This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is deletion review stuff, because it looks like a technical error. But I looked at this old AFD:
It looks like it was closed as a merge/redirect, but never actually merged and redirected. I'd do it myself, but then I'm concerned that someone might simply revert it.
I also don't know what to make of this AFD:
I'm thinking about bringing it back up at AFD to have a real discussion, but then it's possible it never should have been nominated in the first place. Randomran ( talk) 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I followed through on the merge, based on the Legends of Kesmai AFD. As for the withdrawn Albion (Fable) AFD (which was a little confusing), I think it was probably smart of Gears of War to drop the AFD here. I have no plans of deleting Albion (Fable) because on a gut level, I think there's probably some coverage out there. But if someone wanted to actually test that assumption, I think that would be perfectly reasonable. Randomran ( talk) 05:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Linktothepast merged content from Call of Duty: World at War (DS) to the main article at Call of Duty: World at War this morning. I disagreed with the merge and reverted back - his reasoning is the DS article doesn't have much content (which I admit). Anyway, Call of Duty 4 (DS) has its own article, which is the logic I was going by. Should it be merged, or stay as it is? Thanks! Fin © ™ 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey people. I'm the primary contributor for the System Shock 2 article, but I'm having trouble with the prose. I need some fresh eyes to go over it and really help scrub the article for prose, grammar and any other outstanding issues. I have addressed the concerns listed in the FAC, but Tony1 suggested I get some help. I do not believe the issues are huge, but I'm having a hell of a time copy-editing it for some reason. Not required, but greatly appreciated. Cheers. -- Noj r ( talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I know this is not a message board. This talk page is for improving articles related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and for improving the project as a whole, but I thought to ask here. I'm not apart of this project but I wanted to ask members of this project as a whole. I'm apart of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, recently a small relatively known company called Total Nonstop Action Wrestling released its first video game titled TNA Impact! (video game). I have plans to get it to FA status. I know nothing about expanding video game articles. So I thought to come here and ask if a experienced editor would like to work in this article with me? Your help will be appreciated at a very high level.-- Will C 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've created a work page and a draft workflow to help us prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. Hopefully it will be useful to help us keep track of what we've done and how much remains to do. Please take a look and let me know (on the talk page there) if you have any additions. Thanks, Pagra shtak 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Now, my suggestions:
Half-Life 2 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I need an opinion on these articles, Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit) and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (8-bit). They have very few differences, most minor, but people are opposing a merge to their main articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been a spike in the number of AFDs over the past few days. (Which is itself problematic: not to say whether I agree or disagree with all or any of them, but it makes things a little difficult to sort through. But hey, we play the hand we're dealt.)
Because of that, participation has been spread out between a lot of AFDs, making it harder to develop a consensus. Arguably, AFDs like these are getting closed before we can be certain that a consensus will or won't be formed.
Not to re-open closed debates. But perhaps an administrator could go through the September 14th deletion discussions and see if some of the more contentious ones could get a re-list for a few days before someone closes them as no consensus? This is a case where we should expect more feedback.
Please and thanks. Randomran ( talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not actively suggesting this, but I am throwing out this idea for consideration.
There are effective uses of our review tables for this project, but they can also often be used as crutches (I'm guilty of this as well) by replace good prose-line describing the reviews with, say, two more review lines in the table to make the reception section look large. Or people indiscriminately add reviews to such tables and then you suddenly have 15 entries there. When you compare what we do to movies (which also have a large body of reliable reviews), there's a vast difference, and I'm finding that reception sections are more engaging when there is no review table listed.
I am suggesting we discourage the use of tables (templated or otherwise) for game reception sections save for a few select cases: one where a game has more than 2 platform releases that have merited significantly different scores, and one for game series articles (where there's more than 2 games) to summarize reviews of the games of the series; in both cases, such review tables should be limited to sourcing one or two of the aggregrate ratings site (MC and GR). This allows a quick overview of review scores for "many" games that otherwise is not easy to do in text. With two game/consoles, its easy to compare in text, and obviously with one game, no table is needed.
Replacing the table with prose would obviously be necessary; general guidelines that I'd use include:
Again, this is only food for thought, but I think we can really make a lot of headway in reducing the stigma that VG articles tend to have by helping to make the article more prose-based and normalizing it with other media that gets reviewed. I would say it would be a grandfathered-approach; older articles don't need to be updated, but if we do go this way and cement it to guidelines, further GA/FA and the like need to heed it; only as volunteers work them or they come up for review should older articles be changed. -- MASEM 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this image free use? [1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I found an interview on the site Kikizo, [2], that contains an interview w/ a Namco-Bandai dev on the Ace Combat series. I'm looking to improve the Ace Combat article, so I'm wondering if the site is a relible enough source to do so. -- Hydrokinetics12 ( talk) 01:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have obtained copies of the following sources from my local library: Game On edited by Lucien King and The Ultimate History of Video Games by Steven Kent. I am going to try to put as much encyclopedic information from those two books as I can. If anyone has any other knowledge of these books and can direct to other good sources especially for these old games and consoles, let me know. MuZemike ( talk) 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello i would like to talk about an edit which does concentrate on the less successful consoles in the fifth generation, like the Amiga CD32, 3DO and Atari Jaguar because i am 100 % sure that for one in North America and Europe the Amiga CD32 was the world's first 32 bit game console, and i have many sources to say that the Amiga CD32 was indeed releaced in September 1993, then the 3do was releaced in October 1993 not September 1993 and there for is not the first in Europe and North America but the Second, and as for the Atari Jaguar there are no problems as it was releaced on 18th November 1993, but the next problem is that the best selling game on the Amiga CD32 was the console's best selling game was Simon the Sorrceror but was removed along with Return Fire on the 3do and Alien VS Predator on the Atari Jaguar, these are the best selling games on these platforms but have instead been re-edited as unknown also it is good that the 3do is known as selling 2 million which it did but also it needs to be known that the Atari Jaguar sold 500,000 units and Amiga CD32 100,000 units also for the acutal worlds first 32 bit game console the FM Towns Marty it needs a picture to represent it i am also concerned that the Phillips CD-i and Amiga CDTV are not well represented enough as the first consoles to use CDs and that the Bally Astrocade has been deleted from Second Generation even though it was cleary a game console. These consoles are not represented enough in general so it would be good if they could be on wikipedia. P.S I am having problems geting in to wiki game, because of an admin accusing me of cross wiki even though i have not hacked (which this admin i will not name is accusing me of even though i have not) is i to do with another user who has please help me. Thankyou Mcjakeqcool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, i will get a list of sources to back my evidence up altough i do have some evidence already. But basically i found WikiProject Video games from an eMail on my talk page and since i signed in just under a month ago, i have been trying to improve some wiki pages around games mostly, by adding historical infomation instead of infomation slighty inaccurate infomation something that happens alot around these obscure consoles i consentrate on. Basically there is alot of infomation about these computers that are left out in a lot of cases even though some sources do state them so i am trying to edit some of these articles for that reason. I have also refreshed my knowledge on wiki edit policies, which i have done before so i am clear on it. Thanks Mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool ( talk) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This reply was put in over a month ago and no one has relplyed, im concerned the I may get no answer, though I have edited a lot around the fifth gen. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool ( talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am sure this has been discussed before, but why can't we cite VG Charts' numbers? I can understand why we'd want to use primary source numbers first, but in the absence of that, why not use the info: It is verifiable and objective. LedRush ( talk) 14:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Given how the bot for the 0.7 DVD is handling the parameter for Wikipedia, I think it's handling it less as "this is an importance subject" and more "how does the wikiproject regard this article's need to be in the book." By this extension though, some articles of FA quality get bypassed while Start-class articles get scarfed up. So would it work out better to re-assess the articles with importance reflecting their quality just as much, rather than only a subject's weight?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Caught this article from GameSetWatch (itself reliable) for sales up to 1989 for all the text-based Infocom games. -- MASEM 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/09/great_scott_infocoms_alltime_s.php |title=Great Scott: Infocom's All-Time Sales Numbers Revealed |date=20 September 2008|accessdate=21 September 2008 |publisher=GameSetWatch|author=[[Simon Carless]]}}</ref>
User:Krator ( t c) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
For a while now since VU Games (Sierra) terminated ARC a new copy of it has surfaced under the name of Spark . It has it's own community and website and written under a name of Codemullet Entertainment as the developer. However I am not sure on the rules if it is acceptable to write anything about it in the ARC article, if there should be a new article or non at all. I would like some advice on which way to manage the situation. Govvy ( talk) 11:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
[3] - Can I get some comments on whether this image would be appropriate for detailing the visuals and style of Hotel Dusk: Room 215 (assuming a section on its visuals is created)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Anybody seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom Hearts yet? I don't remember seeing any discussion about it—should be a task force at best. Pagra shtak 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
On a more general note, this should probably have been brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. :) <shameless plug/> -- Izno ( talk) 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have started a section over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Date-linking regarding the very recent change at WP:MOSNUM deprecating date-linking solely for the purpose of date autoformatting; since we do a lot of date-linking, this is very pertinent to us. Please discuss over there. MuZemike ( talk) 04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of splitting the Street Fighter: The Movie article into two. The arcade game and the console game released for the PlayStation and Saturn are really nothing alike aside from using the same digitized footage from the film and are considered separate games by Capcom. Even All About Capcom Head-to-Head Fighting Games makes this point a few times. On the other hand, I don't think there's enough real-world coverage to justify covering the two games separately. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 06:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Neither article is terribly large, so I think a merge is in order. Discuss here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the images at Black Mesa (game mod). Some of the screenshots used are labelled as being in the public domain, some have even managed to find their way onto the Commons. My concern is that these are not images in the public domain and the uploader believes that as the game is free and because the images have been put out for free viewing, that equates to being in the public domain. But as we all know, publishing on the Internet does not automatically put something into the public domain. I also cannot find any evidence of the team saying that the images are in the public domain, and the fact each image has legalese down the side of it that says "respective trademarks copyright (c) Valve Corporation", it strikes me that we've got a case of copyright breach here. Thoughts? Other images state that the uploader is the copyright holder, which is believable as I've known at least one other mod team releasing images for free use. However, it could be worth emailing or forum PM-ing the team to ensure that one of them did indeed upload the images. -- Sabre ( talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Over the last few hours, an anomynous IP (in good faith I might add, there's nothing vandalistic about it) has been adding gameguide-esque information on in-game strategies. It's unreferenced, generally requires the reader to have played the game and is pretty much all original research, and as such I removed it, as a brief overview of in-game strategies that a reader who has not played the game has been included. However, I think that the IP may persist on re-adding the information, and as I can't revert again without breaching 3RR. The article is currently at GAN, and such content disputes can be taken as instability, which will affect the article's chances, so can I ask for one or two people to keep an eye on it to make sure that further game guide information doesn't creep in. -- Sabre ( talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Our project has been fortunate enough to have a large number of articles selected for inclusion in Wikipedia 0.7. If you have been involved in a FA or GA under our scope, please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop to see if your article has been selected for inclusion. If so, please follow the instructions there to select an oldid of the article that is in good shape and vandalism-free—this shouldn't take too much time and will ensure that your work enters Wikipedia 0.7 in good condition. Thanks to those that have already been helping out with this effort to improve the contribution of our project. Pagra shtak 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Half-Life 2 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I been having a mild edit war in the Street Fighter IV with another editor who insists to use an unfinished cover artwork of a yet-to-be-released console version of the game over the original arcade version's poster, which is already out. His rationale is that arcade game posters are not "true cover arts" (even though Infobox VG guidelines does allow for promotional fliers of arcade games) and that a cover artwork for a home version (even an unreleased one) are preferred. Personally, I think original versions should take precedence over any subsequent port and arcade games are no different from theatrically-released films in this case. Having the cover of a console port over the arcade game poster seems to undermine the importance of the original arcade version, as if the arcade version of the game was not important enough. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 17:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I need some help here. I initially posted the issue on the FF wikiproject talk page, but no one replied. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The Prince ( talk) 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not exactly citeable by Wikipedia, but it's definitely worth a look and I'm sure some article somewhere can use it somehow: link. --VPeric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.87.60 ( talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So, I've basically gone and rewrittten this in the last week (if that), going from here to its current status. This is one of our high importance Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop articles (hence my sudden motivation to work on it). I'd like to take this one to FAC before the 0.7 thing is finalised, so if anyone could give it a quick copyedit (or point out any glaring issues they could find), that'd be great.
Thanks! Giggy ( talk) 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings for the record. Giggy ( talk) 00:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how many of the Mario articles are in no good shape, I propose that there be a task force made for Mario, and that an effort to promote every main game in the series to GA be made. On that note, we should go in order of the games' releases, so we would start with Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, then move onto Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, then Super Mario World, then Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, then Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, then New Super Mario Bros., and finally, Super Mario Galaxy - just to get into order. Anyone interested? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I started work on Mario Bros. with some basic reformatting and rewrites. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A thought has occurred to me. While I know that many of the FAs and GAs and such are watchlisted by many people, perhaps it might be a good idea to set up a subpage of the project (probably to be listed under the "project" heading in the WPVG template) where those people can collaborate on maintaining the FA and GA status of those article which fall under the project scope. Something along the lines of WP:WikiProject Video games/Maintenance. This obviously has a lot of crossover with the current set of TFs, but it might be the place for task forces to be redirected to which have achieved their goal of featuring their topic, such as the Super Smash Bros. task force. While I think that particular task force's domain is smaller than many of the others on that list, it would be defeating the purpose of the inactive project cleanup task force to leave it lying around (while I know the editors of those articles aren't going to suddenly go inactive, its usefulness, I would judge, is significantly lessened now by the fact there's little to work on regarding its topic).
As well, I would say it opens up a pathway for contributors who don't really want to take the route of writing content, but rather to keep it at status quo, at worst. Thoughts? -- Izno ( talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that
Catassing is in need of a serious fix:
(1) The article has a couple of cites, but none which establishes that the term "catassing" itself is actually in use. (Re
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) (The article does cite
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/06.01.00/cover/onlinegames1-0022.html , but although that article uses the expression "cat ass", the term "catassing" itself does not appear there. If anybody can provide a good cite for the use of this term, please add it to the article.)
(2) The whole article should probably be trimmed down, merged into
Video game addiction, and the term
Catassing be made a redirect to that article.
- Comments? --
201.53.7.16 (
talk) 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Is a non-playable characters list necessary? I see it as both trivial and listcruft information. I didn't post this at the talk page for the article: as the regular editors of that article have a history of adding trivia to Sonic articles, as well as edit warring because they don't understand how Wikipedia works. RobJ1981 ( talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Interjection: Notability follows WP:GNG, which states topic of article must be comprehensively covered by reliable secondary sources. The games themselves (and the game guides) cannot back up notability. These primary sources are only usable for verification of data. Do not confuse the ways in which reliable sources are used. In other words, a verified item is not necessarily notable, especially when it is only backed by a primary source. Jappalang ( talk) 23:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a really useless list. A link to a flash site to confirm that Giant Worm is going to be in the game serves little purpose. If any of this info is important, it'll be mentioned in the plot summary when the game actually comes out. Until then, I don't think we're doing anyone a disservice by not properly informing them that Gizoids are present in this game. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Just, instead of bullets, they'd be sections. Though, if we do that, I'd recommend doing this with all game articles. If you don't, some readers may come to the conclusion of "Oh, Wikipedia hates Sonc, so they're screwing up more Sonic articles." I'm not saying that's my opinion, but, I've seen a couple of fourms with people complaining about everything that's going on. Just pointing it out. Aren't we supossed to make the articles the more presentable, and conclusive as we can? Most readers don't understand what's going on here. That's why they just read the articles, instead of trying to work on them. The readers don't care about what is, and isn't encyclopedic by your understanding of policy/guideline, they want to know what the game's about, who's in it, does it have an products, who does the voicing, etc. Does't that count for something? And I don't want that "Our understanding of policy trumps everything, even consenus" bullcrap that I've been given before. Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's why I think we need a character section. If we put all the characters in the story section we'd be using a considerable amount of plot, thus going against WP:PLOT. And even if we did, characters who had important roles but didn't do anything in major events would be left out. Take this article for example: Shadow the Hedgehog (game). The character list is very long and they all have important roles, but because most of them don't have any major effect on the story-line, they're put into character sections. Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) What I'm trying to get at is this: If the character isn't major enough to justify a prose mention in the plot (because it'll take up "too much plot") then I don't see the need to make a list of characters just so we can include those minor characters that didn't get mentioned in the plot. To me, saying "Cream the Rabbit happens to show up in one level in Shadow the Hedgehog" already is too much plot. Nifboy ( talk) 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
In an RPG like this, if the characters are important enough to be mentioned, they'll be mentioned in the plot summary. If they're not important enough to be mentioned in the plot summary, they aren't important enough to be mentioned at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No. It's completely related. Stop trying to get out of the mess like that. It's completely related to the game's character list. Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 02:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I am interjecting and saying that this needs to be on the article's talk page and not here. It shouldn't matter of the record of the users, which is why you're supposed to AGF in the first place. If nothing gets resolved there, then up you go on the dispute resolution ladder, in which I am considering doing in order to put closure to this. MuZemike ( talk) 06:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell these people that an illustration card is NOT proper for the infobox? They claim that a poster or card supersedes a gameplay screenshot or, now that it's available, a box shot of the home release. I don't know ANY, repeat, ANY VG articles that use some promotional card in the infobox. JAF1970 ( talk) 14:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of merging most of the Mario Party articles into the series article, but I would like to improve them, and see how many of them have the strength to be their own articles. Mario Party 4 and 5 look in good shape, though I'd like to see their development sections larger, and MPDS, Advance, and 8 have room to grow all over their articles, thanks to their unusual game mechanics. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I get some opinions on lists of Robot Masters appearing in Mega Man games? On the one hand, giving a list of the robot masters that appear in the game does no harm, but on the other hand it adds nothing meaningful to the article. Weapons, Robot Master persona, and stages all fall under fancruft and are against the guidelines of WP:VG, but what about the robot masters themselves? Lumaga ( talk) 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
People are going to the pages to find out more about the game they are interested in, the Robot Masters are an important aspect of the game. Even it's a small summary, it's still encyclopedic content that people are looking for. -- Reploidof20xx (TALK) 13:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Link. Cutting to the chase need opinions one way or another if GA should stay or not for the article.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 16:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I dunno if Mario Bros. has sufficient information about it for GA, but I believe it can be pushed to B at this point with a little digging. I decided to make a separate section for this so people are more aware. I've taken the liberty of merging three Mario Bros. sequels/ports into it, but Reception and Development are empty. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have recently proposed here that both articles in the headline should be merged, as both articles are excessively short and have little to no references to verify their notability. Assuming that neither of them would reach an acceptable level of quality by themselves, I proposed merging the two articles, only to be met with disapproval by minor Users and IP addresses, so I came here to consult some experienced Users on what should be done. So what should be done? Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been browsing various video game locations articles. In most of these articles, there are no reliable third-party sources. Some don't have any sources at all. They're all in pretty rough shape, and as of now violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies: from WP:N to WP:V to WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:GAMEGUIDE to WP:GAMECRUFT.
Myst series ( Blanket AfD)
Final Fantasy series
Grand Theft Auto series
Pokemon: see merge discussion
Half Life series: WP:BOLDly merged to Locations in the Half-Life series by Sabre
Others:
But to be more optimistic, an article like Universe of Kingdom Hearts shows that a GA quality article is possible with a few solid references for notability, and a bunch of primary or officially licensed sources to offer more detail. By that measure, an article like Ivalice or Black Mesa Research Facility might be on their way to something. But with other articles, even a merge might get into undue coverage and WP:NOT#PLOT. Some of these are candidates for deletion. But I wanted to get a little bit of feedback before getting too WP:BOLD. Randomran ( talk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"I'm guessing though someone is going to come completely out of the blue and argue "No this article is totally relevant how dare you do this blah blah blah""' - nope, someone's going to come completely out of the blue and argue that articles should never be deleted (which, to avoid a semantics-war, redirecting to another page basically is) without the correct policies and guidelines being followed, in this case WP:AFD. You've discussed this (briefly) here, without making anyone interested in those articles aware of your discussions. If you wish to delete those article, fine, they might well deserve it, but make certain you go through the correct channels - start deletion discussions. Bear in mind that Ages of Myst V: End of Ages was fairly recently nominated for deletion, the result of which was no consensus. Talk Islander 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyone take a deep breath and calm down. WP:BOLDly redirecting is done all the time on Wikipedia, just as WP:BOLDly reverting that is perfectly within someone's right. The process is working. Someone made an editorial decision, someone disputed it, and so now the articles are being taken to AFD for further discussion. This is just a natural part of the dispute resolution process, and developing consensus. Randomran ( talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The majority of these articles will definitely never amount to anything. I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Jak and Daxter if anyone cares. TTN ( talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Some of these are really, really weak OR constructs; I'm looking at the "Universe of Legend of Zelda" in particular. We can probably dynamite a few, merge a few, and redirect a few. The Final Fantasy project is doing a great job of setting the standard for this sort of thing, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that something can be made of World of Monkey Island, messy though it may be, even if it doesn't extend past a merge into the series article, so I'd hold back the AfD horses on that one. -- Sabre ( talk) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AMiB on the Final Fantasy location articles: they're a good build, and worth keeping. Btw, Glorianna has been nominated for AfD. TTN seems to have pointed the pokemon region articles at their respective games, which I guess makes sense though I'm a bit iffy with the first as some recognizability should be there for it (as opposed to later regions where I'm pretty sure even the fans would go "where?")-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, after Randomran's additions and my expansion of the reception section, Masem reckons that this merger of the Half-Life series can be safely put out into the mainspace, which per WP:BOLD I've done. Its not entirely perfect: a few prose issues, probably needs some more design info, and is missing a few references, but it should address the bulk of the problems coming out of the individual articles. The in-universe stuff that is generally only of interest to fans is happily sitting over at Combine Overwiki in very similar forms to what we had here. I am, however, somewhat concerned about recreation though, normally the fans don't take kindly to cleanups like this. -- Sabre ( talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering merging the NES Nintendo sports games (ie Golf, Baseball, Tennis, etc.), but can't think of a good name. I was thinking of "Sports games by Nintendo for the NES", but that seems way too wordy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fond of the idea of merging dissimilar games not in a series into list articles. I cannot, however, put my finger on why. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The FAC for Concerned seems to be stalling. Just to prevent it from dying from lack of interest (with one support and three comments), can I request a few peeps head over there and leave some comments whether for support or opposition of the article in question? -- Sabre ( talk) 12:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hahnchen refuses to accept he is the only one that strongly wants the list. I believe the consensus to not have a list exists, but he refuses to admit it. So anytime I add the list back, he just removes it. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_53#List_of_Olympic_events (as well as the FAC page which is linked in that discussion) for more on this matter. Hahnchen needs to handle this issue better, instead of assuming consensus means everyone has to be for (or against) something. Consensus is the majority, not everyone. If you read past discussions, most people don't want the list. RobJ1981 ( talk) 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page -
The list isn't a part of the article being featured. This post (found here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mario_&_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games): With discussion in three different places aobut the list of events, no clear consensus has emerged to convince me I should hold off promotion over that issue. I do hope the involved Projects will work to develop a guideline for future articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC). So it being in the article when it was promoted or not, isn't relevant to it's value at all. However the part about a consensus is wrong. Only a small amount of editors (with you the only one edit warring regularly, to re-add the list) want the list. Stop being difficult and accept the fact the consensus is against the list. How many people against the list do you need, before you stop edit warring: 10, 20, 100? Just stop edit warring, this is getting old. RobJ1981 ( talk) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is deletion review stuff, because it looks like a technical error. But I looked at this old AFD:
It looks like it was closed as a merge/redirect, but never actually merged and redirected. I'd do it myself, but then I'm concerned that someone might simply revert it.
I also don't know what to make of this AFD:
I'm thinking about bringing it back up at AFD to have a real discussion, but then it's possible it never should have been nominated in the first place. Randomran ( talk) 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I followed through on the merge, based on the Legends of Kesmai AFD. As for the withdrawn Albion (Fable) AFD (which was a little confusing), I think it was probably smart of Gears of War to drop the AFD here. I have no plans of deleting Albion (Fable) because on a gut level, I think there's probably some coverage out there. But if someone wanted to actually test that assumption, I think that would be perfectly reasonable. Randomran ( talk) 05:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Linktothepast merged content from Call of Duty: World at War (DS) to the main article at Call of Duty: World at War this morning. I disagreed with the merge and reverted back - his reasoning is the DS article doesn't have much content (which I admit). Anyway, Call of Duty 4 (DS) has its own article, which is the logic I was going by. Should it be merged, or stay as it is? Thanks! Fin © ™ 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey people. I'm the primary contributor for the System Shock 2 article, but I'm having trouble with the prose. I need some fresh eyes to go over it and really help scrub the article for prose, grammar and any other outstanding issues. I have addressed the concerns listed in the FAC, but Tony1 suggested I get some help. I do not believe the issues are huge, but I'm having a hell of a time copy-editing it for some reason. Not required, but greatly appreciated. Cheers. -- Noj r ( talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I know this is not a message board. This talk page is for improving articles related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and for improving the project as a whole, but I thought to ask here. I'm not apart of this project but I wanted to ask members of this project as a whole. I'm apart of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, recently a small relatively known company called Total Nonstop Action Wrestling released its first video game titled TNA Impact! (video game). I have plans to get it to FA status. I know nothing about expanding video game articles. So I thought to come here and ask if a experienced editor would like to work in this article with me? Your help will be appreciated at a very high level.-- Will C 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've created a work page and a draft workflow to help us prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. Hopefully it will be useful to help us keep track of what we've done and how much remains to do. Please take a look and let me know (on the talk page there) if you have any additions. Thanks, Pagra shtak 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Now, my suggestions:
Half-Life 2 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I need an opinion on these articles, Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit) and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (8-bit). They have very few differences, most minor, but people are opposing a merge to their main articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been a spike in the number of AFDs over the past few days. (Which is itself problematic: not to say whether I agree or disagree with all or any of them, but it makes things a little difficult to sort through. But hey, we play the hand we're dealt.)
Because of that, participation has been spread out between a lot of AFDs, making it harder to develop a consensus. Arguably, AFDs like these are getting closed before we can be certain that a consensus will or won't be formed.
Not to re-open closed debates. But perhaps an administrator could go through the September 14th deletion discussions and see if some of the more contentious ones could get a re-list for a few days before someone closes them as no consensus? This is a case where we should expect more feedback.
Please and thanks. Randomran ( talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not actively suggesting this, but I am throwing out this idea for consideration.
There are effective uses of our review tables for this project, but they can also often be used as crutches (I'm guilty of this as well) by replace good prose-line describing the reviews with, say, two more review lines in the table to make the reception section look large. Or people indiscriminately add reviews to such tables and then you suddenly have 15 entries there. When you compare what we do to movies (which also have a large body of reliable reviews), there's a vast difference, and I'm finding that reception sections are more engaging when there is no review table listed.
I am suggesting we discourage the use of tables (templated or otherwise) for game reception sections save for a few select cases: one where a game has more than 2 platform releases that have merited significantly different scores, and one for game series articles (where there's more than 2 games) to summarize reviews of the games of the series; in both cases, such review tables should be limited to sourcing one or two of the aggregrate ratings site (MC and GR). This allows a quick overview of review scores for "many" games that otherwise is not easy to do in text. With two game/consoles, its easy to compare in text, and obviously with one game, no table is needed.
Replacing the table with prose would obviously be necessary; general guidelines that I'd use include:
Again, this is only food for thought, but I think we can really make a lot of headway in reducing the stigma that VG articles tend to have by helping to make the article more prose-based and normalizing it with other media that gets reviewed. I would say it would be a grandfathered-approach; older articles don't need to be updated, but if we do go this way and cement it to guidelines, further GA/FA and the like need to heed it; only as volunteers work them or they come up for review should older articles be changed. -- MASEM 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this image free use? [1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I found an interview on the site Kikizo, [2], that contains an interview w/ a Namco-Bandai dev on the Ace Combat series. I'm looking to improve the Ace Combat article, so I'm wondering if the site is a relible enough source to do so. -- Hydrokinetics12 ( talk) 01:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have obtained copies of the following sources from my local library: Game On edited by Lucien King and The Ultimate History of Video Games by Steven Kent. I am going to try to put as much encyclopedic information from those two books as I can. If anyone has any other knowledge of these books and can direct to other good sources especially for these old games and consoles, let me know. MuZemike ( talk) 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello i would like to talk about an edit which does concentrate on the less successful consoles in the fifth generation, like the Amiga CD32, 3DO and Atari Jaguar because i am 100 % sure that for one in North America and Europe the Amiga CD32 was the world's first 32 bit game console, and i have many sources to say that the Amiga CD32 was indeed releaced in September 1993, then the 3do was releaced in October 1993 not September 1993 and there for is not the first in Europe and North America but the Second, and as for the Atari Jaguar there are no problems as it was releaced on 18th November 1993, but the next problem is that the best selling game on the Amiga CD32 was the console's best selling game was Simon the Sorrceror but was removed along with Return Fire on the 3do and Alien VS Predator on the Atari Jaguar, these are the best selling games on these platforms but have instead been re-edited as unknown also it is good that the 3do is known as selling 2 million which it did but also it needs to be known that the Atari Jaguar sold 500,000 units and Amiga CD32 100,000 units also for the acutal worlds first 32 bit game console the FM Towns Marty it needs a picture to represent it i am also concerned that the Phillips CD-i and Amiga CDTV are not well represented enough as the first consoles to use CDs and that the Bally Astrocade has been deleted from Second Generation even though it was cleary a game console. These consoles are not represented enough in general so it would be good if they could be on wikipedia. P.S I am having problems geting in to wiki game, because of an admin accusing me of cross wiki even though i have not hacked (which this admin i will not name is accusing me of even though i have not) is i to do with another user who has please help me. Thankyou Mcjakeqcool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, i will get a list of sources to back my evidence up altough i do have some evidence already. But basically i found WikiProject Video games from an eMail on my talk page and since i signed in just under a month ago, i have been trying to improve some wiki pages around games mostly, by adding historical infomation instead of infomation slighty inaccurate infomation something that happens alot around these obscure consoles i consentrate on. Basically there is alot of infomation about these computers that are left out in a lot of cases even though some sources do state them so i am trying to edit some of these articles for that reason. I have also refreshed my knowledge on wiki edit policies, which i have done before so i am clear on it. Thanks Mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool ( talk) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This reply was put in over a month ago and no one has relplyed, im concerned the I may get no answer, though I have edited a lot around the fifth gen. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool ( talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am sure this has been discussed before, but why can't we cite VG Charts' numbers? I can understand why we'd want to use primary source numbers first, but in the absence of that, why not use the info: It is verifiable and objective. LedRush ( talk) 14:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Given how the bot for the 0.7 DVD is handling the parameter for Wikipedia, I think it's handling it less as "this is an importance subject" and more "how does the wikiproject regard this article's need to be in the book." By this extension though, some articles of FA quality get bypassed while Start-class articles get scarfed up. So would it work out better to re-assess the articles with importance reflecting their quality just as much, rather than only a subject's weight?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Caught this article from GameSetWatch (itself reliable) for sales up to 1989 for all the text-based Infocom games. -- MASEM 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/09/great_scott_infocoms_alltime_s.php |title=Great Scott: Infocom's All-Time Sales Numbers Revealed |date=20 September 2008|accessdate=21 September 2008 |publisher=GameSetWatch|author=[[Simon Carless]]}}</ref>
User:Krator ( t c) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
For a while now since VU Games (Sierra) terminated ARC a new copy of it has surfaced under the name of Spark . It has it's own community and website and written under a name of Codemullet Entertainment as the developer. However I am not sure on the rules if it is acceptable to write anything about it in the ARC article, if there should be a new article or non at all. I would like some advice on which way to manage the situation. Govvy ( talk) 11:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
[3] - Can I get some comments on whether this image would be appropriate for detailing the visuals and style of Hotel Dusk: Room 215 (assuming a section on its visuals is created)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Anybody seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom Hearts yet? I don't remember seeing any discussion about it—should be a task force at best. Pagra shtak 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
On a more general note, this should probably have been brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. :) <shameless plug/> -- Izno ( talk) 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have started a section over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Date-linking regarding the very recent change at WP:MOSNUM deprecating date-linking solely for the purpose of date autoformatting; since we do a lot of date-linking, this is very pertinent to us. Please discuss over there. MuZemike ( talk) 04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of splitting the Street Fighter: The Movie article into two. The arcade game and the console game released for the PlayStation and Saturn are really nothing alike aside from using the same digitized footage from the film and are considered separate games by Capcom. Even All About Capcom Head-to-Head Fighting Games makes this point a few times. On the other hand, I don't think there's enough real-world coverage to justify covering the two games separately. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 06:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Neither article is terribly large, so I think a merge is in order. Discuss here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the images at Black Mesa (game mod). Some of the screenshots used are labelled as being in the public domain, some have even managed to find their way onto the Commons. My concern is that these are not images in the public domain and the uploader believes that as the game is free and because the images have been put out for free viewing, that equates to being in the public domain. But as we all know, publishing on the Internet does not automatically put something into the public domain. I also cannot find any evidence of the team saying that the images are in the public domain, and the fact each image has legalese down the side of it that says "respective trademarks copyright (c) Valve Corporation", it strikes me that we've got a case of copyright breach here. Thoughts? Other images state that the uploader is the copyright holder, which is believable as I've known at least one other mod team releasing images for free use. However, it could be worth emailing or forum PM-ing the team to ensure that one of them did indeed upload the images. -- Sabre ( talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Over the last few hours, an anomynous IP (in good faith I might add, there's nothing vandalistic about it) has been adding gameguide-esque information on in-game strategies. It's unreferenced, generally requires the reader to have played the game and is pretty much all original research, and as such I removed it, as a brief overview of in-game strategies that a reader who has not played the game has been included. However, I think that the IP may persist on re-adding the information, and as I can't revert again without breaching 3RR. The article is currently at GAN, and such content disputes can be taken as instability, which will affect the article's chances, so can I ask for one or two people to keep an eye on it to make sure that further game guide information doesn't creep in. -- Sabre ( talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Our project has been fortunate enough to have a large number of articles selected for inclusion in Wikipedia 0.7. If you have been involved in a FA or GA under our scope, please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop to see if your article has been selected for inclusion. If so, please follow the instructions there to select an oldid of the article that is in good shape and vandalism-free—this shouldn't take too much time and will ensure that your work enters Wikipedia 0.7 in good condition. Thanks to those that have already been helping out with this effort to improve the contribution of our project. Pagra shtak 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Half-Life 2 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I been having a mild edit war in the Street Fighter IV with another editor who insists to use an unfinished cover artwork of a yet-to-be-released console version of the game over the original arcade version's poster, which is already out. His rationale is that arcade game posters are not "true cover arts" (even though Infobox VG guidelines does allow for promotional fliers of arcade games) and that a cover artwork for a home version (even an unreleased one) are preferred. Personally, I think original versions should take precedence over any subsequent port and arcade games are no different from theatrically-released films in this case. Having the cover of a console port over the arcade game poster seems to undermine the importance of the original arcade version, as if the arcade version of the game was not important enough. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 17:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I need some help here. I initially posted the issue on the FF wikiproject talk page, but no one replied. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The Prince ( talk) 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not exactly citeable by Wikipedia, but it's definitely worth a look and I'm sure some article somewhere can use it somehow: link. --VPeric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.87.60 ( talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So, I've basically gone and rewrittten this in the last week (if that), going from here to its current status. This is one of our high importance Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop articles (hence my sudden motivation to work on it). I'd like to take this one to FAC before the 0.7 thing is finalised, so if anyone could give it a quick copyedit (or point out any glaring issues they could find), that'd be great.
Thanks! Giggy ( talk) 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings for the record. Giggy ( talk) 00:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how many of the Mario articles are in no good shape, I propose that there be a task force made for Mario, and that an effort to promote every main game in the series to GA be made. On that note, we should go in order of the games' releases, so we would start with Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, then move onto Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, then Super Mario World, then Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, then Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, then New Super Mario Bros., and finally, Super Mario Galaxy - just to get into order. Anyone interested? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I started work on Mario Bros. with some basic reformatting and rewrites. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A thought has occurred to me. While I know that many of the FAs and GAs and such are watchlisted by many people, perhaps it might be a good idea to set up a subpage of the project (probably to be listed under the "project" heading in the WPVG template) where those people can collaborate on maintaining the FA and GA status of those article which fall under the project scope. Something along the lines of WP:WikiProject Video games/Maintenance. This obviously has a lot of crossover with the current set of TFs, but it might be the place for task forces to be redirected to which have achieved their goal of featuring their topic, such as the Super Smash Bros. task force. While I think that particular task force's domain is smaller than many of the others on that list, it would be defeating the purpose of the inactive project cleanup task force to leave it lying around (while I know the editors of those articles aren't going to suddenly go inactive, its usefulness, I would judge, is significantly lessened now by the fact there's little to work on regarding its topic).
As well, I would say it opens up a pathway for contributors who don't really want to take the route of writing content, but rather to keep it at status quo, at worst. Thoughts? -- Izno ( talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that
Catassing is in need of a serious fix:
(1) The article has a couple of cites, but none which establishes that the term "catassing" itself is actually in use. (Re
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) (The article does cite
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/06.01.00/cover/onlinegames1-0022.html , but although that article uses the expression "cat ass", the term "catassing" itself does not appear there. If anybody can provide a good cite for the use of this term, please add it to the article.)
(2) The whole article should probably be trimmed down, merged into
Video game addiction, and the term
Catassing be made a redirect to that article.
- Comments? --
201.53.7.16 (
talk) 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Is a non-playable characters list necessary? I see it as both trivial and listcruft information. I didn't post this at the talk page for the article: as the regular editors of that article have a history of adding trivia to Sonic articles, as well as edit warring because they don't understand how Wikipedia works. RobJ1981 ( talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Interjection: Notability follows WP:GNG, which states topic of article must be comprehensively covered by reliable secondary sources. The games themselves (and the game guides) cannot back up notability. These primary sources are only usable for verification of data. Do not confuse the ways in which reliable sources are used. In other words, a verified item is not necessarily notable, especially when it is only backed by a primary source. Jappalang ( talk) 23:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a really useless list. A link to a flash site to confirm that Giant Worm is going to be in the game serves little purpose. If any of this info is important, it'll be mentioned in the plot summary when the game actually comes out. Until then, I don't think we're doing anyone a disservice by not properly informing them that Gizoids are present in this game. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Just, instead of bullets, they'd be sections. Though, if we do that, I'd recommend doing this with all game articles. If you don't, some readers may come to the conclusion of "Oh, Wikipedia hates Sonc, so they're screwing up more Sonic articles." I'm not saying that's my opinion, but, I've seen a couple of fourms with people complaining about everything that's going on. Just pointing it out. Aren't we supossed to make the articles the more presentable, and conclusive as we can? Most readers don't understand what's going on here. That's why they just read the articles, instead of trying to work on them. The readers don't care about what is, and isn't encyclopedic by your understanding of policy/guideline, they want to know what the game's about, who's in it, does it have an products, who does the voicing, etc. Does't that count for something? And I don't want that "Our understanding of policy trumps everything, even consenus" bullcrap that I've been given before. Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's why I think we need a character section. If we put all the characters in the story section we'd be using a considerable amount of plot, thus going against WP:PLOT. And even if we did, characters who had important roles but didn't do anything in major events would be left out. Take this article for example: Shadow the Hedgehog (game). The character list is very long and they all have important roles, but because most of them don't have any major effect on the story-line, they're put into character sections. Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) What I'm trying to get at is this: If the character isn't major enough to justify a prose mention in the plot (because it'll take up "too much plot") then I don't see the need to make a list of characters just so we can include those minor characters that didn't get mentioned in the plot. To me, saying "Cream the Rabbit happens to show up in one level in Shadow the Hedgehog" already is too much plot. Nifboy ( talk) 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
In an RPG like this, if the characters are important enough to be mentioned, they'll be mentioned in the plot summary. If they're not important enough to be mentioned in the plot summary, they aren't important enough to be mentioned at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No. It's completely related. Stop trying to get out of the mess like that. It's completely related to the game's character list. Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 02:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I am interjecting and saying that this needs to be on the article's talk page and not here. It shouldn't matter of the record of the users, which is why you're supposed to AGF in the first place. If nothing gets resolved there, then up you go on the dispute resolution ladder, in which I am considering doing in order to put closure to this. MuZemike ( talk) 06:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell these people that an illustration card is NOT proper for the infobox? They claim that a poster or card supersedes a gameplay screenshot or, now that it's available, a box shot of the home release. I don't know ANY, repeat, ANY VG articles that use some promotional card in the infobox. JAF1970 ( talk) 14:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of merging most of the Mario Party articles into the series article, but I would like to improve them, and see how many of them have the strength to be their own articles. Mario Party 4 and 5 look in good shape, though I'd like to see their development sections larger, and MPDS, Advance, and 8 have room to grow all over their articles, thanks to their unusual game mechanics. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I get some opinions on lists of Robot Masters appearing in Mega Man games? On the one hand, giving a list of the robot masters that appear in the game does no harm, but on the other hand it adds nothing meaningful to the article. Weapons, Robot Master persona, and stages all fall under fancruft and are against the guidelines of WP:VG, but what about the robot masters themselves? Lumaga ( talk) 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
People are going to the pages to find out more about the game they are interested in, the Robot Masters are an important aspect of the game. Even it's a small summary, it's still encyclopedic content that people are looking for. -- Reploidof20xx (TALK) 13:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Link. Cutting to the chase need opinions one way or another if GA should stay or not for the article.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 16:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I dunno if Mario Bros. has sufficient information about it for GA, but I believe it can be pushed to B at this point with a little digging. I decided to make a separate section for this so people are more aware. I've taken the liberty of merging three Mario Bros. sequels/ports into it, but Reception and Development are empty. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have recently proposed here that both articles in the headline should be merged, as both articles are excessively short and have little to no references to verify their notability. Assuming that neither of them would reach an acceptable level of quality by themselves, I proposed merging the two articles, only to be met with disapproval by minor Users and IP addresses, so I came here to consult some experienced Users on what should be done. So what should be done? Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been browsing various video game locations articles. In most of these articles, there are no reliable third-party sources. Some don't have any sources at all. They're all in pretty rough shape, and as of now violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies: from WP:N to WP:V to WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:GAMEGUIDE to WP:GAMECRUFT.
Myst series ( Blanket AfD)
Final Fantasy series
Grand Theft Auto series
Pokemon: see merge discussion
Half Life series: WP:BOLDly merged to Locations in the Half-Life series by Sabre
Others:
But to be more optimistic, an article like Universe of Kingdom Hearts shows that a GA quality article is possible with a few solid references for notability, and a bunch of primary or officially licensed sources to offer more detail. By that measure, an article like Ivalice or Black Mesa Research Facility might be on their way to something. But with other articles, even a merge might get into undue coverage and WP:NOT#PLOT. Some of these are candidates for deletion. But I wanted to get a little bit of feedback before getting too WP:BOLD. Randomran ( talk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"I'm guessing though someone is going to come completely out of the blue and argue "No this article is totally relevant how dare you do this blah blah blah""' - nope, someone's going to come completely out of the blue and argue that articles should never be deleted (which, to avoid a semantics-war, redirecting to another page basically is) without the correct policies and guidelines being followed, in this case WP:AFD. You've discussed this (briefly) here, without making anyone interested in those articles aware of your discussions. If you wish to delete those article, fine, they might well deserve it, but make certain you go through the correct channels - start deletion discussions. Bear in mind that Ages of Myst V: End of Ages was fairly recently nominated for deletion, the result of which was no consensus. Talk Islander 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyone take a deep breath and calm down. WP:BOLDly redirecting is done all the time on Wikipedia, just as WP:BOLDly reverting that is perfectly within someone's right. The process is working. Someone made an editorial decision, someone disputed it, and so now the articles are being taken to AFD for further discussion. This is just a natural part of the dispute resolution process, and developing consensus. Randomran ( talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The majority of these articles will definitely never amount to anything. I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Jak and Daxter if anyone cares. TTN ( talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Some of these are really, really weak OR constructs; I'm looking at the "Universe of Legend of Zelda" in particular. We can probably dynamite a few, merge a few, and redirect a few. The Final Fantasy project is doing a great job of setting the standard for this sort of thing, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that something can be made of World of Monkey Island, messy though it may be, even if it doesn't extend past a merge into the series article, so I'd hold back the AfD horses on that one. -- Sabre ( talk) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AMiB on the Final Fantasy location articles: they're a good build, and worth keeping. Btw, Glorianna has been nominated for AfD. TTN seems to have pointed the pokemon region articles at their respective games, which I guess makes sense though I'm a bit iffy with the first as some recognizability should be there for it (as opposed to later regions where I'm pretty sure even the fans would go "where?")-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, after Randomran's additions and my expansion of the reception section, Masem reckons that this merger of the Half-Life series can be safely put out into the mainspace, which per WP:BOLD I've done. Its not entirely perfect: a few prose issues, probably needs some more design info, and is missing a few references, but it should address the bulk of the problems coming out of the individual articles. The in-universe stuff that is generally only of interest to fans is happily sitting over at Combine Overwiki in very similar forms to what we had here. I am, however, somewhat concerned about recreation though, normally the fans don't take kindly to cleanups like this. -- Sabre ( talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering merging the NES Nintendo sports games (ie Golf, Baseball, Tennis, etc.), but can't think of a good name. I was thinking of "Sports games by Nintendo for the NES", but that seems way too wordy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fond of the idea of merging dissimilar games not in a series into list articles. I cannot, however, put my finger on why. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The FAC for Concerned seems to be stalling. Just to prevent it from dying from lack of interest (with one support and three comments), can I request a few peeps head over there and leave some comments whether for support or opposition of the article in question? -- Sabre ( talk) 12:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hahnchen refuses to accept he is the only one that strongly wants the list. I believe the consensus to not have a list exists, but he refuses to admit it. So anytime I add the list back, he just removes it. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_53#List_of_Olympic_events (as well as the FAC page which is linked in that discussion) for more on this matter. Hahnchen needs to handle this issue better, instead of assuming consensus means everyone has to be for (or against) something. Consensus is the majority, not everyone. If you read past discussions, most people don't want the list. RobJ1981 ( talk) 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page -
The list isn't a part of the article being featured. This post (found here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mario_&_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games): With discussion in three different places aobut the list of events, no clear consensus has emerged to convince me I should hold off promotion over that issue. I do hope the involved Projects will work to develop a guideline for future articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC). So it being in the article when it was promoted or not, isn't relevant to it's value at all. However the part about a consensus is wrong. Only a small amount of editors (with you the only one edit warring regularly, to re-add the list) want the list. Stop being difficult and accept the fact the consensus is against the list. How many people against the list do you need, before you stop edit warring: 10, 20, 100? Just stop edit warring, this is getting old. RobJ1981 ( talk) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)