Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 91

Archive 85

←

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

→

Archive 95

Citing a WinHelp manual

While working on British Open Championship Golf, I've run across a problem: the game's manual is a WinHelp file. I've never had to cite one of these before, and I've never seen anyone else in a similar situation. Does anyone have advice on how to proceed? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Use section title instead of page number? --PresN 20:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That might work. But what template should I use? And what name should I give the manual in the citation? It doesn't have one of its own; it just says "British Open Championship Golf", I believe. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If {{cite book}} doesn't fit then use {{citation}}. You could also ask WP:WikiProject Software as they may have encountered the issue before.∞陣内Jinnai 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind- when using citation templates, guidelines recommend against mixing {{citation}} and the other cite (web, book, etc.) templates in references. It's either all citation or all cite XXXX. I'm not sure what the rationale is (maybe a formatting issue), but I remember getting dinged at FAC for that before. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

It's a formatting issue- citation uses a different style than cite x. You can always make a hand-written cite, if you need to- as in all text, no template. --PresN 14:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I might be forced to do that. I'll try Cite book first, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Revising the importance ranks - Part 2

Making a new section because the previous one seems to have died and I'd like to make certain there is consensus before changing this.

• Video Games and series - Make it so no single game can be TOP. I think there was some disagreement about series. If that's not the case, please chime in.
• In-game elements - no top rank allowed.
• individuals - no clear consensus yet, but a bit more leaning toward no top allowed.
• Organizations/Companies/websites - similar to people.
• Genres and concepts - keep as is.
• Hardware - maybe narrowing the top field down, but keeping it for stuff like video game console and personal computer, ie broad hardware items.
• History - generally keep, but not much as been had on specific events such as North American video game crash of 1983.
• Other topics - remove anything from being high - if its high, its likely covered somewhere else.∞陣内Jinnai 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been much productive discussion about any of this, much less consensus. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'm restarting this. I'm being conservative here to make certain everyone who feels like it has their say before any changes go into effect.

There has been a general consensus that a tightening of what is Top rank is appropriate. What is still in limbo is how exactly to do this.∞陣内Jinnai 20:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have summarized it well, except for "In-game elements". I don't know what that refers to. My opinion is that no individuals, organizations, companies, websites, or specific hardware/platforms should be Top. If consensus is that any of these that I have listed should not be top, then I agree with that consensus (severability). --Odie5533 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking in game elements like boss (video game), quick time event or experience point, these should not be top, but typically fall in the High or Mid levels. In-game elements when a common trope of a Top-level genre will be mentioned there, and thus should be avoided to give any specific type of gameplay more precedence over another. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO those are "concepts", not elements given the examples shown.∞陣内Jinnai 18:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember something like this coming up when we first revamped the importance scale. It sounds like we should define what is a concept/definition and what is not. For example, video game console is something that could easily be a concept instead of in hardware. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC))

A game console is not an abstract term, compared to actual gameplay concepts. Basically, it's a high-level term. Compare this to, say, video game controller, a high level term, but would cover things from joysticks to button pads to motion controllers; in this scenario, the video game controller article should be a Top level one, calling out to these other High level ones. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also say graphics card should be by that definition (this was a specific one that was nominated to be pushed to low importance). It is a high-level term used to describe a basic hardware concept.∞陣内Jinnai 19:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that vein, and I don't know such a topic exists already, but an article topic like "video games on personal computers" should exist and cover a broad discussion of hardware that would be used for PC gaming, including video, sound, and physics cards, drives, controllers, etc. Things like video cards should be High, but not necessarily Top. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To switch things up, the same could be said about consoles, especially the last couple generations of consoles and handhelds which have begun to blur the lines between what a PC and video game typically have done. You can use browsers on every one of the latest game handhelds and consoles, run non-game applications, listen to music, watch videos, etc.∞陣内Jinnai 20:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But we still, historically, have "home video game consoles", "personal computers for video games", "handheld video game consoles", "video games in web browsers", "video games on mobile devices", "arcade video game", etc. Consider these as both larger historical articles - how the hardware came to be, its growth, etc., including key hardware and software that spurred it on - as well as a broader summary of the various types that exist. We would still have specific history (the Generations articles) for specific hardware that has had a lot of iterations for example, because these are still very very broad subjects for video games. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider this also. We have a broad topic called History of video games which is top. At the same time the chornological breakup are also largely top-rated. Those are more specific than the broader topic, but they still cover broad concepts on the funimentals of video games. The same can be said for an article like graphics card or gamepad.∞陣内Jinnai 20:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess it would go back to how much information does the article provide to the layman. History of video game consoles (fourth generation) provides more information than say analog stick. I'll be hard to say exactly which higher-level articles really are "top" or just "high" importance until we give them more editing attention.

In regard to concepts and terms, perhaps we should change "Genres and concepts" to "Vocabulary". That would cover all the common terms that are used in our articles like video game console, platform game, gamepad, etc. Then hardware could be solely for actual hardware items. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

Vocabulary fits. Should maybe have a notation there that it means vocabulary not covered by another section other than miscellaneous. For example, a graphics card may be jargon to one person who thinks the term should be video card.

As for deciding what is top for those few categories, I think we need to have some kind of devider (even if its not a bright line). Maybe an accompanying essay?∞陣内Jinnai 17:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Break

So if we change Concepts and genres to "Vocabulary" (or "Vocabulary and grenes" and we move hardware over there to be covered by vocab, what should be top for hardware? Not every major console is worthy of being "top". If you look back at history, FE: from the arly generations the only ones that stand out are Magnavox Odyssey, Atari 2600, IBM Personal Computer Comadore 64 before the 1983 crash. The Sega Genesis/Mega Drive had a huge impact, but compared to the other systems none of its others did. With the exception of the Wii, its also probably a bit too soon to say if any of the newer consoles would be as important legacy-wise as others (Wii is because it changed the demographics of who bought console gaming systems and the way games are played). It also becomes harder to pin down specific PCs and even components. Certainly 3D PC graphics cards are important pieces of gaming hardware and ones developed to helped establish this maybe be important, but are they as important as a system like the Comodore 64? With the exception of S3 86C911,, I can't think of any that would rise to that level and that one doesn't even have its own article so it begs me to wonder if we shouldn't redefine "hardware".∞陣内Jinnai 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as there would be no Top specific video game or series or person, there would be no Top hardware in this scheme. Basically, the Top importance articles should not contain any topics on Proper Nouns. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to argue that some hardware would qualify for top, Masem's idea about proper nouns sounds very reasonable. I'm sure there are probably a few exceptions, but I think that the major impact for every piece of hardware would be adequately covered in the vocabulary articles like game controller and video game console or one of the history articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

Template:WikiProject Strategy games

Template:WikiProject Strategy games has been depreciated. Would an admin be as so kind to grab their broom and perform the necessary house cleaning on the template and the associated categories. Thanks Salavat (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GAN backlog

There's another GAN backlog happening in the project that hopefully will be addressed. We have Europa Barbarorum, Mega Man & Bass,Resident Evil 4, The Operative: No One Lives Forever, Chulip, Potato Sack, Joe Danger, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Caesars Palace 2000, Revolution Software, and Mega Man: Dr. Wily's Revenge up for GA tag, with Europa Barbarorum being reviewed right now. However, there's still 10 articles that need reviewing so if you have the time please review some of these articles. GamerPro64 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have some time coming up to try and pay attention to some of these this week. Thanks for the note. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to whittle down the backlog once, but people are so quick to nominate articles without reviewing others. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sad, but true.∞陣内Jinnai 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I've actually made it a point not to do a second review for someone unless I've seen them do a GAN review. --Teancum (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Moreso, I recommend helping to cut down the backlog at other topic areas. We have a surprising short one for VGs compared to many of the other topic areas. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Helping out other areas of Wikipedia might spur others to help us out. Not always the case, but still a good practice.

Also, I noticed that we have a number of new editors posting here lately. I remember being very hesitant to do reviews when I first became active in the project, but eventually learned that it was very doable. If anybody has questions about doing GA reviews, or any other type, please feel free to post. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

I am guilty of this one-sidedness to which you are referring, as I have three up for GAN right now. I apologize. I have started a review for Joe Danger. ~ Hibana 15:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then perhaps we should suggest PR? There one doesn't have to worry about following to many rules, its just opinions (preferably based on policy/guidelines).∞陣内Jinnai 08:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion for new members. Peer review has even less to worry about than GAN or FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Passed Mega Man: Dr. Wily's Revenge and quick-failed Revolution Software. The latter was a drive-by GA nomination in which a 2nd GAN was failed about a week ago; none of the concerns have been addressed. –MuZemike 21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can someone else review Potato Sack? I was going to, but work's been pretty busy this week, and I'm doing a haunted house this weekend, so I haven't the time. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I just failed RE4 due to tons of questionable sources that weren't being addressed. I don't think there is a backlog anymore. Indeed our section is now fairly small and does not have as long outstanding articles as most of the other sections.∞陣内Jinnai 16:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Head over Heels (video game)

Head over Heels is currently the Collaboration of the month article. However, I have some doubts about being a High-important article. I think it should be downgraded to Low importance. Any thoughts? GamerPro64 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't imagine that this is a High importance article. I agree that it should be downgraded. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree. I wouldn't consider that to be a deciding factor, but I'm a pretty knowledgeable gamer, and never even heard of this. No way it is High. Salvidrim (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not High, but its not bucket class either. It is important for introducing the split abilities mechanic, where the player controls two characters, with each character having distinct abilities, and where the player needs to use them both singly and as a pairing where the abilities are combined. - X201 (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rare's early games were considered gems to the UK home computer market and some have been cited as inspirations for other games, but I'm not sold on a Mid-importance rating for this game. The article doesn't really explain why the game is influential. Further research may change that though. I remember Computer Bismarck was low until I fleshed out the article and got it reassessed to Mid. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

This paper published by the international journal of computer game research may be of help. If we can agree the source is reliable (certainly looks it to me), then it would be an extremely useful one for building up the article, particularly the development area. Never came across this journal before, interesting. Someoneanother 16:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, Head Over Heels was not a Rare game. It was created by Jon Ritman, a noted programmer on the British scene responsible for several early classics in that country, and published by Ocean Software, one of the most successful British computer game companies of the late 1980s. Head Over Heels is an arcade adventure inspired by similar earlier games by Rare. It is considered an exemplary example of the genre and a culmination of previous efforts in the field and therefore may deserve mid level importance. Its influence is probably not that great, however, as the game came in the waning days of the Spectrum life cycle when the Amiga was already beginning to take over in the UK, and few 8-bit British computer games gained worldwide exposure. This is why some posting here are not aware of the game. I think whether it is low or mid is probably not that important in the grand scheme of things, but high is definitely overreaching. Indrian (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Took a look at the screenshot and naturally assumed Ultimate Play the Game. My bad.

It looks like reassessing it to Low is a reasonable action. There isn't much rationale for Mid. Of course, that can change when the article gets some attention. Any objections? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

I have no problem with reassessing it to Low. But if we do that, we should probably change the CotW article to another High or Top article. GamerPro64 17:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

True. I suggest Quake (video game). It's an absolute wreck. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe there's consensus to reassessing Head Over Heels to Low. I'm gonna downgrade it and replace the article with Quake at CotW. GamerPro64 00:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion almost ready to being a FAC

I've put some work into it, and I think Oblivion is almost ready to be a Featured Article Candidate... again; the only problem I see is that the plot needs to be more concise, but I don't know how I can do that; thoughts?-SCB '92 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about plot, but there's a dead link in the article. here. GamerPro64 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Give me a ping tomorrow to remind me and I'll condense the plot for you; if I could do it for the confusing messes that are Final Fantasy XIII and Nier I can do it for Oblivion. I'll do a quick copy-edit while I'm at it.--PresN 21:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that Gameplay section is massive. You sure it couldn't be condensed? I can't imagine that everything in there is critical information. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to stop nominating articles while we have a significant backlog going on. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We're down to 5 GANs and 2 FACs, so I don't think it's an issue. Not to mention that holding off on nominating something is just time-shifting it to the future; it's not reducing the total nominations overall. Anyways, I gave a good go at compressing the plot and gameplay sections. An additional point- why is the infobox so long? I think it would be helpful to have some collapsible sections in there; it's quite ungainly as it is. --PresN 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for condensing the plot and gameplay sections; the only problem I have left is the difficulty of finding that 1 dead link in the article; I have no idea where it is in the article, it's hidden so well; it cannot be in the external links because they all work fine-SCB '92 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I do for that. Click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the page so you can access the wiki code for the whole article. When the page finishes loading, use your browser's find/search function (typically Ctrl/Cmd + F) to search for the web address on the page. The browser should take you to the part of the wiki code that has that text. Works every time for me. I use FireFox on a Windows platform, but I don't see why this wouldn't work in most configurations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Found it; that link wasn't even displayed in the article; I think the article looks perfect, but I might postpone it for FAC and do a Peer Review for it instead-SCB '92 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Reception" section seems a little sparse compared to the rest of the article and the review table in there. Not saying that it should be huge, but I would think an extra paragraph is warranted given the coverage of the game. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Sega Genesis and Mega Drive RM

There is a new move discussion to Sega Genesis that may interest people here.∞陣内Jinnai 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Again? Salvidrim (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. I've walked away from the article and wiped all links to it from my watchlist (not a rage quit, as I mentioned last month, its a "depressed with it quit"). I've had enough of the negativity that surrounds the whole issue. My only regret is that I feel guilty about leaving SexyKick on his own as the only major contributor; but the rename debate dragged me to the point where I just wanted the whole depressing mess out of my life. I am now firmly of the opinion that the naming dispute will keep coming up time and time again until someone has the guts to move it to a neutral name. - X201 (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh...heh...hm, (I'll choose to take it as a compliment) anyway, Jin, LedRush, and myself have been striving to keep the current title, though it looks like a lost battle TBH. Too many editors thought it was against policy or thought it was confusing, both of which I don't agree with.--SexyKick 11:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Heh...heh...hm, (I'll choose to take it as a compliment) anyway,". You've lost me there Sexy :-/ It was meant as a compliment. You're the only one who bothers with the article in any meaningful way now. Of the top five editors of the article, you're the only one who is still around. - X201 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was a compliment coming from you. But my positive assumptions of peoples words have sometimes gotten the better of me in the past. However, if Miremare said that he regrets I'm the only major contributor there, I'd assume he meant it in a negative way since he usually disagrees with people. Either way, I hope the article can count on your help if it's ever GA/FA review time.--SexyKick 11:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll just say that that talk page is rapidly becoming the laughingstock of the Wikipedia community. When you have someone on WT:TITLE comparing it to debates on the finer points of grilled cheese, you know it's gotten out of hand. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at this myself (but have yet to weigh in), and I don't know why anyone didn't just look at the sales figures to determine which version (Gen or MD) sold more. Looks like Genesis by a wide margin. Oddly, they didn't have this problem at TurboGrafx-16, which existed for two years as the PC Engine before it was exported, yet the article carries the American name. Maybe an addition to WP:LAME will get people to wake up. --McDoobAU93 20:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The TG-16 is more like NES and SNES, released in Japan in one name, elsewhere under another (or more to the point, there's only name in English-speaking countries in all three cases). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Famicom (for NES) and Super Famicom or SFC (for SNES) are Japan-only names, while Mega Drive is the EU/AU and JP name, technically making it both the first one and the more wise-spread one. The arguments are interesting. Salvidrim (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well not saying it hasn't gone on for more than it should, but as people from TITLE were the ones who instigated this latest round it seems they should be holding up a mirror to themselves.∞陣内Jinnai 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to put my hat into the ring but has there been a suggestion of an Arbitration request or a Request for mediation? GamerPro64 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There was some unusual arbitration (not the above) proposed. I also mentioned several times that it should probably have gone to mediation. However, I think the complex non-binding straw poll has convinced most people to either support the new change or at least not oppose it. How long before someone wants it moved to Mega Drive is up in the air.∞陣内Jinnai 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should propose a move to メガドライブ Mega Doraibu, that way there would be consensus against the move </sartalics>! Salvidrim (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You might actually have had some limited support earlier as Sega 16-bit console was considered for a time and other unusual measures like annual name rotation. :P∞陣内Jinnai 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Sega 16-bit console might make some sense. After all, that's what it is, no? And... an annual name rotation? Really? Really? *facepalms* Not however, I have yet to make my mind up as to which title would be preferable, but some are clearly not a good idea no matter what. Salvidrim (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea. That is why I think even as someone who participated in the dicussion it is a McDoobAU93 says, one of the best candiates if ever for WP:LAME. Whether that stops future naming disputes is another thing. I've been in naming disputes before and never have I seen people try to do stuff like set of a binding 9 non-WikiProject member panel to decide a name or come up with a something like annual rotation.∞陣内Jinnai 23:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We already have 5 entries just in the name section. What's one more. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

As someone who prefers Mega Drive, I wouldn't mind it being Genesis so much if Mega Drive remained the term in the first sentence. Has that been mentioned? Beyond that I don't want to dip my toe into that discussion... bridies (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the timeline currently presented in the lead is good, and should remain the same as well.--SexyKick 12:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The present lede certainly needs fixing. Generally we should be presenting all the names by which the subject might be searched for in the first few words of the first sentence so that people are not confused into thinking that they've arrived at the wrong article. Convention says that the title name comes first so that the article reads nicely. This discussion really belongs on the article's own talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it needed "fixing". bridies (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Retro Gamer Issue 62

Hi there! Does anyone own Retro Gamer Issue 62 digitally? It contains some information on Full Throttle's development and I would like to have a copy of the issue. Thank you. Electroguv (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You could just order an issue from their site. Unless they choose to publish their work digitally for free, we cannot copy it for you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What about sending the original? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, you can order one directly from the publisher. Or go to your local bookstore - a lot of places carry it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone did have that issue they could always add the relevant content themselves or at least provide a few choice quotes... bridies (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all of us live in the UK where the magazine is readily available. The Imagine Shop is frequently out-of-stock of these issues or they are not available digitally yet. Plus some of us cannot afford to pay an arm and a leg to order an issue off of eBay. That is why the project has a reference library for editors to help one another. ~ Hibana (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was pointing out that if you live in the United States, the magazine is frequently available there too. I can't speak for other countries, of course. I was unaware of the ref library - sorry. I simply responded to what looked like "Can someone make me a free copy of a published work?" request. (I'm also a little short-tempered right now because of other crap going on, so I apologize for taking it out on you guys.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We do have a ref libarary, but generally you ask someone who posts they have something in the ref library, not issue a general call. But yes, though there is no quid pro quo, its a good idea if you make use of a ref library to offer to get something that could be of use to others.∞陣内Jinnai 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, here comes the main problem - in ref library, there are only issues 30, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51 and 52. And, as I see from previous conversations there is no another option to get the issue I need. Electroguv (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some other sources in the ref library that might give you development details.

• GamesTM issues 52 and 66 have interviews with Tim Schafer, Full Throttle's lead. User:Hahnchen has both issues.
• Games issue 184 has info about LucasArts adventure games and Full Throttle 2. User:Thibbs has it.
• Edge 41 has a feature on LucasArts. User:X201 has it.
• Next Generation 42 has a Lucas Arts interview. User:Mitaphane has it.

Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

November 2011's upcoming TFA & TFL

Tomorrow's Today's Featured Article is gonna be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, three days before Modern Warfare 3 hits stores. Then on Monday, List of Nintendo 64 games will be the Today's Featured List. Congrats for the editors responsible for making the articles as they are now. GamerPro64 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Happy to see that we're getting a TFA this month, and even happier that we have a TFL coming up. CoD 4's a bit rough (the first sentence of Gameplay is one of the strangest I've ever read), but it's impossible to maintain an article that popular. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we might need more help than usual at CoD4 compared to other TFAs, considering how popular it is among the, uh, technically-savvy, and whatnot. It's already been getting a nice visit lately, probably in anticipation of MW3. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Retro Gamer issue 77

I was wondering if any of my fellow editors that reside in the UK would happen to have a copy of Retro Gamer issue 77. It's got a "Making Of" article for A Boy and His Blob: Trouble on Blobolonia that I need. Thanks. ~ Hibana (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(I think) it's on my shelf, but no scanner available or anything like that. Is there any particular aspect of the game's development you need the source for? Someoneanother 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Book:Mario_titles importance assessment

I've assessed as Mid, but I've been heavily involved in maintaining the book and cleaning up articles through it, so I'd like an outsider's view on that. Salvidrim (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no importance criteria for books and all other books have NA importance, so I've rerated it accordingly. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what it was, but I just thought nobody had assessed it. Is there some documentation I could read as to why there is no importance for books? :) Salvidrim (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no importance for books because there's no consensus for it. For that matter, I don't think there's been much discussion about the importance of articles outside the main namespace. From the looks of it, the current reasoning behind the importance scale would have to be revised or an exception would have to be made. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Full Throttle

Hi there. Does someone know sources (print or online) which cover the game? I would be very grateful to a man who knows. Thank you. Electroguv (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've done a fair amount of work on articles for mid-'90s PC games, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a few articles on this game floating around in old magazines. I'll see if I can find them again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

October Dab Challege

Video Games Dab Challenge (Oct 2011)

User	Fixes
January2007	207
H3llkn0wz	39
Peppage	18
MartinZwirlein	16
J04n	15
R'n'B	14
Dispenser	12
69.248.62.131	11

Little quick update since September, the results were quite different. Regretfully even though there are 4859 dablinks across 3756 articles left in the project, only 250 of them will be followed in this month's Dab Challenge, thus I will no longer promoting this topics in the grid. — Dispenser 07:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What's a Dab challenge? Just curious. A cursory look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games didn't inform me.Kliph (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DAB Gary King (talk · scripts) 08:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DPL is the page for the monthly contest. — Dispenser 15:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

VG character sources for those interested

FYI- An IP posted a list of sources related to video game characters at Portal talk:Fictional characters. They might be useful for those working on character articles or the respective game articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC))

FAC needing attention

Rhythm game has been up since the 21st and has not yet received any supports, opposes or in-depth reviews. If anyone has time to take a look at it, it would be much appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been partial reviewing and comments at FAC/Rhythm Game/Archive1. Salvidrim (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

True. However, as I said, there have been no supports, opposes or in-depth reviews. Only the standard checks have been performed, even though the article's been up for nearly three weeks. Judging from my experience at FAC, that's cause for concern. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it usually is a cause for concern. I made some changes that I thought useful, as you probably saw. If anything needs help, it's "Definition and game design". Is there really not much more that can be added there? Seems fairly short. IMO rhythm games have boomed so much in the past few years, starting with Guitar Hero and up to Just Dance 3 that there's hopefully more literature available on the subject than ever before.

(Some of these points that I suggest might already be in the article.) For instance, for "Game design", games in the genre have started to follow some conventions that are popular, like getting points for each successful move; and tons of instant, positive feedback for each action, since these games are so instant and feedback-based. In "Definition", perhaps note some of the defining games in the genre that introduced concepts that were later mass adopted. I know that that treads on "History" territory, but still, I see "History" as a pure timeline section, whereas Definition should also help explain the why part of how the genre came to be. Also, from a business point of view, a unique aspect of rhythm games is DLCs for song packs, and other ways to make more money. I see that is touched upon in the lead and probably in History, but perhaps there is enough info for a whole "Business" section? DLCs might actually be more commonplace in rhythm games than in any other genre; the other one I can think of is FPSes and map packs, but even then, a lot of them don't have that. Some of my thoughts. I also posted a bit more at the FAC itself. Gary King (talk · scripts) 07:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else got an opinion on this? As Gary King noted on the FAC page, the implications of this are potentially far-reaching i.e. the other genre articles; and at the same time I don't want to dither in responding to the FAC concerns specifically. I'm curious whether anyone thinks the precedent of 4X -the only genre FA, and the template on which we (actually that might just be me...) based rhythm game and several other genre articles- is dated or inadequate in terms of a standard format. Or whether we should be tailoring a format to each differing genre. It might be cool if anyone with an opinion on the genre articles could chip in... bridies (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Gary brings up a good point about our genre articles: that there is room for improvement and expansion. We differ in how to apply it though.

I think that "Definition" should only answer the "what" part, and that "History" is a good place to answer the "how" and why" parts. Basically, I use the first section to provide context for the rest of the article. In regard to a "Business" section, I think that an "Impact" section is more warranted because it can cover a financial impact and design/legacy impact. I think trends, like DLC, should be covered in the history section. Unfortunately, I say all this without having an actual genre example to base it on. In practice, our layout ideas may not present the information the best.

However, it should be noted that article content is dependent on the sources' content. I think that we should acknowledge that there may not be the content out there, and I'm sure this will vary between the different genre articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, my suggestions were never meant for all genre articles. Just this one. I suggested "Business" because I'm personally fascinated by the business aspect of the rhythm genre and figured there was enough info to fill that section up. If not, then "Impact" is good too, but a bit too generic. Stuff like "Guitar Hero 3 was the highest-grossing game of all-time (according to Activision) since it included the guitar peripheral" and the fact that lots of money can be made from DLC song packs (is there perhaps a source to indicate how much money is made from these? For instance, a game is sold for, say, $50. On average, how much would the company make per user for DLCs? $5?) can belong in a "Business" section. Also, peripherals could also go there, since they are so damn expensive that I wonder what the markup is on them, and companies can make more money by adding more instruments. Off the top of my head, Gamasutra has some of the best in-depth game development articles I've seen; the stuff I read there are not meant for a general audience. I don't know how much they have for rhythm games, though. The genre is probably a bigger money grab than any other, especially since it's still pretty new and companies are still testing out the best ways to make the most money. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the biggest omission is some kind of impact section. The "Why should I care?" idea. Yes its informative and detailed, but there is no info about how its had any kind of impact on either the industry, culture, society, etc. The sections could be called whatever, but there should be something. It might be okay if it was a broad category like action game, but I'm sure there would be case studies and the like for even those.∞陣内Jinnai 18:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding that, I wonder if there are articles discussing how Guitar Hero and such are making people actually bad at playing real guitars? It's been talked about before on TV news, so surely there are articles about it as well. Or, how rhythm games are introducing games to people who never played games before? Soccer moms, grandparents, little children, etc.? I wonder if you could even find some scholarly journal articles on this subject. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, guys, this might be better discussed and hashed out on the FAC page itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to discuss genre articles as a whole or just the rhythm game one? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

I'd say just stick with rhythm game for now. All the genres as a whole needs a much broader discussion. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess this should continue at the FAC page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

Proposed changes to quality content pages

Some format ideas came to mind when I did a recent update to one of the pages. The thought is that the pages are getting larger because our number of quality articles keeps increasing (yea!). I Here are changes I'd like to implement to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content.

• Both pages
  • Move the candidate and review pages to a section above the list of articles. Those list should be short enough that it won't push the list of GA/FAs down too much.
  • Move the list of demoted articles to a section below the rest of the list. With the candidate and review links gone, the only part remaining of the right column are the demoted articles. This will allow us to remove the hard column break at 66%, which I believe should reduce the length of the pages.
• GAC page
  • Add A-Class designation. Maybe a footnote or use the A-Class symbol in place of the GA star along with a mention at the top.
  • Break out remakes and ports from the individual games list to reduce that section's length. This could apply to the FAC page as well, but currently we don't have any FA articles about remakes and ports to my knowledge. I counted about 10 such articles on the GAC page.

Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

I wouldn't have any objections to the A-class designation; it would help a bit in finding out which articles are closest to becoming featured, and consequently could potentially aid in getting them promoted. (And it'd also show that the effort of getting it assessed as A-class is recognized, which might help other articles eventually reach it.) Though I wouldn't have cared for the other changes, say, yesterday, I viewed the lists on a smaller computer earlier today... yikes, yeah, it could probably use a bit of reshuffling. Hammerbrodude (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm down with all the proposed changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Going with A-class reviews, I'd like to see those added to our to-do list. They tend to languish in oblivion.∞陣内Jinnai 21:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There are articles nominated for A-class on the todo list. Do you mean the link to the nominations on their talk pages?GamerPro64 23:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea. I wonder if we shouldn't make those assesements as a subpage actually. That's another issue though.∞陣内Jinnai 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We should do that, as WP:MILHIST does it. It makes it easier to track than doing it on the talk page itself. –MuZemike 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for A-class subpages. I think a separate discussion is warranted though to attract input from our regular assessors.

If there's no opposition to the suggestions, I'll move forward with them next week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC))

Updated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Looks great! Especially liking the A-Class notice. As other people mentioned earlier, perhaps we should work on streamlining that process next, and see if there aren't any A- or near-A- quality good articles. In any case, I'm satisfied with all of these changes. Emmy Altava 02:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal at WikiProject Anime and manga to adopt Visual Novel Task Force as a joint WikiProject TF

There is a proposal at WikiProject Anime and manga to adopt this TF as a joint wikiproject.∞陣内Jinnai 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone is trying to copy an article to a different one without the history

Can someone look at this and reason with this person please. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Warcraft_II&curid=29096334&action=history And the longer title is the official name. Dream Focus 04:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the correct title, that is definitely not the correct way to perform a page move. Reach Out to the Truth 04:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems the "article history" problem was on the talk page. And how did this problem come about? [1] I've requested a merge of the talk page history to resolve the issue. Hopefully I won't be reverted. Reach Out to the Truth 04:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Zombies from Call of Duty

Is there a reason this doesn't have an article, seems extremely independently notable to me. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As always -- sources? But in any case, be bold and create it! --Salvidrim! (t • c) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it'll probably be brought for deletion or merge pretty quickly unless there are substantial number of significant sources. Elements of a video game, especially something that is a generic creature normally, need more than 2 independent reliable sources with significant coverage given WP:COMMONOUTCOMES.∞陣内Jinnai 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The zombies don't deserve their own article, but what about the mode? Surely there are enough sources to support an article about survival mode in general. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but I'd be careful about referencing it too heavily to 1-2 game series. See the discussion currently in the Rhythm game FAC.∞陣内Jinnai 05:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not necessarily say I thought it was a good idea, I encouraged the editor to go ahead and make it, then we'd see if the sources (etc.) make it article-worthy. :) --Salvidrim! (t • c) 05:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think survival mode could survive on its own as an article. See here. Personally, I encounter survival mode in games fairly often; Call of Duty is one of the later games to adopt it. I can't recall specific games at the moment, but the concept appears in tower defense games a lot, zombie games like Left 4 Dead, etc. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

First attempt. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Survival mode sounds like every shooting arcade game from the golden age. :-p

I'll bet some books have discussed the similarities, even if just in passing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Technically, most early videogames were survival games -- play infinite levels and survive as long as possible. Also, may be worth mentionning recent games who are JUST survival, like Epic Battle Fantasy. Additionally, a number of SRPGs offer survival modes as a way to "test" how far your party of characters can go. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay added a bit on classic arcade games. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance updated

For those who don't have it on their watch list, I've updated the importance rating based on the previous discussions. I couldn't see a clear consensus on individuals or companies so I left them alone for the moment.∞陣内Jinnai 22:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, I don't remember there being a consensus to do anything at all. If push comes to shove on your revised importance criteria, I don't think anyone will be able to point to such consensus. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Read it again. About the most contriversial change was the change from genres and concepts to genres and vocabulary which several people were confused with already. I did not touch anything there was sizable diagreement. Conensus doesn't mean 100%.∞陣内Jinnai 23:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The edits seem reasonable and in-line with the direction the discussion was heading when it was archived. The discussion died down to me, Jinnai, and Masem, and those are some of the conclusions we came to. While there wasn't widespread agreement, there wasn't opposition against it either. Lack of input can lead to consensus too.

If you disagree with the edits, please feel free to start the discussion again. That's one of the ways Wikipedia works. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

I see rationales, but little discussion of those rationales and certainly no consensus. From the looks of it, there was about as much support for getting rid of top importance altogether as there was for any of the things you changed. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Except top importance is required. The 4 we have no are the required ones therefore we There are 2 optional ones, no importance and n/a. We cannot trump the larger consensus and ignore a required one. The other option was to remove it entirely which didn't have any real support.∞陣内Jinnai 03:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edge - Broken links

The Edge website has just undergone a redesign. Its actually a new back-end system as well as a redesign. The articles and reviews appear to have made it across OK by the looks of things, but the URLs of them have changed.

The easy part: All of the reviews appear to have moved from http://www.next-gen.biz/features/stacking-review to their new location of http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/stacking-review

The hard part: The features (such as A short history of Lucas Arts and The 100 best games to play today) have moved across OK, and are still in the same directory hierarchy, but, their URLs appear to have changed ever so slightly, and in a non-uniform way.

(Old URL on top, new URL underneath)

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/a-short-history-lucasarts

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/short-history-lucasarts

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/the-100-best-games-to-play-today

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/100-best-games-play-today

The "Just to make it more awkward" part: The search function on the site appears to only work for users who are signed in. Not sure if this is by design, or just a bug to do with the move. Accessing content still works OK for non-logged in users, but searching for anything will result in failure.

According to LinkSearch we have 534 links to check. The reviews should be easy with a bit of nifty RegEx, the features look like they may need the manual approach though. - X201 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• *sigh* when will publishers realize that bare URLs are meant to be permanent (even if you provide redirects to the new location...) 500 links (ignoring talk pages ) probably can be easily burned through with a dedicated effort. AWB gives me back only about 350 non-talk article pages, here User:Masem/Edge URL Fix List. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I say we write a well written letter explaining the damage that moving pages and deleting links causes. Then try and get publishers to forward it as a chain letter. :O _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • This is why I WebCite every page of every web article that I use as a reference. Unless they're already in the Internet Archive, that is. I don't think publishers will ever learn. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there an automatic way of converting citations to WebCite versions? In the same style as Reflinks? - X201 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there's a bot that's broken and in limbo, but right now you have to doit manually. I have a python script that submits requests and modifies txt versions of articles that I've downloaded, but it tends to get my ip tempbanned from webcite. :) --PresN 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, so that's the links that start next-gen checked and fixed. There are 21 that need further work to hunt down a working link. Love the irony that the Edge article is the one most affected by the the URL changes. Now onward to help young Ost316 with the articles that start with edge-online - X201 (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We're gonna need a bigger boat

Just when I thought I was nearing the end... have just discovered that there are also http://www.edge-online.com references that are broken as well. Any of these URLs that has a ?page= command at the end of the URL is breaking, remove that and it tends to redirect to the correct article. Not sure of best way to proceed with this: Bot to remove the ?page= code, or the safe and sure manual way. Masem, could you knock up a separate URL page like you did for the Next-Gen URLs please? So we can see how many we're dealing with. - X201 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit: for "remove that and it tends to" - please substitute "remove that and it rarely" :-( - X201 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. I think I've got most of the Edge ones for Halo archived already as they already dropped features off the face of the earth on me before, but I'll double-check. Thanks all for the heads-up. (And why didn't Quint just take the fancy metal boat Dreyfuss' character rolled in on? Another topic for another time.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

edge-online list User:Masem/EdgeOnline URL Fix List. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - X201 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Helpful hint- seems like all urls that were at edge-online.com/magazine/whatever are now at next-gen.biz/features/whatever, and they're not redirecting, unlike the /news/ ones. --PresN 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also Checklinks appears not to work. Have just tested it on an article, Checklinks said it was OK when it was actually just pointing at the website home page. - X201 (talk)

It usually works fine, though some of the links do go to valid targets that don't give a 404 error. Checklinks at least gives an interface for checking and fixing the links and will list the link even if it does not think that it is dead. It just takes a little bit of vigilance with these links. —Ost (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost there - Need Reference Ninjas

Thanks to a sterling effort by the boy Ost316, The Edge link fiasco is almost over. We just need a couple of Reference Ninjas to help crack the 20 or so references that have gone AWOL. The bulk of them are here. Hopefully, with a little help, we can get this done and dusted quickly and we can vacate the pages created by Masem. It's taken so long, I think he's a bit concerned that we may be trying to claim Squatters rights on his user space ;-) - X201 (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Anyone know the size of the cartridge for ToeJam & Earl? 4-megabit? 8? 16? Thanks. bridies (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This says ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron has twice the size of the original, but no numbers. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 03:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's presumably not 16 then, at least. bridies (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm under the impression the Sega Master System was 8-Bit, Mega Drive/Genesis 16-bit and Sega Saturn & the Sega 32X add-on were 32-bit. Were there really variations between games on the same platform? --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 04:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that refers to the maximum capabilities, and/or that what's on the console and the cartridge size aren't the same thing exactly. Eg. the article for Sonic 1 gives the cartridge as 4 megabit while Sonic 3 gives 16. bridies (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article for Sonic 1 article (contrary to the infobox) says the Genesis version was 16-bit (there was a 8-bit retroport to the Master System), and Sonic 3 says 16-bit also. I'm not intimately familiar with gaming hardware, however. From the Internet, Sonic 1's ROM is exactly 512K, Toejam & Earl is exactly 1,024K and Toejam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron is exactly 2,048K. Take that as you may, though, the size of the file doesn't necessarily indicates the size of the cartridge. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 05:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps all cartridges for the Genesis were 16-bit, but programs themselves were smaller? --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 05:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea. Are you talking about emulated ROMs above? bridies (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly that. At first I thought the size of the downloadable ROM would have nothing to do with the original game (what with ripping, compressing, I dunno), but such precise values make me think there might be some truth to it. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 06:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed... Yeah, so that would suggest 4 megabits for Sonic, 8 for the first TJ&E and 16 for the second. The ToeJam & Earl article has said 16 forever and I always left it assuming the Mega Drive was 16-bit, but an IP has changed it to 8; looks like he's probably right. Factual error in an FA, oh dear... bridies (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No cartridges were 16-bit. It says "16-bit cartridge" on the box, but that combination of words is basically a lie. A 16-bit cartridge could fit two ASCII characters, without any room for instructions to display those characters. The Genesis has a 16-bit architecture, and it uses cartridges. It does not and could not use 16-bit cartridges. Reach Out to the Truth 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

*shrugs* Still might need a source, as "comparing the size of some potentially illegal software" is of doubtful reliability. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 06:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if we can't clear this up for sure I'll probably remove the whole parameter as unverifiable. Anyone else? bridies (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic here, be sure you keep your terminology straight. When you say "8-bit", "16-bit", etc., you're referring to a technical specification of the console hardware (address width of CPU or RAM, instruction size, etc.). But when you say "8 Megabit", "16K", etc., you're talking about ROM or memory size or capacity, which is a totally different and almost completely independent measure. Just wanted to point that out. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And to further it, a ROM is in fact an exact copy of a game so there's no wishy-washiness. As long as it's uncompressed, it's a very simple matter to see the size of a game with a ROM -- so yes, the size of the file DOES 'nessesarily indicate the size of the cartridge', to use the above words. If Sonic 1's ROM is 512k, then it's 4 Megabits, there's no disputing it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the point was that we're unlikely to reach agreement on whether a ROM image of disputable legality qualifies as a reliable source. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm rather certain we would reach an agreement against the reliability of that, but meh. At least the fact seem to be accurate for now. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 07:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it's pretty reliable, but I can understand the reluctance. There ARE sources for some - Nintendo Power for instance often made a big deal about size, and sometimes it was even on the box, such as for Donkey Kong Country IIRC...I think they even included it in a couple of their 'game atlas' things. But I can also see it being mostly irrelevant, and where it IS (such as Super Metroid being the first 24bit SNES game) it can be noted in the prose. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's mostly listed as a fact for fact-listing's sake (not unlike Age Ratings), when the cartridge size is notable by itself it IS noted in and sourced in prose. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 15:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove the size of the cartridge: the only other FA on a cartridge-based game that I can see Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System), just says "cartridge" in the infobox. bridies (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, linking to ROM Cartridge should be sufficient. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 09:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker's at TFA

"The Wind Waker" is now Today's Featured Article, making it the third featured content to be on the main page this month. Hooray for progress. GamerPro64 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This 2nd TFA this month basically resulted from no TFA being planned for today, as Raul has been away the past several days. Well, I suppose that makes up for last month, which we had none. –MuZemike 01:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's handling the TFA in Raul's absence. Previous Zelda games have had File:Triforce.svg as the TFA image. Is it too late to suggest its addition? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

With two video game TFAs in one month, Talk:Main Page is going to be a great read. :) Reach Out to the Truth 06:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87 is Raul's delegate for TFA. User:Wehwalt was the one that actually created the TFA page for Wind Waker, since there was none until a few minutes before the deadline. Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Help reviewing a big merger

Lists of Mario video games by year, by console, by genre
into List of Mario video games.  Done on 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have other editors' opinions before copying to namespace and redirecting the other three lists. It retains the ability to sort by year/console/genre, has all the games the other three lists had (details are not "necessary" IMO, all games/genres/platforms are wikilinked appropriately). I also took advantage of the fact I manually built that table to double-check witht he individual articles if all the years were accurate (some were not on the original three lists).
The merge tags have been in place for two years, and I don't see how the lists could be merged and still retain their individual usefulness without using a sortable table as I did, unpretty as it may be.
So please, feedback, feedback, feedback, and once all the kinks are worked out I'll put the merge into effect, unless of course there is consensus against, but... *shrugs* - as I've said, I can't think of any other way to do it, and it eventually has to be done.
--Salvidrim! ^T·_C 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Make it sortable by Title as well. - X201 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the things I wasn't sure about. I mean, can't hurt, but... I dunno. Default sort is by year anyways, so why not. :)  Done --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll make the marge effective tommorow if no other concerns arise. I fully expect that discussion will be sparked THEN by people watching one or more of the three lists and not this page. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely  Done. All three lists redirected, List of Mario video games now in namespace, and redirs pointed to the three lists changed to redir to the new merged list to avoid double redirs. Link to this discussion in every edit summary, I fully expect to be reverted and more discussion to happen here. :) --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I'm excited to see that we've finally done it after it was brought up so long ago. Well done. Nomader (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't found that old discussion! And it went... surprisingly smoothly, I must say. Thanks for linking that discussion, now I'll think if List of Mario series sports games should be redirect too -- seems redundant now. Salvidrim! 02:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done! Salvidrim! 02:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Move Halo 3 Marketing to Marketing of Halo 3

Discussion over a proposal to move the article Halo 3 Marketing to Marketing of Halo 3 is taken place here .Lucia Black (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Section link Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability of the current COTM

I've done some digging, but I haven't found meaty sources for Dnd (video game). This includes the first several pages of Google web and book search. At best, you get an off-hand mention of the game and its creators. Is this enough to establish notability? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, the game is certainly notable for being one of the earliest games to bring D&D RPG mechanics into computer gaming, providing an early example of a "boss" monster, and indirectly inspiring the creation of Moria, which in turn led to all the other dungeon crawls on PLATO and ultimately to Wizardry, one of the critical games in the birth and growth of the CRPG on home computers, but I don't think you will actually find any info on the game to expand the current entry. I mean, it would be great if you did because the game deserves more coverage, but I have never seen any sources on the web or in print that elaborate further on what the wikipedia article already states. There may be a little bit more out there on the gameplay, but probably not on the history. Good luck if you try though, because I would certainly like to know more about the game. Indrian (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe try some video game history books.∞陣内Jinnai 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I have read pretty much all of them. Unfortunately, PLATO does not figure into any of them except for a brief mention in High Score, where dnd is not mentioned at all, and a small amount of coverage in Barton's history of role-playing games, which contains no more info than wikipedia. When it comes to mainframe games, they all focus on Adventure and MUD because the influence of those two games was far more substantial. PLATO was largely a footnote in videogame history because it was so far advanced in terms of graphics and multiplayer capability over microcomputers of the 1970s and 1980s that few concepts made the jump to the home. Bruce Artwick was partially inspired by PLATO in the creation of Flight Simulator, and Moria et al led directly to Wizardry, but the influence pretty much ends there. This still makes the system important, but not important enough for monographs that have limited space to cover the big picture of video game history. A few game design books also mention PLATO and dnd briefly, but I have not seen any with more info than wikipedia already provides, though my knowledge of game design books is far more limited than my knowledge of the history books. Again though, I would love to be proven wrong. Indrian (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cambalachero (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, in the future, video game-related AfD are usually listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion, which we do watch. –MuZemike 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that, I'm not from this project, I just wanted to report it at a public place where people interesed in the topic may notice. It would be useful to add a link to that section at the top of the talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Just for future reference. –MuZemike 02:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is a link in the to-do list at the top of the page. In fact, there are currently two. A more prominent placement may be helpful, but it's probably not the only thing that could use a more prominent placement on this page. In this case, I think it's fine if we get occasional deletion notifications here. Someone will see it and add it to the project's deletion tracking page, and it will have served its purpose. Reach Out to the Truth 02:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gamespot/GameFAQs

Per disucssions at WT:VG/RS and WP:RS/N, the release dates for these sites are not reliable. We should probably go through out FA/FL/GA items and change them to another source.∞陣内Jinnai 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We should focus on our FLs first because they rely more heavily on such sources for release dates. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Ill try and fix all the refs on List of Harvest Moon games tomorrow. Salavat (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone finds a good alternative to GameSpot for release dates, please post it here for the benefit of other editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

I've been using NintendoLife for recent games and NinDB/MobyGames for older Nintendo ones. IGN and Metacritic can sometimes have information, or first-party sources (Nintendo, the dev or publishers of a game, etc.) Salvidrim (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont no about some of the others but you cant be using MobyGames. IGN is what I plan on using (even though I much preferred GameSpot). Salavat (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

MobyGames is generally informative, though its reliability has been contested, as the amount of editorial oversight isn't clear. Most of the times, if you have a release date and are looking for a ref, google the game's name & the date... something'll come up. I'm generally more Nintendo-centric, so my usual sources may not be useful to all. Salvidrim (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

MobyGames is in the unreliable category along with GameFAQs. Please don't use it as a replacement for these GF release dates. Metacritic I'm not sure of. It gets music data from Allmusic and movie data from IMDb, but doesn't say where it gets game data. There's a possibility it comes from GameFAQs. The credits come from GameFAQs for sure. GameRankings also uses GameFAQs/GameSpot data, so don't rely on GR for release data. Reach Out to the Truth 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally I don't use MobyGames as a ref either. I use it to find information (namely on games released on multiple platforms), and once I have that information, look for a RS to cite it from. So Moby can be useful in research if you don't have the release date, even though it should not be used as a reference in most circumstances. Salvidrim (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Where was that conclusion reached? I don't see consensus of unreliability at either WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 106#GameFAQs and Gamespot_shared_database or WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Gamespot and instead read that unreliable dates are marked as being user-submitted. —Ost (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

They are marked only on GameFAQs. If you use GameSpot as the source, there's no way of knowing whether any portion of the data has come from GameFAQs users. And there's also a thread on GameSpot where users can request changes and new pages, and that won't appear as user-contributed on GameFAQs because the changes are submitted by a GameSpot staff member. This isn't limited to the posts you can find in the thread; email is also accepted. GameFAQs data was already considered unreliable, it doesn't make sense not to extend this to the data on GameSpot as well. Reach Out to the Truth 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away so I'm a bt slow responding. I didn't realize that GameFAQs was already considered unreliable; it had been used for release dates on numerous pages. I don't understand why it matters if data is user-submitted if a GameSpot member makes the change as I would assume—perhaps incorrectly—that they check the data before committing the change. And since GameFAQs marks their data, I would think that they would be a better source than GameSpot. I didn't think that we care where that data comes from, we care if it's accurate and checked with editorial oversight. —Ost (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following this that much, but I believe that a group of editors presented a number of incorrect dates, specifically for older games. The number apparently painted the picture that appropriate level of fact checking was not there. I'm not entirely certain, but that was my take on it. Someone more involved with the discussions might want to chime in, preferably with links to the exact discussion(s). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

I'm fairly confident that Metacritic gets release date information from GameFAQs. Even if it doesn't, it gets it from some other equally unreliable site, because its release date for Professor Layton and the Last Specter is a day off, a trait it shares primarily (if not exclusively) with other sites that get information from GameFAQs (Gamespot, GameRankings); but not with other, unrelated sites (1UP.com, IGN). Metacritic also openly admits to getting some information from GameFAQs, right here, referring to it as a sister site. I would strongly advise avoiding Metacritic for release dates. Emmy Altava 07:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that that's reason to use caution, but not necessarily to discount them, though the discussions Guyinblack mentions may have more insight. Does GameFAQs allow people to report incorrect data and do they fix it? Other publications make mistakes but are still considered reliable because they have editorial oversight and correct mistakes. —Ost (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. GameFAQs allows people to submit errors. Unless its an obvious error (such as December 32 or December 31, 1010) it requires evidence. However, the evidence required is less for less popular/older games than newer/more popular titles.∞陣内Jinnai 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Update on examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Quality scale

I've been going through some new examples for each class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Quality scale, since most of the examples have not been updated in over 3 years. Here's what I have so far for possible new examples:

• FAs
  • Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
  • Myst
  • Super Mario 64
• A-Class
  • Viewtiful Joe
  • Mega Man 2
• GA
  • Shoot 'em up
  • Half-Life (video game)
  • Nobuo Uematsu

• B-Class
  • PlayStation 3
  • Pac-Man
• C-Class
  • Blizzard Entertainment
  • Tetris
• Start-Class
  • Game Boy Advance
  • FIFA (video game series)
• Stub-Class
  • SuperTux
  • ModNation Racers: Road Trip
• FLs
  • List of Square Enix video games
  • List of Nintendo 64 games
• List-Class
  • List of Pokémon
  • List of Nintendo Entertainment System games

Any thoughts? –MuZemike 06:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No FLs?∞陣内Jinnai 06:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

List-class, too. And it might not hurt to have examples of the other classes (Dab, Cat, Book, etc.) and a short explanation, but that's probably another debate. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 06:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Having worked on SMB3 and SM64, I can tell you that they are not the most representative of their quality ratings. FPS has a lot of non-free images in it, which I think would discount it as a prime example. I'd recommend Viewtiful Joe or Mega Man 2 for A-class, Ico or Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System) for FA, and Shoot 'em up for GA. Everything else seems fine. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

I updated the above by adding FLs and List-Class articles. I've also changed the A-Class and GA articles to Guyinblack25's suggestions; I'll leave to someone else to decide on the FAs, as one of them I have significantly contributed to. –MuZemike 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not the most contributive [sic] comment, but seeing what now qualifies as B and C class really deters me. Are there any good examples of digital download titles that would pass for B class? That's where I set my sights, but both examples have a crazy amount of citations and content, which may not paint a clear enough picture. --Teancum (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That being said, it might be good to find examples of long and short articles. I think that will give people a better understanding of what quality to look for. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

2 new sections for the Infobox videogame: "Voice actor" and "Portrayal"

Hi everyone!

I had to find a quick info for a contest, I knew the answer, I knew where to look on wikipedia, but the problem is that usually you think that you know where you find the info and it happens sometimes not to be there. This was the case. I needed the information about the voice actor of the main character of a video game. Lara Croft (answer: Keeley Hawes) in Tomb Raider: Legend.

It would be nice and useful that the Infobox video game would contain Voice actor and Portrayal sections for the main character. Actually it should contain a Main Character section with the subsections mentioned before. I know it is obvious for everyone who is the main character and so on... But I have two things to sustain my idea. First, a person that jumps on the article for the first time, they have to do some research by clicking on the main character's page to see who is the voice actor, but actually this info should be inside the first article. Second, there are very rare cases, maybe none, when the main character of the series is changing, and this doesn't mean there should not be a place for the main character in the infobox, even crazily repeating the same information, the idea is that there is vital information missing in the infobox.

--TudorTulok (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary in what is already a crowded infobox. The info is better portrayed on character articles. This is because first off there can be multiple main protagonists. Certainly some games its quite easy to say who the main protagonist is, like most Mario games. But what about Legend of Mana or Romancing Saga or even Star Ocean 2 (is Claud's story the main one or Rena's)? What about Resident Evil games? or fighter games that aren't based on an existing franchise like Soul Calibur? It will just cause needless fights about what goes into the infobox.∞陣内Jinnai 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above that this is beyond infobox's scope. It's certainly going to be the same problem as with other "role" fields -- who to include, who is notable and who isn't, what's the entry limit, etc. This really is prose material. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with Jinnai and Hellknowz, the practically application is similar to "Preceded by" and "Followed by" fields. The character information is typically in the lead, so I don't think it's needed in the infobox. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

Thank you all for clarification, I appreciate your words. --TudorTulok (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit dispute at Atari 5200

Could I get some extra eyes on a discussion going on at Talk:Atari 5200? Here's a synopsis:

• Someone asked that we remove a couple of words from the "Market performance" section that state that the ColecoVision is more powerful than the 5200. The citation for this statement is from a Top-25 article at IGN that states the 5200 was "crushed under the technological weight of the ColecoVision".
• An argument ensued, with one side saying the claim is contentious and uncorroborated, and the other (most notably User:ButOnMethItIs) stating that IGN is a reliable source and therefore we cannot and should not be editing or censoring anything they say.
• I stepped in and tried to come up with several compromises, noting that the statement of one system being more powerful than the other is a matter of perception (whether it's strictly true or not, Coleco clearly convinced its target audience that it had the better console), and that the IGN article is an editorial and should be treated as such.
  • So far, several people on BOTH sides of the issue have apparently COMPLETELY misunderstood what I was trying to accomplish there, and seem to still be arguing in absolutes, treating the statement as fact rather than as editorial. This has even resulted in a further revert, even though the nature of the content has changed.

My personal opinion and observations are:

• None of our reliable sources, IGN included, demonstrate in any way that the ColecoVision is technologically superior to the 5200 in any way that matters with respect to the competition between the two. The CV's CPU is faster, yes, and this appears to be the sole statistic that the author of the Top-25 article makes this claim.
• The claim is irrelevant to the section: The article is about the 5200, and the section is mostly about the 5200's shortcomings and its failure to compete. While technology can play a role there, IGN is so far the only source I've come across that attributes the 5200's failure to being technologically inadequate. Every other source I'm familiar with, including "Ultimate History of Video Games", attributes the system's failure to its lack of funding, its small library of games, its controllers, and the fact that the ColecoVision had more games and more arcade-accurate ports.
• To corroborate a statement of power about the ColecoVision, we'd have to go into a lot more detail than is necessary or appropriate for the article, and it gives undue weight to the ColecoVision - discussion of its technology and history should be limited to direct competition, and anything else should be sent to its own article.

That's my opinion. I'd like to see if we can reach consensus and/or at least get some closure on the sources. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the reliable sources have to demonstrate anything, the claim about the 5200's market performance is 100% relevant to the "market performance" section on an article called "Atari 5200", and we are not required to corroborate anything. And just so everyone is clear, the article doesn't need to say anything about which was more powerful. How about "This dude at IGN attributed the 5200's poor market performance to its technical inadequacy relative to the Colecovision.[IGNcite]"? It doesn't sound very good, but it has the advantage of being consistent with policies and guidelines.

How about removing the statement? What's the policy basis there? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

When I tried to do exactly what you suggested (mentioning it in the form of an editorial statement), you objected vehemently to it. Why is it so much better now, all of a sudden? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only change I vehemently objected to was the one where you the offending statement in its entirety and replaced it with original research. You rewrote it later, only to remove it because your rewrite focused solely on criticism of the hardware. If what I said above were rewritten added to that section, I don't see how anyone could reasonably object. There's Cmonflippie and his ipsocks, but I don't find him to be reasonable. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so the fact that everything I wrote in that edit is verified in a reliable source makes it original research? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it was just editing error, but it was still OR. I get the feeling that you're confused about what my position is and what I've objected to, so let's forget about everything that happened since.

Hey, see that thing I wrote up there? Can you think of any reason it can't be included in the section on market performance? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't actually understand why you call it OR, but whatever. :P

I reverted the removal of my updated version of the statement - perhaps we can fine-tune it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still at a loss as to why we are trying to include it at all (this is not really directed at you KieferSkunk, because I believe we are pretty much in agreement). First of all, the article was not a review, but a retrospective. There is a huge difference. The author was not attempting to convey to an audience whether the console was worth its time. Reviews from the time the systems were competing on the market would be primary sources and could have value even if just to show that Coleco successfully created a perception of superiority; a retrospective is a secondary source that needs to be analyzed based on the quality of its research just like any other secondary source. The thesis of the author is that the ColecoVision crushed the Atari 5200 with its "technological weight." The evidence to support that thesis is that the processor of the ColecoVision operated at a higher clock speed. The only "fact" in these statements is that the ColecoVision processor runs at a faster clock speed, which in and of itself does not necessarily make for a faster processor, let alone a more technologically advanced system in general. This means the author has not proven his thesis and therefore his opinion should not be trusted. This is called vetting sources and is crucial to having a well-written article.

Also, there appears to be some confusion in regards to accepting the entire output of a news organization with little scrutiny and accepting the output of an author conducting secondary research. IGN as an organization is considered reliable as a news and review outlet, but operates in these capacities as a primary source. For news, this means that it is merely reporting stated fact without making a judgement as to the factual accuracy of any statements from quoted sources. When I say this I do not mean that they don't try to independently confirm information, but that if the spokesman for a company says that a vice president has resigned for health reasons and no one is willing to say otherwise on or off the record, then the news organization will run that story even if the truth is that the vice president was fired for incompetence. In this situation, editorial control is crucial to trusting the site because it provides a guarantee that information reported by the site was actually relayed by a competent third-party and not just made up by the site. When acting as a reviewer, IGN is providing advice to a group of users, and its reviews, taken with reviews from similar sites, can help create an understanding of how a game or system was received at launch. In this situation, editorial control is important because it provides a guarantee that the site is giving each product a fair shake without bias to a particular company, system, or genre. When IGN operates as a secondary source, then its articles need to be vetted based on the credentials of the author and the factual accuracy of the work, not the bona fides of the news organization. It is not the IGN editor's job to "correct" the opinions in an article such as this one, so the fact that IGN is under editorial control is meaningless. In the same vein, all the books released by a single publisher are not automatically considered reliable just because said publisher assigned an editor to every book it released. These individual books must still be judged on their own merits, with some deference given to the author if he is a recognized authority in his field. Indrian (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re "we are not required to corroborate anything": WP:V makes it clear that information must be verifiable. We can certainly verify that somebody says that the CV is more powerful than the 5200. But can we verify (or more importantly, can our readers verify) that the CV actually is more powerful? And furthermore, I still dispute whether the measurement of power is relevant to that section. The fact is, the Coleco sold better, and there were a number of factors to that, perception of technical inferiority likely being ONE of them, but not the sole reason. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion of power is irrelevant. Citing a statement from a reliable source that bears directly on the subject at hand is very relevant. That the statement was made is verifiable. WP:V is satisfied. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so this comes to the core of the argument I've been making this whole time, and I'm REALLY FRUSTRATED at the fact that, no matter how carefully I word it, people STILL don't get it: There is a difference between "The ColecoVision was more powerful than the 5200" and "Some reviewers have said the ColecoVision was more powerful than the 5200". In my view, it's perfectly acceptable to say the latter (and that's what we're currently doing, despite the revert by Cmonflippie), because this makes it clear that it's an editorial view. It is NOT acceptable to make that a statement of fact (which was what was there originally, and was the subject of the original dispute) when there is evidence to the contrary and when the only source supporting that claim is an editorial.

Now, please, can SOMEBODY tell me why this is so *#!$^&*(&^# difficult to understand!? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I for one understand what you are trying to do with this compromise wording, but as I stated above, I just don't think its necessary. As I see it, the source has in no way been proven reliable and is useless as an opinion piece to gauge public reception as well since it is written way too far after the fact. Also, using the term "some" is horribly misleading because only one opinion is sourced, and using the term "reviewers" is misleading because the author of the IGN piece is not acting in that capacity. Indrian (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also some dispute over whether another site run by three Atari fanboys with no editorial oversight and only token mention elsewhere, is a reliable source. I started a discussion about Atari HG on the reliable sources noticeboard. [2] Dream Focus 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that doesn't sound biased at all. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, at least one of those guys is an editor here and he doesn't strike me as a fanboy. Even if you disagree, fanboy is a personal attack. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If I used the word fan instead of fanboy would that make a difference? I don't see this is insulting at all. They are fans of Atari, clearly, and they mention their opinions on why their favorite system is superior without any proof of actual fact checking. Dream Focus 11:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Fanboy" is often used in a more pejorative fashion than "fan". For example, look at the first few Google results for Halo fanboys as opposed to Halo fans (watch the false positives in the latter). Not that I disagree with your assessment of the site, though. –MuZemike 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Slow things down

With the discussion heated and splintered in two locations (here and Talk:Atari 5200) I recommend that we slow things down and keep the discussion to one page. Here's my take on the situation. The dispute is over wording at Atari 5200#Market Performance. As far as I can tell, this is rooted in the references used and how it is being used. What I've gathered is that there are three references that have been mentioned.

• IGN
• Atari HQ
• Ultimate History of Video Games

The main contention seems to be between the IGN and Atari HQ sources. The IGN article states the ColecoVision was technologically superior to the Atari 5200, while the Atari HQ articles states the reverse. The Ultimate History book appears to be used primarily for information about the ColecoVision. The main difference that I see between the two online sources is that the IGN article provides little reasoning behind it's statement, while the Atari HQ article provides a lot of reasoning. The other difference is that IGN is considered more widely reliable than Atari HQ (which is currently under question at WP:RSN). This is not a statement to discredit one or the other, simply an assessment of them.

All that being said, if there are no other sources in the discussion, then I suggest we put everything else on hold until Atari HQ is examined. The use of the site's content will be a moot point if it is deemed unreliable. The website already was deemed reliable at WP:RSN, but no discussions involving a large number of VG editors has occurred to my knowledge. This is only one I found: a notification of the RS Noticeboard discussion. It's currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Atari HQ. The more input the better.

Once this is settled, then we can move forward with examining the content of the articles to find the best way to settle this. I believe that Keifer has made some good head way towards that, but the dispute is pulling those involved in too many directions. Let's take it a step at a time.

If anyone has any additional information or corrections, please speak up. All I ask is that you be cordial to your fellow editors and use the preview function before you post. This a very solvable dispute, it just might not get resolved as fast as everybody would like. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Break free from the tyranny of badly-used parenthesis!

Fellow Wikipedianarianites, we have become trapped in an article naming system that favors the 1% of editors who control most of the editing. Fat-cats using the awesome power of repeatedly saying "Problem in search of a solution", and the mind-numbing ability to discuss every detail of any topic to the point where nobody cares any more and the status quo is maintained. But no more!

I am talking about parenthesis being used to disambiguate articles they have no business being near! I am talking about series pages, my video game compadreats!

Take, for example, Super Mario (series). This title makes no logical sense. This series is never referred to as "Super Mario". It is referred to as the "Super Mario series" or the "Mario" series, never simply "Super Mario". Even if it were, if there is a need to disambiguate, it should be put at the closest natural title, which is still "Super Mario series". The Super Mario series cannot be properly referred to without using the word "series", it makes no sense otherwise. No person says "I am looking forward to the newest game in Super Mario". By over-using parenthetical disambiguation we are saying exactly that. Even Nintendo clearly refers to the series as the "Super Mario Series". This is because they prefer that people actually understand what they are reading.

Takashi Tezuka has been involved in the development of the Super Mario Series, the Yoshi Series, the Animal Crossing Series and many other games.

— http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/nsmb/vol1_page3.jsp

There is one context that "Super Mario" makes sense, and that is if it is used as an adjective instead of a noun. "I am looking forward to playing the latest Super Mario game" makes sense as a sentence. Unfortunately, we write articles about nouns, and using the noun as an adjective in the article title is needlessly confusing. The title is a reference to the topic, and should always be the noun form. In series titles, the word series is the noun. This article is about a series, and that series is the Super Mario (adjective) series (noun). It would not make sense to move chocolate milk to chocolate (milk), or parking lot to parking (lot), or maybe car (park). This is putting focus on the adjective, and adjectives do not make good article titles.

Another example is Deus Ex. There is a game called Deus Ex, and there is a series referred to as Deus Ex. Some people proposed that we make a Deus Ex (video game) page, and that we move the series to the primary topic. The logic there is reversed, because the game is referred to as "Deus Ex", and the series is the "Deus Ex series". In contrast, would you ever expect to read an article in a magazine that repeatedly referred to "Deus Ex video game"? "Deus Ex video game is considered one of the best games of its time. I still play Deus Ex video game with my friends." Contrast this to "The Deus Ex series is considered one of the best of its kind. I've played every game in the Deus Ex series." Which reads more naturally?

So where does this behavior make sense? In games with specifically-named and unambiguous series titles, like The Elder Scrolls. The words "The Elder Scrolls" are a noun, referring to a specific series. There is no game with this name, just the series, so no confusion. If you read "The Elder Scrolls", you know that the series is being referred to. Still, it would not seem unnatural to refer to "The Elder Scrolls series". It is never unnatural to refer to a series as "the Series Name series".

So, in closing, what I am saying is that we need to stop falling back on parenthesis. Series titles that need disambiguation should contain the word "series" naturally, unless they are known by an unambiguous name. We need to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games), as those specific lines were added without discussion, and, as detailed above, make no sense. Thank you, and please remember me in the voting booth. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is this breaks against the first rule of article naming, WP:COMMONNAME. If the series name and first game in the series have an equivalent title, we have to make some determination which one is the more likely result if someone is searching for that term. This may mean the first game in the series gets the unappended name, it may be the series gets it. No other part of WP, where such naming can be a problem, do we abandon the use of parens for the disambiguation even if they can be removed with a clean title (eg the example of "the Deus Ex series".) We are being consistent with the rest of WP in this way, even if it can be klunky at times. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. "Chocolate milk" or "parking lot" are the common names. So is "Super Mario", it is the common name. Not "Super Mario series", just like not "chocolate milk drink". But the primary topic for "Super Mario" title is taken by the first video game in the series, therefore we have to disambiguate the series article (in the example above the author has to disambiguate in prose, so they use "series" which is a more natural language). If there was no primary topic (no video game article) we would not need to disambiguate, i.e. leave the series at "Super Mario" or "Deus Ex". Neither "milk" nor "lot" are sufficient to identify the topic per WP:PRECISION. "Super Mario" is enough. What you are essentially proposing is disambiguating video game series articles differently than the convention for the rest of the site (which I may not be against per se). But this is not the venue broad enough to discuss that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the use of disambigs breaks that. We had an argument about that in Talk:Role-playing video game. COMMONNAME is not meant to be an absolute either. If there is another less common, but still used name its better than artificial disambig. That's why Role-playing game is not the main article for the video game counterparts even though its the most common name for the genre.∞陣内Jinnai 20:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because "video game" is (should be) the common name (not that it isn't contested in many places). Not sure I agree with the nac closing summary interpretation of our policies/guidelines. Anyway, there is always a different less commonly used name for every parenthetical disambiguation. That's why we stick with parenthesis to avoid discussing every case in length. After all, you could argue all "Xxx (video game)" disambiguations should also be just plain "Xxx video game". After all, semantically, there is no difference between "Fanwars series" or "Fanwars video game" or "Fanwars comic book". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference, and that difference is natural usage and nouns, which is what COMMONNAME is about. "Fanwars comic book" is either a comic book called Fanwars or a comic book in the Fanwars series, so () disambiguation makes sense. The Super Mario series is not called "Super Mario", that is an adjective. People use it as an adjective, but rarely, if ever, as a common name. It is a descriptor. Look at the difference: "Super Mario: Land" is a name comprised of two nouns, one belonging to the other, "Super Mario Land" is a single noun with a descriptor. "The Elder Scrolls: Arena" (noun: noun) is an example of a series with a clearly-defined title, Super Mario is not. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation is never about putting the article at the best name anyway, it is about putting the article at the second-best name because the best one is taken. And I strongly argue that "Super Mario series" is the common name when referring to the series as a whole, which our article is doing. How can this be otherwise? "Super Mario" is a common adjective throughout the series, but cutting out a descriptor and labeling it "the name of the series" is backwards. "Super Mario" is an adjective, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario World, Super Mario Land. The phrase "Super Mario" is only a noun when referring to the character, otherwise it is a descriptor, an adjective. You would not refer to chocolate milk as "chocolate milk drink", but you would also not refer to it as "chocolate", because that is the adjective. You might refer to it as "milk", because milk is the noun, and then clarify that it was (chocolate). "Chocolate milk" is milk that is chocolate, "Super Mario" is Mario that is Super, "Super Mario series" is a series about Super Mario. It's natural language.

BTW, several wikiprojects have naming conventions outside of the norm. WikiProject Plants puts every article at the Latin name, which I don't agree with, but whatever. The point is we should decide what is best for our articles. What I'm arguing for is logic and natural phrasing of the English language. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Series is a natural extension. A lot of sources, including RSes use [Xxx] series to describe a series as shown with "Super Mario series.∞陣内Jinnai 22:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review

Hi guys, could one of you please review and promote the "Evil Genius (video game) article if necessary? I saw it was still start class but I feel that it has improved considerably. Cheers. 120.144.72.190 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You can request the assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests. Salvidrim! 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Still would be better with at least a basic "Development" section, and a more concise "Gameplay" section, for an encyclopedia. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The development team

Is the standard for an article to have a long list of the programmers' pseudonyms?
And then for any former programmers to be crossed out?
Varlaam (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Pseydonyms really aren't that important, and I don't think lists of personnel are either... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Bach write a piece called The Well-Tempered Fox? Cuz I don't have it on LP.

Check this one out: Katawa Shoujo

In Muenchen steht ein Hofbraeuhaus, Varlaam (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't give credits for developers like that. If key development people are noted in sources for a video game (eg Ken Levine for BioShock, Fumito Ueda for Shadow of the Colussus) we should mention them, but a general credits roll is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the list from the article in question. --PresN 21:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Good.

I'm credited on some obscure video games from the 1980s so I am happy to be neutral.

They got me on TV, but it was only the Discovery Channel.

Thanks a lot, Varlaam (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can find that program, we can still attribute statements by you in the prose if they help add anything relevant to the article. Would probably better if someone else looked at it and decided so there isn't any COI.∞陣内Jinnai 16:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be wise to back up any citations for GamePro.

Because the magazine as ending, and it's taking the site with it. It appears that the website is going to be shut down on December 5, and since it's considered a reliable source here, I would reckon that several articles use it to cite things. It would probably be a very very good idea to check at least the quality articles (GA+) and archive anything that cites it to ensure that nothing of value is being lost. [3] Emmy Altava 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for the update--there's not much time to start archiving! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we go about archiving podcasts like this one?∞陣内Jinnai 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive.org's latest pass there seems to be around July 20 2011. I don't know how we can prioritize for newer links but that would be ideal. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have also tossed a bot request given the time frame. A quick AWB check shows more than 1000 links to gamepro.com. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Of 1100 links to gamepro.com, 193 are both useful and not yet archived at archive.org. Anomie kindly provided this list from my bot request. User:Anomie/Gamepro links. I recommend that we can break this down into blocks of 10, right now for the act of just getting webcite to archive the links. We can worry about addign the right archiveurl later once we have that. webcite has a bookmarklet (here) that should make this first step easy. Once you do do the archive of the block of 10, the links should be added like Anomie did for the archive.org copies, and marked so we know its complete. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind that; Delta's going to submit those all to webcite for us. We'll still have to worry about archiveurl filling in, but no longer have the Dec 5 deadline to worry about. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And so now we have : User:Δ/Sandbox 5 which has the 193 links not yet at archive.org archived at webcite (that is: we now are pretty much assured that all gamepro-based articles are backed up at archival sites), and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 60 at the bot operation request to run through the combined archive.org/webcite links and replace them for us in articles. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn- that's some fast work guys. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

Wow, good job, guys. Seems like nothing of value will be lost. Seeing as the site is due to go down today, if any of you want to go around archiving articles to use for future projects, now's the final chance to do so. Emmy Altava 06:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it done? I haven't seen it come by and archive the mp3.∞陣内Jinnai 18:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Webcite can't handle bare MP3s, so this one hasn't been archived. I don't know if you have it part of a link from a larger webpage if that is saved as well. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I just saved [4] to WebCite [5], but it doesn't capture the external mp3. However, in such cases, we still have evidence that podcast was done, and I am assuming you are saving the mp3 somewhere. We'll have to treat it like a radio program, something not normally archived so that as long as you validate the program ran, that's some assurance the material was once there. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Expanding Orphen: Scion of Sorcery

I'm working on expanding and cleaning up this article in conjunction with Sorcerous Stabber Orphen. Right now, I'm on a computer which blocks access to certain sites, so adding citations is difficult. Later on I'll be able to edit from a computer with no restrictions, but if someone else would like to help expand and cleanup this article I'd appreciate it. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations for plots.

I have just reverted an addition of a bunch of cites to the game Assassin's Creed: Revelations in the plot section. I think we don't need these, however, another user thinks so, I would like a few eyes on Assassin's Creed: Revelations please. Heck, for all I know I am wrong..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

oh yeah, and citation needed tags as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, citing the storyline from the game itself (or manual) as a primary source is generally not a problem. Salvidrim! 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can supply external references for the plot (not the game or manual) from reliable sources, this is highly encouraged (see Portal 2), but it is not required, particularly given that most games do not get a detailed plot treatment by any source. If there is a critical point to the game where some major reveal is made that is non-obvious (eg: KOTOR, BioShock) would be of this ilk), a brief enough quotation would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on this. Plots of media (games, books, movies) are implicitly sourced to the work itself- while it's nice to provide quotes to back it up, and I certainly try to do so for GA/FA, it's not required. Note that the editor also did some copy-editing, so see if that's an improvement before you revert it all. --PresN 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Unless what is being cited is controversial or involves some level of analysis beyond the blindly obvious I don't think we need citation needed tags unless the other user can provide some evidence that there is some problem with the content outside of not being directly cited.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Things that are not self-evident from playing the game would need sources. Salvidrim! 04:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideally there should be citations to secondary sources or dialogue quotes from the primary source, particularly for FAs or if there's some dispute. Of course, this may not be possible, in which case do away with the cite tags unless the claims are specifically challenged. bridies (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Finish copyedit/review of Dragon Warrior

User:Drilnoth was going through the article thoroughly to make certain as many issues as possible could be resolved. Unfortunatly, RL struck and he is unable to finish. I would appreciate it if someone, preferably someone who has gone through the FA process and does not know much about the game or series, can finish it.∞陣内Jinnai 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Video game navigational boxes by country

During the rename of the navigation categories recently done, the above category was created. I suspect it was by accident, as the entirety of the navboxes in the category are about companies. Basically, someone had a brainfart. Where does a person go to get the pages in the cat fixed to Category:Video game navigational boxes by company? --Izno (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this fits exactly but try WP:CFDS? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition

There's a discussion here about a merge from a year and a half ago which probably wants more eyes. If you've got the time, welcome. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Using Template:Reflist

I recently noticed that {{Reflist}} can display all references via a refs parameter rather than place the in-line in the article. It looks like organizing them in one location would make some aspects of editing easier. I'm considering trying this out in the next article I plan to work on, and I was curious if anyone else has tried this? If it's a better practice, should we recommend (not require of course) that all VG editors use it in our guidelines? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

You mean putting all the reference mark-up in the template in the reference section? I do that at least... bridies (talk)

Example: Runescape#References. NLinpublic (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I do this exclusively now. It makes it much, much easier to read the text when editing, but on the flipside it means that any time you add a ref you have to add a pointer in the text and then the ref in the references section. This can sometimes make it confusing for newer editors, I think. --PresN 18:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't an op-ed/discussion of some sort just written about how newbs find it easier to edit this style, versus clicking the edit button on the refs section and seeing nothing? NLinpublic (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess you could look at it either way- it is more similar to the way you would do references in a school paper in Word or something, with the references in the editing window in the same place they are in the article proper. --PresN 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I'll give it try some time soon.

Any thoughts to adding it to our style guidelines? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

I strongly oppose making it mandatory or even highly suggested. I hate that style. It can seriously mess things up if you don't edit both prose and references when adding/removing. I would say even strongly wording it is going to far. If the article already has it started by a major contributor, that's fine. I think it's ultimately worse. Those studies on new users are controversial.∞陣内Jinnai 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No reason to add it to the style guidelines, largely per WP:Citing sources. People will reference the way they want to reference. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, this has actually been an option for a year or so now. I personally prefer it, especially for shorter articles. I can see it being less useful where you're using primarily short citations (inline citations in MLA or APA), but still useful for the other sources in an article. --Izno (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds promising. I may try converting one of my previous articles rather than waiting. Thanks for the input guys. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

I tried it with two articles and I like it. I wish the preview function displayed the refs, but this is more organized than what I did before. I'm sold. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

Reviewing our older FAs

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to look at our older FAs? Some of them haven't been checked by a formal review since 2006. In some cases, single editors may try to keep old FAs in step with current protocol (as I have attempted with System Shock and Ultima Underworld), but the result still doesn't match that of a peer review. I know from experience that it's as difficult to fix one of your old FAs without outside input as it is to write a new one, and the end product is inarguably sloppier.

FAR'ing a bunch of old FAs would be a mess, though. Perhaps we could use the peer review system to clean up the articles, and then send the serious cases to FAR? Or, we might create some type of FA-reviewing task force to identify and outline problems, which would again use FAR as a last resort?

Anyone have an opinion on this matter? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable, but I would start with an internal assessment by our project. FAR should only occur if the article is in an unfixable state to meet FA standards, which may or may not be the case. It would be helpful to have a list (I'd start from 2008 inclusive and back) and have a page for people from this project or other interested to simply weigh in. If there are ones in bad shape that will take time, maybe we can have a few cleanup runs. The ones that are spotty but likely fixable, we shouldn't worry about; volunteers can fix them in time. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I say don't bother with a task force; lets just pick an old FA, start a section here on this talk page and have at it. If it works, we can move on to another one. PR or a task force is just asking for most people to never see the improvement drive. --PresN 22:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

PresN: the idea isn't an improvement drive, but a way to identify problem articles. Any improvement would come from interested parties--otherwise, the serious cases would simply be sent to FAR. I created a list of the FAs from 2008 and before. What's the next step? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps organize the list in a table, with a column for the last FAC/FAR date, necessary action, who wants to work on it, section for notes/issues, and whether it has been reviewed. Like what we did for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

I'd be up for adding that information, but would you mind putting the template on that page? My wikicode knowledge is limited to copying the work of others. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could use a version of the colaboration bot to pick FAs at random from say 2009 and before that haven't had an FAR since then.∞陣内Jinnai 19:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I turned the page into a sortable table. Feel free to adjust as needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, GiB. I'll work on that over the next few days. Also, that's a pretty good idea, Jinnai. It could work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Finished. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A few articles that look to be in bad shape at a glance: Devil May Cry (video game) (needs massive expansion), BioShock (pretty large number of questionable sources, a Development section that is far from comprehensive), and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (large sections of unreferenced content). Looks like our oldest FA (Donkey Kong) is actually looking pretty good, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea its a crapshot. Donkey Kong is probably fine or close to fine, but the next on the list, Red vs. Blue is a complete mess by todays standards.∞陣内Jinnai 21:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've been eying Donkey Kong for a while; mainly just image, prose, and structure clean up. I actually think it would be a good warm up for those interested in participating with this effort. It should be relatively quick and help establish the level of quality for other articles. Just a suggestion though.

I was on board with Jinnai's suggestion for selection until I saw the number of FAs we had that were reviewed in 2006. That's over five years without a formal content review of some kind. I think picking anything from those 14 articles (random or not) would be the most prudent action. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 06:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

I agree. Perhaps Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater would be a good candidate? I remember disagreeing with its promotion back in 2006, and, at a glance, time has not been kind to it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

I have looked over the article, and have written out my assessment below.

1a. The article is a bit rough prose-wise, but it isn't a disaster. Here are a few examples of problematic passages:

• "The location brings in the need to rely upon native flora and fauna to survive."
• "The protagonist of Snake Eater, Naked Snake known as Big Boss in subsequent games (voiced by Akio Ōtsuka in Japanese and David Hayter in English), is a former U.S. Special Forces (Green Beret) and CIA operative."
• "The two primary antagonists of the game are Colonel Volgin (v.b. Kenji Utsumi and Neil Ross), an electricity-controlling GRU colonel and member of the extreme Brezhnev faction, who are attempting to overthrow Nikita Khrushchev to seize power for Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin, and The Boss (v.b. Kikuko Inoue and Lori Alan), former mentor to Naked Snake."
• "Made up of the most powerful men in the United States, Soviet Union, and China, they were an Illuminati-like organization who control the world behind the scenes."
• "One of his colleagues then advised him to listen to Stellastarr*, but Kojima heard Starsailor. He liked the song "Way To Fall" and chose it as an ending theme."
• "This mode pits players, each playing as a generic soldier against each other in deathmatch battles and variations of capture the flag, using stages, items, maneuvers, and units (such as the KGB, GRU or Ocelot Unit) from the main game."

The "Awards" section is a bulleted list, which, if I'm up to date, is no longer an acceptable practice.

1b. I noticed severe issues with comprehensiveness while reading the article. For example, the Development section contains only four medium-sized paragraphs—one of which is entirely dedicated to a single boss fight. The others mainly detail the creation of the setting and camera. Glancing over some of the reference material I provided (quite some time ago) on the talk page, I see that the article does not mention the team's military advisor "Mr. Mori", who helped them build the camo and CQC systems. Kojima details in at least two interviews how they were taken on expeditions into the wilderness to research the game. The section also does not mention Kojima's attempt to retire after MGS2, only to return as MGS3's designer. There were other missing pieces of information as well—and that's just from the sources I linked on the talk page.

The lack of comprehensiveness is also apparent in the Reception section. A handful of reviews are cited in a very brief summary of the camo system and plot presentation, with little to no discussion of other elements of the game.

1c. The Development section is based on 7 sources. As I demonstrated, other material (one of which is only an excerpt from a longer magazine interview) is unaccounted for. I can also point to a Kojima interview in gamesTM here, and a boatload of possible interview sources listed on this page. Similar things can be said about the Reception section.

As for source reliability, a few stuck out to me as being questionable. These include "GameingWorldX", "Boomtown", "IMDB", "GamePlanet New Zealand" and "GamingUnion".

1d. The opening of the Reception section contains passages that could be construed as veiled jabs at the game's predecessor. For example: "Some fans, as well as some critics, who found the lengthy dialogues and multitude of plot twists in Sons of Liberty to be detrimental to the game experience", which is backed up by a single source. Also, a mention is made of an apparently non-notable "Save MGO" fan petition.

2. Violates WP:LEADCITE, and contains a large number of MOS violations regarding citations. For example, website names are linked.

2c. Numerous bare links can be found in the References section, and quotes appear without the Cite video game template, despite otherwise consistent use of Cite templates.

4. The Plot contains a very large amount of detail. Much of it is succinct, but there are definite problems with excess. For example, one of the final paragraphs is a minute-by-minute breakdown of the game's final scene:

• "As EVA is explaining this, Snake is awarded the title of "Big Boss" and given the Distinguished Service Cross for his efforts before an enthusiastic crowd; however Snake has become so distraught and demoralized after EVA's revelation that he leaves almost immediately after getting his medal, hardly acknowledging Major Zero, Para-Medic and Sigint. Later, he arrives at an anonymous grave, The Boss's, just one of thousands located in Arlington National Cemetery. Laying down The Boss's gun and a bouquet of lilies upon the nameless gravestone, he scans the endless rows before him, salutes, and sheds a single tear."

The "Release history" section is arguably overdetailed as well. A few examples below.

• "A special limited edition CD was given away to those who preordered the Japanese version of Snake Eater, which included several songs from the game's soundtrack, as well as computer screensavers and additional camouflage for the main game. The pre-order package allowed cell phone users to access a special site featuring image and music downloads."
• "In addition to the older games and the online mode, Subsistence includes many minor features common to international version releases. It includes the downloadable extra camouflage and face paint designs and "Snake vs. Monkey" stages previously exclusive to the European release, the European Extreme difficulty level, parody cut scenes and trailers from the official website, and connectivity with Metal Gear Acid 2. The Japanese version also includes a URL for a hidden website that allows the download of OtaClock, a PC and Mac clock program that features Metal Gear Solid series recurring character Otacon. This website is now publicly available."

According to this review, what action should be taken? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a subpage to WP:VG could be created to handle the FARs of ancient FAs? Salvidrim! 07:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. If someone wouldn't mind creating such a page, I'd gladly move discussion there.

As for MGS3, I'm leaning toward suggesting a FAR. It's in pretty bad shape. Anyone else agree? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing old FAs Salvidrim! 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I for the FAR. It looks too broken to fix back up to FA standards. GamerPro64 23:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I moved the FA table to that page and started a discussion. I've set the recommended action for MGS3 to "FAR", but I don't think it would be wise to start sending articles through that process until we know exactly how many will be involved. Otherwise, FAR will be choked for months. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Joystiq

Hi, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illyriad there is some discussion whether articles on joystiq, specifically articles by Beau Hindman about Illyriad are considered reliable sources for the purpose of determining notability. Some expert input would be appreciated. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources has been consulted, but concerns have been raised whether the assessment there is correct. Yoenit (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup listing available

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

A cleanup listing is now available.Smallman12q (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Half of our articles have tag-worthy issues? Not surprising, but dear god, the listing isn't a moment too soon. Emmy Altava 01:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Should we replace the "Clean up" link under the "Assist with project tasks" section of our To-do list with this link? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Overtagging

TurtleMelody (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly tagging some video game character articles without edit summaries or anything. As a result of I reverted these edits, but I don't know if this would be considered vandalism or tests. I hope it's not the same anon that has been repeatedly blocked for using multiple accounts. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well looking at his talk page, he's been repeatedly warned for disruptive editing, as well as been quite insulting toward the authors of a FA. I'd wager it's a "video games aren't important enough" type person that we often see. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Still continues doing the same thing without reasons given.Tintor2 (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

I am after some assistance at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reference library#Official Xbox Magazine Takashi Iizuka interview. Any help from someone with access to the print source would be greatly appreciated. Яehevkor ✉ 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GamesFirst

Can we consider this source reliable? The site has passed FA for Halo 2, Giants: Citizen Kabuto and ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, so I think we should include it in the list. Thank you. Electroguv (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the website in question. Those are all fairly old FAs; was this specific website brought up and accepted in any of the FACs? From a quick minute of research, I can't find any reason for the site's reliability (note, when searching online, use "GamesFirst" with the quotes so you don't get "games first" phrases, etc.) Do you happen to have any way of proving the site's reliability? Will it only be used for game reviews, and in which case why can't more reliable sites be used for reviews instead? Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I actually started all the fuss because I and several other editors are going to nominate The Secret of Monkey Island for GA status; the site's review of the game contains quite vital info about the development and it will be quite problematic for the article to pass if the site does not become a RS. Electroguv (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Main Page

Just a heads up, tomorrow Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo will be on the Main Page. Weekend appearances are hard to keep up with for me so if some people could help a bit with the vandals I'd appreciate it! Thanks. --Torsodog^Talk 15:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

{{key press}} is now more game friendly!

I've added a few mappings to {{key press}} to make marking up controller input friendlier. You can now specify left, right and c sticks in any codes that may be discussed in articles. It now also supports PlayStation key mappings, for example {{key press|triangle}} produces △.

I've made the upgrades out of necessity while cleaning up the List of Konami code games article. I could still use help with copyediting after I get all the markup finished. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Console generations

Hi, this is just a heads-up that Template:VG History and Template:History of video games cite different dates for the lifespan of the seventh and eight generations of consoles. Hope that helps. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe we were suppose to remove the term generation for section/article titles and just use the dates per the RS/N debate.∞陣内Jinnai 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was enough consensus to move the "Nth generation" to date range articles. I've been making sure that the 8th gen article is kept as speculative as it needs to be until the term is better established. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

template:NES Zapper

{{NES Zapper}} has been nominated for deletion as being unused. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to the articles linked in the navbox. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Video game v. Console v. Computer v. PC v. Electronic

I know this is a conversation that has been had in many forms, many times, since WP started. We've come to a lot of really great decisions that were later ignored and reverted by other decisions. Currently we have (at least) the following articles related to video games that are distinguished solely by hardware or platform -

• PC game
• Console game
• Arcade game
• Handheld game
• Handheld electronic game
• Audio game
• Mobile game
• Calculator gaming
• Electronic game
• Browser game

Most of the issue is semantics. An audio game is what we would refer to as a "video game", except it does not use video. I understand the logic there and it makes sense to have a separate article for that. Arcade games are different from home console games, often developed for quick turn-around, dedicated cabinet hardware, that makes sense (historically "arcade game" has been used to describe action games or platform games, which is confusing the issue. Arcade is more a classification of game, like shovelware, than an actual genre).

Someone has proposed that PC game be moved back to computer game. I think we would be better served by (yet again), disposing of the articles for "computer game", "console game" and "handheld game" and focusing our efforts on the existent video game article, as well as personal computer, gaming computer, video game console and handheld game console. I am not arguing that computer games are the same as console games are the same as whatever. I am arguing that defining games by the medium in which they are produced tells us more about the medium itself than the game.

Let me make a really basic comparison. Drinking apple juice from a glass is very different than drinking it from a sippy cup, or from a puddle on the street, or from a frozen apple-juice-cube. No-one will tell you that these experiences are the same. But how does that tell us any more about apple juice? Instead it tells us about glasses, sippy cups, puddles and ice cubes.

Look at the article for console game. Reading this article, what are you learning that you wouldn't learn by reading the articles for video game and video game consoles? In fairness, I moved the section "Ratings and censorship" to Video game#Ratings and censorship, because it was about all video games. The sections, "Controllers" & "Screen" are completely redundant. Console games use varying hardware, which is already explained at the console article. Video games use screens and controllers too, that is how you see and control them. "Criticism" just sends you to Video game controversy, as it should. There is no content to this article that is not better covered by other articles.

Look at the article for PC game. Look at it carefully. There is no information on what makes a PC game different from a console or video game. The article describes some history of games developed for computers, some generic video game stuff (distribution, genres, etc.), and information on PC hardware. This article is not about PC games, it is about PC gaming, and if anything, that should be the title of the article.

Look at the article for handheld video game. Other than an OR list of "popular" genres, there is info on "Features unique to handheld gaming" such as "Linking to other handhelds", and "Linking to home consoles", which isn't unique, and even if it is, it is more hardware info than software.

Instead of trying to shoe-horn games into categories (real or imagined) or arbitrary genres, we should be working on articles that expand on the concepts behind those categories & genres. Instead of and article on multiplayer games, we should have an article on multiplayer or multiplayer component. Instead of all of the articles in the bullet list above separating video games by hardware, we should have an awesome and comprehensive article on video game hardware.

I'm not really looking for a support/oppose thing to happen here, I am more just trying to get the current feel of the project. Many of the editors I've seen discuss these topics in years past no longer show up around these parts. So... thoughts? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You believe a game played with audio and no video at all, should be called a video game. I disagree with that. Also games released for the computer, as I have stated on your talk page[6], didn't always have video. Teletype games didn't even have monitors to show any graphics or video on. List of text-based computer games list some of the popular text based games. Most games aren't ported to the computer and the game consoles. Certain types of games only seem to be on the game console systems. I see no reason to shove all these things together. I think you should undo your roaming about changing every mention of "computer game" to "video game" without proper consensus. Dream Focus 22:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe that an audio game played on a computer is a video game by every definition except the literal one, and I also believe that calling it an audio game is very precise and clear. If you've never heard of an audio game, that phrase is instantly understandable. The distinction to traditional video games is clear by the name alone. To call an audio game a video game would only confuse everyone involved. Text-based adventures have been discussed over and over again, they are played using a graphic readout, I play them on my phone, and I've played them on a Game Boy (well, emulator). Again, semantics. And I totally agree that some games that can be called "computer games" cannot feasibly be called "video games", such as the teletype games mentioned. Realistically, what percentage is that? Less than 000.01%, if that? Most computer games are video games played on a computer, and a tiny fraction were (in the very early days) electronic games. Does that in itself justify the division? Every rule has outliers, and those can be explained in context. You shouldn't redefine everything because of outliers. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It makes it clearer to readers what the games were released on, and what sort they were. What is gained by turning every mention of a computer game, or whatnot into the less specific video game name? Dream Focus 22:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree at times, but hat depends on the context. The point I was trying to make in enormous block of text above is that little is gained by talking about software distinctions based on the hardware they run on. Rather the hardware itself should be mentioned where appropriate. And there is no benefit to giving people ambiguous distinctions, which is what the vast majority of inbound links to computer game are. It is useful to know if the game ran on an Amiga or a Mac or Android, but no knowledge is gained by knowing that it ran on "computers", and even less when it also ran on consoles and arcades. There is no information in computer game that explains how that software itself is different than other video game software, and linking there without reason implies that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can you stop your automatic renaming of everything until we have this worked out? And please actually read the changes you made. [7] * Bravo Screenfun (for computer games and video game consoles) is now * Bravo Screenfun (for video games and consoles). Also in an article about a baseball game which was the first commercial computer game, you changed it to say it was the first commercial video game for baseball of which it was not. If it was released in 1987 on the computer, well, there was a Nintendo game and some arcade games about baseball before that. [8] Dream Focus 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

For those interested in the discussion of errors that Dream Focus believes I have made in my editing, a conversation has occurred at User talk:Dream Focus. If anyone else has questions about the quality of my editing, please let me know on my talk page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When I first started looking at the proposal I didn't like the idea, but after hearing JohnnyMrNinja explain it, I have largely come around. I do think maybe audio games may still warrant a seperate article because they are so different from what anyone would normally think of with a video/computer/handheld game. I would also say there is more than .01% of the games that could be legitimately called computer games (any typing command driven game which means most early text games, most early 2D adventure games), educational typing games, and any game that requires a mouse (and a controller won't suffice as a replacement), but those can be explained in the hardware articles.∞陣内Jinnai 00:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that audio games should be merged or whatever, I was just pointing out how many articles we have. Also, I didn't mean that .01% were legitimately computer games, I meant that only .01% are computer games that cannot be conceivably described as video games. Text interface games still mostly use graphical readouts. Zork is a video game that I have played on my PC, on my Palm OS phone, in a browser, and as a Game Boy ROM. Typing games are still games (Typing of the Dead for example, is a console game), and even mice have been supported on consoles for a while (i.e. SNES Mouse). Even if games are best played in Windows or whatever, that doesn't mean that they aren't a game with a visual readout, and can be accurately described as a video game. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

While I'm willing to concede cellphones have burred the lines for games like Zork, for console devices those are viewed more as gimmick devices that were never heavily used or supported. Gamepads and joysticks have had far more support on PC than any PC perifirial has on a console or handheld. The fact that they've tried and failed to catch on says that something IS different between some PC games from the rest of the all inclusive video game umbrella.∞陣内Jinnai 00:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the novelty hardware, but I still think that distinction is between computer game and console game. Video game, by our own definition, encompasses both. "A video game is an electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device." (of course, we all know that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to extend a word of caution to those that would like to participate (even just reading) in this discussion. I've had this discussion before, and it can get very heated and lead nowhere. That being said, I recommend that actual research be conducted and proper sourcing be included along with statements that are posted in this discussion. Without a proper sourcing, I don't think we can reasonably make large scale changes in article space without the sourcing to back it up. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, I see us having to deal with a mess on par with the "generations" issues that keeps popping up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

What sort of research? "computer game" between quotes appears in 7,757 articles right now. [9] And the various other things some seek to eliminate are surely in thousands more. So, does anyone want to go through and change all of that? Its like saying bats and birds both fly around, so all the different species of both should be merged as one. Or searching for every article that has the name of a specific dog species, and changing it to just say "dog", because you believe they are basically the same and no reason to be specific. Dream Focus 02:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he means that they are used interchangably. I can easily find sources that do so for handheld and consoles.∞陣内Jinnai 05:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dreamfocus- To clarify, I'm suggesting that the participants should be careful when discussing drastic paradigm changes to the status quo without the research to back it up. I've seen too many needed discussions turn ugly because the discussion relied on the original research of the participants.

Jinnai- That is the kind of research I suggested. Similar research should be provided for all the terms listed above if they are intended to be merged. And even if merging is not the goal, the research would make sure that the discussion stays grounded. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

This is not to say that specialist magaznes and websites don't dinstiqush, but once you get out of the "elite" gaming culture, sources tend to treat games much the same and lump "generations" when the term is used to mean all systems. This is especially true with handheld/console market. This is what I found with a short search.

• Time

• CNET

• NintendoWorldReport

As to sites that separate them out, few list only consoles as part of the "console genations" and fewer still try to separate handhelds "handheld generation". All of the ones for the former are more specialized magazines and therefore could very likley be seen as lower-quality sources for evaluating what is and isn't. Also many more sources that still try to distinquish a specific console generation, like Gamasutra, talk about games from all systems in the same breath[10].∞陣内Jinnai 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Some research:

...the object of this book is games played using computer power, where the computer upholds the rules of the game and where the game is played using a video display. I will be using video games as an umbrella term to describe all such PC, console, arcade, and other digital games.

— Jesper Juul Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds

The next area of gaming we shall glance at is the current fad in gaming and the subject of this book, the computer game. These games are played on five types of computers: expensive dedicated machines for the arcades ("coin op" machines), inexpensive dedicated machines ("hand helds"), multi program home games, machines such as the ATARI 2600 and the ATARI 5200, personal computers, and large mainframe computers. The computer acts as opponent and referee in most of these games; in many of them it alsoprovides animated graphics.

— Chris Crawford, 1997, Washington State University - The Art of Computer Game Design

Crawford (1982, 19) defines a computer game as a "simplified representation of emotional reality" with a sufficient accuracy to support the player’s fantasy, a key agent required to make the game psychologically real. Computer games contain formal rules where different components interact in complex ways. Rollings and Adams (2003, p. 201) suggest that gameplay consists of "one or more causally linked series of challenges in a simulated environment". Thus in its simplest form playing games is solving challenges in an emotive environment.

— Alan Amory Game object model version II: a theoretical framework for educational game development

Computer games are defined as a set of activities involving one or more players. It has goals, constraints and consequences (Dempsey, Lucassen, Haynes, & Casey, 1997). Elaborating further on that, Crawford (1984) said that a game is rule-guided and artificial in some aspects, and also involves some aspects of a contest or a trial of skill or ability, even if that contest is with oneself. According to him, there are four common factors that present in all games. These factors are representation, interaction, conflict and safety. So when the computer is used to present a game and to act as an opponent or as a referee, we have a computer game.

— Hasiah Mohamed @ Omar Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) of Computer Games among IHL Students in Malaysia: Case Study of Computer Science Students in UiTM Terengganu

In this study, a video game is defined as a computer program that simulates a realm - abstract, realistic, or otherwise - whereby a person, called a player, interacts with the icons presented by the program. This definition is intentionally broad, as video games come in a wide variety of forms. It is not unusual for people to associate video games with massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), which have over 16 million subscribers (Woodcock, 2008), or arcade games, which were the precursors to the modern games, but have largely disappeared (Kent, 2001). However, virtual environments can include solo-player games where the player controls one or more entities, solo-competition games where a player competes against simulated opponents (e.g., as in card games like Hearts or Poker), and puzzle games (e.g., Minesweeper or Tetris) with highly abstracted representations. The interface between a player and a virtual environment differs with each game, although all can be reduced to three basic components: a display, a processor of some sort, and a control mechanism through which the player interfaces with the virtual world. On a computer, this would correspond to the monitor, the CPU and software, and the keyboard and mouse. For consoles like the Wii, Xbox, or Playstation, this would be represented by the TV, the game console itself, and the controller. Other variations exist, including handheld devices that consist of a small LCD screen, a microprocessor, and controls built into the display unit.

— David A. Tomczyk The Relationship Between Long-Term Video Game Playing and Individuals Entrepreneurial Traits andIntent: An Exploratory Study

There are also tons anecdotal statements in research papers that might give you an idea of the conflation (such this paper where the author repeatedly refer to the "popular computer game 'Tetris'").

From the abstract of this paper (have to pay to see the whole thing, all emphasis mine), "They played four computer games for 15 minutes each. One of the games was sedentary (XBOX 360) and the other three were active (Wii Sports)."

The study "Motor control and sequencing of boys with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during computer game play" featured boys being "assessed while playing Crash Bandicoot I, a SonyTM Playstation platform computer video game".

Google searches of some non-game websites

Obviously this is anecdotal, and many will be based on random pairings. This just gives you an idea. "Arcade" seems to always refer to actual arcades, "video game" refers to any platform (including computers), and "console game" is almost exclusively used to when there is a need to disambiguate from other platforms. site:wired.com "video game" - 13,100 site:wired.com "computer game" - 1,400 site:wired.com "arcade game" - 1,670 site:wired.com "console game" - 307 site:time.com "video game" - 29,800 site:time.com "computer game" - 586 site:time.com "arcade game" - 518 site:time.com "console game" - 15 site:abc.com.au "video game" - 507 site:abc.com.au "computer game" - 389 site:abc.com.au "arcade game" - 9 site:abc.com.au "console game" - 3 site:popsci.com "video game" - 94,400 site:popsci.com "computer game" - 10,600 site:popsci.com "arcade game" - 1,260 site:popsci.com "console game" - 53 site:smh.com.au "video game" - 26,900 site:smh.com.au "computer game" - 5,230 site:smh.com.au "arcade game" - 1,200 site:smh.com.au "console game" - 497 site:mashable.com "video game" - 59,300 site:mashable.com "computer game" - 5,470 site:mashable.com "arcade game" - 3,040 site:mashable.com "console game" - 276 BBC had a ton of hits for computer games: site:bbc.co.uk "video game" - 85,700 site:bbc.co.uk "computer game" - 88,400 site:bbc.co.uk "arcade game" - 3,280 site:bbc.co.uk "console game" - 3,930 Most of their discussion threads use "dna" in their URLs, so I cut them out (which greatly dropped the ratio): site:bbc.co.uk "video game" -inurl:"dna" - 60,300 site:bbc.co.uk "computer game" -inurl:"dna" - 37,800 site:bbc.co.uk "console game" -inurl:"dna" - 1,620 site:bbc.co.uk "arcade game" -inurl:"dna" - 1,080 The funny thing about the BBC, as I've heard from British people, is that British people tend to use "computer game" to refer to any video game, console or not. My favorite was their hosted redirect to an article on the classic "computer game Donkey Kong": site:bbc.co.uk "computer game" nintendo - 12,900 site:bbc.co.uk "computer game" playstation - 36,400 site:bbc.co.uk "computer game" "xbox"OR"x-box" - 4,080 site:bbc.co.uk "computer game" arcade - 2,580

I understand that a computer game is video game played on a computer, just as a "tall man" is a man that is tall, but we don't write articles about "tall man", we write them about height and man. Almost all definitions I have seen overlap, and there are certainly not enough sources to explain why the game itself is fundamentally different in ways other than the hardware used to play them, or modifications made to accommodate said hardware. Computer platforms have varied just as much as any console generation, and certainly a modern Mac game is closer to a PS3 game than one for an Amstrad CPC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree except perhaps for browser game. I believe those do have demographic studies to indicate they do target a different class of person. I've seen some evidence that treats them as a seperate category that wouldn't be supported without an [internet] browser or equivalent.∞陣内Jinnai 00:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is very informative stuff, and I think it points out how similar the definitions of all the terms really are. I think the next question to tackle is how do the topics differ as a whole and if that difference warrants separate articles? As Jinnai pointed out, the demographics might differ. What other aspects might differ: development (AAA title vs casual title), impact (computer games on PC hardware vs console games on market penetration), etc.? If one or more of the topics is different enough that it could be remain separate, then that should be considered as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC))

Maybe, but it might be better to lump them under the article of Video game or Computer game (likely the former as geographically the industry has been more American than European). Electronic games appears to be a broad-level article. However it also appears to have a ton of OR. Calculator gaming looks like it could be merged with to history section of Mobile gaming as its OR appears to indicate the techniques used there have been transfered to mobile devices. Handheld electronic game has some unique gameplay aspects which aren't reproduced except for stuff like First video game where physical drawings were used to represent certain aspects. It's so unqiue that no game today like that that is under any of those other categories uses that technique. I also believe handheld electronic game is about the software and hardware already. It's basically on a completely separate track of development from any other video/pc/handheld/mobile/browser game out there. The others I am not sure about. As systems they certainly have validity of a seperate article.

Looking over it, History would be the most difficult to merge. Other than that, I think most of the items could be far easier to merge and only split them out if they truly get too big to handle. Mobile gaming, FE, has some unique aspects to in in recent years which cannot be replicated from standing models, which has been what the history of video games have largely been about.∞陣内Jinnai 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan's Main Event

Do you have the intention to do the Hulk Hogan's Main Event's videogame article? --Ponce (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You can request articles at WP:VG/R, or create it yourself. :) Salvidrim! 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mention of developer nationality

I have gotten involved in a content dispute on the Grand Theft Auto V article concerning developer nationality. See the current discussion here. Several editors and myself are in favor of removing the mention that Rockstar North is a British developer from any individual game article. This seems to be in line with most other video game articles, but not all. My argument for making this change is thoroughly addressed in the wikilink I provided above. My hopes are to reach a WikiProject consensus on this matter and apply it to all articles in this Project. If this has been brought up before and reached a consensus, please provide a link to the archived discussion so I can cite it. Thank you. BBQ (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why its relevant anywhere except Rockstar North that the info be listed. Is there evidence that the nationality affects the story or gameplay in some way? Otherwise I think that's trivial info.∞陣内Jinnai 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

When such a nationality is a verifiable uncontroversial fact, I believe it certainly is helpful to the reader to mention it. Just like noting that Deus Ex: Human Revolution was developped by the Canadian studio of Eidos Interactive helps understand the inclusion of Montreal in the game's plot, despite it being an unusual location in video games in general. Salvidrim! 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's just the thing, this particular instance is controversial. British is frequently changed to Scottish on many of the Rockstar North-related articles, despite a consensus on British having been reached here. It is a periodic problem that I have tried to stem. Also in this instance, Rockstar North being a British developer has no relevance on the setting of Grand Theft Auto V (a fictional version of Los Angeles). I think this is a perfect opportunity to reach a community-wide consensus on this matter. BBQ (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish-vs.-British argument is one thing. One encompasses the other, just like wondering if Avalanche Studios is Swedish, Scandinavian or European. Whether such nationality should be mentioned or not, IMO, could depend on whether the nationality is deemed important to the game itself -- however that would be the subject of much debate, I'm sure. In short, I believe there is no harm done in stating in-article the nationality of any party involved in the game's creation (regardless of its relevance to the game), as long as said nationality is verified and uncontroversial on the subject's own article, if there is one, or otherwise appropriately sourced. Salvidrim! 21:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me as the type of thing where, if a reader cares about such a thing, they can just click on the link to Rockstar North to find it out. So, it strikes me as unnecessary to have in the actual GTA V article...but I don't really see that much of a problem with it either... Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If it provides insight on the development of the game itself, makes the game notable somehow, or influenced the game's contents, it should be included. If it doesn't, as long as it's not controversial, I see no reason to make the extra effort to include it but likewise no real reason to remove it. However, if it's controversial, as appears to be the case here, it seems best to just axe the information entirely. Emmy Altava 04:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that -- in instance where it is relevant with the article, add it. If it is not immediately relevant to the article, it can be added or not at the editor's discretion, but if there is any opposition, then it should not be kept. Salvidrim! 04:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit Maniac Mansion

A reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maniac Mansion/archive1 opposed the article based on the quality of its writing. I copy edited the article this week, but would like a second editor to take a look for good measure. Any takers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC))

Famous players

I wouldn't have thought that the names (well, handles) of "famous" players of video games would be encyclopedic, but then I confess to a total ignorance of video games. See Artix Entertainment. (The claimed fame of the players isn't sourced, but then the rest of the article isn't sourced either.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Some players have their own articles, with sources of them getting coverage, such as the team of guys getting a hundred thousand dollars each to play Halo. That isn't the case here though. [11] Dream Focus 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead. ∞陣内Jinnai 00:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Need help with unsourced new articles.

First, Jak and Daxter Collection. It is an HD port of the main trilogy of the series. While, I have seen some sources on it, there would not be enough to satisfy keeping it due to its status as a port. TheDarkPyrano100 (talk · contribs) created it and when I redirected it after giving a message on his talkpage, he blindly reverts without discussion. After one more revert, an IP, I assume him, puts on my talkpage to stop editing the article. Again, he has given me no reason to keep it.

Second, Legend of Zelda Timeline. Created by WeBenJamin (talk · contribs), it simply rehashes the plot of every game, and gives a history of the entire fictional universe. Then, at the very end of the article is the timeline. I left a message on his talkpage, but I have not tried to redirect it yet. I have some faith that it could be a decent article. It could show the history of how people thought it was certain ways, how some games changed the views of people's timelines, and the reaction of the release of the "official" one. All of this could possibly be sourced. Would this have a chance or not? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Until there is an IP confirmation, you should assume that it wasn't the same person as the IP or if it was, he wasn't doing it for nefarious reasons. I nominated the latter for deletion. Even if sources are found, it would still violate WP:UNDUE given credence to certain timelines and would be a magnet for OR and POV-pushing. As for the Jack and Daxter one, I redirected it mentioning the reasons so that even if a few sources exist, the GNG shouldn't be weilded. I'd have to bring this back up at WT:N as yet another reason why we need WP:Notability (video games) as an actual guideline.∞陣内Jinnai 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Rename Eidos Interactive to Eidos

Just a quick note, I've put in a move request to move Eidos Interactive to Eidos, and the discussion is here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming video games scheduled for 2011

Happy holidays, all. It's right between Christmas and New Years' now, and we've got about three days left in the year before we proceed into 2012! Woo!

And why shouldn't we celebrate, given that there are seven more games scheduled for 2011? Wait... uh, hold on, that's not right. But how odd, given that this category seems to think that's the case! It may be a good idea to tidy things up around here and ensure that these games are in fact being released in 2011. I've managed to find sources proving about 5 or 6 others games from this category have been delayed or cancelled, but I'm a bit tired of searching for these and it'd be nice if the rest of you could pick this up for me. Thanks, Emmy Altava 05:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Giant Bomb for Reviews Template?

I'd like to reopen discussion about adding Giant Bomb as a default reviewer on the reviews template. I know it's been shot down before, but the site has definitely evolved and grown since it has been discussed previously, and while there is a significant amount of user content on the site (a concern that has been raised previously), the staff reviews are clearly split out from the user reviews. There are plenty of other sites that feature user reviews just as prominently that are already included. --fuzzy510 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to post at WT:VG/S. Salvidrim! 22:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WPVG newsletter

Are we not going to have a Feature or a Featured Editor? We normally send out the newsletter on the first Wednesday of the new quarter (which is this Wednesday), and we have nothing for either of them. --MuZemike 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea for a Feature but I have writer's block about what to write about 2011 as a whole for the project. A Featured Editor is more of a problem as we haven't found one yet. GamerPro64 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably for the future we should put a notice about this a couple weeks in advance if nothing is there.∞陣内Jinnai 20:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gamer- I might be able to get something started if you'd like. I also have an idea for a different feature if need be.

I contacted Gary King, but I think he's been away based on his contributions. I have a few others in mind; I'll see which are active right now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

Hey, you can make a Feature if you have an idea. I probably won't have time to finish mine. GamerPro64 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything but the interview is ready to go. We should be good for delivery by tomorrow.

FYI- Gary is good to interview for next quarter's issue. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

The latest issue is ready for delivery. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

English cast of Persona 4

The characters from the game Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 have English voice actors, but apparently none of them have been credited. Even when checking the English version of the artbook, there were credits to all the staff, except the English dub. Does somebody know of a reliable source that may contain such information? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

IMBD seems to offer some info, am not sure of its RS status for VG credits. For what its worth, GameFAQs has a list, which, while clearly reliable by itself, might give pointers to find individual sources (about the voice actors themselves, about this role). Salvidrim! 18:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The gamefaqs one looks really good. However, the list itself says how it was done by users from the site.Tintor2 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources indicates both those aren't too reliable. User submitted data and all. Яehevkor ✉ 18:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. GameFAQs is the anti-thesis of reliability. Salvidrim! 18:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(You forgot a "not" in your original comment about Gamespot- you called it "clearly reliable") --PresN 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the information needed for? Isn't listing VA info in articles a WP:GAMECRUFT problem typically? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the cast be listed in the credits of the game itself?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

They aren't listed there. Moreover, the whole character list (and moreover all videogame lists) contain voice actors information.Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Extra eyes at Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

A well meaning user has vastly extended Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars but incorporated some pretty bad copyright violations (among other things). I have reverted the most problematic text and explained on the talk page, hopefully the user will take note and address the issues but some extra eyes would be appreciated. Яehevkor ✉ 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Need some help

Hello, I recently created the article List of games using Steam authentication in order to list the games that require Steam authentication in a convenient easy-to-sort manner, since I felt List of Steam games was lacking when it came to this as well as mentioning particular Steamworks features. Any help with editing and expanding/improving this new article would be highly appreciated. Thanks. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot format

Hello Project!

I'm seeking an opinion/consensus on the correct form of plot sections in video game articles. In particular, I believe general citations are not required for the plot sections, as it can generally only be sourced to the game itself. I also do not believe use of quotations from the game are suitable as citations, except to highlight particularly important plot points, in which the quote should be part of the section, not a citation. I believe also that the plot should be prose that is not unnecessarily divided into subsections based on "acts" or "chapters" that the game may use to divide individual levels or maps.

I received consensus in one article that these mostly hold true but I want to see where the project stands, rather than just that particular article's editors. There may already be a project page detailing this but I haven't found it yet if so.

Thanks -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

On general citations, correct so far as I've seen the discussion, but FA can and does occasionally look askance. I can think of a number of good quality articles (FA/GA) which have quotations in the references, and in those same articles I haven't seen quotations used within the section text (e.g. Golden Sun).

On acts and chapters, it depends. The prose should be shorter than necessary for that, but I can think of a few circumstances where it might be appropriate, but only one or two subsections, if that. --Izno (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Izno. I've written several GA/FAs that had plot sections with citations to quotes from the game. That said, you don't really need citations in the first place, it's just nice, as the plot section should be statements of facts from the game, not the editors opinion about what the characters felt. The plot section should definately not be subdivided by acts, as even complicated RPGs can generally be brought down to 4 large paragraphs. If necessary, you can have very short subsections for characters or setting if they are particularily numerous/complicated; in general this is not needed for any games except complicated RPGs. I think you're getting this from Modern Warfare 3, no? That plot section needs to get cut down to 3-4 paragraphs, not 10, if it wants to reach GA. If that wasn't what you were referring to, sorry. --PresN 20:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the MW3 article spawned this thought. MW3 is still way too long, but some of the issues that occurred there (An editor adding acts, excessive quotations, citation flags, etc) were ultimately reverted through talk page consensus. I've seen the same "issues" being done in a few other articles and wanted a second opinion before I said or reverted anything. So far the vibe I'm getting is that quotations are fine (In moderation? I assume "excessive" is subjective, but valid issue. Where is the line for "too many"?), but the tagging and subdivision of sections is not really standard. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What Izno and PresN said is the general practice of the project. 3–4 paragraphs is a good target. Subheadings are discouraged because such level of detail is unnecessary for overview/summary style. An exception I can think of is something with a large branching story with numerous characters like Dynasty Warriors 4. But keep in mind that the source material is 120 chapters, has about 1000 characters, and covers over a 100 years of story. Even then, I'd try to keep it as short as possible.

In regard to excessive quotations used as citations, I suggest that you keep WP:CHALLENGE in mind: "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed..." So a pivotal plot point (like a discussion or battle between two main characters) might benefit from a citation whereas something more mundane (like travel from one place to another) is fine without it. A more simple story would require less citations and vice versa. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut gives good advice on what's relevant to the plot. Most advice from the MoS guidelines on fiction is applicable to videogames; the only caveas specific to VG is in open worlds where the plot itself may greatly differ from one game walkthrough to another. In that case, I think the plot should contain only the main events that appear in the way to all (or most) of the possible endings. For closed narratives, the plot can be described basically in the same way than in a book or movie. Diego (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The not needing citations only applies to the actual story section of the plot. Setting, themes, characters, etc. all require citations.∞陣内Jinnai 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jinnai, yes, I'm pretty much focused on the actual story/plot, not the setting/themes/etc. Reply to Guyinblack25: If say, 20 quotes, are added to a plot that has not in general been subject to contention, is that excessive? I've looked over the example above for Golden Sun, which has had the quotes for years now, but that's still nonstandard, although accepted by the editors for hat article. The quotes in this case were added to resolve citation tags, which had been added by the same user who originally tagged. The rationale seems flawed to me there, as the tag to begin with was unnecessary. -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Golden Sun is approaching excessive and the situation you described about 20 quotes takes Wikipedia's citation guidelines too far. Unfortunately, we don't have a good metric for what is "contentious", and as a result, something like plot citations have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

Persona 4's arcana

User:Ryulong is adding the social links information Characters of Persona 4 without verfied information or reasons for why is it important to the general reader. I discussed it with him at User talk:Tintor2#Persona 4 arcana but still no wp:reliable sources were used or reasons for the their use. Moreover, the user readded them with a bold edit all in capitals and the civilty is not going pretty good considering the comment. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What sort of reliable sources are necessary to show that a game mechanic exists in this particular fashion? The tarot theme is central to all of the Megami Tensei games, and it is highly central to the playing of the later Persona games. Tintor2 made a bold edit by removing all of the content and massively reformatting the page, taking it out of line with its sister articles, and I reverted that boldness by providing the content in a much less intrusive form.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also this discussion does not necessarily belong here as it regards just one page and it should have gone on that page's talk page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the talk page, that is a gameplay mechanic, not character traits, but you keep saying it should for being important for the game. Despite lack of reasons to add the information as well as agreements, you keep adding that just saying it's important for the game.Tintor2 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a central theme to the franchise as a whole. And you had no consensus to remove it. When a discussion starts you do not keep revert warring. The WP:BRD process says that after you make a bold edit (removing all of the Arcana information), and I revert it (putting it back in good faith), it means we discuss things instead of repeatedly removing it whenever I replace it to restore the original consensus. You are not the end-all-be-all for who determines what is acceptable article content.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

May I also add that Characters of Persona 2 and Characters of Persona 3 also include this information, in the way it existed prior to Tintor2's massive changes.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then moving comments here despite Ryulong's claim. I'll remove comments in my talk page and avoid talking there:

"We already said lots of time it's a central part of the game, but not why they are important for the character themselves. Bringing other character lists who are requiring work is just other stuff and is not valid argument. As I said the mentioning of arcanas in the list is confusing and unexplained to the reader, and don't add another significant information the characters' traits." Moreover, considering they are listed in a separate paragraph, it's obvious they don't fit with the characters' descriptions. A third opinion would be useful considering the lack of consensus.Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It defines the other characters. All of your party members have certain Personae of their particular Tarot arcana, and the only reason the majority of the characters exist is because they serve as Social Links to unlock things for their particular Arcana. In your edits to the article, you have completely removed any sort of semblance as to the non-player characters' function in the games for which there are reliable sources to support. It appears that we are randomly listing any and all named characters for no apparent reason in the article. And the only reason I put the content in a separate line is because you completely reworded the paragraphs to make it so there is no feasible way to put the information into them and I did it in a minor unintrusive way, but you keep reverting any attempt for me to incorporate it better. And you shouldn't use an article deletion debate essay to say I'm wrong in stating that this page should be like the two others that it is functionally similar to.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How does that define them? Their interactions with the protagonist already define them. The s. links' arcana just help to show how things are going and when is it over. I used otherstuff because you bring other articles as examples. Only GA are FA/FL are examples to follow in wikipedia. The other two articles actually need work. There actually named character with no s. links such as Igor, Morooka, Mayumi Yamano, Noriko Kashiwagi, etc in the article. Moreover, s. links still remain as uncited information and require actual citations in the article. Explanations of the s. links are not suitable in the creation section because it talks about how they were created not how the gameplay's mechanics were created. To make it more confusing, you reverted your own edit to leave to discuss and then added all the edits and separated the other characters sections.Tintor2 (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding their arcana is likely a violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE. That said, if anyone can find reliable sources claiming that the arcana play a central role in defining the characters should they be mentioned. Even then, it would probably require the "how" question be explained in said source. Not every character needs to have this done for them, but also not every NPC with an Arcana needs to be listed in detail. There could perhaps be a short list up at the top of all the NPCs listed on the page and those with arcana not listed and which arcana, if any, they belong to. That's borderline WP:GAMECRUFT violation, but i'd say if RSes comment heavily on the arcana in relations to the PC, it'd be okay here.∞陣内Jinnai 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong keeps adding to the character list a guide about how the social link works, but it's completely gameplay information. I removed it and I'll remove current mention of social links and arcanas in the list considering how they still give no notable traits to the characters.Tintor2 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to add a reference that shows the social links are important to the game because how it affects the player's game ("Inside the Game: Persona 4 Social Links". October 14, 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2012.). The extensive information regarding what happens in the Social Links are already in the article. Tintor2 just removed the Arcana information from the entries, which left me to incorporate a whole 6 more words in each character section to put it back. It's not intrusive, and provides more information to the article that can be reliably sourced to the video game itself, as the only way you ever learn any of the information in the article about the character mentioned is when you participate in their Social Link. So it does not make any sense to ignore the existence of this mechanic on the page, when the majority of its content is directly related to that game mechanic.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also a subject touched upon in the anime adaptation. So the fact that the Arcana aspect shows up in two (I might say 3 but I have not read the manga) different media in a franchise, I would say that we should make some mention of it on the page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be little weight, but it still brings no significance to the characters actually. The Social Links and the Arcana just mention how is the relationship going on and which Personas are going to become stronger in fusions, making it more gameguide content than another trait of the character. The anime touches that but as a mention of what happened in the previous episode withouth ever mentioning them ever again. Even the social links section is a guide about how the game works and Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 already touches that.Tintor2 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The relationship is the Social Link, though, and I would say that it is at the least important to mention the Arcana for the player character and team's Personae.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. For example, the player interacts with the Yosuke Hanamura, Naoki Konishi and others and the social links re not revealed until some days later stating that Yosuke learned a new skill and how fusions will be stronger. No dialogue for the game ever says which Arcana is a Persona from as they are always called "Izanagi", "Jiraiya", etc. The only time they say their arcana is when checking the options section, but it is completely unrelated to them. The same goes for the Persona "Izanagi no Okami"; despite the plot's narrative they never say what arcana is he from until starting a second playthrough and trying to obtain it manually.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So what about screens like the one in this article?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

They are better for Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4#Gameplay as they guide the reader how can social links work better and its differences from Persona 3's Social Links. It's only screen just starts saying how Strength Persona will be stronger.Tintor2 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No... "You have established the Fellow Athletes Social Link of the Strength Arcana!" cannot possibly be construed in the way you describe it. There is nothing there that says anything about "Strength Persona" or "stronger". Going off of the fact that the two characters are in the photo, it must mean that after communicating with either Kou Ichijo or Daisuke Nagase and joining whichever sports club it is in that photo that you've begun the Social Link for the Strength Arcana. Therefore, the Arcana content is central to the game and the characters.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this lengthy discussion should clearly be moved and continued on the article's talk page. Or, since it seems to involve mostly two editors, on either one's talk page. Salvidrim! 02:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is true. I have no effing clue why Tintor2 felt the need to bring it here when we were having a perfectly fine stalemate on his user talk.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe he sought input from others (which in and of itself can be a good thing), but I believe this has established that other editors will not get involved at this point. Salvidrim! 03:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I moved the talk here since Ryulong started replying here.Tintor2 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That is possible, but it would be pretty nice to have some other editors weigh in on this, because his idea of a stalemate is "My version is what is kept on the article, and Ryulong's additional 6 words per character section are not allowed based on no policy".—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the article Ryulong linked to. It does talk about social links in-depth, but it doesn't do the minimum imo for mentioning arcana in the character article. IE, the article does not say something like "Yosuke's arcana the Magician reflects his personality because..." or "Rissette's personality [...] is represented by the Lovers.". That's the kind of stuff needed. It doesn't have to be for every character, but several of them would probably be necessary.∞陣内Jinnai 05:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm just going off of the fact that we already mention everything about what happens in the Social Link except the fact that they are Social Links. We already have something that says one of the characters is known as "Death" and she represents the Death Arcana. I seriously doubt that there's anything that says that the Arcana apply because of their personality (it's something I've seen speculated upon on a Wikia), but it might exist in Japanese. I don't know what I'd be looking for in the Japanese language though. To be honest, requesting this much reasoning for an additional six words is a bit much.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that's not enough. You need some coverage like that or more general how arcana reflect the character's personality. Linking it like that is WP:SYNTHESIS as the source never states that the specific arcana is relevant to the character in any way other than the programers and players need some way to distinquish social links from each character in the same way you need to distinquish each persona from another or you need to distinquish each level on Super Mario Bros. from each other.∞陣内Jinnai 07:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It just seems simple enough to say, as it did long before Tintor2 did a major rewrite of the page, that X character is the Social Link for the Y Arcana, which is reliably sourcable to the game, because these characters and interactions would not exist if they were not part of the Social Link mechanic. It's not undue weight. It's not "gameguide". It's just giving context to information we already have, and it's information that was on the article long before Tintor2 made a unilateral decision to remove any and all mentions of the Social Link and Arcana terminology. I'm not trying to propose that any original research be put on the article. I just want to put back a small portion of the information Tintor2 removed, which we have on all of the other Persona pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, this feels like asking "What does Pikachu being an Electric type have to do with him as a character?". It's something central to him and the franchise he is a part of, but it's nothing outside of being a particular game mechanic applied to him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, this article from the main Persona 4 page seems to be the best, as it says "personae [are] reflections of your true self aligned with one of the major arcana of the tarot deck". There's also this review which goes "Those face cards, the Major Arcana, also each represent a major character in the game, the people you meet as you go to school and explore the town of Inaba." and this review which states "Social links are also tied to the Major Arcana of Tarot cards". I can't really find anything that says "Yosuke is the Magician because..." but I think these show that it's somewhat important to mention.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the humans characters, not about Personas. The only need to mention for the plot is how they obtain them. With Pikachu example, that Pokemon does electric attacks all the type so that's what makes it important to mention, while the persona's arcana don't take a big role in the story. And again, just because other pages list something, it does not mean all the other have to do exact thing (especially when the other lists require clean up). I just removed the information because it was not importat to the characters at all and may be better in the wikia.Tintor2 (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The 3 articles are about how each character (that is represented by a Social Link) is represented by one of the 22 Major Arcana and how those Arcana are also represented in the Personae. So if anything we can mention the Arcanas and their relation to the individual characters and their Personae.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the articles are about the characters as a whole. Their personality, their role in the story, and the relationship to the real-world (ie voice actors, reception, merchandising, etc).∞陣内Jinnai 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding here. I'm talking about the Gamespot review, the G4TV review, and the IGN review which all mention the importance of the Arcana to the characters. Even though none mention something along the lines of "Yosuke represents the Magician because..." I think the mentions in there is enough to show that the Arcana information does have some sort of place on the character list.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4#Gameplay already has the explanation of social links and arcanas, but does not explain which arcana represents a character. Even with sources that state how important are they, there are no sources that state such specific things such as "Yosuke represents the Magician" or how it would fit into the list without making it look like gameguide material. Maybe an external link to the Megami Tensei wikia would let readers check some further detail about arcanas and other stuff if they have an interest.Tintor2 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The game makes that statement, and that is the only reliable source we need for that specific kind of information. Why is it such an issue for the proposed six words per section to be placed in the character list? It is such a minor aspect to the page, and including it does not violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. It just gives a minor bit of context to prose we already have.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think there may be enough reception to split off and talk about the Arcana system for all the Persona titles, or at least P3 and P4. There it may be more acceptable to have a short list of what characters represent what Arcana.∞陣内Jinnai 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's possible, but it would basically be the same level of content as I am proposing to be reincluded in the Persona 4 list. I'd like both, but if necessary your proposal would be just as good.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean like "List of Persona's arcanas" or "List of Personas"? The point I previously is that, for example, most of the stuff with some characters already happen without the need of the social link. I think only two sentences from Yosuke Hanamura are part of his social link.Tintor2 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean something like Arcana system in Persona or Social links in Persona. It wouldn't be an all-encompassing gameplay article hence not Gameplay of Persona. If they talk more about the Arcana in general, then we should go with the first; if they talk more about the characters and the relations with it the system and the way it impacts the gameplay viz-a-vie the main character, then the 2nd.∞陣内Jinnai 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the sources as I see them, I think the latter (which should probably be titled "Social Links in the Persona video game series" as (Social Link/Komyuniti is a proper noun in the franchise) seems to be more feasible.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Social links in Persona is more in line with existing gameplay articles like Gameplay of Dragon Quest or Character design of Final Fantasy. You can put a hatnote at the top if nessassary that it is talking about multiple games and not just Shin Megami Tensei: Persona.∞陣内Jinnai 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Shin Megami Tensei: Persona#Common elements could be used as a draft for such article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

But "Social Link" is still a proper noun in the Persona games.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is a proper noun in the game and secondary sources continue to treat it as a proper noun then Social Links in Persona is okay.∞陣内Jinnai 04:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This press release seems to suggest that it's a proper noun, as does the G4 Review (the press release should be given more weight in the matter, frankly). And why the heck should we not count it as a proper noun if the subject does? You're just going off on an extremely improper application of WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME in that case.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)