Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Partner peer review for Joseph Maxwell now open

The peer review for Joseph Maxwell, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 11:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Release history" tables in game mod articles

I frequently see these large tables and lists in game mod articles which detail an exhaustive release history of a mod:

• Europa_Barbarorum#Release_history
• OpenArena#Release_History
• FinnWars#Release_history

My understanding of style is that we try to avoid this, and just summarize a release history: "The initial release of the game included X and Y. By 2008, version 0.8 was released with Z. The first full stable release included A and B too, and by this point the game had reached 200,000 downloads." But I figure it would be better to discuss it rather than start WP:BOLDly changing all these tables. Perhaps it's something that should be included in the VG guidelines. I've only seen this in mod articles thus far. Thoughts? Randomran (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think this goes into a level of detail that a general reader does not care for nor would really grasp. Unless it's an official expansion of sequel like in FFXI#Expansions, it doesn't need to be mentioned. I think all of those can be summarized in a high-level, overview style in a single, short paragraph. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Spider-Man: Friend or Foe

Is the plot section too huge? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not having played the game, I suspect yes. There seems to be a lot of trivial events that don't really affect the overall story, and written in a "newsline" format. --MASEM 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How should I go about trimming it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Condense stuff. Example: Currently this paragraph:

Spider-Man's next mission is on Tangaroa Island to obtain the next meteor shard and rescue Iron Fist who went missing in the area. The computer also mentions that Scorpion and Rhino were sighted on that island. Spider-Man comes across another P.H.A.N.T.O.M. transmitter and destroys it. Spider-Man encounters the Scorpion in a lava-filled cave. Spider-Man removes the Control Amulet from Scorpion and he joins up with Spider-Man. Spider-Man finds another P.H.A.N.T.O.M. transmitter and destroys it. Spider-Man rescues Iron Fist from the P.H.A.N.T.O.M.s and he joins Spider-Man in his mission. Spider-Man then encounters the Rhino where Spider-Man fights and frees him from the Control Amulet. Rhino then joins up with Spider-Man.

Changes to

Spider-Man's next mission is on Tangaroa Island to obtain another meteor shard and rescue Iron Fist who went missing in the area; the computer mentions that Scorpion and Rhino have also been sighted. After destroying several P.H.A.N.T.O.M. transmitters, Spider-Man removes the Control Amulets from Scorpion and Rhino, and rescues Iron Fist.

And even more could be done than that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's another quick point. If you can cut down the number of "P.H.A.N.T.O.M."s that are used, that will help a lot - that visually just stands out as way too heavy. --MASEM 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the whole "P.H.A.N.T.O.M."s stuff. How does it look now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better. --MASEM 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ping me when you've cleaned it up and I'll take a stab too if you need it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to some assistance. Do you think I removed a little too much? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not really too short but it does sound a bit breathless, so you can add more periods in order to slow down the flow and break it into paragraphs. Much better than it was, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it another look. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Think it's better now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WarBirds

Ok, i found this page and by looking at the external links i was wondering if this game is really notable. Looking at the publishers article, iEntertainment Network, it says the game has won numerous awards but doesnt reference. Any thoughts? Salavat (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Although IGN and GameSpot carries its press releases (which are also released over Business Wire), they did not review the games (both also seemed to stop actively following the series from 2006 onwards). Basically it follows the EA strategy with releases for 2004, 2006, and 2008. It seems to be enjoyed as a niche WWII flight simulator, judging from the Google hits on fan sites. Jappalang (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i tried to follow the information so i could add an infobox to the page, but it was really confusing so i gave up. Salavat (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Move warring: Donkey Kong (Game Boy) vs. Donkey Kong (handheld game)

I've involved in a recent "move warring" with A Link to the Past with the article's title on the Game Boy version of Donkey Kong. ALttP insists it should be moved to "Donkey Kong (handheld game)" since even though there are other portable versions of the game released (like the NES Classics version and the Game & Watch version), they are not as notable as the Game Boy game. Personally, I think the article's current title, Donkey Kong (Game Boy), is perfectly fine. "Handheld game" is very ambiguous and if the Game Boy version is the most notable portable version of the game, then the more reason to specify it. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So, just curious, why is (handheld game) too ambiguous, but (video game) is not? Why not call articles "Article (NES)"? Other games existing does not require disambiguation - especially when there is only one handheld game with an article. What is there to disambig between, exactly? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Donkey Kong (handheld game)" makes me think of the Game & Watch version. I think the move is completely unnecessary and would only serve to confuse people. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon above: there are several games to feature the name Donkey Kong in the form of a handheld of one kind or another, and Donkey Kong (Game Boy) is by far the most direct option to avoid confusion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure people think of an obscure, old game on a platform that wasn't even remotely as played as the Game Boy. So, just curious, you're asking for disambiguation between one article and a fake article? We use (computer game), (arcade game), and (video game), but magically, the other one of the four main gaming categories, (handheld game), can't be used for whatever reason? DK on the GB was very successful and got good reviews, DK G&W had very little exposure, and DK port on GBA had one shipment because it was not successful. Neither is as successful, and to say that "I think of an old built-in game instead of a popular game for the most successful handheld ever made" is simply silly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you could stop being nasty towards people that don't agree with you. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes, if you consider two games - one port and one little-known remake - to be even reasonably close in notoriety, that'd be "several handheld games called DK". There's only one handheld game called DK with an article, so there's no need to disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are multiple handheld games and just one Game Boy game with that name, it should be obvious that the article should be at Donkey Kong (Game Boy). --Conti|✉ 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If there were multiple Game Boy games named DK, it shouldn't be (Game Boy). If there's only one game named DK on handheld, it definitely should be called (handheld game). The other existing handheld DKs are not notable enough to warrant requiring a disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So, we can have the game either at (handheld game) or at (Game Boy). The former is potentially confusing, since there are other handheld games by that name, while the latter can not cause any confusion, since there are no other Game Boy games by that name. So what, exactly, do we gain from using (handheld game) instead? I see no advantage whatsoever in doing that. --Conti|✉ 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The naming conventions seem to suggest we should be disambiguating using platform, not merely "handheld," so I'd have to support that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To add a bit of perspective, someone looking up "Donkey Kong (handheld)" would be looking for classic Donkey Kong as represented on handheld gaming systems. The Game Boy Donkey Kong game is not the same, and a handheld disambig would be better reserved for items that discuss the myriad of more relative DK handheld versions that you could not discuss within the same context as the Game Boy game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Game Boy version was the first version and was later ported to different platforms, then Donkey Kong (Game Boy) should be OK. Otherwise, I can see the argument behind (handheld). SharkD (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in for a world of pain if we start using the (handheld) approach. Suffixing with the platform name itself, as widely used already, sounds good with me. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I used (handheld) as shorthand for (handheld game) or something else. SharkD (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Move it to Donkey Kong (1994 video game). And if we're going to start using (handheld) as a disambig, could we please use (handheld video game) instead? This is analogous to using (video game) instead of (game). - hahnchen 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd much prefer system disambiguation over date disambiguation - I'm much more likely to know I'm looking for the Game Boy Donkey Kong than know the year off-hand. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll still find it that way if you did a search on "donkey kong gameboy". If, at worse, you did "donkey kong" the disamb page should list both dates and systems to make it easy to ID the game. The date disamb is consistent with all other media where duplicate names exist between works. --MASEM 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no... to my mind the Game Boy and the NES aren't the same medium. So I'm not sure the distinction applies. For me, the article should be at the place one is most likely to look. I suspect people are more likely to specify system before they are likely to specify year. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using the year, because I doubt anyone will search directly for any of the disambiguation suffixes, and instead end up at the disambig page. Where they'll clearly see that the 1994 version is the Game Boy version. It's simply for organisation. - hahnchen 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer system over date as well, its much more specific. However, if the other releases don't have enough info to warrant their own entries, then they should all be merged under one related series article. I.E. "hand held". That's how it works, for example all related Donkey Kong ports belong on the Donkey Kong page to being with, unless they have enough notability and content to warrant an article on their own. Once they do that, it should be platform specific. If none of the hand held ports have enough content and notability on their own, they belong on a single Donkey Kong (hand held) page. If they do, then you go platform specific, such as Donkey Kong (Game and Watch) or Donkey Kong (Game Boy). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit needless though, as there isn't a guarantee there wasn't another game bearing the Donkey Kong name in some shape or form released in 1994 as well (Tetris comes to mind here as a possible similar case). The game boy disambig still seems to be the best option.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

?? That's why I said I prefer specificity over date if the content warrants it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I only prefer using the "year video game" disambiguation when the remake was a multiplatform one like the upcoming Bionic Commando sequel scheduled for the Xbox 360 and PS3. Otherwise, if the remake was released for only one platform (like the Nintendo 64 version of Castlevania), its better to just specify the platform. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there's a pile of other articles using the handheld suffix, see Category:Game_Boy_games. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as usual. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of them were page moves done by ALttP. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, why do we need to use handheld video game? No one calls them that, they call them "handheld games". We don't call them arcade video games or computer video games, either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Because there are plenty of non video game hand held games as well. Same issue with video arcade vs. arcade games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When i see "Handheld game" straight away i think of them cheap preloaded games, such as the old Donkey Kong thingo. Id much prefer Game Boy or even just 1994 video game. Salavat (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

People use (arcade game) though, because it's pretty much understood what (arcade game) means. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In this group, yes many incorrectly assume it means video arcade games. To the many people outside this group that use Wikipedia, no. "Arcade games" were around for 90 some years before video games, and include all EM machines as well (pins, shooting, crane, etc. etc.). There's a reason there's KLOV and a separate International Arcade Museum and a plethora of books on the subject - Likewise, companies like Bally, Sega, Stern, etc. were around in the "arcade" industry long before video games, i.e. the arcade industry was big and existed long before Computer Space and Galaxy Game. What do you think they made? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any support for "handheld game" here. Is this really an issue worth going to the mats for like this, ALttP? For the record, I also support it being at "(Game Boy)". JuJube (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, because (handheld game) should be used just like (computer game) and (arcade game) are. It's a legitimate format, and probably more significant than arcade games. And on the "cheap preloaded games" thing, I doubt people would go to an article expecting an article on a "cheap preloaded game". - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'd prefer (handheld video game) over (handheld game) if we are going to use the handheld disambiguating suffix at all, is because (handheld game) aludes to Handheld electronic games. If you Google handheld game, the first non-Wikipedia link is the Amazon store listing where that contains many non-video game handheld games. You could argue that (arcade game) fails using the same criteria, but I'd wager that most people would consider pinball as a separate entity to their definition of arcade game, and disambiguate such under (pinball). - hahnchen 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, (computer game) and (arcade game) are no longer widely used, and most articles with this name have been moved to (video game). A Game Boy game is not a (handheld game), it is a game on a handheld console. This would be like Mario Brothers (home game). This is an ambiguous disambiguation. This is why (video game) or (specific console) are preferred over (computer game). If you are going to disambiguate within video games, be specific. There is no need for a weird middle-ground. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction to reading Donkey Kong (handheld) was to think of the Game & Watch version. If there's a dispute over which should go at Donkey Kong (handheld) then make it a disambig page so that neither have it. As hahnchen said, handheld is a stupid suffix and at least should be handheld video game. The better solution for remakes and ports would be Game x (1998 video game) - X201 (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's going to be named (handheld) then shouldn't the article have a fairly significant rewrite to no longer by GBA focused and instead expand the scope to cover the Game+Watch versions? --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While we're talking about it, lets put something together for naming conventions. To be clear, my preferred progression of disambiguation is: (video game) -> if specific console release (Game Boy Advance) -> if multi-console or more than one game on the same console (19XX video game) -> if more than one game was released in the same year (19XX Game Boy Advance game) - never (arcade game), (computer game). (handheld game) should only be used if it is a single-unit handheld game (which would never likely get it's own article), never for a game released on a handheld console. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, but I would change that to (handheld video game) for the same reason hahnchen mentions - (handheld game) alludes to Handheld electronic games, and even non electronic. I.e. there's a reason well used and published resources like Electronic Plastic exist, along with a toy industry that's released many many non-electronic handheld games (i.e. ballbearing games like this and this, em style handhelds like this, and more). I actually have a large collection of these types. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Multiplayer video games

Is this necessary? I see it as overcategorization. There is many video games that are for multiplayer, so the category will be huge (if it was ever populated with every game). This category is a parent for several subcats, but that doesn't mean much (as the subcats at least have unique features that make them stand out more: MMO, co-op, etc). Also note: a majority of games feature multiplayer and single player modes, so simply sticking a game in a multiplayer category isn't completely accurate. Lastly: this category was in categories for deletion in January: with a keep result. However, there was only 4 people that were a part of it. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow you read my mind. I was thinking about this today. Almost most games now has multiplayer and i wondered why this category needed. This must be deleted. Also this Category:AmBX enabled games one must be deleted.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That could be almost considered under-categorization, which would be an awefully long list. Either split it into subcategories if possible or CfD it. MuZemike (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How about pruning it down to Category:Multiplayer-only video games? As far as I know, there are very few games that has no single-player mode (old sports games such as Pong and its clones come to mind). Jappalang (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are still a lot of games that don't have multi-player. All Zeldas with four exceptions, the Kirby games until Super Star, etc. There are many different kinds of categories you could create for subcategories - online multiplayer video games, multiplayer-only video games, you could even do genre - multiplayer puzzle video games, multiplayer role-playing games, multiplayer adventure games, etc. If those categories get full, create a subcategory for that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys have to remember that categories are a tool. Categories make it possible to, say, find all turn-based strategy games that have multiplayer by finding the intersection of these two categories. Removing the category makes it impossible to do this. Wikipedia:Category intersection lists several other possible uses. You can still create a sub-cat for multiplayer-only games. SharkD (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes categories are tools, but in this case it's just overcategorization. Many games have multiplayer, that doesn't mean we need to populate the category (with no end in sight, as new games come out weekly). Perhaps a change to multiplayer-only games would work, and perhaps by genre as well. But the main category of multiplayer games certainly needs either deletion or a rename. Every feature for a game shouldn't be a category, otherwise we would have things such as "video games that allow you to swim", "video games that feature animals", "video games that are rated E", "video games with celebrity voice acting" and so on. We need to draw a line at what is a useful navigational tool, and what isn't. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's only a few dozen games in the category, and I can already see several that belong in one of the subcats. Is a category with only a few dozen articles really such an anathema to Wikipedia's denizens? I think the category is perfectly valid as super-category for all the other subcats. If all the articles are categorized into sub-cats, then it shouldn't harm any articles at all. SharkD (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SharkD on this particular category. Yeah, the number of multiplayer video games is absolutely enormous. But it's a good home for sub-categories like Category:Cooperative video games and Category:Head-to-head arcade games. It may be a huge category, but it's not necessarily a useless category. There are tons of ways to break it up: multiplayer split-screen games (like Mario Kart or Golden Eye), multiplayer same-screen games (like Bomberman or Contra), multiplayer turn-based games (like the original Super Mario Brothers), and multiplayer online games (like StarCraft). We may spend the rest of our lives trying to populate these categories, but it doesn't mean they're bad. Randomran (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, having a super-category means that I only have to feed one category into category intersection tools (such Wikipedia:CatScan, which I haven't used yet but hope to in the future); the software will take care of the rest. SharkD (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just adding a link to WP:SUBCAT seeing as how it will probably apply to this category. - X201 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fandom mods to video games

Lots of games can and are modified by fans. Many people think these fandom mods merit inclusion on the video game's page, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_II:_Hell_on_Earth

What's the official policy on 'fan mod' info? Lots42 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:N. Or, in short, the vast majority of mods doesn't need an article. Some mods have received coverage from PC Gamer etc. (see WP:VG/S for a list of sources that we approve of) and do have an article. User:Krator (t c) 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be mentioned in the articlespace if they are notable, but if the mod really merits the mention, chances are it can have its own article too (see DotA.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if editors don't create new articles for fan mods... what about people who include information on fan mods in the notable main article? Randomran (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To add something more clear on mods-within-articles, based on sources available:

• Sometimes, sources do not mention modding at all. For example, an article I wrote, Supreme Commander, doesn't mention mods at all, because no sources have written about mods for the game. There are mods, but the whole thing just isn't notable.
• With new games, it's usual that sources write something general about the modding of a game. It is usually reasonable to write something general about modding in the Wikipedia article too, then. Naming the mods and having links to their websites in such cases is a bad idea.
• The fight is usually about naming particular mods and including links to their sites. Never link websites of mods unless it's an article about the mod itself. Only name a mod in an article if it either A) has been singled out by a source as a particularly remarkable mod, but does not warrant an article, or B) naming a certain mod as an example is the only way to present some very valuable information about the game. The former is not very difficult to see, the latter more so. An example might be The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, where the topless mod was a cause for controversy, but most sources and media failed to correctly identify the mod. User:Krator (t c) 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date-autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional, after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages of using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors, and the consensus for change is overwhelming. I seek in-principle consensus here for the removal of date autoformatting from the main text of articles related to this WikiProject, using a script; such a move would also be sensitive to local objections on any article talk page. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

You may wish to peruse the following capped text to compare two examples, with and without date autoformatting. The DA is set at international style—the one pertaining in this particular article—to show all WPians how the blue dates are displayed to visitors. MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted, analogous to our highly successful guidelines for the use of varieties of English. The choice of style is audited during the running of the script to ensure that it is appropriate to the article (i.e., consistent, and country-related where appropriate).

Two examples for comparison

EXAMPLE 1 Original

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June. The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 June and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

DA-free

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June. The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

EXAMPLE 2 Original

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

DA-free

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

I look forward to your feedback. Tony (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, is this on the right page? What's the relevance to the VG project in particular? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure its on the right page. He is notifying us of a major change to the MOS; that means its relevant to all WikiProjects. Artichoker[talk] 13:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's optional at the moment, although there's a strong push now to deprecate it at MOSNUM. Since it's still optional, it's considered polite to ask for feedback before making a change to all of those articles. I'm not going to fight if people object! Tony (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that unless you had a full date (July 2 1776) you shouldn't link them at all. There is a bot running around on the video game pages taking links out of any dates not containing a day, a month and a year. Also, is there an actual proposal going on right now or are you just collecting signatures?  æron phone home  14:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The talk about deprecating this is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Again_calling_for_date_linking_to_be_deprecated. It's still in the talk stage and the current guidelines themselves at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_autoformatting don't suggest any deprecating of the format at the moment. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I chose this WikiProject to bring to people's attention the issue. There's a good reasons for this, since vid-game articles tend to be heaving with relatively high-value links. Thus, making the dates plain black text has particular advantage. The proposal at MOSNUM is just to move from the optional to a statement that date-autoformatting not be done unless there's a particular reason to do so. I believe that vid-game editors would gain more than most from this. Tony (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As you already know (Tony), I fully support this idea. —Giggy 03:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would very much prefer a technical solution that removes the links but still autoformats the dates. User:Krator (t c) 08:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we all would... it's somewhat of a pipe dream. —Giggy 09:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I support this motion. Just a query, the current move is only to delink article text, correct? We leave the dates autoformatted by templates (citations) alone and let them be resolved by those responsible for the templates, right? Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang—absolutely; the citation templates have evolved in an uncoordinated way, and I expect the community will review them over the next year with a view to making them more flexible and editor-friendly. At the moment, the optionality and, indeed, the current proposal at MOSNUM to recommend against the use of date autoformatting, involves only manually keyed in dates (main text, basically). Thanks for all your responses. Tony (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) PS Aeron, month-day is part and parcel of date autoformatting, just as month-day-year is. Tony (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

When the WP:ENGVAR date format disputes come up, I hope that developer nationality will take precedence over publisher nationality. - X201 (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support — I especially do not find date linking to be very useful, and it serves instead with video game lists to greatly bloat the sizes of those lists. (This is why I am not using linked dates for the List of Famicom games along with WP:CONTEXT and sortability issues; I can also save 6KB alone if I removed the wikilinks from the dates in the List of NES games.) In addition, I only know a scant few YYMMDD dates that serve any importance in video gaming, such as the North American release of the Nintendo Entertainment System (October 18, 1985 (1985-10-18)) or even possibly for the Xbox 360 console (December 22, 2005 (2005-12-22)). For instance, within the VG community, the date February 5, 1988 (1988-02-05) (the day the world first saw The Guardian Legend) is of that much importance to viewers that it needs a wikilink to see if anything that is not even related to video gaming happened on that same exact day. MuZemike (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Muzemike - I agree on the bloat it adds to articles by linking if many dates. But then the MOS says if many dates then linking them all may not be ideal. Be aware that linking the date is not purely so that folk can check what happened the same day, it allows data formatting to adhere to the user's preferences. Not all countries standardise on dd Month ccyy. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly a valid point to make and can be a reason to oppose the change. I would recommend some sort of simplified set of date templates, but that would be a change to be made up at the Mediawiki level and not just here. Maybe they could be redone so that wikilinking is optional as well as maintain usability for other regions who interpret dates differently. MuZemike (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to remove the overloading of wikilink and autoformatting of dates at the mediawiki level have been tried and failed; the dev team doesn't seem open to an alternative way of providing the autoformatting of dates. If we had this, there would be no problems as templates would easily serve the needed purpose. --MASEM 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that linked dates generally confuse the reader with what turn out to be irrelevant links. There are definitely some dates that should be linked, but those tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Usually when I see a date (or even just a year) linked, it goes to a page that covers a very wide and incomplete range of events that happened on that day or in that year, the vast majority of which really have nothing to do with the topic I was just reading. It is interesting and sometimes useful to be able to look up a date and see what all happened on that date, but that seems to be a more trivial purpose than what I'd prefer to see, like "July 8th, 1986 in Video Gaming" or something, which then runs the risk of being too specific a topic.
I think we'd probably be best served by either dumping auto-formatted/linked dates entirely and going back to a manual form of date usage, or at least removing the auto-linking part of the template. It would be useful for an autoformatter to be able to show a date in a format consistent with the user's preferences, without also linking that date to a trivial article. But that wouldn't necessarily fix the "bulky/hard-to-use" issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Retroactively enforcing a "don't link dates" policy is a waste of time. The linking of only complete dates is pretty commonplace anyhow. I link release dates in video game articles, and that's generally the only thing that ever does get linked to in a typical game article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So did we decide on unlinking dates throughout the project, only there's a bot going round changing 'em all, from the looks of things. --Oscarthecat (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, was decided at MOSNUM a few days ago; see MOSNUM, which now says that "[date autoformatting] should not be used unless there is a particular reason to do so." Tony (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've the project's guidelines to reflect this. --Oscarthecat (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added text telling users to match the date formats to the version of English used in the article. The consensus at MOSNUM seems to be that date format (ie DMY or MD,Y) should follow the same rules as WP:ENGVAR in that dates should match the version of English used in the article. - X201 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The next paragraph is still at odds with the new policy, as it recommends using the {{vgy}} template. SharkD (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"July 8th, 1986 in Video Gaming" might be too specific, but "July 1986 in Video Gaming" wouldn't be. SharkD (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the "th" has never been permitted by MOSNUM, and that date autoformatting only ever concerned compound items with day and month, or day, month, year. Piped year-links are still permitted, such as I think Shark is raising. Tony (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So what about using {{vgy}} in infoboxes? Also discouraged? MrKIA11 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How about the related templates, Template:Video game release (backlinks edit) (infoboxes) and Template:Vgrtbl (backlinks edit) (tables/lists)? SharkD (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wondering what's happening with the date unlinking. Seems to have stalled partway through. Someone need to feed the bot? Lots of articles have rightly had their dates unlinked, but lots of others remain, e.g. Dead Rising. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing autoformatting is not a policy or guideline. The situation is that the "encouragement" to use autoformatting was removed from the MOS. As such, we are no longer obliged to make text with dates a sea of blue. Hence, you can freely autoformat or not, depending on the appropriateness of the situation. Furthermore, from the discussions going on, there is still opposition to remove the "encouragement". Jappalang (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Alessa

Can someone see if anymore of Dark Alessa needs to be added to Alessa Gillespie before turning it into a redirect? (If not, turn it into a redirect) 70.55.85.122 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The refs provide some good content into the development of the film character. Those are something that could some good content. Though they should be summarized instead of giant blocks of quotes. The rest is just plot info. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

help needed for Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop

A user continues to try to create a new page for this wii port of Dead Rising; I've told him not to create it (keeping it a redir to the DR page), but he's trying to expand the article to include all the new features. Maybe after the game's released if there's enough significant differences there could be one, but based on RE4, I doubt this is needed. I would revert again, but that is itching for a 3RR. --MASEM 03:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and watchlisted it. Hopefully they will understand why we're doing it this way, as I've tried to explain in my edit summary that a split might be possible later (when there is more information). Randomran (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This user seems pretty insistent on it. I've added a further warning and explanation on their talk page. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Said user also seems to have problems ascertaining as to whether Wikipedia is just another MYSPACE/YOUTUBE, as with the "petition" I have to remove from that talk page. MuZemike (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mac gaming

I was just browsing the Mac OS games category, clicked on one of the games (namely Earth 2150 but there are also others), and checked the infobox only to find no mention of Mac (with the infobox only listing Windows). So A, if these games really do work on Mac, it needs to be fairly represented in the infoboxes, or B if they don't really work on Mac, take them out of the categories. I'm not really into this topic so I'll leave it up to the Video games project members, but I really think this is something important that needs to be looked into. Althepal (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes quite often are missing data on release dates and other info regarding specific platforms/regions. I think this is the most likely case. That said, you're perfectly free to research and update this info! I don't have a Mac, so I don't generally pay attention to Mac-related stuff. SharkD (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian Legend edit war

An anon user there seems to insist, without explaining why, the game is an RPG and involves RPG elements and not action-adventure elements as found almost identically in The Legend of Zelda. This user insists undoing, reverting, and basically edit warring, instead of explaining why the anon thinks so in the section of the talk page we have just set up. I am coming here for assistance before in this discussion and corresponding edit war before I go to the first steps in dispute resolution. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, we have also tried to set up a discussion section here. Please give your input if you can; we can always be wrong on our classification. MuZemike (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pit (Nintendo)

Could someone help find an image of Pit from his NES or Game Boy game? Despite the opinions on the image there, the image should be something that best represents him, and this image of him is just too "out there", and not a common depiction of the character - while the Brawl image has him as a realistic-looking, dagger-wielding, average height pretty-boy, Pit is commonly seen as short, cartoony, more child-like, and wielding his actual weapon, the bow. His series doesn't have a next-gen role, so using an image from the past best depicts the character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the pixel sprite or the depiction from the game manual? Personally I think the current Brawl image is just as representative and better than those, but that's just me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

Replacementdocs has the manual, but looking at it and then looking at Mario or Ness in that game, if they'd have wanted that to represent him further they would have used it I believe. The Smash Bros. artwork should be fine in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You should link the articles your talking about, espicially if youre asking for help. Salavat (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The SSBM image is wholly unacceptable, as it gives no sense of the iconic version of the character. I cannot stress enough, we should be using screen shots from characters' best-known appearances, without presentist bias. We do well on Mario to show the character's evolution, but for example Link (The Legend of Zelda) is appalling - all "official art" instead of screenshots. In any case, for Pit, MobyGames has a bunch of screen shots here [1]. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: we are writing Wikipedia for a general audience, and unless the in-game representation is iconic, official media that gives a much more recognizable picture of the character over the in-game version should be preferred. The appearance should be a very small part of any VG character, the focus being on the characters creation and reception, and thus the few images of appearances that should be used should be sufficient to provide a general picture of the character so that any reader can understand what the appearance/outfit may look like. --MASEM 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Official art is essentially marketing. Link has never made any substantive appearances in the form being used as his main illustration, and the illustration for the NES version has minimal resemblence to how he appeared in that game. These are video game characters. They exist in a specific medium. To show them outside that specific medium is misleading, and edges towards violating WP:FICT in terms of in-universe perspective. Our goal is not to show how Pit looks to the other residents of his fictional world. We care how real people see him, and they clearly most-often have seen him as an 8-Bit sprite from Kid Icarus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the most current image is not always the best. But I don't think character artwork is unacceptable. Is it really misleading when the artwork is done by the official character designers? They are real people as well, and the ones that first envisioned them. I don't think the designers' original concept is made obsolete or turned solely into marketing material by the in-game version. Character artwork is a part of the creation process for these characters and linked to the real world aspect of the characters. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

It can be interesting as a secondary example, but I still think screenshots are the first choice. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think depends on the situation, but I personally would pick the artwork first. Some screen shots do not offer a good view of the character. For instance, getting a screen shot of the main character in a first person shooter. While it is possible to do this, it is not easy for most people, and such screen shots are not always readily available on most websites. Also, some games can have a lot happening on a screen at a time, making it difficult to distinguish what is what, especially in today's games. Character artwork circumvents all this and is normally accessible in art books, game manuals, and websites. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

One needs to pick screenshots well, but the problem seems to me no different than picking frames of a film or television program well. Certainly we shouldn't take shots at random. But it would not be difficult to get a good screen shot of an 8-Bit Link, an Ocarina of Time Link, a Wind Waker Link, and a Twilight Princess Link. All of which would give far more information about the character than the concept art we currently use. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(Un-indent)The only problem with multiple pictures is that it normally breaks non-free content policies. I think both the Mario and Link articles currently push the limits. I think that's the other reason why artwork is used for the infobox, because it gives an easily recognizable and general image of the characters. But I'm sure a minimal amount of images of their in-game appearance would benefit articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, in the case of Link I think you can justify it as major changes to the character's depiction over time. And by the time you get to Twilight Princess you have graphics that can pretty vividly recreate the concept art, so the concept art becomes redundant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much as the character's depiction has changed, but rather the technology that depicts the character. Link and mario's overall designs have changed very little over time. Plus with Wikipedia getting much stricter on the inclusion of non-free content, I think it's best to error on the side of caution.

Conversely, couldn't the same argument be made that with graphics that vividly recreate concept art, the screen shots are redundant? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that pictures of the character as they exist and are experienced are ever redundant to concept art. But I do think the character's depiction has concretely changed - 8-bit Link has very different visual resonance from Twilight Princess Link. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversely again, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that concept art is ever redundant to screen shots. It sounds more like a case of personal tastes and specific circumstances. Which means both sides would have a hard time validating certain points. Sometimes, one is more favorable to the other and vice versa.

In regard to the changing depiction, I'm not sure I was completely clear with my statement about Link and Mario. By overall design, I mean Mario has always been a mustached plumber in overalls with a color scheme of red and blue, and Link has always been a pointy eared Hylian with a sword, shield, and cap with a color scheme of green and brown. The art styles have changed with the graphical updates, but a random piece of artwork from any of the games will give the layman an idea of what they look like for virtually every one of their games.

That being said, I do agree some screenshots should be included, but in a minimal amount to avoid violating image policies. But I think artwork is most appropriate in an infobox to give general readers a general visual depiction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

At least in the case of Link, I think a picture from Twilight Princess is going to serve just as well as concept art for general depiction, and thus saves us use of a fair use image. For Pit, I can see the case against using an 8-bit image in the infobox. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually screenshots still fall under the fair-use rule. I do have to say though I find artwork much more useful to illustrate a character's design than a cluttered screenshot adequately can in many cases.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Suikoden (series) merger proposal and requested move

I wish to invite anyone interested to participate in the current merger proposal as well as the requested move. Please discuss on the corresponding sections of those talk pages. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in The King of Fighters series

I have been cleaning the list of characters from King of Fighters, using examples such as the one from Kingdom Hearts, I merged some sections, removed unreliable sources and some other stuff. Could anybody pay a look there to see if the tag could be replaced with another one? I also wondered if the two templates could be merged together. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

While it could still use more work, I've removed the cleanup tags. You did an amazing job there tidying that wall of text up o.O--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it is miles ahead of where it use to be. Two small suggestions

• You may want check out {{TOClimit}}. This will limit the number of headings displayed. Right now it is excessively long, and I think using {{TOClimit|limit=3}} would help with that.
• Per MoS, individual names should not be in bold.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

Need an admin to nuke a few minor redirect goofs on my part

It's nothing too big, just during the shift from "(Soul Calibur)" to "Soulcalibur" I made two minor goofs.

• Yun-seong (Soulcalibur) has a unique enough name that could simply be placed at his name rather than "Yun-seong". Unfortunately there was already a redirect there, so I tried moving it to Yun-seong (redirect) to get it out of the way and that did nothing. Brought it up on RfD with no results at this time :\
• Algol (Soul Calibur) was redirected to Soulcalibur IV, but as of now there's been enough notability to discuss it in terms of reception, with more following suit, so the article was brought back. Unfortunately...I kinda created Algol (Soulcalibur) as a redirect to keep the names uniform and now I can't move Algol over to that name.

I just need these redirects removed so I can more the articles where they should be. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the second, but I'm not clear on what needs to be done on the first. (BTW, for "uncontested" move requests that require admin help such as these, you can post to WP:RM to attract large attention.) --MASEM 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The first one just needs Yun-seong (Soulcalibur) moved to Yun-seong as the disambig is not neededed (he's the only Yun-seong article of any sort on wikipedia). And yeah I know I should've brought this up there, I'm just a little embarrassed about the awkwardness of this ^^;--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be set then; I closed those RFD's too. --MASEM 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MR doesn't exist. SharkD (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is really weird: if you put "WP:MR" in the search box, you get there. The proper shortcut is WP:RM. --MASEM 04:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Motaro / Motaron / Macarron

They're all identical except for the name and categories. Should the last two be redirected, or are they even possible typos?

Redirect the second and third links to Motaro, as that's the one with the most edit history. The other two are both allegedly translations from French and Italian Wikipedias. -- Sabre (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but do they deserve redirects? Or should they just be deleted? MrKIA11 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if the page has ever existed it should be redirected. For the sake of people's bookmarks if nothing else. See WP:R ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But as you can see, the guidelines state that 7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created., and this could even fall under R3. Since they were both created within the last 24 hours, I don't think bookmarks should be a concern. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I also find it odd that although they are supposed to be translation, they "translated" perfectly word for word with the original article. They also have no pages linking to them except for this one. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have any knowledge of the article's subject so don't know if they are common misspellings. At first glance it looked to me as if the person who created those additional pages did so because they thought they were common misspellings and didn't know about using redirects instead of multiple copies of the page. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the discussion is still pending I changed the articles to just redirects since their weight can still readily be discussed without needing a possibly confusing muddle of edits at a later time across the trio by people that mean well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Another case of US-centrism

The Phantasy Star IV: The End of the Millennium article has had a cover art image for a long time now, but an user has recently replaced the image (an European cover art) with another one (a US one). The user has successively given various reasons for his preference:

1. that he can decide because he has been "near single-handedly responsible for the dramatic improvement of the articles across the Phantasy Star series";
2. then that the European image was not okay because I support it and since I'm a moron I must be wrong;
3. then he went on to claim that the English-speaking world doesn't include Britain or something;
4. and finally, that the US image is of better quality. Not only is this last reason totally subjective and irrelevant, but it's plain wrong in the first place as the US image has more JPEG artefacting and is more pixellated.

All recent discussions have shown that American, European and Australian cover arts are okay and that an image shouldn't be changed as long as the first picture uploaded is from the English-speaking world, so none of his reasons are valid. But he contributed to the Phantasy Star articles so much that it seems no one can touch "his" articles without discussing first, so I'm creating this discussion. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, whining isn't going to help anything; if you've got an issue with his behavior, take it to WP:ANI. Secondly, the US image's art is indeed crisper and doesn't have significant artifacts, most of it appears to be print texturing from a scan. Not to mention you provoked the "moron" response in part by reverting his edit as "vandalism". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't toss around the word, 'Vandalism,' so lightly, and maybe you won't piss users off as often. Godheval is not in the right for calling you a moron, but he wouldn't have done so in the first place if you hadn't instigated the matter. SashaNein (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Putting the actions of the two users involved aside for the moment, I think the difference in image quality doesn't really seem that huge. That would be the only reason to swap the images imo and it's not a big enough difference to warrant the swap. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Same as Bill. I can't see the difference between the image quality. A swap for image quality reasons to me means replacing an image that is too small, blocky or blurred. - X201 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, neither box art results in an image that is "superior" over the other, but I think this should be hammered out on the talk. Do we really need to be legislating this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Look bro, while I agree with you, stop stereotyping about Americans. The fact that the editor's American has little to do with it, it's the fact that he's ignorant. (Not a personal attack, just being defensive against stereotypes) Ghost109 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do have to agree with Ghost109 here: seems putting the Genesis name anywhere near Wikipedia articles results in claims of US centric views, which utterly fails good faith. If it's such a terrible issue just point out that for the sake of uniformity the other gets approved so readers aren't confused. Really it's that damn simple.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good case for "neutral" artwork (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Cropping box art)? Although the art in this case is horizontally flipped for the two regions... Jappalang (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Megata Sanshiro waited two days (to avoid 3RR violation) to revert the box art again, without discussion. This is getting to be very disruptive. I'm also quite sick of the stereotypes and his unwillingness to use any dispute resolution process whatsoever. SashaNein (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't wait to avoid 3RR. Seriously, I'd have reverted yesterday if I only wanted to avoid 3RR. Instead, I simply went on because the discussion here seems to have stalled; no argument has been put forwards in favour of the new image, and a few arguments (in addition to mine) are in favour of the original image. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:WP MMOG

I just noticed that this template now redirects to the main project template, but is still transluded on over 300 pages. Should a bot go and remove all of them? MrKIA11 (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea in the original deletion discussion was for a bot to go through them. If the bot found T:WPVG on the page, it would simply remove T:WP MMOG. If T:WPVG was not placed on the page, then it would either a) switch, or b) leave them alone, as MMOG displays as VG, since redirects are cheap. A bot to clean it up would be appreciated, or possibly an AWBer. The latter might be preferable, since they could also transfer the only task force that came from WP MMO, which is MU*. --Izno (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by transfer? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We moved the task force WP:WikiProject Video games/MU* from being a task force of WP:WP MMO. The reason the MMO template redirects to WPVG is because WP MMO doesn't exist (anymore). The only thing that was saved was MU*. --Izno (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but you said the reason an AWBer might be better is because they could also transfer the only task force. How would they be "tranferring" it? Do you mean adding |tf=MU* or something? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, exactly that. :) --Izno (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the bot also do that? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. --Izno (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a request here. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox VG merge proposal

I have created a proposal to combine the multiple Infobox VG templates here. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! I've been wanting an easy-collapsible option for a good while now! Good job! Fin©™ 10:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories for developer/publisher

I notice that most categories in Category:Video games by company in most cases don't differentiate between developers and publishers. Even when they do, the way they overlap leads to ambiguity. For instance, Category:Hudson Soft games is listed both in Category:Video games developed in Japan by company and Category:Video games by company, and Category:Square Co. games relates to both Square's role as a developer and a publisher. I was wondering if these categories should be changed to Category:Games developed by XXXX and Category:Games published by XXXX? SharkD (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion on improving intro paragraphs on all games

Why are intro paragraphs for widely released games bloated up with release dates for every incarnation of the games, including stuff across several platforms and then years later on online platforms like XBLA/PSN/Virtual Console. As far as I can see, that stuff doesn't effectively establish why the subject is important, plus dupes infobox information. Obviously it can be better merited in some circumstances, but in general that info could probably be moved to a Release information and/or Legacy section or something along those lines. Could we phase this writing style out in favor of keeping the intro paras more substantive? - Liontamer (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested this before: the lead doesn't need exact dates, just a rough year marker (or if really need, month and year) if the game has a lot of releases. Only if the date is really critical/significant should it get mention in the lead, and that means more discussion of it in the body of the article. Dates should still say fully there in the infobox, of course. --MASEM 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have suggested that on top of going with Masem on this, I still feel at least a full-date should used for the original release, just as we do in film articles.--十八 00:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Also, besides clarifying when it was initially released, it can be important for video games that make sales records or the like, for example GTA4 and Halo 3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be bloated up with ports and such. The lead paragraph and the infobox is for an introduction to the main platform (if that's what the entry is mainly about) or the brand. Ports (which includes XBLA/Etc.) go in the Ports section. Lists of ports don't belong in the infobox either, unless the article is about an entire series (brand) of games. Otherwise, the infobox is about the launch platform specifically. The plurality in Platform(s) refers to titles that launch on more than one platform (which does happen). See Pac-Man for an example of proper intro and title box usage. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree somewhat. If there is one single port of a game that is covered on that page in detail (this includes Resident Evil 4 and Okami, specifically on the Wii port, then it should be mentioned in the lead. But on a game like Pac-Man or where there are more than 2 major releases, then I agree that details should be confined to the body, as likely each port won't be covered in great detail. --MASEM 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would propose to add the following text to the VG style guideline under "Release dates" to cover this:

In the lead, avoid using exact release dates, but instead summarize all releases for all platforms, regions, and ports via the year of their release, or month and year if absolutely necessary. Examples include:

• "Pac-Man" was first released in arcades in 1980, and has been ported to most major gaming systems through 2008."
• "Guitar Hero II" was released on the PlayStation 2 in 2006, and later on the Xbox 360 in 2007."
• "The World Ends with You" was distributed in Japan in July 2007, and in North America and PAL regions in April 2008."

The exception to this is when the release date is very significant for that game and described later in the article as part of the game's promotion. For example, "Gears of War" was released on November 12, 2006, promoted as "Emergence Day" by Microsoft." If more significant discussion of release dates in necessary, include these specifics in the article's body. The examples aren't fixed, they're just ones that I think work well to demonstrate how to nix dates from the lead and make these easier to read. --MASEM 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've personally found the detailed release information to be very useful, so I'd rather not see it go. Moving it from the lead to a dedicated section would be OK. I just don't want to see it removed entirely. SharkD (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both accounts here. I like Masem's addition, but a note that the information should be somewhere else (let's make the Development section the standard) should be added. User:Krator (t c) 18:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Should video game lists by platform include the exclusive column?

In my view, the column isn't necessary and just clutters up already huge lists. See List of PlayStation 3 games as one example. I removed the column, but it was reverted quickly. But in the case of other video game lists, it was removed with no problem. There is categories for exclusive content which are better suited for this content. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that for most lists it is not necessary but I think the reason it is inclued on the 360 and PS3 lists is that these two (fanboyish as it sounds) are major competitors with each other. This column provides a quick point of reference for a list of games which are exclusive to each console which is encyclopedic. If the column was removed, new lists would be needed for exclusive game for each one. A few months ago, changes were made to the PS3 list including the removal of the 'Distributor' column as it (unlike the Developer) was decided to be unnecessary to the list and as distributors are different in different regions, including all of these would cause a serious increase to the size of the table. I think removing that column should be more of a priority for the List of Xbox 360 games. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could shorten the words, "Exclusive" and "Trophies", in the column headers (or wrap them in <small> tags), I guess the column would take up less space. Try that. SharkD (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists, Featured Lists...what about Good Lists though?

This came to mind, but with a lot of the project's articles consisting of lists that aren't direct lists but collections of text/character information rather than simple lists (i.e. List of Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater characters vs. List of Famicom games). As it stands, the gap between a list and a featured list can be pretty hefty...so what about the creation of "Good List" as a class to ease the transition and promote improvement of the lists?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good topics#Good Lists might be useful in answering your question. « ₣M₣ » 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems to discuss it a bit more in mind of a lesser version of Featured Topics...what I have more in mind here is the status simply being a stepping stone solely as a means to point out the list in question is on its way to FL status as well as visual encouragement from peer editors that progress has been made (as it stands to a lot of editors, the gap can seem somewhat daunting and not entirely worth the effort when dealing with more text heavy lists, no?). Of course by no means is this suggesting a change to the FT requirements or reducing the weight of a FL status.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea. There certainly are good lists out there that may not be featured lists, but they are certainly a step above those bare-bones lists. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it's not for discussing here (and honestly, it's so easy to get a FL, why would you bother adding more instruction creep... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support the creation of a "Good Lists" classification. SharkD (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

editprotect template

Someone please move this template to Category:Video game typing aid templates. The template is locked. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Orbiter (sim); is it a game? If not, do we support it?

So, I had something interesting happen. I'd come across this article, Orbiter (sim), which is marked as part of WP:VG and is categorized as a game, etc. So I italicize the title, considering that it seems pretty clearly to be a game. However, my italicization got reverted, and I was informed by one of the contributors that the article's title shouldn't be italicized as it's is not a game. To me, this seems like splitting hairs, but I figured I'd ask the opinion of those of us more experienced with such things. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd leave well enough alone and worry about something more important, like a cup of cocoa and a biscuit, a cigarette, some good music or a crap film. As soon as something so trivial sparks extended discussion it's time to about-turn. Someoneanother 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's close enough to being a game for us to support it. It's used purely for entertainment. SharkD (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a game, and a moddable one at that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons stated below in the Second Life thread, this simulator is a video game (controlling a video representation for fun or education). Jappalang (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Francis Hassett now open

The peer review for Francis Hassett, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do these establish independent notability?

I guess I'm mainly trying to figure out if I need to redefine my own standards or not. There has been work on some of the characters in the Soulcalibur series in an attempt to establish notability. Some of them only have a few sentences at this point, but others have a multiple paragraphs going. The development information included is fine, but the information needed to actually assert notability isn't great in my eyes. I mainly view it as undue weight being added to minor topics. Note that taking a ten second glance makes the articles seem sourced well, so please actually go over them if you plan on commenting.

Amy (Soulcalibur), Charade (Soulcalibur), Hilde (Soulcalibur), Ivy (Soulcalibur), Necrid, Tira (Soulcalibur), and Voldo seem to have the most information so far. Some of the information in those sections would be fine to include in the character list, but the rest is pretty trivial overall. Many of the sources just mention the characters specifically because they are a new addition to the series rather than the character actually being a separate entity from the games (in contrast to Ryu from the Street Fighter series). If that is acceptable in establishing notability, pretty much any main character in recent games would be worthy of an article. The worst offender is Necrid, who is commented on only because he is specific to console versions of one single game in the series. That is definitely just unnecessary weight being split off. Other comments not found in reviews specifically relate to gameplay (such as unnecessary comments from E3 demos), which really don't seem like anything that important.

There is also the fact that many of the sources really aren't that great. Video game and media review sites and magazine don't have to be on the same level of acclaim as Gamespot and IGN to be used generally, but in the case of establishing notability for a smaller topic such as a character, I would assume that a site like "Tom's Games" is a bit too minor to really matter. There are also a few blog articles like Kotaku used. I don't know when we would generally use those sites, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Other information meant to establish notability comes from things like primary character polls, extremely limited "Top X character lists" that only focus on this specific series, and primary merchandise. That kind of information really can only add context to notability rather than define it. Am I on the right track or am I just being too rigid with my views? TTN (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Using reliable sources to assert notability and for referencing are two different things. A short mention in an article (e.g. one paragraph in a 300-paragraph text) can be used for reference. The same short mention, however, is not the "significant coverage" as defined in general notability guidelines (GNG). The "more than trivial but less than exclusive" coverage means that for the 300-paragraph text example separated into 20 chapters, about one chapter would be dedicated to the subject. This does not mean that two or three sentences in a 30-paragraph text would qualify. The concept or essence being espoused by those sentences also needs to be judged, going by "Sources" in the WP:GNG. The WP:GNG also allows for multiple significant coverages by less popular but reliable sources to make up for the lack of a media giant among those sources. Hopefully, that makes things a little clearer... Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is enough verifiable information there that all of them can definitely avoid AfD or greater. However, as Jappalang explained, it can definitely use more to establish the extensive coverage needed to be decent articles. MuZemike (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well they're still works in progress: resources and whatnot are still being sorted out, still deciding which articles to merge and which to keep, and overall just cleaning up one big mess. Necrid's is the only one at the moment "completed". Hilde did get merged however I'll point out, as she pretty much had no actual discussion about her as a character that would given significant real world weight beyond that she was new and interesting because she was new. Other than that though there is a conscious effort to try and get the articles to a featured topic, and make sure the references are reliable and offer real-world subject matter to discuss that makes the character more important than "they appeared in a series". It's still being worked out all around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo be merged with this project yet?

As I looked at the recent history of the project: the main page hasn't had any edits since April. The talk page has had very little active discussions for quite a while. I think it's time for the project just to be merged into this one, or just made into a taskforce (only if there is actually people from the project around to actually make the taskforce worthwhile). The project is basically inactive, and I doubt that will change anytime soon. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why not merge, it been dead for months at the very least and for the same reason you mentioned shouldn't "Wikiproject" Sega be a taskforce? « ₣M₣ » 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the only reason it hasn't already been merged is its semi-active subprojects like WP:POKE. Nifboy (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to merge. Gary King (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the projects in Category:WikiProject Video games need to be gone through. Hasn't it been a while since we checked them? Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat is one prime example that should just be turned into a taskforce. I know it's been tagged as inactive several times, and the tag gets removed everytime. The most recent time was on June 20, and the edit summary said "active as per recent activity on talk page". So I checked the talk page history: a few comments there. I think we need to decide: if the talk page has little activity, it's safe to say the project is inactive and basically dead. I think it's wrong to assume it's indeed active, just because a few people comment on the talk page. Projects are meant for regular activity, aren't they? A few people hanging around to discuss things on the talk page isn't much of a project, and is better suited if a merge happens. Then they can discuss issues here, where many more people will respond and be able to help. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I draw your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. We're working through a lot of inactive wikiprojects there, either by downgrading or deleting them as we go. You might want to raise the problem with WP:Nintendo there. Many thanks, Gazimoff 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge the wikiproject, the project is a ghost town. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be for making both the Sega and Nintendo projects task forces. Both virtually follow the universal WPVG standards, and neither doesn't do anything policy-wise on their own. MuZemike (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support turning these into task forces, although they might object to us simply annexing them. We follow the same guidelines and work on many of the same articles. There's a lot of unnecessary talk page headers because of it, and a little confusion as we butt heads. We'd be better off if we worked together, but I'm not sure if they'd object. Randomran (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Task force or redirect?

A note was left on the project's talk page, but it received few responses. A merger looks to be what will happen. The question up in the air is whether to downgrade it to a task force, or simply redirect it here.

If there are a significant number of members interested in participating in a Nintendo task force, we'll downgrade it. If there aren't that many we'll redirect it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

A taskforce sounds good. SharkD (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus looks to be in favor of a task force. Right now, clean up of the Nintendo Project's unneeded pages is in progress to make the switch easier. Nintendo Project pages up for deletion (both current and future) can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

About WikiProject Sega

Good luck trying to convince User:Gaogier about the merge. He's pretty locked into keeping the project, as the one who created it, although I don't think I would mind either way. There are a number of active members in the project (such as myself, I've done a lot of work with the project), but I don't know if it's enough or not to sustain a WikiProject. It's all classification anyway, it seems, and the reason everyone follows the WP:VG standards is that they're good standards, so why should something be changed if we don't object to any of it? (well, other than a few select users who are very inclusionist about Sonic cruft). Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Release date categories to include region

I propose that categories such as Category:1987 video games be refactored so that they articulate which region they were released in. Currently, there's no way to tell by the categories whether a video game was released in North America or Japan in a given year. Many games were released in the same year in different regions. Three major regions are relevant to English-speaking peoples (NA, EU and AU). A fourth (JP) is relevant to articles because it is the first region many video games were released in. SharkD (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If we do want to do this, I suggest we do it by a template, modifying {{vgrelease}} to autosort these appropriately (basically to add an explicit "year" parameter). A script/bot could then help transform all existing ones correctly.

Mind you, this means that a game with ports released in different years would fall into many "YYYY video games" categories. However, I don't see this being a problem. --MASEM 04:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Using a template is a great idea. Is there a way to truncate the categories, or only show the parent category all the YYYY categories belong to? I'll make a proposal to VP (tech). SharkD (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This actually brings me to the idea to create a slew of similar categories for publishers (e.g., automatically place them in "XXXX games" categories and add region abbreviations, such as Category:Eidos Interactive games). SharkD (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What should the categories be named? Category:1987 Japanese video games, Category:Japanese video games of 1987, Category:1987 video games from Japan? SharkD (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For English-speaking countries there's also Australia, and for first regions there's China, Korea, Asia, Russia, etc. There are also a few articles about Brazilian, Turkish or Iranian games. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out: consensus has been against listing multiple year categories in articles (as it stands now: the original release year is the only thing listed). So if this goes into affect, it seems to me that articles will be categorized for each region: which makes 3 or more year categories. People can find all the relevant release information in the infobox (at the top of the article in plain sight), this seems to be just overcategorization in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of the categories is to list all games released in a particular region in a given year. This information cannot be found in a game article's infobox. SharkD (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are categories for genre (why not categorize them simply as "video games"? why is genre necessary?), categories for developers, categories for publishers, categories for individual platforms, categories for game modes, etc. I don't see this as being any more of a case of overcategorization than these are. And, I don't see this information as being trivial. Lots of effort has gone into adding accurate release info to each game's infobox. Templates have been created for the purposes of displaying this information. Obviously, a lot of people find it important. SharkD (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is a very valid point, so here's how I see it. Doing this sorting allows us to create two sets of overarching large categories (that, I should note, are difficult to crease category intersections, so there's something worthwhile to this). The first would be "Category:Video game releases by year", and would look like:

• Video game releases by year
  • 2008 video game releases
    • 2008 video game releases in North America
    • 2008 video game releases in Japan
    • ...
  • 2007 video game releases
    • 2007 video game releases in North America
    • ...
  • ... (and so on)

The second would be "Category:Video game releases by region/country", and would be:

• Video game release by region/country
  • North American video game releases
    • 2008 video game releases in North America
    • 2007 video game releases in North America
    • ...
  • Japan video game releases
    • 2008 video game releases in Japan
    • ...
  • ... (and so on)

Now, the arching categories (first and second indentations) would need to be created manual but just once, the rest can be taken care of itself via template use. Now, I know we've previously talked about having only the first VG release year, but maybe (if the above classification is considered useful) we need to change that present sorting to denote the year the video game premiered, regardless of country or format. So now you'd have the listing above, and then another set of categories that is the same as the current set of categories for vg year sorting, but just specifically on the games first release. --MASEM 14:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. I'm just hesitant because the category names are so long and take up lots of space at the bottom of articles. If it's an issue, maybe some sort of shorthand using abbreviations could be used? I know of no other categories that use shorthand, though; and I would bet it would go against the MOS. Otherwise, I'm all for it. SharkD (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I missed the bit about a "first release" set of categories when I first read your response. I'm not sure this is necessary, as the information can be determined programmatically from the other categories. What we could then do is somehow publish the category intersections in a Wikipedia-friendly format, either by waiting and interfacing with a future Wikimedia facility, or via an separate external page or something like a special WikiProject section of the toolserver (I will propose this on VP-tech).

However, if we do go the "first release" categories route, we could just rename the existing categories to "Video game first releases of YYYY"--or something like it--and simply remove the games that don't belong. SharkD (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a proposal along these lines, here, in case you'd like to take a look. SharkD (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not jump the gun here; most of what I've outlined is very doable, but we need more input before starting it. And there's the general logistics of how the naming should be done. For example, when a game is released in a specific country (say, UK), that's fine, but a category "2007 video game releases in UK" should also subcat "2007 video game releases in Europe" and "2007 video game releases internationally", which makes for a very weird bottoms-up cat tree. I'm trying to determine if this is a good structure. --MASEM 15:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Would "video games released internationally" be with respect to the country of origin? I've always been slightly confused by this category. SharkD (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I created a template that completely changes the way {{vgrelease}} works. I added the functionality that it will add the page to the categories mentioned above. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to base it on {{Video game release}}. It's a bit more flexible. It requires fewer parameters, can auto-detect regions other than JP, NA, EU, AU and INT, and can handle multiple date formats. SharkD (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen your template, which I think you based off of mine, but it is also 10 times as big, for some more capabilities that I think should be (and some that currently already are) discouraged. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified the {{Video game release}} to place articles into categories (this can be disabled in the template). One other benefit is that it detects when TBA or TBD are used instead of a date. SharkD (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to the "discouraged" capabilities? The only one I can think of is date auto-hotlinking, which is a rather recent occurance (and is done explicitely by users using {{vgrelease}} in either case.) SharkD (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The main one is the ability for basically any region. That's simply wasted coding as there are only a few main regions, and if the game is not released in a different region first, it's discouraged to even have it in the infobox. And there must be other extra stuff that makes it 12K. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This level of categorisation is not needed. Region specific releases are not exclusive to video games, the most important date, is the first release which is what games are currently categorised in. I feel that this is over-categorisation, and the overheads in maintenance are not worth the benefit. 5:55 is in Category:2006 albums only, Infernal Affairs is in Category:2002 films only. There's a relevant discussion about multiple year categories at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_26#Games_that_have_multiple_years_for_categories. - hahnchen 17:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. And still stand by my comment in the linked discussion. - X201 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I tried to explain this above, but no one wanted to listen. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference with video games is that a release in another region can often have an effect on content. Music albums tend not to be translated when released in other countries. SharkD (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still overcategorization. This would be better suited for a video game wiki, not here. That archived discussion Hahnchen posted, is just one of several discussions we've had about release dates. All of which, the general consensus was to use the original release date as the only year category listed. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the categories could be made invisible. In this way, they would only be visible to software. Also, I don't think it would be a maintanance problem. People are pretty careful with the release date templates, and the categories would be automatically added by them. SharkD (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think invisible categories is a good idea. This way they will be hidden to public view and won't clutter the category tree, and no one will see them. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Punisher (2005 video game)

I was wondering if anyone might be interested in giving the article The Punisher (2005 video game) some tlc? It's badly in need of a copyedit. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks must go to Fordmadoxfraud, who did a copyedit of the article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cult video game

I tripped across the relatively young cult video game article today. I haven't a great deal of personal interest in sorting out the intentions behind it. However, the article might appeal to a reader here who might take up the challenge. At present, it's a rather poorly defined topic rife with unsourced assertions and somewhat opaque criteria for inclusion of example titles. Seems like there might be some reliable critical basis for this article (cf. cult film), but there's no evidence of that yet. D. Brodale (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have enough stuff going on right now, but this article's pretty interesting in my opinion. With a good amount of references, it could be a decent article. Evaunit♥666♥ 02:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It can become very heavily-laden with original research very quickly. Every game on there needs to be verified to be of cult status for a video game.

In addition, I would recommend moving the article to List of cult-status video games, as cult video game of itself, seems to be more of a neologism than anything else, as it is a direct branch of the term cult status. MuZemike (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I've seen too much research out there to support such an article. Even for ever "cult video game", there's a mainstream video game with a "cult like status" because its gameplay is "addictive". I think this is unverifiable/non-notable at worst, and indiscriminate at best. Randomran (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit notices

I know that a lot of articles have hidden HTML messages in them directing editors not to add certain content (such as new items to an intentionally short list). These messages can now be moved to the edit page using the {{editnotice}} template. In this way they can be made much more visible and kept from cluttering up the articles' source. SharkD (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That should come in handy. Not so much - just realised that they need to me created by administrators. Would be useful if editors could create them. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just created one for Aerith Gainsborough, very cool. This should be used sparingly, though. Pagrashtak 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish we could add them ourselves. That said, supposedly an admin will notice if you add the editprotected template to the talk page. SharkD (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the main reason they're not letting regular users add those notices is because it's possible to add notices like that to an entire namespace, which is just ripe for potentially crippling vandalism. But yes, I think that if someone adds an edit request, admins will start to watch a category or other page that shows these requests being added. (For the record, I've added two of these notices to Metroid Prime 3: Corruption since there were two separate issues requiring these kinds of notices there.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor suggestion for the project talk page template

Since the assessment list on the category page includes images for Template and Image classes, could the talk page template for such articles show the appropriate icon instead of none? It does just look a little odd. Also on a quick note added mention for both to the instructions for the template since the previous ones there stated to just use NA instead. @_@;--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Second Life

Who added all the Second Life pages to this wikiproject? It's not a video game any more than Flash is a video game. Gigs (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would contend that games played on Flash are video games, but that's beside the point. How is Second Life not a video game in your opinion? —Giggy 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm reading from his contribution history, I think Gigs is overlooking the fact that the project covers video game related topics as well. o_O--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Second Life strikes me as a video game, too. Gary King (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, personally. Second Life is a social network. It's structured like an MMO, and it lets you play games, but it's not in itself a video game. It differs from MMOs like World of Warcraft because there is no overarching storyline, no particular purpose to its existence or a character's existence within the network, except to enable people to interact with one another and take on different personas. I'd put it in a grey area personally, but if we need to go by any strict definition of what constitutes a video game, I'd say it isn't one. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If we go by what video game and game describes, then any "structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes also used as an educational tool, that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device" is a video game. In that case, Second Life is a video game. It is a video game where users use an interface (keyboard and mouse) to generate visual feedback (characters performing actions) on a video device (display screen). There is no need for a goal, the activity is used for "enjoyment" in interacting with others and accomplishing "structured activities" (setting up businesses, customizing characters, etc). Second Life can fall into the several expert definitions listed in the game article as well. No doubt about it, this thing is a game, and a video one at that. Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call social networking entertainment. However, it is so closely related to video games technologically that it should be covered by the Project. SharkD (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Jappalang. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I would posit that IRC, Instant Messaging (AOL IM, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ, etc), and other chat networks also qualify as video games. They similarly are interfaces that generate visual feedback on a video device using an interface (usually just the keyboard) for "enjoyment" and (sometimes) accomplishing "structured activities". The medium is different, to be sure, but is the purpose not the same? Second Life gives people a much broader range of things they can do, of course - chat networks are usually just that (and are also often used for business purposes), but overall the same idea. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Furcadia. Nifboy (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To point something out, sites such as GameFAQs, MobyGames, and even IGN readily list Second Life as a game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of going off the point into a long dwelving session of why typing in inputs to control events on screen (The Typing of the Dead, MUD) is different from typing to convey messages (Synchronous conferencing, Word processor), let us just simply look at what the the world view Second Life as (Kung Fu Man has pointed out a few gaming sites above). The New York Times,[2][3], New York Post,[4], The Guardian,[5][6][7][8][9], Games for Change,[10][11][12], Eurogamer,[13], University of Maryland,[14], ITMedia,[15] Impress Watch,[16] IBM,[17] Lianhe Zaobao,[18] etc, all consider Second Life as a video game.

Spencer Kelly of the BBC claimed Second Life is not a game;[19] however, it is a opinion not adopted by the corporation.[20][21][22][23] All in all, there is simply a lot of evidence to support classification of Second Life as a game; it is a synchronous conference played as a game. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

By that rationale, SimCity isn't really a game either. I tend to think of our scope as being "digital, interactive entertainment", with the obvious emphasis on video and computer games. Randomran (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for support of getting our Guitar Hero featured topic

Just dropping a note that I need to thank those that helped through past editing or review for getting the Guitar Hero series articles up to a Featured Topic. Unfortunately, we can't sleep on it with more GH games coming out, but the hardest barrier has been cleared (and I need to work on more FTs for that). --MASEM 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! The promotion is greatly deserved. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Game logo won't let me force it down to a smaller size

I've uploaded a logo for The Last Guy, but I can't shrink the ruddy thing, it just shows an empty space when I preview it. Would somebody who knows knowledge of images take a look? Someoneanother 07:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

hmm that is weird, it showed up resized in my preview of 250px so i hit save, but then it wouldnt load and i got the blank space, maybe just re upload it at 250px or wateva... Salavat (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try shrinkifying it in paint, not sure why this one is being so uncooperative :/ Someoneanother 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I resized it once, smaller, not small enough yet it still didn't want to be resized. I uploaded it again at a width of 254 px, which seemed just right, now it's the right size but very fuzzy.. this isn't going very well. Someoneanother 07:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You could try going back to the original image and trying this. Failing that, use a better graphics program to resize the thing. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok i did a resize on photoshop at it came out like this link, its many times clearer, you should upload that if that purge thing doesnt work. Salavat (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've used the photoshop version, many thanks to you both. That was weird. Someoneanother 09:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had the disappearing image thing for multiple pages, even after purges, but I figured it was just me. Could it be a MediaWiki problem? MrKIA11 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The px bug showed up again this week so it may be linked to that. - X201 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of which, what's the deal with infoboxes suddenly going widescreen and needing breaks to thin them back down, where previously the text wrapped? Someoneanother 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be my fault. I changed the code so it can be collapsible, but I think I took away too much code. I corrected the code and slapped an {{editprotected}} on it, but it hasn't been changed yet. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, heh. Someoneanother 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Olympic events

After starting the FAC of Mario & Sonic, I received different comments on whether or not the Olympic events should be listed. I hoping to receive clarification here on when, if ever, such lists are appropriate. Regards, « ₣M₣ » 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nnngh, it's kind of a tossup but the full list (see here) is kind of busy with four columns and two different marks for exclusivity. It's also sort-of redundant with the prose lists above it. Nifboy (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Hanchen suggested making the list hide-by-default, which I like. Nifboy (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a list of events is needed or appropriate. The events are simply mini-games, and there's been several discussions about how mini-game lists aren't suitable for articles. I see this being no different. I know some people might argue the events in Mario & Sonic aren't mini-games, but logically they are just short games all collected on one disc. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's one thing to say Mario Party has minigames like "Cut from the team" and "Pumper cars" and a different thing to say this or any other Olympic-themed game has minigames like skeet shooting and hammer throw. There's a real-life context here that isn't present elsewhere. Nifboy (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, however I still think an events list is game guide material. We also need to remember: ideas given at FACs aren't always the correct thing to do for an article. Anyone can give advice, it doesn't that it must be followed in order for the article to become featured. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm pretty iffy on this. At one point, I agree with Rob. Why should we list all of the minigames in a game? At another point, I disagree, as that's bassically all the game is. And if we remove information about the minigames from the game's article, there probably wouldn't be much information. On another point, like what Nif said, these are actually, real events/minigames. It's hard to say, really. _Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. ^Soul 01:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We aren't talking about removing the mini-game information completely. We are just discussing if we should or should not list the mini-games list. Please read more closely next time. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know Rob. I was just saying, since this will likely affect the article in a matter. _Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. ^Soul 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that as the current subsection describes general categories and differences between the two versions (with specific examples), it is needless to provide a full listing of the games. The list was inserted on a suggestion that it would make the gameplay section comprehensive. However if the two games had a core of 50 events with 30 exclusive games between them, would that reason stand up to scrutiny for inclusion of the list? Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Jappalang just said. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There are so many events under athletics and aquatics that the general categories are meaningless. I disagree with your assertion that differences between the games be specified, yet their similarities are "needless". And if there were many more events featured, I still press for them to be included, in the same way I feel that 69 Love Songs should contain the full track listing even though it has 59 songs more than a typical album. - hahnchen 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The events should be listed in full. I knew this would pop up, people seem paranoid about what may or may not be perceived as guide material over what completeness and comprehensiveness. This is an officially licensed Olympics product, the entirety of its gameplay stems from simulating Olympic events, yet people are suggesting that this isn't important to the understanding of the game? Why not remove the list of events from 2008 Summer Olympics, or the list of stories from Grimm's Fairy Tales? - hahnchen 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, it's less about paranoia, and more about keeping with what I think an encyclopedic video game article should be. The way I see it, a person reading the article should be able to get enough out of it to understand the game: what it is about, how it came to be, and public reaction to it. I don't see how a full listing of events, race tracks, playable characters, etc. helps further that understanding.

The prose already conveys the idea that the gameplay simulates real life Olympic events; in both the "Gameplay" and "Development" section. Because of that I think the list goes into a level of detail that 1) is simply not needed and does not help the reader, and 2) emulates game guide content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

By Hahnchen's logic: we should add complete car lists for licensed NASCAR games. Full rosters for licensed MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL (and all other pro sports) games. This is no different than those: game guide content better suited for a video game wiki/video game website. We have to remember Wikipedia has it's limits, and there is other sites out there for complete guides to the games. People aren't being paranoid, they are stating it's guide content... which it is. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could just state as in RACE 07 - Official WTCC Game, that it includes all the tracks and cars from the 2007 season. There's no game guide about it, it's not a walkthrough, we're not telling players how-to do anything. Wikipedia has its limits, they're not broken by a list of events, I assume that track listings qualify as "listening guides" then do they? - hahnchen 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Game guide content is more than just how-to-play, it's several lists: which that event section falls under. Perhaps, trivial information is a better way to name that list? Unless people give better reasoning on why it should stay, I will be removing it in a few days. I'm going to wait a few days, so a few more people can respond and give input on this matter. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How arbitrary, "several lists". The game guide reference in WP:NOT has always been in the "instructional" subsection, to stop how-tos, tutorials and walkthroughs. If comprehensiveness is not a "good enough" reason why it should stay, then you're not going to accept any.

What next, removing the comics from Eagle (comic book) because they violate Rob's Reading Guide material? Getting rid of the list of simulated aircraft in Microsoft Flight Simulator X? Listing the sports represented in a sports game is essential. - hahnchen 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahnchen, Rob is not the only one that feels that way about this. Besides, this is less about violating WP:NOT and more about writing for our audience. Though I feel such content is in a gray area, in my mind it is still close enough to game guide and FAQ material.

My main reason for opposition at the FAC and several other times here is because such content does little to further a readers understanding of the topic. Sports events are a big component of sports games, but the details to which events are in what game are not essential to understanding the game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

I can understand the concerns, I think they're ill founded. Take a look through the featured articles on albums, each one that I've clicked on features a track listing. In a few of these, the track listing is put out of the way, at the end of the article. Does it further a readers understanding of Adore (album) that Daphne Descends is the fourth track? It might not, but the information has to be there in order to be a comprehensive presentation of the subject. - hahnchen 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this goes back to things that aren't allowed in video game articles on Wikipedia: car lists, item lists, detailed instructions on playing, mini-game lists, etc. As I stated above: the events in the game are comparable to mini-games (even though in Mario & Sonic they are based off real life events). The prose for events is fine, and if people want to find out the complete event list: they can go to a video game website. There is other websites out there, and Wikipedia simply isn't the only place people go for knowledge. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue might be a mismatch in our expectations of "comprehensiveness". The term is used in the sense of completeness: is the article complete in describing the subject. As such, an opinion is that a full listing of certain objects is necessary for this criteria. In this case, the events are expected to be listed out in full. However, why then should an article not have full list(s) of magic spells, enemies, characters, badges, treasure chests, or vehicles?

If we say then that the listed items should have real-world relevance, then what qualifies the Dream Events from being listed in the Mario and Sonic article? If taken away, then the listing would not be a "full list of events" in the game, right? Even then, would not it be compelling that every RTS and FPS should have a list of weapons, vehicles, and armor?

That is why, I believe, WP:VGSCOPE and several items in WP:NOT were written up for. Likely, the "comprehensiveness" seeked for in this project is in a general sense rather than the minute details. Calling out the categories of events gives the reader a knowledge that such events are in the game, a full list of events might not be even seriously looked at. Jappalang (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Jappalang. Such level of detail is not needed in Mario and Sonic, or any other game article for that matter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

Don't pull the slippery slope argument. I mentioned in the very FAC that I felt that the list of characters was irrelevant, given that they're interchangeable, without context and provide nothing more than an avatar. The reason that the events list is important, is because they define the gameplay. Even the dream events are based on Olympic events. You're suggesting that an officially licensed olympics sports game should neglect to mention the sports that it simulates. The sports that the developers chose to include, in your eyes are irrelevant.

That there's a subsection on Events suggests that it's an important facet. Yet you'd rather leave readers with a whiff of what the events actually are, mention some random specific events, and not actually let readers know what the events are. The "go to another site" argument means nothing, we could remove the track list from 69 Love Songs because you can just go to another site, why stop there? Remove the reception and point them to Metacritic. - hahnchen 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We can argue about this day after day, but the consensus (as of now at least) is it's game guide content. Just because cd articles have a track list, doesn't justify video game articles having event lists. They aren't that similar. People can understand a video game's gameplay without knowing the events (or mini-games, levels, car lists, item lists, and so on). As for a cd: the article would be pretty bare if there was no track listing. This isn't the case for a video game article. Let's compare the event list to something actually relevant: video games. Mario Party is a good example (since it has mini-games which act as events in a sense), it has a fine gameplay section. It doesn't need a massive listing of all the mini-games. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Mario Party is not analogous. The whole point of the section, is to inform readers of the Olympic events the developers chose to translate. The gameplay of Mario Party/Wario Ware et al. do not relate to any real world event whatsoever. And I'll challenge your assertion that music articles would be bare without track listings, check out Adore (album), In Rainbows or every other featured album article. - hahnchen 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the events list and I'm thinking that I would err on the side of including the full list being inappropriate, but this is not to say that a well written proseline could summarize most of the events in a few sentences. Such as:

M&S features over twenty competitive events. Several events are athletic games such as sprints, hurdles, and relay races as well as field events such as the hammer throw and long jump. The game also includes both swimming and diving events, vault and trampoline gymnastics, skeet-shooting, fencing, archery, cycling, and table tennis. (keep paras on dream events and Wii/DS differences)

(wikilink all events, of course). This gives a sufficient taste for the depth of the game without listing every single event. --MASEM 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reason for not listing the events. If you think it's important to almost list them, to tell them what some of the events are. Why not tell them what they all are? People are suggesting that listing the exclusive events are important, yet the shared events aren't? The way you've worded suggests that anything is OK unless it's a list, which is somehow allergically bad. - hahnchen 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could drop the perception that we can adopt some middle ground to please both parties. Generically speaking, there's nothing wrong with deciding who is wrong and who is right. I don't want to seem forceful here, but I have a great dislike for propsosing "solutions" that forego the need to form any difficult judgement for the sake of reconciling both parties. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahnchen, personally, I still don't think every single event, exclusive or otherwise, is necessary for a reader to understand the topic. I prefer the prose approach, but feel that excessive amounts of details clutter the sentences. As you've pointed out, listing them in prose format is not much different than in a list format.

In regard to the music and album FAs, I'll let WP:ALBUMS worry about them. Video games are where our focus should be.

As far as informing which events were included by the developers, such content should be in the "Development" section. Without the reasons for the inclusion of specific events, there's no reason to mention every event. "Gameplay" sections are meant to give a high level overview of gameplay mechanics. I realize these are connected to real life events, but within the game, they are in a fictional context. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

...Nevermind. A perfect reminder of why I avoid discussion on Wikipedia now. Back to article-writing I guess. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I take it featured list List of songs in Guitar Hero, as part of the heavily backed featured Guitar Hero topic is within the VG space. We don't have the reasons they decided to include Stellar (song) in the track list either. - hahnchen 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the Guitar Hero lists are different territory from the Mario and Sonic Olympic events. The track listings and some individual songs have garnered comments and specific mention in reviews and won the games awards. The specific events in the Mario and Sonic game did not. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, individual events garnered comments in the majority of reviews, given that gameplay revolves around them. If you're going to limit detail on things that have won awards, your scope is going to be very small. - hahnchen 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My words are not intended to limit the scope to things that have won awards. I'm simply explaining how the Guitar Hero track lists have garnered enough notability to become stand-alone lists, and thus are different from the list of events in this case. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

I really hate to keep pushing this subject, but there's an Featured article candidacy on hold right now that I'm sure Sandy and FMF would like to get wrapped up. Are we close to or at a consensus? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

You could just let Sandy or FMF call it. You could ask the two users at FAC who supported the article before the inclusion of the events to re-evaluate it. I tried to illicit more responses from the village pump, but no one really bit. - hahnchen 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Sandy would want to call something like this, won't hurt to ask though. Getting input from the other two editors would be a good idea, and maybe dropping a note on WT:FAC will help too. After scanning through the FAC, I only saw Nousernamesleft and Giggy as supporting before all this. Are there any others? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

I read it wrong, Giggy supported after the inclusion of the list. But you might want to ask the others that commented anyway, such as User:Bucs and User:Giants2008. - hahnchen 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When the main editors, and the most relevant Project, are divided over an issue, I'm reluctant to make a call unless someone points to a clear policy or guideline or WP:WIAFA breach. I will say that I didn't like the hidden list; adding a list, and then hiding it to satisfy some editors, wasn't an optimal solution and doesn't work on mirrors and printable versions, so I'm glad that is solved and the hidden list has been removed. As to the general resolution of whether to include the list, and considering you all are divided, I'd ask that you raise it in a succint post to WT:FAC to get broader input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I really have nothing to say one way or the other about this because of the unique circumstances this type of video game would bring up. I did however comment-out the event list based on the FAC and what I thought the majority of editors would say here (which turned out to be so). But by all means bring it up to WT:FAC. « ₣M₣ » 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion at WT:FAC has been started to get more input. All editors are welcome to express their viewpoints at WT:FAC#Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

Box art from different regions

Is there a consensus on which box art should be used in articles. I re-added the British/European box art for LittleBigPlanet because the article is written in British English. I assumed that the box art ties in with WP:ENGVAR. Is this the right way to go? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, box arts and text go in different hands. Being in British English doesn't mean that it's intended for British readers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually its first english language region that the game is released in. eg if its released in Europe before North America you would upload the European version, unless of course there is some other factor to consider such as popularity, but first region release usually works well. Salavat (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. WP:ENGVAR "strong national ties" should override "first english language region". North America gets a massive proportion of game releases first, saying that release date should be the criteria for the box art will basically result in carte blanche for virtually every box art on WP to be the North American version. Using release date as a deciding factor just isn't fair. In the case of LBP the UK box art was the first to be uploaded and there is no valid reason for it to be changed to the NA one. - X201 (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I think the "strong national ties" should also apply to box art and should override "first english language region". Besides, I believe in this case, LBP is being released in both regions at the same time. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to X201, hence why i said "unless other factor is there to consider" and why i said "usually". I didnt say it had to be North American. Salavat (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. I was just pointing out that if "first english language region" were the only deciding factor, how wrong it would be. - X201 (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC) - X201 (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your complaint. The "encyclopedic good" to consider in cases like these is consistency to a standard. If the reality of game release dates does not reflect an equal split between the two regional boxarts, then our use of them will naturally skew the same direction.

Myself, I think the most logical usage would be to use the original boxart in the infobox, whether it's in English or not, but I realize I'm in the minority there. First English release is the next most logical alternative, as it is the only one consistent between articles. In case of a simultaneous release, just use whichever gets uploaded first.

The other two possible criteria are higher sales or whichever region the developer is from. Higher sales is not known for a decent while after release, especially prior to the release of the game, so it cannot be reliably used on new articles, and relying on the developer's home region for our standard brings us back to the JA boxart problem. --erachima talk 09:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully support your suggestion of "whichever region the developer is from" to decide matters like this. Its a simple standard to measure from. NA developer = NA box art, and NA English in the article. UK Developer = UK Box art and British English in article. Japan = First English language box art uploaded (if game released in English territories), version of English used could be decided by the ENGVAR "first major contribution" rule.

A simple rule like that would catch a vast percentage of cases, others could be solved by discussion if there is a major reason to not follow the rule. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the developer country takes priority (unless non-English in which case the first available English box art should be used). If developer country box art is not available, the first available English box art should be used in the interim ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If, for instance, the game was first or primarily released in North America and, say, Europe or Austalasia at a later time, then I say the North American boxart gets precedence. Other box art may also be included in the article, provided they are notable and indicate some relevance to the article. For example, both the North American and Japanese box art for The Guardian Legend are included in the article, as the Japanese box art was drawn by a well-known manga artist. MuZemike (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Using release dates as the determining factor is almost the same as saying "use NA box art for everything". The vast percentage of games are released in NA before the rest of the World. - X201 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of the "STOP CHANGING IT" principle. But that's just me. Nifboy (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to bring common sense in it to this... ;-) - X201 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Shame the person who just uploaded the US cover over the UK version (which bears the file name LittleBigPlanetOfficialUKBoxArt) didn't subscribe to Nifboy's idea. - X201 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see what the big deal is. Which ever gets uploaded first, I guess. Or, why not do similar to Pokemon games? Like, hoe Diamond and Pearl have their covers together. And how Soul Calibur 4 has a cover for both the PS3, and XBox360 US releases. Why not just put them left to right? (IE: Left = US Cover & Right = UK Cover or vice-versa). Why is this even a big deal to begin with? So, that's my opinion. Do something similar to that of SC4. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^{Soul teh Hedgehog} 17:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with using whatever was uploaded first unless a discussion leads to an agreed change. It just gets a bit depressing when NA users, without discussion, delete anything that has previously been present just because the the NA artwork happens to have been released. - X201 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I haven't seen that happen to any articles that I've seen, or worked on, but, that does sound rather rude. I mean, I'm NA, and I'll just post whatever I find first. If both versions are available, I would most likely pick whichever looks better, or more descriptive of the game. (IE: Pretending that a seperate boxart for the US is released for say, Sonic Unleashed, and just has Sonic, and Eggman staring at eachother, I would leave it with the UK art, as it's more dscriptive as to what the game is focused about.) And, again, I point out that we can easily use both the US, and UK covers in the same infobox, similar to Soul Calibur 4, Pokemon Diamond & Pearl, and others. That would likely suit everyone's taste. Correct? _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^{Soul teh Hedgehog} 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about the multiple boxart thing? I thought the fair use rules made it a big No-NO. - X201 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going down this road of "use box art relating to the home country of the developer if they are an English-speaking nation" (ie strong national ties), a view I add my support to as well, I suggest we add something to the WP:VG/GL to that effect, so we have something in the guidelines to cite directly the next time someone decides that NA boxart trumps the rest of the English-speaking world's box art, thus better informing other editors. -- Sabre (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As the uploader of the US boxart of LittleBigPlanet, I have to say it doesn't bother me one way or the other. In my opinion, "use box art relating to the home country of the developer if they are an English-speaking nation" is a good point and we should probably do that. If not an English-speaking nation however, then we should use the English-speaking nation that the game is first released in.... and if simultaneous (as Metal Gear Solid 4 was)... then we should probably add something to the guideline to address that as well. -- Darth Mike  _{(Talk• Contribs)} 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sabre that whatever is decided should be briefly mentioned in the guidance somewhere. It's not really a big deal and as others have said, it rarely causes a probelm, but it may be handy to have at some point. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 23:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So has a consensus been reached here now or do some people not agree with these proposals? How does this get added to the VG guidelines? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Its awkward. In one way a clear rule would make life easier with a rule to point to, but should we shackle contributors with a rule that would basically force them to write in another version of ENGVAR? Perhaps something less proscriptive but just as powerful may do the trick, something along the lines of "If the box art from one region is already present do not change it with out first proposing and discussing the change on the article's talk page." That way changes could be reverted and permanent changes of the image could be discussed and arrived at by consensus. - X201 (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would require a new version of ENGVAR. It doesn't need to be in the global guidelines, just a quick mention in the WP:VG manual of style guidelines under Screenshots and cover art or it might be better in the syntax guide for the VG Infobox. Currently is says:

Ideally, the most recognizable English-language cover or a promotional flier, in the case of an arcade game. Failing that, a logo or foreign-language cover can suffice. When the game was released on multiple platforms, the PC cover is preferred over console covers to avoid bias towards a certain console...

Maybe it could be changed to:

Ideally, an English-language cover or a promotional flier, in the case of an arcade game. Failing that, a logo or foreign-language cover can suffice. When multiple cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used, unless this is not English-language in which case the first-available English-language cover should be used. When the game was released on multiple platforms, the PC cover is preferred over console covers to avoid bias towards a certain console...

although worded so that it doesn't sound like it was written by a monkey? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Just one change though When the game was released... " to Where the game was released... - X201 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you find out anything with regards to your earlier comment regarding multiple box arts on one page? Does this breech fair use? I would have thought it does although the commentary you added to each one earlier might avoid it as the article is now comparing the two. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read this whole discussion. I would just like to point out that WP:ENGVAR refers to strong national ties among English speaking regions. I.e., the article, Japan, should not be re-written in Japanese simply because there exist strong national ties with the mother region. In addition, using strong national ties as a criteria is problematic because many more video games are sold in north America than in English-speaking regions elsewhere around the world (especially AUS). SharkD (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand ENGVAR applying only to English.

My interpretation of "strong national ties" is that in most cases it is there to over-ride factors like sales figures and release dates - which otherwise would lead to the ENGVAR version of every article decided by sales figures or release date being written in NA English -. Undoubtedly the cinema audience for the next James Bond film will be higher in NA than in the UK, and most Bond films are usually released first in NA, but James Bond has "strong national ties" to the UK hence the articles being written in British English. Why shouldn't an Australian game by an Australian developer be accorded the same privilege?. This discussion morphed into a discussion about how ENGVAR + "strong national ties" applies (and should apply) to video games, but to avoid being too over prescriptive the text above has been proposed. - X201 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, how about this: the box art that gets displayed depends on the region of the user's IP address. If they're viewing the article from the UK, then they see the UK boxart. If they're viewing the article from Kansas, then they see the US boxart. Hehe. :) SharkD (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The programmers can't/won't do that feature for dates. Images would be an absolute minefield. Nice idea though. :) - X201 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now requested the change mentioned above on the template talk page. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)