Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Help needed with Dead Rising/Frank West

There is a conflict going on, that involves several pages now: Frank West, Dead Rising and Characters and Story of Dead Rising. In my view, there was a consensus reached here:Talk:Dead_Rising#Frank_West_merge, however a few people don't want to accept it and have been edit warring. Then they used the characters and story page to just have a redundant copy of information in the Dead Rising article. I'm considering putting the story and characters article in AFD, if the redirect wont stick. Dead Rising was one game, and all plot/character information is described fine in the main article. There is no good reason to move content at this point. The plot for Dead Rising is a bit lengthy and should be cut down a bit, not moved. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge mess that has lead a good article (Frank West) being merged and merged again into a really awful article. Present information at the place where it is best presented. This place can differ for each subject and isn't necessarily the main article. Going to do an ad hoc assessment of Dead Rising to give the debate more structure. User:Krator (t c) 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And in other people's judgement, the result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. This canvassing needs to stop, Rob. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Notifying WikiProjects is generally not considered canvassing, though, and sometimes even encouraged. The description of the discussion could've been more neutral though. User:Krator (t c) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some have argued that notifying the WikiProjects of fictional subject in particular is a type of canvassing that leads to keeps or no consensus on AFDs of said articles about fictional characters or locations. As departed user Larry laptop put it, no WikiProject about real things would defend the non-notability of a scientist, but that a WikiProject on fictional things will defend it to the hilt. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a large difference between notifying WikiProject Runescape of some Runescape gamecruft for deletion, and notifying WikiProject Video games of that same problem. We're not all keep-happy fanboys here, to bluntly state it. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you planning to do? I mean I they don't want to merge just tell them that you guys should work together instead of against each other...Historybuffc13 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Talking of archives..

Can the deletion archive be... archived? Now that we're covering most if not all AFDs related to video games, it's going to be filling up a heck of a lot quicker and is already a fair old chore to go through. I could archive all December's prods and AFDs first, then it can be 1st Jan 2008 - onwards.

Could someone also explain how to add categories for discussion to the deletion list? Compared to checking the AFDs every day searching TFDs and CFDs takes seconds, but I couldn't add a category for discussion no matter which way it was turned. :( Someone another (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone in the project use the archive? I'm interested to find out how often they are accessed. Pagrashtak 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been tempted to use it a few times as a link in AFD arguments (using fallacies like "twenty articles like this one were deleted last year"), but every time I went to the archive I noticed how much work counting all related articles would take, so decided not to use it in the end. User:Krator (t c) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's archive it to WP:ALLORNOTHING then. ;) Pagrashtak 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I used it recently, once, to dig out the recent fictional videogame AFD, and that's it. Are you suggesting that the archive could be culled altogether due to never being used? Personally I would try to file things away if it's deemed necessary, but if nobody is going to use the archive then get the matches. <.< Someoneanother 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would drop the alphabetising instantly, because of the huge amount of work it takes. A little copy-paste into an archive can't hurt, and I would be willing to do that every once in a while. User:Krator (t c) 14:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if I archive the stuff running up to new year's eve, perhaps from that point we could just archive by date (IE older stuff at the bottom, newer stuff at the top) and encourage readers to use the find function in their browsers. Would anybody take issue with switching in this way? Someoneanother 07:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The archiving's done (including PRODs), just need discussion about where to go from here. Someoneanother 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? :( Come on, if there's a chance to reduce the amount of time fannying around when archiving I'm sure we've all got better things to do with WP. Someoneanother 12:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do whatever takes the least time for you.
• Wait until someone complains.
• :)

User:Krator (t c) 12:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhkay, I'll be bold at the end of January, try (try) to archive the archive properly and start depositing closed deletion debates in monthly chunks. Some additional info on the archive page (use of CTRL + F for the find function) plus a little explanation should be plenty. It is my pleasure to keep the AFDs up to date, but the archiving system has to be easy to use as well as fit for purpose or it will discourage usage. I'll drop a note here when I do, so if peeps could glance over my shoulder to make sure I'm not ballsing it up it would be appreciated. Someoneanother 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For the DDR mix pages...

I'm thinking that we should split off the song lists and common gameplay elements into separate articles like on the Guitar Hero articles, that may make them a bit easier to understand. ViperSnake151 03:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of people on Wikipedia that feel DDR games don't deserve specific articles for each game, let alone two. Even if they were viewed favorably I would disagree that a whole page needs to be devoted to just the song list when it can fit comfortably in-line with the rest of the article. For instance Dance Dance Revolution (Computer versions) is an article I created (One of the first of many I will be added to this category of games) and in it I simply made the wikitables collapsed by default as to not distract from the rest of the article. And all you need to do is click Show and you've got the full song list, right there in the article. It makes a lot of sense to embed the song list like this and that's the format I'm going to be carrying with the new articles I add. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when does "Game" mean exclusively "Video game"?

Good grief, did some software company patent the term "game" while I wasn't looking? Never before on WP have I seen such an egregious misassignment of article titles!

When looking at these articles, ask yourself, "Is there anything in this article of what existed and what people knew about games and gaming before 1970? Would any of the current content still be there if we could revert it that far back?"

• Game development
• Game localisation
• Game producer
• Game tester
• Game testing

The above articles make no mention at all of their subjects outside of the realm of computer and video gaming, when clearly the concepts they purport to describe are equally applicable to board games, card games, wargames, etc.

• Game design (probably should be Video game design or Game design (Computer and video games))
• Game designer
• Gameplay

The above articles all pay only cursory lip service to the non-computer aspects of their subjects, while focusing almost exclusively on the video gaming aspects. They typically describe concepts from a computer or video gaming POV, and use examples from those realms only.

• Game
• Game artist
• Game balance
• Game club
• Game mechanic (the most NPOV treatment I've come across)
• Game theory (this one suffers from math geek POV rather than video gamer POV)
• Gamer

The above articles are the few I found beginning with the word "game" that actually do at least try to cover their subjects from a non-computer POV, but most of them could still stand an infusion of traditional gaming information.

Now I know that for some articles (such as Game artificial intelligence), it doesn't make sense to discuss the subject from a non-computer realm; and I also know that I'm fighting an uphill battle here, since most WP editors are computer geeks, and most computer geeks are video gamers^{(-:citation needed:-)} - but I'm hoping someone better at this than me would be willing to take the bull by the horns and make the necessary movements to ensure that these articles appropriate for all gaming contingents, and not just the computer geeks. 71.126.99.212 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To me this is unnecessary, at least for most of them. I feel it's safe to say that when someone sees "Game artist," "Gameplay," "Game design," "Gamer" (especially), etc., they won't be thinking about board games, which is the only possible name someone could confuse it with. It seems like your viewpoint on this seems to be in a very miniscule minority. I haven't seen all of these articles, but I think a few of them may need to be deleted, if not just taken care of in some major fashion. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we can throw the anon's concerns away that readily. Ok, the NPOV issues are a different issue, but lets consider that some of the articles s/he presents as VG biased really aren't limited to VGs, such as game tester or game design. I suggest we get some input from other (traditional) game projects like WP:WPBTG to determine if there should be a more general article where these are, and if so, move the existing ones to, say, game design (video gaming) and so forth (as it's never commonly called "video game design". --MASEM 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note inviting them over. I'll get the drinks, Masem can you sort out the nibbles? - X201 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to X201 for pointing this out on WP:WPBTG. I agree with the IP user; there's definitely a systemic bias in wikipedia in favour of computer-based versions of things - which Klptyzm expresses above. It's understandable - all wikipedia's editors are at least going to spend some time at a computer - but it's something that we should keep an eye on, and avoid where possible. I'd add {{future game}} to the list. I tried recently to get it made generic, but was only half-successful. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Bishop Tutu, I'll have to disagree with him (I'm assuming "him", apologies if I'm wrong here and I'll fix it). There are plenty of people who earn their living designing boardgames. (Likely not as many as those associated with video games, but that might also be because video games require a larger number of people to handle all the programming, graphics design, etc, etc.) I'm sure that many of the articles mentioned above can be improved and/or split into relevant articles for boardgames/card games/dice games/etc and video games. The Game designer article likely falls short on the mention of notable game designers such as Larry Harris (game designer) (designer of all five Axis & Allies games, the first one celebrating 25 years), Sid Sackson, and many others. The existence of many large annual (primarily non-video) gaming conventions points to the overall importance and popularity that this subject has. So, in a few words, yes, there seems to be vast room for improvement. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the omission of Sackson there was one of the things I already saw fit to correct, and one of the things that drove me to post here (A Gamut of Games was like a bible for me growing up). 71.126.99.212 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that trying to include all possible definitions of a game into each and every article that has the word "game" in it would result in a number of {{Copy to Wiktionary}} candidates. The anonymous user's suggestion that the game theory article has a "math geek POV" completely misses the point. Game Theory refers to a specific academic discipline, and it has a very different idea of what a game is than most of us do. Likewise, if I pick up a book on Game Design, I can be pretty sure it's going to talk primarily about video games. That isn't to say articles can't be written about e.g. Board Game development (or the History of American football, which could also loosely be called "game development"), but I think game by itself is too broad a premise to build anything on. Nifboy (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for all those articles, but I can definitely say that Game theory is fine as it is, since it's actually a branch of mathematics to begin with. Even if it weren't obvious at first, one only needs to follow the links to some of the games described and have a quick browse. As Nifboy said, Game theory is an academic pursuit. Ong elvin (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the other articles being disputed, I would agree that there is definitely a systemic bias towards using video games. I think the articles should be heavily edited to be more generic to games as a whole, with subsections for video games, sports, board games, card games, etc. as with the Game article. Ong elvin (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I came here looking for information about card games, and created this section because I was shocked at how little I found when starting from Game design. I expected I might run into some dense theoretical discussion, but didn't expect the video gaming slant I found. While it may be true that afficionados of traditional board and card games are now in the minority, that alone doesn't make their subject matter unworthy of inclusion; and, if there were some decent content here, you might find that this minority isn't as "miniscule" as some presume it to be (Catch-22, I know).

As a relative newbie to this, I admit I might have used the term POV inappropriately to refer to an article's slant or bias, but I still think that a good WP article should cover its subject from every angle from which it could be approached, and not reject or ignore some because they're not as popular; that's one of the reasons why disambiguation pages exist. Had I known that a separate Project on Board and table games existed, I would have posted this there, instead, but there's no way I would have found that out from these pages - which is exactly my point. 71.126.99.212 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some pointers on this discussion, I personally do not have any strong opinions either way.

• The dictionary definition does not matter much, because Wikipedia naming guidelines are about the most common usage.
• The appropriate policy to refer to here is WP:UNDUE. The question that needs to be answered is "What weight should be given to each use of the word game?"
• The only way to properly answer that question is as to how people use the word "game" nowadays, and all the other sub-terms like "game design".
• I think it's very unlikely that the right solution here would be applicable to everything. "Game" in game producer and "game" in game tester have a different connotation.

User:Krator (t c) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• (I came here from WP:WPBTG, so thanks for the drinks and non-salty non-greasy snacks.) Last point first: Yes, these topics don't all call for the same amount of boardgame/cardgame/miniatures content... but we can't rely too heavily on the connotations perceived by a small number of interested (some of them only in the video side) editors. We need mainly to address each topic encyclopedically: in summary of its whole, with greatest attention to the parts with most lasting influence, but with due attention to all significant parts. I haven't reviewed many of the identified articles, but I trust the word of Percy Snoodle, Craw-daddy, and others that some of these articles deserve more non-videogame content. (Game designer needs such text at all beyond a short list). As I get time I'll try to collaborate on such material, but I'm too far loaded to be the lead guy for these expansions. Barno (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Development of Spore

Spore is a massive game, but is a whole article on it's development necessary? I'm sure this article was made to make the main article look better, but I think it's a bit too much. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was a bit much too, but that's now an FA. And...there's a one paragraph "stub" for ESRB re-rating of Mysims. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit much. The question comes up: yes, it's possible to write a 50kb article about it but why would you want to? And who would care? No offense to the people who worked on it but I feel like it's a waste to say in 100 words what can be said in 10, if you know what I mean. Even as said article admits, "the events passed by with little notice from the public at large". I would sincerely push for at least trying to cut down the info and merge it back, in the interests of conciseness, for both Elder Scrolls IV and Spore. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If there really is that much content out there, I don't see why we shouldn't have it. No reason not to cut down, but keep as a seperate article. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to AFD it. It seems like excessive detail that isn't necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but think to be considering deleting a well written and referenced article will ruffle some feathers. I think I would abstain from voting, only because I'm too torn between too detailed vs. we have bigger fish to fry.--CM (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is never a reason for deletion, and if there are reliable sources for it, we should not stand in the way, after all, the Development and Re-rating articles for Elder Scrolls Oblivion is top notch. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like it. Just because some similar articles exist, doesn't mean every game should instantly have development articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, I'm justing saying that if references support it, we should welcome it. I imagine more and more will pop up as wikipedia grows and matures, and the main game articles are high quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Samurai Shodown Characters

Hey everyone, I need another opionion about this article. I've been working on trying to make this notable since its removal.[1] The deleted version of the article was made on this user's page but it appears he has left Wikipedia.[2] It has undergone vast improvements [3] from when it was deleted [4], and I was wondering if the article as it is now is good enough to be included with the main article [5] again. I have requested feedback for the article here [6] and was told to raise the matter to people more knowledgeable about gaming. I haven't merged the history as Elipongo kindly suggested yet as I was wondering about everyone's thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance! :) Sake neko (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template question

Is this necessary: Template:DeadRising ? Dead Rising is one game, so this seems a little too broad to me at least. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit overkill to me. Normal practise is to have a nav box for a series of games (or game that has quite a few articles about it). I've only just created one for the Buzz! series and there are 11 games in that series. - X201 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's overkill. Two articles can easily be put into a "see also" section. Or the whole wiki markup for the template could just be copied to the bottom of the article instead. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it was even necessary when all the DR articles were in existence, let alone for two. Someoneanother 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question

Might as well ask here without starting a new discussion. Are any other Firefox users seeing the text flow over the right side of the template in Template:Might and Magic series? This is how it displays in my Firefox: [7]. Other browsers (Explorer and Opera) display it just right. Is the navbox not optimised for Firefox or where is the problem? --Mika1h (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and I'm viewing that template just fine. It doesn't look like the JPEG you provided. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see it, and playing with the browser width, it seems to be an issue only with the links that start with a left-parenthesis "(". Not sure what to do about it. Nifboy (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the problem also in Firefox. I tried adding/removing a sidebar to see how that affected it, and I get spillover both with and without the sidebar, but in different parts of the text. Pagrashtak 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the problem by using {{Nowrap}}. Pagrashtak 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Awesome. Nifboy (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good job. --Mika1h (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

VG Images that need saving

If anyone would like to save some video game images from deletion, see Special:Contributions/Project FMF. A lot of the images he's been tagging are box art, and would meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria if rationale was added. I've done some, but there's a lot there if you look through the whole history. If you add rationales, remember to mention the article for which the rationale applies and wikilink it, to prevent a bot from auto-tagging the images as non-compliant. If you aren't sure what any of this means, feel free to ask me, another VG admin, or someone from the VG images department and we'll fill you in on the details. If an image you want to save has already been deleted, contact the deleting admin (or me if you want) and explain that you want the image restored so you can add non-free rationale and we can restore the image. Pagrashtak 04:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Last 500 image contribs - go nuts guys. The ones with a "top" alongside them haven't been touched since he tagged them, so they need rationales. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Small additional - Make sure to check the bottom of the image page to see if the image is used on more than one article. If it is it will need a separate rational for each article that the image is used on. - X201 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Or removed from the second article if it does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Pagrashtak 16:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images lists some good templates that can be easily used to add a fair use rational to the image description pages. JACOPLANE • 2008-01-18 22:53 The first few I clicked through were much larger than the 300 width/height maximum recommended for 'low resolution', does this just apply to screenshots or what? Someoneanother 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we get more editors addressing this issue? Hundreds of images have been tagged and deleted already. - hahnchen 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Case in point, look at all the deleted (and soon to be deleted) images at User talk:Thunderbrand. Rationale a few if you have the time. - hahnchen 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got his page on my watchlist and try to get a few whenever I see it pop up. If there are any other inactive editors who have uploaded a lot of VG images, say so here and maybe a few of us can keep watch. Pagrashtak 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See this one as well, User talk:Hibana. This is fucking ridiculous, FMF has just tagged hundreds of images within a couple of hours using scripts, it is impossible to keep up. - hahnchen 11:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And another - User talk:Timkovski. - hahnchen 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that the images are not low resolution (less than 300x300 pixels). And while it is easy to add a FU rationale to most of them, it's often impossible to find the source of the image. Kariteh (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Though the source of the image is normally wanted, only the proper licensing tag and fair use rationale are required. If we know the source, list it. If not, then I wouldn't worry. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Where did you get 300x300 from? I've just uploaded Image:Flink.jpg, at 349×480, I'd classify that as low resolution. Given that I've downscaled it from 300dpi. As Guyinblack mentioned, sourcing is not as important as getting the license, copyright holder and rationale right. It doesn't matter who scanned the image, but who owns the rights to it. - hahnchen 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I read it here: Template:Non-free use rationale# note-1, but it's actually talking about "raster image"... No idea what that means. Kariteh (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raster images are normal digital images composed of pixels. Jpg, bmp, gif, and png fall under this definition. As far as the 300x300, this is the first I've heard of that, but there it is. It says it is a rule of thumb, and to explain why if it is larger than those dimensions. To me this says that there can be some exceptions. I didn't find too much reasoning why those particular dimensions are the requirement either. Basically it sounds like another safeguard against copyright infringement. A 300x300 image would print out very small, especially if it was 300dpi, and thereby reduce its reproducibility. I'm sure there's leeway on this, So long as images don't go over 300x300 too much and are 72dpi. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Seeing as virtually all game cases are oblong in shape, 300x300 will be an impossibility anyway. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the 300x300 is mainly to keep the image under .1 megapixels. So long as images are around this, we should be ok. 250x400 yields .1 megapixels and 300x330 yields .099 megapixels (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Aye, but I believe the guideline is specifically to prevent cases where one can print a photo-realistic version of the original from the image. It's not some magic number (e.g. 300x300) that causes the problem, but rather when one gets up to a DPI level nearing what professional printers use. I believe we can refer to images as "relatively low resolution" even if not strictly 300x300 or less (which seems arbitrary and too low). --Slordak (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with List of Wii games

When I went to edit: I noticed several L games (that are only visible when you edit the page only). Can someone fix this? There might be more, I'm not sure.. I only checked that section, as I was wondering why the Legend of Zelda game for the Wii wasn't listed. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• That page has some size problems. Splitting in two might be necessary. User:Krator (t c) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen bigger game lists, and they haven't been an issue. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It appears to have been a reference tag formatting issue. Jappalang (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User adding GameSpot succession boxes

Does anyone feel this is useful? I removed it, but got reverted. Pagrashtak 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A) It's hard to verify just from the box, B) it seems rather pointless. I'd remove it again. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - I actually kinda like that. It's not that hard to verify (they publish the winners, don't they?). It may not be the most useful thing in the world (succession boxes rarely are...) so I'd leave it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are my problems with it:

• It's largely redundant—we already mention the award (with a reference) in the reception section. Some articles have it twice already (text and review box). Why do we need to tell the reader yet again at the bottom?
• The extra information isn't helpful—If you're reading about The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, you would likely be interested to learn that it received GameSpot's GameCube game of the year award for 2003. You are not likely to be interested in what game won the award in 2002 or 2004.
• Relevant information is no longer grouped together—In the Wind Waker article, the awards were are found in the reception section, with the exception of the lead section, which summarizes the article. Now we have a box labeled "Awards" in the reception section, and a box labeled "Awards" at the bottom of the article, with different information.
• This will expand into something unreadable—right now the article just has a box for GameSpot's GameCube game of the year. Eventually, someone will add game of the month awards, and awards from Nintendo Power, IGN, Edge, Game Developers Choice Awards, Interactive Achievement Awards, GameFAQs user polls, and so forth until we've got a quarter of the article taken up with these boxes. Pagrashtak 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My main objection to it stems from your last point. What makes a Gamespot Game of the Year better than any other magazine's opinion?. Mention it in text in the actual article but in no way does the award need it's own box. Delete it. - X201 (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above reasons, particularly the last point - it will encourage more of the same.

Now, that doesn't mean categorizing these awards isn't a bad idea. Through templates and categories, we could make a series of award categories for major publications. For example: LoZ:WW could have {{gamespot award|2003|Gamecube GOTY}} tagged at the end, which then puts it into two categories, the year and the award. The subsequent categories would be heirarchial from a general "Category:Gamespot-awarded video games" categories. I don't know off hand if more can be done as, say, to make an autosortable table (doubt it), but at least if you are interested in other similarly awarded games (either by year or by award type) that list is readily there. --MASEM 14:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gives undue wait to GameSpot over other magazines. Get rid of it before it spreads, or causes the creation of similar boxes for other journalism outlets. We're not dealing with something akin to the BAFTAs here, GameSpot is hardly anything so special to warrant its usage. -- Sabre (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As it is clear that there is not consensus for these boxes, I have removed all of which I am aware. Pagrashtak 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening FAC

I've nom'd the above article at WP:FAC. Comments are of course welcome. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of NeoGAF?

I did a google search and didn't seem to find any reliable results. Should this be sent to AFD or no? RobJ1981 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Easily fails WP:WEB. I've gone ahead and tagged it as such; give the article some time to see if it improves, otherwise, AfD it. (and sorry I didn't get back to you on this, been busy at WT:EPISODE :-P) --MASEM 14:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "easily". The website has been discussed by notable websites such as The Escapist[8] and Gamasutra[9]. Also of note is its constant use as a source by gaming websites, and its 523,000 Google results. --Teggles (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether NeoGAF passes WP:WEB or not, but since those two articles you linked are about a large donation made by members of that site's forums and not about the site itself I don't think they really contribute towards passing the criteria. Anomie⚔ 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no, as far as I know, articles talking about NeoGAF. You can find several articles talking about rumors or confirmations originating there, but that is not enough. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Anomie, the two articles are strongly related to the website. They are covering a project held by the website. WP:WEB specifies "the content itself", and a project held by the website can only be considered content. ReyBrujo, I just linked you to two articles that discuss the website. --Teggles (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There must be thousands of sites that have received coverage for a single event in their whole lifetime. The article talks about the event, not the site itself, so you ironically could have an article for the event, but not the forum ;-) Anyways, the criteria says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The donation is a single published work, we require multiple non-trivial ones. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, that's quite irrelevant if the resultant keeps adherence of WP:WEB. Anyway, you're misinterpreting the criteria. You don't need multiple published works (of the website) to be covered, you need multiple published works that discuss the website's content. --Teggles (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on the guideline interpretation. Even with your interpretation, we can agree the article should have been deleted years ago, and should have only been brought back after the charity event. I guess an AFD will help solve this. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Masem suggested to give the article some time to see if it improves. It fails web, and I doubt that will change now, in days or even weeks from now. So I personally don't have a major issue with it going to AFD now (if anyone nominates it). Otherwise I'll nominate it when I have more free time. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I came across this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoGAF. The result was no consensus, and it took place in 2006. Since then, I see no evidence the article has improved. I could be wrong though, as I havent checked each and every contribution after that AFD took place. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NeoGAF&diff=186829630&oldid=63123472 --Mika1h (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ZX-Poly - AFD

I've just put ZX-Poly into AFD. The thing dosen't actually exist and is just a conceptual idea by it's creator. - X201 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide

The editors of this project might be interested in the thread I started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Deal with "game guide" content more directly. Pagrashtak 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

System/System only categories (again)

I've recently noticed some articles not having both the main category and the "-only" category. Example: Kirby Air Ride had just GameCube-only games, so I had to add the GameCube games category to it. Can someone run a bot to fix the ones that need a category? I brought this up before, but I'm not sure if a bot was ever run. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB'd the GameCube-only category. --MASEM 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have time for the others? Category:Single-platform software is where they can be found. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on a to-do list for myself. If anyone else has AWB access, I can explain how to do it. (Basically, load up list of pages in the non-exclusive category, then have it skip any that include the exclusive list; all that is left should get the category which is better added manually in the right place in the cat list than relying on AWB's category adding) --MASEM 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This should now be taken care of for all the -only categories listed. --MASEM 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Age of Empires

Hi all. I've been writing about the development of this series a bit, and could do with some help on musical related stuff. Basically, if anyone could find any interviews or info about the music development for the original (Age of Empires (video game)), it'd be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Found something (although any further help is appreciated). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Video game articles without infoboxes

Could someone add an 'infobox' attribute to the template? The films project does this and it would be the same approach as the 'cover' and 'screenshot' parts.Quickmythril (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely something useful! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deveria's Infobox maker

The link for the Infobox Maker seemed to get lost during the VG:Project front page re-vamp. So I've put it at the bottom of the Infobox documentation, seemed like the best place for it. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No More Heroes

some help is needed with the No more heroes (video game) page. Techo (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any cleanup tags, and there is no edit war apparent from the edit summaries—can you please be more specific as to what help is needed? Also, it makes things easier if you provide a link: No More Heroes (video game) Pagrashtak 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Character FAs to FLs again

Sephiroth BCR brought this up here a while ago, the discussion is now archived here in the VG talk archive and the original FAC discussion here in the FAC talk archive. The discussion died down before coming to a consensus regarding the current FAs, but the two FAC were moved over to Featured list candidates.

Anyway, with Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series now a Featured list, I feel there is a discrepancy among the format video character articles have taken. Mainly because articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts are Featured articles even though they follow a similar outline and design. The only real difference that I can tell is that FFVIII and KH have a merchandise section that relates to the characters. The reason I bring this up is I think a standardize position needs to established for future articles or lists that will or already do follow a similar design.

I would like to eventually bring this back up to the FA discussions, but hoped to get some input from the VG Project before doing so. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Classification of Lists and Disambiguations

Hi, I've been working with unassessed articles recently and giving them appropriate ratings, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate for the project to have a list-class and featured-list class similar to other WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Rock music, and have a category for these articles. With the number of lists in this WikiProject, I thought this might be a clear, concise way to organize lists. Also, I think disambiguation pages should have a category in order to keep them organized. What do you guys think? Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hellgate: London

Hellgate: London needs some cleanup, and it doesn't seem like many other editors care about cleaning it up, just adding to the article. Please, come by and help, if you can. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Should a game article have 2 infoboxes?

See the edit history of Bully (video game). An editor is claiming there should be 2 infoboxes, one for the original game and one for the port. The port has a few new things, but overall: it's basically the same game. An editor is claiming it's misleading to put the port information in the infobox. I've tried to explain things to him, but he just reverts for no good reason. From the articles I've seen, there is one infobox for everything. See Resident Evil 4 as one example. One infobox works just fine in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If the multitude of different versions of Donkey Kong can cope with one Infobox, I'm sure Bully can. There should be leeway for two Infoboxes in certain other cases where there is exceptional merit for two. Bully is not an exceptional case. - X201 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you only need one infobox for a game, ports included. Unless the changes are so drastic that it requires another infobox (in which case it probably has notability for a separate article), only one should be used. The port in question does not need a second one. The standard VG infobox is more than capable of covering the original platform and ports/multi-platform games if organised properly. Resident Evil 4, The Orange Box, StarCraft, Halo: Combat Evolved are some of the many good examples of how it is easily dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If need be, you could always use {{Infobox VG Hidden}} to avoid clutter. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this is a hard-and-fast rule, but it seems to me that if a port or different version of a game is important enough for a second infobox it should probably have a separate article. If not, one infobox should suffice. Pagrashtak 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Infobox has been changed

The style of the VG Infobox has been changed. Template_talk:Infobox_VG#CSS_class is worth a read. - X201 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize templates

• {{Infobox VG}} - {{General VG character}} - {{VG Reviews}} -- {{Infobox VG system}}

It's frankly rather strange that our templates look and occasionally act differently from all the other ones. Since the point of infoboxes is to streamline and provide a unified presentation of information, I suggest we drop the borders and garish colors and go with a look more along the lines of {{Infobox character}}, and any of the other media infoboxes, et al. --David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the colours can be kept. They seem soft enough for that, and I don't think there's anything wrong with using a subdued colour to distinguish it. Shades of blue seem fine if you ask me. Ong elvin (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Beyond colors, there's simple organization and actual code. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Standardise all three (be sure to do the sub-templates on General VG character! Otherwise someone will just come along and revert it because of inconsistency with the inuniverse fields) with code and colour - or there in lack of, the grey is far more preferable than the pale green used in the last attempt for the overall effect on Infobox VG - it works with the current structures of VG character and VG reviews, but not with an Infobox VG code similar to Template:Infobox Film. As long as thats taken care of, its absolutely fine by me. -- Sabre (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Add {{Infobox VG system}} to the list; the last time this was discussed, someone changed it to the proposed redesign along with {{Infobox VG}} but no one ever bothered to revert it. Personally, I am neutral on this whole redesign issue so far. On a side note regarding {{Infobox VG system}}, does anyone else think the combination of title and logo looks strange where the logo is or clearly includes the name of the system, as on PlayStation 3, Wii, Xbox 360, Dreamcast, PlayStation 2, Xbox, Nintendo GameCube, Atari Jaguar, PC-FX, Nintendo 64, SNES, ColecoVision, Intellivision, Vectrex, and maybe Sega Saturn and Sega Mega Drive? Anomie⚔ 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does; I hadn't noticed that before. But that infobox appears the most similar to the other film/book/et al infoboxes, so I'm not sure how much we'd want to change. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition: I suggest for both appearance and actual guts that we swap out the current infobox vg with the code from Thumperwad's superior version David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me! Although perhaps the "(s)" could be incorporated into the wikilinks, like they are currently. -- Sabre (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the opinions for "platforms" to be moved to the top field? This would allow abbreviations to be declared right at the start of the infobox fields, and allow differention of platforms in the fields for developers, release dates, etc without making the platform field in the current scheme redundant for multi-platform, different development group or year of release games. Jappalang (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think that developer and publisher should go first. Platform should be moved up simply as its too far down, but I disagree that it should be the first one. -- Sabre (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved 'platform' up a bit, and wikilinked the (s). See [version]. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this small controversey closely, but I noticed that the lines in the infoboxes theat separate the sections are gone now and I was just wondering if there was a reason for that? I personally thought they made it a lot easier to read. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cumulative 7th generation consoles sold

Is there really a need for this article? There already is the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) article. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge then redirect?--CM (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Complete merger of articles: Turn-based strategy and Turn-based tactics

On Wikipedia we have the articles, Turn-based strategy and Turn-based tactics. There was recently an edit war at Advance Wars: Days of Ruin over whether the game was a tactical or strategical game. Both strategy and tactical articles claim that Advance Wars is their genre. Turn-based strategy is almost the exact same thing as Turn-based tactics except for the (so-called) fact that: "Turn-based tactics do not feature resource-gathering, production, base-building or economic management, instead focusing on tactical and operational aspects of warfare such as unit formations or the exploitation of terrain for tactical advantage." I do not think that this is sufficient enough for a strategy game to be called a tactics game. Chess is a strategy game as well as a tactics game. Wikipedia is the only website on the net that claims a difference between strategy and tactics, therefore we need to delete the Turn-based tactics article and merge the content into Turn-based strategy. If there is no opposition, I will merge the articles together and redirect turn-based tactics to the strategy article. Comments? -- penubag  02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please fix the editor hatnotes for this proposal per WP:MERGE? D. Brodale (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- penubag  02:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Chess is a weird case. It's too abstract to be purely tactical (see Strategy game#Abstract strategy). Wargames (like Advance Wars), on the other hand, exist more on the simulationist end of the spectrum. SharkD (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/ZMgZp55bih7cC-9UG8nnXYT4JNlgLLbW And this link says otherwise that Advance Wars DoR is a STRATEGY game. But I'm all up for the merger. If it makes both sides happy, then I'm all up for it. It really is pointless to try and say tactics and strategy are two different things when they generally aren't.DeathMark (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging the two articles is for the best. The differences between the two genres are vague as is, and combining the two into an inclusive turn-based strategy category will prevent further disagreements over what genre best fits a given game. Comandante42 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can any comparisons be drawn in this situation to Real-time tactics and Real-time strategy? I think they are too big to merge, but how exactly are we going to treat this? On an unrelated note, why is this still here? --CM (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may, as I understand it, tactics is a short-term based plan to accomplish objectives. Tactics are used to move forces into place right in a small area of battle to achieve superiority, e.g. fighting to get places with good arcs of fire, flanking to eliminate a key point of resistance, etc. Strategy is a broad long-term based plan to accomplish obectives. The plans affecting theaters of war in which areas are conquered would fall under strategy. Upper echelon commanders plan strategies, while subordinates plan and execute tactives to complete their part in the strategy. Translating this to computer game genres, those games which involve resource collection, base-building, economic management, etc are strategy games since there is a long-term plan involved (grinding out an opponent in the long run). Chess is long-term strategy in the making (planning out 20+ moves ahead). Tactical games tend to be those which are mission-by-mission based games where one generally eliminates the other side without a long-term strategy. If levelling through experience, areas conquered, and unit health at the end of one mission is carried over to the next mission, then there could be a strategy element since the player has broader concerns (i.e. consider plans for the next mission in the current mission). Looking through the said article, Advance Wars: Days of Ruin is a turn-based tactics game in my opinion. If there is going to be a merger of the two articles Turn-based strategy and Turn-based tactics, it would be better to merge them into a Turn-based wargames article instead. The same goes for the real-time articles.Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but there's still not a notable difference and the difference provided is original research, no where else on the net claim they are different. I suggest the 2 articles to be merged to Turn-based strategy, tactics should be only mentioned in the strategy game and the tactics article should redirect to the strategy article. Turned-based wargames isn't sufficient enough because chess is a strategy/tactics game, but not unnecessarily a war game. oh, and also to mention, you say chess is strategy, but ,"Turn-based tactical gameplay is characterized by the expectation of players to complete their tasks using only the combat forces provided to them, and usually by the provision of a realistic (or at least believable) representation of military tactics and operations." the article says this, so according to that, it is tactical. There are just so many contradictions withing the articles, it really needs fixing-- penubag  02:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

By "now where else on the net claim they are different" do you mean: no sources have differentiated between strategy-games and tactical-games? If the query is between the terms "strategy" and "tactics", might I point out Random House Unabridged Dictionary's clarification as synonyms of strategy, as well as plenty of pages referenced by Google under the terms "strategy", "tactics" and "difference". If the contention is no sources have ever demarcated strategy games as "must have resource gathering, base building, etc..." and tactical games as "must not have ...", I think the reference in real-time strategy, A History of Real-Time Strategy Games has given a glance at what defines a strategy game. References in real-time tactics (Point - CounterPoint: Resource Collection vs. Fixed Units and Strategy Gaming: Part II) also seem to point out what defines it. Now if that still fails to satisfy parties concerned, like I said, putting turn-based strategy-games and tactics-games as sections (or without, and pointing out in the gaming industry, confusion reigns between classifying games or strategy or tactics genre) in a Turn-based wargames would pretty much be better than merging into one of the pages and giving rise to edit wars in which factions cry over "why should tactics-games be classed as strategy", "give it its own page", etc. Regarding classification of chess, it is the broad consideration of the game that should be taken into consideration (its long-term aspects of planning, and each square on the board is an area of conquest with long term consequences), rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a category. In any event, chess experts might wish to correct any of my beliefs if incorrect. The concern here is primarily on computer games (though as per other discussion on this board, we should also broaden the examination to board games, card games, etc).Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying the word strategy and tactics are the same word, I'm saying a stragety and a tactics game is the same thing, the articles shouuld just be called TBS, not the synonym TBT, as it is less commonly used.-- penubag  08:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Interesting, but there's still not a notable difference and the difference provided is original research, no where else on the net claim they are different." This shows a considerable lack of research on your part as well as an insertion of your own original research in order to strengthen your position. There are plenty of articles which discuss turn-based tactics as something distinct from turn-based strategy, going as far as calling it a unique genre. Your logic regarding these games not being definable as either or both categories is flawed. It's like saying a chondrichthye can't also be a fish. The fact that gaming sites don't have a turn-based tactics category in their databases is more a result of a reductionist as opposed to inclusionist philosophy, in that games must be categorized at the most general category and not the more specific. It would go against tradition and would probably make their databases unmanagable. SharkD (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles which call turn-based tactics a type of game

VideoGamer "Commanders: Attack! is a gripping turn-based tactical game with a combination of strategic troop placement and entertaining head-to-head warfare." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

CNET "This is one of the worst turn-based tactical games in quite a while, thanks to bad gameplay, horrendous storytelling, lackluster graphics, and more." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GamePro "Original Generations presents a rather diametrically opposing presentation than most turn-based tactics games." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

CNET "It's generally easy to get around, so the "why the hell is he doing that?" frustration common to turn-based tactical games is minimized." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles which call turn-based tactics a genre

RPGVault "We've got a lot of people here at Nival that love the turn-based tactical genre and we want to make a game that exceeds the capabilities of any other even remotely like it." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Xbox.com "This turn-based tactics game expands the genre by providing a unique Level Editor, allowing gamers to create levels and play them online with friends." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WorthPlaying "At the core of the game though, there is a tactical, turn-based strategy game that stands on the shoulders of great games in the same genre like Fallout Tactics and X-Com." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "Being a great fan of turn-based tactics myself, I can say that Silent Storm has made a major contribution to the genre." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Armchair General "By all appearances this game was designed as a refinement of the RTS genre using tactical elements, rather than a refinement of the turn-based tactical genre using RTS elements." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RPGVault "Nival's recently released addition to the turn-based tactical combat oeuvre is appraised to be unique." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deaf Gamers "At it's heart it's a brilliant turn-based tactical strategy game but whilst these games are usually dry, occasionally dull affairs, Disgaea has so much charm and humour that it will appeal to those who are usually put off by games in this genre." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "ALFA: Antiterror is a realistic turn-based tactical simulator that will likely remind you of games like X-COM, Jagged Alliance, and Silent Storm." "Mist Land is currently working to finish ALFA: Antiterror in time for a May 2005 launch, and the game could be an intriguing entry in a genre filled with classic titles." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "Gameplay focuses on the old standards for this genre--you develop a base, manage soldiers, scientists, and technicians RPG style, research sci-fi tech, and attack enemy-occupied territories in turn-based tactical scenarios." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eurogamer "Already pioneers of the turn based tactics game with the various incarnation of the Rebelstar franchise, Julian Gollop's team put together a sequel that reinvented their own brilliantly innovative concept with Laser Squad." "Laser Squad is one of those benchmark titles that defined a generation and a genre, yet seems to have been retired from public memory before it's time." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1up "Turn-based tactical or strategy games rank up with RPGs on the list of genres that actually work pretty well with a cellphone keypad." SharkD (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gamezilla "This game is pretty much like all the other turn-based tactical games since X-Com UFO Defense. It's fun, but it doesn't keep you coming back for more day after day. Playing against another person can be fun just for the strategic element, but again, not something compelling that you would play over and over again. It's too bad that turn-based tactical games have never risen above X-Com. I love the genre, but long for the day to come when I can be proud of it. If you are a turn-based tactical game lover, get this game when it hits the bargain bin." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles which discuss turn-based tactical combat as being a unique gameplay element

Strategy Informer "The game, which is currently in development at Hungary-based Mithis Interactive, is described as a combination of turn-based tactical and real-time action gameplay." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PCGamer "Andosia War meshes traditional turn-based tactical combat and real-time economic simulation." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "King's Bounty: The Legend is an adventure game with tactical turn-based battles and role-playing elements." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles which are basically the same

PCGamer "Don’t let the subtitle fool you; Brigade E5: New Jagged Union bears no relation to Sirtech’s classic Jagged Alliance series of tactical combat games. Some elements are there—mercenary squads, turn-based gameplay, varied real-world weaponry—but the execution is so lame that you’ll probably kick yourself for spending $40 on this bargain-bin-in-waiting game." "These are pretty good games that we recommend to fans of the particular genre, though it's a safe bet you can probably find better options." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN "A turn-based, tactical treasure." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Console Gold "Front Mission 4 is a very good turn-based tactical warfare game." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpy "Tactical strategy games are nothing new to the GBA." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles dealing with Advance Wars, specifically

IGN "Publisher Sierra is planning on waging war on Advance Wars with its own Commanders: Attack!, a turn-based strategy game for the Xbox 360 Live Marketplace (it'll also be released on PC platforms.)Developed by Swedish game creator SouthEnd Interactive, the game is a single- and multi-player, turn-based, tactical strategy game. " SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "Take Advance Wars and meld it with the wargame classic Panzer Generals, and you'll get something that looks quite like Panzer Tactics DS, a simple yet deep game that should appeal to fans of turn-based tactics game, as well as wargamers in general." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "We're very interested to see what the reaction to Shattered Union is, as games such as Advance Wars have definitely shown that there is an audience for turn-based, tactical games out there." SharkD (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "While big-budget turn-based tactical games aren't often made for consoles or the PC anymore (even the Advance Wars series was morphed into a real-time game when it debuted on the GameCube as Battalion Wars), the genre seems like a natural fit for the casual and handheld markets, as the games like Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, and Band of Bugs demonstrate." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "In fact, this incongruous mixture of happy-go-lucky attitude and large-scale warfare has become Advance Wars' most recognizable hallmark--well, that and the series' exceptionally well-balanced turn-based tactical gameplay." SharkD (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "The look and feel may be different, and there may be new units on the battlefield, and so on, but the core turn-based tactical combat that has been the heart of the series is still fully in effect." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deaf Gamers "The level of popularity enjoyed by its sequel and the GBA Fire Emblem games proved that tactical turn-based games could enjoy great sales figures in the increasingly popular handheld gaming market. In fact the real surprise is that we haven't seen more games in the same vein given the success of Advance Wars." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpy This interview with Julian Gollop, developer of X-COM and Rebelstar: Tactical Command, says that Advance Wars heavily influenced the development of R:TC. It's pretty clear to me that he places both games in the same genre. SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Games Extreme "I liked Advance Wars on my old Nintendo. I also liked Battle Isle on the PC so I wanted to get this game for the PSP. Field Commander is an Advance Wars turn-based tactical strategy game for Sony’s handheld console and rather than being rubbish it’s actually a good game." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN "The gameplay itself is similar to past tactical turn-based strategy games on the Game Boy Advance. When the original Fire Emblem hit shelves more than a year and a half ago, the game that could be best compared was Advance Wars." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eurogamer "Putting aside its presentation, its most recognisable feature is that rather than having its combat in a phase-time system, it in fact plays in a pure tactical turn-based mode. When combat kicks off, you're moved off the main adventure map into a full grid-mode where your skills and spells can come into play in a more leisurely manner than the majority of games. For those fans of Advance Wars, Laser Squad Nemesis and anything with some beautiful squares on, it's a change of pace." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

EGM "Almost visually identical, they share the same friendly setup and solid gameplay—turn-based tactical combat with a rock-paper-scissors-style attack priority system." "Strip away the epic story of good versus evil (I dug it way more than Shawn did) and the dizzying number of characters, and you have very straightforward combat—essentially nothing you haven’t seen before in kindred spirits like Final Fantasy Tactics or Advance Wars. ... It’s definitely one of the GBA’s best tactical games." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN "The best comparison to a popular game I can think of for PopTop's Shattered Union is probably Advance Wars. Don't get me wrong here, there are a lot of differences between the two. That comparison is mainly to get the tactical turn-based nature across." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SharkD, those references you provided do not verify that TBS and TBT are different. TBS and TBT are synonyms of each other, they are not different genres. Your sources do not prove that they are different in anyway, they prove that the word turn based tactics exists (merely showing me a site that has the word TBT doesn't prove that TST differs from TBS). But, I need to see a source that says that they are different, any source, a dictionary or what ever with varying definition for TBS and TBT, or easier yet, just show me a source that shows both words TBT and TBS on the same website explaining each. I'm not doing WP:OR rather, the content of those articles (TBT) are original reaserch; there are no citations for the definition and per WP:REF, it is legitimate to remove the parts that arent refed (the citations provided in the definition did not back up the definition). So please just show me a link that defines TBS and TBT from the same website, and the articles can stay as is. And just because you wrote most of the article, doesn't mean it's going to stay. -- penubag  07:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me a source that says they are the same thing. SharkD (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, don't be stupid, you're asking me to find a source that says a dog is the same thing as a cat. You have to show me the source that says they are the same. -- penubag  21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that turn-based tactics and turn-based strategy are synonyms is completely silly. If they were synonyms, why would these ([10][11][12][13][14][15]) articles call them "turn-based tactical strategy games"? SharkD (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they? They are just calling a strategy game a turn-based tactical strategy game, still not proving that TBS and TBT are different. You wouldn't want to make an article on turn-based tactical strategy now wouldn't you.-- penubag  21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd far prefer genre article merges and improvement were the result of research rather than bickering, so long as there are several genres which reach beyond 'video game' there will always be disagreements. Only the other day I had to switch Battleships Forever's genre from real-time strategy to real-time tactics because of a review actually focused on its mis-labeling by the developer. (Reminds me, have to fix the article lead which still says RTS). Without taking a good long look, how do we know if a) they need merging at all, b) whether the term tactics has any currency and c) whether it would be better to merge real-time tactics to turn-based tactics instead? Let the editors so bothered about Advance Wars' classification do the legwork themselves, dig up multiple sources, discuss them properly and apply them to that article. There does need to be improvement on pretty much all genre articles and genre hierarchy articles (list of genres etc) and that'll take the project's input, but this isn't the right reason to instigate it. Someoneanother 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit was a little bit too bold. I can't say that I have much research on strategy video games to talk about the difference between turn based strategy and turn based tactics, but I know the distinction exists and is used very deliberately. Just because the distinction is fuzzy and controversial, it doesn't mean the distinction is non-existent. Ludologist12 (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The merger wasn't really a merger. The material was adapted to fit turn-based strategy. E.g., the genre characteristics were made to seem like they were characteristics of turn-based strategy; the "Types" section was changed to become types of turn-based strategy; the intro section was omitted entirely so that no mention of "turn-based tactics" was made anywhere in the article. This was a pretty disingenuous edit on the part of User:Penubag. I've since completed the merger. SharkD (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(same as reply from your talk) I erased the mention of TBT because it is the same as TST, but it may be better to mention it once in the intro. None of the sources you provide tell me it is a genre, the sources provided just state TBT in the article. Show me a site that has both TBT and the word TST in it (I don't think you will because they are synonms of each other (which is why we are merging the articles)). My removal of content is not original research, rather, I am removing original research. -- penubag  07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not the same thing. You would never describe Civilization or Masters of Orion as turn based tactics, because it isn't. Turn based tactics is a subset of turn based strategy, merging the articles is fine, but do not refer to them as the same thing when they are obviously not. - hahnchen 11:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(redented) Allow me to bring in some published sources.

• Mark H. Walker wrote in his book Games That Sell! on pg 93 that RTS is a broad category encompassing production based strategy, fixed unit, and tactical games. On pg 193, he compares Ground Control as a RTS to a TBT, effectively displaying there is a separation. On pg 189, he also called it having "real-time tactical strategy" features. If tactics and strategy genres were the same, his actions would be curious to say the least.
• Dave Morris wrote in his book Strategy Games on pg 10 strategy is not tactics, and on pg 53 stated (paraphrased) "a game cannot involve strategy without resources".
• Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design states strategy and tactics are distinctly different from each other on page 232. The same page states it is possible to make a tactical game without strategic elements.
• Erik Bethke explains his team coined themselves the term "real-time tactical" to describe Star Trek: Starfleet Command as a tactics-only game on pg 23 and sets out a survey on pg 99 of his Game Development and Production where he specifically requests readers (would be game developers) to classify their game's features, amongst the choices are real-time strategy, and real-time tactical.
• Nexus Entertainment LLC declared in Game Developer's Market Guide By Bob Bates page 341 that they are developing RTSes and RTTs (which they call a hybrid of RTS).
• Here is a site mentioning tactical-games and strategy-games as different in the same breath, The Future Of The Real-Time Strategy Game @ Gamasutra.

Personally, while elements of tactics games are usually part of strategy games, I think we cannot simply classify them as strategy games. Like shooters, platformers, and fighters have been under the action umbrella but have distinguished themselves, so have tactics-only games.Jappalang (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC

This stuff looks pretty good, let me have a moment to process some of it.-- penubag  22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now this is what I was looking for, thank you very much Jappalang, none of the other sources proved anything. You have effectively proven to me that they are different. But, the TBT and TBS articles are still a complete mess. They contradict each other every which way, which is why I though it was all written based on original research. Reading this: "Turn-based tactical gameplay is characterized by the expectation of players to complete their tasks using only the combat forces provided to them, and usually by the provision of a realistic (or at least believable) representation of military tactics and operations.^[1] makes me think chess is turn-based tactics, which isn't (also implying that Advance wars is stragical). I also think we should delete all those nonsense citations on the turn-based tactics articles and add your sources. -- penubag  22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Jappalang's references from the real-time tactics article were pretty good, too. SharkD (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty good research material. Thanks! I think the original editor was overzealous in merging. He waited, what, all of a few hours before concluding there were no objections? At any rate, the difference between strategy and tactics is pretty common sense. This all could have been avoided with a simple tag requesting more references. Thanks for providing some good research. I hope someone has the patience to undo this mess, and add some citations. Ludologist12 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Super B-Daman: Battle Phoenix 64

Ran across this during a run through Special:Random. Does anybody have access to Japanese magazines, any reviews or dev info? If not I think it should be deleted. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with leaving it as a stub? It seems to be part of a popular franchise - B-Daman. Regardless, Google came up with an IGN review, so it'll do for the time being. - hahnchen 11:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Sega

Wikiproject Sega is going on a upwards spiral so get somewhere, maybe a few Sega fans could join and help? Gaogier ^Talk! 04:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's definitely scope for a Sega project, Wikipedia must host a shitload of Sega fans given the "extensive" articles on Knuckles the Echidna et al. You need to remove all fair use images from your project page though, they can only be used in the article space with acceptable rationales. - hahnchen 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to deal with User:Gaogier regarding these non-free images on his project pages, but he seems to refuse to get a clue. Assistance would be appreciated, I don't want to 3RR over this. Also, could someone give me a second (and third, fourth, etc) opinion on whether his newly-uploaded image Image:PictureSonicWikiprojectSega.png is a derivative of Image:Shadow rivals.png? Thanks. Anomie⚔ 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit i took a few idias from that while drawing mine but its not a derivative ir you. Gaogier ^Talk! 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is. You just contradicted yourself: to derive means to get something from a source. You got the idea from something else so it is a derivative. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Klptyzm is right. The similitudes are very obvious making it derivative work and, therefore, licensed under fair use (since technically, Sega owns the copyright to your image as with all derivatives from Sega properties). You should do something much simpler, maybe a blue ball with two eyes or something so simple that, even though you obviously based it in something, it is so simple that cannot be copyrightable (something that you could have drawn it by hand in less than 10 seconds is hardly copyrightable). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Hereimage.png Tell me that is simple enough? Gaogier ^Talk! 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I told you in your talk page, it may be. I am not copyright expert (just worked in the copyvio section of Wikipedia for a year long), but it is much safer than the original. It still may be considered derivative work in strict law terms. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to be sure, anyways. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

VG Assessment category

There's a lot of things in Category:Unassessed video game articles that are in fact assessed with WP:VG. What is the problem here? User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Anomie⚔ 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's now only four articles in the category. At the time of the post above, this was about a hundred. Seems something got fixed :) User:Krator (t c) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Matchday serie

Hello all.

I've been checking the entries Matchday, Matchday Soccer, Match Day II and Supermatch Soccer.

I have seen several strange contributions to Matchday_Soccer supposedly made by the author of the game, Jon Ritman. Of course I didn't think it could be him (I even wrote about it at Talk:Matchday Soccer).

But I've seen that a detail about the cover is absolutely true and (as far as I know) I couldn't find any information about it in the web: the cover of Match Day 2 uses a photo of Gary Lineker also used in other videogame of that time ([16] Gary Lineker Super Star Soccer).

So I don't know what to do with it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Pantera (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I'm on the brink of solving it all. It's a name confusion issue. More info soon. - X201 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On seconds thought perhaps not. But it's not by Gremlin. - X201 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Matchday Soccer needs deleting, or moving to something like Match Day (series) or Match Day (disambiguation). - hahnchen 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You beat me with an edit conflict Hahnchen. what I was going to say was...

I've given the article a severe going over. It needed major work and was a total mess. It's a borderline delete job to be honest. We don't really need a series page for it given that there were only ever 3 games in the series. - X201 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick help.

Finally I could check that the person writing was really Jon Ritman, the author of the serie, but keeping his writing could be a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

I'd like to comment that I really consider Matchday a serie. The games in the serie are Match Day, Match Day II, International Match Day (not created yet) and Supermatch Soccer (by the way, that entry should be changed to Super Match Soccer according to its home site). And there are two other projects (Soccerama, a never ended project that lead to Match Day and Match Day 3 that was renamed to Super Match Soccer). I think it's quite a serie for soccer videogames, lasting from the eighties (8 bits home computers) to the new millennium (3D card powered PCs) and a 128Ks version of Match Day II slightly different of the 48Ks one.

And I'd like to say that I'd be delighted to help to improve the quality of all those entries. I've been helping WikiProject_Video_games creating stubs so far, so I think it's time to write good full length entries. I've been playing soccer videogames for long time, and my job is related to them, therefore I think I can do it right. Although English is not my first language, but I promise to do my best.

--El Pantera (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates to help with tracking redirections

For purposes of tracking redirections of game characters and elements into lists, I've created two templates that should be useful:

• {{CharR to list entry}} - This is for fictional characters that have been redirected to a list entry.
• {{FictR to list entry}} - This is for fictional elements (other than characters) that have been redirected to a list entry.

These templates populate the categories of Category:Fictional character redirects to lists and Category:Fictional element redirects to lists. Both templates support an optional parameter to indicate the game/series that the character/element belongs to, eg {{CharR to list entry|Sonic the Hedgehog}} would sort the redirect into the category Category:Sonic the Hedgehog fictional character redirects to lists, which then would be a sub-cat of the former. This also allows this sub-cat to be included in a more general category for the game/series (eg. Category:Sonic the Hedgehog or even more specifically Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters) as such that the list of redirected articles can be found easily from these. --MASEM 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This should help for all the Halo character merges I did... thanks! David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How are you supposed to use the darn thing? I tried putting it in the Samir Duran redirect, I put it below the redirect code and the text doesn't display (but shows in the preview before I save it). I put it above and it displays but the redirect doesn't work. -- Sabre (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at what he did for Sergeant Johnson. Jappalang (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But the text doesn't show up. Seems a bit pointless having the text if it doesn't show up when looking at the standard redirect page (ie, not through previews or past versions). -- Sabre (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it, I think it's something on my template end with include-only and noinclude. Best I can tell , the fix will not require any changes on your end. Also, note that the series-specific pages should also be tagged with {{Wikipedia category}}, since this is more admin-related than user helpfulness. --MASEM 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

{{R from merge}} doesn't show up unless you are previewing it too. I think that's how it was originally designed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Should we tag every single redirect to a character list, or just the "correct" or main variation? The wording on the template implies that the redirect the template is on is the one that should be used in articles as it is the "correct" one. In practical terms (since that didn't make sense to me and I doubt if it makes sense to anyone else), Category:StarCraft character redirects to lists currently contains all the primary redirects to the characters, many of which were articles themselves before being merged. Do I add common misspelling redirects - such as Ulrejaz - and variations-on-the-name redirects - such as General Duke - to that category as well? -- Sabre (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would presume the one with the longest article history. Nifboy (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I would agree, I'd use {{R from alternative name}} to make the redirects from the alternative name to the correct one, and then the correct one to the merged page; the idea being that possibly in the future, the merged info may be broken out again back to that page, this still leaves the redirections from alternative names pointing to the right place. --MASEM 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources citing unreliable ones

What is the standing of this WikiProject regarding reliable sources citing unreliable ones? For example, Tom's Hardware sister site, TG Daily, quoted VGChartz numbers in an article, same as Gameworld Network using VGChartz numbers here. A reliable source using unreliable numbers makes them reliable? How "deep" we need to go (for example, if IGN quotes GameSpot which quotes VGChartz). I revert those numbers when they are added to articles, and would accept when a reliable source uses those numbers, but I am not sure everyone here will allow with that. Thoughts? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be off me rocker, but doesn't a reliable source citing it make it reliable in the context of the reliable source? David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue was also brought up here. SharkD (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it to be established that using VGChartz with inline attribution (e.g. "VGChartz writes that the game sold one million copies.^[1]" instead of "The game sold one million copies.^[1]") was ok. User:Krator (t c) 12:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving the Quake 2 Article

Hi,

I've been trying to improve the Quake 2 article, but someone reverted my last edit (made on the 20th of January). I asked for an explanation but they only gave one which I consider to be inadequate, then just ignored my questions after that point. I don't want to edit war on this but on the other hand, I don't think there was anything wrong with my edits that were reverted. Someone suggested I ask for help here. Can anyone help with this? I really think the Quake 2 article needs some work. I'm willing to do it, it's just frustrating when people come along and revert without being even willing to discuss why. Thanks. Ben 2082 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the reasoning for removing the screenshots of mods: they're only ever needed if the mod has substantial notability (and in most cases it would have its own article for that screenshot to go in). Reverting the inclusion of the reception section, on the other hand, I can't understand. Reception sections are the best place to establish full notability for a product. While the one you wrote was not first-class quality, it is certainly a start for a very important section in a video game article. I'd certainly put the reception section back in, but be prepared to put a lot of work (and references to reviews) into it, as well as removing mention of fan-run sites like "tastyspleen.net" (or whatever it is, all I know is it doesn't belong there) to get it up to scratch. Take a look at some of our Featured and Good articles on games on the main VG Wikiproject page for an idea of how to properly create a great reception section. -- Sabre (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)