Wikipedia talk:Game guide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Very rough

This is a very rough draft, any and all help much appreciated. I thought I would get the ball rolling as this has been an increasing problem with many gaming articles. Havok (T/C/c) 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Depending where you want this to go, different bits will be valuable. I think you might get away with as little as a summary of the manual of style's major topics plus a pointer there, plus a small section on notability. GRBerry 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from a wikibookipedian

I think wikipedians are unaware that game guides are actually banned on wikibooks too (they used to be, but we now recommend transwikiing to strategywiki). It would be helpful to have a {{game guide}} template for this to alert strategywiki admins of materials that might need importing, as opposed to the {{howto}} template that's currently in use (which wikibooks admins monitor, but we can't accept these... Jimbo made himself quite clear about this issue).

For a wikipedia article, it should be about "the 5 Ws" (Who invented it/owns it, what it is, when it was created/introduced/made news, where it's available, and why it's signifigant). The "how" (like what turtles do for you) really doesn't seem (to me) like it's something that belongs in an encyclopedia, unless the game is perhaps "famous" for turtle-related phenomena. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Gameguide}} or {{Move to gaming wiki}} are the two stratwiki-related templates. Nifboy 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying SBJohnny. But, describing game mechanic is important to a game of any stature, be it computer games, or games like chess and monopoly (both articles which contains the rules and strategies used in the games). What makes computer games so different? Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say at least part of it is that both games you mentioned are of historical importance, and are referred to by the culture in a way that video games are not (though there are a few exceptions). I don't think you'd discuss new board games the way you'd discuss chess, monopoly, scrabble, etc. Games like pac-man, doom, and others are cultural icons, but the vast majority aren't. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 13:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT does not say that you are allowed to break its rules if the game is a cultural icon. That's why we are making this article, to set a standard for what is allowed in all articles, not just those of historical importance. I would think explaining how Super Mario works is ok, same with Pokemon, maybe even Command & Conquer and Neverwinter Nights. But why shouldn't you be able to do the same with ex. God of War, World of Warcraft, Gears of War etc. Just because these games are new doesn't make them any less important as they have millions of players, and have sold in buckets.
At least what I want from this proposition is the equal opportunity for all games to have the same relevant information attached to their article(s). And game mechanic - believe it or not - is a part of that. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good is bad

I think the "good" example is still bad (but better than the bad example) - it's written in second person and also is still presenting information that's not really appropriate in an encyclopedia. --Improv 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather pull examples off of current FAs, myself. In fact, I think I'll do so. Nifboy 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Nifboy is right, we should pull examples off of FAs, but if we don't, I think the right way to rewrite that sentence would be: "...the ability to parry. Some large or armored opponents have openings at certain times with which Link can get past their normal defenses and counterattack." (The very last sentence is probably too close to a game guide in the sense that it tells you how to beat certain enemies.) ColourBurst 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
But that isn't what they are talking about. See this diff. Andre (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, that's bad. The only thing I would have problems specifically is that "vibration of the controller". I'd just change it to "visual and tactile cue" instead. (Or "visual, tactile and audio cue", eliminating the chime reference as well, because it's not really a chime.) ColourBurst 01:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, it's a rough draft. But I think pointing to examples in articles might be a good idea. We could do a test on one article after we have the base down for the policy/guideline, then use that as an example on how to write each gaming article. This is not going to be pretty, but in the long run it's better for Wikipedia, the gaming articles and the editors. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There's plenty of info already on the WikiProject

As it stands now this is a largely redundant page. WP:CVG has covered much of this information. For example: Content that may be moved to gaming wikis:

  • Specific moves and buttons used to execute them. While saying that a character can jump, punch, and pound the ground is OK, explaining how to execute them using the controller is not.
  • Lists of mere statistics, items, or other minutiae. The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the swords available in the game.
  • Strategy guides. Basic strategy concepts are often essential to the understanding of a game, but avoid in-depth explanations.
  • Lists of cheats or codes. Some codes may be notable and suitable for articles, such as the famed Konami Code, but the method of performing a code that's confined to only a few games and has no special claim to fame is unsuitable for Wikipedia.

Andre (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There are no examples there (and the list you gave doesn't cover what's actually done in practice). AfDers are still very much confused in what constitutes a "game guide", and follow whomever said "it's a game guide" or "it's not a game guide" first (or, err in the direction of "it's a game guide"). The people who maintain the articles also want to know what information constitutes as "game guidey" so they can properly maintain it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft for a nasty example (although some maintainers there tried to WP:OWN the article). ColourBurst 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professions (World of Warcraft)

I would love for everyone to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professions (World of Warcraft), I can't for the life of me find anything in that article that sounds or reads like a game guide. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea

Thanks for starting this article, it is a good idea. Wish I could offer some advice on how to proceed, but I'll have to mull things over for a bit. Mister.Manticore 16:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a Game Guide, period.

It seems that this is a well intentioned effort to improve the articles on games but in the end the issue on "Game Guides" is already settled in WP:NOT. Anything going into actual game mechanics beyond a basic overview of a game, what it is, who made it, commercial success, storyline overview, or influences constitutes a game guide. An article covering specific in game functions, levels, power-ups, "moves", cheats, secrets, easter eggs, jobs, controls, characters classes, weapons, items, or the like is a Game Guide and not allowed.

An article on basket weaving is going to cover its history, people known for it, diffrent styles of weaving, influences in weaving, its influence on culture, etc with out getting into how to actually weave a basket. Why? Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instuctional guide. NeoFreak 10:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the entire point of this proposed guideline/policy. WP:NOT has no definitions at all. So in theory everything not saying "This is a game you play" can be seen as breaking WP:NOT, because it comes to the person who interprets the policy. All WP:NOT says about this is "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks." Which stats nothing on what is allowed, other then the points it brings up.
In many cases describing game mechanic is important for the article and subject matter. Ex. Chess and the section about the rules for the game. This can be seen as a game guide by many, as it describes what each piece in chess can and can not do. But, seeing as this is a game mechanic, it's allowed. The article on chess also goes as deep as describing different tactics. Which by your definition is illegal per WP:NOT - which it's not really.
What we are trying to do here is define what is allowed and not, because WP:NOT is vague when it comes to this. We try and define where to draw the line, why don't seek to increase the line so that we can ignore WP:NOT, only to help build on it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I was operating under the assumption that the explanation was pretty clear. In very simple instances where explaining the basic mechanics of a game is required to differentiate between it and another game such as say Chess and Checkers, both grid based board games, then that would be appropriate and fall under the concept of common sense or even the policy of ignore all rules. Getting into anything other that a simple overview that can't be covered in the main article is superfluous and crufty. This is laid out in what wikipedia is not as you've reproduced above. Common sense, no?
Of course I'm not saying nor have I said anywhere that "This is a game you play" is the reasonable limit to the scope of a game article. I'm simply saying that an encyclopedic article can be both complete and inline with a very reasonable policy without going into gameplay mechanics or player stategy, as I've already clearly stated above. I suppose what I fail to understand is were this very simple set of rules and circumstances begins to breakdown in the minds of other editors. If you could explain to me what material it is that you find to be ambiguously covered under the rules maybe I could better understand. NeoFreak 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
NeoFreak, I suggest you take a look at AfD's for a while. You'll notice many proposals that article X or Y is a game guide, and should be deleted, with other people chiming in the same thing, then there are people asking "How is this a game guide, it's about a game, not a guide to playing it" but never getting answers. And I think if you examine a number of articles about computer games, you will find they describe "game functions, levels, power-ups, "moves", cheats, secrets, easter eggs, jobs, controls, characters classes, weapons, items, or the like" at times. In fact, I'd say an article on many of the games would be incomplete if they didn't mention things like Character classes, certain items, weapons, secrete levels, moves, and whatnot. You'll also find articles like Baseball, Football, and Chess having outright descriptions of rules and strategy, and even specific plays receiving articles. To me, those articles seem barely different than most of the game guide articles proposed. This may seem clear-cut to you, but to other people, it seems like the application of the term is used in an overbroad, mindless fashion. In effect, it's become a word as ineffective as cruft. People just use it to describe things they don't like. Mister.Manticore 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
First off I spend alot of time in the AfD pages, maybe too much time. Secondly other articles violating the rules and guildlines of wikipedia is not a legit precedent for future violations. The reason they exist on wikipedia is fanboys put them up faster than they can be deleted and everytime they go to AfD all the fans come out in force in mass meatpuppet fashion to defend their favorite game. I've very clearly laid out what is a game guide as clearly stated by WP:NOT. Any "how to" about game mechanics or strategy constitues a game guide. As I've said with Chess use common sense in articles where a overview of mechanics or strategy is needed to descibe the game as if needed to illustrate the diffrences in sports. You don't need to give a listing of items, weapons, jobs or a detailing of diffrent levels etc to understand what a videogame is all about. Common sense. I'm repeating myself here, if you can't get what I'm saying here I'm just not sure how else I can put it. I understand that alot of people are big fans of some of these games. That doesn't mean they need to create these articles detailing all the diffrent aspects of it that is only of interest to people that play the game in a context of furthering their own play experiance: Game guides. NeoFreak 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked at your recent contribs. I didn't see that many for AfD's, and only one for AfD's on the subject of anything that related to game guide problems. And I wasn't impressed by your contributions to Professions (World of Warcraft) either. Sorry, but I just don't see your perspective as being all that informed. You didn't offer much in the way of substantial argument. If anything, your claims that this is just "common sense" demonstrate the problem. There are folks who think it is obvious and common sense that something is a game guide, and others who think it is valid material. There's a total disconnect in communication here. Seems to me that the proper response in such a situation is to work on a description of game guide that is clear and useful, not just leave it at that, and dismiss the people who don't agree with you as the problem. And there are times where a given item, weapon, job or level is worth a description in the game's article, and times when that content is large enough to spread elsewhere. Especially as games get more complicated and the details become more important. Plus just so you know, there are already levels on every major character class. Mister.Manticore 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You might want to dig a little deeper into my contrib history. I'm not sure what "contributions" you're refering to in the Professions article. I guess we do just have a communication issue here as I see the rule as being rather simple and clear cut and most of the objections to it being based more on a fixation on pet projects than any real ambiguity in policy. I suppose you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree here. No hard feelings I would hope. If you have a list of things that could be laid out that you find under attack but appropriate maybe that would be a better starting point for understanding where we stand on the issue? NeoFreak 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, I looked at your most recent history, to see if you were up to date. You didn't have anything that impressed me as demonstration of a significant awareness of this particular issue, in fact, it seemed like you'd taken a break for a couple of weeks, and so I figured you had missed out some of the situations that lead up to the issue becoming a concern. If you want me to go back in your history, I have, and I've found nothing much there either. Sorry, but while you seem to have taken an interest in military affairs, Terry Goodkind, and George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, you are much less involved in computer games. And I'm talking about your contributions to the AfD discussion on Professions in World of Warcraft, which are of the tone and nature that I would suspect lead to Havok's desire to create this article. Speaking for myself, I'd certainly say that they contribute to justifying why this page is a good idea. If you want specific mentions of articles, again, see Professions. You think that the article is clearly a game guide. I think it's clearly not. If you want more, see the previously nominated Classes in World of Warcraft. See Runescape locations. See Magic: The Gathering deck types for one that isn't video game related. And see the video games that are Featured Articles. Every one of them describes gameplay in some way, and several of them have sub-articles on the subject. And there are people whose definitions of game guides are so stringent, they'd probably want to remove the content from those articles. They certainly sound like they do, anyway. You may not see it as a problem, but I do. So do several other people. I think if you stuck around and observed a bit more of the AfD's for various games, you'd see it yourself. Heck, some Afd's in general seem wacko to me at times. Like List of video games published by Nintendo. I cannot see the reasoning being proposed by those in favor of deletion as being valid at all. To me, it seems like it is common sense to keep that article. To them, it apparently isn't. Go figure. Mister.Manticore 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, I thought you were talking about my experiance with the AfD process in general. No I haven't been weighing in on alot of game AfD's but I've been monitoring fiction and "cruft" issues in general with my own interest in Martin's books and related articles. I wish I could say I was "interested" in Terry Goodkind but it was more an issue of keeping some zealous fans from going overboard and abusing Wikipedia. I don't want you to think that I'm singling out the WoW articles because that just happens to be where I jumped into this issue. I have alot of issues with the way alot of game articles are being presented, not just the WoW Professions article. I would venture to say that we've both stated our positions pretty well and I'd like to hear from some others and I have no doubt that people are getting tired of having to scroll through our rather lengthy conversation :) NeoFreak 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, nope, communication breakdown there. Hope we cleared that up then. And if you have issues with any other articles, maybe it would be helpful if you could begin mentioning them? Mister.Manticore 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

Could we provide clear guidelines as to what a gameguide is so we know it when we see it? Obviously there's a little disagreement here and maybe we can simplify the whole matter by trying to define what a gamguide actually is. I'll take a stab at it: A game guide content's purpose is to provide a detailed description of the mechanisms the players use to obtain their goals. Please refine/expand this. Hopefully we can come to some kind of detailed agreement which can then be applied to the articles in question. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got into it above. Anything that goes into game play mechanics or strategy that is not essential to explaining the game in a broad overview is a gameguide. If it's telling you "how to" than WP:NOT clearly states it's a no go. NeoFreak 14:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very redundant discussion!

The discussion occurring on this page has been very well fleshed out on WP:CVG. I don't understand why we're having it again! Andre (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Because most people do not read WP:CVG if they aren't members. This is created to set a precedence for what is allowed to cover in a gaming article. If CVG was a policy or even a guideline, I would understand what you are saying. But having discussed it there means nothing to WP as a whole. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition, most people ignore the CVG discussions when !voting in AfDs. ColourBurst 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least instead of deciding all these things again, let's use the consensus from CVG where appropriate to build this page. Andre (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit and come with suggestions. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

How would you define a game guide? I would personally say guides tell you how to accomplish something. Explaining game mechanics is fine ("Mario can jump") but saying how to accomplish game mechanics is probably too specific ("Mario can jump by pressing A") and saying when to use said mechanics is pretty much textbook game guide ("Mario should jump at the beginning of 1-1 to get the Mushroom.") -Ryanbomber 13:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • What is the justification for the inclusion of detailed videogame play mechanics in an encyclopedia? You don't need it to get what the game is all about and any indepth questions about the game play style itself for interested parties can be solved with one or two lines of external links to the million diffent sites on the net that do a better job than wikpedia ever could or should. This is not the place for such desciptions. NeoFreak 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Umm... including game play mechanics can help the article in the way that it explains how the game works. Much like for example Chess and all other boardgames, sports games etc. Let me as you this; Why are videogames or computer games any different from these articles? Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought I had already covered Chess and the such. If not I put a more detailed explanation on the WoW jobs deletion page. NeoFreak 08:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't. Sorry, but you're completely unconvincing. Take a look at Chess strategy and tactics and explain how it isn't a game guide. It even has sub-articles. Not to mention American football strategy or Pitch (baseball). Clearly, sports are allowed to detail their mechanics in several articles. Why is there so much objection to video games? I think the recent situations with the Wii and PS3 are clear indications that video and computer games are not all that minor. People wait in line to get them, the same way they do with tickets to various sporting games. Mister.Manticore 16:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Pitching article is kosher but, yes, both the other two articles you mentioned should be looked at for potential violation of WP:NOT. Video games are not the only offenders and I never said they were. How many people are going to be playing WoW in twenty years? How many people are going to be playing baseball in twenty years? Entertainmet fads and product supply issues don't demonstrate the same sort of notability that baseball and chess hold. Come on now. NeoFreak 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
We can't make decisions on Wikipedia today based on what might happen in 20 years. That would go well outside of the crystal ball limitations. Even the Olympics don't get that far in advance. Today, there are 7.5 million people playing WoW. That's a lot of people, and it shows notability today. In twenty years, WoW may be gone (or it may have 200 million people playing it), but that 7.5 million people is enough to make it notable. Which it would retain, even if it shut down tomorrow. It'd just be historical. In any case, the prevalence of so many similar articles (the baseball one you have no problem with has at least 5 daughter articles), tends to point to me, that we can describe a game, be it video or real-life. If we can't, then we need to start purging articles by the hundred. And in regards to WoW, the Professions in it clearly qualify as something people would want a description on. At least as much as they'd want to know about knuckleballs. Mister.Manticore 04:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing WoW's notability, if it wasn't notable it wouldn't have an article at all. WoW's huge player base, its influence on the online gaming community and its huge commercial success all warrant a article. I'm trying to point out the life-span of a video game and what is and isn't needed in an encyclopedic entry about the game. I'm saying that within all that there is no need what so ever to launch a huge amount of subarticles that detail all of it's game play mechanics as if you were reading a instuction manuel or strategy guide. All of that information has no place in an encyclopedia. These things are not needed to get an understanding of the game and why it is notable. NeoFreak 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're quite mistaken then. Yes, there is a conceivable limit to which one wouldn't need to know certain things. Every single monster's stats, the stats of weapons and armor... But something that is fundamental to every character? Sorry, but I can't see how you can possibly think it's not important. You can't have an article on World of Warcraft and not not talk about the Professions.It'd be liking having an article on baseball without talking about the [baseball field]]. And since Wikipedia is not paper, we can go into detail, especially since the World of Warcraft article is a little large. But yeah, you should probably ignore the questions of lifespan and historical impact. If you want to deal with that, let's wait a century. Then maybe this whole question can be regulated to the same importance as buggy whips. Mister.Manticore 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My view

You may or may not know I have a bit of a dislike of gamecruft. Please refer to that page for my views.

Few quick comments on the content here thus far:

  • Does the description of game play mechanics constitute a violation?
    Yes, it does. WP:NOT a game guide.
  • "If you press A at the right time, you counterattack."
    Unacceptable, obviously.
  • "...certain attacks by the opponent will trigger a visual cue, a vibration of the controller, and a chime. Attacking at that point causes Link to dodge or parry then counter-attack from the rear."
    Also unacceptable. Why? It's not encyclopaedic. The article on (say) chess doesn't describe how to pick up a piece, and the article on The Matrix doesn't describe how each scene goes, and what sound effects take place. Why should video games be any different?
  • Does the inclusion of cheat codes constitue a violation?
    Yes, obviously. There are no cheat codes (not even thos ID ones on Doom) that are encyclopaedic. Proto::type 13:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading your view on game play mechanics. I would love your view on the debate above when it comes to sports articles and board games, are they exempt from this rule, or do you have something personal against computer and video games in general? Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comparing sports articles with computer / video games articles (even those games about sports) is not the best way to find a similar topic, as they are not similar.
For example, what's the equivalent of football (soccer) in video games? FIFA 07? Pro Evolution Soccer 6? Sensible Soccer? The equivalent would, I suppose, be Football in video games or Football (video games) - this article doesn't even exist! Try and imagine it the other way around - what's the equivalent of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2006 or NHL 07 in sports? No such thing. It's certainly not the articles on golf and ice hockey, or even those on Tiger Woods, the Professional Golfer's Association or the National Hockey League. No, sports and video games cannot be managed by the same specific set of criteria and values (other than the general ones which ought to apply to all Wikipedia articles).
You can not compare how individual video games articles ought to be constructed to how sports articles should be constructed, as sports are generic topics, and a specific video game is a specific topic. Articles on specific video games (or a video game series) must be compared with a better equivalent, as they are an entertainment medium. We should apply the same sort of standards to video games as we should to a movie or a book article. The 'genre' articles, such as shoot em ups, MMORPGs, or platform games can perhaps be better treated in a similar manner to an article on a sport, with cited, referenced, necessary examples of gameplay mechanics, etc. Proto::type 15:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that there are not complete analogues between sports and video games. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are a gamut of articles describing football in ways that explore the mechanics of the game. You could in theory, do the same thing for certain areas of video games, which also have genres, like platform games, First-person shooter or even MMORPG and to some extent, that is already done. See for example, straferunning or Tank (computer gaming). So, it might seem that there is a difference in that individual games get content. But wait, there's individual players, individual plays (see Immaculate Reception and the category on NFL lore), and various games with articles(mostly championships, but that's the point, those things are notable). Yes, Video games are a large, more diverse mass than sports. They have more individual cases and rules. So, they have more articles. However, when those articles do the same thing as the sports articles that describe the game, which everybody accepts as encyclopedic, but people argue for deletion when it is a video game, well, I'd say that they need to take a step back and recognize the situation. Unfortunately, it seems that you, like many people are having trouble making that connection. Maybe if you tried thinking of board games instead? They're a little closer. You wouldn't say Monopoly shouldn't describe its board, would you? Or Risk shouldn't describe the set-up, the parts of a turn, or such? And sometimes the articles get large enough, that it's appropriate to make sub-articles that cover certain subjects in more detail.
And you are making a poor analogy yourself when you that the article on Chess doesn't say how to pick up a piece. It might not. But it certainly says how the pieces move! That is the correct analogy with a video game, which doesn't describe how to press a button either!
BTW, you are mistaken about there being no encyclopedic cheat codes when in fact, there are several already there. Mister.Manticore 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold edit

I have amplified and rewritten part of the proposal. Revert if changes are seen as unneccessary or harmful. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7EGame_guide_361d.html"