Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WPCVG Talk Archives

01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25

List of archive topics by section

CVG

So let me get this straight - if an article has a title with computer and in it, it should be removed from the title? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an example in mind? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

List of best-selling computer and video games (now List of best-selling video games). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess an article like computer and video game music should be renamed. Is that what you're referring to? JACOPLANE • 2007-03-1 23:55

Nevermind, edit conflict, you answered that just now. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-1 23:56

What I'd like to know is if I should remove all instances of "computer and video games" or not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes unless you are speaking of the magazine by that specific name. BcRIPster 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Soulcalibur

At present, just about every article on a Soulcalibur character has an {{unencyclopedic}} tag and is listed in Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic (easiest found via that category). Since I don't see the problem with covering characters from fighting games in Wikipedia, I removed a few of those templates, but was reverted with no further comment. Perhaps someone from the Wikiproject could look into it. >Radiant< 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I just picked Taki (Soul Calibur) at random. The first sentence is OK. After that, "Biography", "Weapons" and "Stages" need to be rewritten in an out-of-universe style per WP:WAF. "Character analysis" appears to be entirely original research and should be either sourced or removed. "Trivia" sections should be avoided in general. In general, the article appears to be a datadump of information which is of little, if any interest to people not already familiar with Soul Calibur, which no indication as to what (if any) influence Taki has had beyond the game itself. If the rest of the articles are like this, I would recommend the in-game information be removed and they are merged into a list. (That all reads rather harshly, I'm aware. Please nobody take it personally; this would be a very good article for a Soul Calibur guide, but isn't a good article for a general encyclopedia). Cheers --Pak21 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it me, or do all character descriptions seem to be "copy & paste" work. In general, they're horribly written (for an encyclopedia). Copy & Paste work, in-universe style, original research, GameFaqs-material.... Do I need to say more? The character pages can stay (they are notable enough), but they should be rewritten.DreamingLady 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• If it's a copy/paste from gamefaqs, we need to delete it because of copyright. >Radiant< 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else is echoing my thoughts! I'd been uming and ahing about this pages for the past few days myself, and I agree if they are going to be kept, then they need substantial re-writing. The Kinslayer 10:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it would be easier to redirect everything to a Characters in page. When and if (iff!) a character's description grows without incorporating too much in-universe info it can be re-split. Garrett^Talk 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If they are a copy and paste from GameFaqs, it should be checked to see if they were added by the writer of whatever it was on GameFaqs first. After all, it's not that unlikely that a FAQ writer would just copy and paste what they've already written and put it on Wikipedia. Of course, if the FAQ just copyed and pasted info from an official bio, then it would still need to be removed.--SeizureDog 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I second removing the Character Analysis sections. I think CVG article guidelines state that overly detailed gameplay descriptions should be avoided, and the character analyses can be considered as such. And yes, the character entries have certainly gotten bloated and are probably due for heavy trimming. A little uniformity would also be a nice touch. Shabby 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

More aftereffects of the "computer and video games" to "video games" moves

Should articles with (computer game) and (arcade game) in them be moved to (video game)? E.g. Black & White (computer game) vs. Black & White (video game). I think the majority of people agreed that computer games are still video games, so it seems we should make them consistant. However, this is unless we want to disambig title by platform (when they're only on one) instead. Take a look through Category:Atari 2600 games, and you'll notice just how inconsistant we are here. I see (arcade game), (video game), and (Atari 2600) about equally. Granted, some articles, such as Pac-Man (Atari 2600), are for a specific console and should stay, but many could do just fine at (video game). Of course on the flip-side, I wouldn't mind having those (video game) articles be at (Atari 2600), just so long as we have a standard. --SeizureDog 09:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest changing all to (video game) considering our new rules unless there are multiple articles of the same name. From what I've seen this can be for different platforms, in which case the platform could be put in parentheses, but it could also be a different game with the same title, in which case it should probably have the year released in parentheses. I think I've also seen the developer name used to differentiate, but the year would probably be more helpful. --ADeveria 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been a bit of confusion on what to do with Air (1977 computer game) and Air (game). I previously tried moving the 2nd one to Air (visual novel), but it looks like they might need to be Air (1977 video game) and Air (2000 video game) respectively.--SeizureDog 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have to lean towards the standardization myself as well. BcRIPster 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, I think that we all like standardization, but do you have a preference as to which standard to use?--SeizureDog 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The arcade categories

Also, is there any real reason why the categories in Category:Arcade games by year exist? It is the only platform to get special treatment in this way, and seems like it needs to be merged into Category:Video games by year. This however, will end up being a rather large task, as many articles have categories for the both the arcade year and a different category for their video game year. E.g. Soul Calibur II has both Category:2002 arcade games and Category:2003 video games. We'd have to check articles like these and replace both with Category:2002 video games--SeizureDog 09:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think arcade games, while of course most are still video games, have a bit of a different stigma attached in that the whole way you have to pay for them. And there are plenty of arcade games that aren't video games -- Ski Ball and Pinball for starters. You do have a good point though, and I agree there should be a bit more consistency (like all films are tagged with (film) and not (movie) )♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I considered that myself, but I checked some of the earlier years and if seems that all of the articles in those categories are video games. Skee ball for instance, is just under Category:Arcade games (none for the year) and pinball games have their own Category:Pinball games. The number of non-video game arcade games in the year categories is slim to none.--SeizureDog 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, and skeetball, ticket, gallery, and crane games, etc... should really be under something like Electro-mechanical games anyways, I would think. BcRIPster 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that doesn't take into account that the old, old school versions of arcade games such as skeeball were probably done without electricity or even perhaps mechanical parts. --SeizureDog 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Some categories that may need renaming

Animals in computer games -> Animals in video games
Multiplayer computer games -> Multiplayer video games
Pinball computer games -> Pinball video games
Puzzle computer and video games -> Puzzle video games
Real-time tactical computer games -> Real-time tactical video games
Strategy computer games -> Strategy video games
WOSlinker 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby move

There is a move request to have the Kirby article be for the video game character. Fromwhat I have seen, at least one of the oppose voters is voting against it just because it's a video game character (one of his comments was something like "it's a video game character, no one will remember him in 15 years). Just thought some of you might be interested in voicing your opinion. It's at Talk:Kirby#Requested move (2). TJ Spyke 11:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sega Pro and Mega Power

The articles on these journals require a listing of an ISSN. Can someone help me find this information? Keesiewonder ^talk 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean ISBN numbers? I found two magazines for Sega Pro (Sega Pro Master Volume 1, Sega Pro Master Volume 2). It wasn't a monthly magazine, but rather a regular series of guides. So each one had a different ISBN number. I can't find anything on Mega Power. TJ Spyke 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd noticed/wondered about that too. Whomever created the articles, though, clearly thought they were journals. If no-one objects, I may edit the articles over to reflect their book status. Keesiewonder ^talk 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Sega Pro is very much an old UK games magazine. [1] If you want articles on the books, I suggest something like Sega Pro Master. - hahnchen 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood, thanks; I'd seen that link in my travels too. All I need are the ISSNs ... (Does anyone have a copy of these magazines?) Keesiewonder ^talk 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

GamePro Reviews = Suckage?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought GamePro was a respected publication with some decent features (like the Chrono Cross interviews). But check this review out. There's one just like it for Goemon's Great Adventure. They appear to be user-written, and seem to feature little evidence that the author had more than a passing interest or played the game more than a few minutes. The reviewer utterly and completely misses the fact that FFC has new cut scenes and horrible load times. Has anyone else encountered this, and can we write off reviews like this as...well, stupid? Looking back at Goemon's Great Adventure's GamePro review, the guy makes some vague, passing criticisms; it too seems to be user-submitted. His criticisms of the game are also way out of line with the general gaming press's. What gives? --Zeality 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

GamePro is not the best game magazine out there (I stopped reading a long time ago), but I can find bad reviews in every magazine and website. Sometimes it's the magazine/website, sometimes it's the individual reviewer. TJ Spyke 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A question and comment. First the question: what exactly does this have to do with articles on Wikipedia? You didn't say anything such as "should we not list GamePro reviews in articles?" or so on. My comment is: just because GamePro's reviews aren't liked, doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed. They have been around a while, and it's notable. All reviews are opinions, and just because their reviews are hated doesn't mean it's something to be left out of Wikipedia articles (if that's the case you are trying to make). RobJ1981 06:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm wondering if we should use them; I'm currently writing a critical section for Final Fantasy Chronicles. I've no doubt that they pay certain people to review, but come on, "UNCLEDUST" and a one paragraph memorandum failing to note any new features of the game? At least on a case-by-case basis, I think the reviews are toast for FFC and GGA, and I'll be wary of GamePro in the future. If someone can confirm that "UNCLEDUST" or "THED-PADDESTROYER" are accredited employees of GamePro and competent reviewers, we'll be getting somewhere. But if more eloquent reviews from less notable sites are going to be challenged in CVG articles, these abysmal one-shots by anonymous posters should be left out as well. I guess we need some insight here on how their review system works. --Zeality 07:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't use/mention reviews I can't use. Simple as that. I often times cannot use GamePro reviews, though I always check.DreamingLady 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

With the game being a compilation of other games, publications may not have decided to give over their columns to it. As Spyke has mentioned, there are crap reviews in every publication, especially if Dave Halverson is involved. - hahnchen 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In relation to pseudonyms like UNCLEDUST or whatever, GamePro has always used clown names for its staff. It's their attempt to be hip cool and irreverent, like a Disco Vicar. - hahnchen 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the real question here is whether we should make this an issue om GA/FA nominations. If the reception section uses sources that are not professional, that might be grounds to oppose the nomination. Perhaps we should as a WikiProject compile a list (and we shouldn't be nazis about this because of one bad review) of sources that we feel are reliable in the gaming press. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-4 20:44

There's no real need for this, I think going on a case by case basis is fine. In this case, the GamePro review is obviously not that good. - hahnchen 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, GamePro has always been 2nd rate video game magazine. If we were to compare it to other journalistic standards, I'd say it is the equivalent of (or a little below) USA Today compared to other papers like The New York Times. Elitism aside, GamePro is still a solid source and should be used for articles. It might not be as critical as other sources, but it is still a reflection of sentiment in the world of gaming. —Mitaphane _?|! 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Character navboxes.

Quick summary: Navbox with characters, Navbox without

• User:A Man In Black removes characters from the Template:Guilty Gear series navbox.
• I revert him, he reverts me. He says that characters don't belong in vg navboxes. He cites some new guideline on navboxes
• I say fine, but ask for him to at least split the characters out into a seperate navbox for the character articles, pointing out that every game series used as an example in that guideline also has a navbox for their characters: Template:Mario characters, Template:Zelda character, and Template:Metal Gear characters.
• He says those kind of navboxes are being deleted at TFD and doesn't want to waste his time. Suggests I bring it up for discussion (and here we are).

So, is everyone against having character navboxes or something? Personally, I find it annoying as hell to try to browse through all of the characters in a series if I don't have a navbox to help. Lists and categories are ugly and require more steps. Is there any real reason that character navboxes are unhelpful enough for us to delete/not create them? I can understand for some series that might not have more than 5 or so character articles, but for games with large rosters, such as fighters, I think that seperate navboxes need to be created to help aid in navigation and that the responsibility of creating such should rest on whomever is removing such information from the main navbox. I mean can one really argue that Template:The King of Fighters characters is somehow not helpful if Template:The King of Fighters series is?--SeizureDog 06:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I direct people to Terry Bogard#External links.

Categories are for linking large groups of homogenous, loosely-related things. When you try to cram lists of such things into templates, it becomes a mess. Does anyone remember the old {{Mario characters}}? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'll direct you to United States#Navigation. Hell, any country, state, or even city generally has a huge section of navboxes at the end. And really, they're at the end, so does it really matter how large it is (to an extent)? It's not as though it hinders the reading of the article itself, since you're not going to see them until you're through.--SeizureDog 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a train wreck. What an excellent argument to continue using categories instead of templates for these things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a counter-example, the Comics WikiProject decided to delete all of their naboxes (i.e. X-Men members, Avengers members) because the comics world corsses over too many worlds and they weren't the most useful navigating tool (see 2006 14 September TFD. CVG and real-world will have different priorities, and we shouldn't use either to try to compare. Let's just narrow the scope down. I personally think that linking to lists of characters is far better than trying to cram every character in there; like AMIB said, {{Mario characters}} was horrendous. This is not helpful at all. Also, the Mortal Kombat characters navbox was deleted a month ago via TFD, so that might be a useful debate to check out. Hbdragon88 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't quite understand why games are being allowed to have navboxes and characters are being objected against. The same logic applies to both groups, as both games and characters for a series usually have their own categories and/or lists. I mean are we supposed to delete Template:Metal Gear series just because Category:Metal Gear games also exists? Also, this whole removing of "under development" games from navboxes is really stupid. What exactly is the logic for this anyways? Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is sure to be a highly looked for article, but if you check the navbox you'd think that we don't even have it. I mean seriously, it's like we're trying to hide these articles from people and make them check the category for the one article not in the navbox. This sort of thing isn't helping people nagivate Wikipedia.--SeizureDog 10:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, if an article exists, it belongs in its respective series navbox. If the article doesn't have enough content, it should be put up for AfD first, then removed from the navbox if it's deleted rather than being removed first. I've yet to receive a response from User:A Man In Black regarding this move. --Scottie theNerd 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we should probably repeal that guideline for a little while and have some more discussion on it. I completely missed out on it the first time around and there seems to be multiple instances where A Man In Black's implimenting it is causing complaints. In my opinion, navboxes should be handled more on a case by case basis instead of these "standards" we have to follow. Hell, is there even a Wikipolicy/guideline for navboxes on the whole? or are we the only ones that have anything for them?--SeizureDog 12:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but agree here. I don't see why game navboxes are ok, but character ones aren't. Either they should both exist or neither -- I don't have a problem with them being seperate, though, but they should both at least exist. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scottie. If an article SHOULD exist and a navbox exists for that series, it should be in the navbox. Navigational templates are meant to help the reader navigate to related articles (and help to bypass the terrible category system that is entirely useless to the reader). --- RockMFR 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Often I find that articles removed from a navbox aren't even tagged for deletion, yet the reason for removal is often the reason why it should be deleted outright. --Scottie theNerd 06:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

List of places and characters in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms

I created the article List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms by merging content from 14 separate articles (12 of which were up for deletion). I will perform as much cleanup and improvement as I can, but my knowledge of the game is at present limited to what I've read in the main TA:K article. So, any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, Black Falcon 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This issue was raised on February 24 in a discussion on this talk page (see above or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Total Annihilation: Kingdoms.

Let's settle the plot thing once and for all

Back in late 2005, Ryu Kaze and his friends completed a slew of Featured Articles. All featured plot summaries that covered all major arcs of the plot, and all articles were supplemented by out of universe information which always outsized the fictional sections. However, recently a few people are starting to get antsy about the summaries' possibly being too large, and I've personally encountered some resistance in the FAC process. So let's settle this with an argument and discussion. I am personally in favor of the large, complete summaries Ryu Kaze made precedent for. Featured Article criteria 1.b states that articles should not neglect major facts or details. The general style of writing has been to include major plot arcs with enough details that the reader may have a competent understanding of plot cause and resolution. To cite an example, I'll use Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, my last FA and my last FAC to be challenged for this.

Firstly, what makes the article good? It covers everything available and relevant to readers outside of Konami or the development team. History on both sides of the Pacific is chronicled; critical and fan reception is deeply represented, with all aspects of the game critiqued. Play control is well documented and stresses unique facets of the game's structure. The game's very unique audio presentations and styles are emphasized, and samples are given. To summarize, there is a lot of good, out-of-universe information here which covers every part of the game. Let's move to the plot. Would some of you call that too much? It summarizes every major arc, from Oedo Town to Zazen Town to Kyushu and the North. I left out a lot of fetch quests, but major character interactions, appearances, and events are represented. Readers who have never played the game will still miss out an the larger experience, but will be able to completely understand the game's plot and drivers. The comprehensiveness of the summary also allows several connections to be made with references in the rest of the article, such as the appearance of "Gorgeous My Stage", the four special abilities, the quirky humor and stye, etc. Okay, I'm rambling, but does the plot section (not counting the out-of-universe information concerning the humor) seem too long?

I received an objection on that count, and these Wikipedia principles were invokved (listed with my counterarguments):

• WP:NOTE (making good use of wikibooks): "...an encyclopaedia article about the work of fiction on Wikipedia giving a brief outline, [then chapters on Wikibooks, then full text on Wikisource, etc.)..."

This one is laughable. An article can't be comprehensive if it castrates summaries into brief outlines with a link to Wikisource. You would not summarize Moby Dick with a bulleted list of ten or 15 bullets. On that note, this suggestion hilarious sounds like an admonition to use lists, which is a cardinal sin! Also, check existing FAs on literary works. Whether Adventures of TinTin or Lord of the Rings, several paragraphs of in-universe information exist to provide a comprehensive understand of the plot and characters.

• WP:WAF (criticizing in-universe styles)

The article's out-of-universe information dwarfs the plot summary, so this objection was a little errant.

• WP:FICT "...plot summaries should be kept reasonably short..."

There's the stickler and the root of the argument. Reasonably short is up for interpretation, and I believe Ryu Kaze and several other WP:CVG editors who churned those FAs out chose to weigh reasonability in lieu of FA criteria 1.b. Reasonably is obeying what makes an article perfect (comprehensiveness; aiding the reader in understanding a major work, including its plot) while omitting details, detours, and other dalliance in fictional worlds and stories. In our arena, this includes side quests, minor characters (which are usually) relegated to List of Xenogears characters and stuff like that), and other conventions peripheral to main arcs of a story. I suppose this is what needs to be evaluated and have a conclusion reached upon. For many CVG editors, this is not a real problem -- you'd be hard pressed to write seven paragraphs about the plot of Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 (though an overall Mortal Kombat franchise article might suffer this difficulty). As many of you can and probably will argue, however, role-playing games often have deep, complex plots. Comparing them to literature and such is something for another time, but if we can agree that the plots of RPGs can be just as engrossing and expansive as the plots of literary works, then perhaps we can agree that RPG plot summaries can, without harsh scrutiny and on the condition that out-of-universe information is represented, include major arcs in a comprehensive plot summary. --Zeality 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion constantly changes on this issue. Initially, User:Silence came up to Ryu and myself with the featured article review of Final Fantasy X, which is where this concept of comprehensive, full plot summaries came from. Initially, I will admit that I debated with Silence in IM over this issue, but we agreed that comprehensive summaries is the best choice. I immediately tried the idea on Final Fantasy VIII while Ryu and Silence worked on expanding the X article's summary appropriately, and I believe we met in the middle very nicely with both articles. This was followed by a series of FA pushes (including VIII and a retaining of X's featured status), which allowed us to publicize this concept without much resistance; this surprised us (heck, we got more resistance from the lack of spoiler warnings). However, I do believe there is a balance point that needs to be made, especially with the new emphasis on "reasonably short" plot summaries. With WikiProject Final Fantasy, Axem and myself did a comparison of the script of each game versus the size of the plot summaries. Axem and myself concluded that Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X have the best balance between plot summary and game/script length, but it's not an exact science. These were the first two that the idea was tested out on, and based on percentages, it seemed to be the best balance. I'm not sure about the Chronos though, because I didn't take a look at the script word count. Unfortunately, Ryu is not around anymore to offer his arguments.

I understand your point that we need to argue on the FACs that RPGs have deep stories (because most people who object on story length do not actually read the synopsis). The key is to discuss the setting and characters beforehand from an out of universe perspective; inspiration for the setting, character designs, etc. This allows us to explain the plot in that succinct manner while balancing in and out of universe information for the setting/characters/plot supersection. This might not make more sense, but it's basically saying that we carry on what we are doing with the RPG setting/character/story sections, but with an added emphasis on out of universe, developers inforation for the first two sections. This looks good in the eyes of reviewers. — Deckiller 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so really a case-by-case basis, then. That sounds good; I suppose we might have to get our hands dirty in the FAC process, but at least I've formed a case here for necessitating good RPG summaries. I need to revise Ryu Kaze's CVG Featured Article guide, as I've got a bunch of new tips for getting that precious out of universe information that makes articles legendary. --Zeality 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a case by case basis; some games have large character backstories that mean nothing to the plot; other games have huge areas of fighting to get from point A to point B that don't really need to be mentioned outside of one sentence (the sandseas and the jungle/that big dragon boss creature in Final Fantasy XII). Perhaps a short way of putting it is that "if the plot summary can provide the reader with a general idea of the major plot progression points from start to finish in the shortest manner, then it is comprehensive and focused". Focus is another big FA criterion being taken into account; for instance, the article B Movie is being reviewed due to a supposed "lack of focus" on the general concepts (it was 120 KB at one point). Like I said, the key is balancing focus and comprehensiveness by providing what is needed to understand the major plot points.

As an example, say a party travels from City A to City D. Along the way, they pass Cities B and C, where they rest and discuss their past. If part of that past has information relevant to the story later on, then it should be mentioned; otherwise, the entire situation can be left out to be descriped in a character article or perhaps as an example in the characters section. — Deckiller 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the Mystical Ninja article, the plot summary isn't too long; it could probably be trimmed by a paragraph or so, I don't feel it's a huge issue. — Deckiller 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I like long but not unnecessarily so. I don't think that the plot summaries of the FF articles and CT articles are far too long. Also, on a semi-related note, I wish that people wouldn't be so anti-spoilers tags on Plot sections. I mean, really, what harm could possibly be done? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I favor shorter plots. My distaste for long plots has been cemented by seeing way too many in-universe ones (examples being Pokemon XD, Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire and Emerald, Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen; Time Crisis, 3, and 4). But having only authored two GA articles (one being DNF), and no FAs, I can't really authoritatively state whether we should be short or have longer ones. Hbdragon88 02:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Here's the problem as I see it: you people are lazy. What do I mean by that? Writing long plot summaries is easy. That's right, easy. Why? Because you have so much easily accessable information to work with that you can just write as much as you want. It's harder to condense all that information while still remaining broad. You don't need 1000 pages to write a summary for a 1000 page book; you can do it in 1000 words. If you can't, you're not summarizing; you're rewording. Let me give you some thoughts to think on:

• Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon has a longer plot summary than War and Peace, the book that is famously long (~1424 pages). Granted, War and Peace isn't a FA or anything, but still it does summarize it. On that note, it's also longer than Moby Dick's plot summary, which you provided as a counter-example.
  • I agree that Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon's story summary could be shorter. However, the article pays enough attention to the other aspects of the game AND is only 37KB long. So no harm done.DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Didn't 32 KB used to be the split warning point? --SeizureDog 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As long as you don't get the "this article is too long. Maybe it should be split" message, I don't think it's too long.DreamingLady 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• There is no good reason why a plot summary should ever be longer than any other section of a video game's article, especially gameplay. If you read a 5-page review on a video game, you're highly unlikely to find much more than a paragraph or so (if any) on the storyline. An exception would be for a video game with virtually no gameplay, but this isn't one of them.
  • No. Some games, especially Adventure games, have far more story than gameplay. I mean, how long should it take me to explain the Point-and-click system? Not to mention I hate explaining basic genre gameplay for each game individually if there's already a page covering its general use. RPGS tend to have huge (unique) stories, but often very traditional. Also, reviews can not be compared to encyclopedia articles. Reviews only mention the story's introduction and possibly praise the story for its greatness/awfulness in one of the last lines. Articles should describe the subject, with each aspect getting the attention it deserves. And story is ("almost") as important as gameplay.DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you miss the part where I pipelined to visual novel, the most extreme form of gameplayless adventure games? Adventure games are an even worse genre to explain in detail though, because doing that can completely ruin the game and can verge closely on being a game guide. Myst sucks if you know what happens.--SeizureDog 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, Adventure games are not. Because you have the actual action (gameplay) and the significance of it (story). Adventure games tend to have a lot of text that backs up the gameplay, so no walkthrough-danger. Anyway, that's genre specific, but RPGs and good horror games also need (quite) big plot sections, not to mention the many examples from other genres. Also, what kind of idiot would read the plot section of a game he/she intends to play in the near future?DreamingLady 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• There are two types of people who read video game articles. Those who have played the game, and those who haven't. Generally, the only editors are those who have, and if they love the game they want to put in every little detail they can, but the fact is that those who haven't aren't looking for a plot summary detailed enough to replace their need to play the game. Face it, people are not using Wikipedia as a "Spark Notes for video games".
  • Couldn't agree more. DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Longer does not equal better. The Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon fails me because the plot section is so long that I don't want to read it, especially since just scanning it gives me such trivial information like "Lily appears to ridicule the party, but is rudely interrupted by Dancin', who continues to call Goemon "Fernandez". Honestly, this article is like having an annoying friend trying to tell "all the funny" parts of a comedy film, and taking 30 minutes to do so.
  • Agreed, but I do disagree about one thing. The only reason why you don't want to read it, is because you couldn't care less about Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon's plot. At least, that's what I'm guessing. I've seen longer story descriptions, also from FA articles (or sometimes, GA), that I didn't mind reading, while I just couldn't get through way shorter storyline descriptions of other articles, simply because I didn't care about them. I think MNSG has a decent storyline description. Not perfect, no. But good enough.DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I never read the plot summary for Final Fantasy X either. I kinda want to know what it's about, but if I read what it has I'll probably regret it. Which brings me to another good point: short summaries serves as a happy middle ground between people who like spoilers and people who hate them. If it's short, you can still spoil as much as you need too, but it's not in detail enough to completely ruin it. Well, in theory at least. Still doesn't help with big things like "Jon dies."--SeizureDog 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, what kind of idiot would read the plot section of a game he/she intends to play in the near future? If you don't want to know, don't read it!!! Summaries in wikipedia articles shouldn't protect people against themselves, that's their own job. I want to play Hotel Dusk: Room 215 soon, so when I read its page, I made sure not to read the plot section yet. DreamingLady 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• A "but we need all of that space so readers can understand everything" arguement sucks. Readers do not need to know everything. Hell, they really even need to know much beyond what the back of the box or manual might tell them. A summary is "This happened, so this guy is on a quest to do this thing which causes stuff to happen (yes just "stuff", don't have to say too much on which stuff) and finally, he wins and the resolution is :D", not "This happened, so this guy goes and does this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this..."
  • If it's necessary to cover a certain detail of the story, because someone who hasn't played the game yet wouldn't get the summary otherwise, it should be mentioned. If that requires a description of "This happened, so this guy goes and does this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this...", then so be it. If there's no plot development in those segments though, it can be ignored. Readers do not need to understand everything as in "know every little detail that plays a minor-to-no role to the plot", but they have to be able to understand the summary.DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Granted, but what I'm saying is bad is stuff like: "First Jon gets the boots of speed, then he fights the forest boss, then he goes to the volcano level, where he mets Sally, who blah blah blah..." I haven't played MNSG, but it sure like it talks about every stage, item, character, boss, etc. Somethings do need to be left out.--SeizureDog 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, like I said, it's not perfect. If I had played it, I'd clean it up a little, but since I haven't, I can't. DreamingLady 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've made my point.--SeizureDog 07:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So you mean like the summaries in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, only without individual sub-articles (like this familiarly lengthy summary, cut down to a mere four sentences in the parent article) to dump plots into? Nifboy 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. They seem about the right size for summarizing a commedy (since in reality, plot doesn't really matter to comedy). Those individual articles are quite bad though. The plot summary at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book) (aside from being horribly in-universe) reads like it's trying to cramp in every punch-line it can. But yeah, anything that has a plot section that you actually have to scroll down really needs to start taking the ax to it.--SeizureDog 10:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I feel that a 1,000 word summary, like Final Fantasy VIII, is perfect for a complicated RPG, but a 400-500 word summary is perfect for a shooter like Super Metroid. Mystical Ninja, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and Final Fantasy IV are a little too long for my taste, despite them being RPGs. If it's a string of town hopping and fetch quests, then it needs to be brief (one sentence can cover 3-4 towns easily). However, if the game has significant character development and complicated resolutions, they will naturally take more space to succinctly describe. I've worked on plenty of fictional FAs - especially plot sections - and I can say for a fact that the 1,000 word synopsis for a 40 hour RPG is a fine balance, which does not result in objections; on the other hand, a 1,000 word synopsis for a 2 hour shooter will result in significant objection. I do agree with what SeizureDog is saying about items and bosses; this information is unnecessary. The Super Metroid article doesn't explain "First, Samus went into Brinstar to get the morph ball. Then, she traveled to where the large shaft was in the original metroid to get missiles. Then, she scaled Old Touria and went back to Crateria..."; that's gameguide. The Final Fantasy articles, with an exception being IV, also don't go into that level of detail; it just takes more space to cover the major elements of a 40-60 hour game than a 5-10 hour shooter. There cannot be a true "golden standard" for plot summaries; it has to be taken on a case by case basis. — Deckiller 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of participation in the Gaming Collaboration of the Week

People at the WP:CVG have barely been doing anything with this, and if a lot more people submitted more deserving articles and voting on them, a steady increase in quality could be seen. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium

Can I please have some help with this article? It's hopelessly in-universe, like a page from the Wikipedia of the C&C Tiberian series world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there an 'in-universe' cleanup tag of some sort? That might help get some more eye on it, as well. --InShaneee 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is. I've not known it to accomplish much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it does not accomplish much it is good to let readers of Wikipedia know that editors are not satisfied with the quality of the article. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-7 22:21

I think what would be more helpful at this point would be some help at Talk:Tiberium, and Talk:Cybran Nation if you've got an appetite for more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of terms in Xenosaga

I believe I've mentioned this article on here before. It just seems to be a dumping ground for terms and anything that doesn't fit in the other Xenosaga lists. I'm very tempted to AFD it, is there a good reason to keep it? It seems like cruft to me. Throwing together many things just because they "don't fit in other lists" isn't a good reason to have a list page. Xenosaga is popular: but does it really need every detail listed on Wikipedia? RobJ1981 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This was originally a junkyard for some in-universe stuff, merged by Deckiller (talk · contribs). Might be worth getting his input. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On a relate note: List of Pokémon items seems like a good example of listcruft as well. Pokemon has lots of items, but do they all need to be listed (or any for that matter)? It leans towards a game guide in my opinion. Not a guide on how to play: a guide on items which is crufty. RobJ1981 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You AfD'd the article just over a month ago, and it was agreed by several users that a a few months should be given to see if work can be done. There is no rush; there is a lot of work to be done on Wikiepdia, and forcing editors to repriotirize their todo lists will only harm the project. — Deckiller 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Pokémon items is also a junkyard. I don't have any great desire to see it kept, despite being the primary author. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A new idea is being proposed at User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/2 that is applicable to this discussion. — Deckiller 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't afd the Xenosaga list, someone else did. As for the Pokemon list: I see no evidence it's been in AFD, I'm nominating it. Hopefully it doesn't turn into something like this: Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. An absolute joke: the list was put in AFD with no consensus, and attempts to clean it aren't helping much. And now there is suggested splits for it? Wikipedia is turning more and more into a crufty item guide. It's too soon to AFD it again, but I think that's what needs to happen in the future. RobJ1981 15:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a bold solution to fancruft in the works at User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/2, and one of its test subjects is going to be the Xenosaga lists and some of the Final Fantasy lists. The Xenogears lists, which are in an even worse state, will soon follow. — Deckiller 06:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup requested: Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

A quick look at it brings up a knowledge bank of the game sufficient for its own Wiki. We need someone who has decent knowledge of the game to remove and/or rephrase information in a more palatable form in accordance with WP:NOT. --Scottie theNerd 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio check at TrickStyle

I ran across TrickStyle a while ago and noticed that the entire article seems like it might have been taken from an instruction manual (see diff), but I can't find any the manual online anywhere. If anyone owns this game or knows of a good instruction manual database, please check this out. Thanks. --- RockMFR 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

talk banner modification

I'd like to add some image request code into the project banner. I've posted the code on the {{cvgproj}} talk page. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've made it so articles are automatically placed in categories. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-8 08:36

Thanks for that, I forgot to specify. Also, can we put Image:Image-request.svg in there as well? I've modified the code snippet to reflect this. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Land of the Legend

The user JackSparrow Ninja has been continuously adding this fan site to Wikipedia as a source, despite that it fails WP:ATT. I ask for assistance in keeping it off of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. What fansite? What articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I assumed it was self-explanatory by the header, but I was in a hurry. [2], and in numerous The Legend of Zelda articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list [3]. If it persists, ask for it to be blacklisted on the m:Spam blacklist. Hbdragon88 07:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You can read about previous debates on this issue on User talk:TSA and various interconnected talk pages. Even if only half of what TSA says is true it puts the reliability and trustworthiness of Land of the Legend in serious doubt. Garrett^Talk 19:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes

Let's get this all in one place. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes, the result of previous discussions about game series navboxes, has come under dispute.

Previous discussion:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive13#Help - Wherein the overly large list of Mario characters in a navbox is cut down.
• Template talk:Mario characters - The genesis of all of this, after the overly large list of Mario characters in this navbox was cut down
• Navboxes yet again - A lengthy discussion where the principles behind Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes were drafted and discussed
• Navboxes yet again yet again and So, um...navboxes yet again yet again?, two calls for further comment that resulted in nothing
• Template talk:Resident Evil series and Template talk:Metal Gear series - Relevant template-specific discussions
• Template talk:CVG Navigation#Discussion about the CVG templates - A discussion initially about sectioning templates, which then started discussion upcoming games and then wandered into template style in general
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes - A series of chronologically-disparate comments, followed by lengthy discussion of many points of contention, then sidetracked into an argument about what a proposal/guideline is

I'm fairly sure we have a dispute about sectioning, a dispute about upcoming games, and...I think that's it. Are there any other disagreements out there? I've advertised this sort of ad hoc RFC on the talk page of pretty much everyone, pro and con, who has expressed a strong feeling about video game navboxes. If I missed anyone, it probably means it was a calculated move to exclude them from the discussion. If I missed a debate, by all means, add on a new section for it. Please do try to keep things sectioned, though; previous discussions have suffered from a lot of topic wandering, making it difficult to tell who felt what way about what. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a recurring problem with this discussion is that the majority of the consensus over this issue has been made on WP:CVG and by CVG members, alienating non-project members such as myself. Also, many of the disputed concepts (ie Should all navboxes be standardized? Should we have a seperate template guideline for every different genre, like we do now with video games?) apply not only to video navboxes, but to all navboxes. Thus, I personally think it would be better if we moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates instead.--TBCΦtalk? 07:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree here, we want to mantain a certain look for the pages that fall within our domain: i.e. {{Infobox CVG}}, guidelines, reception, plot, etc. Nobody else really follows our approch; i.e. see {{Cold War}} for just some of the gigantic navboxes that projects like WP:MILHIST have implemented. Hbdragon88 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

However, many franchises have branched out into different medias, making it difficult to determine which "domain" the franchise falls under. Books are being adapted into movies, movies are being adapted into video games, video games are being adapted into books, etc. For example, Pokemon isn't just a video game franchise anymore, it's also a manga franchise, an anime franchise, a TCG franchise, and a toy franchise.--TBCΦtalk? 07:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We can deal with those small handful of cases when they come up. Usually, movies/books/etc. are just licensed properties, and aren't typically core subjects required for understanding of the articles on the game series. The Pokémon project wisely only handles a portion of their games in a single game template, the RE template now has separate template for games and films, and the MK project only has a single theatrical film release. Additionally, none of the overlapping projects (the film project, for example) have bothered to standardize any of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have wisely chosen not to acknowledge Annihilation. Good thing, too, as that was one absolutely horrid film. Hbdragon88 08:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"They don't care" is not a good reasoning for trying to make standardization only exclusive to video game-related templates. Also, many franchises are premiered in multiple forms of media. For example, Viva Pinata began as both a video game and a TV show. --TBCΦtalk? 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about navboxes for video game series, and it specifically advises interpreting that narrowly for a variety of reasons. If there's a bunch of other junk, then there's probably a need for a separate template for that other junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But that "junk" is exactly what causes conflicts and disputes between editors. Although nothing extremely controversial has happened yet, it's better for us to deal with those issues now instead of ignoring it and having to deal with it later.--TBCΦtalk? 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added to the very beginning the archived discussion that started all this, which I thought was completely uncontroversial when I did it. Nifboy 10:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, I do not believe we should be using the standardised blue colour for template headings. Too many templates already use that colour. We must distinguish this project from others, by using a unique template colour that others do not use. Wolf ODonnell 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You suggested using a shade of green on another page, didn't you? I thought that worked well. -th1rt3en 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I advocated that colour, because links of both colours appear quite clearly on the green background. Wolf ODonnell 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sectioning

The current guideline suggests that navboxes not have multiple sections, and that templates instead be split when sectioning appears to become necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Hyperspacey 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. If it is necessary to have multiple sections, these should be clearly labelled. Only when the template gets as large as the Mega Man template, should they be separated into different templates. Relevant non-game articles within a videogames template should be separated into a different section, so users can never mistake such articles for videogames. The template's purpose is to ensure good navigation between articles and more importantly, to ensure that the user can never get confused. Clearly labelled sections will prevent this. Your template proposal does not. Wolf ODonnell 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree with AMIB on this. if an article has sections that hold a lot of information, the sections probable deserve there own template. (An example would be sonic games, which started off as one big template with lots of sections and now has four templates without any lose of information.) - El cid the hero 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, since this could unnecessarily split up a navbox with only a few sections. Resident Evil's navbox was recently split up into three navboxes, which clogs the end of the main series page and limit's navigation between one part of the series to another within articles. This problem could be fixed with a simple sectioning (similar to this older edit). -th1rt3en 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn; while it does hinder navigation between branches of a franchise, it's not all that hard to just go to the core page and then continue from there. And I fail to see how the three RE navboxes "clog" the main page anymore than the one would. I think I'm going to go with the current guideline (split). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's of course not that hard but then they could just go to the Category page to navigate, which would then negate the purpose of even having navboxes to begin with. And by clogging I mean adding extra unnecessary space to the page, more so than if they were combined into one sectioned template. -th1rt3en 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the "they could just go to the category" excuse. First of all, scrolling down to the navigational template is much less of a hassle than going through numerous subcategories, hyperlinks, etc. Second, not all viewers—especially newbies—know the fuction of categories on Wikipedia, making it much more difficult for them to navigate.--TBCΦtalk? 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wolf ODonnell. When non-game articles are in the navbox, some sort of sectioning is needed. --- RockMFR 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The "just go to the category" excuse is unacceptable. If we rely on this, we might as well get rid of the Template altogether. Wikipedia is not about looking good. It's about portraying useful information that is clearly presented in a logical, methodical manner. Wolf ODonnell 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, that's what I was trying to point out. Navboxes were implemented to make it easier to navigate between related articles, which is what unnecessary splitting of navboxes would hurt. -th1rt3en 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So, sectioning the navboxes is key. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Idea- link to appropriate other navboxes/ master pages within navboxes? If there's a series of "Mega Blastood" movies, link to the "Mega Blastood Movies" page in the navbox for the games, and vice-versa? Hyperspacey 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the original reasoning for not using sections in the first place? -th1rt3en 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, AMIB stated reasons of: it allowed fancruft and was visually appealing. How getting rid of sections would prevent that is beyond me. After all, if someone wants to add fancruft, they'll do it. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Breaking templates down into smaller narrower ones is not useful, at least to the extreme extent at which it is being taken to right now. The Resident Evil series template, which was once a simple three-lined navigation box (technically four, but I'll get to that in a moment) during its better days, has now been split into three entirely separate single-lined templates. This is an absolutely ridiculous approach to be using. At this rate, we'd end up being saturated with hundreds upon hundreds of single-lined navigation boxes fairly quickly. What particular benefit is this to anyone? This simply makes it harder for the readers to understand and navigate these articles, harder for the editors to keep track of and maintain these templates, and, when comparing the two approaches, one will see that three separate templates actually takes up more space than the old single template (Almost twice as much space, actually). In the words of A Man In Black, space is not a premium, and hundreds of single-line templates would definitely take up much more space. Also, I noticed that the List of Resident Evil characters and List of Resident Evil creatures articles are only included in the "main series" template, not in the spinoffs template (The missing fourth line, as I previously mentioned). These said characters and creatures have made just as legitimate appearances in the spinoff games as in the main series. Why would they not be included? A mere oversight? Favoritism? Bias against the non-main series? Intentionally trying to baffle and confuse the readers and severely impede their ability to navigate around in any sort of logical or sensible manner? Of course, it would be a simple task to add these two links into the spinoffs template, but then wouldn't that be causing redundancy? Two templates wherein half of each is identical to the other? Hey, why not combine these two Resident Evil templates into one! And then include the movies from the RE film template as well since a single-line template that's completely isolated from the rest of the series by itself isn't very helpful! It would probably look something like this (Although ideally, in order to make it look less like a massive jumble of random words thrown into a box, it should probably be labeled into something comprehensible along the lines of this, which I suppose is where that handy sectioning may come in.) MarphyBlack 06:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Having one template with four lines is much more simple than having four seperate one lined templates.--TBCΦtalk? 08:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea. How's about we define what sections are allowed and how big these sections can be? This would prevent AMIB's fears of fancruft and navboxes getting too big. We can define size as in a minimum number of links, with appropriate exceptions. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That could work, but might end up being too specific for some navboxes. If we leave it up to the average editors, perhaps we can have a new cleanup template: something like this. -th1rt3en 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with sectioning over splitting as well, because if we do splitting, we'll eventually run into the problem that there's a movie of some game but there's no other branching off of it. So we put the movie one in its own template and the games together? That doesn't make any sense to me. Plus, separate templates is a lot more work to maintain, as stated above. Navboxes getting too big and fancruft aren't going to be solved by splitting, assuming that the same links go on the sectioned ones as the split ones. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

well i understand these sorts of fears for Mario, but a vast majority of games do not seem to have this sort of problem, and would be unlikely candidates for cruft. Additionally, should cruft occur what is wrong with removing it and then discussing it with the contributor? We shouldn't sacrifice usability of the encycolpedia because of misuse - that's akin to not having articles because they'll get vandalized. I agree with those people who are saying that it breaks the continuity of games in a franchise when they are split up, as with the Sonic templates. i look up Mean Bean Machine and have no way to directly go to Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit)? That just doesn't make sense, the person then has to go, "well maybe i'll find it on the main sonic page" and for a modem user that could take a while. Usability is severely compromised by splitting up sections. That said, i do agree that non-game related articles would be best placed in another template because for many of the lesser known games it would be irrelevant to have links to other media (e.g. Mario Tennis is unlikely to be the next page someone wants to look at after reading about the Mario movie). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So three lines is a snarl of links, but one line is too simple. A template with sections tripling the size of the unsectioned template is okay, but having three templates in one single article isn't.

Sectioned templates inevitably cause people to want to make comprehensive lists in the template. Comprehensive lists end up being huge, and overwhelming uninitiated readers with a plethora of unexplained or poorly-explained lists. The RE series template won't get that big? Don't believe it for a second. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AMIB, but don't forget that this was because there were no guidelines to say what could or couldn't go into the template. With no guidelines, anything goes. If you only provided a rule that navboxes couldn't have sections, you'd still have the same problem. People would still put an insane number of links into the navbox. Wolf ODonnell 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, because it destroys the purpose of the navbox. One triple sized navbox is smaller than three single sized navboxes stacked together. And just because we can allow certain sections doesnt mean we would allow all. I still suggest creating a cleanup template for bloated navboxes ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contrib} 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't understand why you think someone made the argument, So three lines is a snarl of links, but one line is too simple. but as for your example of RE, the current template is just as bad, if not worse than the bloated version in ur diff. How did we go from 14 games down to 6? We're doing a disservice by not including those other games. If you then split up those other sections, like Soundtracks, into their own templates, they can be included on the main page and soundtrack pages (no bloat on the video game or character pages). If it's decided that the soundtracks aren't notable enough, then that specific navbox can go up for TFD. I have no problem with including multiple templates on certain articles. If the lists are unexplained or poorly explained, the fault isn't with having the list, it's with explaining it properly, which is something that can be easily fixed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A three- or four-lined template could be a "snarl of links" if there's absolutely no indication whatsoever of what the reader is supposed to be looking at. For example, this was the Resident Evil template that you were forcing on us for a while. The way each line is divided up apparently suggests that they're all supposed to be grouped into different sections. But, what sections, pray tell? Am I supposed to be psychic? Are you blatantly assuming that every single reader will be familiar enough with the series to know why Outbreak would be on a separate line than Code: Veronica? Also, remember that on lower screen resolutions a single line could become two. These problems could all be entirely taken care of with simple sectioning, such as this, and it still only takes up four lines (There's a little extra vertical dead space in this example, but I think that can be removed). MarphyBlack 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing here is, we don't section it so it would contain only games, or we section it with side-headers. I agree with MarphyBlack on the basis that we can't automatically assume that people know what they're looking at. I must say, though, that splitting into separate templates is a horrible experience, having known where things were before and then having to use categories to navigate. I call on it being inconvenient. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sectioning needs to happen. Why should things such as "list of characters" just be jammed in with games? An "other" section doesn't do any harm, and helps navigate much better. RobJ1981 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, not all video game series have an actual series article. So if navboxes of one of those series were to be split up, there would be no simple way to navigate between the sub-series. ♦^TH1RT3EN™ _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you an example of a game series so large that it needs a sectioned template, but has no series article or comprehensive list article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If by "large" comparing to Resident Evil series, than {{Duke Nukem series}} and {{The Sims series}} (compared to a rough sectioning example and the original version) for example. Sectioning would also allow links to just be game titles (Duke Nukem, Duke Nukem) rather than article titles (Duke Nukem (Game Boy Color), Duke Nukem (character)), which was also in the RE template. ♦^TH1RT3EN™ _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Sim games for the Sims, and sectioning the Duke Nukem template would add more wasted space than those notes require. (Plus, I'm not entirely sure why the relatively minor handheld games are in the Duke Nukem template at all.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted, though the issue might exsits again. However, if there were no sectioning, the Sims template would look like this. There's still the matter of adding clarification to the titles, for instance the films in this version of the RE template actually wastes more space than if there was a section header. ♦^TH1RT3EN™ _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming games/Canceled games

The current guideline suggests that games be excluded from navboxes until they have a final name, an actual release date (as opposed to an estimate, quarter, or year), and until they have been shown to press or gamers in playable form (to allow for hands-on commentary in reliable sources). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Current guideline does not take into account need to access information games' expected release window, current production staff, etc. See Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots; title has sufficient developmental information and non-promotional info to support its existence. Users also expect articles from in-production titles to be accessible from templates are are likely to assume there is not one. NOTE- I think "N+1" articles for titles that are likely to exist, or have recieved minor indication of being in development and have not enough informative meat to justify an article should not be included- see Tekken 6 or, even worse, Silent Hill 5; article essentially summarises trailers, and developers have not provided enough concrete info to justify article (I would in such cases suggest merging with main series page). Gameplay details and suchlike should be kept to an absolute minimum in any upcoming game article unless playable in some form, but nevertheless users expect to have access to certain important and definite facts. Example of a good in-production article from other media: The Dark Knight. Hyperspacey 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue. On the one hand it’s important to keep templates from getting cluttered with useless information but on the other hand if the information is relevant, and is notable enough to have its own article, it deserves to be included on the template.

My personal feeling is that if a game has a build of itself showcased, a release date announced, and a significant amount of information know about it, I should be on the template. If it has none of those things, I shouldn’t be on the template as not enough is known about it. Anything that is in-between those two benchmarks however, should be discussed on a case by case basis on the relevant talk page if it should be included or not. - El cid the hero 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this will be different for each game that is released, and as such perhaps should be left up to a discussion for each series/navbox. Some games may be more into development but not follow the same structure of releasing information. -th1rt3en 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem all that hard to me. While we should always be careful about using confirmed information rather than just speculation, if it's quite obvious that a game is being made, and it has at least a tentative title (simply so we have something to call it), then it should go in the navbox. An exception would be if it doesn't even have an article yet, of course, or if it's a very small stub. I have my doubts whether this should have a general guideline at all - each company, even each developer, releases information in a different way. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If an upcoming game can get past Afd, then it should be in the navbox. There should be no middle ground. Either an upcoming game is important and notable, or it's not. Articles on upcoming games should not be hidden or of lower status than existing games. --- RockMFR 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with including every game that has an article is that a lot of upcoming games should be deleted, and when they are deleted, they keep popping up again. The upcoming Zelda game for the Wii has been through the AfD process on three separate occasions, and was added to the template only to be taken off because there was no article to link to.

Besides, upcoming games often become cancelled games. When do we decide it's been cancelled and can be removed from the navbox? When months go by without new information? When it misses its tentative release date? When there's a formal admission it's been cancelled? I think there's games that have never been formally cancelled that haven't been seen for years. ― El Cid ∴∵ 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To avoid Crystal Balling and article out of a template, I'd suggest formal announcement. Even if a game is cancelled, if it's development was notable enough to justify its own article (as oppossed to a mention in the series main page) then it may be suitable for inclusion in the template. HOWEVER, notable game cancellation is something of a rarity. Ultimately a game that hasn't even been formally unveiled (see: next Wii Zelda) should never have an article, nevermind be part of a navbox. Hyperspacey 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if there's a reason to believe that the game is in production and will be released with some form of proof shown to the public, it should be left in the navbox. As for cancelled games, should we leave out all cancelled games, including Star Fox 2 and Duke Nukem Forever? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

:O Duke'll come out! God told me so! Err, seriously though, where possible cancelled games should be included in the main series article as oppossed to being given their own- their development and cancellation informs upon the series, but it isn't an entity worthy of an article in its own right. Duke Forever would be an exception, IMO, due to its imfamy, and would deserve being placed in a non-canon line in a navbox. Hyperspacey 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hyperspacey on both points; that the current guideline is prohibitive and "hides" articles relevant to the navbox and sufficent in length/quality - and that if a game recieved enough press coverage to merit a worthy article, it should remain on the navbox even if it is formally cancelled. Like was previously stated, games that have enough info to write an article are rarely cancelled anyways. RockMFR puts this simply by reuqiring the article to be able to pass AFD, if it can't (for example, if there is not enough confirmable info) then any important content should be merged into the main article under a Future releases section and the original page redirected there (no need for it in navbox now). Once the game is released or there is enough info per WP:SUMMARY, it should be split out of the main article and recieve a link on the navbox. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the points of Zappernapper. Press coverage (and enough of it) is sufficient, and if there's enough to write a notable article, by all means, keep it as an article (it'd be able to pass AfD) and keep it on the template even if it is formally cancelled. Of course, cite the cancellation. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cancelled games in a navbox? Does including projects like Metroid Dread, Sonic X-treme, or The Legend of Zelda: Mystical Seed of Courage in a navbox really help? If someone's really researching a topic to the point that they're getting into ancillary topics like cancelled games, I think they'd go though the series main page for something like that. ― El Cid ∴∵ 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, best way to do it is to put cancelled titles in the main series page and link to a further title-specific article if one is justifiable by the amount of information available. I think only in extreme examples (say, if Duke Forever gets cancelled) it would make sense to include them in the navbox. Hyperspacey 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's press coverage when a name is announced. I strongly oppose "When a game is announced" or "form a consensus on each talk page" because then we get crap like Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles in navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the criteria is right now to include an upcoming game in a template (The "guideline" is very vague and non-specific about a lot of cases), I personally feel that it's completely daft. Apparently the necessary requirements for a game to appear in a navbox is currently stricter than the requirements needed for the existence of the article at all. Take, for example, Half-Life 2: Episode Two and the Half-Life games template. By using A Man In Black's policy, Episode Two is not worthy enough to appear in the template. Now, ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that readers reading the Half-Life 2: Episode One article would probable expect to see Episode Two listed in succession in the navbox as well (It's the second game in a direct and confirmed three-part trilogy; two comes after one! Doesn't get much clearer than that), Episode Two seems to clearly fit most, if not all, of the requirements:

• Episode Two does have an official confirmed name – It's called "Episode Two" and it comes after "Episode One". Isn't that clever?
• Episode Two has a release date as confirmed in a press release from Electronic Arts and Valve themselves.[4][5][6][7] A Man In Black does not to seem to agree with this. I'm now somewhat confused as to what would then qualify as a release date. If the date at which the game is set to be released at (Not through vague speculation or predictions, but in a statement straight from the developers and publishers themselves) does not fit the definition of the release date for game, then what does? Do we need to narrow it down to the exact day? Hour? Minute? Second? Yoctosecond?
• Now, the third requirement of being in "playable form", I'm not sure if Episode Two qualifies for this requirement, at least only because of a technicality. This is an odd requirement being that most games are not playable before being released (Hence, people must wait for the release date because they can only play the game after that point in time, not before). However, Episode Two has been seen in action as early as the release of Episode One. It was included in a video trailer immediately after beating the game. Since that time, numerous other trailers and "gameplay demos" have been released through various means (The game's article covers these quite thoroughly as of now). Note the terminology of the latter, gameplay demos: "Gameplay" might just mean that it's showing actual gameplay (And unless Episode Two becomes an RPG anytime in the near future, it's obvious that this is indeed regular HL2 gameplay); "demo" implies that someone actually played the game at some point and had this recorded. A Man In Black shot this down, though, saying that "videos" don't count. This happens to also ignore the large amount of press that the game has received in magazines and interviews and other released forms of media such as screenshots and concept art. Of course, none of this matters since, according to A Man In Black, someone has to physically have played the game at some point for the game to be considered "playable", even if an alarming amount of evidence does suggest that the game is.

Clearly it seems that Episode Two meets all the necessary requirements set by A Man In Black's guideline. However, and I reiterate, I believe this is all moot. Having three more sets of criteria needed for the inclusion of a game in a navigation box even after the article for the game has been created is totally asinine. Take it to AfD or wherever relevant if this is the issue. There could be some template exceptions, such as old and obscure cancelled games or very minor ports and updates, but these are just that, exceptions, not what we should be basing our rules on. MarphyBlack 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to El Cid, yes if i were to look up Sonic 2 I would be quite interested to know that there were cancelled games and would read the article on Sonic X-treme (which i did, and found it a good read even if it was light on the refs). Now the other article AMIB brought up, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles is a good example of an article that has such little info that it would fit fine on the main RE site. My solution isn't "upon announcement" but "upon enough info per WP:SS." The sonic game would qualify, while the RE game would not. The conflict is that there are many developers who don't want to release info like Titles, solid release dates, or demos. If "code names" are used in the media, approximate dates given, and videos and other info available (like Spore (video game)), provided the information is substantial enough to stand on it's own article, it should get a place in a navbox. I think merely providing a qualifing question, "Would the article survive an AFD?" should be enough to decide if it's included. Personally, the above-mentioned RE article should NOT exist and the info should be merged into a nice paragraph on the main page under a Future releases section. Odds are that as it gets nearer to the date more info will become available and WP:SS will justify it's own article, then it becomes included on the navbox. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the aforementioned inclusion if they pass AfD. But if there's going to be a guideline for restricting upcoming games then there should probably be a guideline for what counts as reliable sources. For example: A Man in Black has constantly stated that Hideo Kojima is not a reliable source for Metal Gear Solid 4 (he is the game creator; {{Metal Gear series}}), because of how he misled fans about the main character in Metal Gear Solid 2. I don't see how that would discredit him (or Konami) as being reliable sources. ♦^TH1RT3EN™ _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

well see, now we're just re-inventing the wheel. The issues with AMIB, yourself, and Metal Gear Solid are outside the scope of this discussion. They are best brought up further down on the page in their own section. As for myself, i'm at odds with AMIB over enough things :D he's my special friend right now... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm just bringing up the example because if things aren't discussed all the way it could end up with more disputes over reliable sources. I did misspeak though, I didn't mean coming up with a new guideline, but rather have it pointed out about what popular places to get information counts and what doesn't. Basically, if it's reliable enough for an article, is it reliable enough for the navbox? That just seems to be something that is in dispute now. ♦^TH1RT3EN™ _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In-universe topics in series infoboxes

TBC (talk · contribs) brought up whether in-universe topics, like characters, should be handled in series infoboxes. Currently, the guideline suggests that in-universe subjects be limited to umbrella articles, such as list articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's been continually disputed among editors, as evident with discussions at Template:Resident Evil series or Template:Banjo Kazooie series. Also, how is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes a guideline? Note that a guideline must receive consensus among the majority of the entire Wikipedian community, not just among CVG members--TBCΦtalk? 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CVG members are the entire video game editing community (by definition), and anyone who doesn't edit video game articles doesn't care. Feel free to invite anyone (neutrally, please) that you think should offer their opinion here.

So, where's the argument? There's reasoning in the guideline itself why not; otherwise we get giant, cluttered templates filled with links incomprehensible to an uninitiated reader. There's a place for character- or setting-specific templates for in-universe content (see {{Mario characters}}), but the game series template isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CVG members are clearly not the "entire video game editing community", as evident by this. --TBCΦtalk? 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That membership list is meaningless. Anyone who wants to make a comment here can, and will be heard in proportion to the quality of their arguments and history, pretty much the same way it works anywhere. We could have this discussion at the village pump or at RFC or whereever; it's here because it's visible and interested editors are likely to be watching here already. You seem to be implying that "non-members" are excluded from this discussion, and I don't see how anyone is excluded. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me a bit of Esperanza. Though it was true that everyone was allowed to participate in Esperanza discussions, Esperanza had given the impression that non-Esperanza members were set apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.--TBCΦtalk? 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A great example of this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes. If this was truly intended to be a guideline, then why is it but a subpage of the CVG Project? From my point of view, this can give non-members the impression that either: 1) The guideline only applies to CVG members. or 2)The CVG project dictates the format and content of all video game related articles.--TBCΦtalk? 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Size—albeit perhaps not always aesthetically pleasing—does not make a template "incomprehensible". Having two or three more lines will not magically make the reader confused or befuddled. In fact, in many ways it's simpler for the reader to navigate through a large template (like Template:Cold War), then to go shift through numerous categories and articles, especially for Wikipedia newbies who don't know how to navigate through categories.--TBCΦtalk? 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Cold War}} doesn't err on the side of including issues of lesser importance; instead, it errs on the side of having too broad a scope. It's more {{Nintendo games}} than {{Everything related to Mario}}.

Newbies don't need a link to a character article; instead, they need to see the character mentioned in the context of the game or games in which it appears, where it will be wikilinked. Cramming a link to Yoshi in every single Mario game article serves only to confuse readers who are reading an article that doesn't explain who or what Yoshi is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But for newbies who have already read a page, finding a desired wikilink among all the text is more of a hassle than simply scrolling down and using the navbox.--TBCΦtalk? 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the current guidline; most videogame navboxes which add more than, say, side-games and a character list link tend to explode into crufty fun pretty quickly. I'd add that, in examples where a title justifies it though, there might be worth in adding another line. But that'll be an exception and should be dealt with if and when it comes up. Hyperspacey 10:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, except for more important articles that would help explain a main part of the series. Those can be brought up in the talk pages as needed. -th1rt3en 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: large, extremely well-known video game series (Mario) should have a separate box for characters. Smaller series should contain the characters within the main article and the articles for each of the games. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the difference than having it on the same navbox, to be honest. If anything, I prefer a link to a page that lists the characters. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion seems clearly the best to me. Decide on a series-by-series and article structure by article structure basis. I'd think that even huge series can easily fit in at least one link to topics like "characters" or "setting." For something like the Mario series, where each character also has their own article, then the "characters template" may also be appropriate, and even that can usually be kept to reasonable size. SnowFire 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What EOTD is suggesting is currently the status quo. If the guideline does not currently reflects this, it's only a matter of bad writing, not intent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, A Man In Black. Are you saying that you agree with what e.o.t.d. said? Just to make clear, e.o.t.d. stated that "extremely well-known video game series ... should have a separate box for characters". However, A Man In Black, were you not the one (And only one, mind you) who so vehemently championed the deletion of the Mortal Kombat characters template? Were you not the one who listed it at templates for deletion, where it ended up being deleted "by a nose"? And then were you not the one who personally proceeded to delete the template again twice more after someone who did not participate in, was not aware of, and had nothing to do with the TfD attempted to recreate it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but going on a one man crusade to delete this one character template does not seem to agree much with what e.o.t.d. said, much less your claim that this is what your "guideline" intended for. (Unless you're claiming that Mortal Kombat is not a well-known enough series and therefore not meritable of a character template, in which case I'd tell you to get out from whatever rock you've been living under for the past decade and a half). MarphyBlack 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between unsorted, lengthy lists of characters in games with huge ensemble casts (like fighting games) and orderly navboxes for in-universe topics (see {{Half-Life topics}} for an example off the top of my head). The old MK character template had the same problem as {{Mario characters}}, but there was no way to focus it on core topics to make it useful and not redundant.

If you try to make out a consensus to delete a template at CFD, then a couple standard speedy deletions of previously deleted material as some sort of malfeasance, though, you've made quite a mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Link it or keep it as a separate template. No point in listing the characters in a box with all the games. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

I'd also like to add that there are many other issues currently being disputed, not just sectioning and upcoming games. This includes:

• Should characters be in the navboxes or should navboxes be only limited to games?
• If there's a seperate template guideline for video game articles, why aren't there any for other subjects?
• If video game templates are standardized, wouldn't that mean other navigational templates must be standardized as well?
• Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes an actual guideline? How can it be if consensus has only been determined by CVG members?--TBCΦtalk? 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who thinks that WP:CVG can't form consensus on how video game articles look? I don't think there's actually any dispute here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has recently been brought up somewhere that wiki project editors shouldn't think they own the project, and CVG sprang to mind. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Where, and in what context? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall. Might have been MOS talk, or Navbox talk, etc. A wiki-wide style talk, within the past week. I'll look for it tomorrow if you'd like. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#Video_Game_Template_Discussion?--TBCΦtalk? 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to standardize all video game templates just won't work, ever, partly because of inevitable differences in the structure of the series themselves, and partly because of the inevitable ego conflicts that standardization efforts tend to create. Aside from all that, you'll always have the series/franchises that, because they extend beyond the scope of video games (Pokémon springs readily to mind) are exceptions, and don't fit neatly, or even messily, into whatever guidelines had already been determined. Very broad guidelines are likely to help somewhat, but start getting too detailed and it'll all fall apart. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; differences between various video game series merit the use of templates with different structures.--TBCΦtalk? 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. There should be a style guide that's suggested for use, but not anything beyond that, as long as it doesn't violate wikipedia's guide for navboxes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. One strict standard would not for every navbox. Any guides should be used as an idea to work around and towards to make a conforming style rather than a strict rule of style. -th1rt3en 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also, is the standardizing template just for video games, or also for consoles, films about video game series, video game companies, other hardware, etc.? -th1rt3en 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over Zelda merges

Please see here (wanted to reach a larger audience to gather consensus). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Open source games WikiProject

The Video games project sorely lacks a subproject for open source games! I'd like to help out creating one. Where to start? There's a category at Category:Open source games that could serve as base. --Himasaram 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion: a taskforce is a better route to go. RobJ1981 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but if you think you have something, go here and see if others agree with you.--Clyde (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-credits scene category

Special:Contributions/71.247.35.250 and previous similar IPs really want to create a "Games with post-credits scenes ('stingers')" category. I think the problem is that too much games have stingers (virtually all RPGs ever). Discuss. Kariteh 07:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a similar category for movies with post-credit scenes which was quickly shot down by CFD. I can't imagine it would be any different for this one. It's not enough of a defining characteristic to be categorizing by. --SubSeven 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Would make a good list, though. Probably would get deleted still, unfortunetly...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Torchic FAR

Torchic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

MobyGames policy?

I'm writing here in response to a Wikipedia editor (Wgungfu) reverting my edits. I had removed a few MobyGames links from some Wikipedia articles for which not only have virtually no content, but also included random links to different versions of games to the games on the Wikipedia article. The edits were reverted promptly and in response to this I was told that it is the policy of this project to add these MobyGames links despite them having no benefit to the articles. Why is this the case? It feels to me like free advertising for MobyGames. --Mathsgeek 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not policy to add a Moby Games link to any article that could plausibly have one. That is fiction. WP:EL is the external link guideline. It states that first a link has to be useful. Then, perhaps more importantly here, it states a link has to DIRECTLY apply to the article, so you would not link to some-presidents-site.com from the Bill Clinton article, but you could link to some-presidents-site.com/bill-clinton/. Here if there is no direct Moby Games page about a game, a general page should never be linked. That is the guideline. But then also, some low content page should not be linked just because it exists. that is directly against the guideline and never appropriate editing. Moby games links will often be just fine, but all low quality or non-direct links should never be added, and be removed when found. 2005 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is. This was discussed here numerous times over the last few years and general consensus was to add them to the articles. Likewise, that's why a template was created for that and KLOV. Both sites are well known and often cited references by professionals (such as my self and others in the industry that have discussed this here in the past). --Marty Goldberg 00:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We should absolutely not be adding Mobygames links to all game articles "by default." Unlike IMDB, Mobygames as a database is chock full of entries that are incomplete to the point of consisting of nothing more than a game title. Linking to a mobygames page in that case is woefully stupid. We should only link to Mobygames where such link actually provides substantive information that we don't want in the article body itself, and where that information isn't provided via other, better links. Nandesuka 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. --Marty Goldberg 00:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about the word "policy." Where the "policy" of a given WikiProject is in direct conflict with an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline (in this case, WP:EL), the WikiProject's policy is wrong, and should be ignored (or, more appropriately, changed to reflect reality). Regardless of what consensus was reached in the past, consensus can change (and note that Wikipedia:Consensus — unlike adding mobylinks to all game pages, even if said links are empty and/or useless — is a real policy.) Nandesuka 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems the confusion is on your end. There is nothing that states that on the consensus page. What is stated however, is that consensus is reached through discussion here, which it was, and decided on. Likewise it clearly states you are welcome to try and change consensus through later discussion, but it must be a majority consensus and its not an immediate reversal of the previous consensus as soon as discussion starts. I've been through these types of discussions enough times to know how it works. Likewise, there is nothing stated in the EL that's being violated here. What there is, is a possible interpretation issue on your end. This is not a case of some lone editor popping up and deciding this on their own. This was done by consensus here, by people who are members of this project that regularly contributes, edits, and polices the video game related article. --Marty Goldberg 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you read the Wikipedia:Consensus page again, since apparently you managed to completely miss the section Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. Since you seem to be having difficulty, I'll risk an extended quote:

Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, 
for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual 
decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the 
larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original 
group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.

I appreciate that you feel that a consensus was reached. However, it's clear that that consensus is leading to poor results — not the least of which is your characterizing another editor's good faith application of the external link policy as "vandalism" — and so clearly it's time to revisit the issue. Nandesuka 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And to point out for you further, the very next line:

This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent;

There's nothing "felt", it was reached and a precendent was set. There is an archive and there were templates crated. To change consensus, you need to discuss it and gather consensus from everyone as a whole, or as is clearly stated:

On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by   
asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the 
issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way 
that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are based not on the numerical fact of how many 
people showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to 
change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous 
consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than 
position B.

As is also stated:

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone 
agrees to abide by the outcome.

Lastly, if another editor (which wasn't myself) clearly stated it was reached by consensus to said good faith editor, and I stated the reasoning and said editor repetitively ignores this (and nowhere was EL brought up until you did), that's vandalism. If they don't agree, take it to talk page and discuss before any further edits. --Marty Goldberg 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence consensus has been reached when it has not is absurd. Additionally it isn't relevant since WP:EL is the external links guide, not any project decision (especially a fictional one). Any Moby Games links that violate WP:EL will be removed. Additionally you have violated the three revert rule and behaved badly by labeling good faith edits as vandalism. The existence of a Moby Games template doesn't mean that every and all Moby Games pages should be linked! That is just silly. Please stop asserting a consensus that does not exist. Please stop labeling appropriate edits as vandalism. And please do not violate the three revert rule again. You have reverted three different editors four times in 24 hours. You need to step back and read what ARE the guidelines of the Wikipedia, and not just make everything up to suit yourself. 2005 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe such a discussion ever occurred. There was this mess that didn't get anywhere, and so I'm happy to leave it at "Do what you want". Nifboy 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (Hint: Click on the date.)

Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, there is plainly no consensus to deliberately violate the Wikipedia's External link guideline by ALWAYS linking to Moby Games. Low quality or non-directly relevant links should never be added and should be removed where they can be found. Useful links that directly relate to the article normally should be added. If you aren't sure of value, don't link. This is not rocket science. Add good links, don't add links to nearly blank pages or ones only tangentially related to the article, remove any remaining low value links that violate WP:EL when you find them. 2005 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has taken part in various other Mobygames discussions here. I can flat out say that any claim that "consensus supports adding MobyGames links by default" is erroneous. - hahnchen 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Something that concerns me is how single users such as TnS are placing hundreds of links that are irrelevant or would be considered stubs if they were Wikipedia articles. I would like to edit these links out, however I am concerned about any repercussions and wrong being branded a vandal as in a previous occasion. I feel that by adding these MobyGames links by the hundred is spamming Wikipedia as the links generally lead to a pretty content less page with several affiliated links that generate revenue for MobyGames. There maybe a few screenshots and credits (which often are for random versions of the game), however these can easily be found using Google and really do not need to be in the article. Adding the links seems to just damage the integrity of an article. --Mathsgeek 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The indiscriminate (even alphabetical) addition of links to Mobygames should be halted immediately. For example, just checking the last 10 additions of the link by TnS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), I do not find a single link that passes WP:EL. In many casese the links have less content the Wikipedia article. In other instances, they simply contain the same information. This indiscriminate linking is spam WP:SPAM. The justification for linking is the responsibility of the editor who adds the link. It should not be the responsibility of other editors to sift through hundreds of repetitative edits and decide which are valid. Nposs 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point, where someone indiscriminately adds hundreds of content less links it would be unfair that the person removing the links have to look at each link and justify the removal of the link. I would like to begin removing the MobyGames links that have been added without justification by TnS, I would like to begin this today at 1900 GMT. I will ofcourse check this page incase anybody strongly objects. --Mathsgeek 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was doing my MobyGames linking according to Talk:MobyGames#Why link to MobyGames?. You are right that some MobyGames pages I linked contained less information than the actual article. But I thought that is still useful to link to them, because of the database nature of MobyGames. (Eg. you can easily list the other games of the developer, etc.) What should I do? Link those only what contains more information, screenshots and credits? I not wanted "spam" those articles by any means. The NeveR SLeePiNG 13:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Setting Standards for Moby Links

I'd support you in this effort. Heck, create a subpage and list articles to be examined and I'll help. I think what would be helpful is to have clear standards as to what sort of Mobygames page is "not good enough" to be a link. It's clear that the ones that just list the name of the game and the release date aren't worthy of being linked, but there's a continuum as more information appears. Any suggestions? Nandesuka 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response and support. I'm unsure on how to create a subpage but I will be happy to sift through article and their MobyGames link that have been add the article I feel have links that are irrelevant. However before I start this I do think you're right in saying that there should be some clear standards, and I think theses should be sorted first. For a start I think pages that just include credits should be removed as often the credits are for random platforms of the game. eg the Ghosts 'n Goblins link has credits for the Amiga version however the article is for the original version. --Mathsgeek 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To add to this discussion, the problem with that line of thought though is that the template/structure of most articles usually cover all versions within the single article - usually as "Ports", etc. You don't really find seperate entrys for seperate platforms here, they're all covered in one (under the "ports" entry), whose main focus is the original. There are some far exceptions in the arcade vs. console or computer which may have seperate entries. But rarely by "Amiga" vs Atari ST vs Atari 2600, etc. By your own Ghosts 'n Goblins example for example, the Amiga version is indeed covered. In fact it would be more appropriate to link to a page at Moby that covers all the versions rather than seperate links for seperate ones. That's also the problem with say, removing the Moby link on the Puzzle Bobble page because it links to a page that lists multiple versions of the game, when in fact that link was originally added some time ago (not be me) because of that fact. I'm all for setting a standard as to what's useable and what's not. It does have to take in to account the actual entry content as well though. --Marty Goldberg 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is clear on this point (regardless of whether it is a good idea or not). General pages should not be linked from specific articles. From the encyclopedia's point of view this is not a problem. 1) Any general Wiki article can link to the general Moby page. 2) The general Wiki article should link to the specific Wiki pages. 3) The specific Wiki pages should not link to the general Moby page, but rather clearly link to any general Wiki article. In other words, the focus is internal linking, and making articles about related things to be organized. General Wiki articles link to specific Wiki articles, and general external links. Specific Wiki articles link to general Wiki articles, and specific external links. Another way to put it... lots of Wiki links, few external links. 2005 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to interpret what you're saying, but going on that you're saying "WP:EL is clear on this point. General pages should not be linked from specific articles" means that we shouldn't have links to a specific game's multiple platform index there, I have to say I'm sorry, but that's your interpretation - WP:EL is not clear on what you're interpreting. (Please correct me if that's not what you were saying). What it actually says verbatim is "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject." There are two things with that statement there: 1) It clearly states "a variety of subjects". Multiple listings (different platforms) of the same subject (the game) are not a variety of subjects. 2) Just as stated, when you have all platforms discussed on a single wikipedia entry, that is directly related in this case. 3) Even if you were to interpret how you are, the problem is the word "Generally", which means there are exceptions. This is also covered in the main entry of the WP:MOS (since the EL is part of that), when it states very specifically: "These are not rigid laws: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances, but which should be applied with flexibility."

Now, in the same token, if those individual platform entries listed on the multiple platform Moby page for the game each simply listed only very basic info (name, date, etc.) already included in the article, I can completely agree its a waste of time. --Marty Goldberg 13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Commodore 64 FAR

Commodore 64 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

John Dekker

This article has only ever had one edit and that in March 2005. It needs attention as the poor thing is abandoned. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles. --Bduke 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You could nominate it for next weeks colaboration of the week if you want. Mattyatty 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Eek. That's a lot of characters. If someone wants to pull a Suikoden on it, they're certainly welcome to. Nifboy 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

DS cartridge question

There are several inconsistencys in the format of the "media" section of the infoboxes on DS game pages i want to ask about:

• Why do some DS articles list the cartridge size in bits, but some in bytes?? One example is Metroid Prime Hunters, which list it as a 1 gigabit cartridge, yet Final Fantasy III (Nintendo DS) lists it as a 128 MB Cartridge, both of which are the same size.
• Some list giga/megabit as Mb/Gb, some write it in full
• Furthur confusing things, some pages list them as Flash cards (e.g. Clubhouse Games), some as Game paks (e.g. Bomberman Land Touch!), some as game cards (e.g. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl), some as a DS card (e.g. Jump Ultimate Stars), some as just cartridges (e.g. Star Fox Command) and some as just cards (e.g. Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time), and i dont even know if thats all of them, I havent looked at every single DS game page.
• Some pages for games which information on the cart size just list it as a game card (or one of the above alternatives) yet others do not have a media section.
• Another slight problem is that some of these link to the page explaining what a cartridge and megabit/megabyte is, some do not.

Shouldn't they all be consistent?Mattyatty 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all because of the nature of what Wikipedia is. Probably best to consult the DS article -- and its sources -- and use that as a guide on what to fix up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel all console/handheld system games should not have anything entered in the "media" section at all, unless it differs from the standard media. Same for input and system requirements. What's the point in constantly adding the same information about something that is virtually always the same for all situations? Anyone who wishes to learn more about the cartridge/disc/whatever used for a particular system can find out about it on the article for that system. --ADeveria 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Character names in Katakana?

Apparently I'm involved in a minor edit war involving Soul Calibur Characters, so I thought I would try to see what people here think of the situation. A user named Bethereds has recently deleted the Katakana renderings of the names of various fighting game characters (Hwang_Seong-gyeong and Seong_Mi-na for example). His reasoning for doing this is that he believes that since the (fictional) characters are of Korean nationality the Katakana renderings of their names are irrelevant. I argued that since the games and related literature originated in Japan, then the Katakana names have a reasonable basis for inclusion in the article. I have attempted to discuss this with the user in question on the talk page of one of the affected articles, but he is unwilling to compromise. I would appreciate it if someone would weigh in on this. Shabby 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe (talk · contribs) is probably the one you want for this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds very familiar. Was it posted somewhere else (the anime project page perhaps)? Either way, my opinion is that it depends on reality of the names, and their origin. Would you add them to obvious English names too? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I brought the subject up here some time ago but didn't get many answers. I thought it would be worth trying again just in case the first one was too confusing. In the case of English names appearing in non-English literature, I think the original rendering of the name in whatever language the original source was written in warrants at least some small mention within the article. Shabby 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Erk, I think that stating all of the alternate foreign spellings takes up too much space to be in the main article text. They should be mentioned in footnotes instead. For example, see I handled the Hwang Seong-gyeong article.--SeizureDog 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Melodia: A similar issue involving books came up on WT:MANGA earlier today, though it was simpler.

SeizureDog: I don't think that's the optimal solution, since people won't be looking for footnotes of name translations.

My personal opinion is that for the initial mention of their name, English and Korean characters is the best option (Side-question: is there a Korean version of {{nihongo}}) and then mention the katakana elsewhere on the page. --tjstrf talk 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My 2¢: We should have the English name as well as the name in the original language of the work and if the character's name is not in the original work language, it should be included as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Namco has not released any official materials or literature depicting the names of these characters in Hanggul. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the transliterations, I'm certain that the Hanggul transliterations are accurate and have every reason to be included in the article. On the other hand I would say that the fact that these characters were originally created in Japan justifies the inclusion of the Katakana renderings, which I'm going to assume is how their names were originally rendered. Shabby 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tjstrf: Most people don't look for name translations, period. It's the kind of extremely specific and narrow information that, while important, should be set aside.--SeizureDog 05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If they're Japanese characters (as in, Japanese-created, not whatever the Hell the fiction says they are), providing their name in their original context is standard, and this style is used for various other topics and languages (Vienna, Zeus, Tsar). Offering a possible source of the name doesn't sit well for me, as it's basically original research, but I won't be opposed to it. However, the focus must be on the language of people who created the character, as we're focusing on their position in the real world, which includes the country and language the character was created in, not what the fiction says.

tl;dr ver: Original context is important, moreso than what the fiction says or implies. ' 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

I've cleaned up 2 of our maintenance templates, {{gamecleanup}} and {{move to gaming wiki}}. For {{gamecleanup}} I've refocused it into being in line with the main {{cleanup}} template, and for {{move to gaming wiki}} I've recreated it more in line with the other transwiki templates. Are there any others that need work? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've also nominated Category:Video games cleanup to be renamed to Category:Video game cleanup. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for bosses in list of character articles

I don't think there's any set criteria for what constitutes a character in these articles. For instance, many articles list bosses as characters. I was hoping that one could be set up. Anyone interested in working on it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... to be notable for a list page: the boss should be an end of level boss for one thing. A mini-boss (partway through the level or such) isn't always notable in my opinion. End of the game boss/bosses = notable. If the character has been a boss in a few games, that's certainly list worthy as well. Other than those, I'm not sure what criteria there could be for listing bosses. RobJ1981 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a boss is a character - ie, Ganondorf, he should be included. But Moldorm (from ALttP, LA, and TWW) wouldn't be. Bosses without personality, backstory, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rayman characters

Are Globox, Murfy and Ly the Fairy notable enough to have them in separate entries? — Canderous Ordo 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Splitting List of Wii Games by Region

Hello. Myself and others have been working tenaciously to improve the status of List of Wii games to FL-quality. As of current, the list is comprehensive, listing all titles in all regions together. The current debate is whether to keep the list as is, or to split this list up by region and into different pages as seen in List of Virtual Console games. I am presently neutral on the topic, but leaning towards splitting the article.

Pros

• Easier to read as less stuff is present
• Would be able to encompass various differences between regions not already present(i.e. different names, publishers)
• Would be able to add a ratings column (ESRB, PEGI, CERO)
• Would be able to re-add Australia (we took it out to save space)

Cons

• No longer comprehensive
• Splitting article means less collaboration as different editors are working on different pages
• Some articles may be updated more frequently than others (esp. NA vs Japan)
• May hurt FL-chances as no one list is complete

I look forward to your input on the matter. For everyone's convenience, please direct your comments here, at the List of Wii Games Talk Page. Thank you. -Digiwrld1 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)