Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 65

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

→

Can I has peer review plz?

I'm sorry if this is being somewhat of a bother as I know many of you are very busy with your own articles (meaning that sincerely and not condescending in any way), but I've been trying to hammer away at getting some of the project's fictional character articles and could use some extensive peer reviews done on Reptile (Mortal Kombat). Pretty much it just needs extensive copyediting before I can approach FAC...which is actually the case for several of the articles I've worked on it seems.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it my list of peer reviews to do. But I may not get to it until next week at the earliest. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Harvest Moon: New Enter The Moon

Hi, User:Harvest Moon New Enter The Moon recently created this article which looked a bit weird to me. So i searched on the net and could only find two blogs [1], [2] that mention this upcoming game. I also searched on the developers website and found a mention for ranch story on PS3 but there is little information. I was wondering if anyone else could help find a reliable site maybe so i can accept that this game may exist. Salavat (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Scratch the developers mention, they were listings for the old PlayStation games going to PlayStation Store. Salavat (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article itself looks like patent nonsense, so I nominated it for speedy deletion under criterion G1. If that getsdeclined, then i'll prod it as a clear violation of WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Firestorm (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the problem is now solved. Salavat (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardcore Gaming 101

Is Hardcore Gaming 101 (at GameSpy: [3] ) a reliable source? I see its hosted on GameSpy, but I think I remember reading here that the sub-sites were essentially user-generated fansites (it does look like a fansite). I could be wrong though. It's cited extensively on fighting game.bridies (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't say that's reliable, and it does look like a fansite. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that site's definitely not got the same sort of standards as the main GameSpy site; just look at that horrible WordArt banner for a start. It's clearly user-generated and therefore unreliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, is the quality of a site's artwork mentioned anywhere as criteria for inclusion? It's cited in a couple of papers[4]. It's l;isted as one of the best gaming sites in a UGO article[5]. SharkD (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's main editor is Kurt Kalata, which Gamasutra vouches for it seems. More info here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like at least some of it is user generated. On the main page it says "wanna write something?" which links to this: http://hg101.proboards92.com/index.cgi?board=recent&action=display&thread=3714. I think the articles written by Kurt Kalata would be fine ("recognised authority" etc) but there's a lot of other authors, none of which are listed as staff. The contributing editors are listed under pseudonyms such "crusader" and "Vyse the Bold". I'm assuming all other stuff is user-generated, albeit there is an editorial process of some sort, presumably overseen by Kalata. The forum post linked above is pretty damning. bridies (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall we add it as a situational source to the Sources page then noting only articles by Kulata should be used as references?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go along with that. bridies (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Voice actors

What's the best approach on citing these if allgame.com doesn't list them? Would the credits sequence for the game suffice as an alternative? Do they have to be cited in most cases?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought MobyGames was acceptable when citing credits? Gary King (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

~~Good point, I hadn't thought about using them (they're not user generated). Thanks Gary.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)~~

Ack, gotta backtrack on that one. Looks like that is indeed user generated...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Situational_sources says it can be used for production credits. Gary King (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As an alternative, GameSpot lists game credits as well. Under the "summary" navigation option to the left is an option for "game details". See Halo 3 tech info for example. Not every game has a full listing of credits, but something to keep in mind as an alternative. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Can I get input on Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee?

That is, whether it is FA quality or not. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it does not look like it meets current FA standards. The development section alone is a give-away. --Torsodog^Talk 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've not set up an FAR before, so could someone such as yourself do the honors? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Added review here. I invite everyone to take a look and give some opinions! --Torsodog^Talk 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Crystalis

Basically, the same reason as the Duck Hunt GAR listed above. See Talk:Crystalis/GA1. MuZemike 08:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when did good articles get clogged up in all this bureaucratic waste? Now they have to go through nominations, and reassessments? They were originally set up so that didn't have to happen. Don't bother with the wikifiddling, if you don't think it's a good article just mark it down - your comment at Talk:Crystalis/GA1 clearly explains why. - hahnch e n 13:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to go through the process as it gives editors the opportunity to fix the issues. However, if there is overwhelming support of delisting, as it looks to be on the Crystalis page, then it does make perfect sense to expedite the process. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Apologies for making this into a bureaucracy. This, along with Duck Hunt, are the first two articles I have nominated for GAR (both nominated by myself last night). But then again, maybe I work over at AFD too much, where seemingly sure-fire slam-dunk deletions turn into re-enactments of the Cold War. Perhaps I expect the same thing with GAs and FAs, and maybe that's incorrect. MuZemike 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you get that. Generally though if an article really has clear indication it was never meant to be GA (choppy paragraphs and various prods are a good indication) then you can go ahead and demote it without worry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the concept of "Good articles" is just unnecessary? In my opinion, if it isn't featured, it's just an "article". Quality rankings exist, right?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well FA and GA are ranks that are in a sense global to wikipedia, while the individual classes like A and Start are related to the individual projects. In the end too a GA article has a higher chance of going onto wikipedia's CD than most Start-class articles, as the rank illustrates it's quality. So no, it's not useless.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)GA status was originally set up to allow those articles that could never make it to FA status. Some articles still can never make it because the level of scrutiny is much higher for everything, especially sourcing on all relevant materials, that some articles still can't make it that high.じんない 20:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just work on it instead of removing it? There's room for improvement. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I nominated for a reassessment. Perhaps someone will update it to the current standards. It can always be re-nominated when improved good enough. MuZemike 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it said "GA removal" at first. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, just like it's "FA review". But then again, we have Categories for "discussion". MuZemike 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A challenge: create a Welcome template for gamers

Whenever I see someone editing VG-related articles with a red-linked talk page, I leave them this welcome: User:Xeno/welcome. I was thinking maybe some pioneering individual could create a nicer "all-in-one" template with our graphic and also some VG-specific links to our guidelines. Anyhow, have at it. =) –xeno (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Vg welcome}} is a start. Pagra shtak 00:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have {{Vgproj welcome}}, which is linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Templates. I don't think many people are using it though, correct me if I'm wrong. JACO PLANE • 2009-02-15 02:41

A question about non-playables being listed in articles

When is it necessary for them to be listed? If you take a look at: WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009, there is one person listed as non-playable, as a manager. This character adds nothing to the game, and simply doesn't belong. I've removed it in the past and given good reasons, but many people re-add it and claim he's notable. He simply stands in the corner of a person during a match, this is equal to roles such as referee and announcers: not notable for being listed. Plain and simple: it's trivial cruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth are we listing every single unlockable character at all? It's not necessary for understanding of what this game is to cram in a mention of Tommy Dreamer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed last year for WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 and it was agreed that listing the roster for wrestling games is not going against WP:NOT. But I wouldn't mind another discussion taking place.--TRUCO 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a vote that said a lot of "We want a list!" there. Basically, this is the same thing, a game-guide directory listing every single minor character, when prose can summarize nicely. We summarize, not itemize. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It was actually discussed again on this page, but It went a bit ignored. We tried a prose and then something happened and the vote came up to make it a list, but I don't see how WP:SUMMARY says not to itemize. In addition, I don't see how listing a roster is a WP:GUIDE (video game guide), its not telling a user "how-to" do something. I, however, agree to remove Hornswoggle because that is in a way saying "how-to".--TRUCO 01:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong guideline, can't find what I'm looking for right now.

Why is it necessary to list every single wrestler in a wrestling game, when it is not necessary to list every weapon or stage or boss or character in other types of games? There are a number of FAs and GAs that consciously do not list every single one of large lists of things, because those large lists can be described as a group, instead of itemized specifically. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I find wrestling games to be an exception because the characters are based (literally are) off of real people, so they aren't really "characters" like it would be in the GTA series. Now I see that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has a summary prose but still has a main list.TRUCO 01:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that they aren't. They're fictional characters played by and loosely based on real people. Games have included acts without likeness rights (Legends of Wrestling had a few that fell into this gulf), and all of the emphasis here is on acts. Kingdom Hearts II has been cited, and it's telling example. That article neither lists all of the characters in the game nor all of the voice actors in the game, instead covering the highlights with prose and describing the rest as a group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but why does GTA have a main list for characters? What makes it so special?--TRUCO 03:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't like Kingdom Hearts or Grand Theft Auto, this a fighting game like Tekken, Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter, which do list all the characters in the game. Nenog (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a new discussion about listing the full roster. Wrestling games are fighting games, as well as sports. Look at any licensed sports game article (MLB, NBA, NFL and so on): there is no full roster lists. For fighting games, there is lists of characters... however there is not trivial non-playable lists on those (that I know of at least). To get back to my original comment: a non-playable manager in the game isn't notable to be listed. How do people understand the game more by knowing that there is someone that just stands in a corner? In a related note: for any video game article, there isn't usually listings of any non-playables unless they actually play a major part of the plot. Hornswoogle in Smackdown vs Raw 2009 does NOT do this, so I see no good reason he belongs in the article period. Being based off a real person isn't a good enough reason, because as I said (in this post): licensed sports game articles don't have those types of lists. Stop playing the genre card: all video games should be in the same set of rules. I'm sure is there is some exceptions to the rules, but I see no reason ANY sports game (such as wrestling, baseball, football) should need to list a full roster, and it certainly shouldn't list non-playables (such as referees, managers, umpires and so on). RobJ1981 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the matter over Hornswoggle. I also never thought about how NFL, and other related, games don't have a roster. Now I agree that the roster shouldn't even be in the game, and a prose should just be added instead.--TRUCO 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a few WWE (and other wrestling games) that need the roster removed. Also, we need to keep our eyes on these articles: as I can bet IP editors and some of the regular editors will be reverting the roster back on. If people want to have the full roster listed, they can easily move the articles to the Wrestling Wiki: [6], which is a suitable place for it. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion on this matter before, and I figure I should again. Such character lists are excess detail in my opinion and I agree they should be removed. Offering an alternative like the Pro Wrestling Wiki should help smooth things over as such pages on that wiki should be suitable for an external link. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Encouraging people to edit-war with "IP editors and...regular editors" based on this brief chat isn't really consistent with the notion that, "Policies and guidelines are in place for good reason. Even if you don't personally agree with them, doesn't justify you ignoring them." Rosters have been in place on wrestling games, and consequently consistent with policy, for a long time. If you'd like to propose changing that status quo, that's fine—but there are mechanisms for doing so on Wikipedia, and this isn't among them. Why not open an RFC and see whether the idea has traction. Bag of Carrots (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline of WP:GAMECRUFT states that articles should avoid "listing items". A roster is a list of items. --TRU CO 15:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fighting game or Sports game?

Sport? Wrestling is a fighting entertainment show, this is not MMA, Boxing or Football. These are based on real people, but each person plays a character on the show, and those characters are in the game. These are fake characters, people. There is no such person ad The Undertaker, only Mark Callaway exists. Yeah, John Cena goes by his real name, but he plays another character on the show, it's ignorant to think that the wrestlers are actually like they appear on the show. Mr. McMahon, Mr. Kennedy, Chris Jericho, John Cena, Kane and others have stated this fact in interviews, and then there is the obvious and universal knowledge that wrestling is fixed, so we can settle in conclusion that wrestling is a fighting entertainment show and not a competitive sport. So, you can not just fit WWE into a category with NHL, MLB, SFX and other sports games, because in reality, there's no comparison. WWE has intelectual property rights on each of their characters just like Capcom has for Street Fighter. Each fighter and character which is playable in the game should be noted and specified, for consistency with every other game with characters (Pokemon, GTA, Tekken, etc.) Ra agg io 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Professional wrestling isn't a legitimate sport, it is considered under sports entertainment, a work of scripted media.--TRU CO 15:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another reason the game in question should have a roster is that with an NFL game, for example, you already know what teams/players are in it. You expect to see every team in the NFL. If there's some deviation from that, then that should be noted in the article. With wrestling games, on the other hand, the list of characters included in the game is very different from the actual WWE roster. Some characters that are featured by the game are no longer employed by the WWE, and some that are under contract with them are not included in the game. This has been the same for every Smackdown! game ever made. A list is necessary to provide a complete page on the game. Non-playable characters don't need to be included, but the player characters should be. Firestorm (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Firestorm. I wrote out a lengthy detailed opinion over on the talk page of the SvR 2009 article that I will copy and paste in its entirety over here:

"I am finally coming out of whatever rock I was living under for the last year or so to give my thoughts on this situation. I think that the roster should be in. Someone made a point that it shouldn't be in because the NFL games don't list their rosters. Thing is, this is a bit different. WWE is not a sport, its entertainment. And their game isn't a sports game, its a fighting game. Many people use Wikipedia as their source for research on stuff like games, like to find out the list of characters in a fighting game. I think the roster should be re-added because its essentially a list of characters in a video game, and if we were to remove the list here, we would need to remove the lists on every single fighting game that has ever been released, which would be a whole big mess of things, and would contradict Wikipedia's message as being a place to find information. And if people are going to say "this is simply an encyclopedia" then they are wrong as Wikipedia has evolved into much more than that, and if we try to bring it down to an encyclopedia, its never going to be at the same level as Encyclopedia Britannica or even be as respected or usable as a source in colleges and high schools. I just feel this is a whole slippery slope we're going on and I don't see how leaving a list of characters violates any policy on Wikipedia, as we're simply informing people what the list of characters are. Its the same as listing main cast members in a movie, as once again, if we remove the list here, we gotta go into the cast lists for every movie and remove them too. One article shouldn't get special treatment over another. Just my thoughts."

Like I said, removing the roster can lead to a very slippery slope. It may become a standard for many articles, both video game and non video game. Just anything to do with entertainment. Movies, TV Shows, etc. We would have to remove cast lists. We're also going to have to remove list of characters from games like Tekken. Completely delete the Pokedex from Wikipedia. A lot of things would get affected. I think the roster should be put back. And on the Hornswoggle/NPC thing, he simply counts as an extra, and you don't list extras or someone who has 3 brief lines which don't impact the movie in a movie article. That is something for the credits, and Wikipedia isn't IMDB. And if someone wants it in relation to a fighting game, Hornswoggle is an NPC. In fighting games, you list all the available and unlockable fighters, not the NPCs. Its like listing all the pilots who appear in the background of that level in Street Fighter II, or listing each and every grunt and soldier in the Splinter Cell series. If they aren't playable, its not necessary to list unless the character makes a MAJOR impact in the game, such as being an important guide to your character, in which it would be notable to mention that. Jลмєs Mลxx™ Msg me 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling games can indeed fall obliquely into "fighting game". It just varies from source to source: [7] "even staples like wrestling games and even boxing games can fall under this genre's [fighting game's] umbrella." Pretty sure there are others that say they're distinct from both "sports" and "fighting". Although, I'm not even sure how relevant it is to the question of how detailed coverage of characters needs to be. bridies (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with MiB, that it's better to use prose to summarise the character list and talk about why they are important. Not that a character list is outright unnacceptable (for the reasons above) just that the manual of style indicates a prose summary is preferable. bridies (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-roll collab?

The game for this GCOTW is not, IMO, High-importance for inclusion. It's Mid- at the most, and maybe even Low. So does anyone want to re-roll?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That article doesn't seem like it's high-importance. I would say reduce importance and roll again. MuZemike 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Knock it down to mid importance and re-roll. Randomran (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I had been debating whether it was high or mid for a while, but since others agree, I've gone and lowered it. Someone else can re-roll.じんない 01:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't object to knocking it down in rank, a re-roll just because it's not "upmost priority"? Just work on the article some, it's effectively a stub on a subject that apparently inspired later video games. You're at least four people. Improve the thing and move onto the next subject, it's that simple.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly not low-importance, I can recall some old magazine articles (1998-02 era-ish) that covered the game's influence on later games and genre, although I don't have access to them at my present location. The article is just underdeveloped, much like many older games on WP which would have to rely on print sources than online ones. -- Sabre (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ultima Underworld would not only give people the world's first fully 3D RPG, but it would also begin to challenge many of the core assumptions designers brought to their role-playing projects" [8]. Methinks you're selling it a little short. Someone another 03:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, it's definitely Medium importance...but not high-importance, since it's only an individual game. It's not even the first 3D game, just the first 3D RPG. But it needs to be improved anyway, so what the hey.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it just might be High-worthy, given IGN said the same about it's impact. Whether or not it's the first 3D game is kinda irrelevant (see Halo: Combat Evolved). With a few more sources saying the same I would argue for it to be High-priority as an influence for later 3D games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fellas, before we all get too far on this collab, I'd like to cement that nobody will flip about merging the articles (Talk:Ultima Underworld#Merge). That will about double the content and structure. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it makes sense considering the gameplay is the same. Merge away.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are collaboration discussions taking place here? I've been watching the collaboration talk page for a discussion since it was cleared in readiness and nothing appeared. - X201 (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree to re-roll. I agree with Kung Fu Man, in that we might as well continue working on the article for this week. I always thought that the whole point to let the bot do the article-choosing was so that we could just worry about the editing part? Let's not be picky about what article we are given. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm persuaded we should give this one a legit shot. It seems important enough as a game. Randomran (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the different articles, I think it might be a better idea to merge the two articles INTO Ultima Underworld instead of redirecting Ultima Underworld itself. This is because the two games are very similar, and they both don't have a lot of content.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've been in the hospital this week and the rest of the week i'll be too busy cataching up to help, but if the 2 games are similar, we generally merge them together.じんない 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems somebody misinterpreted the merge proposal, so I've marked G6 in order to move the page back to Ultima Underworld. The point is that the series article should also be about the two very similar games, not that each game have their own article and no series article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Um...apparently since you kinda missed that, the idea came up that because both games had some importance and there were only two of them (as well as that a merge of all three into one would be detrimental) that a series article was unnecessary.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Would this image, if allowed by its creator to be used, be usable as a free use image?

[9] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just like File:Zeldagold ds closed.jpg, which shows the Zelda Triforce, as well as the many other photos of devices like for the NDS, Wii, etc. Gary King (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if it qualified, because the logo is copyrighted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Need input on creating a new article for a game

I want to create an article on Kensax, a videogame that will be published by Nintendo. There is a model on my user page. I want to know if there is something missing or what else I could add. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be fine for a future game. You may want to work the gameplay to not focus too much on the minigames, even if this is a game of minigames, but you could restate that section as "example minigames include:...."; once full details are known, a full list of minigames would be inappropriate. But for a starting article it seems to be fine and is notable so you can make it into mainspace. --MASEM 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this better? Rhonin the wizard (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is fine for now; most importantly, you've surpassed the basic necessities to have an article (with referencing, etc.) so I'd go ahead and copy that into mainspace. --MASEM 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, I created it's talk page as well. All that's left is to add some categories. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

request for comment at fighting game

A few editors, particularly user:bridies and myself, have been working on the fighting game article. Although it is not meant to be an exhaustive compilation of every fighting game, let alone every variation on a fighting game, we'd appreciate some comments at talk:fighting game to tell us if there are any huge errors or omissions.

I've already reached out to a few talk pages at notable fighting game series talk pages. But, on balance, we're just as interested to hear if we have too *much* information. I figure you guys have worked on a lot of good and featured articles, and can give us a sense of how to balance breadth/depth, particularly in the history section. We want to cover a lot of fighting games, but we also want to explain why they were important. It's tough. Randomran (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

... Oh, and at this point we're not too worried about double-checking sources or doing any copy-editing. We'll probably do a formal peer review once we're sure the article is both concise and comprehensive. So don't get hung up on bad prose at the moment. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of Mother 3

A Peer review was opened for it, but no one seems to have commented. Could I illicit some people here to do so? If you want, you may skip the Plot section if you don't wish to have the plot spoiled. The peer review can be found here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Expect a review from me sometime soon. -- Noj r (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert war at TimeSplitters: Future Perfect

Assistance please! User:RyanJak and an IP keep attempting to add the following to the above article: ...with comprehensive and in-depth detailed statistics of all players on EA Games' website. XtR3Me SpliTt3r was highly regarded as TimeSplitters: Future Perfect's best player of all time, staying on top of the Xbox Live standings for the majority of the game's lifetime. ^{[citation needed]}

Such information is clearly not sourced (he's also added the fact tag, and admits it isn't still on the website) and not encyclopedic. I consider it vandalism, especially as edit summaries like "you make this too much fun" suggest he's doing it to annoy me, but am of course wary of 3RR. Is there any chance someone could block him or protect the page? He's not going to stop re-adding the information and has ignored a note on the article's talk page and on his own.

Any help much appreciated. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Report it to WP:AN3, he's exceeded the 3RR rule himself by 9 edits (assuming the IP is the same person, even if it isn't, both have exceeded the limit). -- Sabre (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I safely assume I'm not risking being blocked myself for my reversions on this if I report it there? Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely, considering multiple people have accused the user(s) of vandalism. The latter have already made assertions of bad faith through the edit summaries they've made, which seem to indicate they're aware of the policies and are purposely ignoring them. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Chronology of ... games" versus "List of ... games"

There has been a bit of an edit conflict between two Wikipedians. Let's focus on the substantive issue.

There are numerous "list of ..." articles in the Category:Video game lists by genre
SharkD has created several lists in the form "Chronology of"

The conflict has centered on the List of space flight simulation games. Rather than take sides, I just think we should aim for a single, consistent solution for all video game lists by genre.

Reasons to support a general list include:

We've been doing regular "list of ..." articles for a long time
Sorting by date emphasizes the wrong data, and users would prefer to see content in some other way

Reasons to support a chronological list include:

We've started to shift towards chronological lists
Sorting by date makes these articles valuable for following the history of a genre
Sorting by title or editor-determined grouping is arbitrary

Discuss. If we can't find a consistent solution, then I guess we'll have to name these lists on a case-by-case basis. Randomran (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my thoughts on this in the discussion above. Like I said there, I do NOT think the flight simulator game article (or most articles) should be centered on dates. Unless there is an obvious, important progression of the genre that is clearly stated in the lead, these articles should simply give users the ability to sort by date and not force it on them (especially when the list is as large as this one). It is not the most important factor in these articles. Period. --Torsodog^Talk 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If done right, chronological lists can be used just as normal alphabetical lists since such tables can be sorted. From a standpoint of which is better, the chronological aspect is just a bit more encyclopedic (someone can research how the games came about in an easier fashion). The information otherwise contained would be the same. --MASEM 17:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This list has compiled all or most of the space combat flight simulators, what is important in this list? If you remove the years from this list you would still have a list. Near the very bottom of the Talk:List of space flight simulation games it was stated that "a good bulk of those lists don't even have dates", that is exactly my point. If you remove the names of the titles from this list, then the list would cease to exist. That point alone proves one thing, what makes this list important and useful is not the dates, but the names of games. So do we have a useful piece of information in the first column? Should we put in the first column a piece of information that really means nothing and is completely unimportant when compared with the importance of the actual game name? The date really could be removed entirely and the list would still exist and be a functioning helpful resource. Why put an item of unimportance or at least less importance in the first row? I want to argue this in another fashion, is the game relevant because of the year, or the year relevant because of the game? Take away the year, you would still have the list, take away the games, you don't have anything. Important information always dominates. What is important here? The name or the year? To go even further with this idea, because logically speaking, year is unimportant (or at least minimally) important, why would we even consider a name change to Chronological? Chronological formation is nonsensical in this case given the facts above because it has absolutely no baring on genre of space combat flight simulators or this list whatsoever! In fact after my little argument, I have no idea what its purpose was being in the second column, I vote to move it right beside the notes area. Wow! Hey what do ya think of my point? It is a pretty good point? I mean seriously heheh, kinda surprised myself, I even changed my own mind, wow eheheheh! Lets do it up though, I am sure we can get all the issues figured out with the help of like minded individuals and friends on WP:VG. Seriously though what do you think of my point guys? Also, I have an issue about sorting but I think we should handle one issue at a time. As for coming to a verifiable standard, if there is a standard then Chronological is not it. I browsed around Wikipedia and went to the Lists_of_video_games. Did you know that 186 of those lists are just "List of (item)" and only 18 are "Chronological list of (item)"? So that means that within the video games lists only about 9% are Chronological. So if we are trying to follow some kind of standard it would be probably be better to just leave it the way it is. Very simply my point is:

What is important, the names of the games or the year the game was made? Since 91% of lists within the Lists_of_video_games are not a Chronology, it could be concluded beyond any shadow of a doubt that List is much more of a standard, just by math. Take away the year, you would still have a list, take away the name you have nothing. What is important? Also, I was just about to add the years that these games were released in different countries. So, if we are going to sort it by year, what release year do we sort it by, the American, the Japanese, the European, or even recently Russian one (All of them are different space sometimes 2 years in between)? Taking into account this simple fact, sorting by date is misleading and un-encyclopedic(in this case, maybe not others, but in this case). This list is not about dates, this list is about the games. Question: Should this List keep the same name (List of space flight simulation games), or should we change it to Chronology of space flight simulator games)?
Furthermore because of this single moment of clarity, I truly don't see much of a purpose for year(other than trying to research the actual game) and think it should be included where most of the years are on allot of the lists, next to the notes column. How does everyone feel about that? Question: Can we move the date column next to the notes section?

Honestly I am pretty new at this Wikipedia stuff and I submit this proposal in the most humble of ways, I am just a space sim fanatic and want to help make a list. I am truly grateful to everyone who has tried to mediate but most importantly I mean I didn't even know that we could get others opinions from this area, in hindsight it seems obvious, I just didn't know there were issues like this when making a list ehhehe. What I am trying to say is, I am sorry for all of the commotion and I will to my absolute and very best to be a productive member of Wikipedia. Thank you. So guys what do you think of my arguments? Who votes yes on prop.1? and prop.2? This is my first time for this type of resolution, because of this, I would like to expand my possibly narrow view, I would love to hear some of your thoughts on this? I vote keep the same for prop.1 and yes for prop.2 ... for the reasons stated above. Also, thanks for reading, even if you have no interest in space combat sim's at all, ya gotta check out X: Beyond the Frontier, the original, then you will be hooked, or Elite, ahhh man. Then you will understand my passion. Also, sometimes people get my passion confused with thinking that I am a little to fond of the list eheheh, I apologize, I own nothing, at least on Wikipedia, I just love space combat sims. Also, if anyone has any suggestions on how we can make this list even more useful I would love to hear it. For example SharkD added a really nice looking legend which made the page easier to read, I would have never thought of that. We should have come here for help along time ago. Thank you, and couldn't agree with you more Torsodog. --Kirihari (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I originally supported the "chronology" part because I thought that it imposed a set list order...but I see now that isn't really necessary to enunciate in the article title. There needs to be a list guideline elsewhere that defines, say, that lists of specific games have to be chronologically ordered (or alphabetically ordered, depending on the peoples' decision) to avoid further confusion. In my opinion, trying to change the organization of some lists, but not all of them, just contributes to disorder. This doesn't just apply to space sims but all lists of titles in general. IMO, make all lists alphabetical but mandatorily sortable by year. --_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 20:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with a guideline, as there certainly is a wide range of opinions. SharkD (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that I favor the "Chronology" organization. I don't think there's any need for me to repeat what I said earlier. SharkD (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you favor chronology SharkD? Let's build a forum here of constructive debate, because as proven above the dates have little or no influence in this particular genre. So let's discuss this. I also have another question, for a vast majority of lists on Wikipedia Chronological would not only be detrimental, it would take away from the list. Let me explain, taking a random list into account List_of_Wario_games, if you wanted to change that into a chronology of wario games, it would remove either the Japanese release date or the American release date, or make one of less importance. People talk about making lists more "encyclopedic", I ask you my friends, is it "encyclopedic" to remove valuable information from a list, or is it "encyclopedic" to state a piece of information that is of really no baring for concern, and state that information in the first the most important column. Not only state it there, name the list after it, and misleadingly imply that a particular year had influence over a game. Calling this list Chronology would expand a small cancer in Wikipedia, right now it exists at 9%, lets cut this thing out before it hits terminal. This cancer is leading to misinformation, leading people to beleive that is it because of 1993 that Protostar: War on the Frontier exists; this is obviously incorrect. I have laid about 20 reasons down here and in the previous Talk:List of space flight simulation games page that for those who are concerned about a standard should be convinced that this is the standard. The only purpose of having the years in the first column is you can see it in an ascending order, which could be achieved by the >< button. People have stated that chronological is "just a bit more encyclopedic", I ask you this my friends, is it encyclopedic to deceive? Having the date in the first column is misleading if for nothing the above reasons. Again I ask, is it encyclopedic to deceive? Especially when most games have had 2 or even three world release dates? This has to end here! Once we come to a conclusion on this debate, I would really like to start another debate stating that Chronological formation of the lists is contributing to an erosion of knowledge within at least the video games articles. How can you make a Chronological list of video games when half of the freeware video games never even had a release day? Let's put this in another way, let's pretend we were talking about a "List of different types of fruit", are you saying that we should make it chronological when most of the years for discovery or "came into being" is unknown? It is foolish to think that this would be encyclopedic, the same is true with this list. What release year do we use, American, the Japanese, the European, or the Russian? How about indie releases that never actually do have an actual real release and will probably always be in beta? What about the remakes? If we go with initial release, then does that make the Japanese release any less important (it most certainly does!)? Again, what is important, the name or the year, take away the year, you have a list, take away the name, you have nothing? Do we put something in the first column that has absolutely no baring on a list? do we name the list after that largely meaningless piece of info(in this case)? No, I most certainly think not. --Kirihari (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The examples you cite could probably be narrowed down a bit. For instance, about a third of the articles you linked to in Lists of video games consist of highly primitive bulletted alphabetical lists without any dates of any sort. I don't think they serve as good examples of what the project should aim for. SharkD (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And, as for Wario games list, it can't in fact be sorted chronologically, since there's no means of selecting the first release date from the Japanese, North American and European dates. This is a technical issue I oppose in that particular list. SharkD (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should make all lists into table format sortable by whatever content the user wants. Default should be name because most users will be looking for specific names, however that doesn't preclude someone from going over to the Japanese, North America, European, Australian, etc. date and sorting them by that.じんない 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there have been complaints in the past that an alphabetic listing is arbitrary and even fawning, and that a chronological listing would be better[10][11]. I also recall previous debates in this project over whether lists are really necessary and whether categories serve the same purpose (in a similar intention as WP:GAMEGUIDE). Chronologizing the lists narrows their focus by giving them a purpose, instead of just "LAWL. HeRe i put de lisst". SharkD (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is a lot of people are looking at it from an oldschool bookish standpoint where there can only be one way to sort anything on a page, a la print. That's not the case with Wikipedia.じんない 22:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point was made earlier that "most people look for" alphabetical lists. I don't think this point is more worthy of caution than "most people look at it from a bookish perspective", especially when it's not "forced upon them". Anyway, there's lots of material that people come here "looking" for that is not included because it's not considered encyclopedic. SharkD (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is made for a general audiance, not a selective one. Therefore having the ability to cater to both with customizable sortable lists does both. Furthermore, what date do we use? The original release date? The original English release date? What about those that don't have dates? Etc.じんない 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I list the first release date, regardless of region. With the RPG lists I went a step further and listed them all, sorted in the order of appearance. I hope to improve the others to this level, but there's only so much I can do at once. I've prioritized upgrading the primitive bulletted lists to table format before continuing further. I can always go back later and fill in the missing details. SharkD (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Further, look at lists like ~~List of Atari 7800 games~~. There's no way to list the games chronologically since they are spread across tens of individual articles. SharkD (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I cited a bad example above. List of PlayStation 2 games is more along the lines of what I meant, as the list is divided into sections. SharkD (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another advantage of changing lists to a chronological format is that it provides a means of arbitrarily determining a cut-off point when lists grow too large. You can see how I've done this in Chronology_of_console_role-playing_games:_1990_to_1994. SharkD (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, even misusing the next point, chronologically is misleading and points to a insignificant piece of information and makes it significant as if it has some bearing on the games itself, this obviously is not true. As stated above, "as for Wario games list, it can't in fact be sorted chronologically", the next thing I was going to do before all of this happened with this list is add the releases in different countries, so does that mean this debate is now settled? Does that mean this list too "can't in fact be sorted chronologically"? In Chronology_of_console_role-playing_games:_1990_to_1994, information is now very difficult and almost impossible to find in the dates column. The sorting of that list is ruined, you can not sort chronologically anymore because have multiple release years, all the release years are in the far left column and are un-sortable, is that really what is called a chronological list done right? You can not actually sort that list perfectly by year because of the multiple releases, now it just is a mess. This is really strange to me. Lastly, I totally agree 100% with じんない, I never even thought of that. Seriously though, this debate is settled isn't it? If this list can't be sorted chronologically because of two release dates, then alphabetically is the only way. I stress though, taking a random chronological list into account, the Chronological_list_of_PC_Engine_games, this list is wrong. It obviously had two release dates for both games, but now the Japanese or the American release name has been omitted. Honestly the date section is now a useless waste of misleading, deceiving, garbage information just like the above list. Honestly after we are finished with this list I am going to go to every single chronological video games list and add the American or the Japanese release date and prove how pointless (in most cases where date has nothing to do with anything) chronological is. Very simply said, the chronological formation of lists(where year has no bearing like in this case) spits in the face of encyclopedic, implying a relation that doesn't exist. --Kirihari (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronological list of PC Engine games has a lot of issues that need to be fixed, not just the ones you pointed out. SharkD (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still staying neutral on this, but I figured I would come in and try to see the multiple points of view here. I can see where User:SharkD is coming from, where there is knowledge added by organizing it chronologically, moreso than other forms of organization. Wikipedia:Lists#Information goes so far as to spell out a chronological structured list as a good reason to have a list, rather than just a category. That said, people in this discussion overwhelmingly prefer a dynamic list, where the user has the freedom to decide what's a sensible layout. Randomran (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to say. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We can have default sorting by chronology, but we should not force it down the throats of everyone.じんない 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicely Said, also here is one for the books. If you wanted to find information about a game called "Dark Cloud" from the Chronology_of_console_role-playing_games, you would have to sort through thousands of entries to finally figure out it in on the third page. So there we are sorting thousands of games by year instead of by alphabet. This never ever happens with an Alphabetical list just to find one game. I am so happy that SharkD pointed out this list to me because this has further cemented in my thought on this. If some poor jerk wanted to find out information on Dark Cloud, how does he know the release year? He wouldn't, he knows the name, he maybe even knows the publisher, but he wouldn't know the release year and begin looking by that. When someone thinks of Super Mario Brothers for the NES, they don't think first of 1985, and then go looking for the game by that year, especially since that is the Japanese release year, unless you are Japanese hehehe. This line must be drawn here! Ok, everyone is agreed we all prefer a dynamic list, and I would like to ask that this debate is now settled and if I can post our settlements in Talk:List_of_space_flight_simulator_games so we can get approval from the Administrator handling this to approve the changes to the List_of_space_flight_simulator_games and put the titles back in the first column. Sound good to all parties involved? --Kirihari (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No administrator necessary. That said, let's let this discussion run a little bit longer, just in case other people want to add their two cents. Randomran (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at it from another viewpoint: If someone were to want to sort a list of video games chronologically, and the games were spread across multiple articles for each letter of the alphabet, he or she would not be able to do so at all! The date information (which has at least a modicum of encyclopedic value and might help people - such as me - in doing research) is spread across multiple articles, and can't be tabulated in any fashion whatsoever. Things are being "forced upon them" equally so in their case. Whereas in your case the problem could be easily solved by using the browser's own search feature to look up the game by its name. SharkD (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well between default being year and title, I'd like to know who would tend to use the list more? That might help moreso.じんない 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As for being able to sort by "whatever content the user wants", this is not going to be the case in any event, so the point is moot. SharkD (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good point じんない！ That being said, who would want to look up the video game by year? What is the person's purpose for doing that? What research could they possibly do that would make them want to sort by year? I understand that when a year has particular bearing on a particular subject maybe because of current events or a war or drought or famine, but to say that years have a bearing on a video game is absolutely preposterous. Or more down to earth, to say that a particular year have a particular bearing on Space flight simulators, is so crazy that I have no vocabulary left to explain just how misleading and nonsensical it is. In an encyclopedia, a person should be able to look up things quickly, this is absolutely impossible in chronological especially if they have to sort through ten different pages of chronologically cataloged information. Now, SharkD, I understand what you are saying, but I absolutely can't see how that applies here. This being said, there is absolutely no way, no possible event or years tied together that bring influence on Space combat flight simulators, or for that matter Wario games, mario games, video games in general. Again I ask you to seriously consider this, what is important, the game or the year? Take away the year, you still have a nice little list, take away the game and you have nothing, sweet zip nothing. So year is less important, do we have the list revolve around something that is less important? Important information should always dominate first. The CEO always sits at the head of the table, the most important news is always on the front page, this is what people know and expect. Chronologically would be like taking the president of the USA out of the box seat at baseball game and putting him up in the nose bleeder section for the purpose because it looks better, and no one can find him now because he is not where he should be. --Kirihari (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your points above. SharkD (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why though, why? Let's build a dialogue, here. I love this forum, I tell ya I will take all questions I have here in the future, I have really learned allot from other people's thoughts on this matter and have changed my own feelings because of them. Seriously though, if a person wants to find a simple game, and now they hit a wall of dates, is that good? Tell me how this obstacle contributes to the betterment of this list, cuz I just don't get it? --Kirihari (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl+F? Welcome to the internet! (jk)--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 04:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think dates are "misleading and nonsensical," and they certainly don't "spit in the face of encyclopedic[sic]." In fact, I like to look at the dates when trying to find some oldies and goodies that I can download as abandonware, or to learn about new/recent releases that I haven't heard about yet. Dates do lots of cool things you may never have thought of! Just imagine: without dates you would have no birthday! (OMG!!) ^^ SharkD (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotta compliment ya SharkD, good comment! Still don't agree with ya but, that brought a smile to my face and that is actually a good reason to have chronological, but that is just a small reason and could be achieved easily with the >< button. Still, I definitely like that, not being sarcastic or nothing, you and I might have something in common after all, I love abondonware. Old gamez rule. --Kirihari (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Randomran, the conversation has run on a little longer and the page has been moved again to Chronology of space flight simulator games(by the bot I beleive). Since the majority of people prefer a "dynamic list", is this conversation settled? Can I post the results on the Talk Page of List of space flight simulator page and then get Edit centric to approve the changes (that's what he said to do). I don't want to touch the page without the administrator's approval so, is the decision copacetic with everybody? I will then move the page back to "List of space flight simulators" because of the above discussion and sort it "Alphabetically". Agreed? --Kirihari (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

On my reading, it looks like all but SharkD prefer a dynamic list. It would be inappropriate to name something this flexible a "chronology of", since you'd destroy the chronology at the click of a button. But maybe someone a little more independent should read this over and see if I'm accurately describing the consensus, though. Randomran (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing whether the list should be a "dynamic" one. Only the default sort order and page title are in dispute. SharkD (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When you make an article a chronology, you're specifying a single default order. If it's a "list of games", I don't think you're specifying one. What I'm saying is, even if you choose a specific default order, they should still be called "list of" rather than "chronology of".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I don't think anyone is against the fact that you can sort by date. But everyone here, except SharkD, prefers the conventional sorting by alphabet, and the conventional naming of "list of". Not to mention that "list of" works better for a dynamic list, which can be sorted by anything. Chronology would only work for a static list. Randomran (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How did the article get changed back to "chronology of"?? I haven't seen anyone here agree with the renaming except SharkD. WHY should we force people to look at the list chronologically by default? Especially when there is not ONE sentence detailing why the chronology of the genre is important at all in the lead. This is just silly and unnecessary. --Torsodog^Talk 05:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What sort of sentence would you like to see there? SharkD (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd feel more comfortable if this discussion were turned more towards the formation of a guideline. Anyone else interested? SharkD (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Acting on this discussion

Kirihari has moved Chronology of space flight simulator games to List of space flight simulation games as a result of this discussion. For the others (see Category:Timelines_of_video_games), should we do some kind of bot-request? Also, SharkD raises the possibility of making this part of our style guidelines. Maybe we should add something to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines? Randomran (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of FAs are sick, need doctors

A couple of FAs are looking rather sickly and require attention. Rather than peg them for FAR, I thought I would bring my concerns here. Half-Life 2 had an FAR last year and the consensus was keep. Regardless, critical reception is much too small for a game of its caliber, with nary a mention of its legacy. Development is disjointed, as is the lead, and an unnecessary narrative section is, well, unnecessary. Bioshock is another concern. Since it is a popular game, and nobody has adopted the article, it has become overrun by fan cruft. Gameplay and Plot are huge, and the lead pretty much stinks. I know everyone is busy with their own thing (and I mean this with sincerity and respect), but maybe we could come together and fix these articles back up, and then have people adopt them so they don't get all crufty. Cheers everyone, -- Noj r (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rehevkor seems to be Half-Life 2's caretaker, and User:Masem for BioShock. Gary King (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For BioShock, the gameplay and plot sections really haven't changed in size since the FA passing (here's the diff from then to now); that is, the amount of plot and gameplay was already vetted during the original FA passage. --MASEM 18:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I'd recommend someone whose good with plot sections takes a look at Call of Duty 4. I'd deal with it myself, but I frankly suck at summary style for plot. Its not something I'd really want to take to FAR over alone, but at nine paragraphs and over 1,200 words, its a bit long. -- Sabre (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my baby, but I haven't been tending to it in a while. I'll see what I can do. Gary King (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, for Call of Duty 4, I have shortened the Plot section from 1228 words to 692 words. Gary King (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That something passed FAC a year ago—or any time, for that matter—is not total confirmation that the article is adhering to current standards. Reviewers regularly neglect glaring issues such as plot size while focusing on something like prose quality, for example. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. Halo 2 is in need of some prose/sourcing/expansion, which I've been neglecting because of other work but I will probably get to in the coming weeks. Even if reviewers keep up with changes, it may just be it wasn't that stringent a review to begin with. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The CoD4 plot section reads a heck of a lot smoother now, good work! -- Sabre (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On another pressing issue related to FA maintenance, this link shows moved pages and deadlinks on our FAs; if your article is on the list, fix it! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone has enough time, they could run through all the links and get them done in one session. It would take perhaps one afternoon or so. Gary King (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help there right now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually something seems wrong with that list: a lot of the FA's don't seem to be listed and a lot of former FA's are.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The list is generated from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured articles, which contains former featured articles. Articles that are not listed in the link page are most likely those that do not have any link issues. Gary King (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible yearly "spring cleaning" for FA/FL/FTs?

Would it possibly make sense to have a yearly drive to "spring clear" all of our featured content as self-checked to make sure it is up to snuff? That is, we can create a table listing each element, including checks for valid links, valid image rationales, and general writing, that should be done by someone uninvolved or just involved with an article. It wouldn't necessarily be needed to take these elements to official review, but it would help to identify weak spots, and help keep our project's articles top notch. --MASEM 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I need to be reminded every once in a while of the shape of some articles. Gary King (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be down for it, assuming we keep it as 'cracy-free as possible (say, just a checklist we can paste to the talk page, once it's resolved just a note on some projectspace.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Waiting a year to assess FAs is too long. Too many edits would be made to popular game articles. Plus, imagine having a PR backlog like we have now and still have every FA to cross examine; it would take forever. I simply think everyone should keep an eye on articles they have invested a large amount of time into. Checking the history tab once a week is more than enough to ensure the prose is not tarnished by random goons. -- Noj r (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles can still degrade by good-faith efforts, not just vandalism. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be the first to say the Kingdom Hearts articles aren't in too good of shape, and a lot of it is because of well-meaning fans. If not for User:Axem Titanium and User:The Prince of Darkness (who has unfortunately just retired), the articles would be in much worse shape. I think it'd be a good thing to work with a few others to do some cleaning. We did a similar thing for the Version 0.7 workshop, but more in-depth. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I could have worded it better; I meant good faith edits as well. When you check the history tab, you make sure any edit made contributes to the article and doesn't degrade it. -- Noj r (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that is the ideal approach. It just gets tricky sometimes when it's a mix of actual helpful edits and non-helpful ones. Plus, I don't know about others, but being a watch dog wears me out. I know scheduled maintenance would spur me more than constant watching because I'd rather work on other articles. I'm not trying to rag on others that do watch articles for that kind of stuff. Wikipedia would fall to shambles very quickly without them. It just personally takes a lot out of me, and I find researching and expanding articles more fulfilling. I would have quit a long time ago if I didn't keep working on new articles. And now I realize I've been rambling... :-/

Yes, I think we should do yearly cleaning. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I can see how this can be frustrating for you Guy. After all, articles like Kingdom Hearts are popular and prime targets for degrading edits. The first article I invested a lot of time into, Voices of the Lifestream, hasnt been edited since October of last year. System Shock 2 is also rarely edited because its fairly obscure. So I dont really have a problem with troublesome editors, but I can see how checking every article you worked on every week can be a daunting task; an annual cleaning party might be a ideal thing to do. -- Noj r (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merges to NES Zapper

Talk:NES Zapper#Merger proposal → any comments would be welcome there. I'm not sure if the merges I have would be going in the right direction. MuZemike 04:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Query — I'm looking at Pro Beam Light Gun more and more, and I'm not sure if it makes sense to redirect to the NES Zapper article. Perhaps a redirect to Light gun or even AFD would be a better option? Thoughts? MuZemike 17:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For lack of response, I'll be bold and redirect to light gun. Kind of makes sense there as opposed to merging to the Zapper article or even trying to delete it. MuZemike 07:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Game lists experiment

As an experiment, I uploaded the spreadsheet used to create List of space flight simulation games as an online spreadsheet on EditGrid.com. I'm thinking that this may make updating/maintaining list articles easier for recurring editors. But, we'll have to wait and see whether this works out well. SharkD (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

VertBox-based navigation templates

There have been a number of nav templates developed recently using the VertBox template (they're the ones on the right of the page, as opposed to the bottom). These are generally very useful, but I am concerned about the use of these templates on pages other than their title page.

The use of the nav templates in this manner is confusing for several reasons:

The navbox title does not correspond directly to the page title or subject (see eg Interactive fiction)
The pages in question often relate to games in general, not just video games (resulting in pages such as Party game where the video game link is inappropriate).
More relevant content is often pushed down the page (for example History of video games).
The issues above, among others, have resulted in some pages listed either not having a navbox added, or having it removed - this is creating inconsistencies (for example Level design versus Game design).

Personally I would like to see this style of navbox restricted to the title page (Adventure game navbox only on the adventure game page, etc). IMHO, only navboxes at the bottom of the page are appropriate for pages other than the title page. The simplest way to restrict this would be to move the content from templates into the title page itself.

What do people think about this issue? Playclever (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that they can link to articles without linking back. Bishōjo game fe can link to high level articles, but can't link directly back to itself. Either it should be removed or more specific categories should be added.じんない 19:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is regarding Interactive fiction. The article lead says, "In common usage, the word refers to text adventures, a type of adventure game where the entire interface is text only." The "Video game genres" navbox at the bottom of the article also refers to IF as a sub-genre of Adventure games. I fixed the issue in Party game by moving the navbox to the relevant section. And, Bishōjo game does link back to itself. Another user just hid the link under one of the sub-menus. SharkD (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The IF page is less of an issue than others, since there is no direct contradiction, it's just that there is a lot of information in the boxout that does not relate to Interactive Fiction, rather to the genre of which it is a part. People see a box at the top of the page, they generally expect it to be directly informative on the subject in question. The problem is that the adventure game boxout is not the most effective format for conveying information about Interactive Fiction. Playclever (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Game design is another page where I don't think the box is appropriate, since the box relates to video games and that page relates to game design in general... (mind you, there are so many issues with that page, it's not the first thing I would notice.) Playclever (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I would edit these individually but I think we need a high-level consensus on what is appropriate first Playclever (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I could create a special "VG Industry" template so that the bulk of the non-relevant links would not appear. SharkD (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Works pretty well on the pages I've seen - good job! Thanks for all the effort here, I promise I'm not being awkward for the sake of it ;) Playclever (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice saughts re: DS Guitar Hero games

With the soon-to-be-released "Guitar Hero: Modern Hits", we will have three DS Guitar Hero games which pretty much all have the same functionality along with a minimal amount of development information about each; furthermore, based on the reception for the second game, most reviewers see it as an expansion and not really a separate title. It has been suggested that it would be best to combine what will be three articles into two, one being "Guitar Hero Nintendo DS games" and another for the list of songs in these games, combined (there's only about 25 per game, so this would not be a large list). Anyone see any major issue with this approach save for the terrible name for the core article? --MASEM 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You could also name it Guitar Hero (handheld series) or something like that. Gary King (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider Guitar Hero (Nintendo DS series) over handheld as there's also mobile phone versions and a cheap portable device, but that's at least better than my original thought. --MASEM 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree on Masem's suggestion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, add the (Nintendo DS series) onto it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

New article idea: Individual music articles.

It's not really a proposal, just a test to see if it can be done well. I've already begun work on one: User:New Age Retro Hippie/World 1-1 music (Super Mario Bros.). Anyone who wants to help is welcome to do so. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

...well at least you don't call it a song. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling these would be way too short to be a useful article. If there is significant music aspects of a game, a "Music of X" would be a reasonable article, but not for individual songs. --MASEM 04:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the Music section of Super Mario Bros. is woefully undeveloped. I wouldn't suggest you create this article until you flesh out the main one.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I specifically stated that this was not a proposal. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see the information that's been found so far. Gary King (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely a fun article to write, I've never written about a music article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some video game themes that are considered notable. Some that come to mind are the Mario and The Legend of Zelda themes. Gary King (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• nod* If I can get this article to GA-class, I'll go forward with my other two ideas, Sonic theme and Zelda theme. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Zelda theme has a chance. I'd have to do some digging up to provide the refs, but I remember off-hand that Kondo originally had Ravel's Boléro slotted for the game, and switched it out at a late hour for an original composition when it was discovered that Boléro was still under copyright. Reviews for Zelda games mention the piece sometimes—some reviewers complained that Ocarina didn't have it, and mentioned its welcome return in Majora's Mask. Pagra shtak 14:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Dragon Quest one might also as it was suppose to be the first played by a professional orchestra.じんない 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can set up user pages for these articles - Jinnai could take up DQ, Pagrashtak Zelda, and me the Mario theme. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. You're going to find it hard to expand out content with non-trivial mentions, I suspect. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if they can't expand them enough, there's quite a few games that could support a "music of" article given some research that don't currently have one. --Pres N 20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there is already a good deal of info for Dragon Quest music. I won't be creating an article on a mainpage until I think it's at least a good start-class (no need for another stub). If I can't, well if I come up with more info I'll just add it to the existing article.じんない 20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There always seems to be an old journal floating around somewhere that has a really in-depth article for something. Gary King (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This article looks like it has some useful information. Pagra shtak 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So the general consensus amongst people who support individual song articles is that the Mario, Zelda, and Dragon Quest themes could make for good articles. What about the Sonic the Hedgehog theme? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find enough references for it. I'm not really a Sonic fan myself, so I'm not familiar with the theme. Gary King (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One Winged Angel might be able to hold its own as an article. Tempest115 (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So what do you guys think of the Reception section of the Mario article? I think it's doing pretty well - I've got reception from Tommy Tallarico, Charles Martinet, and Nobuo Uematsu. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. When the article is moved to the article namespace, upload an audio file containing part of the song; it can be included into the article with fair use. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For images, I'm definitely including the Koji Kondo image, but I'm debating if I should use a soundtrack image, or maybe a picture taken of a concert. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like famous game music can have their own articles much like hit singles. I recommend changing the article title to Super Mario Bros. theme, or World 1-1 theme. The reason I say this is because including parenthesis with no disambiguation purpose might be confusing.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Super Mario Bros. theme". "World 1–1 theme" (which by the way needs an en dash) just doesn't describe it sufficiently, in my opinion. Gary King (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The title wasn't really final, or definitive. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Square Enix Music Online a reliable source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a fansite, but it also uses a vaguely structured staff with editors, albeit with aliases. It doesn't look like its been cited in any publications, which doesn't help. I doubt it would survive an FAC source review. Mind you, the use of the source in the Mario music article concerned is a reprint of an interview in the December 2005 version of Electronic Gaming Monthly. Use {{cite journal}} to cite EGM directly instead of Square Enix Music. -- Sabre (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a hurry to go to work, could you possibly so a little searching for which issue # December 2005 would be? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Its issue 198. -- Sabre (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Information appliance

I've proposed a change to a video game-related parameter in Template:Infobox Information appliance, which is the infobox used in video game console articles. The discussion is here. --Silver Edge (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

P:VG news

The past month or so, I haven't been updating Portal:Current events/Video gaming/In the news regularly because I've either been involved in other things or just sometimes forget. Are there some editors interested in picking up the slack when I can't or forget to update?

I've tried keeping it to one story per day, skipping weekends because gaming news generally doesn't get posted then, and maintaining a balance between different platforms, genres, companies, and regions. I also tried to post stuff related to the video game industry: mergers, bankruptcies, studio closings, top-selling games, lawsuits, and the like. I find most of the news items from the links here. Of course, none of this is set in stone and whoever helps out (whether it be one or more) can add what they think is interesting, more than one a day, or both. I'll still try to update when I can, but some regular help would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Image help needed

Hi, I want to add the image of Satoshi Tajiri from this link to the Pokémon Red and Blue article. However, I have absolutely zero image experience, so I don't know how to upload it, or if I am even allowed to do so. Could someone possibly do it for me, or otherwise point me in the right direction? Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The image is nonfree unless you have permission from the author of the work (i.e., Time, or the photographer.) Nonfree images of people generally fall afoul of WP:NFCC. In short: you need to find another image. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, a non-free image of a living person is not allowed because it is entirely possible that someone can take a picture of them, or a free picture might exist. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crytek UK

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crytek UK Is this worth changing into a Crytek task force? It would require a few other people to be interested (to be clear, I am not personally interested). It was TimeSplitters, then Free Radical, now Crytek UK. Crytek as an entire company could have enough scope, and the articles really do need work, but if nobody's interested we can just send this to MfD. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That project, even if it were a task force, couldn't have more than a half-dozen or so articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To be even clearer I mean it could cover all of Crytek and not just Crytek UK. That's like 20 or so maybe? I'm not saying I think it's a great idea I just want to see if there are others who do. Always a shame to delete a WikiProject, even a half-baked one, if there are people who would want it to continue. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Story sections

Do the story sections of game articles need references?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They tend to be helpful, although primary sources—such as directly citing dialogue with {{cite video game}}—usually suffice. -- Sabre (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If the primary sources are necessary, then why did User:Gary King remove them from the Metroid Fusion article...?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You could have just asked me directly—it's because I'm still copyediting the section, and so sometimes the information that I include in the section changes. I will add references back to where appropriate when I am done with the section. Gary King (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to seem overly confrontational, I was just wondering.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in a fighting game

I was working in Mortal Kombat: Deception, but I dont know how the characters section should. I was told by Guyinblack once that listing the characters was excessive and it would be better to mention the new characters. Is there any fighting game GA or FA that I can use as example? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Melee and Super Smash Bros. Brawl refer to Super Smash Bros. (series)#Characters, which IMO is the most sensible way of doing it. If the Mortal Kombat series doesn't drop characters from game to game you can forgo the chart and simply point to List of characters in the Mortal Kombat series, which, while not great, is sufficiently organized to tell who's in what games. Nifboy (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You could put List of characters in the Mortal Kombat series as "main article" and then just summarize them, rather than listing every character.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Monster infighting

Does Monster infighting have any relation to CPU vs. CPU? Should they be merged into Game AI?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article also suffers from bias as infighting is common in many non-shooter games as well. The one non-shooter game it lists it even makes it more point of view violations by making it sound like the exception.じんない 06:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article seems very game-guidy to me at a quick glance, as well. But the concept seems to be completely different from CPU vs CPU -- the former is about something occuring during normal gameplay, while the later is a full fledged game mode in and of itself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would delete that article, it's just original research that belongs to game guides. I mean actually game guides, that tell the player what to do, and not the bastardised "any information that I don't like" gameguide that seems to be bandied around here. At best, this would be a few sentences in the Game AI article. - hahnch e n 14:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The lack of sources and bloated original research make deleting sound like a good option. However, it might go over smoother with the contributors if it was redirected to Game AI. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree. it definitely could use a small mention in Game AI, and redirecting there is probably the best idea all around. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I redirected monster infighting to the Game AI article and added its introduction. The rest of the info is OR at best.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment requests

Is the assessments requests page supposed to be filling in automatically to the main assessment page? I keep editing the requests page but it's not filling in on the main one. Vantine84 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a sub-page and can take time. Sometimes a WP:PURGE is needed. - X201 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What X201 said. Purge it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

MLB 2K mergers

I'm getting no comment beside "I support it" and "I don't support it" as literally indicated here. What do others think about this? I'm afraid I'm opening a big can here. MuZemike 05:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue merge discussion

I've proposed a merge of it to Gran Turismo 5 here, but it's not been moving forward very much. Can I get some further input? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Roster in wrestling articles

Nothing turned out in the previous discussion on this page. People have pointed out that the guideline of WP:GAMECRUFT states that no roster lists should be integrated in wrestling video game articles, like WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009, however, people are stating that roster lists are exempt and that this guideline doesn't state anything about roster lists. So what's the real say about this? Is it okay to list a roster [since they are about real characters portrayed by real people and how pro wrestling is not a legitimate sport, but sports entertainment] or not [because of similar games like the Madden series which don't list them and is a legitimate sport]--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How come it was ok for the roster to be included but now it isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelo61 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what will be discussed in this discussion with other project members.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 02:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be included. Some articles have interesting solutions for this. Guitar Hero III lists its songs in a separate article, for instance, while Super Smash Bros. Brawl lists its playable characters in its series article at Super Smash Bros. (series). Gary King (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, with pro wrestling, the roster is updated every year in World Wrestling Entertainment. Since the WWE SmackDown (video game series) was created, there have been over 100 hundred changes, which is why one big list won't work well.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 03:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How many characters are there? If there are a few dozen then make it into a new list. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. The WWE SmackDown games, like WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009, have a roster of wrestlers that are actual people in real life, and they are based off of those people. The roster included in each game depends on the current wrestlers signed to the World Wrestling Entertainment wrestling company during the game's production time, so since the first game came out in 1999, there have been over a hundred wrestlers added/removed.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Then there is the problem with TNA's game. They don't have an official roster list. You can download new wrestlers from the internet onto the game. So nothing is ever really official for TNA Impact (video game), though we can just list all the wrestlers who have been featured for download so far. I think it would be better to place the roster in a collabsale table. Stating the name of the character and who they are based on in real life. Then it is mentioned and out of the way.--WillC 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The people they are based on are characters portrayed by those people, not the actual human themselves. So this discussion generally is to decide whether to list them in wrestling games or not, not just specifically WWE games.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but I'm also looking for a way that it doesn't take up a big space as they do at the moment. Maybe it would be better just to mention them maybe in a template or seperate article, because of course they are mentionable.--WillC 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not list them in games, but instead list them in a List of WWE Wrestlers and add a collum for "Game Appearances" and just add games they appeared there.じんない 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They're technically recurring characters, so I agree with Jinnai, put them on an external list.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a collapsible table would be a very good compromise. We would be able to include all the information while not taking up space and distracting the reader, which is in line with what the wiki is for. Firestorm (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat a few points from what I said above. Turning it into prose doesn't quite work out. In this case, it can't contain all the information a list can. Also, in an NFL game, you know what teams are going to be playable. You also know that everyone signed to those teams at that time will be playable. With a WWE game, not everybody that is signed to a contract is playable. Moreover, some people that are not signed are playable. Having a list of playable characters (i'm not suggesting including NPCs) would, in my opinion, be beneficial to the wiki. It seems to be an ideal candidate, therefore, for WP:IAR, which suggests we should ignore the guideline in favour of improving the article and the project as a whole. Firestorm (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It cannot include all of the information an exhaustive list can. However, an exhaustive list isn't a summary, it's a guide. NFL games do not list every player; they do not even list every team. You would like the articles to be better guides; why, when the goal of this project is not to make guides? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I never stated that I want the article to be a guide; I can say that that is not at all what I want. I think you should look up the definition of Guide, though. A guide generally tells the reader how to do something. A list of playable characters is not teaching someone how to do something; rather, it is reference material. Also, I challenge your comparison to NFL games based on the discusison above that generally concluded that the game in question is not a sports game. These wrestling games have elements of sports games, fighting games, and even RPGs thrown in. While sports games do not generally have character lists, the latter two genres almost universally do. Firestorm (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A guide is also a synonym for a directory, and that is the meaning I am using here. (I daresay TV Guide and Fodor's Guides never really told me how to do anything.) Game articles which are FA, however, don't exhaustively list every character or even every playable character, but mention them in context in the prose, describing large groups of similar characters as a group instead of as individuals. You mention fighting games; Super Smash Bros. Melee doesn't have an exhaustive list of every character. When RPGs do have character lists, they are short lists of the main characters of a story-heavy game, whereas the wrestlers of SvR are largely interchangable.

Now, Smackdown vs. Raw resembles a fighting game more than it resembles anything else; it's just a fighting game with licensed acts and licensed likenesses. Super Smash Bros. Melee is probably the best template to follow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would also like to challenge your definition of guide. The only definition that matters here is WP:NOTGUIDE, of which the relevant part is:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes.[5] If you are interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.

Clearly, a list of characters is not a guide as defined by Wikipedia policy. I would also like to pre-empt an argument under WP:NOT#STATS by suggesting that a collapsible list does not qualify as "long and sprawling".

Keep scrolling down the page, to WP:NOTDIR, if we want to be excessively legalistic about this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Man in Black, the list should be summarised as prose: WP:EMBED. bridies (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing them to NFL games is not a good comparison. 1)Professional wrestling is not a legitimate sport, its sports entertainment, which is treated more as a work of "acting", because all outcomes and storylines are scripted. Most articles are treated as such because like in a film article, they list the cast and in these such games we should list the characters because they are characters based on real people (who portray these characters). 2)Like Firestorm stated, its best to list these types of information as reference material because each year, World Wrestling Entertainment (the wrestling company) contracts people to portray a character on television. Each year, the people contracted [the roster] changes and not all these people are included in the games, which is why there isn't a steady roster each year. NFL teams have articles on respective seasons, so the Madden games can refer to the respective seasons of each team [depending on the production year for the game] for the roster during that season. In wrestling games, however, there is no such thing to reference to as changes to the roster happen almost daily.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a sport insofar as this game is concerned; it accepts the kayfabe as its reality. As for Madden, we don't note the exact time when rosters were copied to the game; frequently, players have been traded or signed with new teams or retired by the time the game is released. (Some infamous examples of this include the Rams Super Bowl year where their star quarterback wasn't even fully named in that year's Madden, or when players have appeared on the game cover playing for a different team than the one they played for that season, due to an early-season change). Moreover, SSBM is not every single Nintendo character from the time it was released; it has a number of odd, obscure ones and some noticeable omissions.

Whether or not it is more like Madden 2009 or Super Smash Bros. Melee, it isn't necessary to list every single wrestler but merely to note that it's a large selection of the WWE stable of wrestlers as of when it was released, with Mr. Foo featured and the Bar Brothers added as downloadable content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But like I said, at least readers have a place of reference to see the roster, pro wrestling does not because we have no such thing as a "season" or List of WWE employees from 2006. --<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Readers have places to see the roster for SvR, as well. Projects which are directories or game guides.

I'm rather surprised that there aren't guides to years or seasons of the various major wrestling promotions; there are articles enough on every individual event you can think of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Its only for pay-per-view events, the main attractions promoted by the companies monthly. Not for individual weekly television shows. But I guess consensus here is to not list them, but what do we cite to when reverting possible additions of a roster to articles as such?--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion, WP:NOTGUIDE/WP:NOTDIR, and WP:VGSCOPE. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand not listing them, but there needs to at least be a section regrading the roster. Just notable mentions, mainly like in TNA Impact! (video game). The wrestlers Christopher Daniels and Low Ki were in the game but neither played the respective character in the game on tv at the time. Daniels was playing Curry Man ov tv but his fallen angel character in the game and Low Ki was released from his contract months before the release, though he helped promote the game in taped promos. Also that game was under three years of development. The first game cover had three different wrestlers (A.J. Styles, Monty Brown, Jeff Hardy) on it which two have been released since then (Brown and Hardy). One featured in the game (Jeff Jarrett) was not even on tv at the time of the release. He had been semi-retired during the entire promotion of the game from late 06 to the release in August/September. Maybe there should be an extra list of the roster just to state things of this manner. It was said above about NFL players playing on different teams in real life than on the game and also being released from their respective team before the game was released. Well the samethings happen in wrestling video games as well.--WillC 20:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We never said that a roster section should not be included, they just shouldn't be listed. They can, however, be summarized in a good prose and note any significant things about the roster, we just don't want to list them like we used to do.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just want to make sure. There is alot of problems with TNA's roster that should be included. Considering almost everyone that was supposed to be in the game when it was announced all left or weren't featured when it was released.--WillC 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out: the full rosters of the wrestling video games can be listed at the Wrestling Wiki. That wiki can be found here: [12]. Since the Wiki is all about pro wrestling, just about anything about the video game can be listed in it's article there. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it really such an issue to simply leave the roster in or at least as someone said above, make it collapsible so people are not distracted by it? I see a list of characters in every single fighting game page I have looked at, or sometimes a completely separate page, so I really don't see the issue in adding in a list of characters in the article. If you're gonna remove the list of characters in the SvR articles, then I wish you good luck in removing all the list of characters in games like Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Super Smash Bros., Bloody Roar, etc... If you don't remove them too, you show a bias against pro wrestling and also show that Wikipedia views it as a legitimate sport (since I see these comparisons to the NFL games) which would be misinformation in itself, since Pro Wrestling is entertainment and not a sport. I personally wouldn't want the list of characters on those pages removed either. Also consider the fact there is a 493 character Pokedéx on Wikipedia which could be viewed as a game guide as well since its so detailed as to the type of Pokemon they are, and there are even more detailed lists available on Wikipedia which feature a brief summary on each character, including full character pages for some of the Pokémon, like Pikachu and Mew. Sure, Pikachu and Mew are notable, but how is the list of characters in SvR NOT notable? If I were to compare the game to the NFL games, bear in mind that every single player from the NFL fron the last season are in the NFL game that comes out at the time. Whereas in a WWE game, its only a selected number of stars from the whole roster that are featured, similar to how some fighters in Tekken appear in one game, and don't appear in the next, only to appear in the one after that. Also consider the non fighting games that have a list of characters, like True Crime: New York City, which also have details about them, similar to how it would be on a movie or TV series page on Wikipedia where you write something brief about each major character. So my thoughts are by removing the SvR list of characters, you gotta remove ALL the list of characters in every single fighting game, then that will eventually have to be extended to non fighting games like Star Fox, and then to movie and TV articles like ER and their list of supporting (not main) characters. Its like I said previously in different sections of this article, its a slippery slope that will affect more than just SvR eventually. Jลмєs Mลxx™ Msg me 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

VG stubs

Do we have any arbitrary standard within WPVG in which a stub is no longer considered a stub, or is it our convention to follow WP:STUB? I ask because there are quite a few VG articles that I have noticed (for example, NES Advantage, in which I have started cleanup on, at the very least gutted out the original research) that are definitely past the "few sentences", verifiable or not, to no longer be considered a stub but rather Start-Class with an {{expand}} tag tacked on. If it's the latter, then we should probably take another look at the list of stubs and see which no longer apply. Thoughts? MuZemike 17:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference between a stub and a start-class article is probably the hardest thing to qualify on the assessment scale, and the difference isn't huge anyway (you wouldn't jump up and down after raising an article to start class), it's when you get to C and above it becomes easier to differentiate. I'd say that particular article is still a stub, since it contains a short lead and one medium-sized paragraph covering one area. I've just upped 19 Part One: Boot Camp from stub > start and did the same to Trapt (video game) yesterday, as you can see both have multiple headings covering both gameplay and development or reception. On the flip side, much larger articles which contain unsuitable material can still be stub class. To play it safe perhaps only mark them up when they've got two of the three main aspects (gameplay, development, reception) at least partially covered, wouldn't worry about digging through the stubs to find articles to rate start since they'll all be got to eventually and it won't make a great deal of difference anyway. Someone another 18:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My usual criteria for stub-class is 1) no sections and 2) no infobox (if applicable). If it's got both it's pretty safely start-class, and stuff in the middle I usually just look for content. It's certainly not something I spent a lot of time mulling over when we first started doing assessments. Nifboy (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Since i've been going through and cleaning up all of our unassessed importance articles, I occasionally come across ones marked stub which I feel aren't. What imo is enough to barely qualify for a start-class would be a decent lead (more than 1 sentance). gameplay, plot and some reliable references to verify that the information exists. Notability I do not think needs to be addressed for start-class articles for most games published by well known companies in the short-term, but long-term if they can't then the article should be merged or redirected.じんない 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(Hate to be a prick) Wouldn't this equate to a higher standard for Start-Class for WPVG than for other articles in other WikiProjects? MuZemike 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, start-class articles have more than a single paragraph. Stub articles only have a single paragraph with very few or no references.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It would if every project slapped start class on each article which crept above a few sentences, but does that actually happen? Someone another 15:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that a start class article has, in addition to a lead paragraph, at least two of the standard article sections: plot, gameplay, development, reception. Also, I'm more inclined to consider an article a stub if the entire article fits within my browser window (at 1024x768 resolution, minus ~200px for menus, tabs and so forth) without needing the scrollbar. SharkD (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Cubed3

Would it be possible if to get some opinions of the reliability of Cubed3 over at our sources page. Jinnai has advised to get a second opinion so if it would be possible head over and take a look. Thanks Salavat (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Video game records?

Should the title of list of video game records be list of video game world records, which I moved it to? I used list of world records in chess as an example, but the article creator used list of Formula One records as an example.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fine because the definition of world record is a measurable record achieved in the world, and video games have measurable stats and are international.--TRU CO 01:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest "List of video game related world records" instead? I could see (albeit slimly) the title being misunderstood as it is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify; it was originally list of video game records, but I moved it to list of video game world records. Are you afraid of people thinking it's only about records achieved in games? I don't think it causes that much confusion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually that was exactly what came to mind there. While I wouldn't make that confusion I could see how someone could make it currently.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Need opinion on images for Dante (Devil May Cry)

Doing a sweep through character articles and noticed this one, but it seems to have gone completely overboard on the image front. I figured I'd point it out here and leave someone more experienced with proper fair-use imagery than I to take a gander and decide which to nix from the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:FAIR#3A, Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. From the article, I say that the main image covers for some of his variants, so at least one of his variants should be removed per the policy.--TRU CO 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The pictures of the guns, devil trigger, and "first appearance" should be removed, and an isolated image of his most recent appearance should be uploaded. I don't see a significant difference, anyway.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Italic titles for names

There's a discussion going on here regarding the italicization of article titles. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to do this for video game articles as well. SharkD (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be a hell of a lot of articles needing italics. This would apply to every title of books, movies or games ever.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be added as a component of {{Infobox VG}}. Of course, there would need to be a way to turn it off for certain articles. SharkD (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with one of the commenters on the linked thread that it's inconsistent, and the mechanisms to actually do it are a tad rough for my liking. There's really no reason to do it as far as I can see. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the methods are ironed out so that they're foolproof, I think we should start doing this project-wide. Many articles already use italics for sub-headings when the sub-heading is also the title of a video game. SharkD (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Game Rankings down

GR seems to now redirect to GS. This may either mean it's restructuring, or it's been taken down. If the latter is true, we may have to go through a lot of articles and fix them up. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I bally well hope they aren't taking it down. That's a ruddy lot of webarchive work. If it is going down, I think we'd best mention it in the newsletter. -- Sabre (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we a fine here. I just tried the site and got a message that the site was under maintence and for time being users are being redirected to their sister site metacritic. It short, false alarm. --76.66.187.118 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting that message now too. Good, good. Of course, if we look on the pessimistic side, this could always involve a complete overhaul of site structure requiring us to completely redo every Game Rankings url on Wikipedia. -- Sabre (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance usually means hardware upgrades, backups, etc. Facelifts to the site are possible, but beyond a skin redesign I'm sure they would have let people know because that would cause a lot of problems as piss off a lot of people causing loss of revenues.じんない 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always kind of wondered why Game Rankings was not shut down and just merged with Metacritic. The Metacritic website is often updated in terms of design, etc. while Game Rankings seems to be living in 1999. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The look could be intentional for the type of audience they want to attract.じんない 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean people living in 1999? I seriously doubt they'll visit the site any time soon. ^^ SharkD (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Even GameFAQs has a dated look, but at least it's been updated. The headers have a "shiny" look to the background images, etc. Gary King (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames is starting to look a bit stale as well. SharkD (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add criterion "1(f)" to the Featured article criteria

Since this project is one the most prolific featured article producers, members may wish to know of the proposed addition of a criterion to the featured article criteria. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Proposal for 1(f). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that reads so much like the WT:MOSNUM mess it's not funny. It seems likely that "Use the best sources available" will morph into "No peer reviewed academic sources are available? FAC fail!" Anomie ⚔ 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's starting to get downright ridiculous: at this rate more editors will probably be content enough to push for A-class unless it's something "scholarly" like Samus Aran with academic studies to back it up. This is coming across somewhat as a crackdown against pop-culture based articles getting featured I must say, though for the sake of argument it would seem the majority is opposing such a measure.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's stupid. The whole purpose of references is not to make articles 100% based on scholarly research, but to prove their truthfulness. There's no such thing as "best" or "worst" references.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the statement in that discussion by BuddingJournalist who suggested a change in wording from factually accurate to well-researched. However, as also stated in that discussion, less than 0.01% of the current FAs would pass such a criterion, not to mention that this is very redundant to 1b of the Featured Article criteria. Hence, I do not see how this proposal would go through; it's basically doomed. FAs get featured on the front page of Wikipedia. They reflect not only the highest quality of Wikipedia articles as well as the highest quality of editorship, they also represent a wide range of diversity amongst various fields in the encyclopedia. While there might be some arbitrary limit on how many FAs exists in the mainspace, I would prefer that it would be obtained through combing through those article of the highest quality and most optimal sourcing, which is what 1b and 1c already accomplish if properly applied. (Of course, as with the standards for Good Articles, they do change and normally get higher over time as more and more very good articles improve in quality, we do have a similar pattern.)

In addition, this is one of the only times I will cite WP:NOTPAPER where we are not dealing with inclusion or non-inclusion of articles. Because Wikipedia is not paper, we are allowed a much higher liberty to display specialized good articles like those that come from our WikiProject. That's among one of the main things that keep Wikipedia as one of the most frequented websites in the world. MuZemike 07:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say it's doomed, it may be one of those situations where certain parties keep pushing and pushing until battle fatigue claims the opposition. Hey, that sounds just like WT:MOSNUM too. Anomie ⚔ 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick updates on a few old character article cleanups

I went through and cleaned out the articles from Category:Fate/stay night characters (leaving the four agreed on and one that I was unsure of the placement for) and Category:Bloody Roar characters (leaving none), both of which had been agreed upon to be cleaned out but ended up long overdue. Given the nature of things though someone might check on both from time to time to see if anyone's done any restoring of them without asserting subject notability. All in all probably removes about 50 articles total that were going nowhere fast.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gamers Hell

Hi, how may of you have used this site as a reference for some article? I am the only contributor to the article and it is a pitiful stub. If you type "gamer" into the Live Search box it appears third in list of "suggestions" and if you search "demo download" Gamers Hell is second only to download.com. More than twice as many sites link to it as gamespy.com, etc. etc. The article is crap. If you want to continue using it as a reference for stats, try giving it a bit of an article please! lol. ~ R.T.G 22:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems notable since I've downloaded stuff from there in the past, and the rankings are high. It needs an infobox though.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, not really that often, as few of the articles I work on seem to give anything on that website past mentioning on their online forums. Besides, the article was created a month ago. Give it time to expand. MuZemike 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the newness of the article is reflected in special:whatlinkshere/Gamers Hell, which currently says only three articles point to the Gamers Hell article (before I added gamershell.com, it was one). Nifboy (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If we linked all the articles, such as Citroen C4, Call of Duty, Nonviolent video games etc. etc. that list Gamers Hell as a reputable reference the link results would grow a lot. ~ R.T.G 05:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the weblinks are due to the fact that GH hosts a large file archive, and it will commonly appear in a list of places to get downloads. This in itself doesn't lend the site to notability or a good article. For that, we need sources that discuss GH itself, as a topic. Right now I would put GH in the same boat as Walnut Creek CDROM. Unfortunately being used a lot doesn't necessarily mean you get talked about. The article will probably stay slim because there's not much more to say about it without delving into OR and fluff. The article as-is seems pretty reasonable for this sort of thing. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is similar but the thing about Gamers Hell is that it is current and prolific across the board. We promote WoW, LOTR and Harry Potter then we shelve the little cute guys because it's been to "hell". Thats my view. If it wasn't very marketable it would be dead long ago, note, they don't even advertise. ~ R.T.G 14:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Really dumb edit war

Heads up, there's a bit of edit warring going on at Super Conflict: The Mideast over some game guide content. Some extra eyes would be appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This should be a lot simpler than the current DRV we're going through. There's only one source in the article and it's this. A Nobody has an extremely inclusionist stance on things, though, to the point where it often conflicts with Wikipedia's policies. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

GameFAQs is an acceptable source in the cases where it is used in the article: i.e. release info. SharkD (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably beside this topic (but I'll mention here, anyway, and expand discussion to WT:VG/S if need be), but I got shot down at a recent FAC for using GameFAQs only for release information (it became moot after GameSpot finally updated a good amount of their release information for games on their databases, and hence as able to cite GameSpot for release information). Has anyone else had this happen? MuZemike 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If it happens again, point out that release information on GameFAQs is not user-submitted, but instead maintained by GameSpot staff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet according to your userpage, you have an "extremely deletionist stance on things, though, to the point whee it often conflicts with Wikipedia's policies"... In any event, has anyone looked for published strategy books or through reviews of the game? One small section in a larger article that helps illustrates the structure and nature of the game can be referenced in primary sources when the rest of the article is sourced through secondary sources. Also, are we allowed to use images a la here, i.e. is that fair use? On the flip side, I don't know how to transwiki, but perhaps the disputed list could at least go to the StrategyWiki page? Finally, does anyone have this issue of Nintendo Power? It seems that some issues of that magazine from this search may have some coverage. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Woah, I'm not trying to attack you, okay? I can comment on your editing habits if I want, and there's no need to go making references to my userpage content in an unconstructive attempt to counter some passing comment I make. Besides, it states I'm an exclusionist in the opening paragraph. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it threw me off seeing this reference to me, when I'm not the only editor who wanted that content in, i.e. somebody else added it in the first place and Ikip reverted it back as much as I did, so, why single me out? And noticing this on the same day that I put a smile on your talk page as a friendly gesture, was like, well. Anyway, that aside, what about my suggestions for improving our article and the strategy wiki one on this game? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've obviously managed to gain more of an insight into your editing habits over the past few days... I'll take back "often" and "extremely", though, I was being a bit hasty there... Anyway, I've replied to the matter at hand on the relevant talk page and the WikiPlatonicLove. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The last AfD I commented in was actually a delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Petrelli) and that was the only one since the one currently under review. I am trying to only go all out for the handful I really think have merit. Anyway, sometimes it just gets me with the whole extreme inclusionist thing, because I know I have nominated and argued to delete more articles than many of those I have encountered of the deletionist leaning have argued to keep. Anyway, thanks for the smile and I'll check out the game's talk page. :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)