Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 43

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 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 →

Contents

3D Monster Maze review

3D Monster Maze has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Stephen 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

GamersGlobal - can this be considered a reliable source?

GamersGlobal is a website that lets literally any registered user post gaming news. I don't think it can be considered reliable, although there is a lot of useful information here that is probably true.

Please reply with your comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GamersGlobal. Randomran (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request input: Master Chief (Halo) mod

Over at Master Chief (Halo), User:Cliché Online has been continually adding content about a Master Chief mod for Unreal Tournament 3, along with a picture. I and several other editors have removed the information on the grounds that the information is sourced to border-line unreliable sources and that none of the sources currently prove the mod is notable and thus deserving a mention in the "other appearances" section of the article. Cliche apparently thinks anyone who disagrees with him is an Xbox fanboy, so we're getting nowhere with him on talk. Opinions? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a message on the talk page. Probably be ignored by them though. In my view there's nothing borderline about it: the blog is unreliable. The rest are primary sources used for synthesis. -- Sabre (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion

Would there be any opposition to adding to the to do list "Participate in video game related deletion discussions" or the like? I did it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/to do, but our to do list is much more specific. I couldn't see the harm, but I did want to ask. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely support this. The deletion discussions would benefit from eager video game editors, no matter their leanings on the deletion/inclusion spectrum. Randomran (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well one positive response is more than enough for me. Done. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RyanTMulligan

According to the userpage, Ryan seem to be involved with the operation of this fansite. Just as a heads up, he has been adding that site to a number of articles, after speaking to him is now requesting "neutral editors" to decide "to include the links if they like it" by posting the link on numerous pages. « ₣M₣ » 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Brawl Snapshots provides image galleries for characters taken from Smash Bros. Brawl. The images are numerous and many of them are accurate/interesting representations of the characters. USER:FullMetal Falcon told me that I should not be posting it on these video game character pages because it is in violation with various Wikipedia policies. I'm not sure what policies it is in violation of exactly, but I was just trying to increase the value of the pages. I think that it increases the value because people can see a large number of images of the character that they are currently researching. Certainly this is a conflict of interest though, because I am also getting increased pageviews/traffic when people visit my site. That's why I decided to start posting on talk pages of the characters in smash brothers brawl to see what the "neutral editors" of each character article think about the inclusion of the links. RyanTMulligan (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, it's fan content. Some of those images are blatant Photoshop jobs, and most of them are done for off-color humor. I'm sorry, but it's not suitable or encyclopedic. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at this issue. I think you are being a tad bit harsh. A majority of them are lovely snapshots on the site that are not off-color or Photoshoped.RyanTMulligan (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, going to every talk page and posting a link to your site "for consideration" is still considered spam: WP:SPAM#Source soliciting. The talk page links should be removed in addition to any contested in-article links. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah... I'm sorry. I just read that over. Makes sense. Should I have posted a list of the articles here? RyanTMulligan (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe you were well-intentioned. However, I think our main concern is that large collections of screen shots of copyrighted video games do not fall under acceptable fair use of non-free content. Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, all content must also be free and because of that we can only include screen shots in articles under certain restrictions. In turn, links to galleries do not fall in line with our fair use practices either.
So, it's not like we don't want images, we just have several guidelines and policies to adhere to. I hope you understand. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
Is it clear that the snapshots/screenshots taken from a video game are owned/copyrighted by the video game company? What if the photographer were to release their photographs under a Creative Commons license? RyanTMulligan (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The owner of the game copyright is entitled to ownership of the images. This is usually the publisher of the video game. There's a doctrine called "fair use" that lets you ignore copyright law under narrow circumstances, but it involves a number of factors. For the sake of wikipedia, it means that we have to avoid using too many pictures, and the pictures we do use have to be absolutely necessary to explain a concept (rather than just decorative or interesting). Randomran (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Randomran, I should point out that you are wrong in your statement. Photos are copyright the photographer, the content of the photo is copyright to the creator of the content. If the photographer released the photo as CC, then the photo could be used without consulting the owner of the content in the context of a reference work such as a review where the photo is used to complement the original work. There's more nuance to this, but for the sake of this discussion, I think that covers it. I'm specifically not addressing the content of Ryan's images in this comment, just screenshots in general.BcRIPster (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I should correct myself. A screencap probably belongs to the publisher of the video game. But if you take a photograph of copyrighted material, the photograph is still your copyright... just that the use of the copyrighted material in the photograph may or may not be infringing, depending on how much substance you copied, if it's the focus of the photograph, and so on... at least, that's my understanding. Randomran (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to article creaters

Note: Whenever you create a VG article and you want a screenshot, simply go to Gamestop.com , type the name of the game into the serach box, clip on the boxart, scroll down to the screenshot section and then pick the one you want and upload it instead of leaving it to another editor.Gears Of War 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Everybody contributes to Wikipedia as their ability and inclination permits. Tags exist precisely so that people can mark articles that have specific needs without immediately addressing those needs. If someone leaves a tag in good faith, they have volunteered that time and effort, no matter how small, to assist in improving the wiki. They could have ignored the problem entirely and allowed an article to languish in a bad state. Of course it would be better if everyone put 100% into it and fixed every problem on sight, but no one is obligated to do anything. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Though some have limitations, some do not. Some just dont feel like and are to lazy to do it themselves. That is a problem. Though no one is forced to do it themselves, they should if they are able.Gears Of War 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not something we, or anyone but the individual can decide. And is also not a really a topic that needs discussion here. John.n-IRL 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Then where shall it be discussed?Gears Of War 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could propose a wikipedia policy that moves away from the volunteer concept. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, particularly about "proposals". I'm sure that if more people were forced to do things they didn't care enough to do, the quality of the encyclopedia could only go up. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I can only disagree; people who like volunteering would be driven away... wouldn't you rather volunteer than be forced to work for free? --Izno (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent and highly persuasive argument. Randomran (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I find the above argument thread quite amusing. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I figured Randomran was being sarcastic, myself...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that copyright is a complicated concept for people to grasp, but you absolutely can not go to Gamespot and copy their screenshots for insertion in this site unless Gamespot explicitly gives permission for their screen shots to be republished on another site and or released their photography to the public domain. Furthermore, gameplay screenshots are copyright to the photographer or the company that commissioned the work for hire as they are an original work of art. It works like this:

The content of the photo may be subject to copyrights related to the person or item being photographed.
If that photo is taken for commercial publication then you must have the permission of the copyright owner to reproduce the photo (eg... the Eiffel tower at night).
Exception, for instance if the photograph of the person/item is illustrative for review purposes (ie, the photo is ancillary to the use and not the focus of the work), then as the photographer/publisher of that photograph, you do not have to have permission of the copyright holder or the person/item being photographed to publish the your photo. But this only applies to the original photographer/publisher.
Additionally, the photo itself (NOT IT'S CONTENTS!) is an original work that is copyright the photographer/publisher.
In order to reprint this photograph in any manner, you MUST get permission of the copyright holder of the photograph.

Beyond that, IF you have a photograph in a publication that you wish to republish for commercial purposes, you will have to negotiate copyrights with BOTH the photographer and the owner of the thing photographed.BcRIPster (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, we've made this trip before. Please review these three links in order.BcRIPster (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My response to Gears of War comments: I think it's a bit rude to assume people are lazy because they put requests up, instead of finding a photo themselves. Seeing as how Wikipedia is volunteer work, forcing people to place images is unreasonable. Not everyone has the time to just put an image up right away. Putting a request on the talk page is perfectly fine. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this notion. My comment was more to address the blatant call by Gears of War to violate copyright, and I wanted to shut that down right away.BcRIPster (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Gears of War did not mean to be rude in their comments. Trying to find ways to improve and streamline the system is something a lot of us think about. But given the tricky nature of fair use content, it is probably best to leave adding images to more experienced editors. There is already a great deal of pressure to follow Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines, no need to pile onto it. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
It's funny how I go from trying to give advice to being thought of as someone trying to force someone to work for free. Thats amazing. Thats not my point. Im not being rude. I not trying to force anyone into forced labor, and I AM NOT BEING SARCASTIC. I dead serious. One should do their part and have enough sense not to say "Oh well I'll just let somebody else do that." And if anyone has a problem with my suggestions why am I on Wikipedia? To watch things go the wrong way? No. I am here to improve and so are others so they should do what the can.Gears Of War 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it was a valid idea : ) Evaunit♥666♥ 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You'v answered your own question there. People should "do what the can", most people do, and not everyone knows how to upload images etc. John.n-IRL 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Then we should teach them John.Gears Of War 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(un-indent) Gears, the reasoning behind your proposal is sound, however, the practical applications are not always so easy. Unfortunately, given the nature of how discussions are facilitated here, I don't think very much teaching could take place. Not to say I disagree with your statement to teach editors how to be better editors. It's the only way to really ensure continual quality.
Unfortunately, teaching is more than just informing people "what to do" and/or "how to do it". If someone doesn't want or care to learn something, they won't. And a lot of editors fall into that either because of personal opinions, real-life commitments, or various other reasons. The best we can do here is provide resources that serve as a guide for those that are interested. Stuff like the writing guide, the newsletter, the source list, etc. And even then there's no guarantee someone will fully pick up the lesson.
Considering you have the best intentions with your proposal, you were met with harsher feedback than you should have been. But the other editors did bring up valid reasons of opposition. We have to have a system that can cater to the "casual" editor as well as the "hardcore" editor. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC))
This whole discussion is a good lesson in WP:AGF on both sides. I'll address both sides in order:
Gears of War: While I believe you had the best of intentions with this proposal, I think you might have assigned a bit of bad faith to the common editor. Most people on Wikipedia are more likely to be interested in (and/or able to) ONLY help out with text. Considering that text comprises 99% of the content here, it makes sense. I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with someone starting an article without any images, and letting others who are more able and/or qualified to add fair-use images to do so. Your proposal seemed to indicate that people would deliberately make the process more difficult for everyone by just starting articles without including images. I disagree, sir, but I do understand where you're coming from.
Others: As Guyinblack pointed out, I think your responses were a bit harsh, perhaps to the point where you came across as assuming that Gears was acting in bad faith. I did see a lot of positive reinforcement as well, so that's good, but there was probably a little more knee-jerk here than there really needed to be. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You probably have a point. It's easy to forget sometimes that not everyone has been following some of these conversations and may be new to the environment. :)BcRIPster (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Niko's nationality

There's been an awful lot of edit conflicts over Niko Bellic's (Grand Theft Auto IV) nationality (Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV#Niko.27s Nationality and Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV#Niko.27s nationality). While there are a handful of sources who say he's Serbian, it's very likely they just fed off eachother (the way they all fed off eachother to call Niko "Nikolai" when this was just Tom Goldberg being pretentious) and this was just an initial speculatory statement somewhere (would be tough to nail it down). Anyhow, it's pretty clear that Rockstar's intent was for Niko to be from "Anywhere, Eastern Europe" the same way the antagonists of COD4 are from "Somewhere, Middle East". Can we quash the edit conflicts with a ruling that he's from Eastern Europe, or do we have to bow to the shaky sources that say he's Serbian? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well they actually say "Serbian" in the game a couple minutes into the intro animation, the actual game dialog does not seem like a "shaky" source of information. They also speak a Serbian dialect. --8bitJake (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll start a new game this evening and take a look, I don't remember that, but a direct quote from in-game would go a long way to stopping all the edit-warring. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It’s also made the Lamest Edit War list Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Ethnic_feuds --8bitJake (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

heh. For the record, I have no preference one way or the other, just getting tired of reverting. I say we fixed-wing aircraft it with Eastern European. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes me wonder why I placed it on-hold at GAN instead of failing it for instability. Oh well...Gazimoff WriteRead 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
But we have no evidence he is Eastern European either. He could (in theory) be from any country (with or without eastern european heritage). John Hayestalk 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
oh, but we do good sir [1]. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Placement of requirements template

Anyone care to give pointers or propose a guideline on how to place a {{VG Requirements}} template? Right now it seems to be inserted in random sections depending on which one suffers the least from having a huge box in it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think it's best in the Development section; if there is a specific section on system requirements discussion it should line up with that, otherwise, just inside the Dev section. --MASEM 13:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter update: 3rd issue

FYI- The second issue looked to be a success; no problems were encountered and readership has increased. The readership list is now at 61 and seems to be growing steadily. Discussion for improvements and suggestions for the next newsletter can be found here. Please feel free to voice your opinion. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

One suggestion... (re: reliable sources)

I've been watching FAs recently, and with a couple I had and some others, I've gotten an idea: we should make sure that we provide sources for our own "sources" list as to make sure it is clear why we have selected such sources as being reliable. A few FA reviewers have (completely appropriately) asked why certain gaming specific sites are reliable, which of course requires answering. As opposed to re-iterating the answers, if we explain why those sources have been picked as such or if there are certain flags to watch for on that page, we only have to point once to the sources list every time it comes up instead of rehashing the arguments over and over again. (See the current review of the Orange Box for an example of what I'm talking about). --MASEM 23:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

After a few of the comments here, I'm not so sure it's "completely appropriately" rather than partially "anything I can find to shoot down a VG FAC", but this is a good suggestion none the less. Anomie⚔ 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think doing this is a good idea, not only for FAC reviewers but also internally for our own editors. Looking over the list I see several sources that I don't even recognize and some that I would have expected but are missing from the list. A bit of justification for selecting these sources would help to establish the credibility of this list. Conversely, I think there should also be a list of popular, well-known sources that fail reliability, so that people who are left wondering can read an explanation for that as well. This would also provide contrast to better illustrate the difference between reliable and non-reliable sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I support this. However, what would be the criteria for "reliable sources"? In the FACs, it seems (for 100% reliability) that you would have to prove that the sites have processes in place to ensure they are reliable. Simply stating or giving instances for "they are widely quoted", "they cover a lot of things mainstream do not that turn out to be true", "they reported this earlier than IGN or GameSpot", etc, would not cut it. There is also special dispensation for blogs like Kotaku; only certain of its writers are judged to be reliable, the others are unreliable. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I support the proposal to compile an "approved list". Unfortunately there are no easy criteria for reliability. Summary of comments I've posted elsewhere:
  • The good blogs and forums are more reliable sources than the big name online mags - see Why video game reviews suck: part one, Why Videogame Journalism Sucks. I recently found a serious error in PC Retroview: Master of Orion II, written by a games journalist who's usually very good (Tom Chick has been a lead reviewer for the nearest thing I know of to a peer-reviewed games mag, Quarter to Three).
  • Conversely, some of the most respected commentary comes from self-published sources, see for example Why No Lester Bangs of Gaming?
  • One excellent blog I discovered recently is Tea Leaves. Its authors are experienced computer system designers / developers, know a lot about the theory and practice of UI design (one article cited Donald Norman's book The Design of Everyday Things while commenting on the UI of a game), and know the history of computer games better than most reviewers on big-name mags.
  • Some of the fan sites are run by people who've played the relevant games for many years and are the world's leading experts on them, for example Master of Orion II Online.
I can only suggest that a review process would be useful, and a "recall" procedure in case a previously good site goes bad or simply goes off-line. That means we'd need to select reviewers. Easy enough for fan sites, which are usually about a handful of games. Wider-ranging blogs (like Tealeaves) would probably require review by a group of editors who between them have good knowledge of the games or genres covered.
And of course for blogs only the "articles" should be eligible for citation, not readers' comments. Philcha (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm definitely interested to hear a proposal how to use forum posts and user generated reviews without opening the floodgates to bad information. I know there's some good stuff out there, but it's only if you dig through lots of rumor, bias, and opinion. I'm not sure we can come up with a workable standard, and having a bureaucracy to approve each post on a case by case basis could be even more difficult. Randomran (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
@OP Please don't. User:Krator (t c) 09:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
On how to open user reviews ...without opening the floodgates, I'm not sure you can. For Joystiq and Kotaku, who are usually just parroting sources with little synthesis, we have to prove that the writer has been published elsewhere in notable places (not too hard, but it takes time and I suggest every person who is going to take an article to FAC write out their defence of such sources as the FAC is opened rightaway.) But letting in forum sources and user reviews is just bad, especially since I've most often seen them used as edit warring tools ("see, the users say this game sucks, so we should include that.") If our null hypothesis is that these sources are generally not notable, it's better to err on the side of caution and commit Type II errors rather than let crap sources in. We already make exceptions for self-published content which must be specially defended (i.e., developer forum posts, as long as they can be authenticated.) I don't think we should open them more wide, regardless of what some writers say about the merits of the industry's news. We are not the ones to decide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above on forum posts and really in the end on user reviews: it's just not as reliable. People on Capcom's forum for example, even the staff, will shout to death that Akuma is in Street Fighter IV, though their only proof to back up such a statement is that artwork was shown early on for him. Which anyone who follows game design will know, artwork does not equate to a finished deal. As for Joystiq and Kotaku I think would be better off decided overall "are they legit references or not", because if we make it situational, then such references will be just ripped apart by any FA reviewer looking for an excuse to shoot an article down (and while assuming good faith, we all know such people exist). Either they're reliable sources, or they're not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Correcting something I said above after thinking in note of Kotaku, given how it is, if we do handle it situational, it would be best to sort out which editors are reliable and which are not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Game producer Firaxis hired the prolific self-published writer "Sirian" to help them balance Civ IV (Bob "Sirian" Thomas). Earlier, Blizzard Entertainment hired self-published writer and frequent Starcraft tournament winner "Zileas" (Tom Cadwell) to work on WarCraft III (E.g. An old article involving Zileas. Also see his resumê at Ethermoon Entertainment - Tom "Zileas" Cadwell. His article "True Cost of Peons" is a classic). These companies were willing to bet $$$ on top self-published writers.
I support Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' proposal "I suggest every person who is going to take an article to FAC write out their defence of such sources as the FAC is opened rightaway". It could do the job without the need to set up a bureaucracy and or set excessively rigid criteria (such as "have processes in place to ensure they are reliable" or "have been published elsewhere"). I'd like to see it applied to lower-level reviews and then "bubbled" upwards.
Re "have processes in place to ensure they are reliable", I'm afraid that's worthless. I'm a retired computer consultant and have seen too many organizations that have impressive-looking standards manuals but mess up projects because people don't understand the manuals, the standards themselves are flawed, political pressures force people to take short-cuts, etc., etc. There is no way we can analyse the details of a publisher's standards / procedures or check that they are being applied effectively. Philcha (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well just to bring it up, even with just defense, it's not enough for some people: you have folks on WP that do things "by the book" and will throw anti-blog rules back in the face of reason simply because that's what the guidelines say. And that's really troubling given you can have a subject that has plenty of online coverage by citable places by what we're defining here, yet be torn apart by one guideline.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The current consensus on our project standards is that user-generated reviews are a no-no. That seems to be compliant with the overall wikipedia policy on self-published sources. How do people feel about that? Randomran (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Kung Fu Man's concerns are real, we have enough barrack-room lawyers who can't think of anything constructive to to do (remember the 4X notability debate?). See item 3, which may provide a way to deal with them.
  2. Re Randomran's comments: we appear to be discussing a new development in current consensus on our project standards. Can you please explain what you mean by "user-generated reviews". I'd oppose using reader's comments on "good" blog postings (see above), but there are some aspects of games, e.g. mods, where user-generated comment would be the only likely source. To take a well-known example, Total Annihilation was designed to be mod-friendly and some mods are well-known both in their own right and as bases for many other mods - Ůberhack and Absolute Annihilation are prominent examples. So if someone wanted to extend the Total Annihilation article by commenting on these points, they would probably have to cite user-generated comments. To take another example, a group of highly competent enthusiasts has produced a patch, mods and a strategy guide for Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares.
  3. As a result of a current ArbCom case there's a move to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Sourcing_Adjudication_Board. I suspect they would welcome a similar initiative at Wikiproject level. Potential participants for WikiProject Video games should get in touch. In fact I think we should get in touch a.s.a.p. to prevent the Sourcing Adjudication Board from being taken over by barrack-room lawyers. I have not yet posted about our discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Sourcing_Adjudication_Boardl. When would be a good time?
  4. Ham Pastrami's suggested "blacklist" and "whitelist" of user-generated sources would be a good idea. If implemented, links to it should be included in the template for Talk pages. I suggest it should be protected to some extent, so that fan-boys, POV-pushers and all the other nuisances cannot manipulate it. Philcha (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
To touch on some of the above, especially [[User:Philcha|Philcha]'s comments: no one is stating that some self-published sources are fine, but reviewers at FAC are going to notice them and wonder what makes them notable; these sources should be from people who are "experts" in the sense of context; i.e., the guy who worked with Blizzard. They can only be used for statements in their expertise and should only be used on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, lots of borderline sources must be individually justified, and we're better off leaving it that way than to increase our chances of letting through crap by trying to make hard and fast rules on a slippery subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How will we know they have been individually justified? Will we have to weed through the talk page? I think it would be much more efficient if we could include something in the actual citation template / reference itself. For example, Soren Johnson (formerly Firaxis, now Maxis) has a blog and somewhere in the citation of his blog it would be useful to have a "reference for the reference". A "meta-reference" that establishes that the reference to his blog reliable, such as a link to someone who can verify that they are an employee or what not. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point about how to establish Soren Johnson's credibility. We also need a "whitelist" of approved common methods.
Randomran's citation template add-on should be a link to the Wikiproject or other page where a source is accepted. We probably also need a template for the acceptance / rejection, so that a bot can check for de-listed sources. I expect its mechanics would be similar to that of the "non-free use rationale missing" bot.
Beyond that I agree with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's "lots of borderline sources must be individually justified, and we're better off leaving it that way than to increase our chances of letting through crap by trying to make hard and fast rules on a slippery subject" and would add that hard and fast rules would also exclude good content. Philcha (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02 on all of this, conveniently divided for easy replying:

  • Regarding this proposed "Sourcing Adjudication Board", the Arbcom proposal clearly intends this as a group created specifically for homeopathy articles. There is no way a general Board could be created that meets the requirements called for—it would have to be a number of topic-specific Boards as it calls for members to be "credentialed experts" in the topic. That's not to say we couldn't create our own VG-specific Board before someone tries to do it for us. Anomie⚔ 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding some of the situations mentioned above where the only sources are created by extremely knowledgeable amateurs, I completely agree. If we would create our own VG Sourcing Board, part of their mandate could be to determine whether someone qualifies as an expert in some corner of video gaming. Anomie⚔ 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding forum posts and blog comments not by a verified expert, I agree with those who say "NO!" (although I have managed to fine one specific circumstance where citing a 100+ post forum topic worked). Regarding user-submitted reviews, unless we can determine that something like this is the case I again agree "NO!". Anomie⚔ 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding what to do about these FAC complainers, IMO the best thing to do is gather our findings on WP:VG/S#List. Each entry should have a footnote, which could be as simple as "Professionally published gaming magazine." or a link to the "VG Sourcing Board" debate, or as complex as "Kotaku is conditionally reliable. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Kotaku for details." with the wikilinked subpage explaining exactly under what conditions a Kotaku article is reliable and if necessary explicitly listing the reliable authors with their own footnotes. I oppose trying to include this information somehow in the <ref> in the article, that would be unencyclopedic and unwieldy. Anomie⚔ 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't want a link to the "approved / not approved" status to be visible in the "References" section of an article. I menat we should provide an automatable mechanism, because the volume of "whitelist" and "blacklist" entries is potentially large. Philcha (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If really necessary, I could go through my FACs where I showed Joystiq and Kotaku authors were reliable and add those to the sources page, so at the very least those authors, whereever they are encountered, can be relied on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to reliable resources?

It sounds to me like the most commonly suggested change is no change. That is, we have a finite list of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources and otherwise rely upon the general rule against self-published sources. I might propose, however, that we amend the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources to include a few more borderline cases that a strong wikipedia editor has verified. Randomran (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help with Team Fortress Classic sourcing

As you probably know from a thread above, I've got myself roped into cleaning up Team Fortress Classic. However, I really need some additional help with sourcing - I can't find reviews, or much in the way of development information. The standard places, GameSpot, IGN, GamePro, etc, simply do not give the game any proper reviews, probably as it started life out as a mod before becoming an independent product. IGN does provide a few previews, but nothing truely useful, and GameSpy has this for development, but beyond that I'm really struggling. I would appreciate some help with trying to find relevant sources, otherwise I'm simply not going to be able to construct the reception or development sections properly.

In addition, I'd also greatly appreciate it if someone could run a copyedit on the gameplay section, just to make sure everything is coherent. -- Sabre (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? I really can't do this without help. -- Sabre (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did some searching. Be sure to distinguish Team Fortress Classic the remake from the original quake mod Team Fortress. That said, I found some sources on the valve remake. A Gamespot Gameguide, probably won't help you for development or reception. A preview from IGN, but again likely the same problems. This preview suggests that they were adding specific features for the game, however. This refreshes my memory that valve was working on "Team Fortress 2" for a while and we ended up getting TFC instead of TF2. This reference reinforces that "TFC" was really a stopgap release to tide people over until TF2. This review of TF2 makes a comparison to TFC, which was foremost designed by modmakers and so it reflects that "hardcore" sensibility. This is another TF2 review, which looks back at TFC in retrospect and calls it "compelling team-focused online play. That's really scrounging and you probably already turned up a few of those. But sometimes you have to find a nugget within a semi-related article when you can't find an ideal source. Keep in mind that reviews might be minimal because it really was just a port of the original Team Fortress quake mod. Randomran (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, this should help with the development section. I'm at a loss at what to do for a reception section, the since reviews are so thin. GameSpot's got a bunch of review scores, including a few magazine scores, but all of their external online reviews are dead, so just sticking {{VG Reviews}} on an empty section is no good. Guess it'll have to rely on its development section: there's certainly enough reliable sources covering the subject - although not reviewing it - to show notability. -- Sabre (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's something that will validate that it is almost as popular as counterstrike: [2] And here's another article that talks about the chain from the mod, to TFC, to TF2... otherwise, the reception is one of those things that is carried in the hearts of those who loved it, rather than reviewer. That's the tough thing about mods. Good luck with this difficult topic. If you think this is hard, try referencing one of the video game genres articles. Randomran (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Game Invasion

Doesn't it seem wierd that theres not a Game Invasion article on wikipedia. See http://gameinvasion.comcast.net/gameinvasion/ Gears Of War 03:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Who to the what now? Nifboy (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nifboy, why did you even post? That post wasn't helpful to this section. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he was saying he's never heard of "Game Invasion". (Referencing his edit summary.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The way the original question was phrased makes it seem like I should have heard of what seems to be yet another news/media content aggregator; I was hoping for some additional context and/or information about why it would be weird we don't have an article or any kind of article history for the site. Nifboy (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the site. I think that if there's enough to make it comply with WP:N, you should consider creating the article yourself. :) Anyone can do that - just keep in mind that if it doesn't contain an assertion of notability, it may be speedily deleted. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have heard of Game Invasion. It's a On Demand show. And why is it that everytime a leave a message it is recived so negativly. Game Invasion is a show that shows featured previews, first looks, and the first 15 minutes of anticipated video games. Check out the site, it would make for a good article.Gears Of War 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

game articles

I have a question about the game articles. why is it that for some games there are articles for the hand-held version and the version that was released on other games. for example look at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (handheld game) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 video game). they are same games developed by same companies, so why are their two different articles for them? --Gman124 talk 05:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because someone hasn't bothered to merge them together (wink, wink, grin).BcRIPster (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing in the (handheld game) article worth keeping, other than the fact the game is on the GameBoy as well. I'd go ahead and just redirect it. Except, redirect it to a general TMNT series article because (handheld game) could mean any such title. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Being a handheld game doesn't necessarily mean that it must be merged. Take Over the Hedge (handheld game), for instance. It got its own article because it had a different developer, reception, development history, plot, and gameplay. In the case of this, however, the handheld version of the game does not really require its own article, as it didn't receive much of a different reception, was developed by the same people, same development history, and same plot. The only thing unique is the gameplay, but a switch from 3D to 2D is hardly worth a separate article for.
Just saying, be careful what you merge, do some reading on the subject first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that handheld games must be merged. Also, why do you assume that we are not already familiar with the subject matter and the implications of merging the articles? I will thank you not to imply that other people's rationale for recommending a merge is somehow inferior to your own. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll thank you to stop trying to instigate a flame war. I wasn't speaking to you, so why is your mouth flapping? God forbid that I'm speaking to the guy who said that the article should be merged because it's a handheld game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
His mouth is flapping because your post is indented as a reply to his. Bridies (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't there be a section for plot differences between the two versions, and still keep both articles on same page? I think that would be better than having two stub articles. Gman124 talk 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
-Not trying to sound preachy, but... We just had a slight butting of heads above from minor misunderstandings and assumptions, there's no need for another. Remember to assume good faith and that text does not always convey the writer's intended tone and message; something we've all experienced every now and then. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Weapons of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault

Should this article, which seems to fail WP:GAMETRIVIA, be PROD'ed or just taken to AFD? --Silver Edge (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say PROD just to give the benefit of the doubt, the more aggressively we push deletion for such things the more opposition we'll encounter. No need to be too aggressive, especially if a strong case can be made against it. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC))
Sometimes a PROD is actually a fair way to warn someone. This warning can save a lot of effort, since it may allow someone to assert a solid rationale for keeping the article. An AFD takes a lot of discussion and is worth avoiding. But if the PROD is contested by someone who doesn't understand policy (as it usually is), you do what you gotta do. Randomran (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Usually, a prod is good as a first step. Do apply reason, however: this is a newly created article that has 0% chance of ever being kept at AFD. Prod is likely to be removed, so just AFD. User:Krator (t c) 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GT Cube

GT Cube currently re-directs to GT Pro Series. The game was a rather minor Japanese-only release, and was in many regards the same game as GT Pro Series for the Wii. However, they're still two very seperate games, released at very different times (unlike many multi-platform releases), and GT Cube remained Japan-exclusive for its entire release. I'd like to know whether the consensus found here should hold up (the argument against it was rather weak, with only one guy for its defense), and whether I should create a seperate infobox for GT Cube in the article if they are to remain merged. -- Nomader (Talk) 21:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New disambig conventions suggested

Basically, I want (video game), (handheld game), (#### video game), etc. to take precedence over stuff like (PlayStation 2) or (Game Boy Advance) if necessary. What does everyone think? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but do we need to use year disambigs for original games if there are games with the same name? Film articles use them sometimes like King Kong (1933 film) and The Amityville Horror (1979 film) but video games do not at the moment. --Mika1h (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's necessary, having a game with a year disambig is the right idea. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the handheld game stuff, but I think stuff like (PlayStation 2) should be preferred to (video game). Technically video game also includes handheld games. Kariteh (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(video game) is for the purpose of the "most vague disambig". It would basically go like (using, say, The Legend of Zelda as an example):
No disambig - "The Legend of Zelda"
Lowest disambig - "The Legend of Zelda (video game)"
If there's a handheld game by the same title that warrants an article, it gets split off as "The Legend of Zelda (handheld game)"
If a game features the same title and is a console game, call it "The Legend of Zelda (2008 video game)" (for instance)
If a handheld game features the same title, call it "The Legend of Zelda (2008 handheld game)" - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This makes sense as I think it presents the names in a more generic format that would better suit a general reader. Though personally, I think using the specific system names leave less room for error. Like if a game is released on two different handheld systems in the same year and are different enough to warrant separate articles. Though that would probably be a rare occurrence. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC))
The year is almost certainly better than the console when standing by itself, particularly in the current era of multi-console releases. Hence, I think Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) is a solid naming choice, while Ninja Gaiden II (Xbox 360 Game) is poor. So agree with A Link to the Past. --Slordak (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
So just to be clear, should we use Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game) rather than the current title Ninja Gaiden (video game)? --Mika1h (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that's what the proposal would call for (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, the film naming conventions does the same thing. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC))
I think we should be most simple except as required. No need to give the year when it's not required. and I'm moving Ninja Gaiden II (wherever the heck it is right now) to Ninja Gaiden II. I agree that the platform should not be used to disambig (unless absolutely necessary), because you never know when it might get ported somewhere else (see BioShock, for example). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, though in this case there are two games called Ninja Gaiden II, so I think having one of them titled Ninja Gaiden II is a bad idea. Instead I think Ninja Gaiden II should be a disambiguation page or redirect to the more popular of the two. (Just a note, Ninja Gaiden II is currently a double redirect.) Do we need Ninja Gaiden II (disambiguation)? I also agree that years are better to use than platforms since many games come out for multiple systems. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
All depends on consensus - year disambigs shouldn't always be used. If enough people decide that the original Ninja Gaiden deserves to have (video game) on it, it would be so. Personally, I think the original game warrants it - it's plenty notable, and while the Xbox game is pretty notable, I don't think it is so notable that the original game shouldn't use (video game). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick thought. Films are films are films, while video games have many different mediums. You can watch Gone With the Wind just as easily with the same equipment as Enchanted. So taking their naming conventions head on isn't necessarily the best idea. What DOES need to be done, though, is make sure to not give precedence of a newer or bigger title over another if they share a same name but are completely unrelated(which occasionally happens) -- unless the bigger one would naturually be the main page (as per normal disambig rules). I can't think of any off hand, but I know they are out there... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but I'm sure if you ask some people, they'll say that video games are video games are video games. They may look at arcade games as theatrical releases, Genesis games as BetaMax, SNES games as VHS, N64 games as Laser discs, PS1 games as VCDs, Xbox games as DVDs, and PS3 games as BluRays. All the same type of media (video games), just on different formats. I think forgoing system names simplifies things better for a general reader.
And I do agree that undue weight should not be given to newer games and such practices should be monitored/controlled. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC))
I follow similar principles as above, if there are two games of the same name, then I will dismabig by year first and then probably by system if they appeared in the same year. I don't think that the rule is steadfast though, just looking at the Ninja Gaiden disambig page, I think going by the year of release would actually make those games harder to follow. Ninja Gaiden (Master System) -> Ninja Gaiden (1992 video game)? Ninja Gaiden (Game Gear) -> Ninja Gaiden (1991 video game)? - hahnchen 17:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this makes the most sense. Most people think about a game for a specific system, not a game from a specific year. Use the system whenever possible, and the year (or something else) if the game came out for multiple systems. Randomran (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider Ninja Gaiden is all one series, so disambig by platform makes a bit more sense than if they were unrelated. In my opinion anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely prefer disambiguation by platform. The TV disambig ("film year") is more appropriate than you (would) think to support this thought. The TV is just another form of media - ie, "platform", while the year is only included in films which have multiple years of release, such as remakes or same-titled films. If I were to have a tree of disambiguations, I'd disambig by using (video game), then by platform (Game Boy), then by year (Game Boy 1993). Just my opinion of course. --Izno (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking from a reader perspective, I'm much more like to Google "Ninja Gaiden <platform>" than "Ninja Gaiden <year>". I think disambiguating by year should be a last resort when there were multiple Game Boy games released with that title in different years. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with keeping them disambiguated by system. Years are not a method by which readers would naturally disambiguate at all. The only case I can think of where a year would be desirable would be when a game is released on multiple platforms one year and a game of the same name has previously been released. --- RockMFR 04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, should disambiguated handheld games use: 1/ (handheld game) or the name of the platform name if there are multiple handheld versions, or 2/ only the platform name, even if there is only one handheld version? Kariteh (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Game Boy 1993"? That sounds terribly unnatural. There's no reason to not use similar disambig to films, and (#### film) is usable whenever appropriate, and whenever appropriate is not necessarily "that one situation". - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I in?

Am I in the Wikiproject?

From ROGUEMADNESS!! 07:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You found us. Welcome! Randomran (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Input for another suggested infobox change

Editors have found a way to include collapsible sections inside of infoboxes and while this can be done manually for any VG infobox, I propose a backwards-compatible change to include this for release dates (requiring the editor to set the date of first release to have it on). I haven't made any changes to the template, but you can see how this could work at the Portal (video game) infobox.

Please leave comments here. --MASEM 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed: Director's Cut

Can someone make a Assassin's Creed: Director's Cut, i dont have time and it would make a great article.Gears Of War 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This type of article is rarely done; a director's cut or limited edition is generally included as part of the original game (in this case Assassin's Creed). --MASEM 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
But the Directors Cut is a completely different game.Gears Of War 22:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Come here and you'll se what I mean.Gears Of War 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's the same core game and content with additional content not present in the original game. This can be summarized in a section of the main game article. --MASEM 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, we have a mechanism for requesting new articles. See the front page of the project. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Crackdown copyedit again needed (for fac)

I know I've asked for help before and got it from a few, but I need someone fresh that hasn't really helped with Crackdown to go through and copyedit it. I'm too close to it to see everything, and despit the pre-FAC copyedit help, I'm still getting comments that seem to be more than just small typos. I've dropped a request at the League of Copyeditors but they seem rather behind. --MASEM 16:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the navbox since the template was deleted after Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 15#Template:Realtime Worlds games (a template with two entries is not necessary). Kariteh (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree a template is unnecessary (I was the nom, after all) but imo the navbox is useful and should remain. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, sorry, I didn't notice the huge difference. Kariteh (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries, if anyone else thinks they shouldn't be there, then by all means, remove them if I'm in the minority opinion. Good work removing the v.d.e. links. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's worth having a navbox, then it's worth having the template. I think the current method doesn't make much sense. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-24 19:31
imo, a template would be necessary if this navbox was used on a great number of pages and/or was expected to change on a regular basis. since neither of these hold true, the pasted code is presently sufficient. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
How incredibly amusing. Someone who thinks VG FACs are a "blight on the FAC process" has posted a criticism based in part on standard modern English's lack of a dedicated gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. I think I'll just stay out of this one, since I can't WP:AGF there. Anomie⚔ 19:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Man that reeks of elitism. I think the most annoying part of that conversation is the constantly repeated line "the standards should be improved" but no definite examples or assistance. Just "we don't like it, fix it would you?" Compounding it is somewhat ignorance over the fact that of course any video game project member here will see an article like this, and will most likely offer their input on it before anyone browsing through a list of FAC's probably will: we have the ones specific to our project in our faces for crying out loud. Sadly...I get the feeling arguing either factor would fall on deaf ears.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting the feeling that what Crackdown is getting in FAC is a result of all the other VG issues that occurred earlier this month (I will note Crackdown was on the FAC before that point, but not mentioned in the list of questionable VGs.) Part of the problem here is that when we get to this point to the FAC that generally the biggest problem is copyediting, but we call among ourselves to do the job. (I'll note that at least 4 different editors helped on my original request but all ties to WP:VG). The League of Copyeditors (a WP project) seems to be dead, so there's no one to turn to outside of the project to help. I completely agree that FAC should not be where major rewrites take place, but on the other hand, editors will find things in the wider reviews that others do not pick up. This is problem that won't be solved just by working with another WP (like Milhist) but instead likely points to either: prose needs to be close but can easily be improved during FAC, or that we need a better dedicated group of copyeditors WP-wide to turn to. --MASEM 14:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Video game articles get a bad rap because, admittedly, a lot of them are cruft. I think it's pretty lousy that a few sloppier editors have to mess it up for the rest of us. That said, it's unfair for us to be judged by the sins of our peers. Try to ignore these comments and improve each article one by one. That's all we can do. Randomran (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I happened to check this history on the FAC page; does anyone else find this edit summary disturbing? Anomie⚔ 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just plain insulting. -- Sabre (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Colm isn't holding back too—whatever happened to building rapport with the nominator? I don't know, maybe the Simon Cowells of FAC are competing for the wittiest criticisms. What both of them are saying is totally valid and their opposition is well-based, but a bit of Wikipedia: Etiquette wouldn't go amiss. With all due respect, these are supposed to be some of the most well respected members on the site too. All this achieves is bringing down the nominator. I guess WP:VG has been having a difficult time at FAC lately... Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to assume some good faith here. Let's take a step back from pointing at specific people and try to edit the article in question, and then ask those who opposed now if there's a possibility of changing their already expressed opinions. If, on the other hand, this "anti video game" mentality becomes something of a trend exhibited by the same people over a longer period of time, we'll have to have a chat about it with those concerned. Please keep the project informed on this talk page, having a fight with people at WP:FAC is a very bad thing. User:Krator (t c) 19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Best places to look for merchandise/toy reviews?

Alright, I'm in the midst of cleaning up the article on Vortigaunts (I seem to be jumping everywhere with Valve topics at the moment), and I'm trying to put together the section on merchandising. As there's not really much to say simply on the toy itself (designed, manufactured, distributed and sold all by Valve), some reviews of the toy would be handy to help put the toy together. Anyone got any suggestions for where to look for said reviews? I imagine that they're out there somewhere, the toy was only released in '06. -- Sabre (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Forgive the semi-hijack, but this seems a bit related: should Merchandising info be put in the same category as reception, as seen in articles like Cloud Strife, under its own header, or in the Other Appearances category? I've been curious about that since S@bre brings up the good point toys will sometimes have their own reception points, and the items themselves do seem to have some weight on a character's overall reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To respond to Sabre: no clue. To respond to Kung Fu Man: Generally I've seen the sections as Critical impact, with merchandise and reception two subsections below that. They do have weight on reception, but generally not only the character's main apparence in video games, so segregating that is not an issue (see Elite (Halo), where the model's concerns are noted in a different section.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, without knowing where to look, I've only come across this video review, could I use that? Basic jist of the review is well-detailed and constructed, unlikely to fall apart, that sort of stuff. Of course, any clearly reliable outlets where I might be able to search for reviews that anyone knows about would be useful—even if they don't turn out any results for this, they're useful to know for future reference. -- Sabre (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can justify the source as reliable, you should be able to use it. I'll take a look through ProQuest when I have time and see if I can find stuff, but it's unlikely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Games timeline

Board and Card Games Timeline omits a lot (almost all those used in the "History" section of [4X]!) but may be useful for others tracing the history of various game genres. E.g. Tactics II seems to have been the "first influential commercial wargame." Philcha (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just found Timeline: Video Games Philcha (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Weapons discussion in Guidelines

Just a heads-up to the broader audience, there is a consensus discussion going on in Guidelines Talk regarding whether lists of weapons are appropriate in game articles. Please join in the discussion there. (Synopsis: The current consensus is that lists of weapons are not suitable content for Wikipedia articles. This consensus is being challenged.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Individual Baldur's Gate Character Articles

I'm a big fan of the game. But I'm looking at these articles and thinking they're gonna have a hard time meeting notability requirements. They've been tagged for a long time and still no notability has been asserted:

On the other hand, Minsc has done a good job decent attempt of meeting notability requirements. I'm curious to hear what other people have to say of these articles, as I don't think I can provide an objective assessment. I can't say I've been able to find anything on google, but I was wondering if anybody could give it a shot. Randomran (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no familiarity with the series, so I looked through all the articles. I also checked Google and off the bat and I didn't find too many articles on any of the characters. Could it be best if a "List of characters" page were created instead? -- Nomader (Talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, all of them should definitely be merged. Minsc only has the one small note at this point, so that's nothing that couldn't fit on a list. If you believe there is potential in it, I suggest gutting it, adding blank concept and reception sections, and going from there. Otherwise, merging is definitely the best option. TTN (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If a merge is the best option... could someone try to take this on? My plate is a little full right now. You will be showered with flowers and candy* if you do. (*At least that's what I heard.) Randomran (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Minsc is really the only one I can think of from all of them worth salvaging that you can make a decent article out of, but the article in it's current form needs a complete overhaul. Unlike TTN above I am familiar with the characters...and really none of them need articles. Firkraag is basically just a big dragon, Edwin's an asshole mage that bugs the party and turns into a busty broad twice, leading to slapstick. Irenicus and Sarevok end up retellings of the plot of their home games more or less (even though Sarevok joins you in the second game, he's more or less just a party member). Wouldn't even bother with a list: all it does is retell the game plots and a few optional events.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also familiar with the series and all characters, and agree with Kung Fu Man: Minsc is worth keeping, the rest.. neh. User:Krator (t c) 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, redirected Firkraag and Jon Irenicus to Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, dropped a merge tag on the other two for Baldur's Gate (series) (they're still getting modified it seems, so someone is more likely to either discuss or try to clean it up hopefully), and dropped a cleanup tag on the character list article to see if that does anything there. Let's hope this goes without a hitch.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the lead on this. I did my part by chiming in at the baldur's gate series discussion page. These proposals tend to go over better when backed by several editors with good justification. Randomran (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"when backed by several editors with good justification" That goes without saying ;) This should be the case for any merge discussion. Kariteh (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

toad (nintendo) shoudn't be merged

i suggest that toad (nintendo) shoudn't be merged. Sonicthehedgehog9000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicthehedgehog9000 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why not? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it should be merged because it relies entirely on a single source, the notability of this article's subject is in question, it may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling, and it lacks historical information. Kariteh (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't question notability (going with common sense vs. guideline nitpicking here, he's significant in nintendo titles), but the article is in need of a major overhaul. I'd suggest to anyone interested in keeping it to, for lack of eloquence, get their butts in gear.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Your own personal definition of notability is hardly 'common sense'. Following a guideline is not 'nit-picking'.Bridies (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Toad (Nintendo) Profile from IGN. Bridies (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My "personal definition" is that an article on a notable subject is not always going to have as much coverage as a more popular character (i.e. Toad here vs. Link or Kirby) and that should weigh in, as well as appearances of significance within related media (in Toad's case here, the cartoon and the Wario Woods games). I hardly see how it's not common sense to consider both.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Bridies (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Think of it in the context of "this article needs so-and-so many third party references or it isn't notable because this rule says so", which is something being tossed around frequently in notability arguments, as if it was the only measure of the validity of something on wikipedia. Not saying that isn't important, but shouldn't be the be-all-to-end-all if the subject has strengths in other areas of notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the only measure of notability. Read the guideline. Again, you can have whatever personal definition you want, but it's pretty ridiculous to expect others to go along with that over what's in the guideline. Bridies (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged, but the article needs serious work. I truly believe that there should be enough resources out there in old Nintendo Power magazines or something that someone can use to make this article better... TIM KLOSKE|TALK 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Toad is definitely notable enough to have his own article. A lack of sources is never a reason to delete an article, especially if there can be found several more. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, it is if no sources exist. If it is 'definitely notable', prove the sources exist. Bridies (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Future of Task Forces(part two: Atari)

In archive 41, we talked about sending video game series task forces into whole Publisher task forces. Example: Devil May Cry to Capcom. I would like to request that the actual creators of the task forces would meet here to discuss the issue I talk of in Archive 41.Gears Of War 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Devil May Cry/Capcom

I see, however the DMC task force is covering more than just the video games, we also cover the novels, manga and anime. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point, though you cover more than just the games, are they all not under watch of Capcom.Gears Of War 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Only the novels were losely monitored by Capcom, the other merchandise is published and in most cases written by third parties, they are what some people would consider "non-canon" to the video games. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
okay, a slight set-back. That could be a problem in my vision of future task forces. Any suggestions?Gears Of War 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you have in mind, however from what I have seen "publisher" Task Forces aren't as effective as specific ones, probably due to the huge scope that they cover. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Task forces on specific series tend to operate better (DMC task force, Kingdom Hearts task force, etc.). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think its highly dependent on circumstances-we can't just blanket all series into publisher/developer TFs. StarCraft (if anyone actually joined it) and Warcraft would work well independently of each other. However, a task force for Valve Software would work more efficiently than a task force for Half-Life, a task force for Day of Defeat, etc, as they are all so intricately linked in a way that StarCraft and Warcraft are not. By the way, take that as a proposal to create a Valve Corporation task force. I'll create a draft task force page later. -- 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Rolling up disparate game franchises into a single developer wide task force isn't useful. For example, there is a dedicated core of Final Fantasy fans, which lead to a reasonably prolific run of FF GAs and FAs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy. Yet these editors are not interested as interested in other Square Enix properties without the Final Fantasy name, and so Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix never really took off. - hahnchen 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh?? The Square Enix project has the same numbers of FTs and FAs as the Final Fantasy project, and has only 13 less GAs than it. It's definitely less active than the FF project, but I wouldn't say it "isn't useful", especially considering that it has produced these featured and good contents in a much shorter span of time than the FF project has for theirs. The two projects are equally useful and complementary. Kariteh (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't read it like that. I always saw the FF guys as a dedicated group of editors working together, whereas the FAs in SE were more lone gunman type affairs such as User:Zeality and the Chrono articles. SE just never really seemed that active compared to FF. But I stand by what I said above, you might find a motivated group of editors who like one franchise, they might not care about the rest of the developer's output. - hahnchen 19:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Valve task force

I've shoved up a draft of a task force for the Valve Corporation here. Any thoughts? -- Sabre (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, and this is how I see every new taskforce. As you can see, the Force is more stable that a Half Life Force could be all on it's own. This Force and Atari will be much more stable than the single video game ones.Gears Of War 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks fantastic. It has great scope for a taskforce, with plenty of articles to work with. Go for it! .:Alex:. 15:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Input on Video games notable for negative reception

It came to my attention that the vast majority of entries on the article were not put on it in accordance with the "rules" (that it has to be discussed, that multiple people need to approve, and that it needs to be well-sourced), so I hid them, and am trying to create a discussion for each hidden entry; however, there doesn't seem to be too much activity at the moment, so I would like some people from the VG project to give some extra opinions on each of the games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole concept of the article is flawed. I supported it when it was List of video games considered the worst ever, that was clearly defined, you could only add a game if sources had cited it as the worst game of all time. But then people decided that they wanted to add any game they didn't like, and to do that, they had to change the scope. What does the article name even mean? You could argue that there's an entire shitload of games notable for negative reception, just this current generation, we have Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game), Lair (video game), Haze (video game), Fuzion Frenzy 2, the list goes on. But then you have to argue whether they're notable for their negative reception, or notable regardless of their negative reception. How do you figure that out? - hahnchen 00:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. If a game is highly anticipated and turns out to be a real stinker (e.g., Daikatana), is that more notable than if the game is known to be junk well in advance? Certainly I would expect the vast majority of multi-platform games based on animated movies to be shovelware, and yet this is hardly notable. And yes, the whole thing is vague and ill-defined. --Slordak (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The article in all honesty would be better off reverted back to its original purpose, with better definition as to the criteria for a game to be listed there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this list should be merged with List of commercial failures in video gaming, with a more specific defined criteria for inclusion. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-27 18:12
But bad games are not necessarily commercial failures, and commercial failures aren't necessarily bad games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
List of commercial failures in video gaming includes "commercial failures", whether the games were good or bad. As for bad games, any example of a bad game which wasn't a commercial failure? A sourced example that explicitely says the game sold well (not just more than some other games), of course. Kariteh (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the time to implement a new format into the page (it's on the actual page currently, but I drafted it up at User:Nomader/videogame). I attempted to have every game on the list have at least a source that lists the game specifically as "the worst game ever made" or at least mention that it should be in the running for such a thing. I'd appreciate feedback. -- Nomader (Talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z: Legacy of Goku did very well, but was considered very poor (received a 1 from X-Play, and an average of 2.5 from EGM), selling more than 1.2 million copies regardless. Disney Princess rated less than an average of 5.0 at GR, but sold more than one million in the US on the GBA alone. It's no secret that bad games sell well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

naming problem

Ok, need second opinion here; we've already had three page moves on this, so before resorting to another...

We had Saints Row and Saints Row 2 for the game. Tentimesone wants to create a series page, which is completely fine. However, he believes the series should be at Saints Row, the first game at Saints Row (game), which I've pointed out to him is contrary to standard convention. My impression, back when we set up the naming scheme a while ago, that unless the series itself was the more notable aspect (such as Final Fantasy), the first game should always get priority at the non-disamb named, the series getting second. --MASEM 01:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, as we only have two Saints Row games anyway. Is there much of a need for a series article at all yet?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't argue the need for one (that would make 4 articles, and a point to help prevent duplication of setting and gameplay), I just need to verify that we need consistent naming here. --MASEM 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that (series) should be used most of the time. on this particular example, Saints Row doesn't even need a (series) article. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If a series article is needed it should be at (series). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Series article should be at X(series) with disambig link to game article and vice versa. - X201 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Raccoon City Article Vandalism

I'm have been trying to correct the "destruction" section on the Raccoon City article to include RE4 and what is considered canon to the series. I have provided proof of my reasoning for the use of a nuclear weapon on the talk page. Various people have supported my argument and are working to fix the page, but there are some people who continue to vandalize and revert the page. Could we please get some assistance correcting this issue? Chrono951 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the protection! I greatly appreciate it! 66.82.9.19 (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review template

Shouldn't VG peer reviews use a distinct template instead of a mere line in the Vgproj template? When the Vgproj template is nested in a banner shell, it's impossible for someone looking at the article's talk page to see at first glance that a peer review has been requested. See for instance Talk:Riven. Kariteh (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of banner shells to hide information and save space? User:Krator (t c) 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To hide project imformation. It shouldn't hide things like GAN/PR/FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I don't look through talk pages looking for stuff up for PR; I just go to WP:VG/PR and look through what's there... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the purpose of peer reviews is to get input from a broader group of editors, but if only people who reguarly check WP:VG/PR give their input, it might not be as broad as it could be. It could be useful to have input from users who are not from the video games project, and/or users who stumble on the page and see the link on the talk page. There currently are links on the talk pages, but most of the time the reader has to expand a banner to actually see it. Kariteh (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultima emulators

There's two articles that deal with Ultima emulators:

I have to main concerns with these articles. First is the notability requirement and second is the risk of copyright infringement (or the aiding and abetting thereof). Could someone more well-versed in policy take a look at these? Randomran (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While I confess I may be less experienced than thou in policy and guideline, I'll go by what I know: We are not allowed to link to sites which so blatantly infringe on copyright. This means that we cannot have any self published sources supporting citations nor as external links. So unless there are some reliable secondary sources that establish these as notable...
Yay alphabet soup. I hope that fed your desire for information. =) --Izno (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To add to the above, copyright infringement is no reason to not have an article about something (provided it's notable - we had discussions on notable console modchips). This is the same reason why we have articles on criminals, dictators, genocide, etc. User:Krator (t c) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so these are okay on the copyright front... what about notability? Randomran (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy Question

I have a question about red links. I know that they are officially discouraged on Wikipedia, but beyond that, I know nothing about official policy regarding them. If I see one, am I supposed to remove it, or do something else? If I remove it, and another user makes a good faith edit that puts it back a few days later, what do I do there? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... red links are good, not bad. The idea is that if there's a red link, that means there's an article to be filled in, which someone will eventually fill in. --Izno (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
They are absolutely not "officially discouraged". See WP:REDLINKS for the actual guidelines on when to create/remove them. Note: In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If you see a redlink for what you think could be a notable topic, leave it. If you think the topic has no chance of getting an article in the near future, remove it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this answers my question. It means research, which may have to wait until next week, but it's doable. Thank you. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Valve task force

I've set up the Valve task force I mentioned a while ago. Its sitting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Valve. -- Sabre (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool.Gears Of War 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Project design

I think the old design of the page looks much better than the current one. Why did you guys change it? This project is amazing by the way. This is the best historical resource about video games online, simply fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.122.24 (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There's been some experimenting since the winter holidays as to what would be the best design for the project page. Just one of those project changes that pops up from time to time. This isn't the first time it's change and I'm sure it won't be the last either. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

Pokémon controversy article

What does everyone think of there being an article for all the controversy of Pokémon? This would include:

  1. Religious controversy
  2. Pokémon card controversy
  3. Individual Pokémon controversy (namely Kadabra, Jynx, Ludicolo, etc.)
  4. Banned episodes
  5. Other stuff

This would allow for a wide coverage of all its controversy without having to limit its content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the following that such articles only attract the negative side of the opinions which abound concerning such. To list where I think these informations should be interwoven into:
  • Religious and "other stuff: Should go in the (main?) pokemon series article
  • Pokemon card controversy: Should go on the TCG page, if there exists such. Else, default to series.
  • Individual pokemon / episodes: Should be added to the lists of pokemon / episodes on wikipedia. If there's too much information, these would allow excellent chances to possibly make legitimate pokemon / episode articles.
Further, the information regarding the controversy shouldn't be stuffed into a section titled "controversy", but rather woven into the articles. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a call for such an article as much as there is for Criticisms of Microsoft. The controversy over the series is much, much more than almost every video game series, save for Grand Theft Auto. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Technically if the criticism itself has gained notability it stands to reason that it deserves an article. However, I'm not really sure how such notability would be determined and distinguished from the franchise. Link, you might want to come up with a draft in a sandbox before making the actual article. You may have already thought of this, but I would try to include a good amount of controversy that led to legal disputes and explain the impact all this controversy had on the franchise. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
Well, there have been four law suits that I can recall - Monsters in my Pocket's creators sued for "stealing the name of Pocket Monsters", Uri Geller of Israel sued for what "Nintendo creating an unauthorized parody of him with Kadabra", as well as claiming that his "parody" was an evil occult creature. Then there was a law suit over the Burger King Pokémon toys causing the death of a child through choking, and a law suit seeking to have Pokémon TCG labeled illegal gambling, no less than scratch games or slot machines. We've got the accusations of racism, Satanism, anti-Semitic messages (the usage of the omote manji, an image strikingly similar to the Swastika), banned episodes (in both Japan and the rest of the world), accused promotion of cockfighting, as well as Pokémon being banned in Saudi Arabia. I think there's tons of controversy involved in the series - law suits, bannings, religious outcry, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the subject matter naturally lends itself to pushing a point of view. But it sounds like it could work if done right. Try making a draft before creating the article to see if it is viable. That way everyone can form a better opinion. At the very least, there'd be some good info to add to the various Pokemon articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
I would recommend trying to work some of the controversies that have come up into articles for the related pokemon if combined with other factors it can help establish the notability front (Jynx comes to mind as a possible example here). I'm still more irked by the mass stagnant lists we still have on that front, at least as far as it goes for the original 151.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Giant Bomb as reliable source?

I've been seeing anon IPs adding Giant Bomb reviews to games. For those not in the know, Giant Bomb is the site Jeff Gerstmann created after leaving GameSpot after the Kane and Lynch issue.

Now, I'm not saying that Gerstmann is any way non-reliable, but I'm cautious of giving the site credibility of being reliable simply because it is Gerstmann. So far, it's only himself and Ryan Davis posting, so it feels like a "professional" blog, and there's nothing out in sources that suggests the site has a history of fact-checking. Should we be allowing use of this site at this time, or should we wait until there's more reliability shown for it? --MASEM 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we actually have reliable sources to suggest that GameSpot does fact-checking? I always thought they never had very high editorial standards. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-28 14:43
Incidentally, our article on video game journalism sucks, and could definitely use an overhaul by an expert on the subject. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-28 14:45
Given that GameSpot is under CNET, I believe its reasonable to assume that they do fact checking and are relatively independent. (The Kane and Lynch issues notwithstand). However, in conjunction with the previous discuss about other VG sources, I propose that we need a small task force/subsection of this project, with two goals. The first goal is to go through our current sources, and for each one, provide a small rationale paragraph of why it's reliable, or for certain stipulations where it is and isn't reliable. This would be the immediate goal; the second would be be ongoing, to accept user requests to evaluate sources for reliability. Ideally, the user would provide the references to explain why they feel it's reliable, and the group would approve or disapprove. This is [probably comparable to the idea of a Sourcing Advisory Board that is being considered WP-wide and someone suggested at the VG project level as well. --MASEM 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to contact some of these sources to get some idea of their editorial standards? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC))
Certainly can't hurt, if there are no external sources that provide this information. It could lead to some falsehoods, once they hear its about using them as sourced from Wikipedia, or at least question how accurate their statements are. --MASEM 21:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If we were asking them for information about themselves, they might have a reason to stretch the truth, but for just a "what level of editorial fact-checking do you guys do?", it should be fine. --PresN (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If someone does decide to contact the sources, please ask them to CC their responses to OTRS. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-29 19:32
Can someone explain how the hell OTRS works? I've got image permissions requests from people and I want to freely use the image, but I have no idea how the system works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the page on meta explains it better than I could. Basically it's a way of logging emails that the foundation receives. Only certain people (including me) have access to the system, since it quite often contains sensitive information like legal threats or complaints about libel. If you would like to have access you can request it here at meta:OTRS/volunteering. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-29 19:54
Not to thread hijack, but could you confirm the situation with Ubisoft and their allowance for screenshots? The various templates point to the OTRS messages, so obviously we can't see what's behind them, but think what we want to have in the back of our pocket is how we can approach publishers to ask about making such content free (as in thought) for use on WP. I think there was a situation with Rare's upcoming portable Viva Pinata games, and Spore recently saw a similar problem, and it would be nice if at least we could approach some of these companies to ask if they would contribute in this way. I think if there were a few more along the lines of Ubisoft, you'd get a cascade of those following, and that would really help the VG project in terms of content issues. --MASEM 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The permission for the use of Ubisoft screenshots was logged at this ticket #: 20051200210003144. Unfortunately my German is not good enough to give a precise translation of that conversation. If someone here who speaks German could help out, I'll be more than happy to send them the logs so we can resolve this. There is nothing here that could have any legal implications for the foundation, so in this case it would be fine to share this with the WikiProject. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-29 21:35
In the case of reviews, it matters little whether Giant Bomb are reliable or not. They shouldn't be included. The reception section should feature the most popular, well read and influential reviews around. That means Edge, Famitsu, EGM, GameSpot, IGN, PC Gamer. I may trust GameSpot and IGN about as far as I can spit a rat, that doesn't mean they should be neglected, the size of their audience means that their views should be featured over small blogs. It's not like it's exclusive to GiantBomb. A Kieron Gillen review that appears in PC Gamer is a lot better source to use than one that appears on RockPaperShotgun. - hahnchen 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that. However, our own source guideline, found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, includes a lot of other questionable sources. Are we actually encouraging the use of sources like DreamStation.cc, as is indicated by our sources guideline? JACOPLANE • 2008-05-29 21:25
Jeff Gerstmann and Ryan Davis have been cited in many game articles. I don't think they become invalid sources just because they no longer write for GameSpot. When you're talking about game reviews, the word "reliable" doesn't even apply most of the time. A critic is giving their opinion about a game. I can't think of any game review site that has had some in-depth examination here of whether it has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy." And I don't see the need to list any potential source and list a small rationale paragraph of why it's reliable. Sometimes it depends on the author. But even "reliable" sources can get things wrong. Sometimes there comes a point when you say, I think this is good enough. IPs shouldn't be advertising Giant Bomb, but if they're just readers of the site, I don't see a big deal. I think the fact that the site is just two months old and hasn't really launched yet raises some eyebrows, but critics often move on to new things. GameSpot described Gerstmann as a "near-11-year veteran reviewer."[3] I think if an editor would have cited Gerstmann before he was terminated, there's no problem citing him now. --Pixelface (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If it were just reviews, some of the above would be true, but often the IGN or Gamespot review or whatever is used to source aspects of gameplay and such, where fact-checking is crucial. As to the OTRS link, the German can be found here, and there's a english copy somewhere on Commons, I just can't find it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Is Giant Bomb being used to cite aspects of gameplay? Even if it was, editors can consult the game itself anyway and verify the material themselves. Can you say who does the fact-checking for Gamespot? Can you say who does the fact-checking for any review site? There comes a point when mindless adherence to guidelines (WP:RS in this case) is actually detrimental to the project. --Pixelface (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, we at WP:HALO tried contacting Bungie about free use of screenshots, you can see a earlier draft of the letter we sent to them at [[4]]. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, if we're talking about reviews, reliability is only part of what is necessary. Kieron Gillen has written extensively for PC Gamer and Eurogamer, that doesn't mean we should cite his blog, RockPaperShotgun for reviews. It's not that it's not reliable, I'm pretty sure most people are reliable when expressing their own opinion, but that the influence and readership of RockPaperShotgun isn't there. His views at RPS will not have the same influence and readership as they will on PC Gamer. - hahnchen 00:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The question is whether you can cite Kieron Gillen. If he's a notable videogame critic, why does it matter where his reviews are published? --Pixelface (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned it above, it's to do with the influence and readership of the publication; PC Gamer is going to attract more of this than RockPaperShotgun. The reception section is meant to be an view on how the game was received in the wider world, it's impossible for niche publications to fulfil this. I've not even mentioned reliability, but that's still an issue. When Gillen is published in PC Gamer, his writing will have gone through an established editorial process, this isn't likely to happen when he's posting on his personal blog. For example, Tim Rogers' writing can be found in various professional publications, yet there's no way in hell that his self published piece regarding Famitsu is anywhere near being reliable. It matters where things are published. - hahnchen 01:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Masem, WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think Jeff Gerstmann qualifies as an established expert (as well as Ryan Davis and other critics that left Gamespot). If you think links to the Giant Bomb article are acting like advertising in game articles, I suggest you remove the wikilinks and just attribute the material to the person who said it. --Pixelface (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To address a couple points, I'm only bringing this up because it's a new site; the SPS quote would suggest we let Giant Bomb alone so I'm fine with that. I'm only noting this is that if one were to bring an article to FA, they may question the reliability of Giant Bomb as they have with Major Nelson's blog - he is considered an expert on anything Xbox Live, but because he does it in a non-profession position (not part of MS), it's reliability has been raised several times. One could argue that Jeff and Ryan have no similar quality control even though they are doing this blog in a professional manner. The other thing to consider is that we have tons of reviewing sites for modern games, Giant Bomb would just be another one and likely not much different from those. I have not seen it yet used as a cite for gameplay/story or other elements of the game, but I presumably can see it being used in that fashion, though from what I've read of the reviews there, there's not that much difference in the information supplied compared to any other reliable review house. --MASEM 19:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Format for Video games notable for negative reception

There's currently some discussion amongst the editors about which format (and what guidelines) should be used in the article. Currently, I implemented a format that's currently up, which looks more similar to List of Castlevania titles and List of Harvest Moon titles. However, as some editors have noted, the format is harder for newer users to edit. Is this truly the best way to go for this sort of article? Or should we use more basic formatting? -- Nomader (Talk) 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The format used in these two articles is based on Template:FFtitlebox, a template originally created for List of Final Fantasy media but which is now only used in List of Bleach video games and List of F-Zero titles. No idea why the template isn't used directly in the two articles you mentioned; it's much more easier to use than the bare wikicode. Kariteh (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to use the flag icons in List of Castlevania titles, so I mimicked the wikicode minus the flags; this was before Teggles switched them out. And I believe Salavat based List of Harvest Moon titles on the Castlevania one. But now that the FFtitlebox has been updated, there is no real reason not to use it in either. It would certainly make updates and edits easier. I'll try to update the Castlevania list when I have some free time.
On another note, List of Harvest Moon titles has come under some criticism at its FLC for the format of the tables. Perhaps it would be best to think of possible improvements to address some of the comments. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
I still have one rather large concern with the FF template, despite how much easier it is to use. One of the main problems with the template when I initially placed it into the article was the lack of space to write in on the right side. I remedied that by simply moving the release dates on the various systems over to the left side -- also, by request, I removed the Notes:. However, I can't do that with a template that's being used in other articles. Does anyone have any suggestions on whether a template should be used at all in this article? Or should the article stick to something more akin to what List of films considered the worst has? -- Nomader (Talk) 19:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's an incredibly simple and efficient format. I think it would be great if we use it for the list of games notable for negative reception. For the other lists it might or might not be the best format; the lists of games from a series are meant to be very comprehensive in terms of release dates, alternate titles, etc., so a table format can be useful in their case. But for the list of worst games, these stuff are not that important and can be partially omitted and reworked in the prose instead. For instance all the release dates of a game don't need to be listed. Kariteh (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If only i had known about Template:FFtitlebox before. Do you think it will be worth converting List of Harvest Moon titles over to this template? Salavat (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking about it too, but I think the template might need some minor tweaking. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC))
For List of Harvest Moon titles, I don't see why it would need any -- the template fits the exact standard that seems to be apparent in the template. I'm still not sure though whether it's the right course of action in the list of video games notable for negative reaction, but we'll see I suppose. -- Nomader (Talk) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. Salavat and I just got a little sidetracked on other lists. I agree that the template wouldn't suit the negative video game list. Sorry for the confusion. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC))
It's quite alright -- for the record, I have implemented FFtitlebox into the page -- one of these days, I might try my hand at coding but for now it should fill in just fine. -- Nomader (Talk) 03:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sega-16 as reliable source?

I was wondering, is www.sega-16.com a reliable source? I believe they are, but I thought I'd ask here to be sure. It seems to me the site has a reputation for fact-checking. Allow me to use a couple of quotes from this page, which includes their mission statement and guidelines on user contributions:

“ Sega-16 endeavors to document the entire history of the Sega Genesis and its two add-ons (Sega CD & 32X). We are a historical archive, not a media outlet, and we pride ourselves on providing accurate and factual information of all aspects of Sega's history during the 16-bit era and beyond. „

—Sega-16 Mission Statement
“ Sega-16 also accepts reviews and features from anyone willing to contribute. That's how we hope to grow and provide the most comprehensive Genesis content available; however, since quality is our main priority, certain criteria must be met before any submissions can be posted. All guidelines are subject to revision at any time. Once you have submitted material, it will be proofread. I will then contact you and send you the edited version for your approval or rejection. Once the green light is given, up it goes! Please, do not post your submission in the forum! Email it to me instead. You will always get credit for your work, so feel free to submit often. Send all submissions to us and we'll get right back to you. „

—Sega-16 Contributor Information

This suggests to me that Sega-16 fact-checks their information, and though users sometimes write the reviews and features, they are checked before they are posted. Copyright information for the site is at the bottom of this page in fine print. So, what do you guys think? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, but I have that same question for a few sources myself. The video games wikiproject has a list of generally accepted sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. I was wondering how I would go about adding a new source to that list? If someone could answer that, I'm sure you could figure out if Sega-16 would qualify. Randomran (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the quote above, I don't think their policy is good enough. On user submissions, they said they'd "proofread" the material, but not that they'd fact-check it. Proofreading just means cleaning it up for grammatical errors, legibility, etc. - basic editing. It doesn't imply anything about making sure the information is accurate or well-researched. I'd be very leery of using user submissions on this site as citations in WP articles.
As for their own content, I'm sure that they do their best to fact-check everything they publish, but I'd be concerned about their sources of information, and more importantly, how they credit those sources. Check WP:V and WP:RS for guidelines on what to look for in a site being considered as a reference - if the site meets the bar for being considered a good secondary source, then it'll probably be fine. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well, I'm asking more for a certain list that I'm hoping to get past FLC, and it's sourced from a non-user content section. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 00:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

@Randomran, sources are added to that list by way of discussions precisely like this one. User:Krator (t c) 11:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Free online games?

As the name suggests. I'm thinking the category is for video games where one can play in free online multiplayer modes, like SOCOM, Warcraft III, and X-Men Legends II. That about right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The category is in Category:Freeware games so it would mean the games are freeware games that are playable online. --Mika1h (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me understand: which is a parent cat of which? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Freeware games is the parent of Free online games. User:Krator (t c) 11:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A caveat. The phrase online game often carries the connotation of "internet-based". It wouldn't apply to games that can be played in SP mode or possibly even over a LAN. So I think the first thing you should do, if you're planning to populate this category, is perhaps list it for renaming so that there is no ambiguity. As it stands, the category does look like it is for internet-only games, so games like the ones you mentioned are probably not intended for inclusion. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Halo vehicles: found lots of references asserting notability!

I've been on clean-up mode for the past week. But with all the non-notable cruft out there, it's that much more satisfying when you check the notability of something and hit a jackpot. I found 11 references that affirm that the vehicles of Halo are, in fact, notable. The List of Halo vehicles article is absolutely atrocious gameguide stuff beyond that, though.

All I really need is for someone who is a fan of the series (I don't personally own an xbox) to try to adapt the information in the article into prose, rather than the game guide information. In case anyone is looking for a place to start, some of the references in there might help you. Particularly this reference on vehicles from planethalo.

Thanks and good luck. Let me know how it goes. Randomran (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

... Just to clarify, that's 11 references that focus primarily on vehicles of Halo. There's probably hundreds more independent references on Halo that at least make brief mention of information on the vehicles, in addition to gathering research from primary sources (the game itself, game guides, etc). Randomran (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That source doesn't really establish notability. The Planet-sites of GameSpy are really little more than glorified and professionally run fansites, so although the source would be good for referencing the in-universe stuff (I was using the Planet Half-Life's equivalent stuff for a lot of the in-universe references on Vortigaunt), it doesn't offer any real-world info. Besides, reading down the list and based on my memory of the last time I read the Halo for PC manual, the eleven descriptions appear to be straight cut-and-paste descriptions from the manual, except for the entries that aren't covered in the manual (lifepod, capital ship, etc). -- Sabre (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
God dammit, someone recreated it again? It's been deleted god-knows how many times... just leave it alone, and I'll see if there's any info I can salvage to use for the Factions of Halo article, then I'll merge it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify one more time, though... there are 10 *other* references that focus on the notability of the Halo vehicles. Take a look at the article and the existing references. This "planet halo" one is the least independent of the subject matter, but there are 10 others that are quite independent. Randomran (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the other refs, only two of them seem to demonstrate strong notability: the announcement of toys being made, and the denial from Hummer about the influence of Halo's vehicles. The others describe the vehicles within the context of the game and not why they are notable outside of it.
This basically is the "Weapons of RE4" issue all over again. What more can you say about the individual vehicles beyond their names that is not game guide material? The two key points that I've noted would fit well into the series article just as the weapons of RE4 fit better into the game's article. --MASEM 17:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you see this one? Especially the lead. It's a journalist focusing exclusively on the vehicles of Halo to assert their fame, notability, and importance in distinguishing the game. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine as well (I must have missed that one), but again, I'm looking at my second point: you can wrap this list in three or more sufficiently notable sources, so technically an article is ok about it, but the meat appears to be about the vehicles, and I cannot see what else you are going to be able to say about them from these sources that doesn't descend into game guide material. Maybe that gamespy ref can be spread out among the entries, but that may leave the article lacking. --MASEM 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't the problem

Having thought about it, Masem is right. Even if the vehicles are themselves notable... does it give us licence to offer a full game guide of all the vehicles in the series, with their stats, screenshots and abilities? On wikipedia, the answer is a strong "no". I think the lead is halfway decent, after a copyedit and reorganization. But the rest of it is totally and patently unacceptable for wikipedia. What should we do with this article? Randomran (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to try to fit it into the Halo (series) article, though where I'm not sure. I think the best place is likely mostly in Development as a new section on vehicles, making sure to note that the Halo vehicles are notable elements from the game. The bit about the Hummer can go down into Cultural Impact. --MASEM 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Or talk about vehicles in their respective articles, with a strong focus on Factions of Halo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd back either of these proposals. Anyone wanna jump on this one? Randomran (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I guess I will just start a hack and slash merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. I moved the covenant info to Covenant (Halo), and the rest to Factions of Halo. It's only semicoherent right now, I'll fix it up later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Looks good so far. Randomran (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Netjak notable and/or reliable?

I recently re-created the Netjak article with references from Kotaku and Joystiq. But beyond the article creation, it brought up a point in my mind -- Netjak is cited on lots of video game pages and is used on sites such as MetaCritic (i.e. [5]). I've tried finding more mainstream mentions of the site, but I usually come up short of anything other than posts on the two sites mentioned (Kotaku and Joystiq). Should it be considered reliable for reviews? -- Nomader (Talk) 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No offensive to the reviewers and staff of Netjak, but I don't use them because I personally don't think they'd cut it as a reliable source at an FAC. But that's just my opinion, I'm not the best judge on reliable sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC))
The staff of the site say it themselves, the site is "for the gamer by the gamer". So regardless of the site's notability, I don't think it's reliable. It's just persons like you and me writing reviews and posting news. Concerning the reviews, I think referencing professional reviewers carry much more weight than quoting Netjak. Concerning the news, there's nothing there that doesn't also appear on more mainstream gaming sites. Kariteh (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's notable enough for an article, but not reliable in itself per the above. User:Krator (t c) 09:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a reliable source, but a notable website. Yet again, this is why it's important not to assume that "WP article = sourcable" (general comment, not specific to what happened here). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Video Game Characters

Just want clarification, it seems to me that it is very hard to get an article of a video game character or a character of anything in general to a GA status. It's just kinda confusing.Gears Of War 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's because there's usually an issue with notability that crops up in many cases, and some people are sticklers to said notability being affirmed by exact sources (you'll see IGN and 1Up for example tossed around a plenty). As a result, it's easier to get a central character like Mario to have a GA article than it'd be something important but not as present such as insert-random-pokemon-that-isn't-Pikachu-here. There isn't an exact guideline to follow either, so effectively you can write a whole article, and then have it shot down because someone feels there's too much story focus, not enough reception, not enough design, etc. So yeah, it can be a difficult trial.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.Gears Of War 14:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The key is to aim at the right target. "Biographical" information and plot summaries are really the least important aspects to be detailed in a video game character article. Some character articles are very, very long but are actually just collections of plot summaries and lists of appearances. This can make the article difficult to work on, but unfortunately, spending too much time on writing these sections is often a waste of time especially if they end up too much in-universe-ish. If the article focuses on development and reception information instead, it can reach GA status much more easily. I think Nicole (Dead or Alive) is a very good example of GA; it gets to the point and doesn't bother losing its way into too much story information. Kariteh (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dark Orbit needs your help

Dark Orbit was created 17 April 2008, is currently a stub, and is tagged with "This article may not meet the general notability guideline or one of the following specific guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia ... If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion." Anyone interested in improving this article? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Format for List of Enix Japan exclusive games

I've just created this list which purpose is to briefly describe all the Enix Japan exclusive games (since most of them don't warrant individual articles). However, I'm not sure what format to use. The first one I came up with is [6]; it's a sort of mixture between the format of List of Castlevania titles and the standard Infobox VG used in individual game articles. After the discussion at #Format for Video games notable for negative reception, I tried to use a lighter format, with no table: [7]. However, this might actually make things more difficult to read, due to all the Japanese titles and bold font (in the first format, the Japanese titles go at the top right-side case of each table). Note that none of these two versions of the article are complete, but you get the idea of how they would look when completed. Which format do you think is best for this list? any of these two, or a different format altogether? Kariteh (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since there's no suggestion, I went ahead and reverted to the first format. I also created a Template:VG entry to make it light and easy to use (possibly on other lists of games that don't have individual articles). Kariteh (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Move error

Can an administrator fix an accidental move of a redirect to "List of Wario titles"? I intended to have "List of Wario video games" moved there, but accidentally moved "List of Wario games" there instead. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this still need attention? I took a look at List of Wario games, and it appears to redirect to the correct location now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I may have been unintentionally confusing in my statement - what I meant was that I wanted the article at List of Wario titles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Heretic / Hexen

I've been doing a lot of random clean-up, and I noticed that these three articles were nominated speedy deletion (PROD) by Judgesurreal777:

In every single case, the PROD was removed by DGG, who suggested a merge. I think this is a bad idea, since the articles deal with non-notable subjects, and the content within the articles is nearly all game guide or excessive fictional detail. In my opinion, enough relevant information already exists in Heretic (computer game). But I wanted to see what people thought. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I see about one sentence in each article that might be useful if merged (some of the games have very short plot summaries and long crufty character lists). I'd like to perform some general cleanup on the game articles, and I'll incorporate a couple sentences here and there as appropriate. I'll be bold for now, but please take a review of the articles later to see if the results are agreeable. I'll post back here when I'm done. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, basic cleanup of the game articles is done. I don't think these character articles can add anything further to the plot summaries, so at this point I would support a redirect to each of the respective games (D'Sparil -> Heretic, Korax -> Hexen, Eidolon -> Hexen II). Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd support a redirect. I'm keeping an eye on these. Randomran (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Sega 32X games - The final questions

As I've never written a featured... well, anything, much less a featured list, I had a couple more questions about List of Sega 32X games, which I've been working on. I've heard about the recent discrimination on video game articles lately, so I want to make sure this list is ready for WP:FLC before listing it. It might be worthy of note that I used List of Virtual Boy games as a template for redesigning this list from the shambles it was before. I've asked for both a regular peer review and a video games project review, and though they're both still open, I'm fairly sure I won't be getting any more comments, and I still feel sketchy about the list despite these reviews, especially the fact that I haven't received any comments about sources. I even asked about sources at WP:RS/N, to no response. So I'd like some more people to take a look for me at the whole list, if it's not too much of a hassle. There is some project incentive behind all of this: if I get this past WP:FLC, I want to start working on List of Mega Drive and Genesis games and List of Sega Mega-CD games] and get them to featured list status. From there, maybe I'll do more, depending on the resources I can find. If you have comments, please leave them at the Video games peer review page (should be still listed on the to-do list). Thanks. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd definitely recommend pushing for is getting references for that opening section for whatever statements you make in it that could use a cite. Also for the five that require the SegaCD as well, instead of marking them with a symbol near their name, consider perhaps a second separate list directly below those five with appropriate headers on both. It makes for smoother presentation and less chance of confusion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Kung Fu Man, I had it like that, and in the peer review, Krator suggested that I not do that. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Odd. You'd want to make the list in a way though that someone looking at just the list can understand what they're looking at...and usually symbols of any sort next to a name can sometimes be mistaken as part of said game's name. A separate column in there though for just those few games seems overkill too on the other hand :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Be prepared to have to include references for supporting when the games were released (particularly the ones lacking WP articles) - I'm not saying you have to have it now, but I believe they will look for that; I'm assuming the refs do cover this so you may want to explain where the info came from. Also, the use of flag icons for region is likely not going to work well - you could either use country/region codes, or have separate columns for each of the 5 regions using the {{ok}} checkmark to indicate yes or no, making those sortable as well... maybe, not sure. Also make sure that every other aspect (language, formatting (you don't have notes, you have additional references, which should be under the non-numberred references). MOS, etc.). --MASEM 13:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that MobyGames was a reliable source but it constitutes trivial coverage. It does have a brief list, however, of the games. Can I use it as a source for the list? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Hey, I think it's just about done. Can someone read over this for me again and tell me what they think? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)