→Weapons of Resident Evil 4: reply |
→Weapons of Resident Evil 4: comment |
||
Line 696: | Line 696: | ||
*Material from this notable article can reasonably be duplicated in [[Resident Evil 4]] without having to also closed down the weapons article. Plus, previous discussions reveal a more obvious lack of consensus: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resident_Evil_4/Archive_2#Weapons_section], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resident_Evil_4#Weapons.3F], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resident_Evil_4#Merging_the_list_of_weapons], etc., i.e. there are more editors and arguments beyond those in this particular discussion who either oppose a merge or who agree with me that both articles can coexist. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 07:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
*Material from this notable article can reasonably be duplicated in [[Resident Evil 4]] without having to also closed down the weapons article. Plus, previous discussions reveal a more obvious lack of consensus: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resident_Evil_4/Archive_2#Weapons_section], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resident_Evil_4#Weapons.3F], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resident_Evil_4#Merging_the_list_of_weapons], etc., i.e. there are more editors and arguments beyond those in this particular discussion who either oppose a merge or who agree with me that both articles can coexist. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 07:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I want to point out that: [[Weapons_of_Resident_Evil_4#Weapons]] is in fact, game guide content. Being sourced doesn't make it acceptable either. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 10:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Driv3rgate == |
== Driv3rgate == |
Revision as of 10:03, 4 May 2008
6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174 This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
How to write a video game article-part 2
Following up on a previous discussion, the draft of "How to write a good video game article" is almost done. I'd first like to thank Krator, Masem, and Jappalang for helping to expand and copy edit it, and the user pages (User:Zeality/GuideWIP, User:Hbdragon88/vgimprove, User:Krator/VG tips) that provided a basis/guide for the writing the draft.
Anyway, I was hoping to get some feedback and suggestions on it thus far. Currently, I think the weakest section is the "Writing style" section, mainly because of organizational and flow issues. The draft is pretty lengthy. In fact, I worry it might be too lengthy. Any ideas you guys may have to condense the information are more than welcome. I tried to include "good examples" and "not so good" examples along with a brief explanation of why it is good or not good to get the point across better. All examples are taken from WP:VG/FA. The not so good examples are taken from prior versions in the article history of our FAs, mainly to show that things can be cleaned up.
Down the road, I'd like to also take this to WT:GAN and WT:FAC to get their feedback; see if they feel it will be helpful to editors. But before that, I hope we can get a finalized version we can all agree one. So please, any comments, criticism, and suggestions would be appreciate; anything from a little tweak to something I got completely and utterly wrong. If you think it can help an editor improve a video game article, or if you learned something new from it, we'd like to know. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
- I made some additions and edits. User:Krator (t c) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent job guys, I read it a couple of hours back and I've got to say its a good piece of work. Picked up a few bits I've overlooked in writing articles before (namely properly establishing the setting in which a game takes place). This should pair up well with WP:VG/GL. -- Sabre (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: I'm not an expert editor, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
- IMHO, you should put some more focus on the writing tips section, especially the parts on eliminating redundancy and writing concisely, as such issues are often brought up on FAC (the famous 1a criterion, I believe). Also, perhaps you should write more about development/reception section, as those two are usually lacking compared to gameplay/plot (in general, the VG paradigm is "write less" for gameplay/"write more" for development/reception). As an occasional editor, I'd also really appreciate a quick reference on the templates used - an explanation of the infobox ("check other articles!" isn't a useful explanation), plus a better "Proper citations" section would go a long way towards this (please mention the "cite web" template too, as it is by far the most used, and provide an (as detailed as possible) explanation for each field - you might think it all obvious, but trust me, new editors don't think so!). --VPeric (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have a look either today or tomorrow and give some feedback. It's looking good from what I can see though. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- VPeric, those are exactly the type of comments we're looking for. Thanks for the input. There have been some tweaks since it was first posted with hopefully more to come. What did you have in mind about the development, reception, and citation sections?
- Krator, regarding the "Having a biased point of view", I've seen content like this before, it isn't that prevalent, but it can be a problem. Mainly in the use of weasel words and putting in too much positive comments. Though the section can probably be rewritten to better convey this.
- Anybody else have comments? Good or bad, we want this thing to be useful. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
- I'll have a look either today or tomorrow and give some feedback. It's looking good from what I can see though. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know what Guy means about the neutrality issue. When I've been looking at FACs I've seen an over-emphasis on positivity when it's redundant in its context. I've also seen instances where the article explicitly states that a publication or reviewer is usually harsh after stating that that reviewer gave the game a positive comment, high score. Like saying, "Reviewer X, who usually scores games harshly, game game Y a high score". Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- One question I had, which is especially pertinent to MMOs (and VGs in general), are the use of forum posts as citations. Per WP:RS, forum posts are discouraged, however, developers and community managers will respond directly to the community using forums. Sometimes their thoughts are echoed on what WP:VG/Sources considers to be reliable, sometimes not. Perhaps a blurb on the direct use of forum posts as citations would be helpful. I don't care either way, but WoW is ramping up to be rewritten, and knowing whether we can use forum posts by officials or not would be good, and I'm sure it would be good to have clarification on this point for future MMO / VG articles. Alternatively, this information could be placed in WP:VG/Sources, and I note that it was most recently briefly touched on at WT:VG/Sources#SPS, but not clearly resolved. =) --Izno (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- A few of us have agreed in "forum sources" that developer postings are only acceptable if:
- the posters can be verified as the developers themselves and
- their postings are pertinent to the article.
- Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- A few of us have agreed in "forum sources" that developer postings are only acceptable if:
- As raised in the discussion pointed out above, it must be readily visible (or easily verifiable) the poster is truly who he claims. For example, Blizzard's forums have thier employees clearly marked with tags and their nicks are usually shortened versions of their names (note: forumers appointed as MVP or moderators do not count). There are companies who state in their employee bios what nicks they go under when they are in the official forums. Posters on public forums are generally unreliable as there is no gaurantee they are who they claim to be. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry there can claim to be Nick Pardo, John Romero, or Hideo Kojima. Postings on such forums needs evidence of the poster's identity. The poster could link to the discussion on his personal blog or company site. Take note that blogs would also need the burden of proof on the blogger's identity before they can be used as a reliable WP:SPS. Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The guide has been edited/updated again—thanks again to those editors that edited it and provided feedback. Hopefully it makes more sense now. I think the only issue still up in the air the "Having a biased point of view". Again, any comments and suggestions are welcome and wanted. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
- If there aren't any more comments, I'll take it to WT:GAN to see what they think and get an outside view on it. After that, get feedback at WT:FAC, and then I guess put it in a subpage here. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
List of games question
I was going to create an article for the list of Atlus games, like List of Square Enix games and I'm just wondering if I should put the US/PAL dates in there at all. The SE lists only use the original date, so should I just follow that? Evaunit♥666♥ 02:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd just follow that example, if the game has been released stateside then chances are it will have an article, which in turn will have the US release date (or should). Since Atlus have very little to do with PAL territories, it'd mostly be Japanese and American release dates anyway. Even then, there will be several Japanese only releases. Someoneanother 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well since List of Square Enix games is mentioned I'll post here instead of creating a new section: I would like some input from the project on List of Square Enix games (it's not complete yet):
- Do you think the layout is good, or is it confusing?
- Should the budget range releases be excluded (PS One Books, Ultimate Hits, Greatest Hits, etc.)?
- There's a lot of Japan-exclusive games. Should the list be split in two articles (Japan, NA/PAL), or maybe just two sections in the same article, so that readers can look for Western games more easily?
- Should mobile phone games be in their own section? There are lot of Japan-exclusive mobile games I haven't put in the list yet.
- In the cases of EverQuest II, Odin Sphere and Space Invaders Extreme, should only the versions published by Square Enix be listed, or all the versions?
That's a lot to deal with but hopefully the list can be completed and eventually sent to Featured List. Kariteh (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone? Kariteh (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- After a quick glance, I'd say remove the "Greatest Hist"/"Ultimate Hits" labels. The "Games published in Japan by Square" sections is a bit confusing. Something like seems like it would be better served as a note in a table or at least at the bottom of the list. For EverQuest II, Odin Sphere, and Space Invaders Extreme, I would only list versions published by SE. And this is more of a personal preference comment, but I'm not a big fan of sortable tables in lists. That's just me though.
- Overall, it is shaping up nicely and has FL potential. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
Soul Caliber
All titles, I noticed, are titled Soulcaliber, without the space. But on GameFAQs, they're all spelled Soul Caliber, with the space, and only the fourth installment starts the Soulcaliber naming convention. I'd move them all myself but I want to get some consensus, some yeses, that this is the right course of action. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno if this helps or not, but if you load the official websites of the series and soulcalibur III, they write the title of the page as SOULCALIBUR, without any spaces. Hope that helps a bit, i wouldnt be able to say yes or no as i no nothing about these games. Salavat (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The spelling you've proposed above, with the "e", is not the spelling for the game title. Regarding the one word vs. two word issue... IGN and Gamespot both have all the titles listed without a space, e.g. Soulcalibur. The original Dreamcast jewel case cover shows "SoulCalibur", which looks to be just one word, despite the capitalization. Thus, it would seem that GameFAQs is in the minority. --Slordak (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I remember when the first one came out the press used almost exclusively "Soul Calibur" but when the sequel was released "Soulcalibur" was beginning to pop up and eventually replaced the previous spelling. --Mika1h (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, typo there. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I've been scanning (Japanese) official material about the series for quite a while now, and I've seen both "SOUL CALIBUR" and "SOULCALIBUR" being used. 'Not sure how to decide between the two, except maybe by checking the registered trademarks? 88.161.129.43 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sonic info
I am from the Sega project and the in-universe info from the Sonic character articles around the character images, (such as the age weight and height of the character) isn't being displayed. The info was there previously and I took a look through one of the articles history sections and the info never appeared at all. Any ideas on what I should do to get it back?Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Have you got a specific example?. They look OK from where I am. - X201 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's why, basically. User:A Man In Black has always had an issue with measurement information put in the in-universe infoboxes so it's not surprising he'd go after it. Frankly while they can be regarded trivial such information has merits too depending on the character and application, but you'd play heck arguing it with him. Effectively your best bet is to try and work the information into the article where it's pertinent to it (height would be, weight and age not so much given that's something more variable) and cite as need be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, (and the info was already sited).Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've got to agree with A Man In Black's edits here, I can't see how knowing how much a character weighs is even remotely useful to an encyclopedia reader. As he says, we don't have this stuff for living people, we don't really need it for fictional ones. It's just overkill on the in-universe information, and while appropriate to a fansite or guide book character profile, it is't appropriate here.-- Sabre (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- A Man In Black's deletions comply with WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOT#STATS. The general reader is to be informed of Sonic's appearance and impact on the gaming industry, not his exact height or imaginary statistics. Jappalang (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- You say you don't put info like that in for real people but can anyone here name the exact weight of George W. Bush? It's not exactly common information is it?Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- A Man In Black's deletions comply with WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOT#STATS. The general reader is to be informed of Sonic's appearance and impact on the gaming industry, not his exact height or imaginary statistics. Jappalang (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Viewcount on talk page banner
At Talk:Halo Original Soundtrack, there is a part of the VG infobox which states
Medium traffic— This article was viewed 4391 times last month.
Where exactly does this come from, and why have I only seen it on this page? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weird, it's on Talk:Final Fantasy too, but not on Talk:Wii Sports. Must be something new, I kinda like it, but also think it's kinda superfluous. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
- I do not see it on Talk:Wii Sports but I do see it on Talk:Final Fantasy. Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. The template's shows nothing of this. Perhaps somebody made a hack? Try raising this issue at Template talk:WikiProject Video games. Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just noticed on the GTAIV page. Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV] Strongsauce (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- <queue xfiles music> I like it. Somewhat related, is there any way we can get a report of how many people followed the dab link to end up at Gears of War 2 when GOW2 sent them to God of War II? xenocidic (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- FYI: Template_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Pageview_counting Strongsauce (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was added on April 8 on the template[1] as requested on Template talk:WikiProject Video games#Pageview counting. The bot probably needs some time to update everything. Kariteh (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's kinda cool. I guess it'll find the high traffic pages to help keep vandalism in check. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
- Indeed, very cool, it's just that I never see any of these changes until they're implemented (like the Wikipedia search bar, too!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia stats date back to December 2007. Relatively cool to see how many people see your articles. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for link hbdragon. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
Ohh right, I see this has finally started going live. Anyone have any major issues with this new feature? JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 06:34
- Maybe one. The bot creates a userpage for every single article it needs to do the edit count of. Though I know WP:DWAP, yet 10.000 usersubpages for the VG project alone seems... awful. I'd rather have it edit the talk pages itself. User:Krator (t c) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure about that, you'll have to raise that with Verisimilus, who created the Pageview bot that is being used (through the {{viewcount}} template). So what you would be suggesting is a "viewcount=X" parameter or something? Personally I prefer the current implementation, but if it is really a problem in terms of performance I guess we could go the other way. One thing that has been bugging me slightly about the current implementation is that I don't quite like the current colours. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 15:06
- Quick question, does it only display the count for medium-high traffic pages? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
Response
Hi,
Just found this page. A few responses.
1) Number of pages created: The pages are only ~5 bytes large. To edit a talk page you have to read its entire contents, then post them back again as your write request. Resource intensive. Also, the absence of code on talk pages makes it less prone to accidental vandalism, and means the stats disappear when out of date.
2) Colour. Easy to edit at {{viewcount}}.
3) The bot is only allowed to do 10 edits a minute, so is working its way slowly from a to z. An increased rate may be possible once the bot has gained approval.
4) The list of pages (accessible via the traffic page of this wikiproject) only goes up to 5000 because the page becomes too large after that.
5) You can't view how many people follow specific links, but you can tag the disambig page with {{viewcount}} to add it to the next bot run.
Worth prodding my talk page if any more queries arise.
Verisimilus T 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- What do you think about creating traffic-categories similar to class/importance ones? --Mika1h (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, having Category:High-traffic video game articles, similar to Category:Top-priority video game articles would be a good thing. Also, I was wondering what the specific ranges are for negligent/low/medium/high traffic. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 19:20
- It would also be cool if we could link to the graphical stats page, so for Final Fantasy, we would have "This article was viewed 202817 times last month." instead of "This article was viewed 202817 times last month.". JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 19:39
- Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, having Category:High-traffic video game articles, similar to Category:Top-priority video game articles would be a good thing. Also, I was wondering what the specific ranges are for negligent/low/medium/high traffic. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 19:20
- The above two posts should be easily implemented by editing/viewing the source of {{viewcount}}, a template which has, unfortunately, just been editprotected. Do pop an {{editprotected}} request on its talk page and I'm sure an admin will eventually get round to implementing it. You may need to add a parameter to the call for viewcount to tell it to put the pages in "high traffic video games articles". The high/medium/low values were set (I forget what to, view source) by selecting appropriate numbers from the list at WikiProject Geology. Verisimilus T 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this tend to change over the course of a game's popularity? As a game nears release, interest in the topic would build, then tail off to a flat level afterwards. If possible, would we be able to have the category auto-populate as articles rise and fall in popularity? Gazimoff WriteRead 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- The bot will run monthly, which should (?) be frequent enough. Verisimilus T 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this tend to change over the course of a game's popularity? As a game nears release, interest in the topic would build, then tail off to a flat level afterwards. If possible, would we be able to have the category auto-populate as articles rise and fall in popularity? Gazimoff WriteRead 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Update: The bot has been withdrawn indefinitely. Verisimilus T 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- :( What happened? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, what went wrong? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- cf. User_talk:Verisimilus#Block_of_User:Pagecount_bot... xenocidic (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, what went wrong? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Reminder: Next newsletter
This is a reminder to active participants to this WikiProject: please submit and comment on ideas for the second VG newsletter. We can make this as much of a success as the Wikipedia:Signpost has been if enough participants contribute. So please take a look and lend a hand! JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 23:06
Edit War over Spam / Ads: need help
I've gotten into an edit war with an anonymous IP at escape the room. The anonymous IP keeps re-adding external links to advertise specific escape the room games. I'd appreciate it if someone could quickly step in and deal with this. Randomran (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Star Control races merge
Last Decemeber, I proposed merging the various races of Star Control (Category:Star Control races) into List of Star Control races. Some of the articles are stubs and seem unlikely to ever expand beyond a stub. Many also repeat the plot of the Star Control games and are largely unsourced and without real-world information. The merge discussion has been stalled for a while. I'd like to get new input at Talk:List of Star Control races#Merge again, as well as ideas for how the merge should be performed if you support. Pagrashtak 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Peer review backlog
There is currently a backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review; some of which are transcluded from Wikipedia:Peer review. Most of the ones needing review are further down the page. Recently, there has been a good response from editors in providing comments and suggestions for the games listed there (which has probably led to more people using it :-p ), and it'd be a shame to let that great momentum die down.
If you've never provided a peer review before, now is as good as time as any to be bold. If you've been interested in participating in the Video Game Project, but have been unsure about what to do, Peer review is a good way to get involved. It is less formal than a Good article nomination or Featured article candidacy, a good way to get exposure to several types of articles, and can help sharpen up your editing skills.
Of course, if there are any questions about how to give a peer review, feel free to ask here or ask another editor for assistance. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
- You can close the one for 24: The Game for now. I don't think I'll make the push for FA with it at the mo.Gazimoff WriteRead 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I posted the 4X request for a peer review. Fortunately, I've gotten the help from User talk:AndonicO, an editor from outside the video games wikiproject. I'd really like a second opinion though. Not because AndonicO's review was bad or controversial. Quite the contrary, it was a really helpful review and I would like someone else to reinforce his suggestions. It's hard to push an article out of its current consensus. Randomran (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
enforcing WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE - what are we gonna do about it?
There's an AFD going on for Characters in Call of Duty that's clearly just an effort to include trivia about a game. I don't deny that it's useful to somebody playing the game, and I don't deny that the Call of Duty series is itself notable. But the characters themselves are not. Which is why this article should be deleted or merged into Call of Duty (series), which is notable in of itself.
Whatever happened to the plan to assemble a taskforce to kill some non-notable game guide trivia? Randomran (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. Dealing with trivia was one of the purposes behind its inception. I'd be happy to try to revive it and get through the backlog with couple of editors.
- Though, my personal findings are that there are a lot more people adding in cruft than there are to monitor and correct it. Most corrective efforts take a long time to fight against "fan consensus" and will eventually be undone if not regularly monitored.
- That's why I hope the how-to-write guide and newsletters will educate more editors out there, so we turn the very editors we're bumping heads against into allies. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- I think you'd be surprised what a small group of highly committed, highly engaged editors can accomplish in an AFD. Simply having a group of 5 people committed to killing trivia would be enough, with one "leader" who takes the time to identify AFD nominations that potentially concern gameguide-type articles. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is true with AfD. It has been a good tool in keeping cruft in check. But trying to clean up a standard video game article that doesn't need or shouldn't go to AfD, then it gets to be an endurance match. Either way, I'd rather have more editors with the knowledge to properly edit than spend my time fighting with seemingly countless people trying to include a character list, fansite link, or other trivial details. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- We need to eliminate WP:GAMECRUFT per WP:ITSCRUFT, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, DGG, and Verdatum. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd certainly like to comment that AfD should not be a "tool" used to clean-up articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:GAMECRUFT is part of the VG Project's article guidelines about what not to put into video game articles. While WP:ITSCRUFT is a flimsy argument to remove content, I do not think it applies to WP:GAMERCRUFT. That particular section is based on the knowledge and experience of multiple editors that have contributed significantly to the VG related articles and have pushed numerous article to Good article and Featured article status. It is intended to assist editors trying to improve the encyclopedic quality of an article.
- And while AfD should not be used as a dedicated tool to "clean up" articles, the removal of unencyclopedic content is its purpose; which overlaps with cleaning up articles. Of course, AfD should be reserved for extreme cases of unencyclopedic articles and as a last resort in clean up disputes. It's inevitable that the result of some AfDs will be the needed clean up of an article. Though I agree it should not primarily serve that purpose. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- The links above demonstrate that a large number of users find the word "cruft" unhelpful and for a variety of reasons. We can say in a more academic and polite manner what we do not find suitable for our project without using a word that obviously bothers a sizable number of our contributors and only makes discussions less productive. Perhaps we should just take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd certainly like to comment that AfD should not be a "tool" used to clean-up articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- We need to eliminate WP:GAMECRUFT per WP:ITSCRUFT, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, DGG, and Verdatum. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is true with AfD. It has been a good tool in keeping cruft in check. But trying to clean up a standard video game article that doesn't need or shouldn't go to AfD, then it gets to be an endurance match. Either way, I'd rather have more editors with the knowledge to properly edit than spend my time fighting with seemingly countless people trying to include a character list, fansite link, or other trivial details. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- I think you'd be surprised what a small group of highly committed, highly engaged editors can accomplish in an AFD. Simply having a group of 5 people committed to killing trivia would be enough, with one "leader" who takes the time to identify AFD nominations that potentially concern gameguide-type articles. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:VG/GL is the main guideline for video game articles. We're not getting rid of it on the basis of what is essentally the synthesis of two essays and the opinions of two editors. The guideline does not once even mention the word "cruft", it is only used as a shortcut to a section. Please read the guideline more carefully, you clearly haven't if you think its using the word "cruft". -- Sabre (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- A few people against the word cruft isn't a "sizable number" at all. In any case, many video game articles are full of clutter and trivial things (much of which isn't suitable for Wikipedia). I want to point out this AFD as a good example of game guide material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes. Final smashes are moves for Super Smash Bros Brawl (a fighting game). Wikipedia isn't meant to advise people how to play a video game. There is numerous video game sites (as well as gaming wikis) out there for this type of content. All of which most likely have it, as Brawl is very popular. As for character lists: I don't see a major problem with them usually, as long as decent sourcing happens, and it doesn't include any guide material. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the redirect that does have "cruft" in its name, not the guideline itself. The Arguments to Avoid essay has had "ITSCRUFT" listed as a bad argument for quite some time and thus does reflect a sizable number of opposition to that word among our community. Part of the problem is that there is no agreement among us as to what would and would not fall under such a characterization. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
A rename of the WP:GAMECRUFT policy probably makes a lot of sense. It's confusing with WP:ITSCRUFT. I might suggest WP:GAMETRIVIA instead. Randomran (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to a rename and it may be worthwhile to brainstorm ideas. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- GAMETRIVIA sounds fine to me.
FYI- See other discussion as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC))- Would that already be covered by Wikipedia:Trivia? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The name implies it deals with games and not just a general trivia. Another alternative could be WP:GAMESCOPE. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- Just as a note, if I'm slow to reply to anyone here who directly responded to me, I'm not just ignoring you, but as you can see on my talk page, I'm having some pet issues that are taking up a good deal of time and resources (nearly $900 to have all the tumors removed). Anyway, though, I think it good if we come up with multiple ideas and because a sizeable segment of our community does not approve of the "cruft" word, the more we can do to eliminate it, the better. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The name implies it deals with games and not just a general trivia. Another alternative could be WP:GAMESCOPE. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- Would that already be covered by Wikipedia:Trivia? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- GAMETRIVIA sounds fine to me.
I think there's a handful of things to consider here, partly looking at why these articles are created in the first place, what purpose it is felt they serve and how to react when discovering them. I think that the articles are created out of a genuine desire to share information by editors who are enthusiastic and passionate about the topics they write about. It is possible that in this surge of enthusiasm, they behave boldy, dive in and start writing without reading the policies and guidelines that exist. And who can blame them? There's often a perceived gap of information on a topic which the editor senses as an opportunity to help the project and sets to work. They spend some time generating a new article, save it and smile with pride at their accomplishments. Sometimes I become concerned by the way we react to new articles of this nature, particularly to new users. It's common to see something listed as a Twinkle'd speedy delete, or AfD'd as non-notable cruft. While I can understand that approach to an established editor who understands the processes here, it can cause confusion and upset to a newcomer. I'd like to suggest a more lenient approach to these new editors, welcoming them, inviting them to the projecr and suggesting some reading material to them to help them shape the article. Tag the article with {{gamecleanup}}, {{fact}} or whatever else you feel is appropriate but help them build a better article from it. Harness their enthusiasm to source and reference articles properly and at the same time teach them about what WP is and is not. The project gains a valuable, enthusiastic and above all guided editor, while the article and others get shaped to a higher standard. With this approach, everyone wins. Of course, if the editor creates then abandons the article despite the tags and welcome message, you are always welcome to prod or speedy after a couple of weeks have elapsed, keeping the housekeeping going. As far as XfD is concerned, I'd like to set a little challenge. For every XfD that you comment on, try to respond without citing gamecruft or gameguide and see if it is possible. Is the content notable? Has it gone into too much technical detail? Is it unsourced or uncited? Does it lend undue weight on a topic? There are other ways, as has been suggested, of raising comments about an item at XfD. Lets see if it's possible to get away from calling something cruft and being more precise about what our concerns are. Gazimoff WriteRead 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's at this point that I'm bailing out of this and related discussions. Its doing my head in, among other reasons. I've said my piece in related discussions, and now I'm steering clear of them. -- Sabre (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Gazimoff's view on the whole subject. AfD is the easy way out, and is used more times than it should be. It also alienates newcomers instead of taking them under our wing. In all honesty, I doubt we'd be having this discussion about "cruft" at all if more editors tried to guide newcomers.
- While I have to concede that such an outcome—helping a new editor become an experienced one—is optimistic and sometimes unlikely, it is still the better and more desirable outcome. And because of that, it is certainly worth pursuing. Like I said before, I'd rather have more editors with the knowledge to properly edit than spend my time fighting with seemingly countless newcomers who may not be aware of Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
It's not like there aren't several people turning full articles into redirects (w/o merging anything) and enforcing the guideline at every twist and turn. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
AFD exists for a reason and some stuff really is just deletion fodder. I admit that it's a thin line between notability and WP:GAMECRUFT (whether we like that name or not). It only takes a few articles that focus on how important the fatalities in Mortal Kombat are in gaming history to justify its existence. The truth is that we need (1) a better, clearer policy on what constitutes game trivia worthy of deletion and (2) a warning template of some kind that can be posted as a substitution for an AFD. Right now, simple templates like "provide more references" or "prove this is notable" exist but are too abstract to explain the exact problem -- especially to the newcomers who say "of course it's notable: i've heard of it!" Randomran (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- We currently have {{gamecleanup}}, {{gameguide}} and {{vg-inuniverse}} which should probably cater for most issues. Gazimoff WriteRead 07:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of creating a WP:GAMETRIVIA redirect. It's the policy and its spirit that I like. I'm willing to throw a bone to people hung up on the naming of it. Whatever happens to WP:GAMECRUFT I don't really care. I don't see a need to delete it. But it's not the end of the world. Like I said, it's just a name. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- While Gaz brings up good arguments, my own conflicting experience is that many new (VG) editors don't care to read and find out that what they've worked on isn't fit for Wikipedia. On an unrelated note, my own issue is that closing admins for deletion discussions accept the fact that twenty-five editors showed up to snowball an AfD on an obviously non-notable article, and then the article continues to never meet notability requirements. It makes me want to go all TTN on articles when my merges are shot down by people with no grasp of guidelines or policies, AfDs are closed as "not cleanup hurr hurr", and back on the talk page the fanboys will not budge. We aren't supposed to act unilaterally, but trying to forge a consensus with many of these editors has been utterly pointless. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. Some stuff really is AFD, if not PROD worthy... but then they get voted up by people with no grasp of policy. Then admins close it as keep, or at best no consensus. I don't think we should push AFDs lightly, and I think articles should be given time, and all the tags and warnings in the world. But when push comes to shove, we need people who are ready to get their hands dirty and kill the articles that shouldn't be here in the first place. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can see your point, David. Maybe I am being optimistic in the hope that people will understand our angle and take on things. Perhaps I should get involved in AfD more, although it feels as if the items I tag for deletion get hardly any attention. At the end of the day, we're trying to build an encyclopaedia, not a Strategy Wiki or a Wikia-a-like. I'd hope people can understand that. Gazimoff WriteRead 09:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with being optimistic. We all could probably stand to be a bit more optimistic about things. Besides, if everyone here didn't think we could improve things, we'd all be working on our favorite game articles instead of posting here.
- I guess a suggestion to all other editors. Posting here for help is always an option if an AfD is being overrun by fans with little to no grasp of policies. I don't have our deletion page watched, but would be willing to get my hands dirty if need be. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
- I can see your point, David. Maybe I am being optimistic in the hope that people will understand our angle and take on things. Perhaps I should get involved in AfD more, although it feels as if the items I tag for deletion get hardly any attention. At the end of the day, we're trying to build an encyclopaedia, not a Strategy Wiki or a Wikia-a-like. I'd hope people can understand that. Gazimoff WriteRead 09:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. Some stuff really is AFD, if not PROD worthy... but then they get voted up by people with no grasp of policy. Then admins close it as keep, or at best no consensus. I don't think we should push AFDs lightly, and I think articles should be given time, and all the tags and warnings in the world. But when push comes to shove, we need people who are ready to get their hands dirty and kill the articles that shouldn't be here in the first place. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well earned
barnstar posted here in error - X201 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're giving the VG project a barnstar? --PresN (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm having brain fade and losing my way to Pheonix's page. I blame Wii Fit, I ache all over. - X201 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was a nice gesture to the project; the project needs love too :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- Nope, I'm having brain fade and losing my way to Pheonix's page. I blame Wii Fit, I ache all over. - X201 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hoax?
Hello gamers, I came across a video game article (Club Wrestling) that was created today, and it might be a hoax. I can't find anything about it on GameFAQs. Anybody heard of this game? Should I just have the article deleted? ~EdGl (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Wrestling. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i just did a major revamp on the List of Harvest Moon titles article and was wondering if anyone would like to help with the remaining citations that are needed, or have a check over it and tell me if ive stuffed up on anything (its the first time ive done anything major). The article went from this to this and it is based on the List of Castlevania titles article. Also if anyone knows anything about japanese titles can they take a look, because im clueless to it all and don't know if ive done them right. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've sourced a majority of places where their where {{Fact}} tags, but good job on the rest of the article.--~SRS~ 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeh i wondered that too, but that was its title on GameSpot, it can always be changed if it doesnt apply. thanks for the sourcing Truco-X. also would someone be able to rate the importance of this article, thanks Salavat (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I rated the importance the same as List of Castlevania titles, you can always have it reassessed later. It is definitely a vast improvement and could probably pass FL after you're done. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
- When you say "after you're done", do you mean finish adding all the references or am i missing something more then that? Also, in regards to the "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" being an official title, i went to the Marvelous Interactive site and translated the page for Poem of Happiness with babel fish and got "Ranch story happy poem", so im still not sure as to what title should be used. Salavat (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretty much that. I would add in the Japanese characters in the names "Known in Japan as..." part like in the Castlevania list, but that may or may not be necessary. And as far as games that have not been released outside Japan, I believe the romaji title is suppose to be used unless there is some kind of source that calls it by an English name. I could be wrong about this, so someone else may want to chime in. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
- From the project's manual of style: "Always use the original official title of the game, and prefer English titles over foreign ones. Unofficial titles (e.g. "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn") are not allowed." So basically, use only the official title even if an English literal translation is more well-known than the official title. This goes against most Wikipedia-wide guidelines, but that's the consensus for this wikiproject. Kariteh (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretty much that. I would add in the Japanese characters in the names "Known in Japan as..." part like in the Castlevania list, but that may or may not be necessary. And as far as games that have not been released outside Japan, I believe the romaji title is suppose to be used unless there is some kind of source that calls it by an English name. I could be wrong about this, so someone else may want to chime in. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
- When you say "after you're done", do you mean finish adding all the references or am i missing something more then that? Also, in regards to the "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" being an official title, i went to the Marvelous Interactive site and translated the page for Poem of Happiness with babel fish and got "Ranch story happy poem", so im still not sure as to what title should be used. Salavat (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so theres a couple of games that have only been released in Japan. I would change "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" to "Bokujou Monogatari: Shiawase no Uta" (should i put in a note saying "Also known as Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness"). Also "Harvest Moon: Shining Sun and Friends" has only been released in Japan, but there is already an article for it, should i move the page to the japanese title and lastly should i move Rune Factory 2 to the japanese title? Thanks, Salavat (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, indicating what the Japanese name means in English is always useful. Shining Sun and Friends should be moved but not Rune Factory 2 since it's the same name in Japanese (written in katakana, but katakana is a phonetical alphabet for foreign words). Kariteh (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok so ive switched the names for Poem of Happiness and Shining Sun and Friends, can someone take a look make sure ive done what was asked of. Also the japanese name for Shining Sun and Friends already has an article for it (Bokujou Monogatari: Kira Kira Taiyou to Nakama Tachi), so that has now been merged. Also second question for the japan only games, what do i put in the notes instead of "known in japan", maybe something like, "full japanese title" or something like that?Salavat (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok ive now found sources for all the "citation needed" parts, ive added in japanese text for all the games, apart from Puzzle De Harvest Moon, which i cannot seem to find a japanese version of. Do you think its worthy of being a Featured list now? Salavat (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks real good. I would combine that first sentence into the rest of the lead. It just looks a little unbalanced, and I don't believe a paragraph can be a single sentence. I'd also recommend adding Image:Harvest Moon Logo.gif to the lead, but it really isn't the best graphic. If you could fine a better logo, then it'd help flesh out the page. Any other problems that might be there are probably minor and will be brought up at the FLC. Nice job Salavat. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Ok, ive now added a logo, and noticed that Guyinblack25 went ahead and fixed up the lead, so now it is a featured list candidate. Salavat (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
List-class category
I just noticed browsing the above list that we don't have category for list-class articles, they go to the unassessed category. I created category page for it (Category:List-Class video game articles, but it doesn't seem to work. Anyone know how to fix it? --Mika1h (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean it doesn't work? What doesn't work? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- There are no articles in it, although there articles rated as List-class. --Mika1h (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The VG banner isn't set up to accept the "list" parameter. See previous discussion. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
- If anyone's interested, I'll make an editprotected request for an addition to the template (IIRC it's full protected), but yeah, at the moment it doesn't support list class. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- List support would be nice, I second the motion to have it added. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you request that the template be converted into one that uses the {{WPBannerMeta}} format? This way you have support for basically everything, lists, categories, redirects, etc, as well as the usual "start", "stub", "GA", etc classes. --Craw-daddy | T | 02:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- List support would be nice, I second the motion to have it added. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested, I'll make an editprotected request for an addition to the template (IIRC it's full protected), but yeah, at the moment it doesn't support list class. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The VG banner isn't set up to accept the "list" parameter. See previous discussion. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
- There are no articles in it, although there articles rated as List-class. --Mika1h (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm strongly opposed to the addition of list-class. Most lists in this project's scope, like character lists, can be rated and assessed, as well as noted for inclusion in WP:1.0, like any other article. User:Krator (t c) 08:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, having done a lot of assessment for the WikiProject Sega Assessment Department, where we have a List-Class parameter, I have found the class to be quite helpful. Usually it's much more difficult, at least with those lists, to rate and assess them, beyond the featured-list class (which the project has none as of yet). While some users like Krator above are very sharp with these lists and have assessed them in the normal fashion, others might have more difficulty and might or would prefer a List-Class. Of course, the importance ratings should stay as they are, however. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Reference Errors
I've been working with a few articles lately and I've noticed that references that formerly worked fine aren't being coded correctly anymore. No one has changed these references. All of these references are named references using the {{cite web}} template in an infobox. In a couple of cases where the reference was used both inside and outside of the infobox, I was able to move the cite web template outside of the infobox, and the reference fix worked like a charm. In other cases, I can't do that, at least not yet. There aren't any of the same references outside of the infobox in these cases. So what exactly is being incorrectly linked here, and how can I fix it for the moment? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- These all occur for the same ref, Sonic Channel.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a list of all those affected:
- Here's your fix. The original reference was found in a parameter with an incorrect name. Fixing the parameter name makes the reference available. By the way, never put format=html in cite web (Not sure if it was you or not). HTML is the assumed default. Pagrashtak 05:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- What about the Blaze article there is no HTML and it still isn't working.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's your fix. The original reference was found in a parameter with an incorrect name. Fixing the parameter name makes the reference available. By the way, never put format=html in cite web (Not sure if it was you or not). HTML is the assumed default. Pagrashtak 05:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Myst task force
I just wanted to let the group know that I have just entered a proposal on the WikiProject proposals page to get together some editors for a Myst task force. Please read the proposal and discuss it on that page so that the community can see if there is any interest or disagreement in starting this task force. Thanks! — OranL (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Usefulness of task forces with highly limited # of articles
Someone just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Gears of War. At the present, there are exactly 3 articles for this, and I can't see it growing. Is this really necessary? --MASEM 06:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see 6. Imo, give it a day or two to possibly fill out, then go after it with fire and brimstone, as I would agree that such a low # count of articles doesn't need its own TF. --Izno (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the scope seems too small to sustain itself. I guess leave a note on the talk page informing them of this and suggesting to collaborate on the separate talk pages. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
Categories for Nintendo's online games
First there is this: Category:Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection games, which seems to be just a place to dump all Wii and DS games that have Wi-Fi. Then there is this: Category:Wii Wi-Fi games, which is smaller (and shares some of the contents of the first category I listed). I think a DS category would be necessary, then just delete the general Wi-Fi connection category. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd support this proposal. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd definately encourage this. Nintendo see it as one mechanism, using one logo for both Wii and DS games. We should too. Gazimoff WriteRead 09:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, on seconds thoughts, and based on what Gaz said, I think we should just go with Category:Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection games, and dump the Wii one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd definately encourage this. Nintendo see it as one mechanism, using one logo for both Wii and DS games. We should too. Gazimoff WriteRead 09:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistent Priority Rankings for List Articles
I've been working on the SNES and SFC lists lately and already started to see something that bugged me. The project seems to be inconsistent in its priority rankings of List articles, even for major game systems. I can understand if the *quality* is ranked different, but the *priority* for major system game lists should be the same, I would think.
Current Priority Rankings --
Major fourth generation systems:
List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games -- High
List of Super Famicom games -- Low
List of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis games -- Mid
Major third generation systems:
List of Nintendo Entertainment System games -- High
List of Famicom games -- Low
List of Sega Master System games -- Low
I don't have a personal opinion on what the priority should be, but I would think that each of these groupings should have identical priorities across the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I actually agree on that...I went through and made them a bit uniform (WP Japan should cover the Sega systems as well). Looks a little better.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know this isn't really related to the discussion, but why do we have a "List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games & List of Super Famicom games" and "List of Nintendo Entertainment System games & List of Famicom games"? Shouldn't they all be on one list to reduce overlap and redundancy? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
- The SNES discussion page has a topic on this. Feel free to contribute there. 216.188.204.52 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well I do know it's important for the NES vs Famicom systems given one cart can't run on the other, correct? Not sure about the super famicom...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know there are differences, but they are essentially the same system. And the SNES list talk page only lists a "difficult merger" as the main obstacle. There was a similar merger for the N64 lists and it worked out well enough (although with some disappointed fans). (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
- Well I do know it's important for the NES vs Famicom systems given one cart can't run on the other, correct? Not sure about the super famicom...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The SNES discussion page has a topic on this. Feel free to contribute there. 216.188.204.52 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know this isn't really related to the discussion, but why do we have a "List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games & List of Super Famicom games" and "List of Nintendo Entertainment System games & List of Famicom games"? Shouldn't they all be on one list to reduce overlap and redundancy? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
- Master System isn't as important as NES to VG project so I don't see why the list should be ranked on the same level. --Mika1h (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Project page design
I was just going through my sandboxes, when I found this. It was created during a dicussion about the changing the old page design. I have thought that the current design, which was really just trialled and stuck because discussion quickly became stale, is unfinished and looks a bit strange. I want to know if it's worth hanging on to this? Because otherwise I can clear it for something useful instead of hanging onto old stuff that isn't being used. You can see a much reduced version of it in action here if you are curious. It's based very loosely on the portal design. .:Alex:. 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Cartoon-style shooter really necessary? It was created earlier today, but it seems to imply that TF2 and Battlefield Heroes are new genres to themselves, when that really isn't the case. Its only a graphical style after all. -- Sabre (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, it is indeed just an art direction. Those shooters are no different from shooters with realistic detailed graphics. Besides, will it ever expand much? There's not to include and seems totally unnecessary. I say get rid of it. .:Alex:. 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, it could be argued that the unique Jet Set Radio, with it's cell shading graphics approach, was a similar style. While it would make a great blog article or essay, I'm not sure how to build something encyclopaedic out of it Gazimoff WriteRead 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same with that XIII game from a few years ago. It's all just original research anyway. Bridies (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is already a category tag for cel-shaded games. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same with that XIII game from a few years ago. It's all just original research anyway. Bridies (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, it could be argued that the unique Jet Set Radio, with it's cell shading graphics approach, was a similar style. While it would make a great blog article or essay, I'm not sure how to build something encyclopaedic out of it Gazimoff WriteRead 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing you can say about cartoon-style shooters that you can't already gather from cel-shaded games and shooter games. This is clearly just non notable cruft. A makeshift genre. Let me offer you a few more non-notable makeshift genres: historical strategy game, children's platform game, and futuristic RPG. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon-style shooter. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ribbon alternative for our barnstar
I noticed we don't have a ribbon alternative for our barnstar, so I had a quick go at whipping one up.
The VG Barnstar
I tried to base it on the same colour scheme: the blue barnstar as the dominant colour, with the colours of the four buttons on the white controller on the right. A few graphical glitches, I'll sort them out later. Any opinions? -- Sabre (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why a ribbon? Just curious, but what's it for? Gazimoff WriteRead 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- 'Tis explained in the provided wikilink. Basically, a compact version that can be used to replace the full one (for people who have way too many barnstars). Looks good to me, Sabre. Nice work. xenocidic (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Though I don't think it may get much usage (sorry, just trying to be honest), it looks good. I like how the color scheme matches the barnstar. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
- 'Tis explained in the provided wikilink. Basically, a compact version that can be used to replace the full one (for people who have way too many barnstars). Looks good to me, Sabre. Nice work. xenocidic (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We've got a mini barnstar as well.
This user has been awarded a VG Barnstar. |
- X201 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we certainly aren't lost for choice of how we want to display the award. Regardless of whether people use the ribbons or not (generally not, looking down the list of uses on various other ribbons), its nice to have the option available. Otherwise, the only other ribbon that could be used is the placeholder one, () and that's a bit dull. I've added this new one to the ribbons page, and added a smaller version below the barnstar on the project page, along with a note for anyone who may want to use it. -- Sabre (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Linearity (video games)
I just did a big clean-up of the Linearity (video games) article. It was a good topic, and an important one related to a lot of concepts. But it was badly written. It was becoming a hotbed of stupid examples (e.g.: this game is non-linear, no, this game is MORE non-linear, this game fails at being non-linear, this game is the best non-linear game). I tried to offer some references and organization.
If anyone else wants to copy edit or add more referenced information, I would encourage you to do so. If nothing else, I would appreciate help from someone who has the patience to clean up the references I've made into the proper wikipedia style. Randomran (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Concern for FAs
Kingdom Hearts and Kingdom Hearts 2 are both being constantly vandalized. Maybe we can either gets so eyes over there or get those babies on lock down, what u guys think? King Rock Go 'Skins! 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protection. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I dont think there is enough activity to justify semi protection just yet, its on my watchlist, but if more vandalism occurs, then semi protection will have to be requested.--~SRS~ 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Take to WP:RPP if you can't handle the vandalism. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right now, it's borderline and sadly kinda normal; they go through this every couple of months. It'll die down after a while and then come back later down the road. Personally, I wouldn't worry, though I wouldn't mind the page being semi-protected. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
- Take to WP:RPP if you can't handle the vandalism. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I dont think there is enough activity to justify semi protection just yet, its on my watchlist, but if more vandalism occurs, then semi protection will have to be requested.--~SRS~ 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Importance
Why is it that on the cvgproj banner it says This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.? What the hell is Wikipedia 1.0? What does it have to do with WP:VG in particular? Why doesn't the banner say This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority within wikiproject video games.? This is the standard text for most other wikiprojects. Why are you judging the importance of each article by what a different wikiproject thinks of it? It's your projects article, therefore it is up to you what importance it warrants. --Simpsons fan 66 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding of Wikipedia 1.0 is that it is an effort to create a more-or-less authoritative source of information on a permanent medium, such as CD/DVD. As such, the amount of content must be limited, so it's important to find the most important and notable pieces of content to include in that effort. The importance/priority rating in that template has nothing to do with VGProj in particular. I think most/all WikiProjects are making that assessment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Simpsons, you may have glossed over this part: "This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0". The way I understand it, the importance is still importance within the VG project. We're identifying the articles that we would most want to include in Wikipedia 1.0 if quality was not an issue. Pagrashtak 17:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- If it is in fact within WP:VG, then what is with Red Alert 3 and Tiberium? These (were) of low importance! Frontlines: Fuel of War doesn't even have an importance rating. Each of these games boasts a revolutionary new gameplay mechanic, completly refining the genre, shouldn't they be of high importance, or at least medium importance? --Simpsons fan 66 02:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be pushing a point here. What is revolutionary about them? How is it so revolutionary? That notability should be asserted on the article pages, with reliable (secondary) sources to back them up; is it so? How can we be sure? A game that truly "redefined" the genre would be Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, as it is the first game to begin the use of the "worker" to gather sources; can RA3 and Tiberium measure up to that? Who says? The rating on Warcraft is indeed High, as I thought it was.
- Really, for WP 1.0, I would agree with the ratings for the time being. I would probably say that Command & Conquer would be of a higher priority than either of them, as it started the series the first two are based off of. And so it is, with a rating of High. The series article is the same. Should Tiberium and RA3 be? I don't think so, based on the fact that neither are even out yet. WP 1.0 needs articles which sufficiently cover the items on which they're about, and neither of those 2 can say for the moment that they qualify. I'm sure someone could persuade me otherwise, but that seems to me how it goes. --Izno (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to add to this, I'd like to point out that importance ratings are somewhat difficult to determine, since each person has a different POV on what's an important game and what's not. For the most part, the ratings on the various articles are based on the game's overall relevance to the industry and that industry's culture, as a whole. Games that have more press coverage and more reliable sources to contribute information will likely be given a higher importance rating. In any case, all ratings should be based on consensus. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- As Kiefer pointed out, the importance rating is based on a scale determined by the consensus of various points of view. And while Red Alert 3 and Tiberium are highly anticipated games, can you really say they are more important to video culture and history than say Donkey Kong, Final Fantasy VII, or Super Mario 64? So just because an article has a "low" rating of importance, it doesn't mean the game has no importance at all. It simply means there are other games that have had a greater impact on society and the industry. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
- Also, in specific to RA3 and Tiberium, I'd say that it probably doesn't make sense to give a high level of importance to a game that hasn't been released yet. If it turns out that, once the games are released, they've had a significant cultural or technical impact on the industry, the importance rating may be increased then. See Metroid Prime 3: Corruption for what I'd consider a decent candidate for this sort of treatment (though that's my personal opinion) - a number of reviewers have said that Corruption is the first serious game to show that the Wii is "ready for primetime", and that seems significant to me at least. So if RA3 and/or Tiberium have the same sort of impact, it would be well worth considering increasing its importance rating at that time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good points everyone, I conceed. Sorry for any inconveniences. --Simpsons fan 66 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all, it's a valid question. This is what the project page is for. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
- Good points everyone, I conceed. Sorry for any inconveniences. --Simpsons fan 66 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, in specific to RA3 and Tiberium, I'd say that it probably doesn't make sense to give a high level of importance to a game that hasn't been released yet. If it turns out that, once the games are released, they've had a significant cultural or technical impact on the industry, the importance rating may be increased then. See Metroid Prime 3: Corruption for what I'd consider a decent candidate for this sort of treatment (though that's my personal opinion) - a number of reviewers have said that Corruption is the first serious game to show that the Wii is "ready for primetime", and that seems significant to me at least. So if RA3 and/or Tiberium have the same sort of impact, it would be well worth considering increasing its importance rating at that time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- As Kiefer pointed out, the importance rating is based on a scale determined by the consensus of various points of view. And while Red Alert 3 and Tiberium are highly anticipated games, can you really say they are more important to video culture and history than say Donkey Kong, Final Fantasy VII, or Super Mario 64? So just because an article has a "low" rating of importance, it doesn't mean the game has no importance at all. It simply means there are other games that have had a greater impact on society and the industry. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
- Just to add to this, I'd like to point out that importance ratings are somewhat difficult to determine, since each person has a different POV on what's an important game and what's not. For the most part, the ratings on the various articles are based on the game's overall relevance to the industry and that industry's culture, as a whole. Games that have more press coverage and more reliable sources to contribute information will likely be given a higher importance rating. In any case, all ratings should be based on consensus. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What is an Engine?
We've now come to a point in video game development where the "Game Engine" is no longer one whole piece of software handling all aspects of a game (Graphics/Physics/Sound), now game engines tend to be a main game engine that fuses together the processed outputs from other middleware (Physics, Facial Expression, Speech, etc).
The nub of the question is: Do we list them in the Engine section of the infobox? If yes, do we list all regardless of how big a part they played, or do we only list the major middleware? In fact should we have a middleware section in the infobox? I'm stuck between two camps, yes we should because it's part of the "Game Engine" but on the other hand should we list the fact that my car has got Lucas Fuses in it and Bosch Headlamps? They do the same job as middleware, they are a component part that goes to make up the whole. Opinions? - X201 (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- When I hear "game engine", I think graphics engine. That defines a heck of a lot about how the game operates, as it sets the actual coding structure of the game. Other bits, such as physics engines, are subsidary techologies tacked on to that and should not be in the infobox, although they should be mentioned in development. -- Sabre (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Meh. The Fallout engine isn't really a "graphics engine". Nor is SCUMM. I rather fancy that "physics engines" are more like generic software libraries than engines. It should still be possible to identify the core game engine in any given game at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, graphics engine is perhaps the wrong term to use, but the engine that defines the game's code structure and performance (which generally includes graphics capabilities), whether Source, Essence, Fallout, SCUMM or whatever, is what should be listed. -- Sabre (talk)
- Indeed. I don't think we're going to run into any particular problems here. One area of contention is whether a game system counts as an engine: Neverwinter Nights uses the D20 system for its game mechanics, but it isn't the game engine so to speak. I think it's straightforward which one we'd pick though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not really an issue at all. "Engine" in this context always refers to a software construct. A "rules system" is just another way of describing game mechanics, which the engine implements. But one is not the other. For example, Infinity Engine is distinct from "D&D rules". Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is actually a good point. I don't think we can easily play this question off. If we mean graphics engine, then use the graphics engine. But if we mean more than that -- the core gameplay -- we're going to have to start listing multiple components. Randomran (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Even in the DOS days you had the Miles Sound System which appeared in many titles. Game engines have always allowed for the possibility of utilizing existing code modules. This is only new in the sense that they are even more prevalent today. None of them really qualify as "game engines" however since, by themselves, they don't produce an actual game. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
So regarding the question in my initial post "Do we list middleware in the Engine section of the infobox?" Is there a consensus on yes or no?
Personally I think that it may differ on a case by case basis, at times there will be a good case for the primary engine plus secondary engines that contribute a major amount to a games style/look. While at other times only the primary engine should be listed. Either way the secondary engines can (and should) be listed in the article text. - X201 (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of just axing the Engine parameter from the infobox entirely - I see this as too much of a grey area to really enforce consistently between games. Compare middleware "engines" like Havok (for physics) and sound engines, vs. games that either have their own custom game engines or use a commercial engine, like the Unreal engine or the Quake engine. We'd really have to go through and determine which "engines" can be used to create a real game, vs. ones that just provide some essential service (like physics or sound processing). And because things like the Unreal engine have become so complex (and often utilize other service engines themselves), it's really difficult to write a real guideline for this sort of thing. If a particular game is notable for using or creating a certain engine, it can be included in the body of the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd disagree. Axeing it isn't the answer, we just need to better define it. The primary engine used is often obvious, the other technologies are tacked onto that. An Unreal engine with or without other secondary engines on it is still the Unreal engine and is the base of the program. -- Sabre (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The end of reviews.
Dumb question? Is this over? That you don't need to put in reviews anymore? If that's the case then why? Please answer that as soon as you can. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but can you elaborate a bit more? By "don't need to put in reviews", do you mean not using them as sources or not including review scores? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
Yes. What if that is becoming a trend? If that happens then it will ease a lot of editors? Will it end their stress level? I'm still not certain. What does everyone think? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- We still don't know what you're talking about. Could you please specify if you're talking about whether reviews are considered reliable sources, or if we don't need to put the review scores in the articles? These are two separate issues governed by different policies, so to answer your question, we need to know which one you're talking about. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about the game Medal of Honor Vanguard. I now recently saw just game facts and that's about it. It's like there's a review nazis somewhere in the system. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is that the only example you have? I don't consider that the end of reviews (if that is indeed the only article that has no review that you've seen personally). Also, don't call people nazis, that's a bit rude. Were there reviews on the article that were removed, or does the article just have no reviews? Perhaps no one has added a review link yet. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Right now I'm relived. For your sake, I wouldn't be this hypercritical. If I was asking in general about receptions, you could've say no, this is not the end of it. But if I had to be specific, I could end up wasting your time. So for the time being, let's rest it on that. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Stubs vs skeletons
I have noticed a growing trend for stub or short articles to be laid out with a skeleton framework, with empty sections that have an expand tag in them. Take Earthworm Jim: Menace 2 the Galaxy for example. Is this actually a preferred way of drawing attention to short articles? Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's just someone who might not know how to expand an article, but is trying to guide other editors to show the gaps they might be able to fill in. (Often, people don't know how to expand on just a lead text. But if you add a "history" section or a "reception" section, people might get some ideas on how to fill in the gaps.) A skeleton is still just a stub. Randomran (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do that sometimes in the hope that more knowledgeable editors will fill in the blanks if they see that there are blanks. It does look unsightly, but I think it helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
Touch! Generations Featured Topic?
Well, it's not a Featured Topic of course, but I think a topic would be great. A lot of great articles exist under the Touch! Generations label, and I would like to see them featured. Anyone interested? If so, here's a list of articles that will need to be featured/GA'd:
- Tetris DS
- Nintendogs
- Master of Illusion
- Magnetica
- Big Brain Academy
- Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!
- Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!
- English Training: Have Fun Improving Your Skills!
- Clubhouse Games
- Flash Focus: Vision Training in Minutes a Day
- Electroplankton
- Elite Beat Agents
- Planet Puzzle League
- Sudoku Gridmaster
- True Swing Golf
- Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree
- Endless Ocean
- Wii Fit
- Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method
- Wii Chess
- Wii Sports (which is already FA'd!)
Not too many games, right? Also, I excluded any Japan-only games because of the difficulty that would be presented in collecting information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's a lot of articles for a topic, but then again, there's a lot in the Simpsons season 8 FT. Wouldn't we need the Japanese games to satisfy 1(d) No obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together.
- Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! is on my list of articles I'd like to get to FA, after Halo (series) is done, I'd be happy to work with someone else to improve it. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
- I only own Wii Sports, which is already taken, so I won't be of any use here. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is true that it's a lot, but I think it's a reasonable FTC.
- Well, it is true that several FTs make several omissions - for instance, the Zelda FTC excludes all titles except for the primary 12 games and the series article, excluding LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series, CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series, Link's Crossbow Training, Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland, BS Zelda no Densetsu Kodai no Sekiban, The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition, and BS Zelda no Densetsu. Perhaps it could be English Touch! Generations titles?
- Well, Ashnard, any help is welcome, even cleanup or references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- If it's too difficult to find information for the Japan-only releases, just merge them in sections of the main article, or a "List of Japan exclusive Touch! Generations games". Kariteh (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, Kariteh. Although some articles I think should stay separate - For instance, Common Sense Training is fairly notable, and could manage to be a fairly sizable article. Also, Cooking Navigator should as well, as it is coming out in English. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I only own Wii Sports, which is already taken, so I won't be of any use here. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do, although I've kind of put a curfew on myself from contributing until I've finished my exams. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Great. Now, here's what I think the hierarchy of focus should be:
- Nintendogs
- Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!
- Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!
- Wii Fit
- Tetris DS
- Big Brain Academy
- English Training: Have Fun Improving Your Skills!
- Clubhouse Games
- Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree
- Planet Puzzle League
- Elite Beat Agents
- Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method
- Master of Illusion
- Endless Ocean
- Flash Focus: Vision Training in Minutes a Day
- Sudoku Gridmaster
- Magnetica
- Electroplankton
- True Swing Golf
- Wii Chess
- Touch! Generations (eh, I think featuring the games should come first)
Of course, GAing everything comes before FAing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly have no idea how to expand CHG. Development section...what is there to say? A google search yields that IGN criticizes them for not fleshing out Texas hold 'em really well, so is it appropriate to say that the developers didn't do that? Or do we really need to find information from the mysterious developer known as (that has an) Agenda themselves? hbdragon88 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, CHG can only be expanded in the Gameplay and Reception. It probably won't become FA, but that we've still got many more easily FA-able games, such as Planet Puzzle League, Big Brain Academy, Electroplankton, Elite Beat Agents, Brain Age, Brain Age 2, Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Tetris DS. So, if we were to go for this, how many of the articles would have to be featured? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Development section doesn't have to be on the developers only. Information about the English localization can help expand it too. See Final Fantasy Tactics#Development for instance. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Criteria 3(a) states 20% (rounded up). So 20% of 22 articles would be 5 FAs. And even though there are several aspects of development that can be expanded, sometimes the necessary basic information just isn't out there. Like the poor little Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory which will probably remain B-class forever. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
- Well, it's a shame that I found a comment from an NoA translator about how they wrote the text in Clubhouse Games from scratch instead of actually translating, but it was on a fan-site. [2] - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, a problem presented is I have no idea who was the lead designer for Clubhouse Games, so I can't do a Google search for an interview with him on the game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Criteria 3(a) states 20% (rounded up). So 20% of 22 articles would be 5 FAs. And even though there are several aspects of development that can be expanded, sometimes the necessary basic information just isn't out there. Like the poor little Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory which will probably remain B-class forever. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
- Development section doesn't have to be on the developers only. Information about the English localization can help expand it too. See Final Fantasy Tactics#Development for instance. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, CHG can only be expanded in the Gameplay and Reception. It probably won't become FA, but that we've still got many more easily FA-able games, such as Planet Puzzle League, Big Brain Academy, Electroplankton, Elite Beat Agents, Brain Age, Brain Age 2, Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Tetris DS. So, if we were to go for this, how many of the articles would have to be featured? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
20 Stub Articles: Mahjong
I just stumbled upon the Category:Computer mahjong and it's pretty atrocious. Virtually all the articles are lousy stubs, many of them have been that way for years and many of them are orphans.
- Aki (computer game)
- Apparel Night
- Baka Tono-sama Mahjong Manyuki
- Bijokko Gakuen
- Bijokko Yume Monogatari
- Dynasty Warriors Mahjong
- Ide Yōsuke no Mahjong Juku
- Jangō Simulation Mahjong-dō 64
- Kiwame Mahjong DX2
- Brodie Lockard (an author. is this even notable?)
- Mahjong 64
- Mahjong Hōrōki Classic
- Mahjong Master
- Mahjong Taikai
- Maqiupai
- Princess Brave
- Pro Mahjong Kiwame 64
- Pro Shinan Mahjong Tsuwamono 64: Jansō Battle ni Chōsen
- Yosuke Ide's Mahjong Juku
There are only two non-stubs in the entire category. Computer mahjong and Mahjong solitaire which are both in rough shape. That's a whole other story.
I'd like to merge these all together in a list of mahjong video games, unless someone else has another solution. I'd appreciate some help too. Randomran (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The only issue I see with that the list may never be comprehensive as the number of mahjong video games is too large to keep track of. So Featured status may be out of the question for it down the road. But I can't really think of an alternative. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
- I can live with that. At this point, it's nice just to avoid a bunch of barely notable, orphaned stubs. Randomran (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Mahjong video games are all the same... just consider them all the same game, and merge them in Mahjong video game, mentioning any specific game when needed. This way it doesn't have to be comprehensive. The number of mahjong games is large, but that doesn't mean they're all notable. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can live with that. At this point, it's nice just to avoid a bunch of barely notable, orphaned stubs. Randomran (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Making a genre article would be a good idea in any case. For most of these particular articles, however, I would just prod them rather than put them in a list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I PROD'ed a few. I'll wait a few days and try to mention these individually in some kind of Mahjong video game article, with a bunch of redirects. Randomran (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Newsletter update
FYI- Next week, the second edition of the newsletter will be going out to members that have signed up on the Membership section of the project page. Some of the details are still being ironed, like format and delivery automation. Questions, comments, and suggestions can be left on the newsletter talk page. Any input is welcome and would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
- I got one today; what'supwiththat? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have one minor concern, StarCraft: Ghost was promoted to GA in April, but was omitted. I've added it to the draft, but it makes me wonder if we have missed any others. How do we keep track of GAs? They don't get quite the same coverage as FACs. There's also the issue of presentation, the GA list looks rather horrible because there are so many of them - that wasn't an issue last month. Perhaps it would look better in a bulleted list, if it doesn't make the newsletter too long vertically. -- Sabre (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- On that note, Age of Empires got FA yesterday (yay! :). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Added missing SimCity. --Mika1h (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what to do getting the GAs more attention. To be honest, I think it might be good to remove the "Featured Articles, Lists, and Topics Candidates and Reviews" section because it basically repeats what's in the todo list. Maybe that will get people looking at the todo list more, which now also lists GANs.
- As far as missing entries, I look at the edit history of WP:VG/GA to see what was added and removed. I did it about a week ago (4/25/08) and was going to do it again this weekend. That's why some GAs were missing. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
- Umm... SimCity was delisted as a GA, not promoted as one... Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What's our policy on lists of developers within an article?
I want to know if this is just considered original research, trivial detail, or what. It strikes me as messy. But if people think this is just legit info that hasn't been referenced, I'm okay with that too.
Feel free to go in and clean-up / delete these lists. I will back thee. But please explain if you feel otherwise. Randomran (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its trivia. Developers engage in all sorts of genres, although some only go for certain genres. Get rid of them. They simply are not necessary. -- Sabre (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Lists of developers/publishers/organisations 'of note' in articles are usually the sign of an underdeveloped article which needs wikifying. If they are of note then chances are that their games would be linked within a 'history' section of the article if it was fully developed. Besides which, they're just edit wars or bloat-lists waiting to happen. Support removal. Someoneanother 08:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Video game genres page
There's currently an edit war going on at video game genres page. Someone ('wolfpup7') keeps merging two of the sections together, despite there being sources proving they should be distict. Hopefully more sources can be added for further evidence, but they are refusing to discuss on the talk page and citing original research as the reasons for the edits. It would be nice if other users could take a look at intervene/contribute to discussion if necessary. Bridies (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to help out here too. We'd appreciate further assistance. The editor (wolfpup7) is not getting the idea after half a dozen or so reverts. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's probably worth leaving a note on the user's talk page inviting him to use the article page to generate consensus for articles that have disputed content, instead of just reverting. That way, everyone ends up working together. If it turns out that there is consensus, which one editor refuses to follow, then it's worth pursuing other options. I've stuck the article on my watch page in the meantime. Gazimoff WriteRead 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. I just hit 2 reverts. I'll have to lean back for a bit. I'd appreciate it if anyone else might be able to check in if the user deletes/contradicts the referenced information. I know this is just a big misunderstanding, but this is starting to verge on vandalism. Randomran (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Randomran seems to have left a message on his user page, to which he replied that GameSpot and IGN are not 'authorative' and again cited his own knowledge of the subject (if you look back over the edit summaries as well, he keeps claiming that other editors are not 'familiar with the genre' as he is). He is aware of the discussion on the talk page has instead chosen to wilfully ignore it: if you check back over the edit history there is a summary where he actually told us to stop the discussion on the talk page... I tried leaving another message on his talk page regarding original research etc. He has changed the video game genre page again. Bridies (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
200+ Good articles
Here's something I think is very note worthy. April has been a crazy month for Good article promotions, well over twenty I believe. On April 30th, our number of Good articles broke 200. The article to do so was Crackdown, and was followed shortly after by Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and Music of Final Fantasy X-2. Also, our number of Featured articles is approaching 100, currently 85.
Anyway, these are amazing signs of growth and quality, and are indicators of the hard work members pour into their articles. There are very few WikiProjects that have numbers like this, and it is something to be proud of. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
- Don't forget seven featured topics, with two more currently nominated. Kudos to everyone who's helped make this project so successful. Pagrashtak 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Future of Task Forces
I was looking over our Task Forces and I noticed something. Sure, in these areas, we will have high coverage, but then again what about the other games that may have been produced by Capcom rather than just the Devil May Cry series. So i thought that for area like DMC Task Force, there should be a Capcom task force to give coverage on all games by Capcom. Or instead of just Warcraft all of the games produced by Warcraft's publisher.What do ya guys think King Rock Go 'Skins! 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been thinking over this, actually. Tbh, I think the set of articles (say, for Blizzard, who published Warcraft) would be large enough for a new WikiProject. I do think, however, that Starcraft and Warcraft could probably have their task forces merged; while they are distinct genres, Blizzard has developed each by learning from the other, as well as Diablo.
- In the end, I'm not real sure, however. It's an interesting path to go down if Task Forces are set up the name of the publishers, rather than the Series, as is the case atm for most task forces. --Izno (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- But another thing is say there were a Kingdom hearts task force(just example). That would be great because every freakin KH article would be a FA. BVut then think of a Square Enix Task Force, then KH and Final Fantasy both will have like a thousand FA giving huge coverage of both, just a thought. Also a Blizzard project actually would be a awesome idea. King Rock Go 'Skins! 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kingrock may be onto something here. Taskforces are usually created to make a cleanup drive or large FA/GA push more effective, but once the project has "done its job", so to speak, and the articles under its scope are of a high quality, it can start to die out. Expanding the scope of successful taskforces to closely related categories might be a way of keeping up their long-term effectiveness. --erachima talk 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Leave to the editors in each task force to decide. Once you actually have a task force get a big chunk of the articles in its scope to GA/FA status, then you want such a group to stay together for future projects. In the context of the Devil May Cry and Kingdom Hearts task forces (which have been our most successful I would say), I think they should just be left as is. There's certainly more games coming out for each franchise, but if they want to be merged into a more inclusive task force, then it's up to them. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) In the case of Warcraft/Starcraft, we both have a large backlog of articles to try and push to GA and FA status. I'd suggest that once we've managed to improve the articles to high quality and stability we look at future rationalisation. Also, considering that both these taskforces have recently come down from being seperate WikiProjects, it's currently early days. Gazimoff WriteRead 09:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- As the guy who has been pushing a lot of StarCraft articles forward and the guy who turned the SC wikiproject into a task force, merging it with Warcraft is a bad idea. The two are developed by Blizzard and techniques in making them have rubbed off to later products, but the simularities end there. We're talking about two very distinct series, and merging the two task forces could cause complications. I for one know absolutely nothing about Warcraft, and I imagine a significant proportion of Warcraft editors don't know anything about StarCraft. The development of the articles of the two series has been separate since day one to my knowledge, and so have probably taken different approaches. I'm sure Diablo editors also have taken a different direction. To merge the task forces suddenly into one simply is not efficient. I'd agree with Gazimoff here, perhaps after both task forces have completed a lot of their work and its primarily a maintenance job, a collective Blizzard task force would make sense. But until that point, its better to let editors develop the individual franchises separately and independently from the other series. -- Sabre (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is certainly an interesting alternative to letting a task force go inactive. Though I think it could go both ways. Expanding the scope could make participation dwindle because of a less focused scope, or it could could encourage the push for more articles of greater quality. Either way, it's better than letting it sit there for a year, waiting for a single sequel to come out. Ultimately though, I think it should be left up to the major contributors of the task force. If they are unwilling to keep the effort going, it makes little difference what form the task forces is. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
To phrase my opinion on the issue in one easily quotable line: the success of a task force does not depend on the topic it deals with, but on the effort of the editors involved. User:Krator (t c) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- There was something along these lines discussed here, where we planned to consider getting rid of dead task forces/projects or expand their scope ect. but we never got around to it. I suppose we could actually put the idea into practice now though. Some task forces could easily encompass more article subjects into their scope and actually become projects in their own right. What do you think? Should we go ahead with a refined "WikiProject Video games project consolidation"? --.:Alex:. 10:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Warcraft and StarCraft task forces were a result of that proposal, so it was got around to, at least to an extent. -- Sabre (talk)
Ubisoft and free images on Commons
This came to my attention... apparently some guy on commons is arguing the OTRS ticket allowing us to use Ubisoft images is not actually allowing us to use Ubisoft images. Read on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Filefront spammers
I've noticed a lot of brand new editors (quite possibly the same person with different usernames) who do nothing but add Filefront links to the "External links" section of articles recently. If you look at their "contributions" you can tell it's clearly spam. First there was Lerhinkim. Exactly one week after came Smeunum (account was also only used for one week). Two new "editors" popped up today, Quastbel and Struenang.
An administrator or someone else might want to look into/report this stuff. I caught on to this because I created many of the pages that are being spammed. Who knows how many other accounts they've got. SeanMooney (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You want to report this over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. They may be able to help you out there. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A second opinion request has been made at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Video_games suggesting that this should be a FLC rather than a GAN. Any thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly qualifies as a list of weapons. However, on a notability standpoint, what differentiates this page from a "List of Weapons in Turok", or "List of Weapons in Time Crisis 4"? Disregarding this aspect of notability, the list of weapons there contain gameguide materials; "Its initial firepower level is 13.0. When completely modified, its firepower reaches 50.", "Unlocked upon beating the Separate Ways assignment, the Chicago Typewriter has a maximum firepower level of 10.", "The rocket launcher is a one-use weapon that can be bought from the Merchant for 30,000 pesetas. ", etc, are certainly not statements for the average reader and of use only to players of the game. The Creation section is a whole chunk of quote. I do not think the article in this state qualifies as a GA or FL. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think the article even warrants existance, the development, merchandise and reception information probably is better suited in the Resident Evil 4 article, while the rest is just a breach of WP:VG/GL... -- Sabre (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have a hard time seeing why such an article should exist. Are the weapons of Resident Evil notable in of themselves, or is this article free-riding on the notability of the game in general? Randomran (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree that that article is notable, I think that there is a likelihood of better quality by merging (removing some duplication) of the Weapons article with the main RE4 article which is in need of significant cleanup and improvements, as to reduce its size to accommodate the notable aspects of the weapons. Right now, the weapons article uses the notability as a wrapper to justify a typical gameguide weapons list, and thus feels like it is gaming the system. Take away the gameguide table, and you're left with details I'd expect to find in a development and reception section. Maybe if the RE4 development section is too large, it can be moved per summary style to a separate article (which would include the bulk of this article). --MASEM 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a list but I see it failing spectacularly at soon as it hits WP:FLC. Per above, there's no reason this article should exist, and a merge back to Resident Evil 4 would be appropriate. The table in particular is a complete breach of WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article is well-referenced and presented and in no manner resembles actual game guides (I have a game guide for Resident Evil 4; the article is NOT a how-to whatsoever. The weapons are themselves notable in that a special controller was made for them, they appear highlightened in marketing for the game and even with action figures. The article definitely deserves to exist. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Being well-sourced is not a reason for an article to exist. Do any of those sources establish any disconnect whatsoever from RE4? Any need for it to exist separately from RE4? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they help support it as a sub or spinoff article with notability on its own and sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, whether it's notable is irrelevant. The issue is whether it's better presented as part of the main article, and seeing as the notability is on the fence, and there's not that much material here, merging is better. To justify splitting, you need a serious argument that WP:SIZE and other factors are present, say in Marketing for Halo 3 and Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which are far larger than this article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article is of a sufficient length to stand on its own, but if some of it is also helpful for improving the main article, there's no problem in having some overlap or duplicate material, just as an article on Napoleon is going to overlap with an article on the Consulate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article is a table that everyone here agrees is superfluous and unnecessary and a giant pile of quotes that are better placed in the context of the main article. There's really nothing else that can be placed in the article sans more game guide material, and without the table, there isn't much of an article left. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article contains images and quotations from reliable sources that are absolutely non-game guide in nature. If you and others think aspects of the article can also be used in Resident Evil 4, that is perfectly fine by me as well, but just because something is merged from one article to another does not automatically mean it cannot still appear and continue to develop in the original articles, too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never referred to the quotes or images as game guide, and stop trying to not address the point. In any case, as soon as the material is merged into the main article, this article loses its reason for existence, as the table will be removed, and there's no point to keeping a redundant article. You keep additional articles to express information that cannot be adequately summarized in the main article (Marketing for Halo 3, Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion), not to exist solely for the sake of existing, even if it is notable. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not per the GFDL, i.e. Wikipedia:Merge and delete. If anything is emerged, then we must keep the contribution history public. The table should not be removed anyway. Any concerns in writing style can easily be addressed be rewording. There's plenty of value in having a redudant article when the article focuses on one particularly notable aspect of a game in a focused manner just as an article on Alexander the Great, which will have duplicate material with articles on Macedon and Darius III, focused on that particular figure. Something that is notable does indeed have justification existing on a paperless encyclopedia that combines general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- We're not deleting the article, we're redirecting it. As for the table, there's nothing you can do concerning the game guide material save its wholesale removal, and there's overwhelming consensus here that this is the case. In any case, your examples are fallacious - you are mentioning multiple topics that are not derived from one another and are independently notable (Weapons of Resident Evil 4 is not, as if Resident Evil 4 was not notable, the former would not be as well). The issue at hand is whether summary style can adequately represent the subject in the main article, which it can, making this article unnecessary. Marketing for Halo 3 and Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion cannot be adequately represented by summary style, and as they are notable, they have articles by extension. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, just rewording it would be sufficient. There's no advantage in "wholesale removal". There's numbers here, but a democracy is different from consensus. Weapons of Resident Evil 4 is independently notable in form of action figures and a special controller that exist beyond just the games. Splinter or sub-articles are indeed valid even if they are related and complement each other. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- We're not deleting the article, we're redirecting it. As for the table, there's nothing you can do concerning the game guide material save its wholesale removal, and there's overwhelming consensus here that this is the case. In any case, your examples are fallacious - you are mentioning multiple topics that are not derived from one another and are independently notable (Weapons of Resident Evil 4 is not, as if Resident Evil 4 was not notable, the former would not be as well). The issue at hand is whether summary style can adequately represent the subject in the main article, which it can, making this article unnecessary. Marketing for Halo 3 and Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion cannot be adequately represented by summary style, and as they are notable, they have articles by extension. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not per the GFDL, i.e. Wikipedia:Merge and delete. If anything is emerged, then we must keep the contribution history public. The table should not be removed anyway. Any concerns in writing style can easily be addressed be rewording. There's plenty of value in having a redudant article when the article focuses on one particularly notable aspect of a game in a focused manner just as an article on Alexander the Great, which will have duplicate material with articles on Macedon and Darius III, focused on that particular figure. Something that is notable does indeed have justification existing on a paperless encyclopedia that combines general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never referred to the quotes or images as game guide, and stop trying to not address the point. In any case, as soon as the material is merged into the main article, this article loses its reason for existence, as the table will be removed, and there's no point to keeping a redundant article. You keep additional articles to express information that cannot be adequately summarized in the main article (Marketing for Halo 3, Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion), not to exist solely for the sake of existing, even if it is notable. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article contains images and quotations from reliable sources that are absolutely non-game guide in nature. If you and others think aspects of the article can also be used in Resident Evil 4, that is perfectly fine by me as well, but just because something is merged from one article to another does not automatically mean it cannot still appear and continue to develop in the original articles, too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article is a table that everyone here agrees is superfluous and unnecessary and a giant pile of quotes that are better placed in the context of the main article. There's really nothing else that can be placed in the article sans more game guide material, and without the table, there isn't much of an article left. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article is of a sufficient length to stand on its own, but if some of it is also helpful for improving the main article, there's no problem in having some overlap or duplicate material, just as an article on Napoleon is going to overlap with an article on the Consulate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, whether it's notable is irrelevant. The issue is whether it's better presented as part of the main article, and seeing as the notability is on the fence, and there's not that much material here, merging is better. To justify splitting, you need a serious argument that WP:SIZE and other factors are present, say in Marketing for Halo 3 and Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which are far larger than this article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they help support it as a sub or spinoff article with notability on its own and sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Per Jappalang, the grand majority of the material in the table is game guide material. Telling how much damage something does, how much ammo it has, or how many shots it takes to kill things are definitely game guide material. Anyhow, in the context of the discussion here, it is irrelevant whether the subject is notable, we're determining whether it would be better presented in the main article as part of the development/reception sections there, and there appears to be relative consensus in that regard. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Simply stating facts in a larger context is definitely not game guide. Some of the material can be duplicated in the main article, but there's no reason to not also have this article separate as it works well as a stand alone article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to have to agree with the many users here that once this article hits FLC, it will fail per its existence. A list of weapons is kinda trivial, and falls under list cruft, as its similar to a list of cars in a Need for Speed game, or a list of weapons/cars/glitches in a GTA game, and serves no point or notability.--~SRS~ 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Cruft" is never a valid reason for anything. It is dissimilar to those examples in that these weapons appear as toys, as a special controller, and a specific focus of marketing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Facts in a larger context? The context is in the game entirely. The gun has so much ammo, it takes so many shots to kill this, it turns slowly and it's difficult to kill fast things with it. What about that is not in context of the game? And per above, merging is preferred. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A merge would be the way to go from here, as most of this information would be better fitted at Resident Evil 4.~SRS~ 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The table is quite diverse as it includes weapons from both playable and non-playable characters. I am not opposed to utilizing some content to beef up the main article further, but I see no detriment in not also having the separate article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That the table includes weapons from playable and non-playable character is totally irrelevant. And per above, there's nothing you can put into the article except more game guide material in the table that everyone here says should be removed. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That the table includes weapons from playable and non-playable characters is totally relevant as non-playable information cannot be "how to" in nature. Additional references and quotations from sources can reasonably still be added to the article, which can not justifiably be called "game guide." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether it's "how-to" is irrelevant. It's telling details about the game that make zero sense to someone not familiar with the game (hence, "game guide," information only accessible to those who are knowledgeable about the game) and are simply not encyclopedic. And again, no one here ever referred to anything outside the table as game guide material. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That it's not all "how to" is relevant, because that is what the game guide guidelines caution against. Every article has something that makes zero sense to someone among our diverse community of readers, but what makes Wikipedia fun and worthwhile is that with internal links and many articles, readers will be enticed to continue reading further and familiarize themselves with what they don't already know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stop jumping around the point. Go look at any of our FAs. Is there anything in Final Fantasy X telling you that you can deal more than 9,999 damage when you have the "Break Damage Limit" ability or where you can obtain the legendary weapons? Is there anything in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow telling you that it's not recommended to use an axe against fast enemies since it's slow? Why not? It's material that is only valuable to someone playing the game and serves as nothing more than "game guide" advice. The overwhelming consensus above should indicate as such to you. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is not numbers. The article as a whole is valuable to people interested in aspects of video games. Weapons are a major aspect of video games and especially of this particular game. Articles on different subjects by their different nature contain material that one would not find in articles other articles. For video games, this kind of material is particularly relevant and so fits in an article of this nature. As a sub or splinter article, it cannot be compared to Final Fantasy X or the Castlevania article. Resident Evil 4 could, but not Weapons of Resident Evil 4. It's apples and oranges. Weapons of Final Fantasy X (if we have such an article) could be compared. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stop jumping around the point. Go look at any of our FAs. Is there anything in Final Fantasy X telling you that you can deal more than 9,999 damage when you have the "Break Damage Limit" ability or where you can obtain the legendary weapons? Is there anything in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow telling you that it's not recommended to use an axe against fast enemies since it's slow? Why not? It's material that is only valuable to someone playing the game and serves as nothing more than "game guide" advice. The overwhelming consensus above should indicate as such to you. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That it's not all "how to" is relevant, because that is what the game guide guidelines caution against. Every article has something that makes zero sense to someone among our diverse community of readers, but what makes Wikipedia fun and worthwhile is that with internal links and many articles, readers will be enticed to continue reading further and familiarize themselves with what they don't already know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether it's "how-to" is irrelevant. It's telling details about the game that make zero sense to someone not familiar with the game (hence, "game guide," information only accessible to those who are knowledgeable about the game) and are simply not encyclopedic. And again, no one here ever referred to anything outside the table as game guide material. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That the table includes weapons from playable and non-playable characters is totally relevant as non-playable information cannot be "how to" in nature. Additional references and quotations from sources can reasonably still be added to the article, which can not justifiably be called "game guide." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That the table includes weapons from playable and non-playable character is totally irrelevant. And per above, there's nothing you can put into the article except more game guide material in the table that everyone here says should be removed. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to have to agree with the many users here that once this article hits FLC, it will fail per its existence. A list of weapons is kinda trivial, and falls under list cruft, as its similar to a list of cars in a Need for Speed game, or a list of weapons/cars/glitches in a GTA game, and serves no point or notability.--~SRS~ 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Simply stating facts in a larger context is definitely not game guide. Some of the material can be duplicated in the main article, but there's no reason to not also have this article separate as it works well as a stand alone article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- (deindent) But it's clear you're bailing out a tide. We don't have such an article about Final Fantasy because it has very little real world notability outside of the game — merging to content is overwhelmingly a better option. What is good here is only good in the context of the game, and makes more sense in an article about the game design. The majority of the article is extremely game-guide-y because it tries to go beyond this and... can't. So you've got a really bipolar article, with good content that isn't in a proper context since it's disconnected from the game design (for instance, one section talks about the game's design but is totally isolated from any discussion of it) and lots of game-guidey content to try and hold it together. It doesn't work, and makes much more sense merged. --Haemo (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe in the case of Final Fantasy as I am not as familiar with those games, but here we're are talking about a unique weapon peripheral and action figure weapons that go beyon the game. I am not incidentally opposed to expanding the article to be about weapons in the whole series. Nor am I opposed to essentially duplicating some material over both articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Being well-sourced is not a reason for an article to exist. Do any of those sources establish any disconnect whatsoever from RE4? Any need for it to exist separately from RE4? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
Anyone against a merge at this point? This has become a one-sided argument - everyone here sans Le Roi - and everyone here either has problems with the notability of the article or agrees that it should be merged. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Material from this notable article can reasonably be duplicated in Resident Evil 4 without having to also closed down the weapons article. Plus, previous discussions reveal a more obvious lack of consensus: [3], [4], [5], etc., i.e. there are more editors and arguments beyond those in this particular discussion who either oppose a merge or who agree with me that both articles can coexist. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I want to point out that: Weapons_of_Resident_Evil_4#Weapons is in fact, game guide content. Being sourced doesn't make it acceptable either. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Driv3rgate
I am short on time and editing resources right now, but if anyone is interested in cleaning up a rather dismal article, please head over to Driv3r. If anyone is interested in exploring the underhanded marketing techniques employed by Atari to promote the game, please see my comment at Talk:Driv3r. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
NPA attacks and intentional unsigning
There's a user on the talk page of Criticism of World of Warcraft who's arguing about the neutrality of the article. I know criticism articles are to be avoided, and the warcraft taskforce are working on that, but his response in the past has been to blank content. He's now making personal attacks and marking his discussion entries "intentionally unsigned". COuld I get a sanity check on this behaviour? Many thanks,Gazimoff WriteRead 08:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- He may not sign his posts but his IP 63.175.18.130 is evident from the History page. If he keeps up his personal attacks, you can bring the case up to the admins. Jappalang (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Some lend a copyedit for Crackdown?
I'd like to get a quick copyedit of Crackdown prior to nominating it for FAC, if someone could be able to help. --MASEM 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- As always mate, poke me after a few others have taken a look if it's changed significantly, and I'd be happy to. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
ER
Check out my editor review please and thank you! King Rock Go 'Skins! 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- WikiProjects aren't the best place to advertise stuff like this. You certainly can ask other users to comment via their talk pages, but this talk page is solely for matters pertinent to the WikiProject. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)