WikiProject Video games | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo: | |
---|---|
Miscellany for deletion
Featured article candidates Good article nominees
|
Archives | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Marvelous: Another Treasure Island
I restored the article after it had been turned into a redirect. The most substantial English sources I can find is a 4 page overview in Nintendo Power. That should be used to expand the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Proposal for lead image change for Nintendo Switch-exclusive games
Hey there! I have a proposal I want to bring to WikiProject video games, but I want to run it with you guys first. I'm paging all memebers of this task force using {{Hidden ping}}. I want to propose that the lead image for articles on Nintendo Switch exclusive games be the digital artwork (or icons) used on both the Nintendo eShop and the Nintendo Switch home screen. Here are my arguments:
- The artworks would be recognisable to literally every single person who owns a copy of a particular game regardless of format; physical owners would see the same artwork on their home screen as digital owners will. The icon for Xenoblade Chronicles 2 carries the exact same information as its physical box art, but with a more convenient crop, for example (Digital, Physical). This is also true for Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!, Super Mario Party, Super Mario Odyssey, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, Mario Tennis Aces, and Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. Games such as Kirby Star Allies use the key art elements in a different manner between the two artworks, but still have the same elements nonetheless (Digital, Physical). Games such as Splatoon 2 have completely different artworks, though still are able to convey that it is a colourful shooter with a cartoon art style (Digital, Physical).
- If artwork for a physical release is more appropriate to use in order to provide a better visual association for the topic, the digital icon can easily be swapped out for the physical artwork, as would obviously be the case for Octopath Traveller (Digital, Physical).
- The more comfortable cropping would also help cut down on the vertical height of images to a more comfortable square ratio, so that {{Infobox video game}} is now less likely overlap thumbnail images or any kind of special formatting, such as a wikitable, used in an Nintendo Switch game article's first few sections. For a majority of the examples listed in my first point, no information would be lost in exchange for more space for the article itself to breathe, which is an obvious win-win that we should take, in my opinion.
- We wouldn't have to "photoshop" and/or crop images to try to best represent box art when no clean key art exists publicly, which is what I and other users such as Arkhandar have been doing for articles such as Kirby Star Allies, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, and Yoshi's Crafted World. The Switch's digital artworks have no labels and can be uploaded in its original 1:1, label-less, unedited form without having to be edited to imitate anything, so no conflicts have to be made over how to crop an image and where to put key art elements either.
So, what do you guys think? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PhilipTerryGraham: Hi, thanks for pinging me! You made a very strong case and personally, I like it very much. As a perfectionist myself, I like to see everything as standardized as possible, and this seems like an ideal solution. And not just for Switch games. IIRC, PS4 and Xbox One also use these "macro" icons, so we could extend that rule to those platforms as well. However, after thinking about it for a bit, I can see some serious problems with this approach. You said that "the artworks would be recognisable to literally every single person who owns a copy of a particular game". However, there's a problem right there. Most of the times, these icons are not used at all for marketing purposes, and as such, they would only be recognizable to people who actually own the game, and not the general public (which is what we should be aiming for). To make matters worse, the icons are not even used in the Nintendo eShop, opting instead for a 16:9 artwork piece. So, as is, for Switch games, I think that the packaging artwork for physical games is still the way to go. For digital exclusive games though, maybe the icons are ideal. Nevertheless, thanks for your suggestion and asking for my input! ~ Arkhandar (message me) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PhilipTerryGraham: I love the amount of thought into this and your reasonings, but I agree in @Arkhandar:'s comment that the retail version would likely be more widely recognized. If this ever isn't the case or things change in the future, your observations about the digital artwork/icons should be kept in mind! Thanks for bringing this up. --Bchill53 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Arkhandar and Bchill53: Okay then, maybe perhaps it’d be better to broker on a page-to-page basis, rather than attempting to introduce a default standard like I tried to, to weigh if a game’s digital artwork is better as a lead image than its box art? As I had cited above, there are certain cases where both the physical and digital artworks share the exact same information, with the 1:1 digital crops being better for an article’s Infobox. So, for those games at least, I think it’d make sense to change them. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PhilipTerryGraham: I can't speak for everyone, but with that said, if you wanted to change the images that are the same digitally/physically, then I won't come to you with any pitchforks. The examples that you stated such as Octopath Traveller and Splatoon 2 are not ones that should likely be changed, but your reasons for the others are justified enough that I think you'd have support. --Bchill53 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Bchill53: Alrighty! I'll be setting out to change the identical physical artworks to their digital counterparts with a lil' bit of boldness! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Missing Donkey Kong Land 2 and 3
I'm not sure how to add it, but shouldn't Donkey Kong Land 2 and Donkey Kong Land III be in the Donkey Kong section? They each have their own articles. Thanks. --Bchill53 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Bchill53: What section are you referring to exactly? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 02:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Arkhandar: Sorry, where it says "Major Game Articles by Franchise", under "Donkey Kong". It seemingly lists every game in the franchise besides a few like Donkey Konga 2 and 3 that have the same page as the first and then Donkey Kong Land 2 and 3, even though their pages should be there listed as "Start" or "Stub", whichever is most appropriate.--Bchill53 (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I've added them. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Arkhandar: Sorry, where it says "Major Game Articles by Franchise", under "Donkey Kong". It seemingly lists every game in the franchise besides a few like Donkey Konga 2 and 3 that have the same page as the first and then Donkey Kong Land 2 and 3, even though their pages should be there listed as "Start" or "Stub", whichever is most appropriate.--Bchill53 (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)