I noticed these were created recently. Are these necessary? Besides being almost impossible to be complete, they seem a bit trivial to me. Would this fall under Wikipedia is not a directory? I wasn't sure. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That is, if you're going back to the mid-90s with ratings, you're talking about lists that are virtually unmaintainable. MuZemike (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Pointless categories that are already better covered by search engines on the websites of the ESRB, BBFC, et al - X201 (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
These should be deleted. First of all, there are too many games rated E10 or T to accurately place on the list. Second, these are only ESRB ratings and pointless.--ZXCVBNM18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if they are entirely different or not. From the looks of it: they have slightly different plots and gameplay, but not much else. Anyone know? RobJ1981 (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
We need people's opinion at Handheld game console regarding the issue of Speak and Spell. Another editor wants to include Speak and Spell as an video game console, I don't feel it should be. Both reasons and positions are summarized at the talk page, so I wont go over it again here. I'd like people from here to comment to gain on overall consensus, as it appears we can't come to an agreement on the matter. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it make sense for the {{Infobox VG}} template to include a copy_protection field? This is one of the factors I like to know while buying a game, and it may be useful to others. (For example: I like to know if a stand-alone game requires internet access for registration, in case I want to play it while not online.) This would be different than the license field. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Software doesn't seem to have anything similar. And given that this mainly applies to PC games (and not all of them), I don't see it getting too much use. Something like this would probably be better mentioned in the development section rather than an infobox. That's my thoughts anyway. (Guyinblack25talk16:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
We're not a buying guide, and it could be argued that by giving the exact version of, say, SecureROM that is used for a game, it will help those that want to hack it away, and thus causing WP to be an accessory to copyright infringement. As GIB states, if the copyprot gets mentioned, as it did for Spore for example, it should be in the development section, but otherwise we shouldn't be calling it out. --MASEM16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of expanding this article, and I was thinking about adding a screenshot. As for as I know, screenshots from Ubisoft games are free and can be uploaded to Commons, like in Myst V. I was wondering if this is the case for Goin Quackers, since the game was developed not only by Ubisoft, but also Disney Interactive, although it was only published by Ubisoft. Does anyone know anything about this? The Prince (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why this case is special? I agree if you can find it, it would be better, 1 low-resolution image isn't going to violate fair use clause.じんない19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
My point is that a free use image is a lot better and more appropriate to use in articles. There is no limit to how many free use images can be in an article, unlike fair use images. The Prince (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head, the screenshot would likely include an image of a Disney property, such as Donald Duck, which Ubisoft has licensed, but the copyright of Donald Duck's image stays with Disney, so Ubisoft is not at liberty to release such an image under a free license. I'd consider it non-free. Pagrashtak20:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Pagrashtak beat me to it: the Donald Duck character and related items are copyrighted by Disney, and merely licensed to Ubisoft for the development of this. Ubisoft can't therefore, release images of Disney property into the public domain without Disney's permission. You'll need to use a fair use rationale. -- Sabre (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I need help. After Gary King couldn't help me, I'm asking for someone to work on this list with me to make the List of commercial failures in video gaming a Featured List. Please let me know. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a fair-use nazi, but I was glancing through some articles today when I stumbled upon the Microsoft Flight Simulator article, and was horrified by the number of covers in the infobox. Should most of those be removed or all they all needed to illustrate the scope of the series? -- Nomader(Talk)17:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Due to the continuing issue of TTN merging various character, character list, soundtrack, etc articles without discussion, or actual merging, I have requested that ArbCom extend TTN's restrictions. As he appears to be particularly concentrating on Anime/Manga articles and Video Game articles, I have listed both projects as affected contributers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Is anybody else up for reviving this? I'd be willing to help get it back up if it has support from the project (and people who are willing to actively participate in it). -- Nomader(Talk)23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
People's interests in video games vary so widely that a major collaboration is probably the most effective when it's on an article that had a major impact on the industry. Gary King (talk)01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
A few questions. Would it use the same voting system as before? Would it remain collaboration of the week or extend to a fortnight or month? (Guyinblack25talk04:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC))
Given how discussions have tended to go as of late, might I be bold and suggest that if it were to be attempted to simply dive in and adjust the system as needed for the best results while it's actually in effect?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I do think the time frame should decided upon first. I envision a string of needless page moves that could be avoided by simply having a quick discussion among interested editors. (Guyinblack25talk15:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC))
I think we should use a flexible time frame between two weeks and a month. "Gaming contribution of the moment." Let each article be closed (or continued) by consensus. Randomran (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's going to be between 2-4 weeks, then I think we should just call it "Collaboration of the month". If it finishes early, then great. Editors can either take a short break or move onto the next article. Like you said, it can (and should) be flexible. Plus a month is normally the time it can take to improve an article and move through an FA or GA nomination. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25talk18:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC))
I'm willing to go with the flow. You're right -- if they go short, great! If they go longer, it's not like there's anything stopping a few of the contributors from sticking around an extra week to get the article all the way there. We should keep it simple and flexible, so we create an environment where people feel comfortable joining in. Randomran (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I approve of this idea. A month seems very reasonable, and may actually work better for busy users and generate more interest due to a larger timeframe. --.:Alex:.18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a month is the simplest way to handle it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only thing left to do is vote on the next article, and recruit some participants if need be. (Like I said, I'd be comfortable working on many of the game genre articles, or perhaps another core topic that goes beyond an individual game, console, or individual.) Randomran (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm definitely in favor of moving it to a month, but we should have a way to early-close the collaboration effort; maybe if an article is nominated for GA or FA, the collaboration automatically moves on? On another point, genre articles should be the focus, but should pivotal series be allowed to be nominated as well? -- Nomader(Talk)20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Just throwing something out there. Perhaps it would be best to work on an article type most editors are a bit more comfortable with, like a series or console, just to get the ball rolling. Though depending on the editors, this may not be an issue. (Guyinblack25talk20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC))
I'd say genre and other general articles should be the main focus - the most influential series are also much likelier to draw an interested editor than some random genre article. As a warmup, I'd suggest something most of us are familiar with, like real-time strategy Randomran suggested last time. I'll do as much as I can, but due to time constraints, it's likely to amount to just some random copyedits, so I suppose I don't have much say. :) --VPeric (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to using Mario as our first article, but I feel that we should at least start the process with a nomination and the like so we can establish a procedure; we also need to finalize whether this project's going to be by the week or month. -- Nomader(Talk)22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Month sounds good; collaborations don't usually get many participants, and they take long to complete. It doesn't make sense to hop from one article to the other so quickly. Gary King (talk)22:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
←How about a rotating schedule of important articles: series, hardware, genres, individuals, history events, and others? (Just throwing these types out there. They are up for discussion.) Each type would get at least two worked on during the year and the other category could be anything from a repeat type to something more obscure like an important character or video game article. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25talk22:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC))
Re: Gary King, yes, RTS is abstract, but that makes it all the more useful. Mario is Mario, everyone knows Mario, but find me a succinct explanation of RTS as a term, and a general overview of it (research, current design tendacies and failed innovations included), and I'll be impressed. Of course, I've nothing against Mario. I suppose a rotating schedule would be a good idea, but I'd probably still skip game/series/character articles; there's always a dedicated fan or ten who'll do that (sooner or later), while it falls to the dedicated 'Wikipedians' to handle the tough (and arguably more useful, but I'd rather skip that can of worms) stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VPeric (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The rotating schedule would work wonders; it would help nudge editors not too into writing for abstract topics into maybe writing a few lines for them, while still adding content to more "popular" articles. We have to figure out a way to nominate for specific categories, but I figure that would work out with a heading along certain lines (i.e. "This month's Gaming Collaboration of the Month is under the Enter Whatever Here category. Please list nominations below in the following format:"). Something along those lines? -- Nomader(Talk)22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
VPeric- I agree some articles will be more useful than others, but I think the general topics will provide a good basis of important video game articles. I also think it will attract a larger pool of editors and prevent editor boredom/burnout. Of course, the schedule can be altered as needed down the road too. (Guyinblack25talk22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC))
Just to chip in my two pen'th. As per previous discussion on a revival, I'm all for it and would like it to be general topics (RTS, video game companies, game controllers, etc.) rather than a game that I'm not passionate about or a game character that I personally think is not as worthy as the core bread and butter articles that WP:VG needs as a matter of course. - X201 (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this discussion has just hit the problem on its head; we all seem to want the collaboration to come back, but nobody is willing to work towards that goal (apparently myself included). Despite the overwhelming support to bring it back shown above, nothing has happened recently... is anyone willing to truly commit to bring this back from the grave? -- Nomader(Talk)23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
If some more voices show up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup to speed things up, then I'd be happy to get the collaboration up and oversee it. But right now, I'm stretched between the clean up, newsletter, helping other editors, and trying to write my own articles. The clean up is getting close to finishing; there's a few projects to look at still and then the inactive task forces. Getting it done will free up some of my time. (Guyinblack25talk00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC))
List of (Something Something) Official magazine demos discs
I know some of the official game magazines have pages but do not have a corresponding list of discs considering these are official software for the systems shouldn't they have a spot in wikipedia alongside everything else.
The 360 discs can be used as an example.
Official Xbox 360 Magazine
Issue
Retail game demos
Xbox Live arcade demos
extras
Official Xbox 360 Magazine (UK) Official Xbox 360 Magazine (Australia)
42 37
-Tomb raider Underworld - Brothers in arms: Hells Highway - Viva Pinata 2 - NBA 2k9 - Madagascar 2
- Age of Booty Shadow - Assault Tenchu - Domino master - Crazy mouse
Fallout 3 Gamerpics (5)
Official Xbox 360 Magazine (UK) Official Xbox 360 Magazine (Australia)
41 36 (disc 2)
- Fifa 09 - Guitar Hero world tour - Mercenaries 2 - Pure - NBL 09 - Scene it
- Megaman 9 - A kingdom for Keflings - Beat and groovy - Feeding Frenzy 2
Guitar Hero World Tour Gamerpics (5)
Official Xbox 360 Magazine (UK) Official Xbox 360 Magazine (Australia)
40 36 (disc 1)
- Soul Calibur 4 - Wall e - Fracture - Narnia Prince Caspian - Nhl 2k9
- 1942 Joint Strike - Fable 2 pub games - Bionic Commando Rearmed - War World - Galaga Legions
Well, my first reaction is to say no. But if you can find enough reliable, third-party sources for them, then an argument could be made for such a list. However, I think it may fail per WP:NOT, as it looks like a directory. (Guyinblack25talk21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC))
Hey, me again. Would seem a copyedit is what the article lacks to get it to FA, so as before, could readily use a hand from anyone interested in looking at the article and willing to fix up the prose.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Jon Burge, 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! Kirill03:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I only got to make a start on this article and haven't had much time to finish it. Could someone please finish it or take it a little further. Theres only a few categories left. Thanks. Ogioh (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gotta be honest...does Spike's awards show really need full coverage? G4's I could understand but Spike seems to be a very different fish.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The 2007 awards (as an example) had coverage in the New York Times. I still agree with you though; a main article summarizing the event and possibly listing all of the "Game of the Year" award winners would be suitable. -- Nomader(Talk)21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought that I should make it because every music event is getting a full coverage page, even the not very notable events. I know because i edit on a lot of the music pages. And it was increasingly annoying me tht there was liitle to nothing on video game awards. Ogioh (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think KLoV is reliable by their usage by books on the gaming industry. As for Game Studies, yes, the peer review and its participants are good enough to deem them reliable. Jappalang (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
So Stifle recently prodded this for deletion citing it as listcruft. Im not sure how i can fix it and how it can be deleted when it is virtually the same as listing all the games published on the main Zoo Digital Publishing article. My main concern is that this can be called listcruft while at the same time it is based on the List of Electronic Arts games and List of Ubisoft games articles. Any comments on whether it does qualify for listcruft? Salavat (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
On making a preliminary look at it, it doesn't seem to be cruftish, either. However, it needs verification/cleanup, which will save this list from a possible AFD now and then. MuZemike (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
When you say verify is that pointing to the direction that i will need to put a reference at the end of each game on the list? Salavat (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Because many of the people saying to keep it at MfD aren't part of this project. Not to say their opinions shouldn't be considered, but considering the above and previous discussions on task forces, I saw no reason to keep a task force made by a single person covering 11 articles, where all save 1 are GA and FA. We've got larger and better-suited task forces that we can merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the first issue by manually adding the cat to the Mid and Low priority categories, but I can't fix the second one as easily...any ideas on how to approach that? That kinda cleaves a ton of our project out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the bot's last sweep seems to have been at 12:10 today, while the cat fixes I did were at 13:13. It's odd though, the bot topped listing Mid and Low at the 19th of this month, but nothing in the category history shows any changes made to it for that date.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to add a bit of reception to some Mortal Kombat characters, but it was all reverted. See here,here. The reason for the reverts were that it not worth mentioning, but there some parts of the articles that have fancrufts such as signature moves. If no reception can be added, I guess they will need more merges.Tintor2 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Stepped in a little there, I'll land a hand and send the guy a message on his talk page. Just post here if further issues come up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely there are better sources of "reception" than UGO's unimportant ranking of eleven (?) MK characters on pointless grounds such as Sub-Zero's ninja outfit, because it comes off as unencyclopedic opinion. If this was a list of the best overall fighting game characters, then by all means it should be included. Also, characters' film and television appearances do not fall under a "cultural impact" category. Cultural impact is something like the President quoting Shao Kahn in a speech, or the games being parodied on The Simpsons. sixtynine• spill it •00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Reception is reception, and UGO Networks is a good, well backed sourc. I'll concede Tintor cited it badly (and cited the wrong page to boot), but it provides a bit of notability via coverage in reliable sources to the article's subject as a start.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Castlevania organizational problems
In the Castlevania article, I've noticed that the "development" section doesn't include as much about development as it does the changes in gameplay. Not to mention that there is no "gameplay" section, the whole thing being "overview," and the "games" section is blank. How should it be fixed and what should be in the "games" part if the list is on another page (and soon to be Castlevania media, I think.)--ZXCVBNM23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a good question, since almost every game on the list is a piece of the story. I would include all the titles minus compilations, canceled, and related titles. Most times what we do is mimic other articles which are of good quality. I would use Mana (series) and Kingdom Hearts (series) as templates for Castlevania. Both are FA, Mana is a series with a lot of different games produced over a long span of time, and Kingdom Hearts is a series with one storyline connecting the games. I know it's not an exact answer, but I hope it helps. (Guyinblack25talk04:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC))
Both the Mana and Kingdom Hearts articles have their game lists within the article itself. Possibly, the best bet would be to make something like F-Zero (series), along with a timeline of release dates.--ZXCVBNM04:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I would include them because it's kind of hard to explain a series as a whole to a reader without describing and listing the games. Admittedly though, each game is so much alike it makes sense to not list them and let the overview section describe everything. (Guyinblack25talk05:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC))
I've done a lot of work adding references and research to the history section of the tower defense article. I'd appreciate a copy-edit and maybe a quick read, just to make sure it all checks out.
Also, a couple of different editors have removed verified information (referenced to Gamasutra) that a non-tower defense mod (Defense of the Ancients) had an impact on the genre. I don't usually encounter people removing verified information, but I'd appreciate someone keeping an eye on it just in case it escalates. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a look, the language looks fine; also left a comment regarding DotA. And in other news, editing a paragraph so densely packed with references is truly a pain. --VPeric (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Try checking off all the "editing gadgets" under the gadgets tab in "My Preferences." They really help to sort out references and the like.--ZXCVBNM20:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Nah, they're all disabled (in fact, I didn't even know there was such a tab), but my problem is just that the whole thing is a huge wall of text, and I find it difficult to find where a reference ends and when text begins (again) - it works out ok with a few references, but when there's one every sentance (or even several per sentance!), it starts to be a pain. Maybe I'm just missing some sort of option somewhere? --VPeric (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, [1] is the place to go...then click on the "Gadgets" tab and check off WikiED. It makes references dull grey and text black, as well as other programming style text fixes.--ZXCVBNM03:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the article, a clear game is something where you are able to continue playing your save file, with added benefits from beating the game (as opposed to starting at your last save with no extra benefits), and a new game + is re-starting your game with your last save file's items or EXP. So neither of them includes the other, and the article should be moved to something like "post-game content." Unless someone else can think of a better name.--ZXCVBNM07:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
As part of the discussion at the inactive project cleanup, I have proposed a merge of the mostly-inactive WikiProject TLOZ into either the Nintendo task force or as a task force of its own. I request comment to see what others think about it. MuZemike (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge it. I fear we're going a bit overboard with task forces now, so it's worth condensing them into one stronger task force than having many little separate ones. --.:Alex:.16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't mean to overload the discussion, but what do people think of merging the Smash Bros task force to the Nintendo one as well? It's been inactive since October, especially since the three games are FA and the series is GA. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25talk16:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC))
As far as the Zelda and Smash Bros task forces, we can probably give it a few more days and then merge them to the Nintendo task force. (Guyinblack25talk18:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC))
We can probably delete the three redirects via RFD as they're serving as redirects from Wikipedia-space to template-space (the templates themselves obviously stay). The participants, index, and to-do pages should be deleted, while the left and right panels as well should be merged into the Nintendo task force, while the main page is simply redirected (it just houses the two panels like in the Nintendo task force layout). That is, all essential articles for the Nintendo task force are already laid out to include all applicable Zelda articles. Those are my suggestions; I am sure someone will have better ones, so shoot away. MuZemike (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, and we will need to request a bot, preferably AnomieBOT, to remove the WikiProject TLOZ talk page templates and edit all the WPVG templates to annex "tf=Nintendo" at the end. At that point, we can delete (or redirect/whatever) the talk page template. MuZemike (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Gonna note that some checking should be done on just what the bot ads to be safe. When one was used on the Sega project, we ended up inheriting a lot of unrelated comic book articles...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
There might be some musical reception in reviews of the games somewhere: the songs alongside Dance of Illusions are the most recognizable and remixed tracks from the series for sure. May be more worthwhile to combine into a "Music of Castlevania" article for now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I have thought of expanding the Castlevania titles list into a media list to include the released soundtracks. But to be honest, it is not at the top of my list. I think redirecting to the series article is the best idea, and maybe switching to the list after it's expanded. (Guyinblack25talk17:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC))
I've added sources to the list of albums and added some that weren't in the encyclopedia. There are still more to be added, though. Sorry I didn't make a preview on the talk page, but I'd rather just make a billion tiny edits instead. >_>--ZXCVBNM23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well might as well repost it here, but I think a better bet for handling the character's article would be to combine the sub-articles for it rather than pouring them into the character article. Robotnik has potential as it stands to be cleaned up with a minor degree of hassle and turned into a GA.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Civil war, 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! Kirill03:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Query about GA, A, and FA class character articles rated Low priority
Would it be reasonably safe to bump all said video game character articles to Mid priority? The discussions about Low leaned toward it being reserved for characters that may not have asserted themselves in a real-world sense and could be considered for merge-fodder, but at the same time it's odd to have a FA-class article like Cortana (which implies a heavy amount of real world importance has been established) and them to remain Low-priority.
I think priority relates not to the importance of the article in general, but the importance of the article in direct relation to the goals of this project. Although Cortana does have real world importance, she's not as important to this Project as the Halo series or an Xbox because she's only a character in a game. And although she may be an important character, unless you're the lead character in a franchise, I hardly ever feel that one should be ranked above low. -- Nomader(Talk)06:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well yes I do agree what what you're saying mostly, but I am discussing the point of a subject's relevance for the goals of the project. The overall 1.0 Editoral team lists priorities for Mid and low simply as Mid filling in minor details to a larger subject, while Low is more readily specialist material, and the discussions for the new priority scale described Low as "articles and all lists cover very specific or obscure knowledge", which seems below in many cases for FA quality articles. Upgrading them all may be a mistake, but it might behoove some of them to be boosted to Mid if as the priority scaled puts it, they are "Well known, individually or as list, characters, settings and items", since it states that character articles related to it are only typically central.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
For an article to pass FAC, real world content must be shown regardless of the article's importance. I don't think a basic section on reception and merchandise should is really all that extraordinary; it's just what is necessary. That's not to say we shouldn't look at new FAs and see if their importance needs re-assessing. Sometimes new info added to the article can show a topic deserves a higher rating.
But in the case of Cortana, I don't think she's mid-level. I've never played Halo, but I know who Master Chief is. I only found out about Cortana through Wikipedia, and after reading up on things, I think you could easily explain the basics of the series without even mentioning her. My two cents. (Guyinblack25talk23:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC))
Well to kinda point out about that, Master Chief is actually rated High-priority by the project (which to my understanding is what all characters recognizable without needing to know the games themselves are ranked, i.e. Mario). That's actually why I used the Cortana example in this case, but there are others. The current distinction between Mid and Low seems to suggest Mid would be for characters recognizable to anyone slightly familiar with the subject matter or affected society to a slight degree in some citable manner, while Low is more a case of characters needing extended familiarity with the material to fully understand, and possibly merge-fodder material. See what I mean? The reason I brought up the issue was that readily it seems if a subject has obtained FA, reasonably it should have some level of impact for enough material to exist (then again, there's an article for a character like Nicole (Dead or Alive), which while GA is clearly Low-priority and very exclusive.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but I still don't think the FA criteria equals that a character is well-known. I do think it can, but it depends on the content. For example, the reception sections for Characters of Kingdom HeartsCharacters of Final Fantasy VIII and Cortana are primarily made up of game reviews. If there were content from more non-gaming sources, then I'd say an article deserved a higher importance because it demonstrates a more mainstream awareness.
And while a low article may be merge-fodder, if it demonstrates enough real world content, then there's no reason to merge. Again, I'd say it depends on the article and sources. Some of this stuff just isn't so clear cut and requires some discussion. Plus there's always WP:VG/A for reassessment. (Guyinblack25talk06:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC))
To me, a low importance article is something that's "barely WP:notable". Anything that has some deep criticism/analysis/evaluation in third-party sources has gone above and beyond base WP:Notability, and should be at least of mid importance. So, to me, if someone has gotten something up to FA status, they've proven that the topic is at least of mid importance. Randomran (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That is an inaccurate assumption to hold of FAs. FAs are not well-written comprehensive articles of notable subjects. They are simply well-written comprehensive articles of a subject. The issue of whether a subject is deserved at FAC is a bone of contention that is still thrown around (refer to the various discussions over "short articles" and "subjects without context"). Attaining an FA does not make a subject any more notable than it already is. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to chime in Link, but I think Random's referring strictly to character articles as per the subject here. I'm probably wrong there but it would be a different case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Jappalang is taking an axe to Chrono Trigger's references, and in some cases it's depriving verifiable statements of citations (replacing them with ugly, misleading FACT notes). Some of these cases are begging for WP:IGNORE. The FAR is here.
PalGN - This is an interview with Yasunori Mitsuda. PalGN's "notability" doesn't matter at all; Yasunori Mitsuda is notable and his words are top priority for the article.
Cubed3 - Interview with Hiromichi Tanaka, Producer of Chrono Cross. Same as PalGN's situation.
RPGFan - Not removed from Chrono Trigger, but he did remove it from WP:VG/S. I personally need it at the Chrono Trigger article, because it's the only review site that bothered mentioning the short play-time. However, I haven't reviewed the new CT DS reviews, so perhaps someone else has brought it up now. We lacked a cite except for RPGFan initially because not many reviews for Chrono Trigger are available on the Internet for perusal (since it came out in 1995).
GamingAge - I need this review to prove the excessively slow load times of the PSX port. The fact that notable reviewers who have gone on to work for companies like IGN and Gamespot cut their teeth at GamingAge is not enough to satisfy Jappalang.
A notable exception to this rule exists. When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited. For example, a transcript of the text of a cut scene may only be available on a fansite. In this case, cite the video game (see below), and include a link like "Transcript" to the fansite containing the transcript. Do not cite the fansite itself as source.
Let's walk through the use of the Chrono Compendium:
Chrono Trigger Development Credits - Not available except in video format if you play Chrono Trigger, and relevant to the article to illustrate who worked on it.
Chrono Trigger Alpha Versions - Not available anywhere else except in Japanese on two V-Jump video cassettes that are unbelievably hard to find (one's been on Ebay recently for $499.00). Not only does this illustrate things about the game's development, but it's needed to prove that yes, in fact, Chrono Trigger WAS shown at the V-Jump festival. It'd be silly to remove this source and add a FACT check after that statement.
Chrono Trigger Prerelease (and a few citations under this section of the Compendium) - Extremely important to the article and not available anywhere else unless you acquire the Prerelease ROM or cartridge and play through it yourself. It's extremely important because it talks about Chrono Trigger's development, showing key differences in an early build of the game (Mitsuda discussed the famous "Singing Mountain" removed dungeon in a later interview). That section of the site is full of screenshots, so it's not like someone made this stuff up. You can see for yourself.
Translation Differences - Important to the article because it illustrates Nintendo of America's censorship of the game in 1995, which is a notable part of the game's development history. If you say "but how do we know KWhazit just didn't make up the retranslation," then give me a break; Chrono Trigger DS confirmed many of these differences, and if you want to pick on this, then you're going to have to pick on Final Fantasy V, Radical Dreamers, Mother 3, etc. Not available anywhere else unless you personally play through the Japanese version of the game. Fan translations are also generally notable, per the articles I just mentioned; Chrono Trigger's has achieved over 100,000 downloads at the time of this writing.
Interview with Ted Woolsey - Talks about Chrono Trigger's translation and development. It was originally hosted on a Geocities site, as it was conducted by an amateur. Woolsey has corroborated these facts in later interviews, so we have little reason to believe he was lying.
CT: Prophet's Guile - This isn't about the small Prophet's Guile ROM Hack's notability (it's had 25,000 downloads at this time), but ROM hacking is a notable subject, and it's worth mentioning that ROM hacking takes place (on a wide scale; a full editor exists for it (rare in any game's case) and a full new game is about to be released named Crimson Echoes, which will attract attention on gaming blogs). Again, it's just being used to cite that yes, ROM hacking is taking place.
Music (Chrono Trigger) - Backs up the statement that 600 remixes of Chrono Trigger music exist, and that Japanese fans make doujins of the music. Go ahead and count the remixes, and feel free to download all of them to make sure they're not just one remix linked 600 times. This is very notable, as few games attract this kind of musical fan attention. It goes along with statements about the game's soundtrack's inclusion in PLAY! and Eminence concerts, which verifies popularity.
Concerts - And here's convenient graphical and video proof that those notable concerts took place. Someone yelled at me for Video Games Live / Eminence citations before, so I replaced with the Compendium. And before you say "of course, VGL and Eminence aren't notable," consider that VGL commonly attracts video game composers on its tours, and that Eminence has been releasing music with Yasunori Mitsuda and Hitoshi Sakimoto arranging and performing tracks for well over a year now.
Chrono Cross OST Liner Notes - Backs up the fact that Mitsuda reused / borrowed Radical Dreamers songs when making Chrono Cross's music. Not available unless you listen to the songs yourself.
The usefulness of those links speaks for itself. It would be frivolous to remove them and replace them with Citation Neededs, depriving readers of factual sources. The Compendium also carries out translations of Japanese source materials, and information from a player's guide interview with Sakaguchi and Horii will be added to the article. It's extremely important information, detailing Toriyama's involvement with Chrono Trigger, the origin of several concepts, etc., and yes, it's going to be a Chrono Compendium citation because it's not available anywhere else. If it clears your conscience, the Compendium's information is hosted on MediaWiki, though it is closed to trusted editors who accept and make error corrections to cut down on vandalism. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 08:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Since my name is so prominently addressed in the opening sentence, I would like Zeality to prove his assertion that I was "axe"-ing the references in Chrono Trigger. Show the diffs please. Getting that out of the way, a Featured Article Review is supposed to be for reviewing previous FAs and ensuring that they comply to the evolving standards of Wikipedia. Editors interested to the article are to help address the issues others have brought up. Practically anyone that has brought video game articles to the FAC these days knows a question frequently brought up is "why should a site be reliable for an interview? Can there not be a better site for this information?"; the onus is on whether a site would distort the interview, deliberately editing to show the subject's replies in another light (context). Interviews are not accepted wholesale without question. Bringing them up for review in the FAR is perfectly reasonable.
Chrono Trigger was promoted on August 13, 2006, when FACs had little scrutiny over the sources used, and it has not been brought up to an FAR till now. It is, therefore, expected that Chrono Compendium, a fansite, is brought into question on its reliability. The site is not noted in the industry; no publications look to it for information, and no reliable gaming website has either.[4] Its staff are of unknown expertise (deeply studious as they are in the stories and gameplay of the series). It has no media backing (established media company) to call on to provide it with editorial controls. What we are left with is a site, whose master is deeply involved with the article. Running the site on a Wiki-software does not make the site any more reliable than running without it. Wikipedia's policy is verfiability by reliable sources. If contentious information is not covered by a reliable source, it should not be considered for use in the article. Chrono Trigger is not exceptional enough to allow violations of policies and guidelines just because no reliable source considered those details (which might even be excessive) worthy of coverage; plenty of video game articles (and non-video game articles with greater real-life application) suffer the same issue or worse.
Regarding the fansite's citing for Famitsu, WP:NONENG states that "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" and "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Unless Chrono Compendium claims to be as reliable as Famitsu, that certainly means the exclusion of the fansite for such purposes. Information from Kato's interview should be cited to the magazine with {{cite journal}}. Jappalang (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Hiragana-person was axing them based on your many recommendations. Believe it or not, the article was subjected to a mountain of scrutiny earlier this year when it was proposed for main page status in April 2008. It would never have been acceptable for the main page as it existed from the 2006 passing, but I worked several hours to completely get it up to standard, and Raul and other editors found it satisfactory.
plenty of video game articles suffer the same issue or worse Do you mean to say that you've already chopped up and sacrificed part of the integrity of several other articles based on your reliable source vendetta? Look, WP:VG/S establishes that the Compendium can be used. Everyone here has known from the beginning that I run the Chrono Compendium, and I've clearly shown that the Compendium is not being tacked on to acquire hits. Pick on someone else's article if you're that bent on forcing FACT tags where none are necessary. I'm not going to sacrifice important development information just because "reliable third-party translations are preferred," and it seems few people have such a problem of trust as you do. WP:IGNORE overrides for the sake of comprehensiveness as dictated by WP:FA; don't ruin the article because you believe in form over substance. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
At the TFA request, people were not evaulating Chrono Trigger as an FA with regards to its sources; they were opposing the article for "being about a video game rather than something more pertinent to real-life." (Chrono Trigger's TFA request: March 11) Requests for Today's Featured Article are not FARs. It has also been stated that Raul and the panel at TFA do not re-evaluate presented FAs (Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Stricter standards), in other words, no one evaluated whether the article should be an FA, they only judged if the article should go on the Main Page.
I would advise Zeality to calm down, study the policies and guidelines, and stop putting words into other's mouths, twisting their words as well as the throwing of rhetorics and insults on others' actions. Does it hurt him to call Jinnai, who is acting on his own accord (is he totally acting to what I recommended in the FAR?), by his user name? Zeality should also show diffs of my hell-bent efforts to "force FACT tags" into Chrono Trigger if he wants to throw baseless aspersions around. Where does WP:VG/S state that Chrono Compendium is a reliable source? WP:IGNORE is not a casual item to toss around, read the essays that accompany it to truly understand its limitations and application. IGNORE does not apply to this single article. As I have stated, other articles have it worse than Chrono Trigger; they could have lots of information (trivia and otherwise) added to them if the sources had not been considered as non-reliable. Wikipedia's reliance on verifiable reliable data is what prevents it from becoming a dumping ground for all sorts of information and misinformation. The only assurance that Chrono Compendium is reliable come from its master, and he is certainly not a neutral party. Jappalang (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jappalang here. I raised an issue with Chrono Compendium's reliability in early October, and still haven't seen anything to convince me. It's telling that the primary response to "Why is CC a reliable source?" is "It has information I need to cite". That's a backward approach. Pagrashtak05:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the rom hack citations in the article at all: no offense meant, but rom hacks and pirate games have to have their own degree of notability for an article to mention them, otherwise you might as well list any Tom, Dick or Harry that put one together. If IGN listed it then it's a notch above the rest. As it stands though the hacks are kinda tacked onto the article and cutting them should be a harmless endeavor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed the rom hack stuff, swapped gamespot in for GamingAge. Seriously, took like, no time at all to do. Also I note there is a decisive lack of cookies in front of me. Someone better damn well remedy that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
While I won't be working it in, if you want to cite that the game has a rom hacking fanbase you can try citing a hack a man made to propose to his girlfriend that received a brief mention in EGM. Their January 2009 issue, page 28. Video they reference in the article can be found here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Crono Compendium does meet some of the criteria of WP:SPS. Beyond the creators of the game, how can you qualify someone as an expert. We have ways of qualifying someone as an expert in a feild of study, but how do you qualify someone as an expert on a particular instance of media? CC does have a peer review strcture though. Who they are is somewhat debatable, but we don't need to know who everyone is. Most people do not know indivisual reviewers they might site from Gamespot or somewhere else. The problem is though CC has too many images that it could violate copyright unless SE has given the all-clear. Also, they seem in many cases to lack anyway to verify statements not based around the game, hacks or fan spinoffs, which since we can't determine they're level of expertise in the field of CT (since there are no standards set for such narrow study), such a site would have to have.
However, CC is a cut above the rest of most fansites out there in that it does have a structured peer review, it does attempt some level of verification and is setup in an encyclopedic nature. It may fall under a good candidate for WP:IGNORE, but not without some good reasoning.じんない19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that does not cut it. Experts are "recognized", either through qualifications, profession, or public recognition. Gaming site reviewers get it through professional credentials, scholars get it through educational titles (degrees and papers), other experts should be qualified through media recognition (i.e. reported as being well versed in the subject). Furthermore, a peer review only works if the peers are of some qualification. What do we know of the staff of Chrono Compendium except that they play the game? Jappalang (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Working on establishing some series articles
So far, I've made a couple video game series articles - Metroid Prime (series) and Rune Factory (series). If anyone's interested, it'd be nice to get some assistance in expanding these articles, preferably someone who has experience writing/improving series articles.
And on another note, I thought we could discuss some potential series articles to be made:
Cooking Mama (series) - it's become pretty popular, with four games released and two to be released, including its own spin-off, Gardening Mama. It also has that PETA reception, which would work better in a series article than in the first game's article.
Personally, I think Rune Factory ought to be merged into the Harvest Moon series article. The game's subtitle is even "a fantasy Harvest Moon." They're still a series spin-off. Also, having a page for Metroid Prime (series) is just ridiculous when there's already a Metroid (series) and considering the small amount of info here about them.--ZXCVBNM20:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Rune Factory is separate from Harvest Moon as Wario is - "A Fantasy Harvest Moon" was added to Rune Factory 2 in NA only, and Rune Factory Frontier, as stated in the series article, is not a part of the series. As it stands, the only connection is the gameplay - it has a very different plot, completely different characters, different setting, and many different gameplay standards.
You're creating new articles just to fit the featured topic? That's just silly, you make the featured topic match the articles, not invent unnecessary new articles to meet the criteria. Metroid Prime is part of the Metroid series article, I agree entirely with ZXCVBNM, it should be covered there. If you want a topic on it, work on one for the whole Metroid series, which would be far more useful for the general reader than pursuing such a limited topic criteria. Same goes for a Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles article, cover it in the FF series article. The Viva Piñata and Cooking Mama ones might work, but I don't quite see them having sufficient information for development and reception information required by an article focusing more on the series than the individual products. -- Sabre (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, see, if you had read my statement at all, or the feature topic nom, it was agreed to work on a series article for Metroid Prime. There are currently five games in the Metroid Prime sub-series. There are multiple articles that COULD be covered in a larger parent article, but they are split because adequate references are provided - the disagreement with these series articles seem to be that they are spin-offs rather than that they have insufficient sourcing. Rune Factory's had several titles, and it's simply too different from Harvest Moon, especially that the first title was the only one in the series that has any real connection to the series, and that's in name. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.21:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Way to assume bad faith in other editors... try linking to topic nominations earlier if you want people to go read them, rather than assuming they know absolutely everything about what you're talking about, and try showing a little more politeness before accusing people of not reading what you've written. Its a very bad way of making friends and influencing people. -- Sabre (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A misintepretation of a single word does not give any editor leave to attempt to insult another's intelligence. You asked for comments, regardless of support and opposition, then you are rude towards those who have a different opinion than you're own on the direction you want the comments on. You have my opinion, I don't think its a good idea to spin off articles for subseries that could be covered in the main series article, but I think that two of the series mentioned could potentially work with a series article. I have nothing further to say on this. A difference of opinion in editing direction does not warrant hostility.-- Sabre (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Rune Factory is "too different"... it still has farming and townspeople, but there's an RPG added to that. It certainly isn't so much of a stretch that it needs its own series article. Also, since the articles you created don't have much information, it's easy to assume that they're simply unnecessary. Not to mention that you never mentioned this "agreement." I still think that those two articles are unncessary for series spin-offs. It does seem like you're making series articles for the sake of making them, so you might want to add more info before defending them so fiercely.--ZXCVBNM22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You keep saying that they intended to pull the Rune Factory series away and that it isnt related, but there are no references in the Rune Factory articles at all. Salavat (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Two things.
The general consensus at Metroid Prime FTC was not to create a series article, it was that the nomination was not suitable for FT. However, most editors did agree that if the sources and content existed, then an article would be appropriate to exist and serve as the topic lead.
A somewhat related issue. I've found that there are already plenty of video game articles on Wikipedia. What we lack are quality, well-referenced articles. Which is why I personally try to use subpages in my user space to work them out before hand. A benefit to this is that it takes away the pressure of working against a deletion deadline; I can find sources at my leisure. Another is that moving them into the main space in a more complete state makes them eligible for Did you know. An increase in the number of video game articles on the Main page is something I think would be very cool see. I know the Anime project has had a good number of entries this way.
Like most things on Wikipedia, it is best to explain why we need an article and support it with proper sources. If the sources exist to make a proper article, then an editor should create it and use those sources to make it a strong article. Otherwise, it's just one of the numerous stub and start articles we sift through everyday that is a fair candidate for deletion or redirecting. My two cents. (Guyinblack25talk23:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC))
I've never said that I would oppose reducing these articles. However, you've immediately dismissed them, with this thread of discussion being about improving them, not asking "whether they should be deleted or not". If they don't pan out, then by all means merge. But in regards to Cooking Mama, the first article is treated as a series article, and considering how fast and large it's growing, it needs its own article. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.07:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Link- I do not recommend putting the articles up for deletion, but I also don't recommend making series articles without any sources and minimal content. You asked us what we thought—"Comments? Support? Objection?"—and we've done so. If it came across as harsh I apologize, but I think most editors believe the articles need something to back them up to warrant their creation.
As a series, I question whether or not Rune Factory needs its own article. It only has three games, two of which are subtitled with "A Fantasy Harvest Moon" (per here). The GameSpot reviews (just as an example) for the first two games for the most part compare the game against more traditional Harvest Moon games (the first one) and noting that it still has Harvest Moon standard gameplay (the second one). The Wikipedia article for the third game, Rune Factory Frontier, notes "You're able to grow a farm more similar to the regular Harvest Moon games than in the previous Rune Factory games." There's no reception for any of the games as a "Rune Factory" series, and Wikipedia lists the games as direct spin-offs of normal Harvest Moon games at List of Harvest Moon titles, a featured list. ...I just don't feel that it deserves its own series page yet. -- Nomader(Talk)20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We see reviewers compare games in similar genres, what's so crazy about a spin-off being compared to the original series. Rune Factory has many new mechanics, different development team, different reception, etc. It lacks many of the problems Harvest Moon has, etc. It is developed separately from the original series, different people involved - artists, developers, musicians, etc. The series has voice acting, something that is rare (or possibly nonexistent) in the HM series, it just has a ton of differences between the two series, and merely having the same publisher and game concept shouldn't cause it to be not different enough, just like how the first Wario Land title may have had many common elements with Mario such as platforming and item power-ups, as well as ? Blocks, even more than that, it featuring the name Super Mario Land 3 in its name. However, it has many differences that chalk the similarities up to it being a spin-off. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
For a note i have been adding the rune factory titles to the List of Harvest Moon titles on the basis that they will always be a spinoff from the original series regardless of the subtitle. Salavat (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I would give the articles a week or two to see if they get expanded and sourced. If not, then redirect them to their respective original series. (Guyinblack25talk21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC))
Giant hypocritical post about task forces
We have had a major influx of task forces recently, many from projects that were adopted, some that were just created as task forces. While we may not need every single one, and some would be better suited merged with others, several of them have become inactive. Task forces are an ideal way to distribute discussion on the project without diluting it. These talk pages can serve as specialized noticeboards, which help prevent clutter on the WT:VG page, as well as help to target specific groups of editors. Task forces are also a great place for new editors to discuss relevant ideas without running the risk of a grizzled vet growling "This should be discussed on the talk page", on bigger forums like WT:VG. The problem is that many task forces that should be useful seem doomed to fail, because most editors just ignore them. The task force withers from inactivity, even if editors are hacking away at the many pages within the scope. WP:VG has always been a supportive group of editors, I think it's time we showed the task forces a little more love.
We tend to have the viewpoint that "They started it, they can maintain it". A lot of task forces are started (or joined) by new editors who are excited about WP, but might not be able to devote the time, or just don't know how to keep community interest. Even task forces that are started/maintained by active users could always use a few more editors. How can you help?
Join. This is obvious, the more active members, the more successful. If the topic interests you, join up and show it.
Watchlist all the task force pages (there aren't that many). Even if the topic doesn't incredibly excite you, even if you don't want to join, the distinct possibility exists that someone will say something, or ask a question, that you will be interested in responding to. Quicker/varied responses are what makes some talk pages more popular than others, it'll make someone more inclined to post there or maybe even join a project that has active discussions.
Talk. Mention ideas/concerns/questions that you have about articles within the scope. Try posting there instead of WT:VG. I know that the appeal of WT:VG is that more people will see it, but an active discussion will increase attention on the task force, and it will keep the thread from cluttering WT:VG and annoying those who aren't interested. A link dropped on WT:VG will still draw attention and prevent clutter, so it works great. And if a thread is started on WT:VG that just drags on, it can be moved and linked to.
I realize that due to the text of my post that the size is hypocritical, I just hate to see such a useful resource be wasted and MfD'd. And BTW, more task forces will be coming soon. ~ JohnnyMrNinja08:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned the influx of taskforces the other day. I was looking at some of them yesterday in fact. I mean, Zelda was merged into the Nintendo task force. There's no reason why we can't merge the Super Smash Bros. task force as well (which has a far smaller scope than Zelda anyway). This would also help serve to increase activity on the parent projects. Sonic could be merged into Sega etc. As well as reducing bureaucracy, we want to strengthen existing larger taskforces and projects as well.
Destroy All Humans has proved to be an inactive wasteland just as I predicted. I think we also need to be more stringent about task forces. I'm not saying we need to totally control their creation, but we need to find a system that prevents all these dud taskforces from starting up and make it clearer that users should first seek interest for such a thing before creating it. --.:Alex:.12:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnny and Alex are right, some brainstorming needs to take place to deal with all these task forces. And as the project clean up continues, I agree the number of task forces will increase as well. I must say though, it has brought a number of good editors to the discussions and activities here.
Just thinking outloud- What if we had a subpage (WP:VG/Task forces, or something similar) that lists all the active and inactive task forces. Each month there'd be a roll call where members sign in; 3–4 members qualify as active. I realize it's a bit more bureaucracy, but I think it will give us a better idea of which task forces are active. Also, I've found that a little structure can help encourage participation. Maybe this will push things along some. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25talk04:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC))
Dispute over nominations being used in articles
I was hoping that we could establish a consensus on the general usage of nominations so there's no real grey area for this subject.
My proposal is:
A game like GTAIV should not have any nominations, as it has many more notable awards that it won.
A game like Kirby Super Star Ultra should have nominations, as the nomination it received is notable as it lacks anything better.
You mean nominations for awards right? Took me a few moments to work out what sort of nominations you are refering to. This sort of stuff is very varied, it depends on who is doing the nominating. Some nominations mean absolutely nothing, but others should probably be mentioned, regardless of other awards: nominations for BAFTAs, Golden Joystick Awards or Interactive Achievement Awards would fall into that category in my view. If GTAIV was nominated for a BAFTA game award, that should be in the article. Nominations for less prestious stuff, like IGN Game of the Year, should be at editor discretion, dependent on other awards nominated for/awarded - ie if its actually won other game of the year awards, then adding that another journalist organisation nominated it doesn't really add anything. You say "dispute", is there a particular article in mind here? -- Sabre (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with that: if there are no awards, discussion on nominations in the article counts as useful commentary. -- Sabre (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I concede that certain nominations high-profile nominations, such as for Game of the Year from the AIAS, should be mentioned, but why should a nomination for Best Sound in ____ Game from a gaming site like IGN or any number of others be considered just as prestigious and mentioned in an article? You take away from the intent and impact of the awards if you act like the nominations are equally as notable. -- Commdor {Talk}19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable and makes sense. It's a good rule of thumb, and one I think most of the more active editors follow anyway. I'm not sure how it should be worded to easily convey the idea though. Maybe something like "Most award nominations are trivial in comparison to actual awards won. However, if no awards have been won, nominations from gaming organizations deemed reliable sources can help demonstrate a game's overall reception." (Guyinblack25talk20:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC))
I do not think the spirit of this proposal is wrong, but I do think the wording and general guidelines need more clarity to avoid confusion.
In regard to articles being filled with nominations, that's something I think is and still will be much more prevalent with awards (see this version of Resident Evil 4). It's something we've had to deal with and probably always will. This proposal, however, is not an OK to flood articles with listings of nominations. As always, discretion and common sense should be applied to integrate the content into the prose. For instance, if a game received a lot of nominations, a separate section should not be created like it would be for awards.
I see nominations as more of an extra tool editors can use to talk about a game's reception and recognition. Award nominations are not the most importance aspect and should be treated as such, but I see no reason to exclude them. I remember a similar practice was used in Kingdom Hearts#Critical response and it passed FA, albeit over a year ago. (Guyinblack25talk16:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC))
That's a hard thing to decide. I, as a reader would like to see for what a game was nominated, but again some people may don't like it. I know that GTA IV has a great number of nominations and it won some awards. But a game like Air Traffic Control for the DS which had some nominations and won award should have his nominations listed. Some of you talked about DS best multyplayer and X360 multyplayer and you are saying that it one is more important then the other. That would be like if we would say Germany is less important then USA. Both are great and non of them should be excluded. In my opinion nominations for every game should be included somewhere but the awards should be there for 100%. I'm out to sleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnelZukic (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I changed my mind. I would like to see the important nominations (any GOTY nomination, Best Graphic and Best Story, any platform nomination, and genre nominations 'cause one game can just be nominated for one genre unlike platform awards where multiplatform games can be nominated for any platform in came out) because I think they are really good to see because they are some strong awards, not any game can be nominated for best graphics and develop an awesome story. Platform awards are also crusial, because a platform becomes alot of games per year and to come in the Top10/5 is an award by itself and the same goes to genre awards. In my opinion some other awards are also important but not many peoples are intresting in it so I would like to see at least this nominations allowed to be in the award section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnelZukic (talk • contribs)
I disagree with the wholesale addition of "nomination" data to articles, especially when they're in as dubious categories such as "IGN's Best Fighting Game on the Wii"[5]. The addition of nomination and awards to a reception section should not just be wholesale inserted into every single game mentioned, it should be an editorial decision based upon what other reception the game has received and the award/nomination itself.
Publications such as IGN and Gamespot put out hundreds of awards, for every single genre, every single system, and more besides. That these awards exist does not mean that Wikipedia has to cover them. Unlike the Oscars or the Palme d'Or, these aren't a specific awards ceremony by an independent panel, they're just magazine articles. No other publication is going to cover the nominations for "Gamespot's Worst Use of a Great License", why should Wikipedia? Which publication doesn't offer their own "awards" issue? Which website doesn't use this excuse to provide coverage over the holiday period?
There's nothing wrong with leaving out commentary on articles, it's called being an editor. I don't think there should be anything added to the guidelines to suggest that award nominations must be added to articles with no other award information, given the vast amount of trivial awards floating about. In many cases, it might be more pertinent to just add more review sources in. - hahnchen18:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the reception section for Soul Bubbles could be easily fleshed out without IGN nomination data. Metacritic lists 32 reviews for the game, there's ample fodder there to flesh out a reception section. Gamasutra also includes an interview with the developer which reflects on the game's reception.[6] I think that in this case, with three nominations, that the data could be used to back up whatever the IGN review said about the game. But generally, I don't think platform nominations are that notable, even some platform winners aren't notable - for example, IGN DS Best Fighting Game - there was absolutely no competition. - hahnchen01:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
And none of those show how Soul Bubbles holds up to other titles of this year.
Not if they were the only ones in their category. As cited above, many of these awards are incredibly minor. Unless there's a reason for an award to be included (i.e. Game of the Year, Worst Game, or Best Game Nobody Played to show low sales), I feel overall reviews can give readers a good picture of how a game compares to other games in a certain genre. You don't need an award from a certain year in a certain platform to prove it. -- Nomader(Talk)23:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the argument against them is that these awards aren't newsworthy or notable - giving out hundreds of trivial awards which no other publication bothers to report on kind of shows that. When the AIAS announce their awards, that gets republished, Spike VGAs get republished, winners at the IGF get republished, IGN's Best DS Fighting Game of 2008 doesn't, because it's trivial. I'm not going to purposefully remove the nomination data you've autoinserted, but it's fairly obvious that not every nomination is notable, and that not all awards are equal. - hahnchen14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
While I agree some awards and nominations are not newsworthy or notable, per WP:N#NCONTENT, "Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content." Plenty of viewpoints have been presented, but I think the discussion should move forward in a more constructive manner. It seems some most every agrees some nominations can aid in describing critical reception. Are there any suggestions as what the wording of such a guideline should be? Shark has some good ideas below. Any ideas on how to tweak, expand or reword? (Guyinblack25talk21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC))
I think the idea of relativity is best. If a game was nominated for best graphics and won best music score they both should be listed as both deal with different elements. If a game won GoTY in its category it probably shouldn't have any nominations unless those nominations are of significant stature. Most exciting action scenes isn't up there with best storyline, FE.
Ideally, nominations or awards from a publication should be given equal weight regardless of how many of them (if any) a game has won instead of being left up to editors to decide. But some games have won so many that listing them all would fill up an entire article... SharkD (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That's true. My point was that if Game A and Game B both receive an award, then it shoudln't be considered more important in one case than the other. SharkD (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:VG Collaboraton revival ideas...
Just wanted to share some ideas on the Collaboration revival. Everyone seems busy, and I'm willing to work on it myself, but I'd like to know what everyone thinks and hear some suggestions from you guys as I think we could really improve the process to prevent it from become stale again.
Well my first idea is to move it all to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration, that way we don't need to stick to a specific time frame and can be flexible with it when necessary. Plus the page is more easily traceable than something with a completely different name.
I think one big thing that hindered the previous effort was the level of bureaucracy involved, particularly with the nomination process. I wondered if it would simply be better to just discuss what we're going to do on the talk page, seeing as everyone had an idea of what we should work on just in the recent discussion on reviving this. That way we don't also need to keep track of every nominated article and place tags on them (and just have a tag on the article we do to let people know what's going on). Perhaps the actual collaboration page could work as some sort of workshop for the current collaboration article?
But that's just what I was thinking anyway. I want to hear what you guys think we should do to improve the process, as we all seemed to agree in the aforementioned discussion that the previous system simply didn't work. --.:Alex:.13:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to get rid of the red tape (which is a good idea), we could possibly automate it. It might sound silly but I'm being serious. We could assign a bot to automatically choose an article based on 1)start/stub 2)specific list of video game categories. If it makes a terrible choice every once and a while, it's no big deal because it's just for one week. The automation will keep people interested (like a lottery), and the fact that it is a bot prevents it from falling behind. ~ JohnnyMrNinja00:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Kind of a mixture, mostly GCOTW. By workshop, I meant a sort of "hub" page for the currently selected article, so it's talk page doesn't fill up with all sorts of stuff. By time frame, I meant that there is a definite time frame, however it can be changed based on circumstances. So if it's a busy time for everyone, then the time is extended by X amount or reduced by X when everyone has a lot of time on their hands or changed based on what needs to be done etc(if this makes any sense). That way we're not always confined to a week or a month, as that can sometimes put people off.
But the idea of a bot selection process is a very intriguing idea, which I like the sound of very much. It would certainly keep things interesting. --.:Alex:.00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of having an article per week, starting with the highest importance video game stub and going downwards. That way, it will make more sense than voting on articles.--ZXCVBNM02:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a sub page titled "Collaboration" would be fine. The other pages can be redirected, maybe a history merged. Personally, I don't think a week is long enough, not if GA or FA are the goal of the collaboration. I think last time we came up with 2–4 week time period as the general time frame, and just called it "collaboration of the month" just to give it a standardized name. You're right though that it should be flexible.
Bot nominations sound interesting, but I wonder how it would work and if it would work as we want. Though I'm a bit wary of the idea, I honestly can't think of any other alternative to an approval vote on nominations. Maybe trim down the number times we hold voting; instead of 12 times a year, we do it 2–4 times a year. Any other ideas? (Guyinblack25talk05:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC))
I don't think FA or even GA should be the goal (any more than it ever is), I think that many editors don't know what to do with a decent article. I think if we started with stubs/starts it would be more fun. I'd definitely want to contribute. And if you're doing stubs, then a week is perfect. Editors that like a particular article will probably stick with it afterward. The main reason I like the bot idea is that people will get bored with it. It is not a possibility, it will happen. That is why there are three inactive ones. Everyone likes the idea and then they have real lives and abandon it. A bot will take the pressure off, and make it fun and interesting. If a week goes by and nobody edits an article, the bot won't get discouraged. And it's something you are interested in checking in on, as nobody know what it'll be ahead of time. Voting is not interesting and it can kill any good idea. I mean, it's not a policy, or an RfA, or an AfD, it's just an article people are going to edit. Why have any bureaucracy? I know firsthand, I was very close to getting my nominated article to GCOTW when it was labeled as historical. ~ JohnnyMrNinja05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm certain it was the red tape that killed it, as everyone would get bored waiting for an article to be nominated and chosen. A bot is great because we can just give it a list of articles with certain attributes (importance or quality), push the magic button, BOOM "do article X", off we go and get on with it. It's something that should never really have had any bureaucracy in the first place. I also like the idea of merging the previous efforts histories (so we can get rid of all these obsolete pages on the same topic) and making them available on the new page. --.:Alex:.15:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should select the next article on an informal basis. A simple "what's next?" with a majority vote in the final week would be fine. As for articles, we should definitely stick to top or at least high importance articles. Stubs are good, but so are B or C-class. Randomran (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at The endless forest? Is this a notable game? It's been speedy-tagged and prod-tagged, and both have been removed. It has no references. The great amount of detail, not to mention all of the images, make me wary that there's conflict of interest involved in creating this thing. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk23:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks damn creepy is what it looks like. It's deer with human faces and they cast magic and eat things and lay down and rub each other. ~ JohnnyMrNinja23:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If its no problem, I incorporate this to the archive box of WT:PW.--SRX 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Remember, all contributions are GFDL, so any archivebox can look as awesome as this :). And thanks to User:Rainman who (I think) actually got the search box to be able to do this, and then fixed the code on this page when I couldn't make it work. ~ JohnnyMrNinja04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well the layout of numbers looks a bit strange, and so does the picture, but the search box looks and works great. I love this addition! --.:Alex:.12:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I like your icon much better! The reason I changed the numbers is that the box was getting very long, and the sidebar is very long, so I was condensing. I'm not married to any idea though, except that sweet-sweet search bar. What's funny is I changed the width to match the sidebar, and so do you, so I think the sidebar is not consistent for different people... ~ JohnnyMrNinja18:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's text size that's doing it. I've set the box to match at to medium text size, but when I changed my browser's text size either larger or smaller it appeared differently. I don't know any other way to solve that dilemma... Oh I don't mind the numbers going along, it was just some of the numbers having their own entire line that I thought looked really, really peculiar. I guess it might look better if it's smaller, but I'm not sure how to change that one due to how convoluted the template is. We can still tinker with it, until we get something that's right. I'm still lovin' the search box though... --.:Alex:.18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I recently rewrote Star Wars: Dark Forces to clean it up, satisfy the various cleanup tags, remove OR, unsourced stuff, etc, etc. This was reverted however because I was told I did not have a consensus to make the edit. I'm posting here a request for people to look over the new version and the version that was reverted to so to build a consensus. There's a discussion started on the Dark Forces talk page if anyone wants to voice their opinion. Thanks. Bill(talk|contribs)16:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The new version seems a lot more condensed and gets rid of things like unreferenced sections, fancruft, and lists. I don't see any reason to revert it back to the old, cluttered version. This seems like a case of disgruntled fanboy syndrome.--ZXCVBNM00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice job on the article Bill. I don't think the reverter was disgruntled; after reading the initial comment, it just looks like they felt that it was "unfair" to all the editors who worked on the article that it gets changed so significantly. But, I think that ultimately your version is the better one; I see that it's the current version, so that's good. Gary King (talk)02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Article suggestion: An article for digital video games.
Not to be critical, but how does that warrant it's own type of game? Aren't they either console or computer games in the end then?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
So where do we discuss it in full? We can't discuss it in full on either articles mentioned, so what do you propose besides making an article? A handheld game is just a console game except handheld, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Digital downloadable games span every game-type with the exception of arcade, and have too much to be discussed to be covered in even the most remote capacity at any of those articles. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps with a better explanation of what you're talking about, people might be able to offer more useful advice. In the meantime, all games covered by this project (save old-fashioned purely mechanical pinball tables) are digital. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Downloadable games are as old as network connections and computer games. You'd be hardpressed to separate computer games and downloadable games in any meaningful way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It's obvious what I mean. You're making this discussion infinitely impossible to happen by overcomplicating things. I am clearly discussing digitally downloaded games, and not specifically computer games. I'm just completely lost where you say "we can't separate computer games and downloadable games in any meaningful way". I mean, I'm not sure how a sudden and rather large increase in popularity for downloadable games has been created on consoles, with every single competing system featuring one kind of download service or another. There are sections in several sites' 2008 awards for downloadable games, and the fact of the matter is that current-gen downloadables are treated as separate from games that may be downloaded on the PC. It's clear what I meant by "digitally downloadable game", and it wasn't "old PC games". - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The term is too mushy. Take something like Left 4 Dead, which has a console version, a PC version box you can buy, and a PC download you can buy. The two PC versions aren't "ports" but still the same game, the downloaded one is not "special" because its a digital download - it stills ends up being played on the same hardware and the like, which is the primary distinction between the above list of game classes, not how you get the game but how you end up playing it. --MASEM11:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely you are talking about something like Digital distribution? "Digitally downloaded game" is not a separate video game format, but rather a method of distribution (so should we also have a "store-bought game" article?). --VPeric (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If your having a problem with the name and getting your idea across to us users why not write the article down in a sandbox and then give us a link in order to provide a better insight. Salavat (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes...the digital distribution games fall under what you've mentioned. Even if a game is downloaded from an online source, it is still technically a computer game or a console game. It's unnecessary to make a new article for them (at least until we have holographic game)...--ZXCVBNM16:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Zxcvbmn above, as well as per a top-down philosophy; we should improve and promote the top articles, which gives us a better idea if such subtopics are merited. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Digital distribution in video games or something would be a good idea, but a method of distribution isn't really a defining factor of a game. A holographic game would be a different type of game, a "digital game" is like a "game bought from the store" or a "game that my friend burned on a dvd that he downloaded from a file-sharing site". How you get it doesn't really change the game. That particular method of distribution, however, I think could justify it's own article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja22:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is saying the topic can't be discussed somewhere on here, it just doesn't warrant its own article over something like the already existing Digital distribution. And a delivery method (and an old one at that) does not make a new type of game class. The ones you described as "previous" formats are actually all different platform types, not game types. Downloadable games for computers have been around eons, downloadable games for consoles started with the Intellivision's PlayCable in 1981. I'm with the others, I just don't see the uniqueness as a game, or even where it can be called a new format. Its simply a distribution method, and one that can easily be discussed under the already existing Digital distribution --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There is too much to discuss. I mean, looking at the size of digital distribution in video games now, it would already be too big for Digital distribution, in that it would be of more significance. There's coverage of digital distribution in video games, reception for it, history (which can encompass the whole history, so it would indeed discuss digital distribution on the PC way back when, though in less detail), etc. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
...but you still don't grasp that it's not any different. I can buy something with cash, check, or credit card but it's all money that I lose and they gain. I can drink from a glass, a cup, or a bottle, but I get the same drink into my body just the same. The difference between getting something digitally and buying it at the store is like a cup versus a glass, which pc vs console is like juice vs soda. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
"Downloadable games" in general are not getting the reception, the discussion, etc. You seem to think that because digital distribution in video games is just a different way to get games means it isn't notable enough to have a separate article, even though the concept of digital distribution has clear coverage anywhere you look, reception, and articles on video game distribution. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fair that an article on the digital distribution of games (including microtransactions, etc.) is worthwhile as there's likely some history that can be put to it (particularly with the rise of services like Steam, Gametap, and the various XBL/PSN/Wii stores, and as noted the ways that independent developers subsided), but this article does not separate our the gaming market in the way that "console/portable/arcade" etc. does. It's a means of distribution, not type of hardware platform. --MASEM23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I could see how digital distribution might represent a sort of a paradigm shift (sort of how the Web 2.0 is currently touted) if the user experience was identical across platforms. However, this is not currently yet the case. Users who install downloaded games still need to worry about operating systems, memory, hardware accelerated graphics cards, etc.—unlike regular web pages, or Flash and Java games where you can run them on just about any system in a typical Web browser. And, the degraded performance (CPU speed, bandwidth, screen size, lack of high-level OS optimizations, etc.) of these browser games have kept them from taking off with "hardcore" gamers. SharkD (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on digital distribution does exist, but I think that in today's market an article specifically on VGs will easily flesh-out. Remember the Satellaview? There are probably other precursors, as I'm not a VG history nut. ~ JohnnyMrNinja03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It is real. There have always been copycat consoles ever since the first Nintendo. Vii just took the appearance and "name" of the Wii, and had programmers code up similar looking Wii games to capitalize on families that are too poor to buy the "real thing", but want to join in the craze (blame it on marketing to the kids). The coverage in Engadget has been quite extensive. As for notable, it depends on what sources you consider as reliable. The only one I see there that might have a chance is Engadget. Off-hand, personally, I would say Engadget is very notable, but not a qualified Wikipedia-reliable source; many publications talk about it as the blog-site for news on gizmos and gadgets, but none use it as a source for their information.[7] In fact, one even cautions against simply taking its Google presence as a judge of reliability.[8] Can anyone vouch and show that reliable websites (such as the reliable gaming sites and media websites) often use Engadget for news and reports? Engadget's search terms on Google are too pervasive for me to sort out. If there is no summed extensive coverage of the Vii by reliable sources, then it is not Wiki-notable. Jappalang (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The Game requirements in the infobox is unnecessary and should only be in a section. It makes the infoboxes much longer and isn't something for an infobox. The infobox should include only what operating systems the game runs on. That's at least my opinion.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It depends on how the system requirements box is done. Too often is it overly complex, with basically a copy and paste of what is on the back of the box, with minimum and recommended specs relating to multiple systems, graphics card types, processor models, etc. In reality, the entry only need be three lines: minimum processor speed, minimum RAM size, minimum video card size, with an extra line for the rare case of special requirements. Compare this revision with the current version of Quake Wars. The old revision is ridiculously long, whilst the current version deals with it quickly and does not significiantly lengthen the infobox. -- Sabre (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The article Grand Theft Auto IV takes a different approach. It has the requirements listed in a seperate {{VG Requirements}} box, and the section in the infobox merely contains a link to the relevant section ("See Development section for requirements matrix"). Perhaps something like would work better for a lot of other articles too? --.:Alex:.16:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the GTA version is the best and should be adapted to other Games infoboxes. Enemy territory is also good and this should be the maximum information in the requirements section. What I aimed for was a guideline for this in the style guideline. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The VG requirements box is generally something best used when there is something significant about system requirements: ie, new game engine, anticipated high requirements, etc etc, as it presents far more information than would usually be necessary for covering a subject for the general reader; plus its also rather large and can easily get in the way or not have an appropriate place to be put. For most though, a few lines in the infobox is usually sufficient, provided it doesn't go into the detail that the VG requirements box uses (as seen in the GTAIV article). -- Sabre (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I request some opinions over at Talk:Retribution_(StarCraft)#Merge_of_article regarding the merge of these two articles? I merged them a year ago because they aren't individually notable - only one reliable review between the two of them, absolutely no information available to create proper development or reception sections. User:Inclusionist reverted the merges because of a perceived loss of information and lack of a merge discussion (as far as the latter goes, he was looking on the wrong talk page). I'd like to get some comments from some members here in this discussion, so an effective merge discussion can take place to bring this to a proper conclusion. -- Sabre (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Or even significant coverage? Thus far none posted have been. I resent the accusation that I have been "destroying" work, I spent many hours making sure that these were sufficiently covered as best reliable sources allowed in the series article. -- Sabre (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Avault review by Pete Hines June 28, 1998 (full, signifigant article)
The article was merged because no sources could be found. Now that I have provided those sources in abundance, the bar has been raised to "significant coverage".
The merge discussion (which tags were only on one page) involved 3 editors, the nominator and two other editors. One wanted to keep, one wanted to merge. After the first comment, the article was merged.travb (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You going to link to some of those "full, significant" articles? Right now we can't see if they are. MobyGames should be thrown out off the bat, it's absolute garbage and cannot be used for jack reliably. If these are all the sources present, I wouldn't begrudge Sabre trying to make a better article out of two unfeatureable articles. I'll look on LexisNexis for any more info, but right now I'm supporting the merge. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
