Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →

Contents

Retro genre

I dunno about you guys, but I really really really hate the retro genre. First of all I dont think its a real genre, and just refers to more of a pop culture view of the games. "Thats an old game, its considered retro!" I move that we strike it from computer and video game genres and all mentions on any game pages. It may be valid as a descriptor, but not as a genre. As a game like Pac-man is much different than say Battlezone and is also much different than say a game like Qix. Sometiems the argument is made in terms of simplicity, but I find many of todays arcade games to be more simplistic than games were back in 1982. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

PC Engine and TurboGrafx 16

I'm not sure what to do with tese two articles, and which one to merge to, or keep them seperate. I'd say merge to TurboGrafx 16, but doesnt that make it very American-oriented? But if it stays split then were setting a precedent by having seperate Famicom/Super Famicom articles. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe do something like Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis? jacoplane 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have suggested that this merges to TurboGrafx 16/PC Engine, any objections?! --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:PC Engine games and Category:TurboGrafx 16 games

These categories are redudant IMO. What do you guys think? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, it's the exact same hardware, only with a different name. Granted, some of those games never made it outside Japan, but if the Category:NES games also includes games that were only released on the "Nintendo Famicon", this situation should be no different. (Nall 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC))
I have nominated Category:PC Engine games for deletion. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why teh hell was Category:Computer and video game stub templates deleted?

Why oh why?! --16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is I was the instrument of the deletion that came from this decision, which stemmed from another decision. :/ --Syrthiss 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
They seem pretty useless to me. WP:WSS/ST. K1Bond007 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Video game firsts

From this page i found this list. We should aim to cover all these games with decent articles. --larsinio [[User talk:larsinio|

I added a couple of things, fixed a couple of errors Coll7 02:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice list. I could see it being worthy of an article all to itself. In fact, I would LIKE to see such an article. Do I have support?--SeizureDog 15:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(poke)]](prod) 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
First game played on a computer: Noughts and Crosses (Tic Tac Toe), A.S. Douglas, 1952
First action-based ("arcade style") computer video game: Tennis for Two, 1958
First space-themed, genre-defining computer game - Spacewar!, 1962
First video game played on a television screen - Fox and Hounds, 1966
First video game to accept coins - Galaxy Game, Computer Recreations, Inc, 1971
First video game in arcades - Computer Space, Nutting Associates, 1971
First team sports game (also first sports sim) - Baseball, 1971
First successful arcade video game - PONG, Atari, 1972
First adventure games - Adventure and Hunt the Wumpus, 1975
First RPG -- pedit5 on PLATO System and Dungeon on PDP-10, 1974-75
First home video game console - Odyssey, Magnavox, 1972
First coin-op racing game with steering wheel and gearshift - Gran Trak 10, Atari, 1974
First cocktail table arcade game - Quadra Pong, Atari, 1974
First arcade videogame with a microprocessor - Gun Fight, 1975
First controversial arcade game - Death Race, Exidy, 1976 (See also Space Invaders [1978], Custer's Revenge [1983], Chiller [1986], and Mortal Kombat [1992].)
First "brick-breaking" ball-and-bat game: Breakout, Atari, 1976
First arcade game based on a computer game: Space Wars, 1977 (Also the first vector graphics arcade game.)
First vertical shoot-em-up: Space Invaders, Taito, 1978
First coin-op trackball game/video sports game/scrolling playfield: Atari Football, Atari, 1978
First "cockpit" game: Star Fire, Exidy, 1978
First game to track high scores with initials: Star Fire, Exidy, 1978
First head-to-head fighting game: Warrior, Cinematronics, 1978
First coin-op game in true RGB color: Galaxian, 1979
First pseudo-graphical dungeon game: Rogue, 1980 on PLATO System and Dungeon on PDP-10, 1975
First 1st-person flying sim: Red Baron (arcade game), Atari, 1980 (See also Tailgunner [1979])
First game with a "bonus round": Carnival (game), Gremlin/Sega, 1980
First home game system with selectable starting level of difficulty: Intellivision console, Mattel, 1980
First game with a character/first to be very popular with female players: Pac-Man, Namco, 1980
First game with pseudo-3D first-person environment: Battlezone, Atari, 1980
First game with secondary weapon and fully realized "game universe" stretching beyond the screen: Defender, Williams, 1980
First game with "different levels" and "boss enemy": Ozma Wars, 1979 (see also Astro Fighter, Phoenix [1980] and GORF, Scramble [1981])
First coin-op game with a female programmer: Astro Blaster, 1981
First home game with a female programmer: Intellivision Pinball, 1982, and Shark Shark 1982
First color vector game: Space Duel, 1980; Space Fury was 1981
First coin-op game with speech synthesis: Stratovox, 1981
First coin-op game with selectable starting level of difficulty: Tempest, Atari, 1981
First sim game or god game - Utopia, Intellivision, 1981
First laserdisc game - Astron Belt], Sony, 1982
First coin-op game with non-monophonic sound: Sinistar (cockpit version), Williams, 1983
First game with true three-dimensional filled polygons - I-Robot, Atari, 1983
First coin-op game with selectable camera angles - I-Robot, Atari, 1983
First home game with selectable camera angles - Intellivision World Series Baseball, 1983
First coin-op driving game to add shooting and other features: Spy Hunter, 1983
First home driving game to add shooting and user-defined tracks: Racing Destruction Set, 1983
First coin-op game with a stereo music soundtrack and an ending: Marble Madness, Atari, 1984
First MMO Game on a Commercial Service - Islands of Kesmai, 1984
First MMO Game with graphics - Air Warrior, 1987
First MMORPG with graphics - Neverwinter Nights, AOL, 1991

Review Scores in game articles

Can we get some consensus on which ( if any ) review scores to include in articles? There seems to be a tendency for people to continually add review scores from various magazines & websites to articles, leading to a messy list with no real purpose. I'd personally like to see just the MetaCritic average score followed by a link to the metacritic site, which has already compiled a comprehensive list of all review scores a game has received. If people want more review scores to be detailed in the main article, then I'd suggest limiting it to the largest ( circulated ) magazines & websites ( ie. GameInformer, Gamespot, IGN ). Any thoughts? TheExtruder 11:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This has come up several times in the past, and my response will never change: None should be added. There is no fair way and no correct way to pick 1 or 2 or even half a dozen scores. It is purely subjective and depends upon different criteria at different websites/magazines/etc/. It is not an encyclopedia's place to provide scores and ratings. --Naha|(talk) 13:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
They absolutely should not. An encyclopedia is for the pursuance of information and knowledge, not some one's bloody opinion on fun factor. If someone feels the need to know such semantics, they can type in www.gamespot.com in thier URL bar. More importantly, it also violates the WP:NPOV policy. -ZeroTalk 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Reporting what external reviewers think of games does not violate WP:NPOV. In fact, it is entirely appropriate. Our job is to compile opinions from multiple sources so our readers will get a more balanced view than those who only read gamespot's reviews. Perhaps individual numerical review scores have no good use here, but objective descriptions of opinions do. Fredrik Johansson 14:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, both Featured Articles, have extensive "reviews" sections, while Super Mario 64 has a short one. Meanwhile 3D Monster Maze and Katamari Damacy have extensive sections based on their critical reviews. Nifboy 14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between a review and a numerical score. The problem is with the latter. Descriptive reviews are helpful while arbitrary numbers are not. It would be one thing if every magazine and website on the planet used the same methods for gathering votes or what have you, but they don't. Therefore its impossible to compare one numerical score to another. Some websites do not track IPs or users and one person could vote 1000 times for a particular game. Other scores, specifically those from magazines, are often the opinions of 1 or a small handful of staff writers, not the collective consensus of 100s or 1000s or more users. Keep the reviews, trash the scores. --Naha|(talk) 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Basically, yes. Any kind of user-based poll or reader review is completely useless (Quoth Slashdot: If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane). Numerical scores are only really useful on the far upper end (a handful of articles). The most important thing is the writeup. Nifboy 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There absolutely should be review scores and critical reactions within the article. Go for big name print magazines (EDGE, PC Gamer, EGM) and the big websites (IGN, Gamespot). Anything which looks iffy, I remove on the spot, I removed some recently from the Oblivion article, who the heck are GamersEdge? Xbox360advanced?! - Hahnchen 16:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we should just keep away from obscure sources; maybe we should compile a general list of "accepted" magazines/websites (some are obvious) and stick it on WPCVG's project page. -- gakon5 16:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should develop a template for insertion into articles for the major review outlets like Metacritics, gamerankings, gamespot, ign, etc? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
As for numerical reviews, I definitely would not remove the Famitsu score from The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, as I think it's important to note that WW is one of six games to earn the perfect score. So at the least we shouldn't completely eradicate numerical scores from articles. Pagrashtak 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Music articles (for example FA Smile (Brian Wilson album)) include numerical reviews. Some movies like The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film) include the IMDB score. Personally, I think that picking random reviews and including the score in articles is too subjective and NPOV. However, I do think that perhaps we could include the Gamerankings score (for example Oblivion) in aricles. Metacritic could also be an option. Consistency should be very important here. jacoplane 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So, do we have any consensus on this issue? We should conclude this discussion and add something to the Wikiproject guidelines. jacoplane 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I still say no, per my previous comments. --Naha|(talk) 18:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to concur with the opinion raised above. I really disagree with the analysis that this is encyclopdiac information. If speaking of a game's praise is required write it into the article. -ZeroTalk 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, it seems that general consensus is that some kind of review or reception section, both critical and popular, is a requirement for FA or even GA. Nifboy 19:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A requirement? Please explain. Even so, reviews are easily done without relying on arbitrary numerical scores. --Naha|(talk) 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying numerical scores are required, but here are a few select Peer Review comments:
  • Perfect Dark: "There still isn't anything on the market performance." It was brought up again in FAC, resulting in the reviews table that's in there right now.
  • GTA:SA: "Putting it in a general real world context is important."
  • FF6: "How about something discussing its release? How was it critically received? Can we get a gamepro score? And contrast it to the new score of the rerelease? How many copies were sold?"
  • Halo: "The most immediately evident thing is the lack of reality-based information. There is no mention I can see of its massive public and critical success."
So, yeah. I can definitely say it's important, at the very least. Nifboy 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Some people feel it is important, yes. --Naha|(talk) 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opposed to a summary of review scores being included (I've added a few myself), but I can see that the subjectivity of the choice of publications to be featured could result in disputes. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to simply link to the relevant Gamerankings/Metacritic pages, and for anything else that's notable, quotations are much more appropriate than scores, as they allow particularly praised or criticised aspects of games to be discussed. They can also be be incorporated into the text more smoothly than scores, which inevitably end up as simple lists. So users should be encouraged to add concise quotations where possible. --Nick RTalk 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is no fair way to decide which site to link to for these - there are too many of them. In my opinion, some research would need to be done to see how the scores are collected, and what type of spam voting protection (for websites especially) is in place, if we offically ever decided to link to the scores specifically, rather than just the entire articles for reference/citation purpose. --Naha|(talk) 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I like Nick R's suggestion. I also really don't care so long as there isn't any obvious POV-pushing here. You can use statistics, quotes, or whatever to prove just about anything so the solution here is to have a wide array of sources, stats, and quotes from both sides of the aisle. Compilation sites such as GameRankings, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes probably work best here. Related to this, I must admit I really dislike sections entitled "Criticsims" or something to that effect. I would suggest that we should avoid this at all costs. Better to have a section titled "Reception" or "Critical reaction" that not only points out the critcisms, but also the praises. Unfortunately, it's so much easier to point out the bad. K1Bond007 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Console sales data

Recently this link [1] was presented as evidence as the XBox selling 24 million units but I have become suspicious. I think they are just rounding up the GmaeCube's and XBox's sales data and presenting Sony's 100 million shipped as sold. Does anyone else have any link to support that data? Jedi6-(need help?) 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I found this for the PS2 sales, but it doesn't have XBox figures (Edit: However, the article does round up on GameCube sales, if this site is right). Nifboy 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
WE can't use that, that chart is for shipments not sales. Jedi6-(need help?) 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Depends on how you define "Sales". The console manufacturers sell the consoles to retailers, who turn around and sell them to consumers. So when Sony sells 101 million PS2s (which is how the article words it) that's the same as shipping 101 million PS2s. The number of consoles in consumers' hands is necessarily less than the number shipped. Nifboy 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sony doesn't release actual sales numbers to my knowledge. Just shipped, which are sold to the retailer. Instead of saying 100 million sold or whatever the number is make sure the word "shipped" is clearly there. Nintendo releases their numbers in their annual and quarterly reports. We should only use that number. I would assume Microsoft does something similar. Surely we should be able to get a first-party source for this and not something from a third-party like CNN or whatever. I would think anyway. K1Bond007 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone find the official Nintendo and Microsoft quarterly report. Jedi6-(need help?) 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking through Microsoft's financial reports didn't yield anything useful. Nintendo's, however, has some sales numbers but since my computer hates .pdf files (particularly in mixed languages) I couldn't get much more than the first page. Nifboy 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
(two Adobe Reader updates later) Yep. The 20.61 million number comes right off page 6 of their Q3 financial report. Nifboy 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to read it, does it say anything about the DS and Gameboy sales. (I wish Sony and Microsoft gave out data like this, it would simplify everything). Jedi6-(need help?) 23:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The list I pointed to earlier pulls numbers right from these financial statements: 14.43M DSs, 74.25 GBAs. Nifboy 01:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page template

By Category Year' (Done/In Progress)
1970s - 1980 - 1981 - 1982 - 1983 - 1984 - 1985 - 1986 - 1987 - 1988 - 1989 - 1990 - 1991 - 1992 - 1993 - 1994 - 1995 - 1996 - 1997 - 1998 - 1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008

Alphebetically (through WP:AWB) (Done)
A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - O - N - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z

How come I can't find any mention of the {{cvgproj}} template that you can place on a game article's talk page? That should be prominently mentioned on the project page so people know to do that. I also can't find a guideline for what categories each new game article should go into. Aguerriero 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, how does one modify the ToDo list in it? Was it meant to be stubst'd? Nifboy 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the todos are not in that template but in {{Gamebox contents}}, which people have (kind of) been editing. jacoplane 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I split up the "Content" part of the article into "Common elements" and "Scope of information". I wrote the Common elements to give people a short list of what should be included in every article. Please review. I am going to do some more work on the whole "Computer and video games article guidelines" heading to make it better organized. Aguerriero 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been going through the XXXX in computer and video games categories and have been adding the talk page templates to articles. So far I've reached 1983. If anyone wants to help out, that would be great, as it's incredibly repetitive and tedious work. If you do finish a year, maybe post an update here, so that it's easy to see which years have been done. jacoplane 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll give 2000 a shot... just starting at the new millenium. I've thrown together a list right here of every year. Bolded years are done. Italics in progress. Maybe this way we know who's doing what, and what's left to be done (someone edit this list if they want... I threw it together in like, 5 minutes). -- gakon5 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll do 1984, I've italicized it. Chris M. 22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
And done :). Not to slow huh? Chris M. 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
What about articles on characters, worlds, items, etc? Do we add the template to them? Thunderbrand 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think so yes. As long as the main focus of the article is something to do with computer and video games, I think the template is ok. jacoplane 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Just did 2007 and 2008, since they're so small. Might as well start early. Still working on 2000 though. -- gakon5
Just a tip for anyone who's doing this, I've found that the quickest way to do this is using Wikipedia popups, hover over the article name in the category and then you middle click on the talk/edit link, which then opens in a new tab. jacoplane 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey uh, I remember reading somewhere in the WP: namespace that changing a template that's been applied to a lot of articles really strains the server. Is that right? I just starting thinking it might be an issue here; maybe I'm just remembering wrong or something. WLH for the template is getting pretty big. -- gakon5 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace or Wikipedia:Template substitution doesn't mention that these templates should be substed. So, no, I don't think there is a problem. In our case substing the templates would not be a good thing, since then we could not have our dynamic todo list that is embedded in the template. jacoplane 17:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I didn't think substing templates would be a good idea either. Oh, and I keep getting some spam filter message for Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. Heck, I didn't even know there were those. It's not letting me edit the page until the external link is gone (which I can't find).
I've removed the offending URL. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, lets consider for a momment. Looking at the text the template depicts, it gives the impression that the project is contributing immense amounts of attention to the target article. I think it a tad naughty to place it on every page encountered unless the project and a substansial amount are editting.

This occured recently when I went slightly mad (Gadzooks!) and overhalled the entire Samurai Shodown character articles, expanding and creating brand new articles. I did this almost alone, save for some lovely help from anon editors. When I spied my watchlist one day, I noticed the template inserted on the talkpage of one of the character articles. That is misleading. I inquired for assistance on both of these projects [2] [3] on this talkpage and not one soul responded. Needless to draw conclusion, I had to research and complete all these myself.

I think it plausible to make only descriminate additions of the template to articles the project is curently calloborating on. It makes it falsely depict attention is being given, and its not. -ZeroTalk 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the point was to attract attention to the project, not the other way around. Nifboy 17:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree - I think the real value of the template is that if someone is inclined to edit a CVG article, and they see the template, they are more likely to go read the guidelines and then edit the article to be consistent with other CVG articles. Aguerriero 15:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Zero, the edit histories of these articles clearly show that you were the main contributor to these articles. The project notice is there mainly to inform those editors who work on video game articles where they can go to meet and work with other video game contributors. This project is not attempting to gain credit for something it did not do itself. If you object massively to the use of these templates on articles where you have done the bulk of the work, feel free to remove them, I guess. jacoplane 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to convey such a sense of vehement opposition. I merely wanted to raise the point of the template into view, considering my viewpoint of the purpose of its insertion. I thought the insertion of the tempalte was unfair to the memebers of this project most of all as it would make it depict a false claim of "to do" for you all. -ZeroTalk 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologise whatsoever! You're a great contributor and your opinion is always welcome! jacoplane 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I always thought the wording of the template, "this article is part of..." just means that the article in question falls under the scope of the WikiProject. Heck, a lot of the articles I've seen in 2000 haven't been edited for a long time anyway. -- gakon5 13:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on '89, but it's huge, so I've only got A-C done now. Chris M. 06:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser might make this go faster... --Interiot 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I couldn't get it to work. If someone can, please tell me. I first loaded the category, saved the list, replaced all "[[" with "[[Talk:", and then tried to play around with the "append to talk page feature". But it seemed to be skipping all the articles for me, or giving me error messages. Hmm. jacoplane 15:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about that earlier; using a bot to edit {{cvgproj}} into the talk page of every article in x category... x being a year. I might try out AWB myself (although I never have, so I don't expect it to work out for me either). Either way, we need at least one more person to chip in maybe. -- gakon5
I have been doing a few. Thunderbrand 17:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've taken care of the games in the List of Atari 2600 games. Most of them already had the template, but there were a few that still required it. --Optichan 18:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, after giving myself 3 days, I finally got through with 2000. -- gakon5 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's one way to do it with WP:AWB... 1) Go here, enter the desired category here. 2) Follow the instructions to paste the URL into the "make list from text file" dialog, in AWB. 3) Enable Find and replace in AWB, with the pattern Find="^" and Replacewith="{{cvgproj}}\r\n". Also click on "are regular expressions" in that dialog. 4) Enable "skip if contains", and enter in the box: "{{cvgproj}}". Then click start. A lot of them are already filled in, so it's still a bit of time between hitting "Save", but at least it should be faster than doing it completely manually. --Interiot 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I added an improved URL that lists only the pages that haven't been tagged with {{cvgproj}} yet (barring what the toolserver doesn't know about due to replication lag). There are ~4000 left to tag, and somebody just needs to hit save/ignore as appropriate. (though AWB is currently skipping any talk page, if the talk page doesn't exist yet... I'm not sure how to make it create talk pages... there are ~2500 talk pages that need to be created for this) --Interiot 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've finished up to the J section in Category:1999 computer and video games, but there's a question I feel the need to bring up. Should we add the template if the talk page already contains a template for one of its daughter projects? If it already says it's a member of (for example} the Final Fantasy WikiProject, we don't need to add this, do we? --Optichan 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also been skipping articles that have a child project tag on them. For example, many talk pages that have {{MortalKombatProject}} on them don't have {{cvgproj}}. As an aside, the AWB list has these removed as well. --Interiot 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I've done the same. jacoplane 07:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Interiot has pointed out to me that the new version of AWB works great for this exact task, so I would suggest using that instead of doing this manually \o/ ! jacoplane 10:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to have the people in charge of AWB allow me to use it, if someone could make a comment that would be useful, that would be appreciated. Chris M. 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
z0mg, potentially rogue users. Well, there are admins lingering about... *whistles* And, as we know, editcountitis can be fatal, or something. Anyway, if there's anything non-quantitative that points to you being a reliable and dedicated wikipedian, I'd be happy to take more time to look into it. --Interiot 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, thankfully, I found another project, the 3 letter abreviations disambigs which needed to be updated en masse, and I suggested to the person who puts people on that I could simply do 300 or so more edits manually on those page til I get them done (I had already done about 100), OR they could just let me use that now and everything would be great. :) They let me use it. Chris M. 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page template / AWB

For what it's worth, as of v2.3.0.0 of AWB, we're able to use AWB to tag about 5 pages a minute. With ~3750 pages left to tag, that's only 12.5 hours of work left.

The procedure is:

  1. download AWB and run it
  2. in AWB, choose to make a list from a text file
  3. click the "make list" button, and paste this URL in: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/AWB/tmp_cvgproj?AWB=.txt (screenshot)
  4. enable find and replace, with regular expressions, from "^", to "{{cvgproj}}\r\n"
  5. tell it to skip all articles that already contain "{{cvgproj}}" (the toolserver tries to remove any that are already tagged, but when the toolserver lags, it will miss those that have been tagged very recently)
  6. in the AWB menu, uncheck General > Ignore non-existent pages (this option is available as of v2.3.0.0)
  7. in the AWB menu, click List > Sort alphabetically.
  8. in the list, pick a letter to start with (I'm starting with "A", others should start with other letters so we don't overlap), and click on the first entry that starts with that letter
  9. hit "Start the process"

The toolserver list does its best to include all articles we need, and to ignore all pages that have child-project tags on them already ({{FinalFantasyProject}}, {{PCP-drive}}, {{NWSeriesProject}}, {{MortalKombatProject}}). I'd be happy to discuss how the toolserver list works, or tweak it if need be. But basically, at this point, there really shouldn't need to be much human oversight... you should be able to more or less click "Save" blindly, if you trust the toolserver list to be working properly. --Interiot 10:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This worked for me earlier but when I try it now it screws up, it just goes through the list automatically, doing nothing to the pages but removing them from the list. This is right when I hit start the process and all the other steps I did fine. Chris M. 06:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
AWB's open-sourciness makes all preventions of this sort pretty useless. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of screenshot galleries

I had recently created Ozma Wars, and as I normalyl do, uploaded some screenshots. Due to the page not being that long I put the screenshots in a gallery with descriptions. User:Carnildo removed that gallery citing

"See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, point #8. Images in galleries do not illustrate points made in the text of the article.)" He apparently has something against galleries specifically. I checked the policy and it does'nt specifically mention image galleries. The material clearly repreents items that I had talked about in the article, as any user who actually read the article can see. I reverted his change with discussion, and then he reverted back. I have since added some more context on the page, such that the third image is specifically mentioned in the text for contextual purposes. I also wrote on his user page explaining:

"Galleries are just another way to represent pictures. They should not be seen differently than a thumbnail. Granted it has to apply to the context, but clearly the images in Ozma Wars correspond ot the text. Which is what fair use policy necessitates. In the future it would be better to explain this to people before you arbitrarily remove entire sections from articles, to give vested interest the opportunity to show that the images correspond to the text. Perhaps just by telling them to add comments to the images showing their context. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)"

Has anyone else experienced removal odf screenshot galleries? Is this valid? Is this compliuance under fair use images? Arent screenshots of video games almost automatically valid by context, as they picture the gameplay? Do we really need to go above and beyond to prove their fair use? Please comment --larsinio (poke)(prod) 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have experienced the removal of screenshot galleries on more than one occassion with the same fair use rational given in one instance, and in another instance someone told me it wasn't encyclopedic or something. Well, I own a set of World Book Encyclopedias and my grandparents own a set of Encyclopedia Britannica, and both series have dozens of articles with picture galleries. Encyclopedia Britannica online does as well, so I don't know. I think screenshot galleries can really be helpful in illustrating points of the game and also to represent the technology/graphics used. Granted, I support the removal of particularly bad screenshots or excessive (imo more than 8) shots to a gallery, but I am against gallery removal in general. --Naha|(talk) 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, I have seen it happen across the whole site. Generally, the rationale is that each unnecessary image weakens the case for "fair use" in the article and on Wikipedia as a whole. The argument is typically that if the image doesn't illustrate something you are writing about in the article, it should not be included. So if you have a video game stub, you should only have one image. If you have a more extensive article, have more. Have a screen shot of the gameplay when you are talking about gameplay. If you talk about the awesome graphics, have a screen shot illustrating the awesome graphics, and so on. Aguerriero 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo really has a shoot first, ask questions later attitude towards images as do a few other editors. Screenshot galleries belong in computer game and console articles. They contribute to the article and display specific gameplay elements of a game, they are encyclopedic. If there are too many screenshots, then it's OK for them to be removed, otherwise just revert removals on the spot. - Hahnchen 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice especialyl with fair use issues, that people really think they are right whenever they take upon deletionist activities. I reverted with explanation, and he-reverted, so I had re-reverted. Its just not tha teasy to revert removals all teh time, because you have to win over "hearts and minds" for this. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've notified Carnildo on his talk page about this discussion, since it would be only fair to include his views here. Carnildo does a lot of good work with his User:OrphanBot. Personally I think that the fair use policy is not at all clear about the use of galleries, and that any statement claiming they are or are not allowed is premature. I think it does depend on the context and if images are included that are representative of what is being described in the text and they have good captions then probably it should be ok. However, I'm not at all an expert on American law, so my opinion in this matter is not very relevant. jacoplane 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to be an expert in American law. We go by Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, not by American law. Jkelly 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo also removed it from the GameCube page. Jedi6-(need help?) 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that. I just don't think the criteria are clear on the use of galleries. jacoplane 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive8#Screenshots_prohibited.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive5#Images.2C_screenshots_.26_fair_use_rationale. - Hahnchen 23:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

ESRB

The ESRB rating is beneficial to the infobox. Not only does it allow for someone skimming through the article to get the rating info at a glance (rather than having to sift through text), but it also takes up a very, VERY small amount of space. There is no reason whatsoever that a policy should exist whereby the ESRB rating image deserves to be removed. To put it simply, it serves a purpose and it's not bogging down the page. Daniel Davis 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care, but I think its silly. Some of the infoboxes look way too crowded with all the little images inside of them. I think this point was raised before... Thunderbrand 18:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't an issue until the same guy who inserted the "policy" decided to go to all the game pages and slash out the ESRB rating. If the infoboxes may seem crowded, then the appropriate thing to do would be figure out a way to uncrowd them without removing legitimate information. Daniel Davis 18:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The discussuion's been stuffed up there in archive 9- him and a couple other people decided to axe them out of the blue. Personally, I think the ersb ratings are quite professional and should be kept. It's just my opinion, of course, but they DO serve a purpose you know. The Eye 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think in order to use the ESRB images you need to sign something with the organization. They shouldn't really mind, but who the heck does the signing Jimbo? --Flipkin 23:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the "him" you are referring to is me. I raised the issue about not using ESRB and similar rating images in what is now archive9, as The Eye notes. I got four concurring responses and no objections. Based on that consensus, I updated the WikiProject guidelines. No one complained. Since then, I've been removing the images from the article a little bit at a time. If you haven't read Wikipedia's fair use policy, item 8 says that images claimed under fair use, such as these rating images, cannot be used for decorative purpose, which is clearly the current case. In effect, all I did was clarify the WikiProject guidelines to conform to Wikipedia's existing fair use policy.
In light of this, I resent the implication that this is being done "out of the blue". What is out of the blue is Doom127's revision of the WikiProject guidelines to state that ESRB images should be used in the infobox, despite consensus otherwise. Pagrashtak 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And now I've found that Doom127 has reverted a large portion of my work yesterday, including reverting redirect fixes. Pagrashtak 01:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Quit trying to make yourself look like some innocent here. There was no "little bit" at a a time; you made your edits all within the space of less than a day, a massive sweep. On top of that, as was said before, the archive (archive 9) was put away with comment from less than five people AND wasn't made aware to the general public. You've created your own little policy switch, one that I think more than a few would disagree with. I'm sorry that you feel offended that a few other of your changes got mixed in with the reverts, but having to FIX a hundred articles that you vandalized is a big job. Go ahead and put the redirect fixes in, if you will, but be aware that ripping out those legitimate images WILL be reverted again, by me. And that "wikiproject guideline" is nothing but your OWN writing. Making your own law and then assuming we all agree with it when we haven't even read the guideline goes against all forms of logic. And NO, there hasn't been "consensus", bub, only you and a couple other people. Daniel Davis 01:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There's no "innocent" or "guilty" here. Looking at my contribution list, I looks like I did about 50 articles or so in the sweep in question. This was not the first time I had removed the ESRB images from infoboxes, although it was probably the largest to date. There were still many more articles with rating images, I basically cleared out the K-A articles, one of the smaller sections, a few prominent T's and I think possibly some M's. That's what I meant by little bit. As for "policy switch", the WikiProject page is not marked as policy, it's merely the consensus of the members of this project. The only applicable policy here is the fair use policy, which I feel I am supporting. Please desist with the condescension and the profanity - try to remain civil. I take offense at your accusations of vandalism. You will notice that instead of reverting the articles back I am discussing the matter here with you. I will, however, request that you leave the WikiProject page in the revision agreed upon in archive 9. Changing it to explicitly promote the use of ESRB rating images is definitely not supported by consensus. Pagrashtak 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I had put this on my watchlist- I knew it might turn into an argument between you two. Allow me to see if I've got this summed up right- Pagrashtak, you believe that the images serve no purpose and thus should be removed, and feel that your original discussion that is now on archive talk 9 was sufficient, no? And doom127, you believe that the images do serve a purpose and take up very little space, thus they don't operate as decorative, right? And that the archive doesn't provide enough of a basis of a consensus, right? am I being correct in both your arguments? The Eye 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds about right. And you yourself said that the images serve a purpose. They're not just "decorative" at all. They serve as a good quick reference, as I said before. Consensus on a site with over a million articles doesn't follow the tone of five people hiding in an archive. Daniel Davis 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
My reasoning can be summed up by my statement in archive 9:
I think we need to stop using ESRB rating images (as well as other rating systems) in our articles' infoboxes. They are marked as fair use; we need to use fair use images only when necessary. Criterion 8 of Wikipedia's fair use policy states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Adding the images doesn't really help the article, it's just decorative. Replacing the images with plain text will also be easier to read, as the small images are often a blur. --Pagrashtak 05:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If someone would like me to expand upon this I will, but the above is my basic argument in a nutshell. Here's the timeline of what happened: On 19 February, I raised my concerns about the use of ESRB rating images. On 25 February, after statements from four editors and no opposition, I updated the guidelines as proposed and announced that I had done so. I left the discussion on the talk page in case there were objections to the new wording. After no such objections were announced, I made the first removal on 4 March. Every so often I would remove more images, doing larger chunks each time, waiting to see if there were objections. After hearing no objections, I archived the discussion on 27 March — over a month after the change — along with many other topics into archive9. I did so not for the purpose of "hiding" the discussion, as seems to be the accusation, but because the talk page was rather lengthy. If you look at the list of archive topics you will see that archive9 is one of the larger archives because the talk page was so large. Pagrashtak 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
doom127 has abandoned Wikipedia. Just thought you guys should know- so enforcement of your own edits will be left up to you. A big shrug and a half. The Eye 02:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope that's not because of me. I didn't re-revert Doom127's article reverts in the hopes that we could settle the matter here peacefully. I guess I'll give this a rest for tonight and see if he decides to come back. Pagrashtak 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems like doom127 took it as a personal offense, Pagrashtak, and he left. But why does that matter? He's gone now and has completely erased his page, so you might as well make the changes with or without him. He is (or was) quite a good editor, but you know, there are a lot of editors that were on Wikipedia before, and got mad for one reason or another, then either turned away from Wikipedia or became vandals.
Look at the case of one user named Brazil4Linux, for example. The guy was a good editor, then all of a sudden he got into a single edit conflict, lost, and spent the next half a year vandalizing pages and stalking Wikipedia users, making sockpuppets and generally causing mayhem. Now B4L is completely banned and never made another beneficial contribution to the project ever again. Somettimes it's unavoidable to have personality conflicts, especially when one person or another feels "ganged up" on, which I think may have occurred in doom127's case, judging from what happened. Whether or not he comes back, this entire incident looks to have been a rather nasty circumstance of that. Go ahead and make the re-reverts, and we'll see what happens, Pagrashtak. Jean-Luc Picard 21:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pagrashtak. And so, consensus are in the archive 9 just don't understand why this guy Daniel is revolted. --Rick Browser 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand either. I have yet to read a convincing argument for having the graphics, and Pagrashtak has provide several reasons why not to have them. I understand that they provide a "visual cue" that leads the reader to the rating, but is that really the point or responsibility of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia? If people don't want to READ TEXT to find information, they should be looking up their game ratings on Amazon or someplace. Aguerriero 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Or, you know, looking at the front of the game box. Nifboy 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep.. extreme redundance. Remeber Wikipedia is not a shop "yet another ordinary redundant information" site. ESRB can be provided with text without information losses. --Rick Browser 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the information REALLY belongs in each article, and that entering it as text instead of using the copyrighted rating logo (with its legal requirements) is less visually interesting but still highly informative. Coll7 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting removing the rating text, the only issue here is the use of the image. Pagrashtak 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Doom127 has just informed me on my talk page that he is being harassed about this conflict through AIM and Yahoo, which is why he chose to left. I call upon everyone to stop this; it's turned what could have been a civil discussion into a situation that has driven a contributor away from the site. Please, don't give Wikipedia or Wikipedians a bad name. Pagrashtak 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would find it hard to imagine that any of the regular members that frequent this WikiProject are harassing Daniel. If anyone is, I second the call to cease the behaviour immediately. Doom127 has done a lot of very good work for Wikipedia in the past, and though I disagreed with him in this instance I certainly wish him well. jacoplane 22:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we need them nor do I think we should use them. My understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines concerning images gives me the impression that we couldn't use them regardless of whether we were in agreement one way or another. "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." - I would say this is decorative. K1Bond007 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The ESRB does NOT consider the use of their images "Fair Use" in regards to the rating of a game. The logic as I understand it is: If you were to write an article about the ESRB you may use their rating images. The specific phrase of the law to pay attention to is "for purposes such as criticism, comment,...or research, is not an infringement of copyright." You are commenting on the ESRB itself. However in article on a specific game that is not commenting on the ESRB the ESRB images are protected under copyright. In this case since the commentary is about the game and not about the ESRB images are and may not be used without permission. The ESRB has a procedure in place to get permission and I would believe they would grant Wikipedia permission to use the images. Until someone goes and gets permission I think the argument is moot. --Flipkin 15:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not completely familiar with the fair use rules but, forget them for a moment. Look at an article's infobox with the little ESRB rating symbol in it...can you actually read it? I feel they just aren't practical. If it says for example: ESRB: K-A or ESRB: Kids to Adults that should be enough information for someone to understand what the product is rated. If they don't understand, they can click on the ESRB part. Chipmunk01 16:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox VG

User:Someguy0830 has changed the CVG infobox, along with some others. According to the userpage, it's something that he just does from time to time. Do we like it? I personally prefer the old one, I find the contrasting colours makes it easy to read, now there's way too much blue. - Hahnchen 11:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I also dislike the new color scheme. jacoplane 11:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It also breaks some articles like Dune II for me in Firefox (the images in the box used to be side-by-side). jaco;plane 11:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That may have something to do with the width being changed (I believe). I might try and change it to fix that while you guys decide the other points (colors, etc) yourselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Update: Width change fixed the issue with Dune II. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks for fixing that. jacoplane 12:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Now it actually looks worse. Fredrik Johansson 12:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Did Someguy fix anything technical points with his template? Can we just revert? - Hahnchen 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here's the discussion, I was looking at the template talk page. The new version is way too purple for me, and I liked the alternating colors. Pagrashtak 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to chime in, I prefer the old version as well. --Naha|(talk) 17:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


There is a new debate in Template talk:Infobox VG#Records? about the speedrun/highscore parameters in the template. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it. See my reasoning there. No doubt there was enough opposition. K1Bond007 05:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Game development tool

Hey all, I created the game development tool article. Read & edit to your pleasure. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

List of deaths by computer or video game

Ugh. Is it me or did these people die from dehydration/lack of sleep/stupidity? This article seems totally POV to me. jacoplane 13:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems silly. It should be under and AfD. Thunderbrand 13:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. — Deckiller 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems more like a List of deaths while playing a computer and video game. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No kidding? I'd understand maybe a seizure, but video games don't induce heart attacks... do they? IANAMD -- gakon5

On the same note, this got created today, and should probably be treated in a similar manner: Kim Kyung-Jae. --Naha|(talk) 04:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots taken from other websites

Has this been discussed? Is there a policy? --Flipkin 18:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You just need to source 'em when you upload 'em. -- gakon5 18:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As {{game-screenshot}} specifies, "the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game". So the person that takes the screenshot has no claim. However, as the Wikiproject page says: "Do not upload screenshots that have been watermarked.". jacoplane 18:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? The example I was told was: The New York times takes a photograph of Mick Jagger. Mick's image and likeness are his copyright. However the NYT can use the images under fair use. The specific phrase to pay attention to is "for purposes such as criticism, comment,...or research, is not an infringement of copyright." However my understanding is that the Washington Post cannot use the NYT photo without express permission. While the image is copyright of Mick Jagger the photos are copyright New York Times. The NYT can use the images under certain restrictions under fair use. However fair use does not grant other outlets the right to use the New York Time images. Unless of course they are commenting on the NYT. I am not a laywer, but this is how it was explained to me. --Flipkin 03:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well no, actually that is not a relevant distinction, since we do mirror our content on commercial sites like answers.com. For this reason you cannot upload creative commons non-commercial images for example. Well anyway, I'm pretty sure we can claim fair use on images even if they're taken by others. I mean, there are not "professional screenshot takers" who earn their living like professional photographers do. For them, their images are what they sell and live on, so it is not possible to claim fair use on those images, since it takes away the ability for the photographer to sell his work. jacoplane 09:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much agree with Jacoplane here on this issue. - Hahnchen 11:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Also agree with Jacoplane. --Naha|(talk) 18:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. In the game industry press the ability to take a well framed screenshot is considered valuable. I would also say that the websites some of these screen shots are coming from GameSpot, IGN, Gamespy, GameDaily very much earn from the screenshots ( and other things ). A good write up on copyright 10 Big Myths about copyright explained --Flipkin 14:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

How can gaming websites take presskit screenshots and brand them with a watermark without attribution? I had always thought that the publishers/developers held the copyright, I see more similarity between a movie screenshot and a gaming screenshot then I do of a game screenshot and a photograph. - Hahnchen 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
They can do it so no one steals their "work". They are not watermarking the screenshots because they are claiming copyright on them - they are doing it so that people can't get a quick screen shot from them without doing the work. If they do, the site (like MobyGames) gets a free advertisment wherever the person uses the shot. The copyright still belongs to the video game publisher. Aguerriero 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm specifically talking about screenshots which are published by the copyright holders themselves. If taking screenshots from other sites, like the developers site for example, did not constitute as fair use, then we would not see them mirrored on any other website. The fact that places like IGN, C&VG et al. are even allowed to punch a watermark onto them seems to verify the fair use claim. - Hahnchen 16:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
If it was published by the copyright holders themselves, then I'd assume it's a promotional image and give it both tags. Nifboy 17:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I do that anyway, but that's not the point. The point is, that you have no idea whether the site you got it off is the site which took the screenshot, and thus why the only screenshot copyright I respect are the developers/publishers. - Hahnchen 20:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean up Category:PC games

Category:PC games is filled mostly with articles that can go into it's subcategories. Most of the articles should be moved to Category:Windows games, but I am not that familiar with the Windows gaming scene to do the moves. Even though when we say PC we mostly mean Windows, it would be better to say what OS the game uses, especially for older ones where there can be a great amount of confusion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've trimmed it down to ≥ 600 games. With whatever's left I am really gonna need the help of the article authors to sort through. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠
It's now under 400. I'm going to bed now. While I sleep, will someone continue to trim the category? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I will work on it some. Thunderbrand 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It is now down to ~200. This is the part where my knowledge falters severely. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No prob. By the way, I have seen some games that were released for the "PC booter" (listed in MobyGames). What does that mean and what cat. should it go under? Thunderbrand 03:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I found this in the search: Tass Times in Tonetown has some info on a PC booter. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So for the games that were only released that way, should there be a [[Category:PC booter games]] for them? Thunderbrand 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that would depend on what the PC Booter OS is. I think that it is probably a DOS disk with the game on it. I'd hold off on that until some more info on PC Booters becomes available. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The list is down to under 100. I'm gonna go back to stub sorting for now since all that is left basically is the "PC booter" games. Thunderbrand 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It was a frelling monster of a category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mod notability

In recent discussions about some Warcraft III mods, it has been mentioned that there is some kind of "bar of notability". One assumes that people would know whether the mod rises above the bar or not. Apparently, some editors feel every mod is non-notable, while other feel every mod is notable.

I thought, why don't we start with some criteria so that people canhave criteria to measure against? If there's a system, then we can base AfD arguments on that instead of just being forced to debate each one extensively. Some criteria that come to mind that make a mod notable:

  1. Article written about the mod in a major gaming magazine or on a major gaming website
  2. Mention of the mod on the publisher's website in other than a "fan-submitted" section
  3. Tournaments held in the mod which have $X or more in prize money

Does that sound like a few good ones to start? --Habap 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Mods have to be pretty notable to have their own articles. Thunderbrand 18:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Game Development Tools footer template

Since I've been writing several articles on game development tools, I thought it'd be handy to have a template to link them all, much like the game development footer template we created a while back. But I have some misgivings about it and want to throw them up here at the project:

  • Is it overkill? Do we really need a game development tools footer template?
  • Do we now need a Game development tools Category?
  • The tools are listed, but the box doesn't explain how the tools are used (e.g. "How does a Wiki relate to game design?).
  • Should API be listed? It's not really a "tool" but a resource. Plus it relates to all types of programming, not just game programming. The same could be said for SCM, IDE & Library...
  • Should I list the acronyms (e.g. "SDK", "IDE") or go for verbosity and list the full names (e.g. "Software development kit")?
  • Should I include the other big role, that of game producer? Or would it be lame, because it would only have Microsoft Excel (or spreadsheet) and Microsoft Project listed?
  • Darn, now the 3D modeler article has to be written (should it be titled something else?).
  • Is it too purple?
The Game development tools series
Game design Programming Art Level design
Wiki
Word processor
 API
IDE
Library
SCM
SDK
 3D modeler
Photoshop
Importer
Exporter		 Level editor
Game development

Any input would be greatly appreciated. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The footer may be overkill. I'm not really up on development of games, but I would think there are more 'tools' than that even if this listing is more general. A category would probably take care of this best. Can you really qualify Photoshop as a "game development tool" and if you do then don't you have to list others like PSP, GIMP, and Fireworks? Bullet point #3 is a good question. And.. yeah.. purple :( not a fan. K1Bond007 19:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of that infobox at all. It's not exactly game specific is it? IDE? API? That's just general development. If you're looking for game development tools, you're not going to look for a word processor are you? I don't think the template is that necessary of helpful. - Hahnchen 11:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to not go ahead with it. Most of that stuff is general purpose and not specific to game development. They are used in game development, but not exclusively. Thanks for the feedback. By the way, I just create the 3D modeler article. Please visit and edit. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Retro?

I've noticed that many games have "Retro" listed as their genre in the infobox. This seems pretty silly to me. I changed it at Amidar but then I saw it's much more widespread than that. So I wanted some consensus here before making lots of changes- or maybe somebody with a bot could help out?

The designation "retro" only makes any sense because these articles were written 20 years after the game was published. The game seems retro now, but surely it wasn't designed in order to seem retro. Will World of Warcraft have genre "retro" in 2030? People will think of it as retro, but that's not the genre of the game. It will still be a fantasy MMPORG.

The genre "retro" should only be used (if at all) for games that were deliberately designed to be retro when they were published. There probably aren't many examples- maybe Maelstrom and other Ambrosia Software games that were written specifically to be throwbacks to classic games. A real example (though not very notable) is Peasant's Quest, which was designed to be retro. Staecker 11:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. These games weren't retro when they were developed--there wasn't even such thing as "retro" back then! They should be categorized didifferently, according to the type of game they originally were. I don't know about bots, though. :-( — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, the only truly "retro" games I can think of are either independently made (i.e. Cave Story, Peasant's Quest, Lyle in Cube Sector), fan-made, or are simply ports and remakes of games that are just plain old. H Hog 14:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think retro can be a genre because it hardly describes what the game is. If I go to the Pac Man article and the genre is "retro", all I can think is "Well, it must be an old game." Even games like Peasent's Quest: it's a graphical text RPG... not that there's really a market for games like that anyway. -- gakon5

Just wanted to throw in that I do think that there's one instance where the term 'retro' can be used correctly in an article. While it's probably innapropriate (as per above) to call Robotron: 2084 a 'retro' game, I think it's probably safe to refer to its appearence in Midway Arcade Treasures as a 'retro' port, owing to that being the sense in which it was released. --InShaneee 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO the term can certainly be used in an article, just not to define its genre. -- gakon5

OK, I've just cleaned out all the retro genres in the 1980, 1981, 1982 categories. There's probably more though... Staecker 13:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Resizing of Screenshots

I've noticed a lot of video game screenshots (mainly when taken from emulators) are out of proportion, due to many consoles and computer video modes using non-square pixels. For example with NES and SNES games the standard resolution is 256x224, which is a pixel aspect ratio of 8:7, which is almost square. However, the actual aspect ratio of the video outputted by these consoles is 4:3 as the pixels are not outputted as square. Unfortunately a computer or anything that renders images on a webpage (assuming the display is set up correctly and the web page does not specify to resize the picture out of proportion) will render the pixels as square - making any of these screenshots look out of proportion, e.g Image:SuperMarioBrosNESTitle.png which is squashed horizontally.

I propose that in the future (and if possible with all current screenshots showing this issue) that the screenshots be resized to their intended aspect ratio, which is nearly always 4:3 for games using standard TV sets or monitors, 16:9 for games using widescreen displays, or 3:4 for arcade games with vertical monitors. There will be exceptions of course were proprietary monitor systems are used - the Vectrex for example seems to use a 9:11 display. --Zilog Jones 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Portals

I think we have a few inappropriately detailed portals, so please see Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:RuneScape and Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:StarCraft. Andre (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Superman syndrome

I would like to create a new article about the Superman Syndrome. From what I've read from the Starlancer site, I think it would be a good addition to the video games project. I was thinking something along the lines of the Stormtrooper_effect. Any suggestions on how to start (I'm still a relatively new member to wikipedia)--Jonthecheet 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it referred to as such. It's really a basic game design principle: Make the player feel like they're the ones accomplishing tasks, not the AI. I suppose a good starting poing would be finding Reliable Sources that you can use to justify your article's existence. Nifboy 06:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
While I do see the need for sources, this is the problem with modern gaming terms; they come out of forums. Much like the Stormtrooper_effect (which also does not list sources), the only sources available would be from gaming forums (search either term), which I doubt would qualify as a source by wikipedia standards. However, I feels that this concept, just like the Stormtrooper_effect, has potential to become a good article and thats why I submitted this idea.--Jonthecheet 06:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Forums are cited in Stephen Colbert's article, although that discussion was of a different nature than one you're likely to find on a video game forum, and there is a second traditional source citing the same fact (New York Times). Maybe try Urban Dictionary, or Google for some glossary? If there's a need for one, let me know and I'll consider setting up a Wiki for gamer slang, or something like that. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 06:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tense! (urgent!)

Articles of discontinued systems are written in the past tense, while the articles of systems currently in production are written in the present tense. Why is it that the Sega Master System's controller "was considered extremely durable", yet the Nintendo Gamecube "uses a unique storage medium"? For purposes of consistency, all of the game console pages should be written in the same tense (preferably the present tense, since the Master System's controller is still considered durable). Scorpi0n 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the only reason I can think of because the Master System was released years ago, while the GameCube is still in production. I agree that all articles should use present tense. Thunderbrand 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Resident Evil (series) ready for FA?

The article Resident Evil (series) had had a great deal of work put into it over the past few months. A peer review and a to-do list were submitted/made/archived, but have been deleted. Rather than submit it for another Peer Review, I'd just like to ask the people here what this article needs. Morgan695 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Two comments before I say anything about the article itself: First, why was the article moved from Resident Evil without making the latter a disambiguation page? Second, images need Fair Use Rationale, and I see two IGN screenshots; these should be replaced with not-watermarked images, preferably shots taken by Wikipedians. Nifboy 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be another sentence in the intro stating the number of different Resident Evil games there have been, spanning x number of different consoles + the PC. Also, maybe another sentence or two about exactly why the series is "credited with popularizing the genre" outside of how many games and other merchandise has been sold. In addition, what makes these games stand out from others in the genre, if anything? While the introduction shouldn't be overly long - I think it could stand some expansion in these areas. Just get at the bones of what exactly has made this series so successful. --Naha|(talk) 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not recommend Wikibooks for game guides

From WP:CVG#Scope of information: Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it. Such topics should be moved to Wikibooks computer and video games bookshelf.

Wikibooks is not a gaming wiki. It is a general wiki for instructional resources. The Wikibookians are concerned that computer and video game guides are overrepresented. Currently I am trying to secure a mechanism to move some or all such guides from Wikibooks to gaming wikis. I have noticed that b:Doom, for example, contains mostly rejected Wikipedia content, and not the good content in Category:Doom.

These gaming wikis all have MediaWiki server software and use the GNU FDL:

These are all, I think, better places for game guides than Wikibooks. --Kernigh 04:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikibooks:User:Kernigh)

I used to try and push the SSBM Wikibook on the hordes of fans that would cruftify its Wikipedia article. Then I came to the conclusion that nobody was editing that book except for me; I'm not even sure anyone looked at it. Nifboy 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
While I don't disagree here, keep in mind that, as the above link shows, wikibooks does, in fact, already have a good deal of gaming walkthoughs on it (as it seemed like the best place to put them at the time, under the 'wikibooks is for how-to's' guideline. --InShaneee 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not too sure about the use of WikiBooks. I see many afds saying transwiki to WikiBooks and I always think, do they really want this? A lot of the times, the material is just really really bad. I'm sure WikiBooks could be used to store strategy guides and walkthroughs, but without the contributors, they just sit there gathering dust. - Hahnchen 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"It is a general wiki for instructional resources." If Wikibooks is an instructional wiki, why would instructional modules on video games not fit? As long as it adheres to Wikibooks rules, I say why not. -- gakon5 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this one user talking, or a consensus on Wikibooks? Andre (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is only my personal concern. As Garrett says below, the situation on Wikibooks only changed recently. Before that, when Wikipedia was moving unwanted gaming content to Wikibooks, I think that it would have been better to move the content to a gaming wiki. --Kernigh 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is only a recent policy change

This is recent, which is why you have only just heard about it. But anyway Jimmy hath spoken; videogame guides are now officially on death row. Read b:Wikibooks:Staff lounge#Wikibooks is not a depository for video game manuals for more on this.

However there's no need to worry about guides disappearing; the StrategyWiki team (including myself) have made preparations to import all suitable videogame guides. This is not going to be a half-hearted history cut-'n'-paste like transwiki bots do either, instead the authentic full edit histories will be imported directly from database dumps thanks to the excellent MWDumper.

When the time comes we will need all the help we can get updating the articles here. While the pages on Wikibooks will exist for a time as soft redirects, eliminating the wasted step is a top priority. GarrettTalk 11:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is on top of this, Garrett, it would be a shame for the good information among the wikibooks to be lost. I'd volunteer to help now, but nearing the end of a semester in college I'm quite busy. I will try to remember to give StrategyWiki a head's up when I have more time. Thanks for keeping us up to date. --Naha|(talk) 13:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well this kinda sucks, but I didn't really contribute much to the CVG Bookshelf anyway. -- gakon5 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Just because theres not much contributions now to the wikibooks doesnt mean there wont be in the future. YOu have to think that once these articles are stabilized and there isnt that much work to be done, the place for extra information to write would be the wikibooks. CVG guides definately fall into wikibooks, you just have to watch out for peopel copy pasting from sources like gamefaqs. I think we should move extra game info to wikibooks, like in that WOw example that is discuessed below. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not about lack of edits, many popular guides (such as b:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) still get some edits every week, and yet they have to go too. This is a universal decision, not one of culling obscure works. And as I've already said StrategyWiki's copy will be avaialable once Wikibooks' is removed, you can place the extra info there. GarrettTalk 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template?

Do we need a new template to account for this policy change? Something along these lines perhaps:

This article or section is a candidate to be moved to a gaming wiki.
Articles on computer and video games should not give a detailed description of how to play the game. Such topics should be moved to one of the gaming wikis: GameInfo, Encyclopedia Gamia, or StrategyWiki.

If the article or section can be re-written to give an encyclopedic overview, please do so and remove this message. See WikiProject Computer and video games for further details on content guidelines.

--Muchness 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I approve of this product and/or service. Nifboy 05:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm rather biased, but I should point out that egamia is an encyclopedia. Their guides section is strongly based on a subpage system (article/Walkthrough/subpage IIRC). I don't think they're that good a suggestion, really. GarrettTalk 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked at their Category:Walkthrough and noticed that Encyclopedia Gamia has less walkthroughs than I had first guessed. The reason why I it on my list above is because it is a gaming wiki that uses the GNU Free Documentation License.
I do not edit Wikipedia much – in fact most of my edits are just comments about other wikis, like this comment. So I do not know what types of content Wikipedia likes to remove. Maybe there is something other than walkthroughs which would work better on Egamia than Wikipedia? Maybe not? --Kernigh 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Just thought I'd give you WoW folks a heads up - World of Warcraft terminology is up for AFD - noticed it because I work on the MMORPG terms and acronyms pages. --Naha|(talk) 06:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 articles list

I've created a new subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Version 1.0 articles for listing featured, good, and A- and B-Class articles. (page taken from WP Cricket - they seem to do everything on Wikipedia). We should list any good (as in A/B Class) articles here, regardless of their essentialness. I haven't added any non-featured articles yet though - add in any articles you think are A-Class or B-Class (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment). -- gakon5 01:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We already have something like this with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Featured articles page. I'm not sure we want to maintain two separate pages. jaco♫plane 14:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wii or Nintendo Wii?

Do we list the Wii as Nintendo Wii or Wii? I think that Wii will be fine, especially for categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It should just be Wii, Nintendo reps themselves have stated that its just Wii and not Nintendo Wii. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think just "Wii" is good. Thunderbrand 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to post the CfR discussion link: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Nintendo Wii categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How to join?

Hi this is Caleb09 how do I join a wikiproject specifically this one? Caleb09

There really isn't any criteria to join, and we don't really keep strict track of our membership. If you'd like, though, you can take the userbox from the main project page and put it on your userpage in order to indicate that you're a member. --InShaneee 18:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hardware standardization

Hello, I've noticed a lot of different representations of hardware specifications. I think perhaps some sort of template should be used rather than various differing forms of presenting it. xAXISx 18:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck is a Episodic Metagame?

I've just spotted this article from a Whatlinkshere to Sin Episodes. I literally have no idea what it's about. It seems to be a merging of episodic delivery with Majestic style "beyond gaming" principles. The phrase "episodic metagames" hardly gives any Google hits. I think it looks like a neologism by the people behind Imperial Wars. Could someone look this think over? - Hahnchen 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. jaco♫plane 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia delete episodic games also? I have copied both episodic games and Episodic Metagames to Wikinfo:Episodic Metagames and Wikinfo:Episodic games, so I can format them and later read them. --Kernigh 02:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikinfo:User:Kernigh)
Although the episodic gaming article is pretty bad in its current state, I think that it deserves to be kept, since it is a concept that is being used throughout the gaming industry and media. jaco♫plane 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't nominate Episodic games, even if it doesn't take off, it at least warrants an article or a mention in the serial article. The article could relate to older themes such as shareware and expansion packs. It does however, need some cleanup and reformatting. - Hahnchen 02:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

New barnstar

Image:Konami barnstar.png
The Konami barnstar

I have created a new barnstar for those of us who tirelessly contribute to the whole wealth of Konami articles, from Gradius to Castlevania, to Parodius, to Contra, to Gunbare Goemon and even for you DDR folks. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Concern

We just noticed that the Structures of the GLA page is up for deletion. We do not know if anyone here cares, but we would like for the page to stay. Is there anything we can do to save it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.65.246.117 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 May 2006.

This article looks like a prime candidate to be transwikied to one of the gaming wikis, as noted in the project guidelines. --Muchness 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Mega Man skills and attacks

Up for deletion. Concenus provided is "its a game guide". -ZeroTalk 19:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Transwikied it. Also made some improvements to my "Old Man"'s article. -ZeroTalk 00:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

E3 & Current computer and video games events

Since E3 is starting to kick off, there is likely to be a ton of new information coming out in the next few days. It would be nice if people could help out by updating the current events page. jaco♫plane 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Use the {{e3}} template for those pages, I modeled it after the current event tag. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

E³!

Ok, E³ is here! Tag all articles that will probably be updated with {{e3}}. Normally such articles could just be tagged with {{current game}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: I recommend leaving the {{e3}} tag on the article until around next monday, hopefully that will be enough time to let the dust settle. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The Halo 3 article needs to be updated. I don't really know much about this game, so if anyone does, please do ;) jaco♫plane 20:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Super Mario Galaxy needs to be updated as well. ~ Hibana 22:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken down the remaining e3 tags. There are no current events listed as of this post. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Worms (computer game)

Currently there is an argument over whether we should split the Worms series article into individual articles, or keep them as one main article [4]. I've mentioned this here to see if we can get some more community consensus over what to do.--☆TBC☆ 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The-underdogs links

What was once http://www.the-underdogs.org is now defunt and points to generic advertizing rubbish, while the original site now resides at http://www.the-underdogs.info (thanks to jaco for bringing the new address to my attention). Now some computer game pages such as Robot Odyssey have a link to what was once the game's entry in the old URL - is there a way to change all of them in one stroke? Eldar 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Gran Turismo (video game); ignore version-specific articles

Alright, I definitely think you should claim/mark the Gran Turismo (video game) article for this project. In my opinion, however, you should forget about and remove from your project the version-specific entries (Gran Turismo (video game) tries to at least overview them all). The version-specific entries tend, even more than most articles, to be besotted with foolish prattle, and the mere number of the articles makes it difficult to decide how they should be tidied, let alone tidy them all up.--SportWagon 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot galleries on video game consoles

I noticed the screenshot galleries on video game consoles have been disappearing. Why is this? This definatley should nto be, and i think every screenshot can be validated as fair use from the context of the article. It is not decorative. Ive restored them on Xbox Xbox 360 and PlayStation 2--larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed g2s has been removing them as of late, saying that galleries of screenshots are not fair use or something like that. Thunderbrand 17:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There was a debate about changing the gallery policy here that ended in fairly strong support for changing the policy to allow them under certain circumstances, but the wheels haven't been set in motion yet to actually effect the change. --InShaneee 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That was about articles that were purely image galleries, and not about galleries of copyright images, so the discussion is not relevant to this debate. ed g2s • talk 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Also see the thread on this page where we discussed this previously. jaco♫plane 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally a gallery of screenshots images will not be fair use. An image may be fair use when it is the subject of the article, and discussed in the text. To give a comparison, a poem my be quoted in an article when it is being analysed, but an article about a poet may not include a selection of his poems at the end. ed g2s • talk 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The galleries show of examples of what the hardware is capable of, and many time show the specific top selling games of the console. Maybe its not as glaring, but I think the galelry defiantely applies to the context of the article. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not a good enough reason to use fair use images. Please see WP:FUC. Copyright images should only be used as a last resort when they are absolutely necessary to illustrate subject of the article. The images may be fair use on the articles about the individual games, but not as a gallery. ed g2s • talk 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. If you have an unfree image in a gallery, you're almost certainly not in compliance with WP:FUC. Jkelly 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless, of course, the image in the gallery is accompanied by text to describe it. Or am I wrong? --☆TBC☆ 04:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Every "rule of thumb" has exceptions. Personally, if I noticed that I had edited an article in such a way as it made sense to use a gallery of unfree-copyrighted images in it, I would think twice about what I was doing. Jkelly 04:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This again?! This crops up every few months or so. What better way to demonstrate a console's graphical abilities other than to use a small selection of screenshots? I understand that Wikipedia has to have a more restrictive Fair Use policy because so many websites clone its material, but taking away these images will be a detriment to the article. - Hahnchen 11:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Whats the difference between using images inline with the text and having a gallery? They still have the same contextual signifigance to the article, at least in terms of a video game console. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
He is still continugning to remove galleries from video game consoles. I think he should hold off until this matter is resolved. Also he is trying to remove all fair use images as possible, such as the official presskit images sony has given for the PS3.. I have reverted said changes. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I remove copyright images that are not fair use, or that are not allowed by our policy. ed g2s • talk 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to percieve Ed g2's act of pushing a gray matter not yet established by policy as disruption. If it ain't broke don't fix it. -ZeroTalk 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should read our policy. A full fair use claim must be made for each use of an image. ed g2s • talk 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, just read the screenshot tag:
"[usage is allowed] for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question"
The console articles do not provide critical commentary of the games in the gallery, nor should they, that is why the games have individual articles, and that is where the images belong. ed g2s • talk 16:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As a user that dabbles in imaging work in large quanities, I have indeed read the Fair use policies more than once. I would not be participating in the converstaion if I hadn't. We're discussing the fact of permitting galleries in certain articles for encyclopediac purposes, not the fact of possessing a fair use rationale on the image page. And from the majority of the articles seen, its a perfectly suitible matter. The screenshots depict the bit power and various graphical output from launch games and whatnot, and can be double used on the respective game articles as well. -ZeroTalk 12:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Then why not instead of just deleting everything, put the fair use rational on the image's page? I dont get why so many people are so deletionist when it comes to images in the CVG space. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't just make up a fair use claim when it isn't fair use. An example of what is okay, are the two screenshots on N64 that illustrate the texturing and draw distance on various games. Putting in a collection of images just to give a general idea of what N64 games look like is not fair use. If the contents of each screenshot was being used to assist a particular point being discussed in the article then it might be okay. ed g2s • talk 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Im not making up any claims, you can easily synchronize an image's use with the article context, why dont you help do that instead of just deleting everything and causing more work for everyone in the process

? Also I agree with Mega man Zero in that this is "grey matter" territory. Why dont you give peopel ac chance to valdiate the use of images before you strip them and they get orphoned and deleted by OrphanBot. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Im creepin on 3rr, so i cant keep up with this. Can everyone help establish fair use rational and contextual links fo rhte images? This is rediculous. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Because if we allowed copyright images on articles because "someone might write something about them at some point in the future that might validate their fair use claim" then we would be in a right mess. ed g2s • talk 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ed g2s: my problem is that the screenshots shown for each console page tend to represent the best and most representive games of that console. To me, that is most certainly significant. Showing screens of several games, to remind readers just what made the console special and unique at its time, and what drove the machine's popularity and its creative highlights, is a very important point. Perhaps the screenshot galleries could simply be renamed to tell that this is their significance? To me, this is definitely a worthy concern. And I'm sure it is shared by others working hard on these Wiki entries. --Swaaye 17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the images are very useful and if they were free there would no problem. But being as they are copyrighted the conditions for their use are much more strict. Wikipedia (through long standing policy, legal obligation and one of its founding principles) only allows fair use under certain circumstances. In this case it is to illustrate a particular point when discussing the game in question, or to illustrate a copyrighted character when they are the subject of the article. An example of good claims are the images on N64 where the images are used to illustrate advanced texturing and draw-depth.
"Showing screens of several games, to remind readers just what made the console special and unique at its time, and what drove the machine's popularity and its creative highlights, is a very important point"
Indeed, but it is one that could be made adquately by listing/dicussing the games. If a specific point being raised required illustration, then a fair use claim could be made. ed g2s • talk 18:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
"An example of good claims are the images on N64 where the images are used to illustrate advanced texturing and draw-depth. " In fact, I wrote that section. I suppose I will think on making a section that includes the screenshots of the "biggest" games on N64 and pair that up with commentary on what made those particular games notable. I'll let you know what I come up with. This definitely seems like a topic that is critical to these general console info pages. What is the point of covering the machine if one doesn't cover what made it memorable to people? --Swaaye 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if a specific point is raised that requires illustration, then that may be fair use, but try not to just shoehorn in text for the sake of being able to keep the screenshots. ed g2s • talk 12:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional dialogue from talk pages

Larsinio

is already quite clear on the matter. ed g2s • talk 16:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because we shouldn't be justifying our copyright violations by finding loopholes, but instead trying to provide free content where available, and resorting to copyright material as a last resort. As it stands, there is no justification for these galleries. ed g2s • talk 16:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Were not finding loopholes. the CVG space depends oupon fair use, there is no free content when itcopmes to screenshots. And its an open issue, which is not settled. can you just temporarily hault all until there is a community consensus? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed2gs

Please give your comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games the topic of screenshot galleries on video game consoles. Thunderbrand has indicated that you have been removing them from articles. Please state your reasoning. --larsinio (poke)(prod)

Please STOP reverting galleries until this issue is discussed and resolved. And how about you help write the fair use rationale for these images? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Why dont you add comentary or give peopel a chance to add it, before removing it? You just trying to get me to violate 3RR--larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Were not finding loopholes, were trying to adequately explain a topic. the CVG space depends oupon fair use, there is no free content when itcopmes to screenshots. And its an open issue, which is not settled. can you just temporarily hault all until there is a community consensus? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore it is your opinion that the jsutification given is just a way to "cheat" the system. I personalyl do not think you have enough information about the CVG aspect to this to justify what is and what is not fair use. "Fair use, ill know it when i see it" right, something like that? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Dark featured on main page!

I am really geeked about this because it gives great exposure to video game articles in general, and to our project. Kudos to everyone who worked to make this a great article. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 12:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright export info in Namco arcade game articles

From the discussion occuring on Talk:Assault Plus....

"This game is for use exclusively in Japan. The sale, export, use or operation of this game outside of Japan may be a violation of international copyright, trademark and/or other related laws subjecting the violator to legal penalties."

There appears to be some disagreement over including export information with this game. I'm strongly in favor it it being there - if at least because more information generally makes an article stronger. It's also very notable in that it explains the rarity of the game outside of Japan. Now, if you disagree, let's talk with some reasoned arguments rather than go revert happy. -Mr.Logic 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a weak argument. Every arcade game manufactured for Japan, or for any other region at that, has this message. It is a common copyright message. Even if the game is later manufactured for release in teh united states, the japanese version of the ROM files will still say that. ITs a standard copyright message and not indicative of being a japanese exclusive game. Why dont I just add it to every single computer and video game article ever made? Every game has copyright messages like this. How about books and movies too?

THe user who added it, Gingerfield Rocks has had a long history of making immaterial, edits that wind up being reverted, which he applies to 30 articles simultaneously. I will await your response before I revert it. If needed I will get more people involved on this discussion--larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seems odd, at best, to mention – let alone to quote – a standard copyright message. I'd have said that it should be removed from this (and any other) article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gingerfield's response

He posted this in my talk page:

Legal notices are relevant to the Namco articles. The articles are not just about the game's context, they're about the games and all their contexts. Please don't remove legal notices. And when you're going to make a change like this to a bunch of articles, please try to make a note before you go and do it. Gingerfield rocks 08:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, gingerfield has failed to explain at all why a standard copyright notice shoudl be included. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He has since been reverting back to include this text, and I dont want to tread near 3rr without CVG project consensus. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely revert all insertions of generic copyright notices. They're absolutely pointless unencyclopedic waste of disk space. Every arcade game that I can think of, Namco or not has this restriction. If you want to put something about copyright law and the sale and distribution of arcade games and machines, then put it in the arcade gaming article, if you must. I've just looked at this user's contribution history, if he continues, you might need some stronger backing than just the guys at CVG. - Hahnchen 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

coverart or screenshot for infoboxes?

What is the preferred pic for the image in the infoboxes? It says on the guideline in the wikiproject for the cover. I've seen many articles that previous had covers now have been replaced with screenshots instead.

Here are some of them:

--Dangerous-Boy 07:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously and there was overwhelming consensus to use coverart ... jaco♫plane 07:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm being picky but I have to object the use of cover art for ports of arcade-based games as they in many cases represent an altered product. Most 80's games for instance are often not visually comparable with their arcade counterparts. ~ Vic Vipr 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I really dont like coverart being used for the infobox, because it really has no relation ot hte game itself. Title screens are at least rendered by the game, and in the case of arcade games, are the prominent "packaging" that people would see. And as vic Viper points out, what about games that were originalyl arcade but then became console ports? Like in Virtua Fighter 4, shoudl we use a port coverart? That doesnt make much sense to me. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Arcade games (that includes those that have been ported) should be represented by their title screens. They can very often be supplied in excellent quality (png format, through mame), too - a step towards getting rid of ugly jpeg-cover art. --elias.hc 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyrule castle

This has been bugging me for a while: could someone who has the Wind Waker take a better screenshot of Hyrule Castle? jaco♫plane 08:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Red Alert 2 related articles

On new pages patrol, I noticed that User:Cs california has created a large number of Red Alert 2 related articles, such as Red Alert 2 Soviet Vehicles. I do not know the CVG notability criteria, but I presume most of these should be merged or deleted. Oldelpaso 08:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

cvg-cleanup?

Why does this project no longer have its own cleanup tag? It’s an extremely specialized area of knowledge, and non-gamers are liable to delete or AfD articles they don’t consider relevant or notable if the regular {{cleanup}} tag is used. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:05, May 13, 2006 (UTC)

Need removal of all E3 tags

Everyone please start removing the {{e3}} tags from articles as E3 is offically over. --SeizureDog 15:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

CyberSkull commented above about leaving the {{e3}} tag on articles "until around next monday, hopefully that will be enough time to let the dust settle." Are we doing that or are we removing them now? I'm confused. Optichan 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the if tag is off the Wii, then it should be off of everything. That's my opinion. --SeizureDog 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
All games that have the tag are in Category:Current computer and video game events. jaco♫plane 19:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I made that comment because the gaming media will still be writing up E³ articles until monday, so there would likely still be a trickle of info over the weekend. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Computer and video game clichés on AfD

Thunderbrand 21:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)