going to be able to contain every market's release dates in lists, and I'm OK with just listing those of the three largest markets. It already is a compromise between listing every nation and nothing, and for me the top three is enough. - hahnch e n 21:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why stop there? It seems like a pretty arbitrary stop. It's not like Australia is some irrelevant little country. No matter what happens, Australia WILL eventually be included. This thing happened with Europe, when people didn't think that Europe was relevant enough to be included in lists, or that North America was always the default country - titles should be based in their NA titles, boxarts the NA boxarts, and some people have even argued that there should be a default listing that basically screws EU over.

Release dates make the article excessively large. Why stop at release dates? We could also list all other consoles the games are on, Mii support, which controls the games support, etc. Why do we need the dates? Other lists work just fine with just the countries that they were released in. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Shut up and stop it I'm getting tired of trolling on my page undoing what you do as vandalzium trying to make every one happy. Stop trolling grow up and stop undoing what i undo.-- Lbrun12415 00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the vandalism of my comments, I do not believe that you are able to tell me to stop reversing the vandalism of my comments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Australia WILL not eventually be included if people don't like the idea then It wont go on all you have been doing was fight with people you messed up the Nintendo wii games I asked you nicely to see the talk page but what do you do trolling, undoing my work, fighting with others Stop get over it Australia is not on the list the world is not going to end.-- Lbrun12415 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No i'm talking about the stuff you do with out seeing the talk page once someone told you to do in the 1st place we all know your trying to get back at me so stop it.-- Lbrun12415 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)-- Lbrun12415 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh yeah, I'm just trying to get back at you. It's not the fact that you have been constantly vandalizing my statements and have declared yourself to have some imaginary right to do so, it's some grudge. I gave you the option of stopping or getting blocked, you chose the latter.

And what are you even talking about? I haven't edited the List of Wii games since mid-yesterday, and have been discussing the subject quite intently.

And you've gone to multiple administrators accusing me of vandalism and personal attacks on multiple occasions, so I don't think that you're in any position to tell anyone that they're just "trying to get back at you". - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats what i'm talking about you have to see a talk page before removing important information such as release dates.-- Lbrun12415 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Be bold, I don't. I made a good faith edit on what I considered to be the right course of action. I do not need to be granted permission to make the edit. The whole reason the policy exists is to encourage people to alter the article in any way they see fit, save for edits whose sole purpose is to intentionally damage the article. The saying is "Edit, Revert, Discuss", meaning I edit, you revert, we discuss. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hey now. This is starting to degrade to a shouting match. Perhaps we should let the matter rest for a day and then address it again. Until then, I think it would be a good idea to hold off editing the various game lists. I sure that doesn't sound unreasonable. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Great, right on the day I picked to send List of Sega 32X games to WP:FLC. Well, I guess it's out of my hands now. Can you guys please just get this resolved? Also, I couldn't find a reliable source with any Australian release info for this particular list, so I'm worried that if we have to have Australian info, this article might fail FLC for that sole reason. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life... protector of all...} 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If there isn't any sources for Australian release dates, one can just group it under PAL instead of having Europe, which would cover Australia. This fact is a reason why I think we should not use release dates - without them, and simply stating which regions a game is released in, we know it can likely avoid the problem of no sources for the info. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As Link stated, simplifying the content will reduce the need for precise sources. Generally, when "PAL" is listed as the region, that normally encompasses Europe and Australia. If "PAL is listed in the sources, then there shouldn't be a reason to need a source for an Australian release.

However, I still believe that at least one release date, the earliest one, is needed to convey a proper, yet concise, overview of a game in a list. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Also writing "PAL region" or "PAL" is better because it makes flags unnecessary (there's no flag for PAL). A lot of people dislike using flags in lists. Kariteh ( talk) 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Australian market is tiny, certain constituent markets within Europe have a larger market than Australia. A rough comparison would put the European market at 10 times the Australian one. The entire Australia argument is a side issue that has only been raised to try and get rid of all release dates. Currently, the three dates covers the vast majority of the market, we don't cover everyone, but that would include the listing of all countries, and I'm happy with that. So, we've worked on a law of diminishing returns, how useful would one more date be? If you really want a scheme to cover everything, then I'd suggest Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific, but given how zero games are released in Australia first, it effectively ignores it. Korean release dates will probably have an impact though. - hahnch e n 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that I am, in fact, wrong - even though common sense dictates that since the whole issue of release dates came up as a result of my annoyance with the continue bias against anything not American, it must be your little conspiracy theory. Australia is a legitimate gaming industry. It does much better than you imply, and I don't need you putting words into my mouth. Yeah, I may have dozens of instances where I got into debates over naming conventions, box arts, other countries' inclusion, etc., but this is the exception - I don't REALLY care about Australia! - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It'd be more convincing had you tried to add Australian release dates at any point to the article in question, this looks like a stalking horse issue. I called it how I saw it, you tell me I'm wrong, that's OK with me. The Australian market isn't "better than I imply", the European and American markets are greater by a factor of 10. In the Asia Pacific region, the biggest market after Japan is probably Korea, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were China after that. - hahnch e n 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And may I ask if Australia is not important, why are all Wikipedia game articles encouraged to include the release date for Australia? As well as GameFAQs? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While having multiple release dates in a list can be helpful, including them on such a large scale can be counter-productive to the list's structure. And removing them completely will reduce the usefulness and comprehensiveness of the list. For lists of this size in scope, compromises must be made to comply with guidelines. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, do we have any actual data on how big the Australian gaming market is compared to the European, Japanese and American ones? -- Conti| ✉ 19:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere we do. However, it's clearly not an issue with mentioning Australia on articles, so why on lists? And don't compare it to the many non-English regions that also get mentioned - Australia is the only dominantly English country that isn't acknowledged besides South Africa, which falls under PAL release dates, IIRC. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't list Australia in the lists because of size issues, right? We list the three biggest (and most important) markets instead. If Australia is indeed tiny compared to those, I don't see anything wrong with it. -- Conti| ✉ 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are ALREADY size issues. Under your logic, should we next remove Europe? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just checked, Hahnchen wouldn't be overly wrong with his guess at the European market being 10x the size of the Australian market. A recent study has put it's worth at 11.3 Billion (and yet 2nd place! as far as market share is concerned), while the Australian market has been hovering in and around the billion dollar mark. And Lbrun12415 can you please indent your comments properly? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While at it, I believe this is in contrast to the fact that we are looking at a continent with a population of 500 million, compared to Australia which has about 20 odd million people in it, if I'm not mistaken. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Australian release dates can be noted in articles, I generally don't, but listing multiple countries in a game article is different to listing multiple countries in a list of games article. I would not remove European release dates, I think that loss would be too great. I mentioned diminishing returns earlier, that doesn't kick in until the top three markets have been mentioned. - hahnch e n 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And Europe is much smaller than North America's market, with some exceptions. Being smaller than Europe HARDLY constitutes "being too small". Japan is also a smaller market than Europe. Regardless, you ignore the point - it doesn't NEED Australia to be incredibly large. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And I might add that its worth being 2 billion while Europe's worth is 11.3 billion with 500 million people. Considering the population of Australia, that shows a stronger market than people make it out to be. If you are saying that Australia's not important enough, I could probably find 20 million people to disagree with you on that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the data! So the European, American and Japanese (Asian) markets are all pretty much the same size (10,5 to 11,5 billion dollar), while the Australian market is worth about 1 billion dollar. That's a pretty convincing argument to keep he status quo, IMHO. -- Conti| ✉ 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that settles the issue. Let's remove all the Australian release dates from every video game articles! Kariteh ( talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? -- Conti| ✉ 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna say that I think when it said Asian it was really talking about China. I'm not entirely correct, since I found data saying that China is worth 1.6 Billion. Not bad for a country whose market should probably consist of practically nothing but MMORPGs. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so, 20 million people spent nearly 2 billion dollars? So pitiful. Well, you're right anyway - I mean, we ARE the naeu.wiki, not the en.wiki! And you conveniently ignore the fact the article IS TOO BIG AT THIS VERY MOMENT. You are arguing we shouldn't mention Australian dates (because I guess it's some little irrelevant country, not the fourth biggest console and handheld region in the world) because it would make it too big, so logically, since the article is too big NOW, you should be fine with all European dates being removed to reduce the size of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And Kariteh, I agree - Australia, that little pitiful country that spent a lot of money on games despite the lower population, should simply be removed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just smaller than Europe, it's smaller than several constituent countries which make up Europe. Your 2 billion figure is wildly off the mark. - hahnch e n 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's very large considering its size. There are sales trackers for it, it has its own game rating system, and developers in this region have made many games (including the Viva Pinata DS game, the upcoming de Blob, all three Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, most of the recent Spyro games, Puzzle Quest, many AFL games, MANY licensed games, and I believe most notably, LucasArts' upcoming Star Wars: The Force Unleashed). To say that Australia is so small that it cannot be mentioned in a list of video games is basically saying that all of that doesn't even matter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent, ec) Could you please calm down a bit? First of all, I don't really think that the article is too big right now, but others might disagree, of course. Then again, that's beside the point, right? You started this thread to talk about Australian release dates in lists of video games, after all. And all I'm saying is that, no, I don't think we need to include Australian release dates in lists of video games, because (1) that would make the lists even bigger, and (2) listing the "big three" (so to speak) video game markets is enough, especially when all three markets are ten times as big as the next biggest video game market. This has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-Australian, by the way, and it's a shame that I even have to say that. -- Conti| ✉ 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "This page is 146 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." That's a HUGE ARTICLE.
2. Did you even read any of the discussion? I guess reading the VERY FIRST line and only that is good enough for you.
3. And Australia's gaming market can NOT be compared to Spain's or France's, not at all. It is a significant market. You're confusing "less significant" with "insignificant".
4. And yes, it's ALWAYS anti-something. It was anti-North America (Japanophiles), then it was anti-Europe, then anti-Canada, and now anti-Australia. And I doubt it's going to be that one time when people successfully omit such content from an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A huge article is this talk page. 216kb and rising. Phew! I think we're starting to blur the lines between the Australian gaming industry and the Australian gaming market. The gaming industry can account for many fine games out there, whereas the gaming market is well, less significant if only due to a much lower population. Do try to keep your calm though, it's hardly anti-Aussie. It's more of a case of what do we classify as significant and how do we term it significant. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also a problem that Conti's grasp of the discussion is limited - it's been proposed that the release dates be reduced to countries of release. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines of notability, NPOV, etc. These rules apply to all pages which are part of the main namespace, i.e. articles and lists. As Masem has demonstrated below, if Australian release dates are notable enough to be mentioned in articles, there is nothing that justifies their omissions from lists if release dates are to be included in lists. Omitting these dates, whether in articles or lists, introduces either bias or incompletedness. Personally, I think this is why Guyinblack25's proposal above is still the best one. We can't practically put all release dates in the lists, but we can't cherry-pick some regional release dates and omit the other notable regional dates either. Listing only the first release date would resolve all the problems. Kariteh ( talk) 21:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Our release dates will always be incomplete, we are not introducing it. Our articles will not list the release data for every single country, it will always be "cherry-picking". Picking the big three markets, which cover the vast majority of the international games market, for me, is acceptable. I have never bought into the idea that "englishness" matters, as Masem points out, we should not be prioritising small markets over larger ones just because they speak the right language. If we go back to the original question, "Should Australian release dates be added to list of... articles?", the answer is no. But then again, as I mentioned before, this entire discussion has nothing to do with Australian release, but just a stalking horse discussion to remove all release dates. No one has even attempted to include them in any list of article. - hahnch e n 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though articles constantly mention China and South Korea. And Hahnchen, no matter how many times you try to make your wrong, uninformed, and simply ludicrous attempt at a cognitive statement worth the bandwidth it wastes worth reading, it will always be a pile of mediocrity. All you've been doing since the very beginning is essentially calling me a liar, since, despite the fact that I've already STATED my intentions, and I mentioned the bias within the article for not including Australia. Do you think you could assume good faith? In your history as an editor, could you? God forbid that though. I guess you'll ignore everything but your little imagination yet again, just like when you didn't respond to the fact that I brought up the lack of Australia LONG before I edited the List of Wii games to remove release dates. Go get some editorial integrity, please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's please kept this calm and civil on all sides. The consensus right now is not in favor of removing all the release dates, simply reducing the number to a more manageable amount while maintaining a neutral point of view. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Link I don't want to start fighting again but please GAMEFAQs, GAMESTOP, TOYSRUS. are not sources they seem to be I also thought they were sources until I went to SSBB (Super Smash Brother Brwal) page and they were all yelling at me for adding GAMEFAQs, GAMESTOP, TOYSRUS as sources.-- Lbrun12415 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, be quiet. After you continuously vandalized my statement, I have decided to be done with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WHy do you have to be so rude and you call me a troll. I'm trying to help.-- Lbrun12415 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take on this. We are en.wikipedia.org. While we want to avoid systematic biases towards the rest of the world, our content is geared towards English-speaking countries. This is primarily North America, Europe, and Australia; there are other parts of the world where English is spoken but not as common. (certainly to the point where "English as national language" and "major video game release market" overlap) To ignore Australia just because it's probably 1/20 to 1/50th the size of the North America market, despite the fact that they fit the content aim of WP, is doing a disservice and introduces a systematic bias within the bounds of English-speaking regions in the area. Release dates for games in Australia can be confirmed, they add a few lines to infoboxes and tables, but are an important data point for research purposes (such as the fact that Aussies generally get games last despite being the same as PAL versions, or are the most expensively priced games). Those three countries, if possible, should be listed for every VG release. The only other time a non-English speaking country/region should be listed is if the game is first released in that country/region, or was developed primarily in that country/region as the common game with Japan. -- MASEM 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we're talking about "List of [console] games" articles here, not about articles about individual games. No one disputes the addition of Australian release dates in individual articles about games. -- Conti| ✉ 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Same reasoning applies, IMO. Australian dates are too important to be overlooked if they are available in en.wikipedia.org. -- MASEM 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This decision and impact at WP:FLC

Look, I really didn't want to get involved in this argument since it doesn't really matter to me. But, as I've sent a console list to FLC today, List of Sega 32X games, I've grown concerned about this issue. For that list, I just have one set of release dates, and they're not even really "dates", just years by the American release (which are all either 1994 or 1995). However, this decision will seriously impact this list and all of the other lists that go to FLC, anyway. Here's the immediate impact: If we decide that Australian dates must be put in, just like we do with Japan, North America, and Europe, then I might have to pull the list from FLC, since I can't find a reliable source that has info for what games were released in Australia (just unreliable ones, the reliable sources I used to source the list only had the other three). This could also be a problem for any other lists that go to FLC if no such reliable sources name what and when games were released in Australia. As I found out through unreliable sources, not all of the games on the list release in Europe ( PAL games), were released in Australia. I'm just asking for the people involved to consider this, since I can't do anything about the list at FLC until this issue is resolved. I'm just sitting on my hands at the moment. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life... protector of all...} 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise version

I thought it'd be useful to see how the compromise version would look like, so I created a short version:

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	First release date	Regions released
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	1 Nov 2007
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz	Amusement Vision	Sega	2 Dec 2006
Super Paper Mario	Intelligent Systems	Nintendo	9 Apr 2007
Super Smash Bros. Brawl	Sora Ltd.	Nintendo	31 Jan 2008	( )
Super Swing Golf Pangya! Golf with Style EU	Ntreev Soft	Tecmo Nintendo EU	2 Dec 2006

I excluded the "exclusive" column, since most "List of .. games" don't have one, either. The parentheses indicate a game that has not yet been released in a certain region. The biggest disadvantage I see is that it's not possible to sort the list by region anymore. That could be solved by the following:

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	First release date
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	1 Nov 2007
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz	Amusement Vision	Sega	2 Dec 2006
Super Paper Mario	Intelligent Systems	Nintendo	9 Apr 2007
Super Smash Bros. Brawl	Sora Ltd.	Nintendo	31 Jan 2008			( )	( )
Super Swing Golf Pangya! Golf with Style EU	Ntreev Soft	Tecmo Nintendo EU	2 Dec 2006

Then again, this would make it impossible to list further regions, so I'm not sure which version is better. An "Other" column could be introduced to the above table, tho. -- Conti| ✉ 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the first one, though I think the abbreviations should be used instead of the flags. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

I think that the there should be no region specified in the First release date column, and the regions should be in order of release date, as is in List of PSP games. The only question I have, is that if we use the abbreviations, what would it look like? It seems to me that it would just be a jumble of letters that way. MrKIA11 ( talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Flags should not be used; they slow down the loading of the page and are not practical for visually-impaired people. Moreover, the flag guidelines say that in the cases in which they are used, the full name of the country should be spelt out at least once next to the flag. Abbreviations are better and there are no guidelines against their usage here. Kariteh ( talk) 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, flags don't slow down the loading time at all, I think, since it's just four very small images that need to be loaded. And the name of the flags is spelled out in the mouse-over. As far as I know, that turns into text if you turn off images. So I don't see anything wrong with flags from a policy/guideline point of view. Additionally, what abbreviations should we use instead of the flags? "JAP, NA, EU, AUS"? Or should we spell out the entire name of the countries? -- Conti| ✉ 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, why shouldn't the region of the first release date be mentioned in the release date column? Alright, it does make sense if the region flags (or abbreviations) are sorted accordingly, but apart from that it seems like useful information is lost for no reason. -- Conti| ✉ 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If the regions are put in order of release, then I think having the region next to the date would be redundant. MrKIA11 ( talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the flags, I agree with Kariteh. Though the flags wouldn't take long to download because they're a fraction of a kb, loading issues become more apparent when those same images are displayed 100+ times in the page. That and making the pages more visually-impaired friendly are the reasons flags have been slowly phased out from video game articles.

Another issue is that there is no flag for the PAL region. And if a game is released in Europe and Australia, I see no reason why we shouldn't list just "PAL". Basically, why use five letters when three gets the job done? The only reason I think EU or AUS should be used is if a game was released in only one of those regions and not the other. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Nor is there a flag for "US + Canada", which is why most articles use an abbreviation for North America instead. Nifboy ( talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

... And we did get in a huge argument the last time people tried to use the US flag to represent all of North America. There are significantly more editors from Canada than from Australia, for whatever it's worth. -- Slordak ( talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and also the fact that the European Flag doesn't represent all of the countries of Europe. - X201 ( talk) 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind using text instead of flags if there's consensus for it, but do all readers know what PAL means? And, anyhow, PAL includes China, Brazil and most of Africa, too, at least according to our article about it, so I don't think we should use "PAL" either way. We could just as well combine North America and Japan into NTSC then, after all. -- Conti| ✉ 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The "PAL" we're talking about here should link to PAL region, not PAL. Wikilinks are there to click if the reader doesn't know what something means, and they're certainly more user-friendly than flags (which link to images instead of articles). North America and PAL region are general terms used to describe regions; saying that a game was released in the PAL region doesn't necessarily mean it was released everywhere in the PAL region. Same goes for North America, which technically includes Mexico and all of Central America. One could think that using these terms is an inaccuracy; yes, it is to some extent, but it's less inaccurate than symbolising North America with the US flag or the PAL countries with the European flag. The PAL region article does mention that its scope vary with systems and publishers (and that China is not considered part of this video game region despite using the PAL TV system), so there's nothing to confuse readers there. As for symbolising North America and Japan by NTSC, I think there is no need for it; games almost always have different release dates between North America and Japan. Kariteh ( talk) 15:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another table with the above suggestions. -- Conti| ✉ 15:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, it's really starting to shape up now. Thanks for taking the initiative Conti. One suggestion though, I think using the abbreviations (JA, NA, EU, AUS) would be less cluttered and save on space. We could include a brief mention of the regions in the lead with the full region names followed by the abbreviations in parenthesis.

As far as the whole PAL/NA thing the more I think about the more it makes my head hurt. You're right that PAL encompasses more than just Europe and Australia, but then again North America encompasses Mexico and other Central American countries even though most games are released in only USA and Canada. I think we've always just used NA and PAL because that's what's been used for most release dates in game articles on Wikipedia and in sources like IGN and GamePro. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, I'm not sure about using abbreviations, considering that we don't have any size problems with the current table layout in the first place. And apart from saving some space, I don't see any advantage in using abbreviations.

Huh, I didn't know there was an article called PAL region (Thanks, Kariteh!). It's not even linked from PAL (Well, it now is). And, at least in the 5 articles linked in the table above the release dates for Australia and Europe are listed separately (since the games are/were released at different days in all five cases). -- Conti| ✉ 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the current consensus is that there is no need to show regional release dates in the lists, is there a need to know the order of regional releases? The important thing is whether a game was released in X, not whether it was released in X before Y or after Z. Perhaps each region should have its column instead of being in a single one. It would make the table less cluttered and fully restore the usability of the sorting function. Kariteh ( talk) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What if instead of just having yes in the regions it was released, have what number it was released, as in first, second, third, etc. MrKIA11 ( talk) 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too thrilled about splitting up the regions, but then I'm not thrilled about sortable tables period. It works though, I just don't think it offers much usefulness to the general reader.

MrKIA- What would be used for games that were not released in a region, an —? ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Nothing. A blank. MrKIA11 ( talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. I mean, if we do it like that we could just as well add the actual release dates instead of a "yes" or "no". Which, of course, would invalidate the whole point of the compromise version. -- Conti| ✉ 16:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding release dates would make the page size very big and would make the table very difficult to read in low screen resolution (each date would take two or three lines instead of one, and even on large screens it would still be kind of cluttered). Concerning the use of number for the order of releases, it could be done I guess but personally I think it's a bit of a trivial information. Kariteh ( talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, one flaw I do see with this format is that, on very long lists, the readers could have forgotten the names of the region columns by the time they reaches the middle of the page, since the yeses and noes all look the same and the region's names are only indicated at the top (it could be indicated at the bottom too, but still). Perhaps Conti's format is better concerning this point, since the region's names appear in each row. Kariteh ( talk) 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not possible to add custom regions (so to speak) in this version of the table (The same problem applies to my second example above). Some games are only released in the UK ( Gottlieb Pinball Classics), for example. -- Conti| ✉ 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're all on the same page: The third version with a single column for regions and no flags is the one that seems to work the best. And the only issue still in the air is whether to list the region's full name or use abbreviations. Sound right? ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I agree. I think abbreviations would be better, mainly because there are articles that have more columns, and therefore having a smaller Regions column would help with space. MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the abbreviations too. They look better especially because they're not just used in the region's column; they're also used for alternate titles and publishers (see "EU" above). Using full names would just clutter every column. I also agree with the idea of mentioning the full region names in the article's lead followed by the abbreviations in parentheses, so that it is absolutely obvious what the abbreviations mean in the table. Kariteh ( talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the new way on List of PSP games if anyone wants to have a look. MrKIA11 ( talk) 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good. I expanded the lead a tiny bit. If this works I guess we should implement it on other similar lists. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Looks good, but what are we to understand when the number of publishers isn't the same as the number of regions? Aces of War has "Taito / 505 Games" followed by "JP, EU, AUS". Kariteh ( talk) 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this we add Asia Pacific and take out the japan one since Asia Pacific covers japan, Australia, New Zealand....etc. http://www.nintendo.com/countryselector .-- Lbrun12415 22:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But the two regions rarely ever release games at the same time, besides the fact that no other sites/sources use that. MrKIA11 ( talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For the third time the reception section in this article has got another edit were over whether the game received a "mixed" or n"negative" reception. I've tried to discuss this on its own page but its nothing but war war war and ignoring claims. Now the game has an average score of 45% (of 19) at Game Rankings... thats a negative average, regardless of the few positive scores and I wouldn't call that judgment POV. Then theres Metacritic that has some different reviews than GR with an average of 38 (of 20) called "generally negative", thats a source that says negative in bold red, none say "mixed" and we've used MC in plenty so doubting its credibility would mean a mass removal from all articles. It seems clear it was negative and if not generally or on average then its "mostly negative" atleast. Now those who say its "mixed" argue that its because it has some positive reviews (being the smaller amount) however I disagree with this given that by that logic Condemned 2 was mixed because of the 5 less positive reviews or many other game articles with a "postive reception". I mean technically all games are "mixed", heck if you look a Rotten Tomatoes, all films are mixed, this is why we say negative and positive on wiki by using averages (mixed usually being in thr 5 to low 7 range).

I hope User talk:67.135.49.116( talk) takes up the chance to discuss it here as one on one arguments never get anywhere and am pefectly happy to see how it was "mixed" and even call it that, its just so far however I'm not convinced. Stabby Joe ( talk) 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Metacritic cherry-picks reviews - up to 30 from a list of over 120 - and arbitrarily assigns a numerical score to reviews that aren't scored in any way. Here's another source for reviews: GameStates compiled list of reviews for Eternal Forces. Looks pretty mixed to me. How about this list from Game Rankings? Also mixed. Yahoo! Games shows mixed as well. So three sources that show mixed reviews vs. one source with mostly negative reviews. I don't see how Metacritic is any more reliable than these other sources (and I've already mentioned how I see it as less reliable). 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cherry-picking is when you give special consideration to a select minority. Metacritic's score of 38 is not unreasonably deviated from the mid-40% average reported by the other sites. There is one party in this discussion who is guilty of cherry-picking, but it's not Metacritic. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 07:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As for "arbitrarily assigning a numerical score" to something, that's called "reviewing" and it's the whole point of the reception section. Kariteh ( talk) 07:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee, here I thought "reviewing" was about being objective. I give your comment a score of "5 out of a billion." Hey, I'm just reviewing! 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, what ever could you mean? So much for AGF. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight problem with condemning MC given that if it was 45% (GR's total) on MC, it would be negative still. Stabby Joe ( talk) 12:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Forest for the trees. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, arguing about the numbers at all is forest for the trees. There should be some expounding on why some reviewers called it good and others called it bad. The Wired quote is essentially fluff and no more informational than saying it got a B+ from UGO. Nifboy ( talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think expanding the text is most needed for improvmnet but of course we want to avoid future edit wars, hence what we have here. And 67.135.49.116, making remarks as such isn't reconmended when we're supposed to discuss nor is it helping your argument. Stabby Joe ( talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a fan of using aggregate sites as a source. Instead, I prefer to cite scores and review content from recognised reliable sources such as print media and high-quality gaming websites. This means that it can not only be demonstrated what the score was, but why it was awarded that score. Besides, Gamerankings and Metacritic scores can change over time, while review scores rarely do. Having said that, I would urge editors to looks at the pros and cons clinically and devoid of passion or colourful metaphors. Your reasoning should stand on it's own merits, not based on how you present it. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is definitely valid, and it means that individual reviews should be mentioned; it doesn't mean aggregate scores should not be used, however. There's no reason we can't have both, for different and equally valid reasons. Concerning the fact that aggregate scores may change over time, it's not really a problem since an accessdate is given in citation templates, so that what we cite is meant to reflect a given date, not necessarily the future. Compare with sales figures, which also change over time but which are not problematic since a sales figure must always be associated with a given date or period of time. Kariteh ( talk) 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just present the various scores as they are and not make any judgments about what they do or do not show? Let the reader decide what to think of them. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats is completly doable. The main reason for past debate was because the vast amount of other game articles (not all of course) give atleast some form of average. Stabby Joe ( talk) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you ever create a article and it needs a cover pic, dont go to http://www.vgboxart.com it is a trick. I dont know how you could accidentally end up there(like I did), but dont fall for it. Those are just Adobe pics that fans made up to make each other feel good. Look on official websites, or even gamestop.com (if you dont mind a small pic). Rememeber...dont fall for it. Gears Of War 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering this is at the top corner of the page Welcome to the Video Game Box Art community! A hobby and enthusiast site for box art/covers. Browse to see what people have made for your favorite games and check out the Hall of Fame to see the cream of the crop. Join to start creating and sharing your own! I think most people will relaise what is going on. -- 76.66.180.234 ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Smart comment, but if you enter the site from google.com, the message does not appear just the box art which will leave completely oblivious to the:Welcome to the Video Game Box Art community! A hobby and enthusiast site for box art/covers. Browse to see what people have made for your favorite games and check out the Hall of Fame to see the cream of the crop. Join to start creating and sharing your own! smart a-- Gears Of War 23:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

76.66 was just replying, there's no need to insult him, Gears of War. As for Google Image search, it does take you to the site, so the message does appear in addition to "» Viewing Box » Unofficial »" which is also quite self-explanatory. Kariteh ( talk) 07:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Following discussions, it has been decided that the two projects will undergo a 30-day trial of shared review assets; effective June 1st, all peer review requests from VG should be cross-posted for MILHIST editors to provide constructive feedback, and vice versa.

At the end of June we will revisit the program and assess its results, and if consensus from both projects' members is in favor of maintaining the program, we will take steps to make this a permanent feature.

To invite MILHIST participation in a VG peer review, please post the following boilerplate at WT:MILHIST: {{subst: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice|Name of article|Raw link to review|Video games}} ~~~~

Kirill ^{( prof)} 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How will the effects of collaboration be determined? Is this going to be a statistical comparison type of thing ("our articles this month got better reviews than last month"), or should we mark ourselves as being from the VG project when we do peer reviews for MILHIST? Ham Pastrami ( talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is good news... yay! To Ham, I think marking yourself as a VG guy would work. giggy _{( :O)} 10:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Just indicate you're part of VG and vice versa for our peer reviews. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 10:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a happy comment to say that I like it :) User:Krator ( t c) 10:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Lince (tank), an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{( prof)} 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Krator and me have reviewed this article. Remember to advertise yours on the MILHIST page, everyone. giggy _{( :O)} 10:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only us, Izno and Ham did the same. User:Krator ( t c) 11:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a discussion with someone who, despite his loose grasp of keyboard typing, had a very adamant view about how disambiguation pages should work. B4U was created as an article long ago about the Naoki song in the Dance Dance Revolution series. This article was brought up for deletion and the result was to redirect it to the Dance Dance Revolution 4thMix article and move relevant content there. User:Bleaney Has created two stub articles for Bollywood TV stations with B4U (formatted exactly the same) in their titles. He turns B4U into a disambiguation article and links his articles and the 4thMix article. When I saw the changes I made modifications based on my understanding of how disambiguation articles work, I re-directed B4U to the 4thMix article and created B4U (disambiguation) with an OtherUses tag at the top of 4thMix "B4U redirects here, for other uses..." and made appropriate formatting changes as I found the need to. Bleaney undid my changes citing that because the search term is part of the two stub's titles that there should be a forced disambiguation to the term "B4U" and it should not go first to the 4thMix article, specifically the song titles B4U.

I let the issue rest, after much unneeded chatter, and looked up the style guidelines for disambiguation articles. If I read it correctly, anything existing in Wikipedia that matches a search term exactly should have said title, and anything that would have that term in the title (but not make up the full title of that item, I.E. Gas vs. Gas Pump) would get redirected from the article with the exact term to allow people to find a disambiguation without doing an actual search. The thing that's fuzzy for me is, B4U was not an actual article it was a redirect to a section of an article. Albeit B4U could be built into an article, as the song is a staple of the series, part of published music albums, etc... but as it stands it is not. Should B4U go to the song with the exact name and offer a link to other articles with B4U contained in the title, as guidelines instruct, or should searches for B4U force a disambig, due to the current state of things? And if the term B4U became a full article would that change things? -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual in Wikipedia, the answer is "it depends". As I understand it, you have to ask yourself "If J. Random Reader types 'B4U' into the search box, what will they be looking for?" If you can come up with an answer that is correct most of the time by far (be sure to consider other English-speaking countries than your own), the term should redirect to that answer and that target page should have a hatnote. If there is no clear winner, the term should point to the disambiguation page. It doesn't really matter whether B4U (the song) is a full article or a section of an existing article, AFAIK, just what meaning most people will assume when they see "B4U" without context. Anomie ⚔ 11:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to leave the dab issue alone for now, and put these new stubs to AfD, as they do not seem to assert or establish any notability. (Aside from their own home page, I didn't find any related hits on google.) If the articles are deleted, there's only one thing to do with the dab page. If they're kept, then we can pick up this discussion again. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to try and delete an article out of my way, there are plenty of people on Wikipedia that do nothing but delete therefore I do nothing but create and edit. I won't object if someone else does, and I kind of agree that there's very little notability. I was just trying to clear up guidelines that didn't present a totally clear answer to me. I suppose I can tag them with a notability in question template but because Bleaney responded so strongly to me he would probably edit the tags off at the first sight. Doubly do if it was me doing the tagging. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this template be renamed to something more generic, since in addition to the List of Final Fantasy media article, it's used for List of Bleach video games, List of F-Zero titles and Video games notable for negative reception? And the same tables are also used in List of Castlevania titles, List of Harvest Moon titles, and other articles, albeit in direct wikicode instead of template transclusion. Kariteh ( talk) 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FFtitlebox --> VGtitle? Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

VGtitle sounds good. giggy _{( :O)} 10:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of this template, should some title headings be added to help illustrate what the content is? Like the system releases, those may not be completely obvious to someone not familiar with video games. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

I've made the necessary change to the vgproj template to allow for "List" class articles for the project. We've got enough lists (with potential for FL lists) that it makes sense to have this. -- MASEM 23:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this change, but I seem to remember that for some reason the consensus was to not use this class. Anyone still opposes? Kariteh ( talk) 07:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So I take it that all lists have their ratings changed to "List" now? We change it to "FL" if they reach Featured List status? -- .: Alex :. 08:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct on both counts. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 09:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the previous discussion by the way (which includes a link to a previous previous discussion). Kariteh ( talk) 09:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking through them, we just need to be careful to make sure that things that are truly lists (per WP:LIST) are list-class while articles that are more than just lists go B-GA-A-FA (eg. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is not a list). Some articles in early development may be mistaken as list vs start/stub class, but once an article is developed more it will be likely be easier to categorize; it's always possible to move a list to the typical article classes should be deemed necessary. -- MASEM 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Kariteh ( talk) 13:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Found the icon if anyone is interested: - I have also updated the assessment page to explain how the lists work and their assessment scheme. -- .: Alex :. 09:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What about A-class lists like List of Final Fantasy media? Kariteh ( talk) 21:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that should get list class (if featured, it gets FL). dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 04:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat this every time this comes up. Assessment classes are there to aid in improving the quality of a page. Rating pages as list-class does not improve their quality. Simple as that. In the VG project, there are many lists that would benefit from assessment just like articles do. To rate them as list class would be useless and counter-productive. User:Krator ( t c) 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But there is nothing that prevents reassessment of something that has been marked as a list to one of the article quality classes should it move being being just a list made to support a topic. (I don't know the development history, but say the FF8 characters article was initially a list of ff8 characters without the matter around it to make it notable, but instead just supporting as a spin-off of FF8. That would be a list class, but once the additional material that is now there was added, it makes it more appropriate to move it to the normal article assessment classes.

This project has numerous articles that are true lists that even with all appropriate text added, are best as Featured Lists and not Featured Articles, because they are generally written as a supporting aspect to a larger topic; the list of games for a platform or in a series, spunout lists of characters (not notable on its own as a topic) and so forth. If someone manages to find sufficient information to make that supporting list its own topic, then we can reassess it in the article quality line. But as we do have several Featured Lists, it only makes sense that we have, at some point, list-class articles that are the eventual source for these lists. -- MASEM 11:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On your first point, why assess it as list-class in the first place? The point is that list-class provides nothing useful at all for any kind of assessment. I don't really see the argument you bring forward here, too. Am I right in summarising it as "List class is good, because you can remove it"? This seems a rather silly argument.

On your second point, I have never said that the absence of list class means that lists would be aiming for featured article status. I've assessed many of our current featured lists according to the current grading scheme, works perfectly. The connection you make between "list class" -> "featured lists" and "article grading" -> "featured article" doesn't really exist. Of course a list is just a list, I'm just arguing that it's not useful to grade them list class. User:Krator ( t c) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Krator's point is highly valid. One issue with list class is that is lumps together everything from stubby lists like List of HummingBirdSoft games to A-class lists like List of Final Fantasy media. The innate problem with the list class is that it does not assess quality but nature. After all, articles are not rated "article class", are they? so why should lists be rated "list class" on our quality scale? Kariteh ( talk) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, another angle that I approach this from is notability and the concept of spun-out supporting articles. There are plenty of times where there is list-type content that makes complete sense to pull out from a main article to a spin out article; by notability and Summary style, this new article is not expected to show notability as it is supporting the main work. Now, in some cases, these articles can gain their own notability and grown on their own, but more common than not they can't. Classifying lists as list-class is an indicator to other editors that this article should be considered as supporting, and thus aspects that normally apply to articles (such as notability) do not apply to the list. Mind you, that doesn't prevent someone for arguing if the list is really needed if it's just a game guide or the like, but assuming the list is proper in content, assessing it as List prevents other editors from trying to call it out like its an article.

That said, I do understand the above arguments and see similar arguments at the Assessment project. There's two (three, but one's larger than the VG project) that I can see

• List class should be reserved for unpolished spinoff lists (again noting these as being such), but if they are improved, they can move up the article scale. I'd argue that lists would next move to B class, then A, then to FL, if that was the case.
• We look at a way to add another parameter to the vgproj template that adds a third classification for lists, remove the assessment of list-class, so that both articles and lists share the same listing. (The third idea is along these lines: that assessment is three-dimensional w.r.t. article quality, importance, and type, but that requires a larger change).

I still feel there's need to classify lists as lists if they aren't featured, but I understand why we want to keep track of quality too. -- MASEM 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The argument you make about classifying articles as either "list" or "article" is valid; it's important for editors to know what they're aiming for (FL or FA). However, we already have a system for that: naming the article "List of ...". If it's ambiguous (such as with " Characters of Final Fantasy VI"), I think that we should codify the standard that lists always start with "List of". If it doesn't, it's an article. The "class" field of our WikiProject template is simply the wrong place to denote whether a a page is an article or a list, which seems the only argument in favour of a List-class. User:Krator ( t c) 15:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the point was that actual lists, particularly those in a tabular format, can't really come under the same article assessment scheme as they are either really good ( FL) or not (by this I don't mean bad, just not exceptional). I think that prosiac lists aren't really lists, they are indeed articles. There is a huge contrast between this and this, and I think we can all agree that the latter is really an article, not just a simple listing. I have been thinking for a little while now whether we should rename prosiac lists to omit the "List of" to help distinguish lists and articles better. After all, most of those sorts of articles aren't simply a listing of characters but an article detailing the characters. -- .: Alex :. 11:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but previous discussions seem to show a consensus for the opposite view. See for instance Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series. Kariteh ( talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic was talked about at WT:FAC for a while but did not come to any consensus. Discussion 1, the original one that sent the Sorrow characters to FLC; Discussion 2; and Discussion 3, an offshoot of the second discussion. Not much came from them except it showed how much editors disagreed on the subject. It looked like it ended because people didn't want to deal with it. But Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts kept their FA status while List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow kept its FL status and several other similar pages kept their GA status. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what standard to really take from it. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Well we really should come to a decision as to which one we will use, otherwise it becomes incredibly confusing to the point where half the articles will have "List of" in their titles and the other half won't. I suppose another discussion is in order. -- .: Alex :. 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)