Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom

Hi! Do you think Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom should be organized in subcategories (for England, Scotland, Wales, and maybe Northern Ireland) or should it remain as a single category, considering there's currently only 9 Scottish companies listed and 1 Welsh one? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that it should all be in a single category for the UK. We don't have categories for developers in Bavaria and developers in Saxony, nor do we have them for developers in Tennessee and developers in Alaska. While I'm fully aware that the political structure of the British unitary state differs from that of the many federal nations, I don't see the need to localise the categories to that extent. -- Sabre (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd class it as the UK. and leave it at that. Anything more is overcategorisation Gazimoff (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from discusion with the same name below.

Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom is being depopulated in favour of new seperate Category:Video game companies of England, Category:Video game companies of Scotland, and Category:Video game companies of Wales categories. Despite the fact that this may possibly have a political motive (the creator of the Scotland category makes much ado about being from Scotland on his user page) the net result is every article bar 10 will end up in the England category, with nine in Scotland and one in Wales. To me this seems a highly unnecessary and ineffective split, for apparent reasons of size, of a category that wasn't particularly large anyway. The user who is actually changing all the articles around (not the user who created the new cat) doesn't seem too interested, or bothered either way, though continues to do it. So I just wanted to see what other people think before deciding whether to go to CFD. Cheers, Miremare 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, Category:Video game companies of Wales should be deleted. Having one article in a category hardly seems worth the strain on the server. I'm not sure about keeping the England and Scotland one though. I don't know whether or not they'd actually be useful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I still fail to see why any of the categories other than the main UK one are needed, other than for pushing a political viewpoint. This is an international version of Wikipedia, and ought to be treated as such, and for other users categorising by only the UK makes far more sense that pushing the categorisation to such a local level. With only ten articles in the non-English categories, its simply overly bureaucratic. -- Sabre (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I didn't notice this previous discussion, thanks for the move. :) Miremare 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having only one category. I've continued to use the England/Scotland categories for a bit because I was waiting for User:Andrew22k to perhaps defend his position here (I notified him of this discussion on his talk page), but he hasn't said anything yet so maybe he has changed his mind or reluctantly agrees. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea i agree i forgot to comment here i've been busy the only reason i made a category for Scotland was because i thought 9 articles was enough and i didnt make an English category as it there was too many articles and Welsh or Northern Ireland i could'nt find any.Andrew22k (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Interview

I am a Georgia Tech research student studying the Design of Online Communities, and I would like to interview some members from this community regarding your experiences in editing Wikipedia. If you are interested in helping out my research, please contact me through my Wiki Talk page. Thank you! Midas7g (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for taking an interest in the project. If I may ask, is this related to a similar question posted above? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

This is not related to that request. I am a student trying to find individuals to interview, anyone from new users to the experienced, well-established members. Midas7g (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. We'd be happy to help in anyway we can.

Two more questions though. Do you have a limit to the number people you can or would like to interview? I'm sure there are probably several editors that would be interested. Also, are there any age requirements? I believe some of our editors (including some major contributors) are under 18. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

I have no limit to the number of individuals I can or would like to interview. My minimum requirement is at least three, so the more people willing to help, the better the results will be. As for age requirements, I would prefer individuals who can agree to the consent form (on my user page) so 18+ would make things easier. This doesn't mean there is a strict 18+ limit, it just means that using those particular results in my research would involve a little more than just "click here to agree." Midas7g (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In The Groove (Series) & In The Groove 2 Article Brushups

It was a few weeks ago that I brushed up said articles, but just tonight found out about WPVG, so I thought I should alert you guys to the changes, which mostly boils down to a lot of clarifications and simplifications (stuff I'm often told I'm good at). I'm going to do more work on it within a week. I'd speak more at length, but it's 1:30 in the morning, I'm tired, and I'm something of a Wiki-newbie. I'll read the rules and regs tomorrow to improve my understanding of how WPVG works, and figure out how to get that WPVG banner onto my userpage - I'll be more than happy to help clean up all the In The Groove-related articles. --AceOfHeartsDX (talk), 1:27, 10 April 2008

Welcome. Thanks for the introduction and taking an interest in the project. If you'd like to put the VG banner on your userpage, simply put the wikicode, {{User WPVG}}, in the desired location on your page. If you have any questions about editing video games or Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please feel free to post back here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Those articles could use all the help they can get. Good to have you aboard, I'm currently working on the Dance Dance Revolution articles so feel free to ask me for help if you have a question. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi (series) merge proposal

Obviously not many people are aware, so some more comments would be good: Talk:Crazy_Taxi_(series)#Merge. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For a second there I thought TTN had returned until I looked at the date and found that the proposal was nearly two months old. It isn't without precedent; Namco Museum games are all on one page. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but CT was an individual, notable game, and wasn't merely a collection of games like Namco Museum was. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure for a vapourware video game

I'm taking it on myself to do the long-needed rewrite for StarCraft: Ghost, but I'm having trouble thinking of an effective structure. I can't see that the traditional structure for released or in-development games would work, and I'm not getting any decent pointers from looking at the histories of the other two classic vapourgames, Duke Nukem Forever and Team Fortress 2 (which incidently are no longer treated as vapourware). Anyone got any thoughts on how best to structure the article? -- Sabre (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's a tough one. Personally, I see vaporware as software that has yet to be released. Until they officially announce it has been canceled, I would treat it like any other unreleased game. With that said, I would maintain the traditional video game article format. Describe the gameplay and story in terms of what is proposed, and try to have the article focus on things from a development point of view. I would also change "Trouble with development" to simply "Development", and split the development info if possible; like Team Fortress 2#Development (maybe have a subsection for delays and problems). But that probably depends how much information is available on the the actual game development, and not just the problems they encountered. You may have already tried this, but hope this some. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

DNF is still vaporware in my eyes until they announce an actual date. Anyway, I'm still wondering on how to fix proseline on that article. It used to have a separate history and development timeline that I pulled together into the history of the game. I added plot and reception on the presumption that it will be released someday, based on what they have released and how the community has reacted to DNF.

As for specific data to Ghost, I'm curious to how much of it is actually sourced. New and changed units resemble game guide information and it sounds like it's entirely rumor-based. Lead contains far too specific information that should be put into development. It needs a gameplay section, but I dunno how good of a section it would be if all it consists of is "Ghost retains the same gameplay style as its predecssor" (if that's the case). hbdragon88 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe! I know what you're referring to with "DNF", but the first thing I see is "Did Not Finish". Which I suppose is appropriate. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture format - whether or not to include upscaling

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV#Picture format about what formats should be in the info box. The game has a native resolution of 720p and an upscaled one of 1080p. Some editors want just the native one there whereas others, such as myself, think both should be written up. At xenocidic's suggestion I am asking here for any opinions on the matter. John.n-irl (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that only the native resolution should be in the infobox, as otherwise we would need to include every possible resolution that it could be up(or down)scaled to. Perhaps the ability to upscale could be mentioned in the body of the article. xenocidic (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xenocidic, the native resulotion is the one made by Rockstar to be fited to the consoles. Jørgen88 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its the resolution the game is running in, put not necessarily output in. John.n-irl (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A console like the Xbox 360 is able to run any of its games in whatever resolution the user has selected as their desired output resolution (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc.). It can and will perform any possible combination of scaling either up or down. Listing these as "supported" resolutions is meaningless, so I would agree with Xenocidic and others that only the native resolution should be listed. --Slordak (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I was aware that wasn't quite what upscaling was, there is a difference between upscaling and just displaying something at a resolution it wasnt designed for. Similar to showing a DVD on a HD tv at "HD" resolution without upscaling produces a very different image to one which is upscaled. John.n-irl (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you show a DVD on a fixed-pixel display (such as an LCD HDTV/monitor), by definition, the image is scaled to the native resolution of that monitor when displayed. This is regardless of what resolution is fed to the device, so the difference lies only in where the upscaling is done and the quality of that operation. For a game, either the game is rendered in the higher resolution, which makes a real difference, or the image is simply upscaled somewhere (in software, by an A/V receiver, or at the end by the fixed-pixel HDTV, etc.) Since we're not talking about actual rendering at a higher resolution, it's called upscaling. --Slordak (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok my mistake, however I would like to point out if you play a dvd on a HD tv with a normal DVD-player, and compare it to one played on an upscaling player(in my case a PS3), there is a difference between the images. So im slightly confused by your explanation. Off to read some more websites on it. :) John.n-irl (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

True. There's no doubt that the quality of the upscaling which one device performs may be significantly better than that of another. It also helps in some cases to do the upscaling close to the source data itself, where additional contextual information may be available (such as telecine/pulldown flags on DVD discs). The scaler in the Xbox 360 and most upscaling DVD players will be significantly better than the one built into lower-end (and even many mid-range) LCD displays. --Slordak (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the explanation. John.n-irl (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought I'd add something to this as well: Technically, there is a significant difference between "scalers" at each end of the operation here. If you send a 480p signal to a 1080p LCD TV, the TV "upscales" that image to display in its native pixel space. It just does this by extrapolating the pixels in the source image to the target display area, and this produces resolution artifacts even on the best displays. However, the 360 and any other good DVD player that can display DVDs in HD resolution will actually render the image in the target resolution. This allows the MPEG renderer to do whatever rounding of edges, area filling, smoothing and sharpening it deems appropriate, and the image it sends out doesn't need to be upscaled by the TV. So while it's still not the same quality as a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD at 1080p, it is generally much higher quality than a lower-resolution signal being upscaled. I thought I'd discuss the difference, since the term "upscaling" doesn't really apply when you're talking about the source creating a higher-res image. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this field is one of those that made it in without any discussion before the template was protected, so as long as it remains, and its use undefined, it's entirely up to the editors to make the most of it. Challenger 1983 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a motion to change this parameter to something clearer? I raised it previously but got only one reply from Challenger 1983. "Picture format" links to aspect ratio, but the infoboxes are showing display resolution instead. Not only is the link misleading, but as raised above, it seems to be encouraging warring over native and supported resolutions. I propose the elimination of the "picture format" parameter, and either:

• insert a "Max. resolution", or
• "Native resolution".

Both of which links to display resolution. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested a change to the Infobox here. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A "Native resolution" parameter is now available in the Infobox. Jappalang (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is much better and actually useful than most previous implementations. Challenger 1983 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Useful article for games within last year

Next-Gen article listing the top 100 selling games of the last year (based on NPD #s), including sales numbers. Always useful to have for a good game article. --MASEM 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna put the data up for Halo 3's sales when I saw the article mention on Halo.Bungie.Org, but then I found out it was redundant. :P Oh well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt to have multiple sources for the same content though. It'll only strengthen the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Listing every official site of every country in the world in External links

Hi! I would like to know whether it's allowed to list every official site of every country in the world in the section "External links". This concerns OGame in particular. I thought that listing only the English-language official site would be enough, and I believe my point of view is backed up by Wikipedia:External links#Non-English language. However a user disagrees and claims that I'm "trolling" and that I "don't know the subject". Since I don't really see how knowing the subject more would make these links comply with the External link guidelines, I'm asking for a third opinion or more here. Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we are the English Wikipedia, only English-language ELs are going to even be relevant to English readers, and all other language links can go into their respective wiki pages on the other language wikis. However, if say we have a video game developed by a Japanese company, then the Japanese official website should be listed as well as other suitable English-language links.--十八 07:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be idiotic to list every one of them because all of the sites contain links to the other languages. User:Krator (t c) 09:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I look down the list and it strikes me that only one of those complies with the external links policy at all. The two reviews should be used as references in a reception section, so they don't need to be in the external links, the tools are essentially spam that are there for fans, not encyclopedia readers. As for the official sites, you do not and should not have the links to every language the site is in, you only need one. I would pick "www.ogame.org" over "www.ogame.us", as it does contain the links to all the other languages across the top - making it more useful for non-English readers - but get rid of every link to the other language listed there. -- Sabre (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should add something about this to WP:VG/EL Er, nevermind that, the VG guidelines already state "Only the English version of the page should be included if there are multiple languages. If no English version exists, then the official page in the language of the country of first publication should be provided, but indicate that the site is in a foreign language.". The links on OGame are rather silly and should definitely be removed. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-11 09:30

Wow that is pretty ridiculous (or funny). Definitely remove all but maybe American/European sites. Strongsauce (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Anubis1055 has severe ownership issues with the article, as well. Someone might need to talk to him about that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with User:Juhachi about "official English site" and "official original language site". But that's just my opinion. And yeah, there's some major OWN issues there... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:VG/EL they should be removed, this page needs a serious amount of work, and even then I cant see it being much more than a stub. John.n-irl (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we could stand to diversify, while at the same time preventing link spam. The best compromise I've seen is "official English site" and "official original language site"/"official home country site". We shouldn't bite the contributors from other countries who are trying to improve things. Randomran (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The first thing is only English links should be there. 2005 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely false. See Wikipedia:External links#Non-English language content and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Non-English-language sites for the relevant guidelines. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

However, in this case, neither of those two apply. The existance of the international site removes any justification for the use of the other sites, and none of the three points under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Non-English-language sites are relevant. - Sabre (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the two guidelines you linked to. The first says such links can exist when "an official site is unavailable in English", and since there is one obviously the score of non-English links should not be linked. The second ssays when "when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site", and since it is, once again the guideline makes clear a score of non-English links are not called for. So, as stated above, my statement was completely true. 2005 (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are "visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables" at a foreign language site, that aren't available at the English language site, then it is completely reasonable to link to that location. Therefor, your generalist statement that "only English links should be there" is false. Possibly you were only referring to this specific diff, but the way it was phrased implied that all non-English links were forbidden. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that or implied it. We are talking about a specific article with 25 or so similar links. 2005 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving our image... killing some cruft

This has been bothering me for some time, and I guess now is as good a time as any to talk about it- cruft. I'm not talking about questionably notable list of mods for whatever game, I'm talking pure, unadulterated cruft. Like 20KB of weapons lists, 21KB of text on a nonexistent facilities in the middle of who knows where (not to mention excessive fair use images), etc. Not to pick on Half-Life, but there's a massive amount on locations with absolutely nothing that would justify its existence in the eyes of WP:FICT, and even if FICT isn't the benchmark of perfect policy, I think we can all agree that Black Mesa will never be a featured or good article. I know there are plenty of editors like me who would like to merge, condense, source, and occasionally, delete such info- I've had plenty of success dealing with Halo topics, for example merging United Nations Space Command, which was 24KB readable prose on plot and minutae, into Factions of Halo which now features just one paragraph of introduction and three times that on development (and I haven't even finished fleshing out the article.) But the vast majority of this cruft- and I think, this is endemic to all fictional topics- is that a large base is stopping consolidation and cleanup dead in its tracks. I start a Prod for a crufty article with no hope, it gets contested. I take it to AfD, it either snowballs "KEEP I luvs it" or I'm told "discuss a merge, don't delete". Merge discussions don't get any input, but when I merge IPs come to my talk page and protest, and a week later I find all my changes have been reverted. From my experience, I've had next to 0 success in dislodging any of these because of people who don't give a damn what policies say, they like their video games. So I say that either we settle down, sack up and hew out (and follow) an exacting line for dealing with video game subjects, or we just give Wikipedia to the fanboys and wait for the hardliners to storm through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that FICT right now is still under debate, though I would argue the trend is towards reduction and merging of material to avoid OR/POV-type favoritism writing (i've been trying to get it there for a year now, almost). However, I would strongly urge that we can move forward in VG alone to help cut down the fluffy; not with the vigor that TTN was doing it, but still merging to at least cut down on articles like Black Mesa and City 17. --MASEM 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely a regular occurrence on Wikipedia that needs to be dealt with. The best solution I've found is to find some like-minded editors willing to endure the rigor of discussing the issue with virtually everyone that wants to voice their opinion on the matter. I know that sounds like a big conspiracy theory that only strengthens most of their negative comments about us, but I'm honestly not sure what else to do but wikilawyer them into submission. The problem is that this is time consuming and draining. I know I don't have the time to edit like I use to and because of it there's a sizable backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm with you 100% and next time you decide to take on an article like that you can come find me. There are far, far too many video game pages that resemble lousy fan sites and opinion pieces. I'm all for making WP:FICT just a bit more stricter to hold things together. And if they don't deal with this endemic problem for all of wikipedia, then the WP:video games project should take it upon ourselves to promote a higher standard. Randomran (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

@Masem - I definitely agree TTN was off the rocker, but it's been my experience that unilateral action actually provokes the least response. I'm not saying that's good, it's just that currently there's too many admins closing for 'consensus' when actual arguments against deletion are invalid, and this is crippling the trimming of bad articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... what a mess. Its troubling because some articles organize the fictional aspects fairly well ( Final Fantasy VIII). Not that organizing the cruft would make us look better. People complain about pop culture articles being on the front page (here), and then nobody complains about an extremely one-sided article on the front page about a pop culture author! Perhaps there should be a standard about how many fictional world articles to one video game article can be made? Otherwise you have articles like Black Mesa taking up an entire article when one World of Half-Life article would suffice. I dunno. -- Noj r (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to echo that. I've seen a lot of deletion discussions closed with consensus, but with most people saying "hey I know what this is" as being the threshold test for wikipedia. Wikipedia is bad in that there's lots of policy on how to add information, but very little policy on how to take information away. This isn't just a cleanup issue. It's straight-up noise. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We should never limit the number of articles on fictional subjects, but the problem is people confuse that with the fact that if there isn't any real world info and reception, et al, it shouldn't be an article about a fictional subject. WP:HALO had at least 69 article in its scope assessed at one time, but I can say with certainty that there were closer to 100 back in 2006 or so; since then there has been lots of merging of stubs, et al, and integration, to the point where more than 35% of the articles are GA or FA. I think having small wikiprojects/task forces helps combat the fanboyism ("The Z series has a list of X, why not Y?") but I think a clear demarkation and policy is the best tool we can do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The policies are there to take out information. The problem is they aren't well-known and leave room for interpretation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I agreed with TTN that cruft was really rampant, but I didn't like his "This article gets redirected because I said so." TTN was running rampant, enforcing some nonexistent privilege, almost as bad as the cruft was. I just hope this discussion doesn't mutate into "TTN2". The bad that he did far outweighed the good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point. Well, if we want to combat this now, we need to be closely monitoring new article additions. Its a no brainer to see "Call of Duty 5" and "ammunition types of Call of Duty 5" and have a taskforce quickly wipe out the latter article. A task force might be the solution and then its a matter of cleaning up the pre-existing articles. Maybe two taskforces can be created, a monitoring one and a clean-up one. I dunno, I think its better to think solution and not problem. So we really need to find one. -- Noj r (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind being on such a taskforce. I'd try to keep TTNs in line, you know? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a taskforce is a good compromise. Afterall, some creep in the fictional stuff is acceptable if its notability is established by reliable research that focuses on an aspect of the fiction. We want to keep things clean, but we don't want to be heavy handed either. So long as there's a diverse set of views on the taskforce, the filter will be intelligent. Randomran (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in joining a taskforce like this. However, my motivations would be more on the transwiki side of things (I've mostly moved over to StrategyWiki). This would hopefully minimize the "you deleted all my content" complaints where people would re-add the non-notable information (which has actually worked quite well on some of the articles I've worked on). -- Prod (Talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Transwikiing is also a good option, and to help offset the "but it's no longer at wikipedia where am I gonna find it" types, I usually include a "(Halo article) at (Halo Wikia)" external link to Halo articles so if the readers really want the whole messy shebang, it's just a click away -> {{Halopedia}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the other wikis is that they can be painfully inaccurate. There used to be links on every StarCraft article to the StarCraft wikia, but I had to remove them due to how off the mark they were. I don't want to mislead other readers by pointing them to information that is wrong and judging from the negative reaction I got over there when I tried to change just a few incorrect points it will always be wrong. However, we really do need to tackle this cruft here. I personally was hoping to hit the Half-Life series myself (regardless of picking on Half-Life, it is mostly a complete mess. We were lucky enough just to recently get rid of all the articles for monsters without going through a painful AfD, although that is evidence that painful en-masse AfD's can get the job done) after I'd finished with the StarCraft series, but there was more to the StarCraft series than I had thought. In any case, it looks like if it doesn't happen by the wikiproject it isn't going to happen. I tagged Vortigaunt up a few months back, and I've seen very little in improvement but plenty of the aforementioned "I've heard of it, its notable" accompanied by removal of the tags. -- Sabre (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of us are on the same page. How about that task force? Randomran (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of talk about creating a new task force, but we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup, which has languished after a good start. If more contributors worked on that cleanup page and the articles that have been tagged by it then I think we don't need to set up another task force. There has also been some talk on the newsletter talk page of reviving the WP:GCOTW. Anyone interested? JACOPLANE • 2008-04-12 15:00

(1) I'd definitely be up for the GCOTW project, and would appreciate regular reminders to join in. (2) I thought the cleanup taskforce was for improving existing articles? If the mandate were to cut crappy WP:NOT articles then I'd be all over it like a fat kid on a smartie. (note: fat kids love smarties. I've seen them.) Randomran (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also definitely up for reviving the GCOTW, but someone would have to step up to the plate and commit themselves to pruning the nominations and updating the various templates. The main reason the GCOTW was retired in the first place is because User:Thunderbrand left wikipedia ( /me cries ). If someone would take up the task that Thunderbrand left behind then I'm sure a weekly collaboration could be a great success once again. It's also good as a rallying effort that unifies and focuses the attention of this community. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-12 18:22

I was kinda hoping Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup would be the next thing we tackle, because it would probably be best to consolidate our resources before expanding. But it seems like everyone really wants the collaboration project up and running.

Anyway, I believe what I'm about to say has been said before by another editor, but I think it would be good to reiterate it. Though, we already have a GCOTW, I think it would make more sense to extend the time frame to a month. That way the same group of editors can watch over the article while it goes through GAN and possibly FAC; which can normally take about a month from starting on an article to finishing up a GAN and/or FAC. This way, addressing the more common issues of copy editing, adhering to the Manual of Style, and making sure it's comprehensive will be easier. It will also cut done on the amount of work needed to handle nominations and updates for templates. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree. Especially if we're going to be tackling more essential, top and high importance articles, they're gonna need more time. A week is good for expanding a stub that just needs more information. But you need a month to get proper references, resolve conflicts, re-think the layout once or twice, get a variety of opinions... So I'd be all for switch to GCOTM. Any thoughts on a clean up (especially pruning prod-worthy articles) task force? Randomran (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As Jaco already pointed out, there is already a department for that; Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. It is set up similar to the Assessment department, but just serves a different function. There is a section for requests that is currently backlogged. I was trying to clean up World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, but got too busy with real life to finish it up, and others were busy with merging most of the separate King of Fighters character pages into List of characters in The King of Fighters series. There is plenty there that could use some clean up for those interested. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Luckily, it sounds as though everyone is on the same page. I'd much rather not tack on another department, so I guess we could use /Cleanup for the purpose of finding cruft, submitting it for perusal (are there third party sources for notability, before we merge/delete?) and then dealing with it. I myself wouldn't do GCOTW, I'm more of a lone wolf editor anyhow, but I think from previous discussions about it the main issue was the lack of a coordinator ever since t-brand left? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

David has the right idea, we have the department set up, we only need to start using it. And as far as needing a coordinator for the monthly collaboration, I think if 2-3 editors maintained the flow of requests and archiving, then it should be a fairly easy workload. That way if one gets busy in real life for while, there are others to pick up the lack.

Honestly, I think most of the things here should work the same way, like the Portal, Newsletter, etc. Doing something like that by yourself is a big commitment, especially when we all have real lives to take care of too. Having some redundancy worked into the system adds extra support and will ensure the contributors don't get burned out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps we should create a content guideline within this project, that way we would avoid the arguments about the validity of FICT. This would prove particulary useful when maintaining the character GAs, those always get filled up with fancruft and speculation, mostly consisting of weapon/abilities lists and canon/non-canon "facts". - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with cleaning up some of the articles - I was crunching my way through the 700 before I got distracted with pushing 24: The Game. I've also been moving through the unclear notability articles, although this should probably be moved from Assesment to Cleanup. Most of the notability issues though result in prodding, although there have been a handful of articles that we've managed to source and clean up to a reasonable standard. Is this what's needed though? As an editor, should I be focusing my time on generating new articles or cleaning up, prodding and possibly AfDing others? I'm concerned that I may end up with a reputation as a deletionist as a result. Having said all that, I'd agree about the inactive project cleanup - I was interested in joining WP:Warcraft, but it seems to be inactive, with most editors there moving to wowwiki. For cases like that, where a series of articles need work, is it worth bringing the discussion to WP:VG instead?--Gazimoff (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on old/inactive projects should of course go here... perhaps what we should do is note that while the project is inactive, discussion goes on at WT:VG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed that out. There are actually loads of inactive sub-WikiProjects that are confusing to new contributors and probably harm meaningful collaboration greatly. After we sort out the whole cleanup department/task force mess, we desperately need to focus some attention on consolidating some of these projects back into WP:VG as task forces or just getting rid of them altogether. It happens all too often that someone gets all excited and spends two days setting up a slick-looking WikiProject, only to never look at it again. Inactive WikiProjects just add to the bureaucracy and complicate matters unnecessarily. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup is where this is being worked on. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-15 21:42

Creating additional taskforces etc. makes me twitch. All of these things are organs which need grinding, or they start making horrific noises. New articles wasn't being kept up to date, now they are but what happens if MrKIA needs a break? The project's AFD page had completely ground to a halt - I had to kick start it again, and I'm a complete gump. You can only spend your time once. The more extra 'things' we bring online the more likely they're going to fall into disuse. Using clean-up to address the concerns raised here would help kick-start it again and might (hopefully) result in some clarification, I've read the page several times and I'm still not clear on what it's actually for.

GCOTM would be a great thing, but from the outset I'd suggest it's used for top-priority articles and for genre articles etc. which desparately need experienced editor attention. A week (or even fortnight) is a very short period of time for a small group to do something in addition to the work they've already taken on board. What if a couple of key editors need a break for a week or two? Individual game articles and series are not our weak point, it's the core articles. The suggestion process should be very simple and involve locating a suitable victim and putting it in the 'next month's project' box, after a short discussion. If it isn't done that way then more time will be wasted clawing through "this game was the first to introduce Nissan Micras into racing games, and is therefore important" and "Mai Shiranui's got MASSIVE hooters". Such suggestions are made in good faith but that doesn't mean it's necessary or desirable. We've got the video games article which needs a good kicking, we've got the genre article/list which absolutely needs the project's attention as opposed to the handful of editors who are struggling to keep it on track ATM. Then we've got Top and High priority articles. There's the work - edit and source. If it takes a panel of editors weeks to pick one of a handful of our most important articles to shore up then there's something badly wrong with the process. Someoneanother 03:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone another brings up a good point about participation. A lot of departments/subprojects rely on one or two editors which puts an excessive amount of responsibility and stress on them; not to mention takes away time they probably wanted to edit their favorite articles. I still think we need some redundancy built into things like having 3-5 people handle things like assessment, GCOTM, new articles, etc. Knowing you don't need to spend your whole time on Wikipedia doing the same thing over and over again can really relieve stress associated with the work load.

And to answer your question about the Cleanup department, it was meant to help keep gamecruft in check by trimming large plot summaries, switching lists over to prose, assist with mergers if necessary, and other tasks related to keeping articles tidy. It could really use a kick start because it's gone into disrepair after its first two months (I'm partly to blame because real life got a little busy and the other editors got caught in the beast which is List of characters in The King of Fighters series).

Anyway, once we get the various subprojects consolidated, should we look to try and get some editors like MrKIA some help? Like divvy up the tasks or get some recruits to help out with the various subpages and departments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Nitpicking video game article suffix naming conventions

Through link-diving I found myself looking at the list of video game articles and I have a question. The text in parentheses is not very consistent throughout the list of articles. Such as {video game) vs video game vs (videogame) vs (Video Game) vs (game), etc...

Is there a unified way of indicating an article is a video game? I know that most articles don't need this due to there being nothing to confuse it with, and that multiple games might have the same name making it necessary to add the year or platform to the title, but say for instance the articles I'm working on; Dance Dance Revolution links to the series article and Dance Dance Revolution (video game) links to the first game in that series. Should all articles needing to say it say "(video game)" with parentheses and all lower case (which is the way the majority of articles have it) or is there a better naming convention in use or has it just not been dealt with yet?

On a similar note, should it be "(video game series)" or just "(series)"? And I've seen variations of these too. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what you're looking for. General rule- don't do anything in parentheses unless you have to, then it's (video game). If a game article conflicts with a series article, they either both get stuff; (video game), (series); or one wins, if a specific wikiproject has a rule for it. The only one that I know about that does is WP:FF, and that doesn't cover a whole heck of a lot of conflicting names. --PresN (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's perfect. Does this mean I would get flak for trying to iron out the article names or would I have the blessings of the WP:VG members... Including the ones that babysit articles? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. --PresN (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia after all. But at least this time I can cite this conversation to anyone stonewalling me and go "Where were you when I asked?". --AeronPrometheus (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be (franchise) when a "series" spans different media, such as video games, manga, anime, etc.? Kariteh (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)It depends on what the primary medium is. Series would cover the same members of a series, such as a series of books, movies, games or so on. Related media might feature as a section in the series article, under Legacy or similar. There's no particular convention from what I can find though, so gathering a consensus on the topic in question might be advisable. The root term, e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog would probably benefit from a disamiguation page to clear up confusion.Gazimoff (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gazimoff. For most of the video game series, the primary medium is video games. Something like Final Fantasy is most well known for its video games and most any other type of media is a spin-off or continuation of one of those games. Something like Sonic the Hedgehog though, has a couple comic book series that have been published for years and several syndicated cartoons all with story lines that are loosely based on the video games. I'd say a rule of thumb would be to use "series", but there are obviously some exceptions that should be examined on a case by case basis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Kotor 2 deleted content discussion

I write Lightsaber forms and force forms section to gameplay of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords. But it several times cutted by User:EEMIV, with trivia reason... Can somebody help me? --Beyond silence 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, frankly, the content you added was considered (at least by EEMIV) to be trivial game-guide information - the sort of information that would be more useful and interesting to someone reading a strategy guide. Please see WP:GUIDE and WP:VG/GL for policies and guidelines on what should and should not be added to game articles. In general, WP is not meant to be a source of strategy guides - game articles should focus on a general synopsis of the game, its history and development, its reception, etc., but going into detail about specific characters and their attributes, specific moves, weapons, etc., is almost always too much detail for an article meant for the casual reader. (Remember that the various forms of lightsabre and Force use that you listed will mean absolutely nothing to someone who isn't intimately familiar with the game or series.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This section isn't content advises how to play! But it's a important gameplaye element... --Beyond silence 09:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it important to list all the different kinds of light sabers and Force techniques/styles by name? Wouldn't the phrase "This game includes eight forms of Lightsaber and six unique styles of Force" (or something similar) added to the main body of the article suffice? A phrase like that not only makes more sense to the uninformed reader, but it can be integrated into the article in such a way that it adds depth to the body and makes the article more interesting, while at the same time covering a potentially important gameplay element.

Put simply: Yes, pointing out that the game includes a lot of different lightsabers and Force styles can be important. But going into depth about what specifically all those sabers/techniques are is not. As I mentioned, the average, uninformed reader doesn't have any knowledge of the specifics about the Star Wars universe (heck, I'm a Star Wars fan and even I didn't recognize those names). But knowing that there are a number of unique offerings in the game will help to pique the reader's interest, and if they want to learn more about those specifics, we can point them to an online FAQ or (preferably) another wiki (like StrategyWiki) where this level of detail is perfectly fine and appropriate. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit needed for Guitar Hero (video game)

Can I ask someone to do a good copyedit of Guitar Hero (video game) for prose language as part of its FAC? I am too close to the article to see anything that might be out of place. --MASEM 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can do, as time allows. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit, although I might have missed some elements. Please feel free to revert as needed.Gazimoff (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging two stub pages: Graphic adventure game and Point-and-click adventure game

Every once in a while I make my rounds through the various video game genres articles... and I come across the Graphic adventure game and Point-and-click adventure game articles. There's a pretty old merger proposal here, but I think it's a good one and one I agree with. Rather than BOLDly merge, though, I wanted to get some feedback. These two stubs have been hurting for contributions but nothing has happened for a LONG time. Maybe if all the information were at the graphic adventure game article, it would be easier for people to contribute? I think a merge is the easiest solution in the short term, that will make a split viable in the longer term.

Please keep all discussion at the talk page for Graphic adventure game Randomran (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot folks. Hopefully this article will be a friendlier place to collect information on the subject. Randomran (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation help needed, maybe?

I found a forum post that translates a recent issue of Famitsu for the new spinoff of the Ace Attorney series; the game info is not that exciting but what is the development information that follows the article that explains why the spinoff (score!). I have found a forum post where someone has made their translation of the text, but obviously that may or may not be a reliable source. Since I doubt there will necessarily be a english-based interview, what can I do to include the translation or something comparable for the article? --MASEM 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look and... that is not Japanese. The magazine the poster bought was the Chinese version of Famitsu, so you would need a Chinese translator. I can say the forum poster has the rough gist of the text correct. You can simply use the Chinese source as is, as Wikipedia allows foreign sources if no English equivalent is available (again provided they are reliable, which in this case Famitsu Asian version passes) — WP:VUE. Personally I find the situation of quoting foreign magazines is the same as that of any English magazine. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Campaign (gaming)

I just redirected this to Campaign (role-playing games). Surprised there wasn't an article on it - we have random map and death match. The current redirect doesn't really discuss as well as possible - anyone interested in creating an article? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realize that was exclusively an RPG thing. When I think of "campaign", I actually think about RTSs and the single player mode. You usually play a "campaign" of several levels linked in some kind of storyline. Just my 2 cents. Randomran (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point. I was surprised there was nothing on it, so I redirected it to the most relevant thing at Campaign (it's mentioned there, but no article) for now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That page itself can probably be simply renamed to Campaign (gaming) since there's not much there that seems that specific to RPGs. I've never actually heard the term "campaign" used in an RPG (sidequest, or storyline seem more relevant), but they've been used in strategy games forever. -- Prod (Talk) 02:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Campaign" has been used in Dungeons and Dragons since the 1970s to describe the adventures played. It is more widely used there than in computer games (until the time table top gaming is eventually overwhelmed by computer stuff). They have not been in strategy games "forever" since strategy board games tend to be completed in single sittings. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I second the proposal to rename back to campaign (gaming)... and to throw in a token mention for strategy games. If you can't figure out what to put in that section, just attach a one-liner like "Strategy games often involve an extensive single-player campaign" and tag it with a request for expansion. People love requests for expansion! Randomran (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Campaign - will get to work on this and try and put it at Campaign (gaming) some time soon. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Music and party video games

I have noticed that the genre of Music and party video games has yet to be given an article. This is an problem because many of the games we have under the Music genre are actually Music and party.

Example: Guitar Hero 3 and Guitar Hero Aerosmith

King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I was just looking at this article too. I've never heard the term "music and party". I've more commonly heard these all described as "rhythm games" anyway. I think most of the research supports that. Randomran (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of it being "music" or "rhythm", that genre and "party" genre are two very distinct genres that should not be mixed. There are music games that aren't party games, party games that aren't music, so trying to combine the two is not a clean approach. There's no problem listing both genres in the game article, but making a new genre that combines them is a bit OR-ish as well. --MASEM 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

here visit this external link http://www.gamestop.com/musicparty and you will learn more about the difference of a rhythm game and a music and party game. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like they just put two genres together in the same place. They have mario party along side guitar hero. I think this is "Music" and "Party", not "Music and Party". Randomran (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my take too. It's just a catchall, mind you, entries have a lot in common to both, but they are two separate genres. --MASEM 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingrock, please stop changing the Guitar Hero games to this "Music Party" genre. You are using a single data point (Gamestop's website) which as we've noted above is just a category that includes both "Music" and "Party" games. Google search does not have any video game genre called "Music party" (though there is a game that is called that), and all the other reliable websites only list Guitar Hero and the like under "Music/Rhythm". You need to provide verifiable information to make this change. --MASEM 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that video game genres are measured by one thing, gameplay. Whether the game's content is based on music or is played at parties is not relevant for this form of categorization. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixing a bad + old = bold rename: music video game and rhythm video game

From what I can tell... a good three and a half years ago, someone moved the rhythm video game article to music video game with no research and no real consensus. See this old discussion on the music video games talk page where the guy merged basically by himself.

The article has a pretty lousy focus, involving any game where the player makes noise -- like SimTunes and Otocky. My intuition is that this should be a "Rhythm video game" article that focuses on Guitar Hero and DDR.

Fast forward...

On the music video game talk page, someone said the "music video game" name is based totally on the intuition of the editors. They the "music game" genre is still emerging, and there are far more references out there for "rhythm game". This is probably a violation of WP:no original research.

But because this has been the status quo for more than 3 years I don't want to do anything bold without first getting more feedback. I think this should be renamed back to "rhythm video game" with the appropriate focus. But really, I'm all for anything that is compatible with what all the references out there say.

Please, please check in at music video game and offer your two cents. Randomran (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted my objection to that old move back in Sep 2007. Good to see that other editors are also cognizant of the flaw in it. You definitely have my support to move the title back. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 needs some outside opinions

The list of characters was in prose, but was reverted back to a list without consensus and there's been very little discussion about it (except the few regular editors of the article). See the talk page for discussion. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the consensus was always in favor of a full list. Rob is insisting that the list violates some wiki policy or other, even though he won't explain exactly which one. McJeff (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop stalking me McJeff. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position just yet, but as far as precedents go, WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006 was promoted to Good Article on 7 September 2006, based on this version and it included the roster. This suggests that the list format is acceptable for at least a Good Article. Having said that, this was a year and a half ago. Standards may have changed and the article hasn't been checked by the Quality Sweep. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a side. McJeff, consensus is not determined by the number of people that want something a certain way. Consensus is determined by valid and reasonable arguments. Though there was a sizable number of people on that article's talk page that were in favor of a full roster, there was no reasonable argument that supported the inclusion. There are several arguments explaining how a full list does not fall within Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion on Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. As far as the 2006 version of the game, perhaps it is time for it to go up for review. Especially if it is helping promote a standard which is not practiced within this project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Guyinblack25, can you please cite the actual policies that you believe say a roster list is inappropriate? If you'll turn your attention to the talk page in question, there is actually a very extensive and well sourced argument in favor of including the roster list. As far as not inclusion, there have been no sustained arguments that I have seen - only references to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:GAMECRUFT. I addressed both of these policies and why they do not conflict with the roster list on the talk page - perhaps you'd like to join in again? McJeff (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus good article assessment in general says very little about VG standards. It's more of a general thing. Because "no bad lists" is not in the list of criteria, it passed. It won't pass FA or VG A. This page has been causing so many headaches it may actually be worth it to edit war and get it protected in a semi-nice state. (What's incorrect in the previous statement?) User:Krator (t c) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any actual policies cited, although I am seeing an eagerness to disrupt wikipedia to enforce your POV. Do I even have to name all the policies that's against? McJeff (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant policy in question is WP:EMBED. It cites the manual of style, where straight embedded lists are discouraged. It may be more useful to right this prosaically or in bullet style with relevant content, as per the examples cited. Additionally, as per WP:LIST (particularly the section on List Content) it is noted that lists are subject to verifiability and must be properly cited. Hope this helps. Gazimoff (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the material covered, couldnt the example that prefers use of a list apply here? bottom of [Wikipedia:EMBED#Lists_within_articles] section. It seems like trying to enforce prose for what is essentailly data (list of characters) might be less natural.

Wageslave (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As a completely secondary approach, might I suggest that all the "cast" lists for the various WWE/RAW games be compiled into a single table (as per the characters of the Super Smash Bros. series), which then allows one to see which wrestlers are carried across the various series and the like? Then 1) a table format is most appropriate, and 2) the individual articles, including this one, can seealso to that table, and get rid of the edit warring? --MASEM 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like Masem's idea of solving this. Though I'm not a big fan of the SSB character table. But this worth exploring.

Regarding the issues McJeff has stated- The three guidelines and policies you addressed on the talk page—WP:NOT#DIR, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:GAMECRUFT—are the same ones that we are citing, and have been citing, for the removal of a full character list.

• WP:NOT#DIR states, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." There is no need to list a full roster simply because they are in the game. It also states, "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". In this case it would be a list of real-life wrestlers employed by the World Wrestling Entertainment that appear in this game.
• WP:GAMEGUIDE states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook." It also states articles should not read like an instruction manuals: "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain 'how-to's. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." In this case, a full roster or character list is something you'd expect to find in a strategy/game guide and/or the instruction manual of the game itself.
• WP:GAMECRUFT states "a general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." And while you believe that anybody inquiring about the game is going to want to know every character in it, I disagree. I can see someone who is interested in purchasing the game, or someone who plays the game regularly wanting to know who is in the roster. Mentioning a couple notable wrestlers is all that is need to give a general idea of the type of characters.

A common statement has been used in the argument to include the list, "I don't see anything that says 'no character lists' in the policies." The reason for that is WP:NOT#STUPID, which states, "Wikipedia does not try to anticipate every possible breach of policy and guideline." The policies and guidelines are meant to be interpreted to maintain a level of encyclopedic quality. Several editors have stated this before, but this seems to get drowned out. It does not explicitly state "no character lists" because it can't list every possible exclusion. If it did, the list would be too long to read. Plus, it is impossible to predict every type of policy violation.

Though you may feel a "playable roster is a, perhaps the most, core tenant of the game", I think you'll find that most editors here believe general gameplay and story are the core of video games. In this case, since there is very little story designed into the game, general gameplay is core of the game and should also be for the article. Playable characters are a subset of that, but do not override it.

And as a gentle reminder, Masem's idea is a good course of action to look into that I hope won't get overlooked because of my lengthy response here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Actually I think Masem's idea would be an excellent compromise. Guyinblack I'd like to thank you for the effort you put into your response as well, but unless you'd like me to respond I'd prefer to focus my efforts on helping build the roster list page rather than debating wiki policy. Besides, based on what you've said vs what I said on the SDvsRaw08 talk page, it's more a simple difference of opinion than anything else. McJeff (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on a full cast for the Smackdown series. However, the Smash series has a tiny amount of people, compared to the Smackdown series. Smackdown games have featured 100's of people over the years, plus there is the wrestlers that have appeared under different names. I'm sure the table can be done, but can it be done neatly? RobJ1981 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To put things into perspective, I think we need to remember sometimes that a "compromise" that will make both sides partially content is not always the best answer. Yes, it will end an edit war, but we need to remember that such things will set a precedent for future events. I'm not really supporting one way or the other, but I think we need to remember that, even though the table will be a convenience, will it be an actual requirement? As in, does the table really negate the aforementioned policies and guidelines, and whether we are letting a convenient solution obscure this? I'll also add that any reliable WWE wikis—if there are any—should have that information. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

McJeff, I appreciate your willingness to compromise; that is more than other editors are willing to do at times. However, I feel this is part of a greater issue that has been present in video game articles for some time now and will probably continue to do so. If you don't mind, I think this should be discussed to come to some kind of consensus.

Though a lot of policy has been flung back and worth, there's another reason why I've taken this stance. Most of the regulars here on the VG talk page have a good deal of experience improving articles to earn Good article and Featured article status. It is from that experience that most of us try to prevent content like character lists from popping up in articles. Although, I'm sure if you look far back enough in our edit histories, you'd find that we have added such content into articles before. Heck, when I first worked on Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory, it looked like this when I created it. There's also this edit were I formatted things into a table.

However, after learning the ropes here at the VG Project and participating in Good article nominations and Featured article candidacies, I picked up how to an encyclopedic video game article should be written and how it should not be written. I learned that edits like my early ones to Victorious Boxers wouldn't cut it at a GAN and FAC.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, we know what it takes to get a video game article up Wikipedia's quality scale and crafting a high-quality resource is one of the main goals of Wikipedia. Which is why we go to various talk pages to help maintain that level of quality. Anyway, the point of this rant is to maybe put policies aside for moment and explain that even though we may bump heads over which policy means what, we don't do it with malicious intent. We do it improve the articles and in turn the image and reliability of the Wikipedia and the VG Project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Well, the compromise settles the immediate issue of the Smackdown vs Raw 2008 article. I made a sandbox page in my user subspace for working on the list/table. As far as the greater issue of when is a list appropriate for a videogame, I would suggest it should be taken to the Village Pump, or another page devoted to talking policy. Lists of cars in racing games and teams in sports games have already been brought up, and the subject of lists is a huge can of worms. McJeff (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What you should do with big lists like these is create a list or series article for them. You could, in fact, move rosters for all of the games to such an article, which also gives them context since readers can compare the rosters of each game. See Marvel vs. Capcom (series) as an example. I don't consider this to be cruft because the characters are actually notable in their own right (in the case of WWE, they're real people, even). Crufty lists are things like lists of powerups that have no context outside the game itself. If you believe that this list interferes with the article's prose, then move the list to another article, and don't delete it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to sections not functioning

None of the redirects to sections in articles seem to work anymore. For instance, Protoss should redirect to Species of StarCraft#Protoss, but despite being set up to do so only takes me to the top of the article. Does anyone know why this is? Has there been some sort of update to the site's code? -- Sabre (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is weird. I don't know. The only thing I can think of is if the page is very long and takes a while to load, then maybe the browser gives up on going to the anchor because it hasn't loaded yet. I remember that's happened to me a few times on Characters of Kingdom Hearts, but it never happened with any regularity. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

What connection speed/web browser are you using? The anchor works fine on Safari v2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It also works fine with IE --76.69.166.224 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

This happened to me briefly last week, it may be related to some of the software changes going around, perhaps you should try contacting a developer. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a problem now but next time it happens you should view the source and see if <a name="Protoss" id="Protoss"></a> is in there. If it's not then it may be one of the site developers tweaking/working on the underlying code. Strongsauce (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem's gone now. Bizarre. -- Sabre (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Japanese voiced video games?

This category is heavily incomplete, but someone removed one or two articles from it some time ago saying the category isn't particularly useful (can't remember which article it was, sorry). The person didn't send the category to WP:CFD though. What do you think, should the category be completed or it isn't worth it and should be sent to deletion? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any encyclopedic value to this category. It's interesting to know, but seems like a trivial detail to organize articles. What does everyone else think? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

I think it's been established we don't really care for "Category:Games with X feature", and this is one of those. Nifboy (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I too see little value in having this category. Its "importance" is on Japanese games with dual sound tracks and English subtitles, which is dwelving down to minute details. Does it describe the games or their associated entities? Were the games created just to have the language tracks in mind? What makes it stand out from a game/video with three sound tracks and eight subtitles? The article attached to the category, Japanese voice option video games, appears to be a mix of original research and synthesis. The category would likely consist of trivial, intersective, and arbitrary inclusion criterion. Axiszen also appears to be an SPA for the purpose of this category. Jappalang (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I prodded the article Japanese voice option video games as non-notable original research, and, assuming the prod is going to be removed, I think it should be followed up with AfD. And I would also agree with deleting the category under discussion here for reasons stated by Jappalang. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why are we rushing to delete this? In this situation, I believe the solution would be to create a parent category called Category:Video games with voice acting in it since not too many games feature this and it's a recent innovation brought about by the forward-thinkers at Sony. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sony was the first company to use a voice actor in a video game? Source? xenocidic (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My last post there was a huge joke. I've only contributed to Nintendo articles, dislike Sony, don't caer about voice acting, and I suggested something similar to this when it came up [1]. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The category should probably be put in CFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The PROD's gone, take the article to AfD. -- Sabre (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied to the article's creator about the reasons I prodded it on the talk page. Thought I'd point out some of the issues as I saw them there before it went to AfD. As is, I see the article as nothing but synthesis, opinion, and original research. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion here. Please discuss. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the article Japanese voice option video games for deletion here. I feel that it is non-notable original research (emphasis on the "non-notable" in terms of the AfD). Please discuss this too. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NAA RSS

Is it broken? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in Sega Mega Drive

Hi. I asked this question over at WP:VG/S, but I haven't received any reply, so I'm putting my question here to speed up the process. I've been working on the Mega Drive article for a little while now, and sent it to peer review. The peer reviewer had a couple questions about two sources used extensively in the article, and said he was not sure himself if they were reliable sources or not. The first is source 10, at the url http://www.skillreactor.org/cgi-bin/index.pl?megadrv . While it appears to be someone's report on the Mega Drive with a personal touch, the person who wrote this information has sourced his report, making this a tertiary source. It has proved to be invaluable, and I hope it can be deemed reliable. The second source is source 12, http://www.consoledatabase.com/consoleinfo/segamegadrive/index.html . Console Database provided information that I was unable to source otherwise, and I believe it is reliable. However, the reviewer suggested I ask here to be sure. Thanks for your time. Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at the second link, but the first link is a bit iffy. Though it sources its content, most of the links are dead or look like they are privately owned fan sites. I've no doubt the information is probably correct, but I don't know if it would qualify as a reliable source. You can always take them to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a more definitive answer. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, I'll do that. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How to write a video game article-part 2

Following up on a previous discussion, the draft of "How to write a good video game article" is almost done. I'd first like to thank Krator, Masem, and Jappalang for helping to expand and copy edit it, and the user pages (User:Zeality/GuideWIP, User:Hbdragon88/vgimprove, User:Krator/VG tips) that provided a basis/guide for the writing the draft.

Anyway, I was hoping to get some feedback and suggestions on it thus far. Currently, I think the weakest section is the "Writing style" section, mainly because of organizational and flow issues. The draft is pretty lengthy. In fact, I worry it might be too lengthy. Any ideas you guys may have to condense the information are more than welcome. I tried to include "good examples" and "not so good" examples along with a brief explanation of why it is good or not good to get the point across better. All examples are taken from WP:VG/FA. The not so good examples are taken from prior versions in the article history of our FAs, mainly to show that things can be cleaned up.

Down the road, I'd like to also take this to WT:GAN and WT:FAC to get their feedback; see if they feel it will be helpful to editors. But before that, I hope we can get a finalized version we can all agree one. So please, any comments, criticism, and suggestions would be appreciate; anything from a little tweak to something I got completely and utterly wrong. If you think it can help an editor improve a video game article, or if you learned something new from it, we'd like to know. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I made some additions and edits. User:Krator (t c) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job guys, I read it a couple of hours back and I've got to say its a good piece of work. Picked up a few bits I've overlooked in writing articles before (namely properly establishing the setting in which a game takes place). This should pair up well with WP:VG/GL. -- Sabre (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert editor, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

IMHO, you should put some more focus on the writing tips section, especially the parts on eliminating redundancy and writing concisely, as such issues are often brought up on FAC (the famous 1a criterion, I believe). Also, perhaps you should write more about development/reception section, as those two are usually lacking compared to gameplay/plot (in general, the VG paradigm is "write less" for gameplay/"write more" for development/reception). As an occasional editor, I'd also really appreciate a quick reference on the templates used - an explanation of the infobox ("check other articles!" isn't a useful explanation), plus a better "Proper citations" section would go a long way towards this (please mention the "cite web" template too, as it is by far the most used, and provide an (as detailed as possible) explanation for each field - you might think it all obvious, but trust me, new editors don't think so!). --VPeric (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look either today or tomorrow and give some feedback. It's looking good from what I can see though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

VPeric, those are exactly the type of comments we're looking for. Thanks for the input. There have been some tweaks since it was first posted with hopefully more to come. What did you have in mind about the development, reception, and citation sections?

Krator, regarding the "Having a biased point of view", I've seen content like this before, it isn't that prevalent, but it can be a problem. Mainly in the use of weasel words and putting in too much positive comments. Though the section can probably be rewritten to better convey this.

Anybody else have comments? Good or bad, we want this thing to be useful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I know what Guy means about the neutrality issue. When I've been looking at FACs I've seen an over-emphasis on positivity when it's redundant in its context. I've also seen instances where the article explicitly states that a publication or reviewer is usually harsh after stating that that reviewer gave the game a positive comment, high score. Like saying, "Reviewer X, who usually scores games harshly, game game Y a high score". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Game Informer

I just got my new Game Informer today and I was sitting at my table thinking, @!#$ I could make a great article out of this. Maybe it could list the topics dicssed in the issue, the games reviewed, etc. I need some advice. I'm not sure if it might meet some problems that would have deleted or not. I need as much advice as possible. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want to write an article about a specific issue of a magazine? Bad idea. User:Krator (t c) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But think of the possibilities. have you ever recived an issue? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'd find many third party sources about a specific issue of a magazine. Basically all your sources would be the magazine itself as a primary source. Also, no third party sources would bring up notability problems. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with gaming magazines (particularly Power Unlimited), but the best way to incorporate the information in a magazine on Wikipedia is to list it at the VG magazines project, and to include all information on the relevant articles, and create stubs. I try to create stubs and make edits from my morning newspaper every now and then. Yesterday's paper brought Arijan van Bavel, Angaangaq Lyberth, Dick Berlijn and Peter van Uhm to Wikipedia. That's what you can do with your Game Informer issue as well. User:Krator (t c) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify/point, Krator means add an entry to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines#Game Informer. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

THanks, I will most likly make stubs King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to have gone ahead and made an article about a non notable issue of GameInformer anyway. In the future please do not add these kind of articles as they have very little use to anyone. Instead try to add content to the video games that they cover on their respective pages. Strongsauce (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After being asked to look at this aticle on my talk page, I redirected the issue article the main magazine page; however, I am not opposed to it instead being redirected to a list of issues. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a plausible search term, and therefore cannot be kept as a redirect. Dorftrottel (canvass) 18:46, April 17, 2008
  • Considering thet Kingrock created it in good faith, it is a plausible search term to some and there's no harm in allowing him to keep his contributions here public as a redirect accomplishes the same thing as a delete, but has more benefits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Nobody doubts that Kingrock acted in perfectly good faith when he created that page, but I don't understand how this leads you to logically conclude that it's therefore a plausible search term? And what exactly are those "benefits" you are talking about here? Dorftrottel (criticise) 19:16, April 17, 2008

I agree with Dorftrottel on this. Individual issue are normally so totally non-notable that a redirect even is inappropriate. We'll end up having a list of the issues of every publication. Please don't start edit-warring over it. GRC, let it go. But dortruffle, you cant really replace a speedy tag once removed in good faith by someone other than the author--you need to take it to RfD, where in a case like this it should get very quick action. DGG (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Need some eyes over at Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm‎

The article Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm‎ is in severe need of some extra eyes to look over the article. Currently the article is a horrific mess that reads more like and advertisement, and anon users are constantly adding speculation, linkspam, and undoing most attempts to clean up the article. I've made some attempts to clean up the article, but anons seem to work faster than I am. Could some fellow WPVG members keep an eye on this article and help with the cleanup? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is Naruto after all. I suggest putting in a semi-protection request. That will stop anons from editing. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the work User:Mika1h and i put into the article seems to have slowed down some of the anon edits. However, I will consider that if the cruft/speculation-adding gets out of hand again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

68.49.98.46

Suddenly this guy has gone on a vandalism tip, we need to keep an eye on him. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In the future, report IP vandals to admins on this page Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎. They will handle vandals accordingly. Please remember to also warn the IP vandals before reporting them to that page. Strongsauce (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Date Standard

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but as I've been moving through the video game pages I've noticed a severe lack of a date standard when dealing with upcoming release dates. Many pages use seasons as a time of reference which is easily confused when contributions are happening from both hemispheres. Why isn't there a a quarterly standard (eg: 1st Qtr, 2008), it makes more sense internationally.--Libbaz (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that this is your first post, so on behalf of everyone here, Welcome. - X201 (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SEASON does suggest that neutral wording is used and I try to change seasons to Q2 where possible, although you have to be careful to avoid confusion with calendar year quarters and financial year quarters (financial years can start in any month eg May 07 - Apr08). Another alternative is a month range i.e. Apr-May 2008. And there's also the additional Autumn/Fall naming difference to get around. - X201 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure most of the time when people put those in, they are just using the same date the press releases or news sites use, and most likely don't even think about the problem. Actually this was kind of amusing on Eternal Sonata where people kept not understanding the fact that Australia has opposite seasons from what they were familiar with... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Task Force Proposal

After much reflection, I believe we urgently need to create a taskforce dedicated to the improvement of the "people" of video games articles; the designers, composers, developers, creators, actors, companies, studios, etc. They get almost no love in most video game wikiprojects as all the focus goes to the games themselves. That way, they will get the attention they need. I know that this may complicate the synergy of this project that is going on lately, but if this taskforce, or even a separate wikiproject would take them up they would probably take a qualitative leap. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. I certainly have a few developers in mind that I'd like to work on, but lack the time and resources. If there are enough people to make it happen and keep it going, I don't see why it shouldn't be made. Something to keep in mind though, the project has a lot going on right now. The newsletter just started and we need to keep that going, we're trying to consolidate inactive projects and task forces, and hopefully we'll get a monthly gaming collaboration going too. I'm sure some developer type articles could easily be improved that as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Wouldn't this also fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? Maybe you could get some help from them. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better here, since WP:BIO is incredibly big and 99.9% of people who participate in that project couldn't care less about video games. In the event that this is set up, we should just add a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-17 20:13

BTW, a good place for such a task force to start work on is the "People" section of the Essential articles page. In fact, instead of working on just biographies, how about (after we do the inactive project cleanup and making sure the newsletter keeps going) we combine the talk of reviving the GCOTW with a real push to work on the Essential articles, and maybe even start talk of releasing a proper Wikipedia:WikiReader containing all the essential articles? JACOPLANE • 2008-04-17 20:19

One good thing, they are certainly real world enough. But be aware that articles on technical people connected with movies have met with considerable (and in my opinion often unjustified) skepticism unless they've won Academy awards or similarly major prizes. DGG (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's kind of funny, since our single biography FA is Frank Klepacki (thanks Zeality), who isn't that notable. I think that we have a lot more slack in the WP:VG community since although mainstream publications don't cover our medium and the people involved with it very much, we have an extremely lively industry press and websites, so we won't have any problem finding third party sources to establish notability. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-17 22:41

In line with my FA, I encourage editors (after researching and writing the articles) to try and contact the people in question if there's a deficiency in sources or cloudy details (excepting controversy of course). Frank Klepacki cleared up a few things for me, like the nature of Tiberian Sun's scoring process. Of course, contact will be virtually impossible with Japanese game figures... ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Halo's only 'permanent' stubs are people- Michael Salvatori, Jason Jones (programmer), Joseph Staten and the like. Establishing notability hasn't been my issue, but finding sources has- on Martin O'Donnell, I was able to find very little that dealt with him instead of just his work on Halo. That said, I echo above user's concerns about another project; my suggestion is draft the plan out, but hold off on any sort of push until we consolidate all the inactive projects. We've got plenty on our plate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR is a major issue in what you say. If people from this WikiProject do interact directly with subjects from the articles they're working on, make sure that the subjects publish their opinions on their personal websites/blogs. Writing a great biographical article and sourcing "Person X wrote this to me personally by email" will not suffice. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-17 23:29

Besides the few and far between exceptions of reliable fan site where you could publish such conversations and source it, what about OTRS tickets for your comments? -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Something else that just came to mind, several of the more popular Japanese gaming companies do have offices in North America. Though it may be infeasible to talk to the Japanese developers themselves, perhaps some information can be obtained this way. Don't know how likely it would be to get something useful, but it might be worth a shot. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes, OTRS will work as well. I have OTRS access, so if someone needs to get a statement verified, don't hesitate to ask me. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-18 00:30

If some articles are too small and are stuck as permanent stubs, is it possible to merge them in some "List of... developers" like we do with fictional content, or is it not possible to do this with living persons? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The BAFTA video game awards are major enough to help with the notability requirements and the likes of Edge and Games TM etc are major enough publications in their industry to help meet the demands of WP:BIO Creative professionals. - X201 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a really interesting proposal. I would definitely support it. Kariteh (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

StarCraft: a big clean-up on one of our top-importance featured articles

Ashnard has at my request produced a nice extensive list of everything wrong with StarCraft as though it were a featured article candidate. The article was promoted back in 2005, somewhat miraculously judging by how it only had five references at the time and was horribly written. The general idea is to improve the article to de facto featured article status before someone actually notices how un-FA it really is and takes it through the hassle of a featured article review. The review Ashnard has compiled is rather long and will take me a very long time to get through on my own (there doesn't seem to be anyone else contributing significantly to the StarCraft articles any more), so I'd appreciate any help any of you guys can give me with sorting out its many problems. -- Sabre (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard once again delivers with the win.

Remember, FAs used to be called "brillant prose" and at most was reuqired was just a list of references at the bottom. Then m:Cite.php was developed to make it easier to cite and somewhere along the way in-line citations were required of the 1c criteria. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to rewrite the article instead, as its easier to rewrite the article to avoid the problems in the first place than to try to take them on in the existing prose. If anyone wants to help, the sandbox is over at User:S@bre/StarCraft. -- Sabre (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought on how to promote the newsletter

Just thought I'd throw this out and see what everyone thought about it. Prior to the first edition of the VG newsletter, there was a lot of talk about how to spread the word particularly to members using the {{User WPVG}}. However, one of the main concerns was to avoid spamming.

Anway, I was thinking one solution would be to temporarily tweak the user template to include a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter for a month or two. Something to the effect of, "Click here to sign up for the new VG Newsletter." It kinda borders on spamming, but I think it's within boundaries. Any thoughts?

Also, the next distribution date is about 2½ weeks away. Suggestions for the next feature can be posted on the newsletter talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

So I take that as a "no"? :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm happy for a tweak to the article talk page banner for a while to capture the eye, if concensus agrees.Gazimoff (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not spamming though, is it really? The effort's gone into creating the newsletter, currently most of the score who have signed up are the same contributors who frequent this talk page - if there's not more uptake I'd seriously question whether it's worth the time investment. That being the case, I'd say do whatever it takes to at least make members aware it's there. If they're not interested then so be it, better than not trying and letting it peter out. Someoneanother 02:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above. Not really much else to say, it's not really spamming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing this wouldn't really do much unless people watchlist userboxes. And people don't do that, I think. I'm still in favour of a one off bot message to *everyone* saying "yo, we have a newsletter, click here". Just once. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The message has been added to the userbox. I agree that a message to everyone would be the most effective, but I'd like to try something less aggressive first. Hopefully it'll help advertise it. If not, we'll remove it and try to get a bot message sent out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

List of things in articles

Are video game article suppose to contain like the list of cars available in the game, doesnt it violate WP:GAMEGUIDE, as it does in Street Racing Syndicate?--~SRS~ 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that if the items are themselves notable (i.e. they are real cars with wiki articles), then it doesn't violate any guidelines. Cruft is stuff like a list of fictional weapons or powerups, which have no context outside of their in-game effects. For the specific article you mention, it's a tough call because the in-game car names are fictional, but they're based on real-world models. For this, I would suggest that you request or find a source that actually makes the link between each fictional car and its real-world equivalent; otherwise remove it as OR. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed as it violates WP:GAMECRUFT. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the WP:VG project considers List of songs in Guitar Hero II a featured article candidate, I'd say this list of cars within a game is perfectly valid. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A list of songs is a lot more important than a list of cars. Soundtrack lists are featured all over Wikipedia, car lists are certainly not important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying Link, but I have a bit of trouble understanding why soundtracks are more important. For example, would a Gran Turismo Soundtrack article be justified, while Gran Turismo Vehicles be not important, even though the car driven is central to the game while the music played is largely irrelevant to the game? I'm just wanting to be clear on this and have some arguments to quote, as this argument does seem to rear its head now and again... --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A soundtrack isn't there to serve people who have played the game, but a car list is. There are two types of soundtrack lists:

1. A soundtrack that exists on the game, and the soundtrack is absolutely necessary for understanding of the game. It's very useful for people who have not played the game.
2. A soundtrack released separately. A list of songs on the soundtrack is the only content that can exist, and the contents of it are useful to people who do not own it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

List of cars in video game articles has been discussed before, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 30#Lists of cars. --Silver Edge (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading WP:CVG#Scope of information, and it stated that if we were to list, it should be content relevant to the reader and to the game player, IMO, so I'm guessing that the list of cars should remain? But in the game, SRS, I think the list of girlfriends should be removed. On another note, is a roster list in professional wrestling articles violate WP:GAMECRUFT, or is is relevant to the reader?~SRS~ 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Truco, I can't find the statement at "WP:CVG#Scope of information" you mentioned. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Im sorry, its at WP:CVG/GL#Scope of information.--~SRS~ 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The list of girlfriends actually just needs to be re-titled, as it's not listing characters, but the voice actors who play them. Though, I'm not sure about the guidelines regarding cast credits. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Car lists, item lists, level lists (in most cases, I believe there might be some exceptions) and so on is certainly gamecruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is the actual guideline from WP:GAMECRUFT (which is a synonym for Scope of information; they're the same thing): A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. I think anything having a real-world context "has value" to people not necessarily playing the game. For example, if you're a Ferrari buff and you're researching popular media that contains Ferraris, you would want to be able to find articles by searching for "Ferrari". I interpret the guideline as saying that lists of meaningful things should remain, especially if they are central features (such as cars in a racing game). On the other hand, if a model of a Ferrari can be found as a toy in a first-person shooter, that would count as trivia or cruft. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A Subproject page for Professional wrestling video games?

Does anyone support a subproject for WWE SmackDown! series, and other wrestling video game articles?--~SRS~ 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a task force? JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 16:03

Yeah.--~SRS~ 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 4 online multiplayer and Kojima Criticism

Recently, two groups of Criticism has arise about Metal Gear Solid 4.

One, from Kojima (the game producer) who said amoungst other things: "But the graphic, side things like motion-blending and the size of the map, totally was not accomplished to my original vision - to my satisfaction...we had so many ideas. But when we actually started developing the game, we realized there were a lot of restrictions and so it turned out how you see it today...three years ago that we wanted to create something revolutionary, but in reality we couldn't really do that because of the CPU. We're using the Cell engine to its limit., actually"[2]

I believe it should be included in metal gear solid 4: guns of the patriots in a criticism section.

I added the comments, and they have been removed to a "development section" (it is Kojima being critical of the finished game). I also believe they have been added in a positive-POV manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots#New_criticism_section_and_Kojima.27s_comments

With the launch of the multiplayer online beta, 4 issues have arisen; A) Konami distributed broken keys. B) Konami's Beta Key server crashed. C) Konami has angered users by requiring a unique online account beta play. D) Konami has angered users by requiring a unique online account (post beta) for online play.

I have added ample citations of these issues and believe they should be included in a Criticism section of the the multiplayer online section.

I would like to invite some users from this project to review the discussion taking place here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metal_Gear_Online#Criticism_section

I would welcome some members of WikiProject Video Games to review and comment on these two Discussions. Thanks!

Wageslave (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you were right in wanting to include the creator's own comments about the game (in Halo 2 Bungie's dissatisfaction with how the game's polish turned out is duly noted) however criticism sections are in a word, very bad. Integration into development would be okay for now, but it should prolly go at the end of the critical reception section when it comes out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Kojima criticism should go into the development section, although it can be referenced again in the reception section when critics comment on it. Incidentally, the Edge interview had been out for over a week before blogs decried "OMG KOJIMA HATERZ THE PS3" in their stupid sensationalistic tone. - hahnchen 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Journalists covering the story include people other than bloggers. Also, Kojima's words speak for themselves.

His comments are more relevant than just to the development of the game, they are a commentary on his opinion of finished game and the PS3 itself.

Wageslave (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoot 'em up: Merger Proposals

See the talk page for shoot em up for more information. Run and gun and top-down shooter have emerged as their own separate articles, but they're badly referenced with almost the same information as already seen in the shoot 'em up article. My impression is that these articles are totally redundant. (And if you need another reason for a merger, look at the mess in the Template:Video_game_genre around shooter games.)

Once again, please check in at the talk page for shoot em up. Randomran (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rebooting the Inactive project cleanup work

David Fuchs has gone ahead and merged WikProject Warcraft into a taskforce of this WikiProject (per inactive project cleanup), which can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft. I've cleared the participants list since the project was inactive, so if you would like to participate please (re)add your name. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 12:32

Following from the inspiration of the Warcraft task force merge, I've merged the old incomplete StarCraft Wikiproject into a task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/StarCraft. Participants list is only me for the moment, so if you want to participate, add your name - as I seem to be the only editor significantly contributing to the cleanup of StarCraft articles at the moment (I've no clue where the others have all disappeared to, they just stopped editting), other like-minded editors are always appreciated. -- Sabre (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, good job! JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 16:29

So, what projects are next? Anyone got a suggestion? JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 19:00

I'd suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters. It's been tagged as inactive for over a year. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't think it's even worth having a TF for that series. I say MFD it. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 21:10

Problem accessing magazines page

Does anyone else have a problem accessing Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines? The page doesn't load at all for me. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 19:14

Same problem here. Cannot access page. Wageslave (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I cant access it either, there must be some content that is preventing it from loading.--~SRS~ 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It has something to do with size I think. I deleted the Archives section, which I'm not sure what was for, since I've never seen that page before, and now it is fine, for me at least. I tried deleting individual translusions, but no single one was creating the problem. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now its better. Thanks MrKIA11.--~SRS~ 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it was simply too large. It was transcluding all those subpages that MrKIA11 temporarily deleted (thanks :). I've left a related comment at Wikipedia talk:Special:LongPages#Longest Article talk page. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Prototype

I was going through my watchlist and then I noticed that there are two articles for Prototype. At first I was like 'Ok, what the hell' and I was going to delete one of the versions. But then I realized that this may be wrong thing to do. I thought that maybe I should consult the project. The game is under the name of two article names of: Prototype (game) and Prototype (video game). Should we delete one or what King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)