Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guyinblack25 (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 25 September 2008 (→‎Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games list problems again: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games list problems again

Hahnchen refuses to accept he is the only one that strongly wants the list. I believe the consensus to not have a list exists, but he refuses to admit it. So anytime I add the list back, he just removes it. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_53#List_of_Olympic_events (as well as the FAC page which is linked in that discussion) for more on this matter. Hahnchen needs to handle this issue better, instead of assuming consensus means everyone has to be for (or against) something. Consensus is the majority, not everyone. If you read past discussions, most people don't want the list. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's getting reverted by multiple people, he can be blocked for 3RR... I don't see what else needs to be done if you have strong consensus on your side. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think multiple people are reverting him. But the discussions about the list show there isn't a consensus to keep the list. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the FAC closed with comments from User:SandyGeorgia, an impartial user, stating that no consensus was formed, and that the majority of users said they had no preference over the inclusion of the list, that's pretty much the definition of no consensus. - hahnchen 15:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page -

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The list isn't a part of the article being featured. This post (found here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mario_&_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games): With discussion in three different places aobut the list of events, no clear consensus has emerged to convince me I should hold off promotion over that issue. I do hope the involved Projects will work to develop a guideline for future articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC). So it being in the article when it was promoted or not, isn't relevant to it's value at all. However the part about a consensus is wrong. Only a small amount of editors (with you the only one edit warring regularly, to re-add the list) want the list. Stop being difficult and accept the fact the consensus is against the list. How many people against the list do you need, before you stop edit warring: 10, 20, 100? Just stop edit warring, this is getting old. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing comment specifically states there was no clear consensus over the inclusion of the list. Take a look at the discussions, the majority of editors have declared a non-commital response as to the inclusion of the list, that's a clear no-consensus. Your clear cut declaration of what falls into Wikipedia, and what is WP:NOT was also not supported. Please address the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Mario_.26_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games_list_problems_again instead of taking it here. - hahnchen 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hahnchen is just being difficult and needs to stop. The consensus is clear. The nonsense about "non-commital" is wrong. Do you expect all of them to edit war with you? Is that considered non-commital to you? Then will you finally stop? I somehow doubt even that, will stop you. The list belongs off, it's game guide content at best. Olympics are an actual event, but so is MLB and NFL: but we certainly don't have game guide lists at articles for those games. RobJ1981 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need consensus to delete information from Wikipedia. In a discussion when the majority of users suggest that either way is OK, that's a non-committal response, it certainly isn't the consensus view that the events are outside of Wikipedia's scope. Points such as why exclusive events are covered in explicit detail, yet shared events are not have still not been resolved. Why are the categories of events listed, even when athletics and aquatics are so vague compared to table tennis? The reason that there's an "Events" section in the article, is because they're an integral part of the gameplay, and they define the game in the same way that List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock does. And MLB? I'm pretty sure in all the MLB articles, we state what sport it's based on. - hahnchen 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahnchen, I don't think the Guitar Hero analogies are completely applicable in this case. Such music video games normally have specially designed controllers for a specific type of gameplay that is heavily integrated into the song. That's why the song lists become more notable than something like the Mario & Sonic events.
After looking through the past discussions, even though a number of people were indifferent, there were more that felt the list should be excluded. I'd argue that consensus was in favor of it's exclusion. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
So you ignore those who are non-committal? That's how you'd close an afd? If the majority of users are indifferent, we just gloss over them? That's not it's done, the non-committal users define the no-consensus.
And how is a specially designed controller even relevant? Think your argument through, the fact that there's a single controller, and single method of gameplay, detracts from the importance of the individual song. Whether you're playing Aerosmith or Dragonforce, your gameplay experience is going to differ less than if you're participating in the 100m or the hammer throw. Yet without the list, you don't even know the hammer throw exists. The reason "song lists become more notable", is because of the precedent that soundtracks are fine in list form, but apparently, everything else regarding gameplay isn't, because as specified in the previous discussion - it'll inevitably lead to spell lists and character lists etc. That's a baseless prediction.
The Events are obviously important to the gameplay, or else there wouldn't be the section dedicated to them in the article. Without the full list of events, you list the vague categories, and you list the exclusive events as if events that differ are more notable than events that are similar. The events were announced prior to the games release, and reported on by reliable sources[1][2], because unlike WarioWare minigames, they have real world relevance and aren't just trivial skins. - hahnchen 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the list should be omitted. Slippery slope, notability, and non-paragraph info all pushes me to say it should be deleted.LedRush (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't see anything especially notable about the games as a whole, no more than I did when the Lists of mini-games in the Mario Party series were on the AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hanhchen- We're not talking about an AfD, we're talking about an embedded list in an article. The non-committals were not on a fence and couldn't decide, they almost all said it was a non-issue for the FAC. They chose to not let the event list be a factor in their voting decision.
While the reader may not know there was a hammer throw event in the game, do they really need to? Is it cool to know? Yes, but does it really further my understanding of the game? Jappalang said it best, "the issue might be a mismatch in our expectations of 'comprehensiveness'". We just have different definitions of what the reader "needs" to know to understand the topic. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Edit for History of Game Consoles fifth generation

Hello i would like to talk about an edit which does concentrate on the less successful consoles in the fifth generation, like the Amiga CD32, 3DO and Atari Jaguar because i am 100 % sure that for one in North America and Europe the Amiga CD32 was the world's first 32 bit game console, and i have many sources to say that the Amiga CD32 was indeed releaced in September 1993, then the 3do was releaced in October 1993 not September 1993 and there for is not the first in Europe and North America but the Second, and as for the Atari Jaguar there are no problems as it was releaced on 18th November 1993, but the next problem is that the best selling game on the Amiga CD32 was the console's best selling game was Simon the Sorrceror but was removed along with Return Fire on the 3do and Alien VS Predator on the Atari Jaguar, these are the best selling games on these platforms but have instead been re-edited as unknown also it is good that the 3do is known as selling 2 million which it did but also it needs to be known that the Atari Jaguar sold 500,000 units and Amiga CD32 100,000 units also for the acutal worlds first 32 bit game console the FM Towns Marty it needs a picture to represent it i am also concerned that the Phillips CD-i and Amiga CDTV are not well represented enough as the first consoles to use CDs and that the Bally Astrocade has been deleted from Second Generation even though it was cleary a game console. These consoles are not represented enough in general so it would be good if they could be on wikipedia. P.S I am having problems geting in to wiki game, because of an admin accusing me of cross wiki even though i have not hacked (which this admin i will not name is accusing me of even though i have not) is i to do with another user who has please help me. Thankyou Mcjakeqcool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I couldn't read all that—it sounds like you have a content dispute. If so, you should generally discuss it on the talk page of the article in question first. It looks like your edits are being undone because you did not provide sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources if you haven't seen those yet—they are integral to becoming a Wikipedia contributor—then find some reliable sources to back up your challenged edits. Pagrashtak 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply revolving fifth generation edits

Ok then, i will get a list of sources to back my evidence up altough i do have some evidence already. But basically i found WikiProject Video games from an eMail on my talk page and since i signed in just under a month ago, i have been trying to improve some wiki pages around games mostly, by adding historical infomation instead of infomation slighty inaccurate infomation something that happens alot around these obscure consoles i consentrate on. Basically there is alot of infomation about these computers that are left out in a lot of cases even though some sources do state them so i am trying to edit some of these articles for that reason. I have also refreshed my knowledge on wiki edit policies, which i have done before so i am clear on it. Thanks Mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VG Chartz

I am sure this has been discussed before, but why can't we cite VG Charts' numbers? I can understand why we'd want to use primary source numbers first, but in the absence of that, why not use the info: It is verifiable and objective.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, unreliability. Case in point they list two very different groups of sales numbers for the game "Wario Land 2".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the sources page for a link about it. Basically, their measurements are often amalgamation of sources and lots of guesstimation science, ie. unreliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also discussed in depth a while back at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_18#VGCharts --Oscarthecat (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion regarding infobox importance

Given how the bot for the 0.7 DVD is handling the parameter for Wikipedia, I think it's handling it less as "this is an importance subject" and more "how does the wikiproject regard this article's need to be in the book." By this extension though, some articles of FA quality get bypassed while Start-class articles get scarfed up. So would it work out better to re-assess the articles with importance reflecting their quality just as much, rather than only a subject's weight?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No—importance is completely separate from quality. It makes sense to choose a short article on a vital subject over a well-written article on a trivial subject. Pagrashtak 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infocom sales date, if anyone needs it...

Caught this article from GameSetWatch (itself reliable) for sales up to 1989 for all the text-based Infocom games. --MASEM 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it to Zork I. A filled in cite web template for anyone who feels like going through the rest:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/09/great_scott_infocoms_alltime_s.php
 |title=Great Scott: Infocom's All-Time Sales Numbers Revealed
 |date=20 September 2008|accessdate=21 September 2008
 |publisher=GameSetWatch|author=Simon Carless}}</ref>

User:Krator (t c) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter: The Movie

I'm thinking of splitting the Street Fighter: The Movie article into two. The arcade game and the console game released for the PlayStation and Saturn are really nothing alike aside from using the same digitized footage from the film and are considered separate games by Capcom. Even All About Capcom Head-to-Head Fighting Games makes this point a few times. On the other hand, I don't think there's enough real-world coverage to justify covering the two games separately. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could cover the arcade game as the primary and the port solely as secondary, since it can be condensed to about a paragraph as it was just SF2 with those sprites, right?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point I'm trying to bring up. Its NOT a port. Its a separately produced game that also happened to use digitized footage of the film. The reason why its mistaken for a port is because the console version was given the same title for its American release. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A split may be a good idea then, especially since both games do tend to have been received differently (the arcade game getting a lot of the bad rap the home ports got). Go for it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spark kind of a clone of Attack Retrieve Capture

For a while now since VU Games (Sierra) terminated ARC a new copy of it has surfaced under the name of Spark . It has it's own community and website and written under a name of Codemullet Entertainment as the developer. However I am not sure on the rules if it is acceptable to write anything about it in the ARC article, if there should be a new article or non at all. I would like some advice on which way to manage the situation. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough reliable sources about the subject to merit a lengthy article, spin it out. Otherwise keep it in the main article (or if no sources exist, don't have it, period.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[3] - Can I get some comments on whether this image would be appropriate for detailing the visuals and style of Hotel Dusk: Room 215 (assuming a section on its visuals is created)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a static image suffice, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size, "Inline animations should be used sparingly" ? --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I don't think the image is terribly big in its size. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this one? It's only about 18kb. Though I'd like an image that shows more movement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both images (300kb, 18kb) are reasonable sizes in my opinion. I just wondered whether animated was required in this case. Perhaps animated are required here, to capture the pencil-shading style of the game's graphics? --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think a still image captures it well enough. It was cool seeing the animation, but I don't see how it adds much to the article. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
A still image should suffice (you'll need a better source than tinypic when you upload, though). Giggy (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was far more impressed by the visuals in motion than still. It shows the paper-style in a still image, but the animation style is pretty significant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think in a case like this an animated image is reasonable and suitable, as it's harder to describe a key visual effect like that for a game with just a still image.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this style is used elsewhere (it's not Dr. Katz/Home Movies squigglevision, but it is similar to the style in "Take On Me") but never seen a name for it. I think the smaller animation is appropriate, but only if we can substantiate with commentary from reviews that praise/critique it or talk about why that style was used from development sources. --18:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Rotoscoping. And please try using --~~~~, per WP:SIGNATURE to sign your postings. Thx. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Masem. If the animation style has been deemed noteworthy, then it makes sense to include the gif.
And I think Masem may have accidentally added an extra "~", as five (~~~~~) gives the time stamp. Common and honest mistake. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

WiiWare and List of WiiWare games merge?

Neither article is terribly large, so I think a merge is in order. Discuss here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be better to keep them separate...I can see the main article possibly getting improved to have more body to it, and the list to be much bigger as time goes on. A merge at this point could just end up causing problems down the line.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed project?

Anybody seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom Hearts yet? I don't remember seeing any discussion about it—should be a task force at best. Pagrashtak 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thinking Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat probably should get the same fate: it seems to be dead at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
News to me. Looks like it was made today. There's already a small number of editors working on keep the KH articles in shape and work on the three new games. Most discussions have been on the talk pages. I don't think a task force page is necessary as there's very little work to be done right now. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I left a note on KH's talk page just now at #Inactive?.
Viewing the history, it was made yesterday. However, the editor didn't get very far before giving up on making it a nice looking page, so I'm wondering if maybe that could be folded quickly into VG, as we do have KH editors currently. --Izno (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, look here. He started a task force page, which looks like it was substed from WP:VG/CNC. He also created a Portal:Konami. I would suggest a redirect for the WPKH page, or possibly a Housekeeping speedy. --Izno (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a more general note, this should probably have been brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. :) <shameless plug/> --Izno (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI- KH Project page up for deletion at MfD. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Images for Black Mesa mod

I'm concerned with the images at Black Mesa (game mod). Some of the screenshots used are labelled as being in the public domain, some have even managed to find their way onto the Commons. My concern is that these are not images in the public domain and the uploader believes that as the game is free and because the images have been put out for free viewing, that equates to being in the public domain. But as we all know, publishing on the Internet does not automatically put something into the public domain. I also cannot find any evidence of the team saying that the images are in the public domain, and the fact each image has legalese down the side of it that says "respective trademarks copyright (c) Valve Corporation", it strikes me that we've got a case of copyright breach here. Thoughts? Other images state that the uploader is the copyright holder, which is believable as I've known at least one other mod team releasing images for free use. However, it could be worth emailing or forum PM-ing the team to ensure that one of them did indeed upload the images. -- Sabre (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Half-Life assets (wall textures at bare minimum)? Then we've got derivative works and regardless of what massaging the Black Mesa team has done, they are non-free images. These need to be deleted from commons and all but a couple deleted from WP, the remaining corrected with licensing. --MASEM 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following are on enwp and are tagged as PD:
Image:Black Mesa (Mod) Screenshot1.jpg, Image:Black Mesa (Mod) Screenshot2.jpg, Image:Black Mesa (Mod) Screenshot3.jpg, Image:Black Mesa (Mod) Screenshot4.jpg, Image:Anomalous tc 01.jpg, Image:Blastpit 002.jpg, Image:C2a4 mediarelease 004.jpg, Image:C3a2 mediarelease 001.jpg, Image:C3a2 mediarelease 004.jpg, Image:Gargantua beauty.jpg
I deleted the one Commons image ([4]). Anyone want to create a mass IFD for the rest (or just delete them)? Giggy (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to delete them wholesale if there's no opposition here (in the case an image might be useful, etc.). sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone were to add critical commentary (ya know, the usual routine) we could keep one. But it may just be easier to reupload when someone does that. (Not objecting.) Giggy (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion. Although the project said on its site that "Levels will be faithful to the original Half-Life concept and built from scratch"[5]), the products are still derivative art (using the game's engine to render textures and models that are faithful to the originals). Furthermore, the screenshots are all water-marked and mostly uploaded by the project's own members.[6] The effort frankly smacks of trying to advertise their site and get around the no galleries of non-free images ruling. Jappalang (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the bunch. Feel free to send a message if one of them ever needs to be restored or similar. Cheers, sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken/Sakura

  • In what looks to be a potential rehash of a MedCab debate from way back when, Mr.bonus (talk · contribs) is repeatedly moving the articles for the Street Fighter characters Ken and Sakura to locations that don't use their full names, and Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) moves them back. While I don't care much either way, this back and forth moving is disruptive, and the MedCab appears that the decision reached was to have them at Ken Masters and Sakura Kasugano because those names have been used in merchandising. Another RfC would surely be pointless, but neither side appears willing to back down. What to do? JuJube (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is a third-party game, but for the record the official site of Namco X Capcom list both of those characters by their full names too (see here). Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read of the mediation, it seems to have been closed without reaching a compromise. According to the dispute resolution process, either start another mediation session or escalate the war to the edit warring noticeboard. The final option is to go for arbitration. An unoffered (and unrecommended) route is to request admin attention at WP:AN/I... Jappalang (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration would probably be a waste of time again. Bonus is more interested in being "right", and his attitude is very...antagonistic. His stance is that the name can only be used if it appeared on the in-match lifebars or select screen, with little compromise (the original brought up the matter that Tekken 5 stated the full name audibly when a character was selected; his response was that someone might not hear it). It's a bit too early in the morning for me to argue effectively atm, but I don't think a disambig title for an article is necessary when the name is presented in the game and supported manuals in a very clear format to the extent a person new to the subject wouldn't have to dig around to find it out (a la Rolento). But I'm not going to edit war with him either. There has to be a better option.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the full names should be used, not necessarily because of merchandising, but because this is a convenient way to disambiguate these from other "Ken" and "Sakura" articles. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date-linking

I have started a section over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Date-linking regarding the very recent change at WP:MOSNUM deprecating date-linking solely for the purpose of date autoformatting; since we do a lot of date-linking, this is very pertinent to us. Please discuss over there. MuZemike (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit for Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings?

So, I've basically gone and rewrittten this in the last week (if that), going from here to its current status. This is one of our high importance Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop articles (hence my sudden motivation to work on it). I'd like to take this one to FAC before the 0.7 thing is finalised, so if anyone could give it a quick copyedit (or point out any glaring issues they could find), that'd be great.

Thanks! Giggy (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, are you going to submit it for GA first or go straight to FA? Someoneanother 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably straight for FA, thought it does depend how bold I'm feeling. Pagrashtak left some useful feedback here. Giggy (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an eye on Species of StarCraft for gameguide info

Over the last few hours, an anomynous IP (in good faith I might add, there's nothing vandalistic about it) has been adding gameguide-esque information on in-game strategies. It's unreferenced, generally requires the reader to have played the game and is pretty much all original research, and as such I removed it, as a brief overview of in-game strategies that a reader who has not played the game has been included. However, I think that the IP may persist on re-adding the information, and as I can't revert again without breaching 3RR. The article is currently at GAN, and such content disputes can be taken as instability, which will affect the article's chances, so can I ask for one or two people to keep an eye on it to make sure that further game guide information doesn't creep in. -- Sabre (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start by leaving a message on the user's talk page. People new to Wikipedia might not know about edit summaries but would find it hard to miss a big orange banner at the top of the page. :) ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed from authors of video game FAs or GAs for Wikipedia 0.7

Our project has been fortunate enough to have a large number of articles selected for inclusion in Wikipedia 0.7. If you have been involved in a FA or GA under our scope, please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop to see if your article has been selected for inclusion. If so, please follow the instructions there to select an oldid of the article that is in good shape and vandalism-free—this shouldn't take too much time and will ensure that your work enters Wikipedia 0.7 in good condition. Thanks to those that have already been helping out with this effort to improve the contribution of our project. Pagrashtak 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario articles in serious condition.

Seeing as how many of the Mario articles are in no good shape, I propose that there be a task force made for Mario, and that an effort to promote every main game in the series to GA be made. On that note, we should go in order of the games' releases, so we would start with Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, then move onto Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, then Super Mario World, then Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, then Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, then New Super Mario Bros., and finally, Super Mario Galaxy - just to get into order. Anyone interested? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might add Super Mario Land to that list as well: it's currently GA, but in all honesty it feels more like a B-class article given the lack of some citations and information in other areas.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can make Mario the current primary focus on the Nintendo task force if need be. MuZemike (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like MuZe's idea. :) --Izno (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added a message to the task force's to-do list (as well as updating it with the 0.7 Nintendo articles that need cleanup). The biggest ones are
All of those abovementioned Mario articles are High- or Top-importance. MuZemike (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good opportunity to mention that I barely have any time for writing articles or doing much besides reverting edits now on Wikipedia. I'd help with this as I've already taken several of the Mario articles to GA (and one FA), but there just isn't enough time since I've started college. The most I could muster is a review on a weekend, but that's abou it. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started work on Mario Bros. with some basic reformatting and rewrites. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reassessed Super Mario Bros. 2 as high, per the fact that it was very well-known, and very significant to the industry.
Also, I think Mario Bros. should be semi-protected - most of the edits are vandalism lately, and it would help to not have to sift through them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 FAR

Half-Life 2 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image in Street Fighter IV infobox.

I been having a mild edit war in the Street Fighter IV with another editor who insists to use an unfinished cover artwork of a yet-to-be-released console version of the game over the original arcade version's poster, which is already out. His rationale is that arcade game posters are not "true cover arts" (even though Infobox VG guidelines does allow for promotional fliers of arcade games) and that a cover artwork for a home version (even an unreleased one) are preferred. Personally, I think original versions should take precedence over any subsequent port and arcade games are no different from theatrically-released films in this case. Having the cover of a console port over the arcade game poster seems to undermine the importance of the original arcade version, as if the arcade version of the game was not important enough. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Final Fantasy VII GAN

I need some help here. I initially posted the issue on the FF wikiproject talk page, but no one replied. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The Prince (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infocom (text adventures maker) sales numbers

Maybe not exactly citeable by Wikipedia, but it's definitely worth a look and I'm sure some article somewhere can use it somehow: link. --VPeric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.87.60 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=241009748"