Talk:List of Virtual Boy games/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of images

Seeing as Fair use states "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy." I think we'll keep them, as they add something to the article. I would also like to know which part of the official fair use policies those screenshots break. Havok (T/C/c) 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Another good point raised. Thank you Havok. And the debate can be observed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Virtual Boy games. Basically, the removers keep saying that the images aren't the subject of critical commentary (they are saying this is a requirement) and are ignoring all explanations otherwise. The removers don't seem to actually want to discuss the matter though, and instead just revert my reverts, say "the rules are on my side", and leave. It's really getting stupid and I hope it gets resolved quickly. --SeizureDog 13:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to provide a valid reason for the images to be used in the list, and so far you've pointed out loopholes in WP:FUC, which is an official policy. The images displayed in this list are not captioned and the text does not address them. They are used for the purpose of decorating the list, not for any valid purpose. The images are much more likely to be fair use on the article about each game, where the text can actually address the image. Vic Vipr ^T_C 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have given you plenty of reasons but if doesn't matter how many reasons I give you if you brush them all aside. Your only arguement (that the pictures are merely decorative) is based on an opinion and not a fact. An opinion, I might add, that is the minority. We've got four users that are perfectly able to read the rules themselves and come up with an opinion and you're basically just saying we're a bunch of idiots and that the rules say something else. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it IS meant to find consensus through discussion and follow with that, a process you two seem to wish to ignore. If you wish to keep reverting you really should convince everyone else that your opinions are correct. You seem to be thinking "I don't have to convince you because I'm correct" and it is coming across as highly arrogant. --SeizureDog 04:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked the images are there to show what the game is. And as such there is no need for a caption seeing as the title of the game is right next to it. If you really want Vic, we can put a caption saying "This is the title screen for X" on all the screenshots if that would satisfy you. There is absolutly nothing in the official policy about not using images like this, it's or not and, so your "political commentary" reason is void. Even if they don't go under fair use, what should they go under, or how do you suggest we go about getting "free" images of these games? Instead of proclaiming illegality, removing the images and leave it at that; how about helping us figure this out? Havok (T/C/c) 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page due to edit-warring. The edit-warring seems to be over inserting unfree media into a list. Given that there seems to be multiple users involved, it is not clear that blocking the accounts in violation of WP:FUC is the best way to solve the problem. Jkelly 20:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

On featuring this list

Just to be clear, I am promoting the version of the list without screenshots as the rest of the content is well sourced, written and otherwise complies with the requirements of What is a featured list?. However, if the images are reinserted without consensus, or otherwise another edit war ensues, I will take the list to WP:FLRC. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now I'm going to have to be all worried about it being removed. I'm glad it passed though :) --SeizureDog 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the issue got out of hand and an edit war did happen, which led to the article being protected. As I said above, I 'm taking the list to FLRC. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding of images

I have re-added the images seeing as mediation was rejected. Havok (T/C/c) 16:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Which of course is just going to lead to another revert -_- I e-mailed User:BradPatrick as was suggested and hope for an official ruling sometime soon.--SeizureDog 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is, it constitutes as vandalism in my book and as such I will revert it as vandalism, and warn the user. If they do not want this to be mediated, then it's not that important to remove for them. It's important information to have in this article, so it stays. Havok (T/C/c) 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again the images are removed on false basis, please get it together, there is no policy violation with these images. Havok (T/C/c) 23:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use issue

I am adding to this page to clarify what might be the mistaken opinion that I am engaged in the business of "ruling" on "official" questions. Not exactly. Fair use is one of the most complicated areas of American intellectual property jurisprudence, and that is why it is nigh unto impossible to have an official policy on WP about what does and doesn't constitute fair use. Posters who add these images do so at their own personal peril. Havok, your sense of in-your-face-neener-neener-it's-not-official-policy is unwise; as an encyclopedia entry, this page appears to me to be merely a catalogue. The images are solely to identify the particular game; there is nothing remotely expressive about the inclusion of the images except to dress up the page. Ducking the question of what is and is not fair use, I would encourage you to deepen the content of the page, make the entry more encyclopedic, and ask yourself what is it about these games that is or is not compelling, historically important, etc. So, I'm not saying the images have to come down because they aren't fair use; I'm suggesting the people on this page who are concerned about it figure out the best way forward and determine whether or not the images are essential and necessary. Since I don't believe a room full of intellectual property lawyers would agree, I'm not surprised a handful of gamer Wikipedians aren't going to agree. The future of the Free Culture Movement won't crater if this page doesn't have potentially infringing images. Fair use is always an argument of last resort, and a weak one at best.--BradPatrick 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time Brad, but seeing how adding content defeats the purpose of a list (it'd then become an article), I'm just going to drop the issue and let the images stay off. However, if an issue is made about something as trivial as the table color again I'm going to be quite pissed. If Havok agrees, then I think the matter is settled.--SeizureDog 04:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you only single me out as a "in-your-face-neener-neener-it's-not-official-policy" as you so delicately put it, just goes to show that this matter actually is something that needs to be discussed on a higher level. And for the record, I have never under any circumstance used any form of "neener-neener" towards any editor; I have only been stating that these infact do not break any policy. Just as much as they have been stating that they do.

If you give me a clear good reason why these images should be removed, then I will listen to you. Which to begin with is something I've tried to get ed g2s to do, but it dosn't seem to me that he can give a reason, as there is non to give. All he has said is "According to official fair use policy these images do not offer any political commentary".

And singeling me out as you did is not wise either. I would suggest you read the entire debate that has been going on before doing so. And I doubt that a handful of lawyers from Nintendo would even care. If it would please the "Remove fair use" guys, I'll contact Nintendo, and ask them if they would care. I'll get them to fax me their stance on these images. But can I do this? No I can't, because that would constitue as "original research" and is very much a no no. Wow, what a corner Wikipedia has painted itself into. And if you did not see it by now, the entire last paragraph was sarcasm.

I'll be looking forward to settling this matter, and atleast someone cares enough to give us something more then what ed g2s feed us. Thank you Brad. Havok (T/C/c) 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Asking for permission of image use isn't original research. --SeizureDog 08:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite, and specific permission for Wikipedia is not sufficient, in fact, Jimbo has personally banned such images. Unless you were hoping Nintendo would freely license the images, in which case you don't stand a chance. ed g2s • talk 11:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the dumbest goal of Wikipedia is the goal to be freely redistributed. In a sense, it's making the Internet suck. Search for information about a topic and you'll get a Wikipedia page and then 20 clone pages of sites using the Wikipedia content. I don't see how a redunancy of information helps anyone. There really isn't any need for the information to go any further from one centralized location. I find the goal of becoming the greatest wealth of information much more noble than allowing anyone to just go ahead and take our work and slap it on a page somewhere. A bit ranty, but these conflicting goals are making Wikipedia be really stupid at times. --SeizureDog 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still strongly in favour of including the images; the list looked *far* better *with* the images. Regarding SeizureDog's comment: Well, list of European Union member states contains a lot of information, as well, but it wouldn't pass WP:FA because it's too list-y. I see no problem with adding content to lists. —Nightstallion (?) 09:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at both versions, I have to say that I don't think the screenshot images add anything to the table. In fact, I think it looks better without them. But that's just my 2 cents. Kaldari 23:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At least now we have a dialoge about it. And if I wasn't clear enough above, I am all for consensus, so if consensus ends up with no images, then no images it is. Atleast then it's not because of the entire fair use discussion. Havok (T/C/c) 06:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a case of whether the page looked better with or without images. If it was, I would argue to keep the images on. This is also not a case of whether the use of images is necessarily legal in the US, EU or anywhere else, or whether Nintendo are likely to sue us. Legality is necessary for usage, but not sufficient. The images must also pass under our fair use policies, the core of which is to keep such usages to an absolute minimum and as a last resort. If you disagree with this policy, then this is not the place to discuss it. ed g2s • talk 11:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

... and silly me only now comes back to the talk page and notices that this issue has been resolved. Righteo. Just ignore my comment on the article's Featured list page. Yay unto the Chicken 06:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection of page

Considering how its been protected over 2 weeks and not much has gotten done, I move that the page be unprotected. I need to make a few minor edits and the protection is quite bothersome. The discussion of use of images should be continued, but it should be agreed on that the images won't just be readded without consensus. --SeizureDog 23:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There are some links that could use some fixing, among other things. Since I don't care about the images, I can tell you I wo'nt be adding any. --Thaddius 11:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article. ed g2s • talk 13:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the table colour

Wikipedia gives a more detailed view on the benefits of the separation of style and content using CSS. ed g2s • talk 13:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me a direct example (visually) of the table color being a problem. As it is, it is only a minor inconvinence to an imaginary person.--SeizureDog 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is a uniform table look recommended.

2. It has been decided in many different occassions to let the mirrors deal with Wikipedia content as they can (i.e. we produce content for Wikipedia in mind, not the mirrors). Examples of active discussion include the non-standard layout of infoboxes, the small metadata icons on the right of the articles, NPOV tags, etc. Note that this is irrespective of avoiding self-references guideline, which has a different rationale.

a) Most of these things are easy to remove by running a bot on a database dump locally. We even provide a bot framework for such task.

b) Additionaly, mirrors seem to handle our content well so far. If you look at answers.com they basically show the same colors as we do for every article. See for instance Battles of the Mexican-American War in their pages.

3. The CSS class "wikitable" was created as a replacement of the template {{prettytable}} which was used in hundreds of articles and was, in fact, created to make tables look good quick and easy. The change was made having server load/vandalism issues at hand, not usability by third parties.

4. Ultimately, Wikiprojects where applicable tend to have a large say on formatting issues of their respective pages.

To your disappointment, Wikipedia in fact does not care much about separation of style and content at the moment. Whether that's right or wrong is not for me to decide, however there's certainly no consensus on the issue and trying to force one on editors is the wrong way to go about it. Go to the Village Pump, get some discussion started and eventually create a policy/guideline. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1. So what? Just because something is not policy, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. There is not policy saying you can't design your own image thumbnail boxes, but every uses the standard .thumb class boxes unless there is a good reason not to.
2. Nonsense. Wikipedia provides multiple tools to assist third party use (XML export, database dumps), and it is one of the main goals of the project. Anything which makes this easier is almost certainly a Good Thing.
   1. So why have them in the first place, when they serve no purpose?
   2. Answers.com hasn't removed the colours. It just so happens that they use a light, pale skin. So the light yellow background doesn't look out of place. Should another site use a brighter or darker colour scheme, the custom colours may very well end up looking out of place.
3. How the wikitable class came to be is irrelevant (which, by the way, wasn't purely a server-load issue, but also that most developers understand the advantages of seprated style). Before image thumbnailing (early 2004 IIRC), people had to hard code frames to put images and captions in, which resulted in widespread inconsistency, debate and conflict. When the thumbnailing code was introduced there was a design competition on meta for the .thumb class. To say that Wikipedia does not care about separation of style and content is simply wrong.

You have yet to present a reason as to why the table should be coloured pink, in light of all the advantages of using pure CSS. ed g2s • talk 16:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to present a reason why you have to impose your style guidelines on individual articles instead of getting consensus on them on wiki. Your attempt to second-guess the purpose of the class="wikitable", against the evidence of pages and pages of discussion not mentioning the advantages of separating style, makes me think that you just want to go around annoying people. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if he applies generic CSS, then any editor can override the style with their own style sheets. The seperation of style and content allows this. Forcing a particular style on an article does not. That is why the issue is so important. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that the developers writing Wikipedia's stylesheets do so without the mentioned benefits in mind? Having been involved in most of the discussions leading to the wikitable class, and writing some of, I can tell you for a fact that its main purpose was to give tables in Wikipedia a professional and consistent look. In fact, we were considering applying the style to all <table> elements within the main document, but were prevented by technical limitations. ed g2s • talk 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed g2s, would you please kindly STOP this trivial nonsense? This is NOT worth fighting about.

1. You have no other users who have shown themselves to support your position.
2. You have no official policy or guideline to directly cite.
3. Unlike the images, there is no possibility of the color being legally problematic/unfree.
4. You have not shown anywhere the color is an actual problem.
5. The WORST that could happen (according to you) is that the list will look "ugly" to a very, very, small minority of users somewhere. Does this actually affect the content in any way? No. The content is all that actually matters, astethics are too minor to fight over.
6. There is no real reason to pick on this list. List of The Simpsons episodes uses the entire rainbow, convince them to drop the colors first maybe hmm?

Stop this stupid crusade of yours. Consider keeping the color a compromise for removing the images. You're already "won" the battle over the images, now you're just throwing salt at me. Seriously, lets just move on. --SeizureDog 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not trivial nonsense. User styles are an important part of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the gallery of user styles. Are you saying that we should sacrifice the accesibility of a significant number of users (some of whom require a black background to aide an visual impairment) for the aesthetic whim of one? ed g2s • talk 11:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and without consensus. The biology infoboxes use pink as well (e.g. Amphibia and all others). The chemistry infoboxes use a different colour, and the ubiquitous bettleboxes use yet a different colour as well. If you want to get a consistent look across Wikipedia you must go and get consensus out there: going article by article disrupting things is not the wiki way of doing it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Each kingdom is assigned a different colour for the taxoboxes. Animalia uses pink (only on the title sections) for this reason. There is no reason to colour this whole table pink, is there? ed g2s • talk 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As for a consensus, if you want to compare the number of times a pink table is used to the hundreds of thousands of times the plain .wikitable is used, then tell me I don't have a consensus... ed g2s • talk 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you are so determined to keep the table pink in light of the obvious accessibility issues it creates. ed g2s • talk 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Color should be used sparingly. If you can convey the same information both with and without color, then you don't need the color. The wikitable class was created out of the desire for consistency across the 'pedia. I see no reason for this list to be treated special in any way. In particular, by hard-coding that awful pink color scheme, you prevent a user from customizing their personal wikitable CSS class according to their own Accessibility needs. -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Could not agree with Netoholic more. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-added colors. It looks better, and it helps seperate each game better. Do not remove them again, there is absolutly NOTHING in Wikipedias policy about the color. And ed g2s, please stop being a troll about minute trivial stuff like this. Go do some real admin work. If you want the color removed, please start a straw poll so that we can get consensus on it's removal or inclusion. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping the colour. —Nightstallion (?) 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favour. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very subjective, Havok, and if the wikitable aids in accessibility, it should naturally be used. o/s/p 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That might be, but I also think it's extremly trivial. And if this was such a problem it would have become policy. Which for the time being, it is not. Havok (T/C/c) 16:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just beacuse it's not important to you, doesn't mean it's not important. It may be trivial, but correcting it is even more trivial, so why complain? ed g2s • talk 00:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And as osp stated, any preference of colour of purely subjective, and would override any personal preference a viewer might have set up. ed g2s • talk 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a guideline, not a policy. If you want it removed you can start a straw poll, you are not above consensus in anyway ed g2s, and seeing as this article was promoted to FA with the colors they stay until people agree to remove it. Removing it like you do is not the way to go about it. Havok (T/C/c) 07:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is featured doesn't mean it can't be altered. Please don't use that argument. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good guideline with many good reasons behind it. Are there any good reasons behind colouring it pink? BTW this is not a Featured Article, it is a Featured List, a vote which attracts a lot less attention. It was promoted with 4 supports, 1 of whom commented "too much red". From the people who have commented on the colour there about 4 people in either camp. Seeing as you have given no reasons to keep the colour other than "there's no policy to remove it", and the obvious and repeatedly stated advantages of removing it, I see no reason why it shouldn't go. ed g2s • talk 11:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I would hope you take the same actions against all other lists on Wikipedia? I'll give you short list for you to amuse yourself with.

• List of The Simpsons episodes
• List of Lost episodes
• List of Canadian provincial and territorial orders

And most likely every other list on WP:FL.

Have fun Havok (T/C/c) 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain the list passed WP:FL due to the accurate information within it, and not the pink colour scheme specifically. Would a different set of colours have changed the outcome? o/s/p 18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The point was more along the lines of it not being an issue when it became a WP:FL, but that it became one when ed g2s found the list and first removed all the images, then the color. Havok (T/C/c) 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and? Are you saying that because half a dozen people didn't spot the problem that it isn't a problem? Are we to make no more changes to the article because they weren't in the version that was deemed to be "quite good" by a few users? ed g2s • talk

You do realise that your opinion is not a policy, and not agreed upon by the main editors of this list? —Nightstallion (?) 10:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, but Wikipedia:Accessibility will be. "It's not policy" is still not a positive reason. You have yet to provide any response to my arguments. ed g2s • talk 11:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mh, that appears to be a valid reason, however: The colour in the table does not convey information which is not contained as text, so it doesn't hurt. Why remove it? The table is much more bland without the colours. —Nightstallion (?) 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why remove it? Please read my previous comments, the relevant points of WP:Accessiblity and separation of style and content. The point is the colour does hurt, but conveys no information, so why keep it? ed g2s • talk 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"It's not policy" is quite a valid reason in this context since there's yet no agreement on how to make Wikipedia more accessible to people with disabilities. The earliest comments on Wikipedia talk:Accessibility are from 2004 (showing how much of a priority the topic has been) and there's no evidence it will become accepted policy (or even guideline) anytime soon. It also seems quite hypocritical to spend so much effort trying to change the color of one article when there are in all likelyhood more pressing site-wide issues needing to be solved in this regard. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, so you think in-line coloured tables will be part of making Wikipedia more accessible? How exactly would that work? ed g2s • talk 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place. Keep that in mind ed g2s. For some reason you seem to be the only one who thinks the colors have no place in this list, and a whole bunch of people who disagree with you. If we where to remove everything that conveyed no information, Wikipedia would be a pretty lonely place. What makes WP special is the personal touches made by the editors, which is the only way to make this stuff unique, otherwise we would be just another encyclopedia. Havok (T/C/c) 11:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The only one? Several people have spoken against them on this talk page, and you have yet to provide a counter argument to any of my points. If you really want your tables to be pink you can edit your own monobook.css, then you're not imposing your preference of every other user. If you think that the monobook skin is "dull" then you can either use another one, or you can make your point at Mediawiki talk:Monobook.css. Why do you think three editors' opinion of "it looks prettier on my computer" is more important than the accessibility needs of the millions of other Wikipedia users? There are other ways to leave "personal touches" without sacrificing our accessibility goals. ed g2s • talk 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My last edit comment...

... was out of line. However, style should be kept to stylesheets, and not imposed on individual articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so simply saying "three of us want the pink" is not good enough in the face of the accessibility arguments. ed g2s • talk 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've allready asked you to start a straw poll to find consensus for it. My argument was that it became a FL with the color, and that it stays until consensus is meet to remove it, which I feel is a good enough argument. Havok (T/C/c) 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The featured list vote has nothing to do with this debate. You are clearly in no significant majority in favouring a pink table, so you will need a better reason to impose your personal preference on everyone else. Your compromise is far less objectionable though. ed g2s • talk 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use unique styles for individual articles. That's very bad form, makes articles harder to edit, and makes the project look shoddy. If you want tables to be pink, try to get support for all tables being pink site-wide. If no one else agrees, then none should be pink unless it serves a very specific purpose (like taxoboxes). If no one agrees, you can still make them pink in your personal user preferences.

If there's a good reason to use a certain style, others will see that it's a good reason and want to use it in all articles. For instance, I think it is really useful to have alternating dark and light background colors per row, as you've done. But this would better be done with CSS site-wide (class="wikitable alternating" or something) instead of cluttering up table markup with complicated code that makes it harder for non-technical people to edit our encyclopedia. (We're currently written by predominantly young male technical types, and the articles show a significant bias because of it.) — Omegatron 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh... Apparently there's no quick and easy way to do alternating table rows with CSS alone (until CSS3 comes out), but it can be done through various workarounds, including ridiculous CSS with sibling selectors. A modification to Mediawiki that gives every other row a different class would be easiest. — Omegatron 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well, keep it as you want it, I give up. And being warned with the 3RV when I'm not the only one reverting is extremly silly. Good work Omegatron, good work indeed. Oh, and please do the same type of edits to Lists that actually have people working on them, let's see how well that goes. Good luck. Havok (T/C/c) 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing release dates

Really, this is not a collection of mini-articles. We do not need to put every single detail of the games on this list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Might cause Problems...

I can't imagine anyone will take this too seriously, but the Virtual Boy was not just released in Japan and the United States. It was officially released in Japan and North America. The US and Canada both shared the games release dates and I didn't notice any Canadian flags on the main page. The flag this is a little unnecessary anyway, but that's another topic... I still don't know about Mexico and if it was ever released there, but American video game releases are almost always the same as Canadian ones. --Thaddius 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1