Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:06, 20 May 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25
26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45
46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55
56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65
66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75
76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85
86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95
96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105
106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115
116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125
126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135
136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145
146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155
156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165
166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Template:WPCVG Sidebar

Joystiq and Kotaku

Some have brought up the issue of the reliability of these sites again recently, and it needs a proper discussion. My argument is as follows:

The reliability of the sites does not depend on the medium they use, it depends on how the content that's on there gets on there, and which phases of expert-oversight and what editorial checks it goes through.
The reason we discard most blogs is that blogs have a tendency to be written by random people who are not experts, without editorial involvement.
Joystiq and Kotaku, on the other hand, are run by respectable companies, have a long history of reliability, and the writers show a good degree of expert knowledge that is no less than any IGN or GameSpot writer.
The general inference we make about blogs doesn't hold for these two.
I conclude they are reliable.

Discuss. User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --8bitJake (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as well. Additionally I know both sites have interviewed company figures (additionally so has insertcredit on that subject), and Kotaku had an editor recently interviewed on Attack of the Show.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq is a reputable site but they do, from time to time, base their news stories on forum postings. As such, the certain particular story (not the publication) might not satisfy RS. xenocidic (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose of using a Joystiq-based-on-forum story to establish a critical fact by itself without any other discussion, I would strongly warn against this. However, these types of posts, which often summarize user response, are generally good when they are next to company responses to fan complaints or the like. Same for Kotaku or any other gaming forum (eg for the upcoming Ace Attorney game, all we have is fan-based Japanese translations, but at least using reputable sources that site the fan translations helps to give some creditability to it.) --MASEM 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (such as the GTA IV PS3 resolution issue). Reliable publications can publish unreliable information directly from a forum or open wiki, with no sign of fact checking. In these cases the information should either be written in the article in a way that it is clear is not confirmed, or left out completely, which is what I prefer. I'm going off on a tangent here, so I'll say that I'd agree that Joystiq and Kotaku are reliable. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this issue brought up in several recent FACs- I've also found many of Kotaku/Joystiq's writers have published work elsewhere on the net, so proving the reliability of the authors is not as hard as one might think as well, independent of the publication. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the comments can be summed up in the general notion that being labelled 'reliable' is not a carte blanche to source the most outrageous statements to these sites. All sources, how reliable they might be, should be evaluated, from Science to the New York Times to Joystiq. User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how Wikipedia is in any position to criticize the reliability of Joystiq.com or Kotaku. --8bitJake (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much criticism, it's just that most editors outside the VG Project don't know whether they are reliable or not. Just part of the lengthy and sometimes harsh quality assurance process. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Considering Wikipedia does not currently use Wikipedia as a reliable source, I don't see the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krator (or someone else), could you please put together the notes listed above, and anything else of relevance in relation to these sites, to a standalone page (eg. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reliable blogs), so that these can easily be cited in FAC discussions, etc. It's sometimes annoying having to keep searching to try to prove the sites meet WP:V, as is requested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on break honest, ahem. We need to discuss a lot of these sources and expand that list, The Escapist wasn't even listed till recently, sites like Rock Paper Shotgun are springing up and might not get listed at all. On AFD debates often commentators will list major sites like IGN and GameSpot, saying that they can't find any details on them. Well that's all well and good, but for indie, casual and freeware games that's the equivalent of looking for reviews of the latest caravan in fast car magazine. A section for freeware/flash/indie/casual would be useful, as would a list of magazines which cover each format (IE Crash for ZX Spectrum). Basically, there's a lot of work needed to make the sources list all it could be. Someone another 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful doing this: simply noting that some sources need to be treated as reliable to improve coverage of casual games may rub very wrong with certain people, since you are basically creating what are reliable sources to show notability. As a project, if someone would like us to evaluate a set of sources as to be considered reliable and thus appropriate, we should do that as best we can do within our bounds. There will be editors not involved with video games that will question the sources, but if we do our diligence as a project to make sure the Sources list is filled out, then we can simply point to that when sites are questioned. --MASEM 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion isn't that we just slap sites in there, but weigh them on their merits. Gamezebo, for instance, might not be a site the average viewer is familiar with, but looking at personal picks from 2007, I see we have articles on two of the writers: Marc Saltzman and Erin Bell. The site is one of five game websites in the running for a Webby award. These guys aren't amateurs, and a strong argument can be put forward for this site to be deemed reliable, yet it focuses exclusively on casual games and indie games, that's what I'm talking about. Someone another 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would use another reference if possible. If it is breaking news that need to be included in the article, it may be fine, but there are much more reliable sites around. Kotaku is known to exaggerate news to drive more traffic (since editors there are paid according to the amount of views each article generates). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that from? (The pay to hits notion) John.n-IRL 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Gawker network (which Kotaku is on) pays its editors based on the traffic that is driven to the site. See this article on pbs.org. This is probably the same for Joystiq.

I think Kotaku/Joystiq as a source of aggregate news is good. Both sites also have decent interviews with developers about upcoming games. But if the story they are covering comes from say the PlayStation Blog, then the PlayStation Blog article should be the one linked to and not Kotaku/Joystiq. Kotaku and Joystiq also have several posts where it is more of the "editor's" opinion than plain jane news reporting so those articles should be carefully used. Strongsauce (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is something that pertains to all sites: if you have several sites which you can use as references for a statement in a Wikipedia article, always choose the one which is the most neutral (except if you're dealing with previews or reviews, obviously). Kariteh (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't read Kotaku and therefore have no opinion on it.) I consider Joystiq to be reputable for a blog, but they do frequently publish rumors and subsequent corrective updates. So using them as a source must come with the caveat that they should not be used to source unconfirmed rumors -- and the wiki's content guidelines discourage posting rumors anyway. Additionally, Joystiq is mainly a news aggregation site, and individual stories typically link to a more in-depth, more direct source higher up the chain that should be used instead whenever possible. However, if there are cases where the Joystiq post itself needs to be referenced, I think they are suitable for sourcing factual content (e.g. "Activision merges with Vivendi"), but not for editorial comments (e.g. praise or criticism of a game). Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this and wanted to add to the discussion, given my experience in the industry as a writer and former gaming site director. There was a previous discussion on this matter over at Talk:UWink (see the RFC discussion at the bottom). The main justifiability as to whether or not Kotaku is (and ultimately other sites are) a valid reference is the presence of editorial oversight. If its just a personal blog, there's no editorial oversight and reliability is suspect. If its a site that has actual editorial oversight but simply displays its content in a blog "style" (as is popular now), the latter should not discount the former. In general, sites whose content is simply thrown up at the discretion of the author should be suspect (there are always exceptions of course). Sites that have a verified editorial oversight (anything put on the site has to go through a review process that involves fact checking and approval by editors and senior staff, just like at any major periodical or newspaper) should be acceptable. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of video game genre articles: three merge proposals

There's a lot of unnecessary articles with limited / bad information. So I'd like to draw your attention to three proposals:

Merge Run and gun, Scrolling shooter, Top down shooter and Run and gun into Shoot 'em up. In a nutshell, shoot 'em up covers all the information and these other articles just get into unnecessary detail about viewpoint/perspective. (See discussion)

Merge Grand strategy wargame into wargame and wargame (video games). This is really a minor distinction that hasn't been written about extensively. Probably because it can be summed up in a sentence. (See discussion)

Merge space simulator and space flight simulator, but split out the video game information from the academic information. These articles are a mess, probably because the scope of each article is unclear. (See discussion)

Take a quick glance at the articles and discussions to get a sense for why these mergers might be necessary. I'd like to build a consensus to organize this creep of unnecessary genre articles. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it. The genre articles are growing to ridiculous proportions. Just last week we had to delete "Cartoon Shooter" or something like that. What's next? "Bear and bird action platformers with shiny golden puzzle thingys"? .:Alex :. 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be doing me a big favor if you echoed that sentiment at the three respective discussion pages. I want to have something to point to in case I run into an edit war with people reverting the merges. Randomran (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above. If someone complains, just point to this discussion post. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update and request for assistance

Done. I might encourage people to view the "mergeto" articles and help me with a quick copy-edit:

shoot 'em up (top priority!)
space flight simulator game
wargame (video games), turn-based tactics

Thanks for all your help so far. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Based RPGS

There seems that there is not an article on yirn based RPG's. Examples are Blue Dragon which is a turn based RPG. I think an article should be made, what do you guys think? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's any real value to having RPGs categorized based on real time versus turn based. Do other scholars/journalists talk about them along these lines? I know there's a lot of talk about different combat systems in RPGs. But I think it's already covered at Role-playing_game_(video_games)#Combat. Randomran (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For RPGs turn-based is the implied default. Action RPGs are the exception. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog characters

Can people please, please, please comment? For some reason, people can easily comment on the existence of one article or the inclusion of two sentences in another article, but the existence of close to one hundred gets two comments at most. Those articles are pretty much all messes with no potential. Only seven articles (Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Miles "Tails" Prower, Knuckles the Echidna, Doctor Eggman, Shadow the Hedgehog, Metal Sonic, and Amy Rose) and seven character lists (List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Sonic the Hedgehog (comic book) characters, Sonic the Comic characters, List of characters from Sonic X, List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series), List of characters in Sonic Underground, and Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog characters) are necessary, give or take one or two.

That's the basic plan, but if someone want to change it, that's fine. The main thing is that it gets started, and the only way that will happen is if people will comment. It won't take that many, but It'll take more than the two or three that usually do so. TTN (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way is to nominate these for deletion one by one over the course of a few months. Takes a long time, but will avoid any problems like last time a noble cause as this was pursued with too much zeal. User:Krator (t c) 12:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that would end up working correctly. Some may end up redirected/deleted, but all of the usual complications will eventually pile up on them. If you want to do it for some of the minor comic characters, that may be fine, but any that are "major" or appear in multiple pieces of media will be shot down pretty quickly. It's really only three or four actual users opposing it, so as long as there is a number consensus here, and the actual mergers are done slowly, it should work out. TTN (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest taking this to Fiction-related noticeboard, making sure to announce here and to the Sonic articles/project that it is there? There's a couple reasons, one being that it is part of a dispute resolution (even if there's a handful that want to keep them, overwhelming with numbers is not really the greatest idea). The second being is that this will be a good test of a recent addition to WP:FICT on non-notable character lists and how they should be organized - the Sonic fandom is large enough to have several spinoff medium but doesn't lack the huge background of materia like Star Wars. --MASEM 13:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you would like. So far, not enough people have bothered with it to make a difference in any discussion. If you want to get the people from the FICT discussion in on it, that may work. TTN (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list the usernames of those who oppose this redirection here please? User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there were more, but I guess it's just User:Doktor Wilhelm, User:Red Phoenix, User:Fairfieldfencer, and a few anons that commented once. TTN (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm's not currently active, as it happens. I don't think RedPheonix is opposed to merging certain of the characters also.Bridies (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a chat with Fairfieldfencer after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie-Su ends. User:Krator (t c) 14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you beg for comments, here's mine: Weren't you restricted from requesting merges, redirections, or deletions of character articles? And before anyone tries to claim it doesn't apply to VG characters, note that List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series) is in the list. Anomie ⚔ 15:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's through the use of tags. I'm still able to use talk pages according to that. At least, that's what I'm able to get from it. I commented on a request for clarification, but they haven't bothered to respond. TTN (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, I know we have tangoed a bit at WikiProject Sega, but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. My opinions that I stated against merging apply only to these articles which you have put under your blanket for merging: Cream the Rabbit, Blaze the Cat, Silver the Hedgehog, and Rouge the Bat. That's it. We can discuss the rest later if you can keep your nose clean and out from ArbCom violations. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been brought up before, but I have not seen any concrete decision regarding chronology. I know that dates should be grouped by platform and then by country, but does it matter what order the countries are in? Is it better to just have one translusion of {{vgrelease}} where the dates are not chronological, or have multiple translusions so the dates are? I personally think that chronology is important, but one translusion is better. A recommendation I have is to change {{vgrelease}} so that the order that the parameters are given are the order that the dates show up. The best way I can think of doing this would be to create subtemplates (i.e {{vgrelease/NA}} which would be <small><sup>[[North America|NA]]</sup></small>), and have the main template translude whichever subtemplate is needed (i.e {{vgrelease/{{{1}}}). MrKIA11 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that setting the order of the Release Date field in concrete would be a bad thing. At the moment we have the flexibility to group varying dates by platform, if dates were displayed in strict chronological order we would end up with the platform being repeated numerous times for quite a few articles. Some articles format better when chronological ordering is used but other articles format better when grouped by platform and then chronological order. I think we should keep the flexibility of having that option. I also think that having multiple templates for different occasions will make it harder for passing casual editors to add information. - X201 (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I said originally was not very clear. I think that the current guidelines of sorting by platform first should be kept, but the template should be changed so that the dates can be chronological within each platform, with one call to the template per platform. The user would not be using different templates, only the template itself would be. For example, a release date of May 8, 2008 in North America and a release date of May 10, 2008 in Japan could be {{vgrelease|NA|[[May 8]], [[2008]]|JP|[[May 10]], [[2008]]}} or {{vgrelease|JP|[[May 10]], [[2008]]|NA|[[May 8]], [[2008]]}}, both of which would display the same chronological order. Depending on the region specified (i.e. NA, JP, EU, etc.), the template would translude the respective subtemplate for that region. I hope this clarifies my idea a little. I can make a userpage of my idea if someone wants me to. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a template page here as an example. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion I think is to use both in form of indented lists, although I'm not sure how you'd demplate this. Essentially, you have platforms sorted in the order of the first instance of release for that platform. Other release dates are included under their relevant platform in date order for the territory. Please let me know if this isn't clear and I'll try to include an example.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be done with multiple calls to the template. The new template is just to have a one call per platform. I don't think an indent is necessary though. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so that you use the template once for each platform. Makes sense now. I'd agree with that, and in that case suggest it's sorted chronologically, with seperate calls used for each platform.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess since no one else has anything to say...Where should I request a bot to change all of the current calls? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Taito?

I have been looking and looking on Google News and the like, but I can't seem to find much info on Taito as a company since the buy-out by Square Enix, and that's where the article trails off. This would make sense if Taito was fully absorbed, but it doesn't seem that way, as they've released several games that were not even published by SE (LostMagic), and even published third-party games themselves (Cooking Mama). Can anyone find any info on Taito since the acquisition, or what SE's plans are in that regard? I can understand keeping the Taito name around as far as development, but publishing under multiple names doesn't make a ton of sense for brand-recognition, not to mention using third-party publishers when SE is already a major player. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several interviews with Taito on Gamasutra. Kariteh (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taito is in the midst of their "rebranding" excercise, especially with their 30th anniversary in mind.[1][2] Template:Ja icon If you have Japanese translators on hand, just search for "タイトー" on Google. It is possible that with the decline of the Japanese video game industry (in terms of development, and compared with the West), smaller firms are being left out of the spotlight. Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BTW. The writer at Gamasutra had the same questions I did, but better. That's why they get paid to do that, I guess... The Japanese one I can't use just because Firefox seems to think ???? is Japanese. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNES / SFC Video Games by Genre List

After completing the exhaustive listing of the SNES / Super Famicom games, I'm thinking of turning my interest to a different kind of listing, and was looking for interest. Please respond back with any helpful guidelines you may have for the page I'm considering.

I'm looking at creating a List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games by genre. I would use the Video game genres page for the actual naming of the genres, of course. Games would be listed with the following columns under each genre: 1) Wikipedia Name, 2) NA Name, 3) European Name, 4) Japanese Name, 5) Other alternate names. The producer, developer, and release date information would be left off with the assumption that such information would be available from the game pages, or the main lists (which would be linked on the page.

With the number of games listed, I might be better off making separate pages for each list, or at least each main genre. Preferably, I'd like to see each game listed under its most specific genres. So, Tactical RPG's would not just be lumped together under an RPG heading.

I realize that the idea of Video game genre is often controversial, and as often, blurry for specific games. On the other hand, since the demise of NSRT, I've been looking for something to provide a genre classification of this game system.

Am I overlooking projects that may already have this covered? Is this something desired by others? Or would this just create a long flame-war over classification of specific games? Dawynn (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pay a lot of attention to the genre articles and they're in rough shape. In a lot of flux at this point, even core ones like shooters or RPGs. Because very few of the genre articles make solid use of reliable research, they become magnets for information creep based on "common sense". Which inevitably leads to an edit war on a genre article now and then. I think this would provoke too many edit wars at this stage. Most of the genre articles are B-class. If some of them passed "good article review", then people might be able to rely upon them to classify games in a reliable way. Then again, that shouldn't stop you. There are lots of video game lists that attempt to list genre. The great thing about wikipedia is can constantly evolve and correct itself with new information. Randomran (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with VG articles at FAC

VG editors should be aware that there's currently some issues with how VG articles are being bought up and commented on at Feature Article Candidates as per this talk section. The "tl;dr" version is that some of the actions look like cabal-type activies, with the same grouping of VG editors nominating articles while strongly supporting others (though this is only what is looks like, there's no evidence there is a cabal), but more importantly that articles being sent to FAC are not the quality that they should be for FAC, resulting in the FAC making a lot of work for the reviewers. While the first issue is not a huge concern there, it is the fact that many of these articles only pass through VG editor's hands before hitting FAC (Peer reviewed via VG's PR system, and passing GA from a VG-based editor), such that they have been edited in a vacuum of the VG project compared to the rest of WP. This is not to say VG articles can't be FACs, just that editors should look to better quality control before taking them to FAC, and we should probably resort to larger WP-wide help , such as the common PR system, to avoid this. --MASEM 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My little idea to solve this is discussed here. User:Krator (t c) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem may also run to (or perhaps arise from) the GA articles as well. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Grand_Theft_Auto_IV. - X201 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried standard peer review a couple of times, all I got out of it was an automated message - absolutely no responses from any editors. The non-VG reviewers need to be prepared to help out in those areas if they don't want under quality work coming to them at FAC. -- Sabre (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what Krator said. I haven't fully read through this discussion of the GA process but I think Krator's suggestion is probably the easiest solution to implement. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure how much we could give back to Miltary, as those generally are of good quality with their own peer reviewing process. --Izno (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both groups can provide a fresh perspective to each other's articles. Besides, the more we review different type of articles, the better our editing skills will become. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not to really burst the bubble, but why would someone who generally edits video game articles be in any way interested in suddenly editing military history articles. When I saw the proposal, the first thing I thought was "Video games and military history are about as alike as cats and dogs," and I'm sure the main editor bases are just as different. The main difference here is that video games are fictional constructs, while military history is rooted in reality; it would make more sense for WP:VG to work with WP:NOVEL or something else rooted in fiction; hell, even WP:ANIME is becoming more active (although again I don't know how many VG editors would be interested in reading and copyediting articles like Fullmetal Alchemist [which, admittedly, is quite close to becoming at least a GA]).--十八 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is not to edit unfamiliar articles, but provide an outside perspective for peer reviews purposes. Both parties will benefit as their articles will get some fresh eyes and editors will get more experience reviewing.

Though, you do bring up a good point, there are plenty of other Projects that this could work with too. Something to definitely explore after this initiative gets up and going. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

十八: I think the very point of the suggestion is that the main editor bases are different; part of the problem that Krator was addressing is that VG editors (regardless of whatever other projects they participate in) are the only ones seeing VG articles before they get to FAC and so the articles aren't prepared (and their Support votes at FAC are premature) because the reviewers are familiar with the editors and article, as well as the subject, so stuff slips by them more easily. From looking over recent FA/GA noms, it appears that our greatest weaknesses are jargon and grammar. Fixing this doesn't require interest or experience in fictional constructs—just less knowledge about the subject and a good understanding of English. I have a few fears about working with the novel or anime WPs: 1) the considerable userbase overlap means that the problem might not be solved. 2) Novel isn't that active, looking at its PR process; I'm not sure they could handle us 3) Do they have cool uniforms? See, cuz, I don't think they do. I think we need some editors who are firmly rooted in reality and have a good shouting voice (and uniform) to whip our articles into shape. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your point, but I still doubt participation on a large scale. Like Guyinblack said, I think getting other active wikiprojects involved may be a good idea, and might be what this process needs to jump start it rather than start out slow and gradually pick up pace.--十八 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can see WP Anime being asked in addition to Military History and others too, but I just wouldn't want the collaboration to end up with only people who are interested in the topic (and therefore probably familiar with the article and its editors) doing the reviewing. If there were multiple WPs involved, maybe we'd need some sort of 'rule' to ensure an article gets reviewed by at least one member of an opposite kind of WP. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST is the most active wikiproject on Wikipedia by far, and are similar to us in focussing on quality (lots of FA). Anime has considerable userbase overlap, and suffers from the same issues. Let's first see how this works out with milhist. Besides milhist and us, I'm not familiar with wikiprojects that do a lot of review-like things. That is necessary for this to work, as you're essentially exchanging review. User:Krator (t c) 01:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) FWIW, I think this is an outstanding idea. I hope it works out. I'd love to be able to read every video game FAC and write "Hell yes, next." --Laser brain (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that bad? I don't know as I don't review FACs outside WP:VG, but most are far from perfect, including my own. I'd also say that Krator's suggestion is an excellent one—it's not like most candidates hadn't undergone PR previously, it's just that issues relating to intended audience/jargon and prose aren't eliminated comprehensively. I don't know, maybe it's because most editors to the project edit it exclusively, and it may be difficult to realise how or why a non-gamer may be confused. Hopefully, all of our skills can be sharpened by observation of MILHIST, and even vice versa. Nice to see a positive and constructive response to criticism too. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overall feeling from responses seems to be accepting of the idea. The military discussion seems to be geared more towards the logistics of how this would work, but members seem a little split on the idea.

Krator, can you go into more detail on the implementation you had in mind so we can be prepared to get this up and running when and if the MILHIST Project agrees. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the above that this is a great idea. I would go out on a limb to say that most people at MILHIST have rarely if ever reviewed a video game article, and this is a nice way to resolve copy-editing problems that are not immediate to a VG writer. That said, per Guyinblack, more details on what this would actually involve would be nice. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea, but just keep in mind that this needs to be mutually beneficial. If you put up an article for PR to MILHIST, you should spend a few minutes to PR one of their articles. --MASEM 02:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masem's right. Though I'd hate to suggest a requirement of the process to be "review one if you list one", but I can see how it might become lopsided if such a practice is not enforced. At the very least, an statement should be include that explains the process will not work if editors do not give as well as take. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Seems like a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Pop Culture Addendum

Because of a recent discussion over at Pac-Man regarding the In Pop Culture section there getting to large, I'm putting up the following addendums for the current guidelines to help with the problem across the board:

1) Entries have to be directly related to the brand and/or character. I.E. some sports figure naming themselves Pac-Man as a nickname because people feel he shares similar qualities to the character is not directly related. An officially sponsored Pac-Man area in a theme park is, as is a Pac-Man Cereal and cartoon show. 2) If there are multiple notable appearances (greater than 3?) in a specific medium, they should be combined and summarized. The way all the Family Guy appearances are currently summarized in to a single paragraph is a good example.

I'll give this through the weekend then add these in to the current guidelines.

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sound reasonable and should hopefully help keep trivia in check. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

These seem sane enough. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RyanTMulligan

According to the userpage, Ryan seem to be involved with the operation of this fansite. Just as a heads up, he has been adding that site to a number of articles, after speaking to him is now requesting "neutral editors" to decide "to include the links if they like it" by posting the link on numerous pages. « ₣M₣ » 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Brawl Snapshots provides image galleries for characters taken from Smash Bros. Brawl. The images are numerous and many of them are accurate/interesting representations of the characters. USER:FullMetal Falcon told me that I should not be posting it on these video game character pages because it is in violation with various Wikipedia policies. I'm not sure what policies it is in violation of exactly, but I was just trying to increase the value of the pages. I think that it increases the value because people can see a large number of images of the character that they are currently researching. Certainly this is a conflict of interest though, because I am also getting increased pageviews/traffic when people visit my site. That's why I decided to start posting on talk pages of the characters in smash brothers brawl to see what the "neutral editors" of each character article think about the inclusion of the links. RyanTMulligan (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, it's fan content. Some of those images are blatant Photoshop jobs, and most of them are done for off-color humor. I'm sorry, but it's not suitable or encyclopedic. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at this issue. I think you are being a tad bit harsh. A majority of them are lovely snapshots on the site that are not off-color or Photoshoped.RyanTMulligan (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, going to every talk page and posting a link to your site "for consideration" is still considered spam: WP:SPAM#Source soliciting. The talk page links should be removed in addition to any contested in-article links. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I'm sorry. I just read that over. Makes sense. Should I have posted a list of the articles here? RyanTMulligan (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were well-intentioned. However, I think our main concern is that large collections of screen shots of copyrighted video games do not fall under acceptable fair use of non-free content. Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, all content must also be free and because of that we can only include screen shots in articles under certain restrictions. In turn, links to galleries do not fall in line with our fair use practices either.

So, it's not like we don't want images, we just have several guidelines and policies to adhere to. I hope you understand. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Is it clear that the snapshots/screenshots taken from a video game are owned/copyrighted by the video game company? What if the photographer were to release their photographs under a Creative Commons license? RyanTMulligan (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the game copyright is entitled to ownership of the images. This is usually the publisher of the video game. There's a doctrine called "fair use" that lets you ignore copyright law under narrow circumstances, but it involves a number of factors. For the sake of wikipedia, it means that we have to avoid using too many pictures, and the pictures we do use have to be absolutely necessary to explain a concept (rather than just decorative or interesting). Randomran (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Orion

WLU has just re-written Master of Orion unilaterally, despite the fact that I pointed out some drawbacks of changes he had already made and asked him to discuss further changes on the Talk page. The further down the article I read, the more dissatified I am with the changes - there are errors, omissions that are as misleading, a lot of re-phrasing for the sake of it that IMO generally reduces clarity, etc. Arbitration is needed, otherwise this is going to wind up as an edit war. Someone who knows the game woudl be the ideal arbitrator, to avoid the need to paste chunks of the manual and other rlevant material into the discussion. Philcha (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has attempted to revert my changes or edit the page since my edits. I don't claim to be an expert on MOO or the sequels and I've no objections to the page being further expanded or corrected. There's no edit war since no-one has reverted, and I've repeatedly said I've no problem with someone else editing if they think it warranted. WLU (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Fortress Classic in need of major cleanup

Somewhat related to the Team Fortress 2 topic up higher in this page, I took a look at the Team Fortress Classic article and I'm rather appalled by the quality of the article. It's full of game guide material, has perhaps too much information on the various custom content available for the game and in general is pretty embarassing for an article about the predecessor to the topic of a Good Article. I've started cleaning up the article, but I could use a few more project members (and maybe some folks who worked on the TF2 article) to help out and clean up this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing exams at the moment, but I'll have a lookie at what I can do. I'd recommend getting a structure in order pronto - the article lacks a reception section, one of the most important parts going on video game articles. The article isn't tagged for the WikiProject, so I'll come along and add the tag and do an assessment for you. -- Sabre (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted an assessment and made some minor changes to the article to sort some quick issues. I've rated it as Start-class, Mid-importance, but I'm wondering whether it should be High - my (perhaps misinformed) view was that TFC was one of the key games in development of multiplayer and online gaming, if that's correct then perhaps it should be High. Any thoughts on that from other WikiProject members who have a better idea of assessing importance than I do? -- Sabre (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say TFC was not as influential as the original TF. TF basically invented class-based online gaming and lead the way for games like Battlefield 1942. TFC was a popular game (mainly because it was bundled with HL) but I don't see that it had any innovations like the first game. The current status as all three TF games are Mid-importance is acceptable but I wouldn't mind see the first one as High-importance. --Mika1h (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request someone here runs a copyedit of the class section of the article. NeoChaosX reduced the game-guide ridden mess into a list, and I've just converted the list into prose. However, for the sake of clarity and comprehensiveness, can someone copyedit it to make it roll naturally, it feels a bit "forced" at the moment. Its probably because it lacks the categorisation that's present in TF2, with the distinct offence, defence and support classes. -- Sabre (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Any comments on the above article's peer review would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Kid

In a seemingly obscure choice long ago I started a page for Dementium: The Ward, a game developed by Renegade Kid. Well since then others have added a page for RK and their new Nintendo DS game Moon.

All three of these pages need contributors. Anyone who has played Dementium and can contribute (especially to the Plot section) would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragman52 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

toad (nintendo) shoudn't be merged

i suggest that toad (nintendo) shoudn't be merged. Sonicthehedgehog9000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicthehedgehog9000 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, why not? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should be merged because it relies entirely on a single source, the notability of this article's subject is in question, it may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling, and it lacks historical information. Kariteh (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't question notability (going with common sense vs. guideline nitpicking here, he's significant in nintendo titles), but the article is in need of a major overhaul. I'd suggest to anyone interested in keeping it to, for lack of eloquence, get their butts in gear.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your own personal definition of notability is hardly 'common sense'. Following a guideline is not 'nit-picking'.Bridies (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toad (Nintendo) Profile from IGN. Bridies (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "personal definition" is that an article on a notable subject is not always going to have as much coverage as a more popular character (i.e. Toad here vs. Link or Kirby) and that should weigh in, as well as appearances of significance within related media (in Toad's case here, the cartoon and the Wario Woods games). I hardly see how it's not common sense to consider both.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. Bridies (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it in the context of "this article needs so-and-so many third party references or it isn't notable because this rule says so", which is something being tossed around frequently in notability arguments, as if it was the only measure of the validity of something on wikipedia. Not saying that isn't important, but shouldn't be the be-all-to-end-all if the subject has strengths in other areas of notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only measure of notability. Read the guideline. Again, you can have whatever personal definition you want, but it's pretty ridiculous to expect others to go along with that over what's in the guideline. Bridies (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil article organization

There's apparently been some debate as to whether HUNK should be split off into an article, or kept as part of a list. Articles in question are:

Characters in Resident Evil 2 -- lengthy previous debate on talk page
HUNK Resident Evil -- currently up for proposed rename, but should it even stay?

Additionally, I note that there are other lists dealing in similar topics, some of which seem redundant, and I wonder if all these articles could be better organized somehow, such as in a master RE fiction list.

List of Resident Evil characters
Characters in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles
Viruses in the Resident Evil series
any number of individual character articles

I am posting notices to these articles' talk pages to point discussion here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well truth be told putting HUNK on the list of RE2 characters seems a strange move given they imply readily he's at least been involved in the behind-the-scenes events of the whole T-Virus saga, don't they? Yet then again, RE2 is his game of "origin". Whatever the case, the older article would probably be a lot easier to salvage than that one. You just have to contend with finding third party reactions towards the character after fixing the mess to make some editors that come to mind happy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit from EDGE magazine for Umbrella Chronicles, very minor but does have a tiny reception bit on Hunk that could be cited. Might as well offer that to help out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is previous discussion in Talk:HUNK Resident Evil.
- I have reverted HUNK (Resident Evil) back to its last edit which is not a redirect :: it seems to be the fullest description of the Hunk character.
- HUNK Resident Evil was created on 14 March 2008 and it seems to be expanded from bits copy-&-pasted from HUNK (Resident Evil), which was started on 24 July 2005; i.e. HUNK Resident Evil is a content forking. I recommend redirecting HUNK Resident Evil to HUNK (Resident Evil). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters Lists vs Logic

Okay here's something we should probably rethink, looking at it strictly in a logical sense:

The goal of every article on WP should be to get the subject to a FA format of some sort.
Character articles have no exclusion from the above statement.

Now as things have gone on, articles that have "failed" WP:N (I say that in quotes because I've seen WP:V rules used liberally instead for verified subjects, or similar events) tend to get shoved on a character list for that respective series. That list ends up the fallback for arguments to keep the article separate. But look at it this way:

Almost never do these lists actually pass the same WP:N arguments that originally got characters placed there.
Entries on lists tend to get 'stagnant' and not improved, size issues for larger titles kicks in as well.
In order for said list to become a FA, *all* characters on it must be improved to the relative level in order to possibly pass an AfD. In many cases that just isn't going to happen, i.e. the Pokemon lists.

So really in a lot of cases these lists seem to become quicker AfDs of a sort: the information is shoved there, but has no real weight with WP projects overall, just characters that didn't "cut the mustard." And not saying this here to say that all articles shoved there should get individual ones...but maybe we should rethink a policy or two, and think about just what should be able to still be standalone compared to listed?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, this aspect of policy needs to be rethought, because even if some are notable, most are not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what either of you are advocating, other than a review of guidelines. How would you suggest to change them? Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

It is not the goal to get every article to FA. It is well accepted that there are topics that do need to be covered in its own article and are notable, but the volume of information is very small as to not make a good in-depth article. If we go by the criteria for Featured Topics, as long as articles pass Peer Review and up to all other policies, they're acceptable.

WP:FICT allows for character lists which lack any notability, understanding these are commonly used as supporting information for published worked. Again, these are the types of articles that likely can't make FA, but still are acceptable to include. --MASEM 05:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Masem. The grand majority of character lists will never reach featured status simply due to a lack of sufficient coverage (our four FA/FL character lists to the contrary, but they're quite the exception), but in character-intensive series, these lists serve as acceptable articles under WP:SS. And if there's ever a featured topic created for the series, they do fall under the exception built into the criteria, and can be audited (which I suppose means getting a peer review if I'm not mistaken) to become part of the topic. Now, having excessive amounts of lists (for enemies, items, or the like) is the problem I think needs to be addressed, along with individual character articles that carry much more scrutiny since they must match WP:N on their own merits. I think we have to draw a line between the character lists that are mostly acceptable under summary style, and lists that are being created for enemies, tertiary characters, and the like. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character A is opted to fail guidelines, despite having real world information from third party sources, just isn't considered 'enough', even if the article can be salvaged. So a majority of the information is chopped apart and reduced to a smaller, mostly in-universe section to conserve space on the larger lists in many cases on List A (there are notable exceptions, but few. The Pokemon ones are not in that variety). So the solution should probably go two ways:

Not every article for a character is going to have the same notability as central protagonists, but some degree of notability should support it as well. This can reduce the whole massive list problem. I really do think too significant usage in various titles should warrant for some level of notability too. Not the only one of course, but a means to buffer the other notability factors.
Better handling of the lists, and doing away with some that just offer nothing (List of Rumble Roses characters for example seems confusing as heck]]). The lists need better quality control. They've become a dumping ground for far too many character articles, which results in the creme mixed with the crap. In many cases this is just counterproductive, and I really don't think WP:FICT counted on it.

One last thing to close: I've seen WP:SELFPUB used often as a notability factor. But it seems to be more a bit for verifiability, possibly due to construing the first line of it. That could be looked into. I hope all this made sense btw, it's 9 AM, and the coffee is still just kicking in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there is a major conflict between two editing camps over all fiction articles (including VGs) : the inclusionists who want to include articles on every fictional character and the like, and the deletionists that would want to strongly enforce notability and if not limit fiction coverage more. I've spent the past year trying to get WP:FICT to a point that it meets the middle ground between these, but the issue is still largely debated (see the discussion in WT:NOT over the WP:PLOT clause). List of characters are a middle ground instead of having several character articles or no character articles at all, but they still should be aimed to be written well. If you see bad lists, they shouldn't be deleted but instead tagged for cleanup, and I wonder if it is worthwhile to consider to have a VG project list of character articles that need cleaning up. --MASEM 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an easy solution to this problem: stop voting merge in deletion debates. Simply put, that there is some kind of role for the subject within the list article doesn't mean the actual text should be merged. Individual treatment of character is usually not the best way to write an article on characters in a game. In the long term, if we compare high quality articles, that shows. Let's start doing it the right way right away. Two excellent character articles, List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance (a pure character list) [[Characters of StarCraft

]] (a character list with encyclopaedic discussion) show this problem. User:Krator (t c) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlord (2007 video game) FA?

Looking through the article mentioned, it is GA and an A class article of which upon asking others doesn't require anyoverhall in order to achieve FA. Instead of nominating it, I would like others to take a look, cheers. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor things...

It could be argued there are too many images. Ask Black Kite before FACing.
Last external link probably isn't necessary.
Development section seems rather short for a recent game.
Lead should probably have 3 paragraphs (see VG newsletter essay on the matter).

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but can I point out the following:

It could be argued there are too many images. - Shadow of the Colossus (7 images), Half Life 2 (10), Halo 2 (6), Okami (8).
Lead should probably have 3 paragraphs. - Shadow of the Colossus (2 paragraphs), Golden Sun (2).

Now I will look into those points, but just saying due to the above FA articles (that I know of). Also what should I expand upon in the development section? EDIT: I've expanded the development section alittle by including how the PC version of the add-on was released and extr ainfo on the PS3 version. Plus it seems the intro needed a split to make it 3. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you get it peer reviewed. Ask for a non-VG editor to review the article for language and MoS compliance before submitting it to FA. This will catch a lot of potential issues.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight problem, I would of asked for a peer review awhile ago if I knew who to ask. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of making such arguments (which is similar to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). There are reviewers pushing to enforce the standards of FAs after seeing what they believed were articles passed with lax standards. Hence, judgement is likely to be stricter for this point in time. Most of the FA articles raised above are promoted in 2006–2007 and one can easily say the requirements are stricter now than before.

Do follow H2O's advice and ask for the advice of an "image consultant". Black Kite is at the moment an active judge on image issues in FAC. If image concerns are likely, he will raise it up. Keep in mind that images are to illustrate a point if the text is inadequate. From a strict view, that means any pictures such as "The overlord in his splendor" would not pass.
Get rid of the two Game Ranking external links. They are already used as references and serve no greater purpose.
Avoid GameFAQs. Release dates can be found on GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, etc.
Go to the WP:LOCE or WP:FAT to request for a copyedit.

Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpot uses the same user-submitted data as GameFAQs for release dates, so please avoid it too. Kariteh (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re. "if I knew who to ask" - WP:PRV is useful! Of course, I'd be happy to take a look (I imagine others here would too), but that's a good place to find non-VG people interested in helping out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the mntioned articles need a re-review then? Because it seems somewhat impossible to get higher at that rate. Anyway I already contacted Kite, although I'm somewhat confused over what to do about what was said given he singled out 2 pics yet they seem the same as all the others. Plus I don't know this "The overlord in his splendor" image. Cheers for feedback BTW. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spore (video game): user vandalizing page, deleting references

At spore (video game), JAF1970 is deleting references to reliable resources. Admittedly, one (and maybe more) of the references are not reliable. But JAF1970 is using a criticism of one resource as the justification for deleting more than a dozen resources. I have already used up two reverts on this, and would appreciate some assistance here.

I should note that JAF1970 has deleted references in the past to justify pushing a POV from a self-published source. Past behavior shouldn't be determinative of what's going on here and this more recent behavior should be judged on its own merits. But I am concerned that this is JAF1970's first step to repeat another POV push. Randomran (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I disagree with your assessment of both the user and the edits in question. The article suffers from classic pre-release problems, particularly collating every single possible source available. However, I wouldn't worry too much about the article; everything will resolve in a moderately neat fashion come September. Nifboy (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War Task Force

I have created a task force for Gears of War. Can anyone give me a reason why no one's joined? JayJ47 (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...did you discuss it here before creating it to see if there was any interest and if the project felt such a task force would be a beneficial addition to the project. If not, no one in the project may even know about it (and you didn't link to it in your message). It is not listed in the "official" list of VG project task forces either. Hard for anyone to consider joining if they don't know it exists ;)Collectonian (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was I meant to discuss it here first? Oops! I'm sorry I didn't know! Well if users here don't think its beneficial then please delete it. JayJ47 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's the link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Gears of War. JayJ47 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, you dont have it listed on the WPVG box under taskforce so no one even knew the force existed.Gears Of War 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

doneGears Of War 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would be opposed to a task force for a single game. All of the task forces we currently have are about series that have multiple articles and thus benefit from a centralised point of discussion. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-20 00:08

You are mistaken. The taskforce is not about the single game: Gears of War. It is about the series. Also there is a second installment to be released in mid-2008. Also, there are multiple articles for the series, but I agree that not enough to make a good one. i would suggest moving the task force to your Sandbox or something until the articles are better.Gears Of War 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The series with one released game. I count five articles within the scope of this task force, one of which is proposed to be merged. This simply isn't large enough for a task force. Pagrashtak 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date issues (cross-posting from talk page)

There is a major problem with the dates in Crash 3. Some sources say it was released in October 31st in North America, while other sources state that the game was released as far as November 4th in North America. Also other dates are contradicting in the Japanese and PAL release (see list).

Dates	Sources
NA: November 4, 1998 Japan: June 22, 1998 Europe: June 22, 1998	IGN (http://psx.ign.com/objects/003/003919.html)
NA: October 31, 1998 Japan: December 17, 1998 Europe: December 1998	GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/ps/action/crashbandicoot3warped/similar.html?mode=versions)
NA: October 31, 1998 Japan: December 17, 1998 Europe: December 1998	GameFAQS (http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/data/196988.html)
NA: November 1, 1998 Europe: No date specified Japan: No date specified	Game Revolution (http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/sony/crash_bandicoot_warped_
NA: November 1998 Europe: December 1998 Japan: December 1998	Naughty Dog (http://www.naughtydog.com/crash/crash/timeline.htm)
NA/Japan/Europe: Unknown	Game Pro (http://www.gamepro.com/sony/psx/193/info.shtml)
NA: November 4, 1998 Europe: No date specified Japan: No date specified	GameStats (http://www.gamestats.com/objects/003/003919/index.html)

I checked the official website of Crash 3, but it did not specify a release date (correct me if I'm wrong). That is why I put those {{fact}} tags on the release dates. Can anyone take a look at this? PrestonH 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from SECA's mouth says Nov 3 98. --MASEM 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Japanese and European release dates, Naughty Dog's website says they were in December 1998. The days aren't specified but this at least discount the IGN source. Kariteh (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the Naughty Dog website says November 1998 for the North American release date, not October as in your table. Kariteh (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarifying that. Just got one more question, How come the dates are different from each of the sources I listed out from the tables? PrestonH 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems they simply make mistakes, sometimes. IGN especially tends to neglect non-North American release dates; showing wrong dates, omitting them, or simply having uninformative stuff like "Australia: Released". They even claim that Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers has already been released (on the curious date of December 31 nonetheless), even though it clearly hasn't yet. Overall IGN is still a very valuable and reliable source, but I'd rather cite official press releases for release dates than that site. As for GameSpot, its data are based on GameFAQs (which is user-submited content) so it's definitely less reliable than other sources. Kariteh (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having similar problems to this with Team Fortress Classic. I've had some sources claim April 1999, the Steam page for some bizarre reason puts it as December 1969 (although the entry in search results for TFC on the Steam site put it as April 30 1999), and IGN/GameSpy claim 30 May 1999. GameSpot just says 1999. One source even claimed May 2000. Which should I use? I'd use the one from Valve, but I can't reference a search page. At the moment its 30 May because that's the only one I can reference to a "reliable" source with a day. -- Sabre (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not every game actually has a "true" release date, one that is dictated and coordinated across a territory. In most cases, a game goes gold, and from there, it's a matter of manufacturing and distribution timetables (not always in the hands of the publisher) that determine when and where a copy first goes on sale. So aside from spectacular "launch days" (which are coordinated between publishers and retailers with built-in lag time for the other processes mentioned), a release date is an approximation anyway, the publisher's or retailer's (or whoever was used as a source) "best guess" based on the estimate they were given by their partners. As long as you have a good source and it's not obviously wrong then you can use it and not worry about specifics. It's correct for someone somewhere. :) Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Resident Evil 4 in need of help (still)

See here for the previous discussion (which didn't achieve much): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_41#Weapons_of_Resident_Evil_4. Since that discussion, only a weapon section (which was game guide content) has been removed. A merge proposal was placed weeks ago with very little response. That discussion can be found here: Talk:Resident_Evil_4#Merger_proposal. The article is small, and only a little of the information needs to be merged into the Resident Evil 4 article. So size isn't a big issue here. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second this request for help. With a few people checking in, we could easily justify a merge. I put in the merge proposal after the clean-up attempt a week or so ago. Randomran (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and the clean-up has just been reverted to the garbage version from a few weeks ago. Randomran (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted it back to the cleaned up version. That table's game guide content, it doesn't belong here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like how he just states 'some fixes'.Bridies (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could put this issue to rest by putting together a consensus for a merge. The article is short enough (the cleaned up version) that it would be relatively easy. Check in at the discussion page. Randomran (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks better and is far more informative and complete with the material included as many others have argued and in good faith worked to put there. Material can be merged from it without having to tear down the weapons article as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing will be "torn down" if it meets wikipedia standards. A merge is not a deletion, just moving information to where it is more suitable. John.n-IRL 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that we cannot do/have both. The substance of many articles overlap, but that is not a problem for encyclopedias. Waterloo, Napoleon, Wellington, Blucher, etc. all will repeat some of the same material as relates to the battle of Waterloo, but it does not mean any one of those articles should not exist or should not elaborate on certain things not covered in the others. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99% of the information in the cleaned up article will be incorporated into the main article through the merge. Nobody is advocating deletion. This is just a question of organization. Merging the smaller article into the larger one will improve both. Randomran (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, along with all the others who have been contributing to the table of weapons, do not regard it is a a mere game guide, nor are tables unencyclopedic. A table of weapons can be worded in a manner that does not make a how to, just like a periodic table of elements does not reveal how to do anything with those elements. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand, I'm sure you mean well in your efforts to keep this article as it is, but content like weapons lists provide very little to average reader. In fact, excessive amounts of such details can detract from other more encyclopedic sections. The consensus is in favor of this as there are multiple editors that believe this and are not just voting on it, but providing a justifiable rationales behind their decisions.

We've all had an article(s) that we created or spent a lot of time on end up getting merged or deleted. But more often than not, there was a very good reason for that. It's just one of Wikipedia's rougher lessons we all have to learn in what is appropriate encyclopedic content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, there are editors who oppose the section who have participated in some of these discussions and I do not doubt that some of them also mean well in their efforts; however, someone else suggested the table before I started working on it and others have added to and worked on the table as well. I am not the lone person who sees value in it; our community extends beyond this project's talk page and beyond the same editors who have posted here and in the other discussions. If we assume good faith and believe that the editor who originally proposed the table (it was not me) or for that matter originally created the article in list fashion (again, not me) and those who have continued to develop it coupled with anyone other than myself who argued for it in any of these discussions, the consensus one way or other is made a little less clear. In an article titled "Weapons of Resident Evil 4", a weapons list is somewhat central to the article just as a list of Academy Award winners is relevant to our coverage on the Oscars or a table of elements in our coverage on elements. Britannica has a good deal of tables and almanacs have lots of lists. An alphabetized table of weapons indicates what kinds of weapons are used in the game, how they differ, why they might be different from other games, why they may or may not be controversial, what kind of game is being described, etc. The table included both playable and non-playable weapons. It was not arranged chronologically, i.e. in walkthrough fashion, and was fairly straight forward, i.e. did not contain any cheat codes or anything of that kind of blatant game guide matter. Contrary to what some have suggested, I am NOT opposed to removing any material inserted that becomes "how to" in nature. Moreover, the aspects of the table contained references and blanket deleting the table also removed additional not even game guide references particularly to the chainsaw weapon that unquestionably could have been salvaged elsewhere in the article. And just to be clear, I do not think Wikipedia is a "how to guide", nor do I think it is an indiscriminate collection of video game content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I muddled my intended message. First, I'd like to say that I in no way meant to imply that you had created the article or the list in it. I stated the last part as examples of how we as editors can get invested in content on Wikipedia. The more time we spend on something, the more invested we become. The more invested we are, the more we defend the content, because we don't want to have wasted our time. I know I'm like that, and I'm sure everyone else here is to some degree.

Nor did I mean to imply you will not listen to reason or are unreasonable in your edits. Like many other editors on here, you have proven yourself to be an asset to the Project and Wikipedia.

And while there are plenty of examples of lists in certain articles, most that I—and I'm sure others—can think of are real-life people and/or objects. Because we are dealing with fictional content, we have to deal with stricter guidelines. Fictional content will almost never have the same weight as real-world content.

Regarding the how-to content, how-to is not the the only criteria of WP:NOTHOWTO. It states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook." Multiple editors are calling the content game guide material because that is the type of content the average gamer would expect to find in a game guide. And while there are multiple editors that feel the content should be kept in, that does not make a consensus. The rationales for keeping the content in or even separate from the main game article do not comply with the policy and guidelines. I'm sure there are those that disagree, but I do not personally feel they have made a strong enough case. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rather than revisit last week's debate about cleaning up the weapons article, I took the liberty of copying all the information in the weapons article into the main Resident Evil 4 article. All of the information was placed in the "Weapons" section about gameplay, with the exception of the criticism of RE4 which seemed to have nothing to do with weapons and more to do with sexism anyway. The criticism was put in the more suitable "Reception" section. I think it looks pretty good. The only thing left to do is redirect the old page to the main article. I think the main article is better off for it. Take a look and give it a copyedit, if you find a minute. Randomran (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the page. Policy clearly supports a move, and while I understand some editors wish to see both articles exists this is not a suitable article for duplication of information. John.n-IRL 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rest of the merchandise info, was that transfered over? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Most of it's there. It was only three sentences. One about the chainsaw controller, and two about action figures with weapons fro the game. I turned those two into one sentence since they seemed to be redundant. I figure other editors can edit/add/remove information on its own merits. Randomran (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the response. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note to article creaters

Note: Whenever you create a VG article and you want a screenshot, simply go to Gamestop.com , type the name of the game into the serach box, clip on the boxart, scroll down to the screenshot section and then pick the one you want and upload it instead of leaving it to another editor.Gears Of War 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody contributes to Wikipedia as their ability and inclination permits. Tags exist precisely so that people can mark articles that have specific needs without immediately addressing those needs. If someone leaves a tag in good faith, they have volunteered that time and effort, no matter how small, to assist in improving the wiki. They could have ignored the problem entirely and allowed an article to languish in a bad state. Of course it would be better if everyone put 100% into it and fixed every problem on sight, but no one is obligated to do anything. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though some have limitations, some do not. Some just dont feel like and are to lazy to do it themselves. That is a problem. Though no one is forced to do it themselves, they should if they are able.Gears Of War 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not something we, or anyone but the individual can decide. And is also not a really a topic that needs discussion here. John.n-IRL 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then where shall it be discussed?Gears Of War 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could propose a wikipedia policy that moves away from the volunteer concept. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, particularly about "proposals". I'm sure that if more people were forced to do things they didn't care enough to do, the quality of the encyclopedia could only go up. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only disagree; people who like volunteering would be driven away... wouldn't you rather volunteer than be forced to work for free? --Izno (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent and highly persuasive argument. Randomran (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I find the above argument thread quite amusing. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was sarcasm myself...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that copyright is a complicated concept for people to grasp, but you absolutely can not go to Gamespot and copy their screenshots for insertion in this site unless Gamespot explicitly gives permission for their screen shots to be republished on another site and or released their photography to the public domain. Furthermore, gameplay screenshots are copyright to the photographer or the company that commissioned the work for hire as they are an original work of art. It works like this:

The content of the photo may be subject to copyrights related to the person or item being photographed.

If that photo is taken for commercial publication then you must have the permission of the copyright owner to reproduce the photo (eg... the Eiffel tower at night).

Exception, for instance if the photograph of the person/item is illustrative for review purposes (ie, the photo is ancillary to the use and not the focus of the work), then as the photographer/publisher of that photograph, you do not have to have permission of the copyright holder or the person/item being photographed to publish the your photo. But this only applies to the original photographer/publisher.

Additionally, the photo itself (NOT IT'S CONTENTS!) is an original work that is copyright the photographer/publisher.

In order to reprint this photograph in any manner, you MUST get permission of the copyright holder of the photograph.

Beyond that, IF you have a photograph in a publication that you wish to republish for commercial purposes, you will have to negotiate copyrights with BOTH the photographer and the owner of the thing photographed.BcRIPster (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, we've made this trip before. Please review these three links in order.BcRIPster (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Gears of War comments: I think it's a bit rude to assume people are lazy because they put requests up, instead of finding a photo themselves. Seeing as how Wikipedia is volunteer work, forcing people to place images is unreasonable. Not everyone has the time to just put an image up right away. Putting a request on the talk page is perfectly fine. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this notion. My comment was more to address the blatant call by Gears of War to violate copyright, and I wanted to shut that down right away.BcRIPster (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Gears of War did not mean to be rude in their comments. Trying to find ways to improve and streamline the system is something a lot of us think about. But given the tricky nature of fair use content, it is probably best to leave adding images to more experienced editors. There is already a great deal of pressure to follow Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines, no need to pile onto it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Future of Task Forces(part two: Atari)

In archive 41, we talked about sending video game series task forces into whole Publisher task forces. Example: Devil May Cry to Capcom. I would like to request that the actual creators of the task forces would meet here to discuss the issue I talk of in Archive 41.Gears Of War 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil May Cry/Capcom

I see, however the DMC task force is covering more than just the video games, we also cover the novels, manga and anime. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, though you cover more than just the games, are they all not under watch of Capcom.Gears Of War 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the novels were losely monitored by Capcom, the other merchandise is published and in most cases written by third parties, they are what some people would consider "non-canon" to the video games. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, a slight set-back. That could be a problem in my vision of future task forces. Any suggestions?Gears Of War 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you have in mind, however from what I have seen "publisher" Task Forces aren't as effective as specific ones, probably due to the huge scope that they cover. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Task forces on specific series tend to operate better (DMC task force, Kingdom Hearts task force, etc.). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its highly dependent on circumstances-we can't just blanket all series into publisher/developer TFs. StarCraft (if anyone actually joined it) and Warcraft would work well independently of each other. However, a task force for Valve Software would work more efficiently than a task force for Half-Life, a task force for Day of Defeat, etc, as they are all so intricately linked in a way that StarCraft and Warcraft are not. By the way, take that as a proposal to create a Valve Corporation task force. I'll create a draft task force page later. -- 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolling up disparate game franchises into a single developer wide task force isn't useful. For example, there is a dedicated core of Final Fantasy fans, which lead to a reasonably prolific run of FF GAs and FAs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy. Yet these editors are not interested as interested in other Square Enix properties without the Final Fantasy name, and so Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix never really took off. - hahnch e n 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? The Square Enix project has the same numbers of FTs and FAs as the Final Fantasy project, and has only 13 less GAs than it. It's definitely less active than the FF project, but I wouldn't say it "isn't useful", especially considering that it has produced these featured and contents in a much shorter span of time than the FF project has for theirs. The two projects are equally useful and complementary. Kariteh (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valve task force

I've shoved up a draft of a task force for the Valve Corporation here. Any thoughts? -- Sabre (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3D Monster Maze review

3D Monster Maze 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. Step hen 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 496: / Line 496: @@
 :I think its highly dependent on circumstances-we can't just blanket all series into publisher/developer TFs. StarCraft (if anyone actually joined it) and Warcraft would work well independently of each other. However, a task force for [[Valve Software]] would work more efficiently than a task force for Half-Life, a task force for Day of Defeat, etc, as they are all so intricately linked in a way that StarCraft and Warcraft are not. By the way, take that as a proposal to create a Valve Corporation task force. I'll create a draft task force page later. -- 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 ::Rolling up disparate game franchises into a single developer wide task force isn't useful.  For example, there is a dedicated core of Final Fantasy fans, which lead to a reasonably prolific run of FF GAs and FAs at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy]].  Yet these editors are not interested as interested in other Square Enix properties without the Final Fantasy name, and so [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix]] never really took off. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
+:::Huh?? The Square Enix project has the same numbers of FTs and FAs as the Final Fantasy project, and has only 13 less GAs than it. It's definitely less active than the FF project, but I wouldn't say it "isn't useful", especially considering that it has produced these featured and contents in a much shorter span of time than the FF project has for theirs. The two projects are equally useful and complementary. [[User:Kariteh|Kariteh]] ([[User talk:Kariteh|talk]]) 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 ===Valve task force===