This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
While working on British Open Championship Golf, I've run across a problem: the game's manual is a WinHelp file. I've never had to cite one of these before, and I've never seen anyone else in a similar situation. Does anyone have advice on how to proceed? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
and the other cite (web, book, etc.) templates in references. It's either all citation or all cite XXXX. I'm not sure what the rationale is (maybe a formatting issue), but I remember getting dinged at FAC for that before. (
Guyinblack25
talk 13:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
Making a new section because the previous one seems to have died and I'd like to make certain there is consensus before changing this.
So if we change Concepts and genres to "Vocabulary" (or "Vocabulary and grenes" and we move hardware over there to be covered by vocab, what should be top for hardware? Not every major console is worthy of being "top". If you look back at history, FE: from the arly generations the only ones that stand out are Magnavox Odyssey, Atari 2600, IBM Personal Computer Comadore 64 before the 1983 crash. The Sega Genesis/Mega Drive had a huge impact, but compared to the other systems none of its others did. With the exception of the Wii, its also probably a bit too soon to say if any of the newer consoles would be as important legacy-wise as others (Wii is because it changed the demographics of who bought console gaming systems and the way games are played). It also becomes harder to pin down specific PCs and even components. Certainly 3D PC graphics cards are important pieces of gaming hardware and ones developed to helped establish this maybe be important, but are they as important as a system like the Comodore 64? With the exception of S3 86C911,, I can't think of any that would rise to that level and that one doesn't even have its own article so it begs me to wonder if we shouldn't redefine "hardware".∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Strategy games has been depreciated. Would an admin be as so kind to grab their broom and perform the necessary house cleaning on the template and the associated categories. Thanks Salavat ( talk) 05:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There's another GAN backlog happening in the project that hopefully will be addressed. We have
Europa Barbarorum,
Mega Man & Bass,
Resident Evil 4,
The Operative: No One Lives Forever,
Chulip,
Potato Sack,
Joe Danger,
Resident Evil: Afterlife,
Caesars Palace 2000,
Revolution Software, and
Mega Man: Dr. Wily's Revenge up for GA tag, with Europa Barbarorum being reviewed right now. However, there's still 10 articles that need reviewing so if you have the time please review some of these articles.
GamerPro64 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Passed Mega Man: Dr. Wily's Revenge and quick-failed Revolution Software. The latter was a drive-by GA nomination in which a 2nd GAN was failed about a week ago; none of the concerns have been addressed. – MuZemike 21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, can someone else review Potato Sack? I was going to, but work's been pretty busy this week, and I'm doing a haunted house this weekend, so I haven't the time. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Head over Heels is currently the Collaboration of the month article. However, I have some doubts about being a High-important article. I think it should be downgraded to Low importance. Any thoughts? GamerPro64 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've put some work into it, and I think Oblivion is almost ready to be a Featured Article Candidate... again; the only problem I see is that the plot needs to be more concise, but I don't know how I can do that; thoughts?- SCB '92 ( talk) 20:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for condensing the plot and gameplay sections; the only problem I have left is the difficulty of finding that 1 dead link in the article; I have no idea where it is in the article, it's hidden so well; it cannot be in the external links because they all work fine- SCB '92 ( talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The "Reception" section seems a little sparse compared to the rest of the article and the review table in there. Not saying that it should be huge, but I would think an extra paragraph is warranted given the coverage of the game. My two cents. ( Guyinblack25 talk 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC))
There is a new move discussion to Sega Genesis that may interest people here.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
As someone who prefers Mega Drive, I wouldn't mind it being Genesis so much if Mega Drive remained the term in the first sentence. Has that been mentioned? Beyond that I don't want to dip my toe into that discussion... bridies ( talk) 12:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! Does anyone own Retro Gamer Issue 62 digitally? It contains some information on Full Throttle's development and I would like to have a copy of the issue. Thank you. Electroguv ( talk) 08:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow's Today's Featured Article is gonna be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, three days before Modern Warfare 3 hits stores. Then on Monday, List of Nintendo 64 games will be the Today's Featured List. Congrats for the editors responsible for making the articles as they are now. GamerPro64 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if any of my fellow editors that reside in the UK would happen to have a copy of Retro Gamer issue 77. It's got a "Making Of" article for A Boy and His Blob: Trouble on Blobolonia that I need. Thanks. ~ Hibana ( talk) 16:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I've assessed as Mid, but I've been heavily involved in maintaining the book and cleaning up articles through it, so I'd like an outsider's view on that. Salvidrim ( talk) 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Does someone know sources (print or online) which cover the game? I would be very grateful to a man who knows. Thank you. Electroguv ( talk) 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
User | Fixes |
---|---|
January2007 | 207 |
H3llkn0wz | 39 |
Peppage | 18 |
MartinZwirlein | 16 |
J04n | 15 |
R'n'B | 14 |
Dispenser | 12 |
69.248.62.131 | 11 |
Little quick update since September, the results were quite different. Regretfully even though there are 4859 dablinks across 3756 articles left in the project, only 250 of them will be followed in this month's Dab Challenge, thus I will no longer promoting this topics in the grid. — Dispenser 07:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI- An IP posted a list of sources related to video game characters at Portal talk:Fictional characters. They might be useful for those working on character articles or the respective game articles. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
Rhythm game has been up since the 21st and has not yet received any supports, opposes or in-depth reviews. If anyone has time to take a look at it, it would be much appreciated. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else got an opinion on this? As Gary King noted on the FAC page, the implications of this are potentially far-reaching i.e. the other genre articles; and at the same time I don't want to dither in responding to the FAC concerns specifically. I'm curious whether anyone thinks the precedent of 4X -the only genre FA, and the template on which we (actually that might just be me...) based rhythm game and several other genre articles- is dated or inadequate in terms of a standard format. Or whether we should be tailoring a format to each differing genre. It might be cool if anyone with an opinion on the genre articles could chip in... bridies ( talk) 11:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Some format ideas came to mind when I did a recent update to one of the pages. The thought is that the pages are getting larger because our number of quality articles keeps increasing (yea!). I Here are changes I'd like to implement to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content.
Thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC))
Updated. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC))
There is a proposal at WikiProject Anime and manga to adopt this TF as a joint wikiproject.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Can someone look at this and reason with this person please. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Warcraft_II&curid=29096334&action=history And the longer title is the official name. Dream Focus 04:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason this doesn't have an article, seems extremely independently notable to me. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
For those who don't have it on their watch list, I've updated the importance rating based on the previous discussions. I couldn't see a clear consensus on individuals or companies so I left them alone for the moment.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 22:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The Edge website has just undergone a redesign. Its actually a new back-end system as well as a redesign. The articles and reviews appear to have made it across OK by the looks of things, but the URLs of them have changed.
The easy part: All of the reviews appear to have moved from http://www.next-gen.biz/features/stacking-review
to their new location of http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/stacking-review
The hard part: The features (such as A short history of Lucas Arts and The 100 best games to play today) have moved across OK, and are still in the same directory hierarchy, but, their URLs appear to have changed ever so slightly, and in a non-uniform way.
(Old URL on top, new URL underneath)
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/a-short-history-lucasarts
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/short-history-lucasarts
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/
the-100-best-games-to-play-today
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/100-best-games-play-today
The "Just to make it more awkward" part: The search function on the site appears to only work for users who are signed in. Not sure if this is by design, or just a bug to do with the move. Accessing content still works OK for non-logged in users, but searching for anything will result in failure.
According to LinkSearch we have 534 links to check. The reviews should be easy with a bit of nifty RegEx, the features look like they may need the manual approach though. - X201 ( talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, so that's the links that start next-gen checked and fixed. There are 21 that need further work to hunt down a working link. Love the irony that the Edge article is the one most affected by the the URL changes. Now onward to help young Ost316 with the articles that start with edge-online - X201 ( talk) 12:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Just when I thought I was nearing the end... have just discovered that there are also
http://www.edge-online.com references that are broken as well. Any of these URLs that has a ?page= command at the end of the URL is breaking, remove that and it tends to redirect to the correct article. Not sure of best way to proceed with this: Bot to remove the ?page= code, or the safe and sure manual way. Masem, could you knock up a separate URL page like you did for the Next-Gen URLs please? So we can see how many we're dealing with. -
X201 (
talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to a sterling effort by the boy Ost316, The Edge link fiasco is almost over. We just need a couple of Reference Ninjas to help crack the 20 or so references that have gone AWOL. The bulk of them are here. Hopefully, with a little help, we can get this done and dusted quickly and we can vacate the pages created by Masem. It's taken so long, I think he's a bit concerned that we may be trying to claim Squatters rights on his user space ;-) - X201 ( talk) 12:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know the size of the cartridge for ToeJam & Earl? 4-megabit? 8? 16? Thanks. bridies ( talk) 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic here, be sure you keep your terminology straight. When you say "8-bit", "16-bit", etc., you're referring to a technical specification of the console hardware (address width of CPU or RAM, instruction size, etc.). But when you say "8 Megabit", "16K", etc., you're talking about ROM or memory size or capacity, which is a totally different and almost completely independent measure. Just wanted to point that out. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 07:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to remove the size of the cartridge: the only other FA on a cartridge-based game that I can see Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System), just says "cartridge" in the infobox. bridies ( talk) 09:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
"The Wind Waker" is now Today's Featured Article, making it the third featured content to be on the main page this month. Hooray for progress. GamerPro64 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Lists of Mario video games
by year,
by console,
by genre
into
List of Mario video games. Done on 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have other editors' opinions before copying to namespace and redirecting the other three lists. It retains the ability to sort by year/console/genre, has all the games the other three lists had (details are not "necessary" IMO, all games/genres/platforms are wikilinked appropriately). I also took advantage of the fact I manually built that table to double-check witht he individual articles if all the years were accurate (some were not on the original three lists).
The merge tags have been in place for two years, and I don't see how the lists could be merged and still retain their individual usefulness without using a sortable table as I did, unpretty as it may be.
So please, feedback, feedback, feedback, and once all the kinks are worked out I'll put the merge into effect, unless of course there is consensus against, but... *shrugs* - as I've said, I can't think of any other way to do it, and it eventually has to be done.
--Salvidrim!
T·
C 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion over a proposal to move the article Halo 3 Marketing to Marketing of Halo 3 is taken place here . Lucia Black ( talk) 05:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I've done some digging, but I haven't found meaty sources for Dnd (video game). This includes the first several pages of Google web and book search. At best, you get an off-hand mention of the game and its creators. Is this enough to establish notability? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 06:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Per disucssions at WT:VG/RS and WP:RS/N, the release dates for these sites are not reliable. We should probably go through out FA/FL/GA items and change them to another source.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been going through some new examples for each class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Quality scale, since most of the examples have not been updated in over 3 years. Here's what I have so far for possible new examples:
|
Any thoughts? – MuZemike 06:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably not the most contributive [sic] comment, but seeing what now qualifies as B and C class really deters me. Are there any good examples of digital download titles that would pass for B class? That's where I set my sights, but both examples have a crazy amount of citations and content, which may not paint a clear enough picture. -- Teancum ( talk) 22:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone!
I had to find a quick info for a contest, I knew the answer, I knew where to look on wikipedia, but the problem is that usually you think that you know where you find the info and it happens sometimes not to be there. This was the case. I needed the information about the voice actor of the main character of a video game. Lara Croft (answer: Keeley Hawes) in Tomb Raider: Legend.
It would be nice and useful that the Infobox video game would contain Voice actor and Portrayal sections for the main character. Actually it should contain a Main Character section with the subsections mentioned before. I know it is obvious for everyone who is the main character and so on... But I have two things to sustain my idea. First, a person that jumps on the article for the first time, they have to do some research by clicking on the main character's page to see who is the voice actor, but actually this info should be inside the first article. Second, there are very rare cases, maybe none, when the main character of the series is changing, and this doesn't mean there should not be a place for the main character in the infobox, even crazily repeating the same information, the idea is that there is vital information missing in the infobox.
-- TudorTulok ( talk) 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Could I get some extra eyes on a discussion going on at Talk:Atari 5200? Here's a synopsis:
My personal opinion and observations are:
That's my opinion. I'd like to see if we can reach consensus and/or at least get some closure on the sources. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
With the discussion heated and splintered in two locations (here and Talk:Atari 5200) I recommend that we slow things down and keep the discussion to one page. Here's my take on the situation. The dispute is over wording at Atari 5200#Market Performance. As far as I can tell, this is rooted in the references used and how it is being used. What I've gathered is that there are three references that have been mentioned.
The main contention seems to be between the IGN and Atari HQ sources. The IGN article states the ColecoVision was technologically superior to the Atari 5200, while the Atari HQ articles states the reverse. The Ultimate History book appears to be used primarily for information about the ColecoVision. The main difference that I see between the two online sources is that the IGN article provides little reasoning behind it's statement, while the Atari HQ article provides a lot of reasoning. The other difference is that IGN is considered more widely reliable than Atari HQ (which is currently under question at WP:RSN). This is not a statement to discredit one or the other, simply an assessment of them.
All that being said, if there are no other sources in the discussion, then I suggest we put everything else on hold until Atari HQ is examined. The use of the site's content will be a moot point if it is deemed unreliable. The website already was deemed reliable at WP:RSN, but no discussions involving a large number of VG editors has occurred to my knowledge. This is only one I found: a notification of the RS Noticeboard discussion. It's currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Atari HQ. The more input the better.
Once this is settled, then we can move forward with examining the content of the articles to find the best way to settle this. I believe that Keifer has made some good head way towards that, but the dispute is pulling those involved in too many directions. Let's take it a step at a time.
If anyone has any additional information or corrections, please speak up. All I ask is that you be cordial to your fellow editors and use the preview function before you post. This a very solvable dispute, it just might not get resolved as fast as everybody would like. ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC))
Fellow Wikipedianarianites, we have become trapped in an article naming system that favors the 1% of editors who control most of the editing. Fat-cats using the awesome power of repeatedly saying "Problem in search of a solution", and the mind-numbing ability to discuss every detail of any topic to the point where nobody cares any more and the status quo is maintained. But no more!
I am talking about parenthesis being used to disambiguate articles they have no business being near! I am talking about series pages, my video game compadreats!
Take, for example, Super Mario (series). This title makes no logical sense. This series is never referred to as "Super Mario". It is referred to as the "Super Mario series" or the "Mario" series, never simply "Super Mario". Even if it were, if there is a need to disambiguate, it should be put at the closest natural title, which is still "Super Mario series". The Super Mario series cannot be properly referred to without using the word "series", it makes no sense otherwise. No person says "I am looking forward to the newest game in Super Mario". By over-using parenthetical disambiguation we are saying exactly that. Even Nintendo clearly refers to the series as the "Super Mario Series". This is because they prefer that people actually understand what they are reading.
Takashi Tezuka has been involved in the development of the Super Mario Series, the Yoshi Series, the Animal Crossing Series and many other games.
There is one context that "Super Mario" makes sense, and that is if it is used as an adjective instead of a noun. "I am looking forward to playing the latest Super Mario game" makes sense as a sentence. Unfortunately, we write articles about nouns, and using the noun as an adjective in the article title is needlessly confusing. The title is a reference to the topic, and should always be the noun form. In series titles, the word series is the noun. This article is about a series, and that series is the Super Mario (adjective) series (noun). It would not make sense to move chocolate milk to chocolate (milk), or parking lot to parking (lot), or maybe car (park). This is putting focus on the adjective, and adjectives do not make good article titles.
Another example is Deus Ex. There is a game called Deus Ex, and there is a series referred to as Deus Ex. Some people proposed that we make a Deus Ex (video game) page, and that we move the series to the primary topic. The logic there is reversed, because the game is referred to as "Deus Ex", and the series is the "Deus Ex series". In contrast, would you ever expect to read an article in a magazine that repeatedly referred to "Deus Ex video game"? "Deus Ex video game is considered one of the best games of its time. I still play Deus Ex video game with my friends." Contrast this to "The Deus Ex series is considered one of the best of its kind. I've played every game in the Deus Ex series." Which reads more naturally?
So where does this behavior make sense? In games with specifically-named and unambiguous series titles, like The Elder Scrolls. The words "The Elder Scrolls" are a noun, referring to a specific series. There is no game with this name, just the series, so no confusion. If you read "The Elder Scrolls", you know that the series is being referred to. Still, it would not seem unnatural to refer to "The Elder Scrolls series". It is never unnatural to refer to a series as "the Series Name series".
So, in closing, what I am saying is that we need to stop falling back on parenthesis. Series titles that need disambiguation should contain the word "series" naturally, unless they are known by an unambiguous name. We need to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games), as those specific lines were added without discussion, and, as detailed above, make no sense. Thank you, and please remember me in the voting booth. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation is never about putting the article at the best name anyway, it is about putting the article at the second-best name because the best one is taken. And I strongly argue that "Super Mario series" is the common name when referring to the series as a whole, which our article is doing. How can this be otherwise? "Super Mario" is a common adjective throughout the series, but cutting out a descriptor and labeling it "the name of the series" is backwards. "Super Mario" is an adjective, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario World, Super Mario Land. The phrase "Super Mario" is only a noun when referring to the character, otherwise it is a descriptor, an adjective. You would not refer to chocolate milk as "chocolate milk drink", but you would also not refer to it as "chocolate", because that is the adjective. You might refer to it as "milk", because milk is the noun, and then clarify that it was (chocolate). "Chocolate milk" is milk that is chocolate, "Super Mario" is Mario that is Super, "Super Mario series" is a series about Super Mario. It's natural language.
BTW, several wikiprojects have naming conventions outside of the norm. WikiProject Plants puts every article at the Latin name, which I don't agree with, but whatever. The point is we should decide what is best for our articles. What I'm arguing for is logic and natural phrasing of the English language. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, could one of you please review and promote the " Evil Genius (video game) article if necessary? I saw it was still start class but I feel that it has improved considerably. Cheers. 120.144.72.190 ( talk) 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the standard for an article to have a long list of the programmers' pseudonyms?
And then for any former programmers to be crossed out?
Varlaam (
talk) 16:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Because the magazine as ending, and it's taking the site with it. It appears that the website is going to be shut down on December 5, and since it's considered a reliable source here, I would reckon that several articles use it to cite things. It would probably be a very very good idea to check at least the quality articles (GA+) and archive anything that cites it to ensure that nothing of value is being lost. [3] Emmy Altava 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on expanding and cleaning up this article in conjunction with Sorcerous Stabber Orphen. Right now, I'm on a computer which blocks access to certain sites, so adding citations is difficult. Later on I'll be able to edit from a computer with no restrictions, but if someone else would like to help expand and cleanup this article I'd appreciate it. - waywardhorizons ( talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just reverted an addition of a bunch of cites to the game Assassin's Creed: Revelations in the plot section. I think we don't need these, however, another user thinks so, I would like a few eyes on Assassin's Creed: Revelations please. Heck, for all I know I am wrong..... Dbrodbeck ( talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ideally there should be citations to secondary sources or dialogue quotes from the primary source, particularly for FAs or if there's some dispute. Of course, this may not be possible, in which case do away with the cite tags unless the claims are specifically challenged. bridies ( talk) 14:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Drilnoth was going through the article thoroughly to make certain as many issues as possible could be resolved. Unfortunatly, RL struck and he is unable to finish. I would appreciate it if someone, preferably someone who has gone through the FA process and does not know much about the game or series, can finish it.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
During the rename of the navigation categories recently done, the above category was created. I suspect it was by accident, as the entirety of the navboxes in the category are about companies. Basically, someone had a brainfart. Where does a person go to get the pages in the cat fixed to Category:Video game navigational boxes by company? -- Izno ( talk) 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion here about a merge from a year and a half ago which probably wants more eyes. If you've got the time, welcome. Axem Titanium ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I recently noticed that {{
Reflist}}
can display all references via a refs parameter rather than place the in-line in the article. It looks like organizing them in one location would make some aspects of editing easier. I'm considering trying this out in the next article I plan to work on, and I was curious if anyone else has tried this? If it's a better practice, should we recommend (not require of course) that all VG editors use it in our guidelines? Any thoughts? (
Guyinblack25
talk 15:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC))
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to look at our older FAs? Some of them haven't been checked by a formal review since 2006. In some cases, single editors may try to keep old FAs in step with current protocol (as I have attempted with System Shock and Ultima Underworld), but the result still doesn't match that of a peer review. I know from experience that it's as difficult to fix one of your old FAs without outside input as it is to write a new one, and the end product is inarguably sloppier.
FAR'ing a bunch of old FAs would be a mess, though. Perhaps we could use the peer review system to clean up the articles, and then send the serious cases to FAR? Or, we might create some type of FA-reviewing task force to identify and outline problems, which would again use FAR as a last resort?
Anyone have an opinion on this matter? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 22:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have looked over the article, and have written out my assessment below.
1a. The article is a bit rough prose-wise, but it isn't a disaster. Here are a few examples of problematic passages:
The "Awards" section is a bulleted list, which, if I'm up to date, is no longer an acceptable practice.
1b. I noticed severe issues with comprehensiveness while reading the article. For example, the Development section contains only four medium-sized paragraphs—one of which is entirely dedicated to a single boss fight. The others mainly detail the creation of the setting and camera. Glancing over some of the reference material I provided (quite some time ago) on the talk page, I see that the article does not mention the team's military advisor "Mr. Mori", who helped them build the camo and CQC systems. Kojima details in at least two interviews how they were taken on expeditions into the wilderness to research the game. The section also does not mention Kojima's attempt to retire after MGS2, only to return as MGS3's designer. There were other missing pieces of information as well—and that's just from the sources I linked on the talk page.
The lack of comprehensiveness is also apparent in the Reception section. A handful of reviews are cited in a very brief summary of the camo system and plot presentation, with little to no discussion of other elements of the game.
1c. The Development section is based on 7 sources. As I demonstrated, other material (one of which is only an excerpt from a longer magazine interview) is unaccounted for. I can also point to a Kojima interview in gamesTM here, and a boatload of possible interview sources listed on this page. Similar things can be said about the Reception section.
As for source reliability, a few stuck out to me as being questionable. These include "GameingWorldX", "Boomtown", "IMDB", "GamePlanet New Zealand" and "GamingUnion".
1d. The opening of the Reception section contains passages that could be construed as veiled jabs at the game's predecessor. For example: "Some fans, as well as some critics, who found the lengthy dialogues and multitude of plot twists in Sons of Liberty to be detrimental to the game experience", which is backed up by a single source. Also, a mention is made of an apparently non-notable "Save MGO" fan petition.
2. Violates WP:LEADCITE, and contains a large number of MOS violations regarding citations. For example, website names are linked.
2c. Numerous bare links can be found in the References section, and quotes appear without the Cite video game template, despite otherwise consistent use of Cite templates.
4. The Plot contains a very large amount of detail. Much of it is succinct, but there are definite problems with excess. For example, one of the final paragraphs is a minute-by-minute breakdown of the game's final scene:
The "Release history" section is arguably overdetailed as well. A few examples below.
According to this review, what action should be taken? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 07:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illyriad there is some discussion whether articles on joystiq, specifically articles by Beau Hindman about Illyriad are considered reliable sources for the purpose of determining notability. Some expert input would be appreciated. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources has been consulted, but concerns have been raised whether the assessment there is correct. Yoenit ( talk) 12:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
A cleanup listing is now available. Smallman12q ( talk) 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
TurtleMelody ( talk · contribs) has been repeatedly tagging some video game character articles without edit summaries or anything. As a result of I reverted these edits, but I don't know if this would be considered vandalism or tests. I hope it's not the same anon that has been repeatedly blocked for using multiple accounts. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I am after some assistance at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reference library#Official Xbox Magazine Takashi Iizuka interview. Any help from someone with access to the print source would be greatly appreciated. Яehevkor ✉ 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we consider this source reliable? The site has passed FA for Halo 2, Giants: Citizen Kabuto and ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, so I think we should include it in the list. Thank you. Electroguv ( talk) 16:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up, tomorrow Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo will be on the Main Page. Weekend appearances are hard to keep up with for me so if some people could help a bit with the vandals I'd appreciate it! Thanks. -- Torsodog Talk 15:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added a few mappings to {{ key press}} to make marking up controller input friendlier. You can now specify left, right and c sticks in any codes that may be discussed in articles. It now also supports PlayStation key mappings, for example {{key press|triangle}} produces △.
I've made the upgrades out of necessity while cleaning up the List of Konami code games article. I could still use help with copyediting after I get all the markup finished. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a heads-up that Template:VG History and Template:History of video games cite different dates for the lifespan of the seventh and eight generations of consoles. Hope that helps. It Is Me Here t / c 12:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
{{ NES Zapper}} has been nominated for deletion as being unused. 76.65.128.198 ( talk) 07:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I know this is a conversation that has been had in many forms, many times, since WP started. We've come to a lot of really great decisions that were later ignored and reverted by other decisions. Currently we have (at least) the following articles related to video games that are distinguished solely by hardware or platform -
Most of the issue is semantics. An audio game is what we would refer to as a "video game", except it does not use video. I understand the logic there and it makes sense to have a separate article for that. Arcade games are different from home console games, often developed for quick turn-around, dedicated cabinet hardware, that makes sense (historically "arcade game" has been used to describe action games or platform games, which is confusing the issue. Arcade is more a classification of game, like shovelware, than an actual genre).
Someone has proposed that PC game be moved back to computer game. I think we would be better served by (yet again), disposing of the articles for "computer game", "console game" and "handheld game" and focusing our efforts on the existent video game article, as well as personal computer, gaming computer, video game console and handheld game console. I am not arguing that computer games are the same as console games are the same as whatever. I am arguing that defining games by the medium in which they are produced tells us more about the medium itself than the game.
Let me make a really basic comparison. Drinking apple juice from a glass is very different than drinking it from a sippy cup, or from a puddle on the street, or from a frozen apple-juice-cube. No-one will tell you that these experiences are the same. But how does that tell us any more about apple juice? Instead it tells us about glasses, sippy cups, puddles and ice cubes.
Look at the article for console game. Reading this article, what are you learning that you wouldn't learn by reading the articles for video game and video game consoles? In fairness, I moved the section "Ratings and censorship" to Video game#Ratings and censorship, because it was about all video games. The sections, "Controllers" & "Screen" are completely redundant. Console games use varying hardware, which is already explained at the console article. Video games use screens and controllers too, that is how you see and control them. "Criticism" just sends you to Video game controversy, as it should. There is no content to this article that is not better covered by other articles.
Look at the article for PC game. Look at it carefully. There is no information on what makes a PC game different from a console or video game. The article describes some history of games developed for computers, some generic video game stuff (distribution, genres, etc.), and information on PC hardware. This article is not about PC games, it is about PC gaming, and if anything, that should be the title of the article.
Look at the article for handheld video game. Other than an OR list of "popular" genres, there is info on "Features unique to handheld gaming" such as "Linking to other handhelds", and "Linking to home consoles", which isn't unique, and even if it is, it is more hardware info than software.
Instead of trying to shoe-horn games into categories (real or imagined) or arbitrary genres, we should be working on articles that expand on the concepts behind those categories & genres. Instead of and article on multiplayer games, we should have an article on multiplayer or multiplayer component. Instead of all of the articles in the bullet list above separating video games by hardware, we should have an awesome and comprehensive article on video game hardware.
I'm not really looking for a support/oppose thing to happen here, I am more just trying to get the current feel of the project. Many of the editors I've seen discuss these topics in years past no longer show up around these parts. So... thoughts? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to extend a word of caution to those that would like to participate (even just reading) in this discussion. I've had this discussion before, and it can get very heated and lead nowhere. That being said, I recommend that actual research be conducted and proper sourcing be included along with statements that are posted in this discussion. Without a proper sourcing, I don't think we can reasonably make large scale changes in article space without the sourcing to back it up. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, I see us having to deal with a mess on par with the "generations" issues that keeps popping up. ( Guyinblack25 talk 02:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC))
Some research:
...the object of this book is games played using computer power, where the computer upholds the rules of the game and where the game is played using a video display. I will be using video games as an umbrella term to describe all such PC, console, arcade, and other digital games.
The next area of gaming we shall glance at is the current fad in gaming and the subject of this book, the computer game. These games are played on five types of computers: expensive dedicated machines for the arcades ("coin op" machines), inexpensive dedicated machines ("hand helds"), multi program home games, machines such as the ATARI 2600 and the ATARI 5200, personal computers, and large mainframe computers. The computer acts as opponent and referee in most of these games; in many of them it alsoprovides animated graphics.
— Chris Crawford, 1997, Washington State University - The Art of Computer Game Design
Crawford (1982, 19) defines a computer game as a "simplified representation of emotional reality" with a sufficient accuracy to support the player’s fantasy, a key agent required to make the game psychologically real. Computer games contain formal rules where different components interact in complex ways. Rollings and Adams (2003, p. 201) suggest that gameplay consists of "one or more causally linked series of challenges in a simulated environment". Thus in its simplest form playing games is solving challenges in an emotive environment.
Computer games are defined as a set of activities involving one or more players. It has goals, constraints and consequences (Dempsey, Lucassen, Haynes, & Casey, 1997). Elaborating further on that, Crawford (1984) said that a game is rule-guided and artificial in some aspects, and also involves some aspects of a contest or a trial of skill or ability, even if that contest is with oneself. According to him, there are four common factors that present in all games. These factors are representation, interaction, conflict and safety. So when the computer is used to present a game and to act as an opponent or as a referee, we have a computer game.
— Hasiah Mohamed @ Omar Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) of Computer Games among IHL Students in Malaysia: Case Study of Computer Science Students in UiTM Terengganu
In this study, a video game is defined as a computer program that simulates a realm - abstract, realistic, or otherwise - whereby a person, called a player, interacts with the icons presented by the program. This definition is intentionally broad, as video games come in a wide variety of forms. It is not unusual for people to associate video games with massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), which have over 16 million subscribers (Woodcock, 2008), or arcade games, which were the precursors to the modern games, but have largely disappeared (Kent, 2001). However, virtual environments can include solo-player games where the player controls one or more entities, solo-competition games where a player competes against simulated opponents (e.g., as in card games like Hearts or Poker), and puzzle games (e.g., Minesweeper or Tetris) with highly abstracted representations. The interface between a player and a virtual environment differs with each game, although all can be reduced to three basic components: a display, a processor of some sort, and a control mechanism through which the player interfaces with the virtual world. On a computer, this would correspond to the monitor, the CPU and software, and the keyboard and mouse. For consoles like the Wii, Xbox, or Playstation, this would be represented by the TV, the game console itself, and the controller. Other variations exist, including handheld devices that consist of a small LCD screen, a microprocessor, and controls built into the display unit.
There are also tons anecdotal statements in research papers that might give you an idea of the conflation (such this paper where the author repeatedly refer to the "popular computer game 'Tetris'").
From the abstract of this paper (have to pay to see the whole thing, all emphasis mine), "They played four computer games for 15 minutes each. One of the games was sedentary (XBOX 360) and the other three were active (Wii Sports)."
The study "Motor control and sequencing of boys with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during computer game play" featured boys being "assessed while playing Crash Bandicoot I, a SonyTM Playstation platform computer video game".
Google searches of some non-game websites
|
---|
Obviously this is anecdotal, and many will be based on random pairings. This just gives you an idea. "Arcade" seems to always refer to actual arcades, "video game" refers to any platform (including computers), and "console game" is almost exclusively used to when there is a need to disambiguate from other platforms.
BBC had a ton of hits for computer games:
Most of their discussion threads use "dna" in their URLs, so I cut them out (which greatly dropped the ratio):
The funny thing about the BBC, as I've heard from British people, is that British people tend to use "computer game" to refer to any video game, console or not. My favorite was their hosted redirect to an article on the classic "computer game Donkey Kong":
|
I understand that a computer game is video game played on a computer, just as a "tall man" is a man that is tall, but we don't write articles about "tall man", we write them about height and man. Almost all definitions I have seen overlap, and there are certainly not enough sources to explain why the game itself is fundamentally different in ways other than the hardware used to play them, or modifications made to accommodate said hardware. Computer platforms have varied just as much as any console generation, and certainly a modern Mac game is closer to a PS3 game than one for an Amstrad CPC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have the intention to do the Hulk Hogan's Main Event's videogame article? -- Ponce ( talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have gotten involved in a content dispute on the Grand Theft Auto V article concerning developer nationality. See the current discussion here. Several editors and myself are in favor of removing the mention that Rockstar North is a British developer from any individual game article. This seems to be in line with most other video game articles, but not all. My argument for making this change is thoroughly addressed in the wikilink I provided above. My hopes are to reach a WikiProject consensus on this matter and apply it to all articles in this Project. If this has been brought up before and reached a consensus, please provide a link to the archived discussion so I can cite it. Thank you. BBQ ( talk) 21:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me as the type of thing where, if a reader cares about such a thing, they can just click on the link to Rockstar North to find it out. So, it strikes me as unnecessary to have in the actual GTA V article...but I don't really see that much of a problem with it either... Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
A reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maniac Mansion/archive1 opposed the article based on the quality of its writing. I copy edited the article this week, but would like a second editor to take a look for good measure. Any takers? ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC))
I wouldn't have thought that the names (well, handles) of "famous" players of video games would be encyclopedic, but then I confess to a total ignorance of video games. See Artix Entertainment. (The claimed fame of the players isn't sourced, but then the rest of the article isn't sourced either.) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead. ∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 00:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
First, Jak and Daxter Collection. It is an HD port of the main trilogy of the series. While, I have seen some sources on it, there would not be enough to satisfy keeping it due to its status as a port. TheDarkPyrano100 ( talk · contribs) created it and when I redirected it after giving a message on his talkpage, he blindly reverts without discussion. After one more revert, an IP, I assume him, puts on my talkpage to stop editing the article. Again, he has given me no reason to keep it.
Second, Legend of Zelda Timeline. Created by WeBenJamin ( talk · contribs), it simply rehashes the plot of every game, and gives a history of the entire fictional universe. Then, at the very end of the article is the timeline. I left a message on his talkpage, but I have not tried to redirect it yet. I have some faith that it could be a decent article. It could show the history of how people thought it was certain ways, how some games changed the views of people's timelines, and the reaction of the release of the "official" one. All of this could possibly be sourced. Would this have a chance or not? Blake ( Talk· Edits) 15:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I've put in a move request to move Eidos Interactive to Eidos, and the discussion is here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy holidays, all. It's right between Christmas and New Years' now, and we've got about three days left in the year before we proceed into 2012! Woo!
And why shouldn't we celebrate, given that there are seven more games scheduled for 2011? Wait... uh, hold on, that's not right. But how odd, given that this category seems to think that's the case! It may be a good idea to tidy things up around here and ensure that these games are in fact being released in 2011. I've managed to find sources proving about 5 or 6 others games from this category have been delayed or cancelled, but I'm a bit tired of searching for these and it'd be nice if the rest of you could pick this up for me. Thanks, Emmy Altava 05:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to reopen discussion about adding Giant Bomb as a default reviewer on the reviews template. I know it's been shot down before, but the site has definitely evolved and grown since it has been discussed previously, and while there is a significant amount of user content on the site (a concern that has been raised previously), the staff reviews are clearly split out from the user reviews. There are plenty of other sites that feature user reviews just as prominently that are already included. -- fuzzy510 ( talk) 21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Are we not going to have a Feature or a Featured Editor? We normally send out the newsletter on the first Wednesday of the new quarter (which is this Wednesday), and we have nothing for either of them. -- MuZemike 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The characters from the game Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 have English voice actors, but apparently none of them have been credited. Even when checking the English version of the artbook, there were credits to all the staff, except the English dub. Does somebody know of a reliable source that may contain such information? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
What is the information needed for? Isn't listing VA info in articles a WP:GAMECRUFT problem typically? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't the cast be listed in the credits of the game itself?— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A well meaning user has vastly extended Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars but incorporated some pretty bad copyright violations (among other things). I have reverted the most problematic text and explained on the talk page, hopefully the user will take note and address the issues but some extra eyes would be appreciated. Яehevkor ✉ 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created the article List of games using Steam authentication in order to list the games that require Steam authentication in a convenient easy-to-sort manner, since I felt List of Steam games was lacking when it came to this as well as mentioning particular Steamworks features. Any help with editing and expanding/improving this new article would be highly appreciated. Thanks. -- CoolingGibbon ( talk) 03:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Project!
I'm seeking an opinion/consensus on the correct form of plot sections in video game articles. In particular, I believe general citations are not required for the plot sections, as it can generally only be sourced to the game itself. I also do not believe use of quotations from the game are suitable as citations, except to highlight particularly important plot points, in which the quote should be part of the section, not a citation. I believe also that the plot should be prose that is not unnecessarily divided into subsections based on "acts" or "chapters" that the game may use to divide individual levels or maps.
I received consensus in one article that these mostly hold true but I want to see where the project stands, rather than just that particular article's editors. There may already be a project page detailing this but I haven't found it yet if so.
Thanks -- ferret ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut gives good advice on what's relevant to the plot. Most advice from the MoS guidelines on fiction is applicable to videogames; the only caveas specific to VG is in open worlds where the plot itself may greatly differ from one game walkthrough to another. In that case, I think the plot should contain only the main events that appear in the way to all (or most) of the possible endings. For closed narratives, the plot can be described basically in the same way than in a book or movie. Diego ( talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Ryulong is adding the social links information Characters of Persona 4 without verfied information or reasons for why is it important to the general reader. I discussed it with him at User talk:Tintor2#Persona 4 arcana but still no wp:reliable sources were used or reasons for the their use. Moreover, the user readded them with a bold edit all in capitals and the civilty is not going pretty good considering the comment. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but this lengthy discussion should clearly be moved and continued on the article's talk page. Or, since it seems to involve mostly two editors, on either one's talk page. Salvidrim! 02:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The game makes that statement, and that is the only reliable source we need for that specific kind of information. Why is it such an issue for the proposed six words per section to be placed in the character list? It is such a minor aspect to the page, and including it does not violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. It just gives a minor bit of context to prose we already have.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
While working on British Open Championship Golf, I've run across a problem: the game's manual is a WinHelp file. I've never had to cite one of these before, and I've never seen anyone else in a similar situation. Does anyone have advice on how to proceed? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
and the other cite (web, book, etc.) templates in references. It's either all citation or all cite XXXX. I'm not sure what the rationale is (maybe a formatting issue), but I remember getting dinged at FAC for that before. (
Guyinblack25
talk 13:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
Making a new section because the previous one seems to have died and I'd like to make certain there is consensus before changing this.
So if we change Concepts and genres to "Vocabulary" (or "Vocabulary and grenes" and we move hardware over there to be covered by vocab, what should be top for hardware? Not every major console is worthy of being "top". If you look back at history, FE: from the arly generations the only ones that stand out are Magnavox Odyssey, Atari 2600, IBM Personal Computer Comadore 64 before the 1983 crash. The Sega Genesis/Mega Drive had a huge impact, but compared to the other systems none of its others did. With the exception of the Wii, its also probably a bit too soon to say if any of the newer consoles would be as important legacy-wise as others (Wii is because it changed the demographics of who bought console gaming systems and the way games are played). It also becomes harder to pin down specific PCs and even components. Certainly 3D PC graphics cards are important pieces of gaming hardware and ones developed to helped establish this maybe be important, but are they as important as a system like the Comodore 64? With the exception of S3 86C911,, I can't think of any that would rise to that level and that one doesn't even have its own article so it begs me to wonder if we shouldn't redefine "hardware".∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Strategy games has been depreciated. Would an admin be as so kind to grab their broom and perform the necessary house cleaning on the template and the associated categories. Thanks Salavat ( talk) 05:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There's another GAN backlog happening in the project that hopefully will be addressed. We have
Europa Barbarorum,
Mega Man & Bass,
Resident Evil 4,
The Operative: No One Lives Forever,
Chulip,
Potato Sack,
Joe Danger,
Resident Evil: Afterlife,
Caesars Palace 2000,
Revolution Software, and
Mega Man: Dr. Wily's Revenge up for GA tag, with Europa Barbarorum being reviewed right now. However, there's still 10 articles that need reviewing so if you have the time please review some of these articles.
GamerPro64 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Passed Mega Man: Dr. Wily's Revenge and quick-failed Revolution Software. The latter was a drive-by GA nomination in which a 2nd GAN was failed about a week ago; none of the concerns have been addressed. – MuZemike 21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, can someone else review Potato Sack? I was going to, but work's been pretty busy this week, and I'm doing a haunted house this weekend, so I haven't the time. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Head over Heels is currently the Collaboration of the month article. However, I have some doubts about being a High-important article. I think it should be downgraded to Low importance. Any thoughts? GamerPro64 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've put some work into it, and I think Oblivion is almost ready to be a Featured Article Candidate... again; the only problem I see is that the plot needs to be more concise, but I don't know how I can do that; thoughts?- SCB '92 ( talk) 20:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for condensing the plot and gameplay sections; the only problem I have left is the difficulty of finding that 1 dead link in the article; I have no idea where it is in the article, it's hidden so well; it cannot be in the external links because they all work fine- SCB '92 ( talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The "Reception" section seems a little sparse compared to the rest of the article and the review table in there. Not saying that it should be huge, but I would think an extra paragraph is warranted given the coverage of the game. My two cents. ( Guyinblack25 talk 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC))
There is a new move discussion to Sega Genesis that may interest people here.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
As someone who prefers Mega Drive, I wouldn't mind it being Genesis so much if Mega Drive remained the term in the first sentence. Has that been mentioned? Beyond that I don't want to dip my toe into that discussion... bridies ( talk) 12:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! Does anyone own Retro Gamer Issue 62 digitally? It contains some information on Full Throttle's development and I would like to have a copy of the issue. Thank you. Electroguv ( talk) 08:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow's Today's Featured Article is gonna be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, three days before Modern Warfare 3 hits stores. Then on Monday, List of Nintendo 64 games will be the Today's Featured List. Congrats for the editors responsible for making the articles as they are now. GamerPro64 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if any of my fellow editors that reside in the UK would happen to have a copy of Retro Gamer issue 77. It's got a "Making Of" article for A Boy and His Blob: Trouble on Blobolonia that I need. Thanks. ~ Hibana ( talk) 16:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I've assessed as Mid, but I've been heavily involved in maintaining the book and cleaning up articles through it, so I'd like an outsider's view on that. Salvidrim ( talk) 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Does someone know sources (print or online) which cover the game? I would be very grateful to a man who knows. Thank you. Electroguv ( talk) 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
User | Fixes |
---|---|
January2007 | 207 |
H3llkn0wz | 39 |
Peppage | 18 |
MartinZwirlein | 16 |
J04n | 15 |
R'n'B | 14 |
Dispenser | 12 |
69.248.62.131 | 11 |
Little quick update since September, the results were quite different. Regretfully even though there are 4859 dablinks across 3756 articles left in the project, only 250 of them will be followed in this month's Dab Challenge, thus I will no longer promoting this topics in the grid. — Dispenser 07:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI- An IP posted a list of sources related to video game characters at Portal talk:Fictional characters. They might be useful for those working on character articles or the respective game articles. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
Rhythm game has been up since the 21st and has not yet received any supports, opposes or in-depth reviews. If anyone has time to take a look at it, it would be much appreciated. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else got an opinion on this? As Gary King noted on the FAC page, the implications of this are potentially far-reaching i.e. the other genre articles; and at the same time I don't want to dither in responding to the FAC concerns specifically. I'm curious whether anyone thinks the precedent of 4X -the only genre FA, and the template on which we (actually that might just be me...) based rhythm game and several other genre articles- is dated or inadequate in terms of a standard format. Or whether we should be tailoring a format to each differing genre. It might be cool if anyone with an opinion on the genre articles could chip in... bridies ( talk) 11:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Some format ideas came to mind when I did a recent update to one of the pages. The thought is that the pages are getting larger because our number of quality articles keeps increasing (yea!). I Here are changes I'd like to implement to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content.
Thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC))
Updated. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC))
There is a proposal at WikiProject Anime and manga to adopt this TF as a joint wikiproject.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Can someone look at this and reason with this person please. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Warcraft_II&curid=29096334&action=history And the longer title is the official name. Dream Focus 04:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason this doesn't have an article, seems extremely independently notable to me. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
For those who don't have it on their watch list, I've updated the importance rating based on the previous discussions. I couldn't see a clear consensus on individuals or companies so I left them alone for the moment.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 22:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The Edge website has just undergone a redesign. Its actually a new back-end system as well as a redesign. The articles and reviews appear to have made it across OK by the looks of things, but the URLs of them have changed.
The easy part: All of the reviews appear to have moved from http://www.next-gen.biz/features/stacking-review
to their new location of http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/stacking-review
The hard part: The features (such as A short history of Lucas Arts and The 100 best games to play today) have moved across OK, and are still in the same directory hierarchy, but, their URLs appear to have changed ever so slightly, and in a non-uniform way.
(Old URL on top, new URL underneath)
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/a-short-history-lucasarts
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/short-history-lucasarts
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/
the-100-best-games-to-play-today
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/100-best-games-play-today
The "Just to make it more awkward" part: The search function on the site appears to only work for users who are signed in. Not sure if this is by design, or just a bug to do with the move. Accessing content still works OK for non-logged in users, but searching for anything will result in failure.
According to LinkSearch we have 534 links to check. The reviews should be easy with a bit of nifty RegEx, the features look like they may need the manual approach though. - X201 ( talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, so that's the links that start next-gen checked and fixed. There are 21 that need further work to hunt down a working link. Love the irony that the Edge article is the one most affected by the the URL changes. Now onward to help young Ost316 with the articles that start with edge-online - X201 ( talk) 12:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Just when I thought I was nearing the end... have just discovered that there are also
http://www.edge-online.com references that are broken as well. Any of these URLs that has a ?page= command at the end of the URL is breaking, remove that and it tends to redirect to the correct article. Not sure of best way to proceed with this: Bot to remove the ?page= code, or the safe and sure manual way. Masem, could you knock up a separate URL page like you did for the Next-Gen URLs please? So we can see how many we're dealing with. -
X201 (
talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to a sterling effort by the boy Ost316, The Edge link fiasco is almost over. We just need a couple of Reference Ninjas to help crack the 20 or so references that have gone AWOL. The bulk of them are here. Hopefully, with a little help, we can get this done and dusted quickly and we can vacate the pages created by Masem. It's taken so long, I think he's a bit concerned that we may be trying to claim Squatters rights on his user space ;-) - X201 ( talk) 12:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know the size of the cartridge for ToeJam & Earl? 4-megabit? 8? 16? Thanks. bridies ( talk) 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic here, be sure you keep your terminology straight. When you say "8-bit", "16-bit", etc., you're referring to a technical specification of the console hardware (address width of CPU or RAM, instruction size, etc.). But when you say "8 Megabit", "16K", etc., you're talking about ROM or memory size or capacity, which is a totally different and almost completely independent measure. Just wanted to point that out. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 07:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to remove the size of the cartridge: the only other FA on a cartridge-based game that I can see Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System), just says "cartridge" in the infobox. bridies ( talk) 09:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
"The Wind Waker" is now Today's Featured Article, making it the third featured content to be on the main page this month. Hooray for progress. GamerPro64 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Lists of Mario video games
by year,
by console,
by genre
into
List of Mario video games. Done on 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have other editors' opinions before copying to namespace and redirecting the other three lists. It retains the ability to sort by year/console/genre, has all the games the other three lists had (details are not "necessary" IMO, all games/genres/platforms are wikilinked appropriately). I also took advantage of the fact I manually built that table to double-check witht he individual articles if all the years were accurate (some were not on the original three lists).
The merge tags have been in place for two years, and I don't see how the lists could be merged and still retain their individual usefulness without using a sortable table as I did, unpretty as it may be.
So please, feedback, feedback, feedback, and once all the kinks are worked out I'll put the merge into effect, unless of course there is consensus against, but... *shrugs* - as I've said, I can't think of any other way to do it, and it eventually has to be done.
--Salvidrim!
T·
C 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion over a proposal to move the article Halo 3 Marketing to Marketing of Halo 3 is taken place here . Lucia Black ( talk) 05:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I've done some digging, but I haven't found meaty sources for Dnd (video game). This includes the first several pages of Google web and book search. At best, you get an off-hand mention of the game and its creators. Is this enough to establish notability? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 06:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Per disucssions at WT:VG/RS and WP:RS/N, the release dates for these sites are not reliable. We should probably go through out FA/FL/GA items and change them to another source.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been going through some new examples for each class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Quality scale, since most of the examples have not been updated in over 3 years. Here's what I have so far for possible new examples:
|
Any thoughts? – MuZemike 06:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably not the most contributive [sic] comment, but seeing what now qualifies as B and C class really deters me. Are there any good examples of digital download titles that would pass for B class? That's where I set my sights, but both examples have a crazy amount of citations and content, which may not paint a clear enough picture. -- Teancum ( talk) 22:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone!
I had to find a quick info for a contest, I knew the answer, I knew where to look on wikipedia, but the problem is that usually you think that you know where you find the info and it happens sometimes not to be there. This was the case. I needed the information about the voice actor of the main character of a video game. Lara Croft (answer: Keeley Hawes) in Tomb Raider: Legend.
It would be nice and useful that the Infobox video game would contain Voice actor and Portrayal sections for the main character. Actually it should contain a Main Character section with the subsections mentioned before. I know it is obvious for everyone who is the main character and so on... But I have two things to sustain my idea. First, a person that jumps on the article for the first time, they have to do some research by clicking on the main character's page to see who is the voice actor, but actually this info should be inside the first article. Second, there are very rare cases, maybe none, when the main character of the series is changing, and this doesn't mean there should not be a place for the main character in the infobox, even crazily repeating the same information, the idea is that there is vital information missing in the infobox.
-- TudorTulok ( talk) 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Could I get some extra eyes on a discussion going on at Talk:Atari 5200? Here's a synopsis:
My personal opinion and observations are:
That's my opinion. I'd like to see if we can reach consensus and/or at least get some closure on the sources. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
With the discussion heated and splintered in two locations (here and Talk:Atari 5200) I recommend that we slow things down and keep the discussion to one page. Here's my take on the situation. The dispute is over wording at Atari 5200#Market Performance. As far as I can tell, this is rooted in the references used and how it is being used. What I've gathered is that there are three references that have been mentioned.
The main contention seems to be between the IGN and Atari HQ sources. The IGN article states the ColecoVision was technologically superior to the Atari 5200, while the Atari HQ articles states the reverse. The Ultimate History book appears to be used primarily for information about the ColecoVision. The main difference that I see between the two online sources is that the IGN article provides little reasoning behind it's statement, while the Atari HQ article provides a lot of reasoning. The other difference is that IGN is considered more widely reliable than Atari HQ (which is currently under question at WP:RSN). This is not a statement to discredit one or the other, simply an assessment of them.
All that being said, if there are no other sources in the discussion, then I suggest we put everything else on hold until Atari HQ is examined. The use of the site's content will be a moot point if it is deemed unreliable. The website already was deemed reliable at WP:RSN, but no discussions involving a large number of VG editors has occurred to my knowledge. This is only one I found: a notification of the RS Noticeboard discussion. It's currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Atari HQ. The more input the better.
Once this is settled, then we can move forward with examining the content of the articles to find the best way to settle this. I believe that Keifer has made some good head way towards that, but the dispute is pulling those involved in too many directions. Let's take it a step at a time.
If anyone has any additional information or corrections, please speak up. All I ask is that you be cordial to your fellow editors and use the preview function before you post. This a very solvable dispute, it just might not get resolved as fast as everybody would like. ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC))
Fellow Wikipedianarianites, we have become trapped in an article naming system that favors the 1% of editors who control most of the editing. Fat-cats using the awesome power of repeatedly saying "Problem in search of a solution", and the mind-numbing ability to discuss every detail of any topic to the point where nobody cares any more and the status quo is maintained. But no more!
I am talking about parenthesis being used to disambiguate articles they have no business being near! I am talking about series pages, my video game compadreats!
Take, for example, Super Mario (series). This title makes no logical sense. This series is never referred to as "Super Mario". It is referred to as the "Super Mario series" or the "Mario" series, never simply "Super Mario". Even if it were, if there is a need to disambiguate, it should be put at the closest natural title, which is still "Super Mario series". The Super Mario series cannot be properly referred to without using the word "series", it makes no sense otherwise. No person says "I am looking forward to the newest game in Super Mario". By over-using parenthetical disambiguation we are saying exactly that. Even Nintendo clearly refers to the series as the "Super Mario Series". This is because they prefer that people actually understand what they are reading.
Takashi Tezuka has been involved in the development of the Super Mario Series, the Yoshi Series, the Animal Crossing Series and many other games.
There is one context that "Super Mario" makes sense, and that is if it is used as an adjective instead of a noun. "I am looking forward to playing the latest Super Mario game" makes sense as a sentence. Unfortunately, we write articles about nouns, and using the noun as an adjective in the article title is needlessly confusing. The title is a reference to the topic, and should always be the noun form. In series titles, the word series is the noun. This article is about a series, and that series is the Super Mario (adjective) series (noun). It would not make sense to move chocolate milk to chocolate (milk), or parking lot to parking (lot), or maybe car (park). This is putting focus on the adjective, and adjectives do not make good article titles.
Another example is Deus Ex. There is a game called Deus Ex, and there is a series referred to as Deus Ex. Some people proposed that we make a Deus Ex (video game) page, and that we move the series to the primary topic. The logic there is reversed, because the game is referred to as "Deus Ex", and the series is the "Deus Ex series". In contrast, would you ever expect to read an article in a magazine that repeatedly referred to "Deus Ex video game"? "Deus Ex video game is considered one of the best games of its time. I still play Deus Ex video game with my friends." Contrast this to "The Deus Ex series is considered one of the best of its kind. I've played every game in the Deus Ex series." Which reads more naturally?
So where does this behavior make sense? In games with specifically-named and unambiguous series titles, like The Elder Scrolls. The words "The Elder Scrolls" are a noun, referring to a specific series. There is no game with this name, just the series, so no confusion. If you read "The Elder Scrolls", you know that the series is being referred to. Still, it would not seem unnatural to refer to "The Elder Scrolls series". It is never unnatural to refer to a series as "the Series Name series".
So, in closing, what I am saying is that we need to stop falling back on parenthesis. Series titles that need disambiguation should contain the word "series" naturally, unless they are known by an unambiguous name. We need to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games), as those specific lines were added without discussion, and, as detailed above, make no sense. Thank you, and please remember me in the voting booth. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation is never about putting the article at the best name anyway, it is about putting the article at the second-best name because the best one is taken. And I strongly argue that "Super Mario series" is the common name when referring to the series as a whole, which our article is doing. How can this be otherwise? "Super Mario" is a common adjective throughout the series, but cutting out a descriptor and labeling it "the name of the series" is backwards. "Super Mario" is an adjective, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario World, Super Mario Land. The phrase "Super Mario" is only a noun when referring to the character, otherwise it is a descriptor, an adjective. You would not refer to chocolate milk as "chocolate milk drink", but you would also not refer to it as "chocolate", because that is the adjective. You might refer to it as "milk", because milk is the noun, and then clarify that it was (chocolate). "Chocolate milk" is milk that is chocolate, "Super Mario" is Mario that is Super, "Super Mario series" is a series about Super Mario. It's natural language.
BTW, several wikiprojects have naming conventions outside of the norm. WikiProject Plants puts every article at the Latin name, which I don't agree with, but whatever. The point is we should decide what is best for our articles. What I'm arguing for is logic and natural phrasing of the English language. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, could one of you please review and promote the " Evil Genius (video game) article if necessary? I saw it was still start class but I feel that it has improved considerably. Cheers. 120.144.72.190 ( talk) 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the standard for an article to have a long list of the programmers' pseudonyms?
And then for any former programmers to be crossed out?
Varlaam (
talk) 16:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Because the magazine as ending, and it's taking the site with it. It appears that the website is going to be shut down on December 5, and since it's considered a reliable source here, I would reckon that several articles use it to cite things. It would probably be a very very good idea to check at least the quality articles (GA+) and archive anything that cites it to ensure that nothing of value is being lost. [3] Emmy Altava 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on expanding and cleaning up this article in conjunction with Sorcerous Stabber Orphen. Right now, I'm on a computer which blocks access to certain sites, so adding citations is difficult. Later on I'll be able to edit from a computer with no restrictions, but if someone else would like to help expand and cleanup this article I'd appreciate it. - waywardhorizons ( talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just reverted an addition of a bunch of cites to the game Assassin's Creed: Revelations in the plot section. I think we don't need these, however, another user thinks so, I would like a few eyes on Assassin's Creed: Revelations please. Heck, for all I know I am wrong..... Dbrodbeck ( talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ideally there should be citations to secondary sources or dialogue quotes from the primary source, particularly for FAs or if there's some dispute. Of course, this may not be possible, in which case do away with the cite tags unless the claims are specifically challenged. bridies ( talk) 14:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Drilnoth was going through the article thoroughly to make certain as many issues as possible could be resolved. Unfortunatly, RL struck and he is unable to finish. I would appreciate it if someone, preferably someone who has gone through the FA process and does not know much about the game or series, can finish it.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
During the rename of the navigation categories recently done, the above category was created. I suspect it was by accident, as the entirety of the navboxes in the category are about companies. Basically, someone had a brainfart. Where does a person go to get the pages in the cat fixed to Category:Video game navigational boxes by company? -- Izno ( talk) 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion here about a merge from a year and a half ago which probably wants more eyes. If you've got the time, welcome. Axem Titanium ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I recently noticed that {{
Reflist}}
can display all references via a refs parameter rather than place the in-line in the article. It looks like organizing them in one location would make some aspects of editing easier. I'm considering trying this out in the next article I plan to work on, and I was curious if anyone else has tried this? If it's a better practice, should we recommend (not require of course) that all VG editors use it in our guidelines? Any thoughts? (
Guyinblack25
talk 15:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC))
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to look at our older FAs? Some of them haven't been checked by a formal review since 2006. In some cases, single editors may try to keep old FAs in step with current protocol (as I have attempted with System Shock and Ultima Underworld), but the result still doesn't match that of a peer review. I know from experience that it's as difficult to fix one of your old FAs without outside input as it is to write a new one, and the end product is inarguably sloppier.
FAR'ing a bunch of old FAs would be a mess, though. Perhaps we could use the peer review system to clean up the articles, and then send the serious cases to FAR? Or, we might create some type of FA-reviewing task force to identify and outline problems, which would again use FAR as a last resort?
Anyone have an opinion on this matter? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 22:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have looked over the article, and have written out my assessment below.
1a. The article is a bit rough prose-wise, but it isn't a disaster. Here are a few examples of problematic passages:
The "Awards" section is a bulleted list, which, if I'm up to date, is no longer an acceptable practice.
1b. I noticed severe issues with comprehensiveness while reading the article. For example, the Development section contains only four medium-sized paragraphs—one of which is entirely dedicated to a single boss fight. The others mainly detail the creation of the setting and camera. Glancing over some of the reference material I provided (quite some time ago) on the talk page, I see that the article does not mention the team's military advisor "Mr. Mori", who helped them build the camo and CQC systems. Kojima details in at least two interviews how they were taken on expeditions into the wilderness to research the game. The section also does not mention Kojima's attempt to retire after MGS2, only to return as MGS3's designer. There were other missing pieces of information as well—and that's just from the sources I linked on the talk page.
The lack of comprehensiveness is also apparent in the Reception section. A handful of reviews are cited in a very brief summary of the camo system and plot presentation, with little to no discussion of other elements of the game.
1c. The Development section is based on 7 sources. As I demonstrated, other material (one of which is only an excerpt from a longer magazine interview) is unaccounted for. I can also point to a Kojima interview in gamesTM here, and a boatload of possible interview sources listed on this page. Similar things can be said about the Reception section.
As for source reliability, a few stuck out to me as being questionable. These include "GameingWorldX", "Boomtown", "IMDB", "GamePlanet New Zealand" and "GamingUnion".
1d. The opening of the Reception section contains passages that could be construed as veiled jabs at the game's predecessor. For example: "Some fans, as well as some critics, who found the lengthy dialogues and multitude of plot twists in Sons of Liberty to be detrimental to the game experience", which is backed up by a single source. Also, a mention is made of an apparently non-notable "Save MGO" fan petition.
2. Violates WP:LEADCITE, and contains a large number of MOS violations regarding citations. For example, website names are linked.
2c. Numerous bare links can be found in the References section, and quotes appear without the Cite video game template, despite otherwise consistent use of Cite templates.
4. The Plot contains a very large amount of detail. Much of it is succinct, but there are definite problems with excess. For example, one of the final paragraphs is a minute-by-minute breakdown of the game's final scene:
The "Release history" section is arguably overdetailed as well. A few examples below.
According to this review, what action should be taken? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 07:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illyriad there is some discussion whether articles on joystiq, specifically articles by Beau Hindman about Illyriad are considered reliable sources for the purpose of determining notability. Some expert input would be appreciated. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources has been consulted, but concerns have been raised whether the assessment there is correct. Yoenit ( talk) 12:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
A cleanup listing is now available. Smallman12q ( talk) 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
TurtleMelody ( talk · contribs) has been repeatedly tagging some video game character articles without edit summaries or anything. As a result of I reverted these edits, but I don't know if this would be considered vandalism or tests. I hope it's not the same anon that has been repeatedly blocked for using multiple accounts. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I am after some assistance at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reference library#Official Xbox Magazine Takashi Iizuka interview. Any help from someone with access to the print source would be greatly appreciated. Яehevkor ✉ 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we consider this source reliable? The site has passed FA for Halo 2, Giants: Citizen Kabuto and ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, so I think we should include it in the list. Thank you. Electroguv ( talk) 16:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up, tomorrow Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo will be on the Main Page. Weekend appearances are hard to keep up with for me so if some people could help a bit with the vandals I'd appreciate it! Thanks. -- Torsodog Talk 15:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added a few mappings to {{ key press}} to make marking up controller input friendlier. You can now specify left, right and c sticks in any codes that may be discussed in articles. It now also supports PlayStation key mappings, for example {{key press|triangle}} produces △.
I've made the upgrades out of necessity while cleaning up the List of Konami code games article. I could still use help with copyediting after I get all the markup finished. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a heads-up that Template:VG History and Template:History of video games cite different dates for the lifespan of the seventh and eight generations of consoles. Hope that helps. It Is Me Here t / c 12:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
{{ NES Zapper}} has been nominated for deletion as being unused. 76.65.128.198 ( talk) 07:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I know this is a conversation that has been had in many forms, many times, since WP started. We've come to a lot of really great decisions that were later ignored and reverted by other decisions. Currently we have (at least) the following articles related to video games that are distinguished solely by hardware or platform -
Most of the issue is semantics. An audio game is what we would refer to as a "video game", except it does not use video. I understand the logic there and it makes sense to have a separate article for that. Arcade games are different from home console games, often developed for quick turn-around, dedicated cabinet hardware, that makes sense (historically "arcade game" has been used to describe action games or platform games, which is confusing the issue. Arcade is more a classification of game, like shovelware, than an actual genre).
Someone has proposed that PC game be moved back to computer game. I think we would be better served by (yet again), disposing of the articles for "computer game", "console game" and "handheld game" and focusing our efforts on the existent video game article, as well as personal computer, gaming computer, video game console and handheld game console. I am not arguing that computer games are the same as console games are the same as whatever. I am arguing that defining games by the medium in which they are produced tells us more about the medium itself than the game.
Let me make a really basic comparison. Drinking apple juice from a glass is very different than drinking it from a sippy cup, or from a puddle on the street, or from a frozen apple-juice-cube. No-one will tell you that these experiences are the same. But how does that tell us any more about apple juice? Instead it tells us about glasses, sippy cups, puddles and ice cubes.
Look at the article for console game. Reading this article, what are you learning that you wouldn't learn by reading the articles for video game and video game consoles? In fairness, I moved the section "Ratings and censorship" to Video game#Ratings and censorship, because it was about all video games. The sections, "Controllers" & "Screen" are completely redundant. Console games use varying hardware, which is already explained at the console article. Video games use screens and controllers too, that is how you see and control them. "Criticism" just sends you to Video game controversy, as it should. There is no content to this article that is not better covered by other articles.
Look at the article for PC game. Look at it carefully. There is no information on what makes a PC game different from a console or video game. The article describes some history of games developed for computers, some generic video game stuff (distribution, genres, etc.), and information on PC hardware. This article is not about PC games, it is about PC gaming, and if anything, that should be the title of the article.
Look at the article for handheld video game. Other than an OR list of "popular" genres, there is info on "Features unique to handheld gaming" such as "Linking to other handhelds", and "Linking to home consoles", which isn't unique, and even if it is, it is more hardware info than software.
Instead of trying to shoe-horn games into categories (real or imagined) or arbitrary genres, we should be working on articles that expand on the concepts behind those categories & genres. Instead of and article on multiplayer games, we should have an article on multiplayer or multiplayer component. Instead of all of the articles in the bullet list above separating video games by hardware, we should have an awesome and comprehensive article on video game hardware.
I'm not really looking for a support/oppose thing to happen here, I am more just trying to get the current feel of the project. Many of the editors I've seen discuss these topics in years past no longer show up around these parts. So... thoughts? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to extend a word of caution to those that would like to participate (even just reading) in this discussion. I've had this discussion before, and it can get very heated and lead nowhere. That being said, I recommend that actual research be conducted and proper sourcing be included along with statements that are posted in this discussion. Without a proper sourcing, I don't think we can reasonably make large scale changes in article space without the sourcing to back it up. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, I see us having to deal with a mess on par with the "generations" issues that keeps popping up. ( Guyinblack25 talk 02:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC))
Some research:
...the object of this book is games played using computer power, where the computer upholds the rules of the game and where the game is played using a video display. I will be using video games as an umbrella term to describe all such PC, console, arcade, and other digital games.
The next area of gaming we shall glance at is the current fad in gaming and the subject of this book, the computer game. These games are played on five types of computers: expensive dedicated machines for the arcades ("coin op" machines), inexpensive dedicated machines ("hand helds"), multi program home games, machines such as the ATARI 2600 and the ATARI 5200, personal computers, and large mainframe computers. The computer acts as opponent and referee in most of these games; in many of them it alsoprovides animated graphics.
— Chris Crawford, 1997, Washington State University - The Art of Computer Game Design
Crawford (1982, 19) defines a computer game as a "simplified representation of emotional reality" with a sufficient accuracy to support the player’s fantasy, a key agent required to make the game psychologically real. Computer games contain formal rules where different components interact in complex ways. Rollings and Adams (2003, p. 201) suggest that gameplay consists of "one or more causally linked series of challenges in a simulated environment". Thus in its simplest form playing games is solving challenges in an emotive environment.
Computer games are defined as a set of activities involving one or more players. It has goals, constraints and consequences (Dempsey, Lucassen, Haynes, & Casey, 1997). Elaborating further on that, Crawford (1984) said that a game is rule-guided and artificial in some aspects, and also involves some aspects of a contest or a trial of skill or ability, even if that contest is with oneself. According to him, there are four common factors that present in all games. These factors are representation, interaction, conflict and safety. So when the computer is used to present a game and to act as an opponent or as a referee, we have a computer game.
— Hasiah Mohamed @ Omar Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) of Computer Games among IHL Students in Malaysia: Case Study of Computer Science Students in UiTM Terengganu
In this study, a video game is defined as a computer program that simulates a realm - abstract, realistic, or otherwise - whereby a person, called a player, interacts with the icons presented by the program. This definition is intentionally broad, as video games come in a wide variety of forms. It is not unusual for people to associate video games with massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), which have over 16 million subscribers (Woodcock, 2008), or arcade games, which were the precursors to the modern games, but have largely disappeared (Kent, 2001). However, virtual environments can include solo-player games where the player controls one or more entities, solo-competition games where a player competes against simulated opponents (e.g., as in card games like Hearts or Poker), and puzzle games (e.g., Minesweeper or Tetris) with highly abstracted representations. The interface between a player and a virtual environment differs with each game, although all can be reduced to three basic components: a display, a processor of some sort, and a control mechanism through which the player interfaces with the virtual world. On a computer, this would correspond to the monitor, the CPU and software, and the keyboard and mouse. For consoles like the Wii, Xbox, or Playstation, this would be represented by the TV, the game console itself, and the controller. Other variations exist, including handheld devices that consist of a small LCD screen, a microprocessor, and controls built into the display unit.
There are also tons anecdotal statements in research papers that might give you an idea of the conflation (such this paper where the author repeatedly refer to the "popular computer game 'Tetris'").
From the abstract of this paper (have to pay to see the whole thing, all emphasis mine), "They played four computer games for 15 minutes each. One of the games was sedentary (XBOX 360) and the other three were active (Wii Sports)."
The study "Motor control and sequencing of boys with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during computer game play" featured boys being "assessed while playing Crash Bandicoot I, a SonyTM Playstation platform computer video game".
Google searches of some non-game websites
|
---|
Obviously this is anecdotal, and many will be based on random pairings. This just gives you an idea. "Arcade" seems to always refer to actual arcades, "video game" refers to any platform (including computers), and "console game" is almost exclusively used to when there is a need to disambiguate from other platforms.
BBC had a ton of hits for computer games:
Most of their discussion threads use "dna" in their URLs, so I cut them out (which greatly dropped the ratio):
The funny thing about the BBC, as I've heard from British people, is that British people tend to use "computer game" to refer to any video game, console or not. My favorite was their hosted redirect to an article on the classic "computer game Donkey Kong":
|
I understand that a computer game is video game played on a computer, just as a "tall man" is a man that is tall, but we don't write articles about "tall man", we write them about height and man. Almost all definitions I have seen overlap, and there are certainly not enough sources to explain why the game itself is fundamentally different in ways other than the hardware used to play them, or modifications made to accommodate said hardware. Computer platforms have varied just as much as any console generation, and certainly a modern Mac game is closer to a PS3 game than one for an Amstrad CPC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have the intention to do the Hulk Hogan's Main Event's videogame article? -- Ponce ( talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have gotten involved in a content dispute on the Grand Theft Auto V article concerning developer nationality. See the current discussion here. Several editors and myself are in favor of removing the mention that Rockstar North is a British developer from any individual game article. This seems to be in line with most other video game articles, but not all. My argument for making this change is thoroughly addressed in the wikilink I provided above. My hopes are to reach a WikiProject consensus on this matter and apply it to all articles in this Project. If this has been brought up before and reached a consensus, please provide a link to the archived discussion so I can cite it. Thank you. BBQ ( talk) 21:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me as the type of thing where, if a reader cares about such a thing, they can just click on the link to Rockstar North to find it out. So, it strikes me as unnecessary to have in the actual GTA V article...but I don't really see that much of a problem with it either... Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
A reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maniac Mansion/archive1 opposed the article based on the quality of its writing. I copy edited the article this week, but would like a second editor to take a look for good measure. Any takers? ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC))
I wouldn't have thought that the names (well, handles) of "famous" players of video games would be encyclopedic, but then I confess to a total ignorance of video games. See Artix Entertainment. (The claimed fame of the players isn't sourced, but then the rest of the article isn't sourced either.) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead. ∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 00:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
First, Jak and Daxter Collection. It is an HD port of the main trilogy of the series. While, I have seen some sources on it, there would not be enough to satisfy keeping it due to its status as a port. TheDarkPyrano100 ( talk · contribs) created it and when I redirected it after giving a message on his talkpage, he blindly reverts without discussion. After one more revert, an IP, I assume him, puts on my talkpage to stop editing the article. Again, he has given me no reason to keep it.
Second, Legend of Zelda Timeline. Created by WeBenJamin ( talk · contribs), it simply rehashes the plot of every game, and gives a history of the entire fictional universe. Then, at the very end of the article is the timeline. I left a message on his talkpage, but I have not tried to redirect it yet. I have some faith that it could be a decent article. It could show the history of how people thought it was certain ways, how some games changed the views of people's timelines, and the reaction of the release of the "official" one. All of this could possibly be sourced. Would this have a chance or not? Blake ( Talk· Edits) 15:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I've put in a move request to move Eidos Interactive to Eidos, and the discussion is here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy holidays, all. It's right between Christmas and New Years' now, and we've got about three days left in the year before we proceed into 2012! Woo!
And why shouldn't we celebrate, given that there are seven more games scheduled for 2011? Wait... uh, hold on, that's not right. But how odd, given that this category seems to think that's the case! It may be a good idea to tidy things up around here and ensure that these games are in fact being released in 2011. I've managed to find sources proving about 5 or 6 others games from this category have been delayed or cancelled, but I'm a bit tired of searching for these and it'd be nice if the rest of you could pick this up for me. Thanks, Emmy Altava 05:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to reopen discussion about adding Giant Bomb as a default reviewer on the reviews template. I know it's been shot down before, but the site has definitely evolved and grown since it has been discussed previously, and while there is a significant amount of user content on the site (a concern that has been raised previously), the staff reviews are clearly split out from the user reviews. There are plenty of other sites that feature user reviews just as prominently that are already included. -- fuzzy510 ( talk) 21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Are we not going to have a Feature or a Featured Editor? We normally send out the newsletter on the first Wednesday of the new quarter (which is this Wednesday), and we have nothing for either of them. -- MuZemike 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The characters from the game Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 have English voice actors, but apparently none of them have been credited. Even when checking the English version of the artbook, there were credits to all the staff, except the English dub. Does somebody know of a reliable source that may contain such information? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
What is the information needed for? Isn't listing VA info in articles a WP:GAMECRUFT problem typically? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't the cast be listed in the credits of the game itself?— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A well meaning user has vastly extended Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars but incorporated some pretty bad copyright violations (among other things). I have reverted the most problematic text and explained on the talk page, hopefully the user will take note and address the issues but some extra eyes would be appreciated. Яehevkor ✉ 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created the article List of games using Steam authentication in order to list the games that require Steam authentication in a convenient easy-to-sort manner, since I felt List of Steam games was lacking when it came to this as well as mentioning particular Steamworks features. Any help with editing and expanding/improving this new article would be highly appreciated. Thanks. -- CoolingGibbon ( talk) 03:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Project!
I'm seeking an opinion/consensus on the correct form of plot sections in video game articles. In particular, I believe general citations are not required for the plot sections, as it can generally only be sourced to the game itself. I also do not believe use of quotations from the game are suitable as citations, except to highlight particularly important plot points, in which the quote should be part of the section, not a citation. I believe also that the plot should be prose that is not unnecessarily divided into subsections based on "acts" or "chapters" that the game may use to divide individual levels or maps.
I received consensus in one article that these mostly hold true but I want to see where the project stands, rather than just that particular article's editors. There may already be a project page detailing this but I haven't found it yet if so.
Thanks -- ferret ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut gives good advice on what's relevant to the plot. Most advice from the MoS guidelines on fiction is applicable to videogames; the only caveas specific to VG is in open worlds where the plot itself may greatly differ from one game walkthrough to another. In that case, I think the plot should contain only the main events that appear in the way to all (or most) of the possible endings. For closed narratives, the plot can be described basically in the same way than in a book or movie. Diego ( talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Ryulong is adding the social links information Characters of Persona 4 without verfied information or reasons for why is it important to the general reader. I discussed it with him at User talk:Tintor2#Persona 4 arcana but still no wp:reliable sources were used or reasons for the their use. Moreover, the user readded them with a bold edit all in capitals and the civilty is not going pretty good considering the comment. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but this lengthy discussion should clearly be moved and continued on the article's talk page. Or, since it seems to involve mostly two editors, on either one's talk page. Salvidrim! 02:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The game makes that statement, and that is the only reliable source we need for that specific kind of information. Why is it such an issue for the proposed six words per section to be placed in the character list? It is such a minor aspect to the page, and including it does not violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. It just gives a minor bit of context to prose we already have.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)