I have a hunch a merge discussion would go unnoticed on the related pages, so I'll ask here: what are the thoughts on reducing the Asteroids Deluxe article to a paragraph included under the legacy section, given how close it is to the original game?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. The article says Deluxe is a sequel, but it looks more like an enhanced re-release. (Guyinblack25talk)
I see a weakness in your plan. What about those of us whose knowledge of history is limited to that gleaned from playing video games? :P SharkD (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Perfectly fine. We can offer the outside perspective of a general reader. It doesn't take a military history expert to point out confusing prose, misspellings, and incorrect grammar. (Guyinblack25talk19:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Is there a reason Mizabot keeps passing over this post? Will it get to it eventually or should we just manually archive it? (Guyinblack25talk19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
It's dyiiing!
Someone, anyone, please do something to clean up List of characters in the Xenosaga series. It's on its way to becoming one of those "world's longest articles" made fun of at gaming sites. It has woefully few references, and enough plot summary to make the game creators scared. And now that KOS-MOS has been merged there, it's sure to get even more attention. I'm not a fan, so I wouldn't really be able to clean it up well. But it needs attention soon. Parts could possibly be transwikied to Wikia, including the other character articles linked there.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)06:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh calm down, there are bigger lists. While it needs a cleanup, it's not something that needs to be as frantic as you make it sound Zxcvbnm.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It does need cleanup, yes. However it meets WP:V and WP:N mostly due to the MOMO merges and cleanup afterwords. That's enough to satisfy an AfD. I can also show the existance of books detailing information on KOS-MOS's creation concept, plus a few others (but i don't have access to them) as well. It has a cleanup tag on it and unless we added a urgency tag, which even if we did I don't know if it's appropriate, there's nothing more other than posting a message on the talk page to get others to help. The page is not in danger of deletion or merging beyond maybe a few minor characters at this point and Wikipedia has no deadline.じんない22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Image help needed
I think I have found a free image of Satoshi Tajiri, of which I want to add to the article Pokémon Red and Blue. The image is located here on Bulbapedia, and it says it's in the public domain. So would I allowed to upload the image to the commons? If so, what licensing should I give? Thanks, Artichoker[talk]19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Presuming Tajiri is still living, definitely not. We only allow free images of living persons. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Backlog of project work
It looks like various departments could use some help. New editors that are looking for things to do are encouraged to help out with one or more of the processes below. There are plenty of experienced editors to help you learn the ropes if you are afraid of making mistakes. And call it karma if you want, but I've always felt that you're more likely to get help in the future if you've helped others in the past. (Guyinblack25talk22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
5 GA articles pursuing A class currently, assessors needed
After cleaning the Assessment page, we've got 5 articles with editors pursuing promotion to A-class:
In addition to the assessment backlog, the requests page has requests still waiting from 2007 and frequently gets sprayed with numerous unsuitable requests. I'm happy to keep plugging away, removing the dreck and providing sources for realistic candidates, but I'm beginning to look like the grumpy old git of the project. If you have a minute, please drop by and sniff out any unsuitable requests if nothing else, it gives the other requests a chance. Thanks. Someoneanother21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently stumbled across this page, but assumed the page was abandoned because of the 2007 requests. I can try to give it sweeps to remove unsuitable request. What criteria do you use to determine if something is unsuitable? (Guyinblack25talk22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
(remove indent) First and foremost I look for sources, if I find them then I add them to the request to help interested editors start the article. Although I don't have access to university databases etc. it's the same for most editors, but games for certain systems (particularly the Amiga and Spectrum) have dedicated magazine archives online to use. If there are no sources or unsufficient sources I look at what type of subject the request is, some types of games or other articles are much more difficult to source (perhaps impossible) or likely to be non-notable or are completely unrealistic. For instance:
MMOs which aren't distributed and advertised like 'triple-A' titles are very rarely notable, coverage is never guaranteed and even if one reliable source covers it that's not enough.
Casual games are either covered on Gamezebo and Jay is Games, Rock Paper Shotgun etc. or just covered on Gamezebo (not enough) or not at all. Unremarkable low-budget casual games are very rarely notable.
Obscure Japanese retro games are almost certainly beyond our capabilities. There is not a horde of editors armed with decades-old Japanese magazines. Modern Japanese-only games may be sourceable with English language sources or can be left for a decent length of time for the handful of editors with the ability to deal with them. For instance, passers-by will often chuck in requests for redlinked obscura, but whoever's picking up the request is no more able to magic sources from nowhere than the requester.
Most true indie games, mods and 'bedroom programmer' efforts are non-notable, there are of course exceptions and sources should always be sought, but for every game that has enough sources available there are 30 which haven't.
Arcade games which were not adapted to home computer or console are either well-covered in books (the notable oldies) or are totally non-notable, usually. Sites like KLOV can do far more for them than we can and there seems little point in creating stubs to be speedied/prodded/AFD'd.
Other misc. guff which will never see the light of day. For instance, I just removed a ream of requests for youtubers who play Guitar Hero - no hint of whether they were just youtubers like the thousands of others or anything. Other examples include lists of enemies or other misc. items which go against WP:VGSCOPE, as well as requests for new articles when the information could easily fit in an existing article (like a list of voice actors from X game).
Many requests are added and re-added for articles which have already gone through deletion (often after exhaustive AFDs). Again, a check for sources and if nothing comes up then it's removed.
If something does have at least some claim to being notable, or is from one of the source 'black-holes' (pre-internet magazine reviews, for instance many PS1 games and older PC titles) then I leave it in regardless. If a request involves a totally unrealistic amount of legwork just to check whether or not there's a hope in hell of an article then I just remove it (Guitar Hero youtubers). Someone spending seconds typing in a request doesn't trump someone spending minutes or hours researching and/or constructing an article that would be deleted the moment it was noticed. The page isn't much used and won't be used at all if it's allowed to become clogged with guff. I think there also needs to be a much stronger message that requesters are expected to provide sources, the lack of such a message encourages folks to make a few keystrokes and waltz off, expecting someone else to snap their fingers and make it happen. Someoneanother23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
With the exception of one of those youtubers who was labelled as the world record holder. Had a burning in the brain about deleting that one as well, which is now reinstated because the lad is in the New York Times. Checked a few of the others and there's nothing to suggest they're anything more than youtubers who play the games. Someoneanother00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've commented on each of the '07 requests, most of which I don't think need a separate article, but the only one I removed outright was propagame, which wouldn't pass WP:NEO. The rest are mostly "Here's an existing article that either a) already discusses this or b) should". Nifboy (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks to everyone who had a look. If anyone's got a spare minute (I know, yeah right) whenever literally just looking at a couple of requests and adding a few sources or deleting the no-nos would be a big help, it doesn't have to be a time-sink for anyone. Someoneanother01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup has come to halt as well. A small number of editors were helping, but after a while the lack of active voices made it feel more like strong arming rather than consensus building. I think this has been a big help in bringing active editors together to work on their respective articles. There's still a good number on the page's todo list, but I think it would be worthwhile pursuing it. If there are still interested editors (maybe 4–6), we can start the process up again. (Guyinblack25talk22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
I post on that talk page, but the process is frustrating. Tiny projects with a few members wont understand things, which leads to lots of conflicts (as you can see by several of the discussions on that talk page). In my view: if it's been 4 or 5 months with little to no activity, the project should be considered inactive and discussion about it's future should happen. The same thing should apply to taskforces. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It can get frustrating sometimes, but the larger the group that is participating, the less frustration in reaching a consensus. Most of it's just posting notices and waiting for responses. Any resistance normally dies down after you give them time to work. The only one that proved to be excessively difficult was more of a miscommunication issue than anything else. The most tedious part was trying to build a respectable consensus that others wouldn't overturn in the future among only three people. (Guyinblack25talk15:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
The help would definitely be appreciated. Generally, if a project has proven to be able to sustain itself with active members and by improving articles, then it makes sense to leave them to their business. It's the projects that are only 1–2 editors drowning in the scope of their project we're focusing on. (Guyinblack25talk15:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
While I agree we should rollback some of the TFs and see if some of child WikiProjects that might be inactive and remove some of the bureaucracy, we shouldn't do so in a rush. There are currently four TFs listed as inactive and those should probably be disbanded and removed from the page first.
I'd like to see FF Project rolled back into SE as it seems to be draining it. Since it was split it seems to have sucked most of the life out of the SE Project. Whether it's a task force or Wikiproject should depend upon it's size and scope.じんない07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Since we're listing everything that's going to hell and a handbasket around here anyhow, just a heads-up. If you ever want to guilt another editor into helping you, the best way to do it is help them, surprisingly! There's a large number of articles up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review. If one of those doesn't interest you, pop over to WP:MILHIST, review something there, and plead with them to review our video game articles. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)00:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, if you're looking to improve your editing/writing skills, peer reviews are a good way to do that. I started noticing more errors in my articles after I was pointing them out in others, and now I try to review articles there to keep my writing skills up to par. (Guyinblack25talk15:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
We currently have four articles that are under going reviews of their FA/GA status. Editors familiar with the topics are encouraged to help address concerns and issues brought up on their respective pages.
These articles were promoted a long time ago and do not meet the current quality standards. Any help in improving them would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25talk16:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
Are these credible secondary sources
Hi,
I'd like to find out if the following are acceptable as credible secondary sources for demonstrating article notability? If they are, then they could certainly be used on many wikipedia articles.
The biography lists Dr. Barton as "an assistant professor of English at St. Cloud State in Minnesota". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
GamaSutra is considered a reliable source. But it really depends on what you're trying to assert the notability of. Barton isn't allowed to assert his own notability, for example, because he's not independent. And in general, a concept usually needs reference in two different sources, so that articles aren't just someone advocating for their own pet theory. Randomran (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Reliable (and otherwise) video game sources can be found at WP:VG/RS. On that note, to anyone who doesn't already have that page's talk page watchlisted, myself and a few other editors could use some help establishing consensus for several proposed sources. — Levi van Tine (t – c)06:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am unclear why you don't consider Barton independent of the gaming industry. Your other remarks pertain to policy of which I'm already aware. But to incorporate more than one source, you have to start with one. In some cases this is a beginning, and so it shouldn't deter anybody from using these as a source.—RJH (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I frequently use legitimate professors as reliable sources in wikipedia, and I'm able to find scholarly publications by Dr. Barton, so I think he's suitably reliable for wikipedia purposes. As long as Gamasutra is considered an acceptible secondary source, per Randomran above, then it sounds like these references should be acceptable and my question is answered. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow that looks like someone has just gone and copy and pasted from a category. Theres no details on these lists and i agree would definatly serve better as a category. Salavat (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Last I checked we generally don't do full credits lists, which is what these look like. Category isn't super practical either; imagine if random pick Kathleen Barr had categories for everything in that discography. I almost want to go through and start tagging for blatant copying from IMDB. Nifboy (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that the Kempston Micro Electronics and Kempston Interface articles are written as though their joystick interfaces were only available for the Spectrum. This is not the case: for one thing, I have the one I used to use (with a Fourth Dimension "Rapier" joystick) to play Head Over Heels on my Amstrad PCW(!) sitting in front of me now. (Here's a photo I took, via TinyPic) However, the only text on the thing is "Kempston Joystick Interface"; there's nothing to prove it's a PCW version. Sadly I no longer have its documentation or my PCW magazines, and finding something on the web that's actually a good enough source is proving tricky. If someone could find a Wikipedia-compatible (ie both reliable and verifiable) reference for the PCW interface actually existing, I'd be very grateful! Loganberry (Talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There's not exactly a great deal of quality flash game articles to compare notes with, so should the number of plays logged at numerous websites be mentioned in the reception section or not? FPA World 2 is listed as the fifth most played flash game of 2008 under the Mochi ads scheme according to this source, which seems a lot more relevant, particularly as the vast majority of flash games seem to use Mochi. Opinions please? Someoneanother15:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I should be more specific. The problem with FPA is that these figures would come from the flash game sites themselves, which might not prove as stable, might disappear altogether etc. I will look for usage figures on secondary sources rather than from providers, but if they're not available I'm not sure whether it would be a good idea. Someoneanother19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, so long as an accessdate parameter is used, it should be ok; though citations to dead links are generally frowned upon. A more stable, secondary source would be a safer idea. (Guyinblack25talk16:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
VG alternate covers boxart
Images of Japanese boxart will be used as alternate covers for VG articles when there are covers for US releases which are used as main images. These images of Japanese covers will be remained to show its origins, but will be considered alternate covers.
Using Japanese boxarts as alternate covers in addition to the English boxarts has more meaning for me. Sure album articles may have alternate covers (like Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned and We Started Nothing), but I care. You can still continue to use the English boxarts.
Well, you're really not going to get people onside by delivering a proposal for fairly radical change as an ultimatum. -- Sabre (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
With cases like SCII it really should just be one image with the caption explaining they all feature the unique character and explaining who the others are. In practice, there would be epic lame edit wars over which platform to feature alone. But you're right, it does look stupid. And to Solana, we have to abide by WP:NFCC. As such, alternate box art is a no-no in all but a few cases (you could argue Okami, for example, but that's still prolly a losing battle.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)02:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems counterintuitive to use Japanese covers to the English Wikipedia. I mean, it's fine to add them in special cases (such as with the butt-ugly cover of Ico), but overall the English cover should be used, since it's non-free use of the image.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Also the Okami argument wouldn't work here. The only reason that we have the second boxart is because there was critical commentary due to the inadvertant addition of the IGN watermark and that Capcom responed to it. In the vast majority of cases there is no critical commentary regarding the original boxart. --76.66.184.14 (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A script could feasibly added to Wikipedia that would allow users to "flip" through the multiple boxarts while only displaying one boxart at a time. Users with JavaScript disabled in their browsers would see all images at once. SharkD (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of NFCC, has anyone noticed the ongoing RFC about bots resizing images? I know most of our images are low res, but some (such as those on Pong) are above the .1 megapixel mark being discussed. It may be worth weighing in on the discussion or later updating our templates to be able to direct the bots to skip over images. —Ost (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this was created recently..and it seems like game guide content at best. Weapons are a big part of Hitman, but I'm not so sure an article here is suitable. Even if the page was cleaned up, just talking about the weapons in general would be better covered on the Hitman series page (if one exists). Thoughts? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
VG series articles where there are no individual games
I am attempting to merge the Guitar Hero : On Tour games into a single series article (with a second list for the soundtracks); this was determine to be an appropriate action as, at least with the first sequel, there's not a lot of information about the development of the game beyond a few sentences, and the reception from typical review sources basically built on the first game's reception; we know the third title in the series also has the same type of gameplay and expect no variation in this.
I am looking for advise on a structuring aspect. My current draft is User:Masem/Guitar Hero: On Tour Series, and what I'm struggling on is on providing a section that can be a good target for the game redirects. Because I've grouped development and gameplay, there's no clear target for where, say "Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades" should slot in. I don't think full infoboxes for each game is necessary but I feel there needs to be a clear section to quickly establish that specific game. Of course, the other option is to simply redirect to the page with no specific section in mind.
Also, even though I'm pretty sure about my own answer to this, what would people think of multiple covers from the series on the same page?
There's also an option of putting the soundtracks on this page too, since they aren't long and cannot expand faster, then this would be like List of Rock Band Track Packs and redirect targets would make sense. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Your draft looks like a step in the right direction. You may want to take a look at Silicon Dreams trilogy and Nintendogs for other ideas. I think just redirecting to the page without specifying a subsection will be fine.
As far as the cover are concerned, they look almost identical except for the character featured. So there doesn't look like there's much need for multiple covers. (Guyinblack25talk18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
This is the wrong direction. Leave the On Tour articles separate, they're analogous to albums. Keep the set list and reception together, since they are immeasurably tied together given that gameplay is already a given. - hahnchen14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean sections instead of articles? I think having a series article is better in this case than individual articles. SharkD (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Interviews with not-reliable publications
What's the policy on citing an interview published in a not-reliable source? Specifically I want to use this interview with Kenta Cho (aka ABA Games) in his article; its Cho's comments I want to cite, not the interviewer's commentary. Is it the same as citing self-published material by the subject (i.e. acceptable as long as its not overly self-serving)? Or not? bridies (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have seen this become an issue at FACs for the record, so you might prepare for that (with them falling back on the argument "how can we verify that was what was actually said?"). You know how stubborn some of those guys get.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this was my concern. The interview was conducted by email so in theory it could be faked. However I've no reason not to trust it as it's consistent with the tone of his other interviews (aside from the notion of someone faking the interview being a bit far-fetched). I'm not planning on taking it to FA, I will probably try for GA though. bridies (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Just keep in mind how critical the factoid you're pulling from the interview is to the article and do a google search to see if you can find a replacement interview (using the same key words stated by the interviewee). IF the factoid is the crux of a development section, definitely search for a possible replacement. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It's an article about a one-man games developer and the interview will used to mention what games inspired him most, so it should be ok, I think. bridies (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I had the issue come up before. One of the key elements is whether the person being interviewed is themselves notable. FE: Anything said by Akira Toriyama pertaining to what he is considered an expert on is notable even if it's from an unreliable site, it still notable because he said it. You can always verify any statement by contacting the interviewee. They would know if they said it or not.じんない21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This has bugged me for quite some time but currently, the game boy Tetris game is under the handheld disambig. But that seems a bit of a vague misnomer because there are several handheld Tetris games of various shapes and sizes, and the one in the article is only about, well, that particular game and why it was important in direct relation to the Game Boy. If memory serves in the past User:A Link to the Past was the only one heavily pushing this front.
Is there any real compelling reason for it not to be under Tetris (Game Boy) in the long run?
I'm an outsider here, but to be honest if I'd come across that article I'd have thought the same thing. To me it's clear that it should be at "Tetris (Game Boy)". Loganberry (Talk) 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Mind you, the article itself has precious little about the game's impact - the "Reception" section consists of one sentence, and the "Development" section is entirely empty - so hopefully someone knowledgeable can plug that particular gap. Loganberry (Talk) 00:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This article should be "(Game Boy)", and there should probably be another article at "(handheld game)", which covers the more general set of handheld Tetris games, including the GB version. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the redirect on this article has been undone, contrary to the AFD result back in September. I am not sure as what to do here as I am not well-versed in System Shock. MuZemike21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just changed it to a redirect to the main game's article. The character isn't notable enough by itself and any information would be better covered in the parent article anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:OTRS
Just curious- I have a general idea of what WP:OTRS is and the purpose it serves, but the WP and Meta pages didn't really tell me much. I understand we have a few members that participate in it. Could they give some extra information about how we can use it to improve articles? (Guyinblack25talk15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
Never really used it for much beyond getting pics approved for the commons... I guess if people actually knew about it they could use it to bitch and complain or get in touch with us... --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)23:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
What if we contacted video game companies/developers for more than image permission; like fact checking or other information? (Guyinblack25talk14:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
I do OTRS work. It is really a way for people to communicate with wikimedia. I mostly do work on vandalism and permissions queues. (For example, an inexpereinced user may select the contact wikipedia link on the left and find a wa to send us an email saying article X has been vandalised). I go to that article, fix it and send them a form letter back. The main use though is for permissions. Lets say somebody uploads an image and claims they own the license. We get them to email us from a reliable email address confirming they do own the image then we can tag the image with the OTRS ticket number. I do not see how this at all would be useful for this project. Chrislk02Chris Kreider14:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Paper Mario (Series) 3 games so far, be like mario kart series and mario party series articles and other series articles, i know there was an article previous but something happened to it. Either way i think its only fair that the trilogy as a whole gets a seperate article.
I think that Mario RPG article should be split into two, one can't really go into detail in an article like that (like have linear reception and sales, etc.).IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Could use a little backup
Sorry to bother you guys, but having to deal with an anon on Rufus (Street Fighter) who's insisting the subject can't be notable enough for discussion and additionally insists "actors don't need references", citing other articles such as Indiana Jones and a bunch of other sub-GA-class articles. As for the notability issue, I told him up front I contested the tag and the article was still being worked on, and that if he felt that the article didn't satisfy notability, he should just nominate it for AfD (his main argument being that the sources "don't count", even though there's more dev and reception info for him than a majority of the series' characters). That went nowhere.
Hi guys, I don't know if you already talked about this here or already tried. But if don't what do you think about asking permission to use screenshots, fan arts, cosplays, promotional pictures from products (action figures, video game console and son on). You guys may ask why I don't try. Actually I did, but I only got answer from Nintendo. A copied pre-made letter; envelope, letter pt1, letter pt2. I think they didn't take me seriously. But I think if some of you guys try too maybe they start thinking it's not a prank and grant us a permission. If somebody will try don't forget mentioning Ubisoft. It will be gret for us gamers to use these pics without restriction. Don't you think? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I doubt other companies would be willing to give permission such has this to sites like Wikipedia. Well, it would not be hard to try to see if this works out. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it would be good for them. We are promoting their games anyway. I have some adresses and e-mails here if somebdoy want too try. BTW, I got a reply from Arc System Works, but it didn't answer me anymore =/Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, Mizunoryu. Why would video game companies be apprehensive about wikipedia posting screenshots? They get free mass publicity, and frankly I cant see a company pursuing a lawsuit against someone promoting company interests without profit. In reality, you could probably post any screenshot you like and Nintendo wouldn't care. It would be interesting to find out what kind of privileges game news sites like IGN and Gamespot have that allows them to publish screenshots, with watermarks no less. -- Noj r (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
IGN and GameSpot just put watermarks on their perfectly choreographed images to stop us getting our hands on them... -- Sabre (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia uses all images under either free license (where available) or Fair Use, depending on the nature of the image in question. So for screenshots and promotional pictures, where the copyright belongs to the original company (Nintendo, et al), images are posted under Fair Use, and require a rationale to be included in articles. Third-party items, like "cosplays" and "fan arts", are usually free images since they aren't owned by the original companies (though this is often questioned because the properties that are being represented are still copyrighted). This is usually less of an issue for WP, though, because such images don't usually have a place on Wikipedia in general, unless they're being used to illustrate a relevant article (example: Tron Guy).
I have a quick question related to image use in articles. Where do editors find boxart photos to upload? I've seen at least one tagged that it was taken from Amazon, but I didn't if this was the common practice or if there were better resources to use. —Ost (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes the developers release them (these then get taken by the retailers), sometimes the media release high res versions (GameSpot UK sometimes does high-res versions of PAL artwork). If all else fails, someone on the internet has always scanned it - giant bomb, mobygames, google images, they're always available somewhere. -- Sabre (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I managed to contact Luke Smith once about possibly getting free images for use of Bungie games, but I don't think he understood me, and contacting other Bungie employees hasn't worked that well either (probably inundated with fan spam). While I understand why people would think people would love to offer free shots for publicity, remember that they are making those shots available for any purpose (even commercial). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the good locations to look. What is the protocol for uploading an image from these sites? Do you just have to tag as where it came from (along with fair use rational) or do you have to explicitly ask to use the picture? —Ost (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Half the time I don't bother saying where I got it from if I found it in some obsure place that doesn't deserve any mention (usually through google images approach), I just put down that it is copyrighted by and obtainable from the developer. You don't need to ask for permission, just make sure it has a fair use rationale and is low resolution and it qualifies as fair use. Just try to avoid uploading anything that has an alien watermark on it. Mobygames in particular is bad for this, although sometimes the watermarks can be reversed if no alternate image can be found. -- Sabre (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding to this subject I contacted Greg Horn awhile back regarding permission and received an email response that he had no problem whatsoever as long as he was credited as the artist. Just been sitting on the email all this time though because I've never been sure where to send it to. Along the same lines though I've been meaning to contact Namco on the subject of the Soulcalibur artwork and see where that goes as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me try clearing some points. Here on Wiki-en we can use images under fair-use. But we cannot use plenty of them on the same article. Fan arts and cosplay pictures are considered derivate works. Cosplay pictures are being deleted from Commons because of this. I'm pretty sure the companies would grant us permission if they are sure this is not a fanatism but a serious work. They don't have anything to loose, just gain. IGN, GamSpot watermak their images because there are some people who claim the work for themselves and there are other websites that do this too. But we can see the same images in plent websites with or without watermark. It is a bull after all. Don't even try to ask permission for use cover and artworks, this would help piracy. They are not gonna grant permission and woul not take the rest of the permission seriously. Nobody would like to see somebody selling a copied game with a true cover or a toy etc. Lets us focus only on screenshots, fan arts, cosplays and promotional pictures/videos. And remember a second-party or third-party cannot grant permissions. I made a little list with some companies and their emails/adresses. I added Marvel and DC because the video game companies act as third-parties, they can't grant permissions, unless Marvel and DC themselves. Feel free to add some more and sorry for my poor english. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, any type of fan-created art based on a copyright shouldn't be used to illustrate articles, and official art should be used except on very rare occasions. Putting things like that in articles asserts notability where there is none, even if the creators of the IP allow them to be used. They could also be innacurate or confusing. However, in the case of screenshots where the picture is of the actual game, it's worth it to gain permission because otherwise fair use restrictions prohibit their use.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Um... just out of curiosity, what's the purpose of posting this exhaustive list of addresses below? What's wrong with the current policies and the way the images are currently being used? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm under the impression most copyright holders are happy with the status-quo of us leaning on fair use and them not having an official stance on anything. If this was de.wiki (German) where we couldn't use fair use then I would be quite happy to more aggressively pursue permissions, but right now I'm not seeing an explicit benefit other than saying, "Oh look, we got permission, yay". Nifboy (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have had success with gaining free use images from developers. In my case these can be seen in Ballistics (video game) as well as the associated commons category. I contacted Bo Andersson at GRIN, and Ernest Yale at Triotech Amusement to get screenshots and photos released with a free use license. There is an explicit benefit, by uploading images to commons grants free-use only projects access to them, and the images can be used in tangential articles - File:Ballistics Arcade - IAAPA.jpg is used in zh-yue:機鋪 and de:Arcade-Spiel.
There are a few things you have to be wary of though. It's extremely unlikely that a major publisher would offer you anything free-use in regards to their biggest mascots. If you ask for a free-use image of Mario, you're only going to be ignored, because the image and likeness is worth so much to them. I'm surprised that Ubisoft screenshots are still free-use, even though I've argued for keeping the template, I have been suspicious of its accuracy. You also have to bear in mind who actually owns the IPs, not just who develops them. Ensemble is listed below, but even prior to their dissolution, did they really own any of their work? Or was it always Microsoft? I think it is worth contacting companies to try and obtain free-use imagery, especially for abandonware titles, where their commercial worth is minimal. - hahnchen16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know much about the various copyright policies we have, but I do wonder whether it isn't worth trying to get some kind of permission in between no-permission-but-fair-use and "free use". Having permission to put copyrighted images within specific articles might temper some of the paranoia around the use of fair-use images. Though perhaps not worth the hassle to obtain them, I dunno. bridies (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that fan arts like these: Jenet from Garou Mark of The Wolves and KoF series), [http://xs137.xs.to/xs137/09113/charmy_16225.png (Charmy the bee from Sonic the Hedehog's series), for example would be greatly useful in some articles. And we could do our own fan arts too. The purpose was to help who is interesting on asking permission. Fair use is limited. You cannot put a lot of images under it in any article. Did you try doing this? And I'm pretty sure everybody would like to use and upload any images freely, even you guys. That’s right! We can illustrate all characters with their screenshots too. The game nowadays have such a beautiful cg movies and cutscenes. It will be far than useful. Yes! We must not ask permission for the third-parties. Ensemble is an example for this. The permission for Ensemble’s games now must be asked for Microsfot. I think Wikipdia tends to be more restrictive with the years. Getting those permissions can spare us of trouble. I myself had lots of images under fair use deleted here. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Fan art should never be used; it is a derivative work and thus twice burdened by copyright; just because the artist puts it out for appropriate "free" use, it technically can never be free unless the copyright controller chooses that. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
While permission to use things like screenshots does allow for, say, more than one or two screenshots to be used to illustrate a page, it's still not a license for a gallery of stuff like trivial screenshots and fan art. While you're free to use that stuff in Wikia (not an encyclopedia), it won't fly here except in specific cases. And no, it still doesn't matter if Wikipedians make the art.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
But it does have the benefit of allowing their use for less specific demonstrative purposes where a non-free pic might not be, or where the free is just as worthwhile (and thus is 'better' for WP's sake). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it's still as bad. A derivative work of someone else's copyright will never be free. It is better to use the material from the original copyright owner (screenshots) than a drawing of that presuming that there is absolutely no free alternative and there must be a picture for demonstration. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Free images should always be gathered and used when possible, as there are no limits on their use, and we are supposed to be a free Encyclopedia--unfortunately certain topics require them. See Super Columbine Massacre RPG! for an example—due to licensing, all the images save the fair use would not be allowed, but I think having the free images aids the article considerably (and some of those were gathered by emailing copyright holders. It's hard, but it works). On OTRS, if anyone sends something to OTRS, ping me with identifying information (the image name, subject, sender, et al) and I can log on to OTRS< pluck out the ID and properly tag the image. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you may already be aware of it, but just in case : GSC Game World now allows usermade screenshots under GFDL. Though I do not have any information about who managed this and how.
I may add that I could not agree more with David Fuchs. For us on fr.wikipedia, Free Use or Fair Use makes all the difference, as it is double or nothing. We are a far smaller VG project, with a dozen people or so. Yet we try to illustrate articles the best we can (to give an example I worked on, Star Wing, or any other in Wikipédia:Sélection/Jeu vidéo), also because reviewers for FAC are way more demanding on fr: than here, as far as I can tell. Ubisoft permission is a really great thing for us, with articles such as Beyond Good & Evil, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time or Assassin's Creed: Altaïr's Chronicles. The ″explicit benefit" of this is also free content. Commons is as an important project as Wikipedia, in my opinion. Jean-Frédéric (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Guys, what I intended to say is, game companies would never allow free use of their artworks, so we could get license to use our own fan arts. I'm pretty sure there are people in all Wikimedia project who can make such greater works than the original ones. This would be very good. Don't you think? And some of you guys say bad things about cosplayers, but in other projects that there isn't fair use this is one of the few things they can use to illustrate an article. As our pal said above Free images should always be gathered and used when possible, as there are no limits on their use, and we are supposed to be a free Encyclopedia--unfortunately certain topics require them. Like our german and russian frieds helped the project why we cannot? Reminding Wiki-ru also has fair use like Wiki-en and yet he got the permission. Actually Jean, permission is great for everybody. Even here they are using and uploading screenshots from Ubisoft and I'm pretty sure they would also do the same with other pemission some people may got. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
List of addresses
Capcom
Capcom U.S.A., Inc.
Capcom Entertainment, Inc.
800 Concar Drive, Suite 300
San Mateo, CA 94402-2649
Koei
KOEI Corporation
1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 235
Burlingame, CA 94010
Namco
NAMCO HOMETEK INC.
P.O. Box 5309
Novato, CA 94948-5309
SNK
SNK NEOGEO USA CONSUMER CORP.
PO Box 1140
Wall, NJ 07719-1140
Arc System Works
hello@arcsy.co.jp
EA Games
Electronic Arts Ltda, R. Fidêncio Ramos, 195 4° andar, Conjs 41, 43 ,45, São Paulo 04551-010 Brazil
Registered Number: 02.184.024/0001-73
Raven
www@ravensoft.com
Atlus
Atlus U.S.A., Inc.
199 Technology Driv
Hudson soft
pr@HudsonEnt.com
Monolith soft
monolith@monolithsoft.co.jp
SCEA
919 & 989 East Hillsdale Boulevard
Foster City CA, 94404
Square Enix
Square Enix Limited, PO BOX 60257, London, EC2P 2BU
Tecmo
info@tecmoinc.com
Tecmo, Inc.
21213-B Hawthorne Boulevard, #5553,
Torrance, CA 90503
U.S.A.
Konami
storesupport@konami.com
Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc.
2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200,
El Segundo, CA 90245
Midway
Midway Games Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
2704 West Roscoe Street
Chicago, IL 60618
Marvel Comics
Marvel Entertainment, Inc.
417 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10016
DC Comics
publicity@dccomics.com
Nintendo
Nintendo Of America Inc., P.O. Box 957, Redmond, WA 98073-0957 - U.S.A.
Activision
Activision, Incorporated
3100, Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, California 90405
Blizzard
Blizzard Entertainment
P.O. Box 18979
Irvine, CA 92623
Ensemble Studios
Corporate Mailing Address:
Ensemble Studios/Microsoft
10440 N. Central Expressway
Suite 1600
Dallas, TX 75231
webmaster@ensemblestudios.com
Sega
SEGA America, 350 Rhode Island Street, Suite 400,San Francisco, CA 94103,U.S.A;
Agreed. I'd equate it to Ian McKellen voicing Gandalf in the Lord of the Ring games. It's such a minimal amount of content in the overall article that it doesn't adequately fall under our scope. (Guyinblack25talk20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
After the discussion at this MFD, WikiProject Phoenix Wright has been moved to be a task force of this project. I'm sure the creator would appreciate anyone lending a hand to integrate the task force into this project. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Retailers as reliable sources for unannounced platforms of video games?
I've been seeing this editor a lot lately for some time and am noticing recent activity that has been less than helpful. For starters, a random redirect (which I undid), and now an obscure page move. I have brought up this matter here since it is video game-related. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually both were completely valid. WP:AGF, and maybe try to figure out what is happening before you try to "call him out" in front of everybody. This is pretty-much BS. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja03:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (different Johnny)
I don't see a problem with boldly redirecting an unreferenced stub consisting entirely of in-game information. bridies (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Lord Sesshomaru has been having edit wars with me for quite a while with other articles (particularly with List of Dragon Ball characters, in which I had to explain to him that the characters in the series don't have consistent romanized names in Japan, though he should've known better than anyone). If he had issues with me, I wish he would brought it up on my talk page instead of calling me out in front of everyone here. This is immature on his part. Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Sesshomaru removed the complaint I made of his behavior on his talk page with no attempt to address me back. At least I always keep all the complaints I get on my talk pages, whether they're constructive criticism or obvious flamebaits. Seems he can dish it, but he can't take it. Oh well, I guess its decided this is a petty non-issue. Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Vgrationale nominated for Deletion
Heads up: Template:Vgrationale has been nominated for Deletion (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 23#Template:Vgrationale). I already added a Keep vote to it, but please go over and weigh in as well. This template has been helping us take care of images that have needed fair-use rationales for quite a while now, but apparently the person who deleted it (and several other possibly redundant rationale templates) believes it encourages "extraneous use" of non-free content. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I can see where they are coming from and to be honest, these templates probably wouldn't fly with such generic info on a FA or FL today.じんない00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
But really, what can you say about a video game image? "Here's a screenshot/boxart/logo/etc. of this game. The image is used to identify the game in its article. It doesn't allow people to make illegal copies of the game." 95% of all the images used in video game articles are going to have the same rationales anyway, no matter if they're written manually or given a macro. Why not make the process less tedious? And besides, if a rationale needs to be adjusted, we can always go and edit it afterward - the template is subst'd, so you can just tweak the text. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look official at all. Most of the news posts credit FightersGeneration outright...ultimately it looks like a collection of information as it comes out is all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If there's no reliable sourcing for it, then it is quite blatant it should not be included. Doubly so for the fact it's being included in the wrong portion of the article, but that one's an editorial issue. --Izno (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Fan mods are not official products; whether they have the reliable coverage to have their own article or at least a mention in another part is a different issue. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)14:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The proponents of the mod are claiming that it received some sort of license from Microsoft. However, even the sources given for this don't make it clear whether that license entails a formal contract or merely an email saying "don't worry, we won't sue for this". I think there is possibly an argument for fanmade products to be considered official (see Final Doom), but I don't think this mod in particular is a strong contender. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at the history; he's the only editor who has re-added this, over the past 3 months. I've been reverted twice, AMiB twice, Oceanrise 4 or 5 times, as well as an IP 2 or 3 times and Someguy1221 a time or two in that time span when we removed it. It would be helpful if we had an uninvolved admin step in, or someone good with talking to people, since this is either a case of WP:OWN or WP:WAR, or both. :/ --Izno (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Struck comment. I've been recently corrected that more than 3 reverts are needed within 24 hours and I only see three max.—Ost (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Redux: When to create sequel articles
As Max Payne 3 was announced this morning, I think it might be a good idea to determine when a sequel game article should be created. (A new IP game is a bit different since there's usually no place to move information to).
For myself, as with the current Max Payne 3 article, an announcement of the game is not sufficient to create the sequel article (redirects and discussion in a series article, yes, however). I'm thinking that our boundary should be that two of the three sections of: Plot/Setting, Gameplay, and Development; can be given a reasonable paragraph of discussion, the rest to be filled in over time. For that to happen, you usually need more than just the announcement but also details such as a "first look", developer's comments in interviews, or the like. Anything less than that can be easily summarized in any series/previous game article within a paragraph (and thus not overload it) until more details are fleshed out. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an up-to-date news site. While I can see how the two can have some overlap, a line needs to be drawn.
However, I worry such a rule is basically unenforceable. Articles not tagged with our project banner often go unnoticed for some time, especially when they are orphaned. (Guyinblack25talk15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
I also agree. However, until some kind of guideline is produced which gives clear guidance on when exactly new game stubs should be created, the imprecise merge/AFD/leave well enough alone situation we have will continue. There is far too much ambulance-chasing and playing journo, but that's down to enthusiasm and a lack of consensus (or even attempt at consensus) on when these things should have their own articles. Someoneanother15:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care to try and police articles for which the notability (or lack thereof) will be apparent in the current year. Two+ years without any real info, okay, merge it. No sources/announcement, okay, redirect it. But articles like this are, in my mind, extremely low priority targets for doing anything to. Nifboy (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that on confirmation of the game's existence, a stub article should be created. If it's found to be vaporware and is part of a series, it should be merged.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)19:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A year ago I would have agreed, but since then I've found that such articles are magnets for edits from anons. Though most are well-meaning, the flood of editors can make the articles down right unmanageable because of style and sourcing issues. Keeping them in parent articles normally helps keep things better under control. (Guyinblack25talk20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
I think sequel articles seem to be made far too hastily. I was thinking the exact same thing about MP3 and the same has happened with Colin McRae: Dirt 2. I think that if the information available about a game can be reasonably held within a section on the original game article, then there is no need for a new one (other than redirects). ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs13:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a platform to me, both physical and digital distribution. Since it has not been released, information regarding games for it probably shouldn't be added to articles yet though. — Levi van Tine (t – c)07:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not a platform, it's not an OS. Games still run on a central server, so the platform is probably Windows. - hahnchen13:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree (again- sorry xeno!). Even if the games do ultimately run on Windows, OnLive would make them available on other OSes. If you see Burnout Paradise for example is available on PS3, 360 and Windows. A Linux user reading the article would think that the game isn't available on their OS, even though OnLive would allow it. Essentially, as the user doesn't need an installation of Windows in order to run it, I think this makes OnLive a platform in its own right and shouldn't just be considered a variation on Windows. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I brought it here to see what everyone else thought and my position isn't firm on this; I'm willing to be swayed. –xeno (talk)13:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
@hahnch - Yes, but you (the user) have to have an installation of Windows in one sense or another. OnLive doesn't require you to buy a Windows licence in order to use the service. I know a "platform" isn't about what you have to have licences for and all that, but you see what I mean? NB: I'm not really familiar with Citrix so I may of misuderstood what it does! :) ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It's being pushed as a "console" isn't it? One can buy a box and use it with a TV... sounds like a console to me... At any rate I don't think we should be adding it to articles until it's actually released. bridies (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a console to me, after all it is being marketed as MicroConsole, bearing in mind that OnLive is the name of a distribution system and a console. Salavat (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
When writing a reception section, I always lead with Metacritic or other such aggregation websites to give an impression on overall feedback. Yet our Template:VG Reviews (as displayed right) pushes these aggregated results to the bottom of the list, I do not think this is the right way to do it. I propose that aggregation websites be given the lead in Template:VG Reviews. - hahnchen21:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting idea. I've never really felt there was much wrong with the review template (aside from overpopulating it with scores), but now that you mention it leading with the aggregate scores sounds more inline with how try to write most other reception content. (Guyinblack25talk22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
I've always written them as the lead in the prose, but it begs the question: if you mention it first, why does it matter if it's at the top of the template? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)23:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I never mention Metacritic and GameRanking scores outside of the review table, and normally discourage it when I comment on GANs, FACs, and PRs. So I think its good because it mirrors my idea of how prose should be. But that's just me.
But you could also argue that Metacritic and other aggregate scores aren't as good as single reviews that describe their scoring in detail, since there could be some overly high and overly low scores that affect the rating.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)03:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
True, but it's the summary style. You start off with a high level view, then work downward later on. The whole point in Metacritic is that it mitigates the extreme scores, so those overly high and low scores don't really factor as strongly. - hahnchen13:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I hates me some Metacritic in articles. I think it's pretty misleading to refer to 3/4 stars as 75%, because it just looks different, and I really don't see a reason to homogenize the reception in this way. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja04:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If e homoginize reception then they should all be the same. No X/10 and X%...everything should be the same then, otherwise we should leave it as it was originally.じんない05:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Homogenizing is a different matter, though admittedly I'm in favor of it. :-p
In summary, here are the points brought up thus far.
In favor of reordering review table
A more summarized format
Could minimize focus on individual scores and cut down on overpopulating
Against
If mentioned first in prose, the order in the table doesn't matter
Aggregate scores aren't as good as single reviews
Since both sides of the argument have valid points, maybe a test run could help solve this. Try it out for 2–4 weeks and then evaluate it. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25talk15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
I've been removing direct mentions of scores in prose and moving them to the box, then making the reception section on actual reception. This seems to make sense, as it's less cluttered than "IGN gave it a 95%. 1up gave it a 90%." etc. I do think that it should be homogenized though...either you have the box or you don't. Personally I think that putting numbered reviews in there AT ALL is unnecessary. The overall Metacritic/Gamerankings score should be the only thing mentioned since it aggregates all the scores, and Wikipedia copying that would just be less accurate.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Another possibility: how about removing the boxes and mentioning scores only when there's actual feedback mentioned? Like "IGN's John Doe gave the game 95%, commenting on its fun gameplay. GamerSite gave it a 50%, citing that its difficulty was 'for kids'."--ZXCVBNM (TALK)00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't work. The reception section isn't meant to be centralised around the individual review sources (and their scores), rather around the elements of the game praised/criticised. Putting review scores into the prose could encourage people to attempt reception sections with the "IGN said this, this and this. GameSpot said this, this and this" approach, when it should be "feature x was praised, IGN said this, GameSpot said this. however, feature y was criticised, 1UP said this, while The Guardian said this." I still maintain that the scores are a good mid-point between those who don't want the scores and those who do, since they remain disconnected from the prose but still available to the reader. -- Sabre (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As you may or may not know, recently Home of the Underdogs lost its server, and went down permanently. Within short order, there were two sites that sprung up to try and replace it, and just now, apparently, a third one. None of them are by the original owner or anything, so this creates a problem of just how notable these copy sites are for WP purposes. Just thought I'd give a heads up and hope maybe someone can help figure out what to do with the page, as it seems a bit messy at the moment. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would presume if an RS mentions the other sites as attempted recreations, then they can be discussed on the HotU page (but unlikely at the present have enough to qualify for their own article). --MASEM (t) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably at least a month. Any reviews probably want to check and make certain the site won't go belly up quickly. If the original owner of HotU is shown to be working a lot with one or more of them though then that might also change things as well.じんない16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Metal Gear Series article rework
We have been arguing back and forth over the layout of the Metal Gear Series page. The guy in charge insists on ONLY discussing the plot of the games. He has the series listed according to canon plot TWICE within the same article. My argument was that the series should ALSO be discussed from the game design perspective. You can see MY Suggestion at the bottom of the discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metal_Gear_(series)
I would like to ask for some assistance in the matter. There are 3 official documentaries that clearly label what was an original game and what was a spin-off, and it has nothing to do with plot. Even this weeks presentation by Hideo Kojima (series creater) at the GDC outlined the series evolution according to game design. I see no reason why gameplay and game design should not be included in the article about the series. Why do we need to have plot discussed twice within the same article? 63.161.203.11 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we Work with MMORPGS
I need help with an mmorpg, I have a sub-page on my user page. If u would like to help please vist my page an you will see it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setokira (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we absolutely work on MMORPG articles. However, your particular project, Endless Online, has been deleted at AfD at least 4 times that I could find, the most recent being here. It would seem that the article was salted at that time, meaning that it was (at least temporarily) prevented from being re-created. Since that was over a year ago, the salt may be gone, but be careful creating the article again unless you can find enough reliable sources to confidently establish notability. — Levi van Tine (t – c)07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. I've got a GA nomination (for machinima) on hold, and the reviewer and I would appreciate an extra pair of eyes. I've self-copyedited (and spotted improvements in every paragraph), but I've been working on this article pretty much daily over the last eight weeks, so the effectiveness of that may be limited, especially in terms of spotting quirky or nonexistent sentence flow. If anyone's up for combing through ~4,600 words of prose, I'd be grateful. Thanks. — TKD::{talk}23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A few months back, I proposed a merge of List of Frontier Brains, as a list of non-notable characters. Without reliable third-party sources, it would even be suitable for deletion. But I went with a merge, just to get a sense of other people. No one has checked in. I'd appreciate it if a couple of other editors could look at the article, and check in with their opinion.
Feel free to post any other merge discussions that have stalled, and I'll help out by giving an honest assessment. Randomran (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried posting at WP:WikiProject Pokémon for comment? I don't know about other editors, but I'm generally hesitant to clean-up Pokémon pages as many seem to have more information than WP:N would allow, but I generally don't see compaints about this. —Ost (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd probably support deletion too. But it might be easier to get a compromise if you check in with a merge. Either way, if you stated that a stand-alone article wasn't suitable, you'd be helping things to move forward. Check in at Talk:List of Frontier Brains? Randomran (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate one or two more voices at the article talk page, because I've had bad experiences with bold redirects. Randomran (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please read the arguments at CFD, input is appreciated. As the page was not tagged with the project template, it has not appeared on article alerts. - hahnchen13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed like for Darkstalkers that all the individual character pages have been merged into a single list with many omitted details you can see obviously present. I am a bit confused about this, why do none of these characters with their long history not get an article but say, Eddy Gordo gets one? On what basis is this decided? Tyciol (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Only two character articles for Darkstalkers series remain: Felicia (Darkstalkers) and Morrigan Aensland. Both have reception info and development info to fall back on. The remained end up taking a steady decline in both fronts, and as for a long history each character's video game backstory can really be summarized in one or two paragraphs and cover everything.
As for your second point on Eddy Gordo, there are literary sources that mention him, and a few other citable bits from google news, one that could give development information. The current article is rubbish, but it can be salvaged. If anything King (Tekken) and sadly Yoshimitsu (Namco) seem to be the odd ducks out even with all their appearances.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to be honest, I don't entirely see the need for a Metroid Prime series article when the individual articles suffice for FA apparently, but that's just me. As for Samus, I'd be wary of listing her there: that article needs a lot more work still, and there are a ton of sources still to cite for reception at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'de say that you can stike Samus off the list altogethor, actually. This is about Metroid the series, not its charecters. It's reasonable. As for difficuties, if you decide to keep it, I'm sure a peer review would suffice. ResMar17:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the log it's obvious that you're going to need the "Metroid Prime (Series)" article. ResMar17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this topic is not eligible. In two days, the criteria for featured topics will change to require 33% of featured articles per topic (instead of 25% currently). Nominations obviously take longer than two days so this topic as is will not pass; we either need one more featured article among these 11 or 12 articles, or one more featured article among the 13 Metroid articles (the 13th is List of Metroid media). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe Rst20xx was floating the idea around of requiring "List of X titles" be the lead for topics that are only a collection of games, and anything that was a series topic needed supplements beyond the game articles. So you may want to double check what articles the scope should encompass. I don't know when or if this will be implemented, but best to clarify before a nomination is started. (Guyinblack25talk14:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
The third-person shooter article has been on my list of things to work on for a while. But right now it's completely unverified, with no clear way forward. A few web searches have revealed only a few trivial references. I'd really like to give it one last good effort before just giving up and merging this, with a summary "a third-person shooter is a shooter game with a third-person perspective". 3PS is such a commonplace term that it would seem weird to have an article on first-person shooters or real-time strategy and not this one.
Well, 3PS isn't a "critical" genre, for lack of a better term. I mean it's always the FPS who win game of the year :P I'll check through LexisNexis and my school databases this week and see if I can scrounge anything up. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)02:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I normally try to read whatever video game magazine and book I can get my hands on, but I don't recall the genre getting much mention. I think it's been drowned out by multi-genre Grand Theft Auto clones that also use a third person perspective. You might be able to find some info about 3PS by looking for the overlap. (Guyinblack25talk14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
Download #s for XNA Community Games
Selected donwload stats are available for some of the XNA community sales. I dunno how many of these even have articles, and some of the more popular ones may not be there, but it could be useful to someone. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What constitutes a free image?
Hello, everyone. I've taken two photographs; one is of a Virtual Boy controller and the other of a Pokémon mini system. I'm pretty sure they're considered free images despite the fact the Nintendo logo is prominently featured on both products. But, I want to make absolutely sure before I upload them to Wikimedia Commons. So, free images or not? -sesuPRIMEtalk • contributions20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC) PS: I know Commons already has pictures of these two, but mine are much better quality.
As long as the photograph is obviously of the controller and not meant to capture and focus on the logo, you're good. (There's also a possibility that the N logo, which is just text and an oval shape, may not be copyrightable, but logos on pictures of products are not going to be a problem.) --MASEM (t) 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Off and on last year, I worked extensively on Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, and managed to bring it up to GA status. I'd like to improve it further and get it to FA status, and was hoping an editor could review the article and provide insight on how to do so. Peer reviews haven't been helpful and I was advised that this place could help. The Clawed One (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Right off the bat, you will probably have problems with too many non-free images. I think you could get away with two at most, not including the game's box cover. Also, add a third paragraph to the lead that discusses the game's reception. --TorsodogTalk16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I was prepared for the images thing, and already had thought it over regarding which to keep, so that's alright. As for the intro, check, I'll get on it. The Clawed One (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The story section under plot may be too long. I'd see about someone copyediting it first before you remove information. Remove citations in the lead that are backed up later (I can see a few that are). Also strengthen the fair-use policy on all images you plan to keep.じんない17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say, with regards to fair-use, that that last image is the weakest of the lot; all it does is illustrate the relatively simple concept of pushing blocks. It's a bit out of place in the reception section, anyway. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Jinnai, what do you mean by "remove citations from the lead that are backed up later"? As for copyedit and free-use rationale, my knowledge of either subject extends no further than knowing of this existence. I have 0 experience with free-use image rationale and don't even understand really what copyedit it. The Clawed One (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Reference 2 seems to have some of the statements used later on. Also the sales information in the lead should also be mentioned in the "Release" section. Possibly if you can (and should be able to) find if it made it to any of the "top" lists for month/year. As for fair-use check out the article i recently got to GA Popotan for the type of fair-use rationale I used for images.じんない18:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a handful of distinctions the game has earned, and also did some editing to the rationale for the two images, though I'm not sure if what I added to the rationale helps. The Clawed One (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
One example:
The game was well received by critics and highly praised for its eerie atmosphere and a deeply intriguing gothic story. The graphics in particular earned exceptional praise, and Soul Reaver was called "among the best that have ever been on the Playstation"[2]
That one has a citation after it. First remove the quotation from the lead and add that to the reception section. Then remove the remove the citation from it. The lead should generally not have any information not contained in the body and a direct quote about the reception not in the body is defiantly not. The only exceptions here are for spinoff titles that are so unnotable they would have 1-2 sentances on them and couldn't fit in another section. The other one would be stuff dealing with special notes. After doing that, remove the citation because the information is backed up later. The lead should just summarize and rarely introduce new elements not revealed later with the exceptions mentioned above. As these are the sections often posted on portals or main page these sections are wanting to be as clear as possible from actual references.じんない19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I went through and added some small but importance formatting bits. Also, looking through the reception section, there were a couple of quotes I couldn't quite find in their sources - specifically "all but the most experienced gamers" and "one of the best games of the year". I could be just missing them though. Anyways, the article is getting close. I would suggest getting someone outside of the project to do a copy edit if possible. I will make your FAC a go a lot more smoothly! --TorsodogTalk16:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked for the questions, yup seems I misquoted ><. Thanks for your help, where would you suggest I go to find someone to help with copyedit? The Clawed One (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Found the quote about "experienced gamers", AllGame uses different tabs for the game, and I simply linked the source to the wrong one. The Clawed One (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
PS2 shipment number
Sony has revealed the number of PlayStation 2 consoles shipped worldwide. It is 136 million, as of 31 December 2008. Quote: "Since launching in 2000, PlayStation 2 has sold more than 136 million sell-in units worldwide", sell-in means sold to retailers. Numbers from this press release. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion re. infobox VG Action and other related templates
I'm currently conducting a GA review of First-person shooter, and feel that the infobox might be better with a typical screenshot instead of the 'asteroids' logo. I think the article top looks a little untidy at present, with the infobox and then a screenshot.
I realise the template is used on quite a few articles; I wonder if the template could conditionally display an image/caption if one is specified, but otherwise remain as-is, to avoid problems with all those articles (until they could be updated with screenshots).
I'm not criticising the navigation sections; I've looked into the issue, and found that there are other examples of articles that use infobox more for navigation that information (FA example Canadian_charter_of_rights_and_freedoms. I can't think of any 'list of facts' that is appropriate to genres anyway.
If there's no big objection, I might try to modify that template myself, as described - ie to allow the option to show an image instead of the logo, if such an image is specified.
Let me get this straight: you want the genre navbox to form the top of the article, where someone can stipulate an image with caption on a by-article basis. If no image is used, then it defaults to the icon. Thus integrating both the first screenshot and the navbox? -- Sabre (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If you can do it so the icon is only there when nothing else, all the better, otherwise we can just lose it anyhow; I'm not fond of 'fluff' images spammed on article pages anyhow... --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There's currently 15 pages that transclude {{VG Action}}. All of them have it at the top. Most don't have an image (e.g. Tactical shooter). Some (Fighting game, Shoot 'em up and First person shooters - the one I'm working on) have a picture before the infobox.
Two possible ways to achieve this;
1. Make another template, called {{VG Action pic}}.
Advantage - quite easy
Disadvantage - another template, so future template edits would need to be done twice
2. Change the existing template to have conditional code, that says "If an image is specified, show it, otherwise show that logo".
Advantage - a more 'bullet proof' way of doing things, for the future
Disadvantage - pretty complicated to do. I've been trying; it gets more complicated when you consider IF the image size is specified, and also that, if there's an image, the phrase "Part of a series on:" needs to go somewhere else, and you've got to consider the caption too.
The thing about this is, it also needs to be considered in the wider field of the other VG templates - because they all work this way at present, and it does give more of a 'unified look'.
Personally, I don't like the style, because I don't think that 'asteroids' graphic adds any info to the article, and because it's a non-standard way of navigating through the articles.
So - perhaps this should raise the bigger issue of ALL the VG templates - would they be better if they displayed an image, instead of the cartoon logo used at present? Or, again, I guess they could be edited to 'default' to the logo if no pic is specified.
If we go the 'conditional picture' route, then I think I'll need help with this from somebody who knows about template syntax.
It might be an opportunity to sort the whole mess out, though. Should there really be a separate infobox style for Action, Adventure, Industry, history, bestsellers etc? One well-designed template with suitable optional fields, well-documented, would provide a good solution long-term.
Thanks; I've asked himher to look in; also asked on template talk. I think it warrants a decent discussion - might sort out a lot of crap, but a few thousand articles to consider (if we're gonna look at the whole VG template issue) -- Chzz ► 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the template is more of a sidebar (a type of navbox) rather than an infobox, kind of like the ones found here and here. Therefore, I don't think a screenshot would be appropriate. However, the current image could be replaced with a better one. SharkD (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither of those examples has a picture (and nor is one appropriate for the topics), but for video game genres, I think pictures are very appropriate - indeed several of the articles already have a pic at the top. And then there's the cartoon pic in the navigation box - that's what I don't like. I'm GAing First-person shooter, and it'll meet GA, but probably would fail GA for this reason alone; the top looks cluttered with a pic and a box, and the 'asteriods' logo is irrelevant to the article content. Question: which looks better, the 'demo' or the live? If it's better the 'other way', then we need to find a way to do it. I could easily just 'hack' it, as in the demo, but I'm trying to address the bigger picture.
I'd really appreciate some more input on this from others; I don't know if that will happen here or not? I don't want to waste time over it if others think it's not important. -- Chzz ► 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I happen to think that the genre stuff should be at the bottom, below the external links; whether there's the image there or not, I really don't care. We could always make {{Infobox Video game genre}}, although what exactly you would put in it, I know not (examples/similar genres?) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)21:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm opposed to an infobox because I don't really think there's any objective facts to put in it. Anything subjective (say "first game made in this genre") would be unworkable because critics never agree on anything like that. My preference would be the format Chzz has in his userpage. I don't have a particular problem with the current set-up, but I do think what Chzz has is an aesthetic improvement. That said, my experience of the sidebar/navbox is limited to genre articles so I don't really know what the implications are outside of those articles. bridies (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Here and here are better examples, then. There's been previous discussion of merging this template into {{sidebar}}; maybe this should be addressed first. I oppose adding screenshots to the template, as having article-specific images will confuse things and make the template appear more like an infobox (which I am also opposed to). Note that {{sidebar}} has native support for top images, and these all appear to be specific to the general topic and not the article. Adding screenshots would, in fact, be a better example of "non-standard" behavior. SharkD (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
"Some (Fighting game, Shoot 'em up and First person shooters - the one I'm working on) have a picture before the infobox." I don't think screenshots should appear before the sidebar. I think they should appear in the sections they are directly related to instead of the lead. This would be more in line with the terms of fair use, since otherwise the images are used more for decoration. SharkD (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Uh, the images used in shoot 'em up and FPS are free images. With regards to fighting game, Street Fighter is discussed prominently in the lead, regarding how it popularised the genre, standardised and defined its conventions, and the use of the image in that context is fair use (the same would also be true of Doom in FPS, but as it happens we used a free clone). I still feel a screenshot should go in the lead, unless there's no room for one and I'm going to point to 4X, the only genre FA as important precedent. bridies (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The image was only moved to the top a month ago, well past its promotion to FA status. Regardless, I feel that having a screenshot (or photograph) in the lead and not in an infobox looks unprofessional. But you are free to disagree. SharkD (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The template was created well after its promotion to FA status. Most articles such as Judaism or Islam start with an image, and have the sidebar appear afterwards. Randomran (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"Most articles such as Judaism or Islam start with an image, and have the sidebar appear afterwards." Could you explain that better? Of the first 25 articles that transclude the template, only four have an image before the sidebar, and two of those are in infoboxes. SharkD (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm repeating my comments as to why a generic icon would work better than a screen capture from the discussion SharkD is referring to. I see icons as a simplistic identifier of a subject matter at a glance. In this case, the icons illustrate what a video game may consist of on a generic rather than a precise level. If it was on a precise level (like a screen capture of an actual game), it may be too specific, which may be seen as about just one particular genre of video games. But the Silhouettedcollage of the games controller combined with the obviously not screen captured image of a popular old video game makes it symbolic of all video games. It's the same reason why corporate logos use the same simplistic symbolic style. They don't want to be associated with just one product. I used similar icons on the multimedia article a couple of years ago. It worked so well that it was picked up in 16 translations of the article. They've since been removed from the English versions, but remain in the 16 international versions, perhaps because they're meaning transcends language barriers. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I firmly disagree, in the instance we're talking about above at least. An icon of a shoot 'em up spacecraft does not bear any visual resemblance to the subject matter contained within a first person shooter, let alone a rhythm action game or whatever. Illustrating "just one particular genre of video games" is exactly what we are trying to do: we are talking about what to put in our various genre articles here... bridies (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If you can think of a better icon for "Action video games" than the image of the spaceship, then please suggest it. SharkD (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"An icon of a shoot 'em up spacecraft does not bear any visual resemblance to the subject matter contained within a first person shooter". It does, however, visually resemble the type of gameplay typical of such games; i.e. real-time shooting on a gridless map. SharkD (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but IMO, it's not enough to "identify the subject matter at a glace" as Oicumaberight put it, although I guess it's a matter of subjetive opinion. At any rate a screenshot would do the job better. Perhaps more importantly, it's still no good for stealth games, action-RPGs, fighting games, beat 'em ups, rhythm-action games and action-adventures. bridies (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, an icon of a single sub-genre of action game does not exemplify the genre as a whole. It would be better with the screenshot-or-nothing idea.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) We don't need to use a "simplistic identifier of a subject matter at a glance"; our readers can read and the name and the other words there will give them that. I'm against dumbing down our project by using images like this. --John (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input from everyone. I *think* there's a fair consensus here that an icon of a spaceship doesn't add information to First person shooters, that a screeny of a DOOM clone illustrates what the article is about much better.
I do still have concerns about the knock-on effect this has all pages that use the related templates, such as template:Simulation_VG, Template:RPG, and the rest - but, in the interests of making some progress on the issue, I'll make a proposal. -- Chzz ► 23:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)
Proposal
The template VG Action be changed to show an optional screen of a game - if an image is not specified, it will remain as it is.
Disagree. Images representing individual items are desirable in infoboxes, but don't make sense in navigational boxes. SharkD (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with virtually any image -- the current or proposed. But preferably, I'd like something a little smaller. Randomran (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've stated my opinion of screen shots vs symbols above. A screen shot is better than nothing. But a symbol would work better than a screen shot in this case. If anyone doesn't like the current symbol, then a better symbol should be considered or developed. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You seemed to completely miss the point above, though. We are not talking about using one generic screen shot to illustrate all these various articles. We are talking about using a different shot for each article, each tailored to its particular article, in order to illustrate that particular article (i.e. in the same way that a standard info-box image does). So we use a shot of a fighting game to illustrate fighting game, a shot of a shoot em up to illustrate shoot 'em up, and so on. We're not proposing to use a shot of Doom in every action genre article. SharkD's objection is that this leaves us with a hybrid of an infobox and navigational sidebar, which he in turn opposes on principle, on the grounds that it would be "nonstandard" and "confusing". No one has successfully argued that a generic image can possibly be better than multiple images tailored to their respective articles, in purely illustrative terms. bridies (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My point is that a symbol like a crosshair would be better for a first person shooter than showing one particular first person shooter to represent all first person shooters. I'm not against screen shots. I just think generic symbols are better from a professional communication design perspective. If I go to the Wolfenstein 3D article and see a screenshot of Doom, I might get confused because they are similar enough. If you are going to show a screen shot, one that looks generic would be better than showing a popular one. Having a collage with the game controller symbol in all of them would be nice. I'm not a member of this project so I really don't care that much. I was asked on my talk page for an opinion. That's just my opinion. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
So what a about a fighting game, beat 'em up, action-adventure, action-RPG, rhythm action, stealth game...? In what way is a crosshair illustrative of any of those genres? We're not proposing putting a shot of Doom in Wolfenstein's article; the fact you say they're so similar just further illustrates it's a good idea to use a generic screenshot to illustrate the genre, in that particular genres article. We do show a generic screenshot in the various articles, not necessarily from a popular game. We can objectively point to sources which say "X game defined, standardised and popularised the conventions of X genre" and it therefore makes sense to use a screenshot of that game in the lead. bridies (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't care that much. But from a communication design perspective, I would use something like a fist for fighting games. Again, this is just my opinion. I would think of one for each genre if I had time. Get creative. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes but all those genres mentioned are part of the action game topic/series, so they all use the same sidebar and thus icon. bridies (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Using different symbols for different sub-genres makes sense. But once it gets to the point of using a different image for every article, it seems pointless to have the image as part of the template. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
If there isn't a template for each sub-genre, then your right, it doesn't make sense. My point was that a separate image for each sub-genre would be better than a separate image for each article. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - a generic image doesn't really do anything. I don't see a point of enforcing it to be kept on every infobox.--ZXCVBNM (TALK)01:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, I think because there is no PlayStation 3 retail games category, they cannot be distinguished and downloadable games should appear in both categories. Others' interpretation of the definition of a "distinguished category" would be useful as well as thoughts on what ultimately makes the most sense? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm still of the mind that it's redundant to have something in PlayStation 3 Network games AND PlayStation 3 games, (distinguished categories be damned - whatever they are!). –xeno (talk)20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
After reading through WP:SUBCAT, I think you are arguing backwards. What you do with a category does not define its distinguished/non-distinguished characteristic; it's the other way around. You decide whether the subcat(s) should be distinguished or not, then treat the subcat accordingly. So the real question is, should there be a retail games subcat? If yes, then create it and treat the two subcats as non-distinguished. If no, then the PSN cat is distinguished and you should treat it that way. If you object to the subcat itself, then you have to take it to CfD. Hope that clears things up a little. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to think about this as a user would. Currently there is one big category with all PS3 game articles in it. There is also a PSN subcat with games available via PSN. Should a user be able to come to WP and see a category with every PS3 article in it? Or should that user have to search around subcats to find the full list of articles? If anything, I think the PS3 category should work a bit like a Venn diagram. The top cat PS3 Games should list all articles. Subcats called PSN and Bluray should contain PSN Games and Bluray Games as needed. So we would end up with a PSN game being in both the PS3 cat and the PSN subcat. Or a Bluray game being in the PS3 cat and the Bluray subcat. And games like Gran Turismo 5 Prologue and Burnout Paradise being in all three cats because they fit the requirements for membership of those cats. EDIT: I've added te category tree so that we can see the current layout of the category. - X201 (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think I explained myself very well. I think the issue is more with the PS3 games cat rather than the Network games one. The category is called PlayStation 3 games so there's nothing to suggest to the user that only retail (BD) games are included in the category. Therefore PSN might be seen as "distinguished" by PS3 games cannot.
The name PlayStation 3 Network games also sounds wrong. It should be PlayStation Network games. I've asked for it to be renamed. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs11:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If we're trying to distinguish between Retail (Bluray) and PSN (Download) I think something like Downloadable PS3 Games would be a better choice. It pins the category down so that there can't be any confusion as to what should be in it. - X201 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we do distinguish them. I'm just saying that that would be one solution. I don't think it's the right one. I think just doing what you suggested and having all PS3 games (DL or not) in the top category and included in the sub categories as necessary would be best. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs
Looking at the category tree again it looks like a few of them need to be renamed:
EyeToy games → PlayStation Eye compatible games
PlayStation 3 Network games → PlayStation Network games
PlayStation 3 Trophy Compatible games → Trophy-compatible PlayStation 3 games/PlayStation 3 Trophy-compatible games
Also, should Cancelled PlayStation 3 games be a subcat of PlayStation 3 games? Shouldn't PlayStation 3 games only contain games that actually exist or are going to exist? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs12:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
On a separate tangent. Should PS2 games that are re-released via PSN be in a subcat of PS3 games? They're not PS3 games as such, its just that its possible to play them on a PS3. If every PS2 game were re released via PSN we could end up with a PS3 cat that is a duplicate of the PS2 cat with the addition of PS3 games. Perhaps their own PSN cat Backward compatible PSN games? - X201 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The same point also applies to the PS1 Classics. I don't think they should be included in the cat. Why does making them available from the PS Store suddenly make them a PS3 game? They were already playable on the PS3 in disk form so why should being available in a different format (a download) change anything? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs11:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point, when categorizing please keep in mind the difference between PSN as a platform and PSN as a store. The game has to incorporate PSN in some way, such as for multiplayer. Games that are merely purchased from PSN don't count, Wikipedia is not a catalog. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The contents (and usefulness) of this cat will depend upon the definition of a PSN game (or Xbox Live game). How would a game qualify as a PSN game? If its by having online play and DLC then that would add a lot of games to the cat making it almost indistinguishable from the main cat. What characteristics are we going to use to define a PSN(XBL) game? - X201 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think in this case (correct me if I'm wrong), a "PSN" game is analagous to an "XBLA" game, that is, designed specifically for the download medium over the respective networks. –xeno (talk)13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That is normally the case, but it is not as clear cut as XBLA as full retail games are also released for download through the PSN and these are also sometimes considered PSN games. There are also small PSN games (Ratchet & Clank Future: Quest for Booty for example) which are given a full retail releases. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs13:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, categories should be self-explanatory. You may need to work out a title and scope that is more specific than "PSN games". You might consider "PSN-exclusive games", "Games designed for PSN", etc. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
New Talk Page Template Proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The proposed transferral has been completed. The schedule for the replacement project can be found at the bottom of the page. This discussion can now come to an end. Comments on the project can be made in the respective section.Dylanlip (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay everyone. Here's my proposal to replace the old {{WikiProject Video games}} with {{WP VG}}. This new template utilizes the new {{WPBannerMeta}}, which is the current iteration of talk templates. The new features added/updated are described in length here. I have also tested out the template on some Video game articles to test out certain parameters.(Task forces, nesting, classes, priority, etc.) Those tests are here: [1][2][3][4][5]
I hope this all will help gain your support for this new template. Consensus is NEEDED before I can start doing massive replacements of the old template. Dylanlip (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Aye, I noticed this a few days ago, and was rather happy with what I saw. You certainly have my support for it. -- Sabre (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I was the one that originally brought up the idea of changing the template to use the {{WPBannerMeta}} template, and I'm glad you able to put it into effect. Looks good. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Can't we just edit the existing template and implement the changes? Rather than editing every single template we have in place now... –xeno (talk)14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The only problem is that the old template uses some different parameters(Task forces, etc.). For example, the old template uses tf=(Task force name) for task forces. This new template uses different parameters. This would STILL require us to go to all of those articles and replace the code, so it doesn't really matter. Also, I've noticed that several articles do not have the task force parameters in place when they should. So we would still need to replace the coding from Task force pages, as well as the article templates themselves. And also, WP VG is much shorter, more concise, and easier to type than the older name of WikiProject Video games. Dylanlip (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but {{WikiProject Video Games}} is explicit, and consistent with the majority of wikiprojects tags. I support the new changes, but not a new template name or replacing every single template when we can fix a few templates rather than replacing them all. –xeno (talk)15:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I think {{WP VG}} should redirect to {{WikiProject Video games}} as mentioned above, that way {{WP VG}} can be used as a shortcut, but {{WikiProject Video games}} is still the official name to stick with the common way of naming WikiProject templates. We can request a bot to populate a list of all the articles that have the old tf= parameter that we can manually go through and change. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Both do. The old one only supported up to 3. The new one can support all at the same time. Plus the new one can categorize the pages into the individual task forces' categories if wanted. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Everyone is saying that we shouldn't go through all of the articles to replace the templates. I'm fully capable and willing to undergo this arduous task. Yes, it CAN be done, but it should be done in phases.
Phase 1 - Approximately 1-2 hour(s)
All project pages.
All instances of code in task force pages
Phase 2 - Approximately 1-2 day(s)
All Top-importance pages
All featured pages
Phase 3 - Approximately 4-5 days
All A-Class articles
All GA-Class articles
Phase 4 - Approximately 2 weeks
All B-Class articles
All C-Class articles
All List-Class articles
Phase 5 - Approximately 1 week
All NA-Class pages
All Disambiguation-Class pages
All Portal-Class pages
All Template-Class pages
Phase 6 - Approximately 2 weeks
All categories
Phase 7 - Approximately 1 month
All Start-Class articles
Phase 8(Final Phase) - Approximately 2 months
All Stub-Class articles
Now, here is my list of reasons for why we should go through with this:
Allows for mass reassessment of priority and quality for all articles.
Clearing out of Unknown-priority category
No page left unassessed
Allows for all articles to be placed under certain categories for improvement (Needing infoboxes, needing attention, etc.)
If it was simply a transfer of code, these articles would probably never be seen, making it impossible to be appropriately marked, and therefore would not be appropriately fixed.
Unifies and replaces all older versions/redirects of the template
Prevents double-redirects
Puts entire scope of articles under one unified code
Removes confusion brought up when dealing with different writing or template names
Ensures that all pages can properly display notes and information(Class, importance, etc.)
Saves space
Reduces bytes by 18
18(bytes) x 21,844(pages) = 393,192(bytes saved by replacing WikiProject Video games with WP VG)
Task forces:
Ensures that all articles have their proper task force displayed (Most do not, and would continue to not have them unless every page was seen during the replacing)
Fixes all errors that would be brought up from simply transferring the code to the original template
Ability to add more than 3 task forces to the banner allows articles that need it to display all task forces the article falls under
"learing out of Unknown-priority category" - If we could have a bot run to assess them all as low-class priority to start it would save a lot of time as most articles will be low-class. They can then be manually increased in importance when we review them.じんない21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I support everything except the name change. I don't think it's that big a problem to run a bot through and do all the replacing. A lot more flexibility we get with this new template. MuZemike02:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Then it's settled. I've decided to go through every article anyways, to personally replace the code of each template, but without replacing WIkiProject Video games with WP VG, still helping the project/articles in the above ways(Except of course in the space issue, but that's for another day). I shall begin Phase 1, and possibly Phase 2 today. Dylanlip (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should wait until the changes are finalized before undertaking a large-scale task of this nature. Paricularly the comments at Template talk:WikiProject Video games#New Code - there is no deadline so let's get it settled first. I also don't think it's a good idea to replace it with the shortform en-masse, and neither does anyone else as is clear from the above. –xeno (talk)15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus was already reached to replace the code(See above this subsection). Also, this is only Phase 1, which is only for Project pages(and replacing the code given in task forces). They can be easily replaced with {{WikiProject Video games}} once the code is updated. I can also hold off on starting Phase 2 until the code transfer is complete. And last, Project-Class was still in the miscellanious assessment bar when I checked. Adding back the category is critical to keeping track of all of the project pages, so none get orphaned into oblivion. Dylanlip (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I know what been discussed, but that was a general consensus to use the new template based on {{WPBannerMeta}}, not the details, as is starting on the talk page. There is no point in doing work multiple times. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(Restarting subcomments) Then the transfer needs needs to be done ASAP. This needs to be started. Also, how do you know that the people agreeing to my original proposal weren't also agreeing to the code itself? If they were against a certain feature of the template, they would've stated it when giving their opinion. I'm going to place {{editprotected}} on the template talk page to get an admin. Consensus was reached on to transfer and on what to transfer. End of story. Dylanlip (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Slow Down. We have time in this matter. A two day chat a consensus does not make. As noted earlier, we aren't on a deadline. --Izno (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
