Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 8

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 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

Contents

Template: Infobox VG colors

Recently, the color for the infobox was changed by Larsinio. I asked what K1Bond007's feelings were on the subject, and I changed the other fields. Now it is back to the way it was before (reverted by Hahnchen), but a couple fields are still off-color. I think we should have a discussion before this results in an edit war. Thunderbrand 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

yea sorry about that. I got all excited from the console cvg template.I think we shoudl have that conversation.. I think purple is a weird color to choose as a template that is gonna be on like 10000 pages. But thats me --Larsinio 01:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Heh, don't worry about it. No, I just thought that the purple looked good. I mean, I've worked on a few CVG articles of late, and always liked the infobox the way it was. Larsinio's original change meant that some boxes had 2 colours in and kind of looked stupid, so I reverted it. I then spotted that someone had cleaned up the bits larsinio missed out, so reverted those as well. We've had the infoboxes with the darker blue shade since almost the beginning of the cvg infobox, and I think it works. It's good to have the colour distinction between the 2 columns, it makes it clearer. With a lighter shade like larsinio suggested, the box fields seem less distinctive. - Hahnchen 03:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The color of the infobox has been brought up before by.. Fredrik I think. At that time I said I didn't care. At this point, I still don't. Purple is fine, but I don't think we need all that color. For my tastes, purple is somewhat distracting and doesn't really blend well. That's why I opted for the different shade of gray when I came up with the console infobox (see User:K1Bond007/Temp2). It looks cleaner, IMHO. But whatever. It's not really that big of a deal. K1Bond007 04:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the purple. But yeah, I don't really mind either. Jacoplane 09:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
So should we just leave it alone for now, or possibly have a vote? Thunderbrand 14:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
might as well settle the issue, unless anyone else has any other color schemas... --Larsinio 15:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Purple would be acceptable if the bright fields were changed to white or bright purple and the borders were changed to dark purple. Fredrik | tc 15:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fredrik you want to draw up a sandbox of what you mean? --Larsinio 17:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think it should be just plain blue and white. Or just white. That way, no one argues over the colors and its a neutral decision. What do you all think..?-MegamanZero 22:31 30,November 2005 (UTC)
This still needs to be decided, I say have a vote until January 1st. I vote for white/grey. --Larsinio 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't really mind what color, but I prefer the bluish color it is now. Thunderbrand 23:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote Tallies

  • White/Grey combination: 2
  • Purple:
  • Blue: 1

Critical reaction in computer games

A good article on a computer game should have a section on critical reaction to it. People must agree with this right? However, as I pointed out in a FAC for a music single, all the reviews were from random online source, whilst ignoring the NME, Q Magazine and Rolling Stone. The same seems to be for games, most seem to cite Gamespot and IGN for their reviews, for me a good computer games article has to cite more mainstream sources than that. I would much rather have a quote from Edge magazine, PC Gamer or Famitsu than some semi professional website review which to be honest, most people don't care about anyway. And on any computer gaming FAC from now on, I'll vote oppose until mainstream reviews are cited. I know it's nigh on impossible to find a review for some 1994 SNES game, because everything is out of print, I don't care, if it's a FAC, it should be special.

I was wondering if anyone here has a large backlog of gaming magazines that they could pull review quotes and scores from? Whereas with current games we can farm quotes and scores from Metacritic, it's the older games that Metacritic doesn't cover that we need a wikipedian's magazine collection to reference.

I personally have quite a backlog of PC Zone magazines, although I stopped buying them about 3 years ago, still I have a backlog of a good few years in there. However, PC Zone has one of the greatest websites of a gaming magazine, they actually archive their reviews. On the PCZ Website, click on Reviews and then Review archive, and you'll have access to reviews that appeared in print going back many years. The first copy of PCZ that I bought had X-COM: Interceptor review in, which happens to be online. However, not every review seems to make it, so if a review you need isn't there, you can msg me. And if you have any magazine collections that you wouldn't mind referencing, you should list them here. - Hahnchen 14:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a large number of EGM issues, all the way back to November 1999, uninterrupted. If anyone wants me to look up a review, ask me as well and I will be glad to help. Thunderbrand 15:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
GameSpot & IGN are mainstream. And yes, I do have a bunch of old Nintendo Power if you want. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they are mainstream. But just as pitchfork and theonion AV guide are, their reviews don't hold the significance and respect that long running established magazines like NME and Rolling Stone. Gamespot and IGN may be gaining in relevence now, but compared with the print magazines I mentioned, like Edge Magazine and Famitsu, their views are not perceived to be as authorative. But another point, is that these print magazines have been going on a long time, and have reviews of games which can't be found online. Your nintendo power magazines, when do they stretch back till? I also think I have the complete list of reviews from Nintendo Magazine System for 1994 (I think), but whether it's wise to put up a review from an "official" magazine is another factor. - Hahnchen 16:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been using the meta-review sites Game Rankings and Metacritic. They're excellent resources for getting a general overview of critical reception, and they factor in print sources.--Muchness 17:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I like metacritic. But it would still help if we have a list of people with print review "libraries" to source from. I mentioned metacritic above, but these collaborative review services have only been around for a few years, I mean, I tried looking for reviews of Kingpin: Life of Crime there and Requiem: Avenging Angel and had no success. Metacritic also only point out a small snippet of text, and whereas the snippet is a good summary, it doesn't provide you with much depth. Having users with magazine collections would just be another bonus to any article, and would lift wikipedia up above metacritic and gamerankings. - Hahnchen 17:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, missed the ref to Metacritic upthread. Game Rankings has listings for Kingpin and Avenging Angel btw. But I take your point, it would be a useful resource. It might also be worth checking local libraries to see if any of them archive back issues of gaming magazines.--Muchness 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
GameStats [1] is pretty good too. Here are WikiProject Video games/Archive 8 at GameStats and WikiProject Video games/Archive 8 at GameStats. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ken Kutaragi mess

The article on Ken Kutaragi (Sony Computer Entertainment guy) is undergoing a major edit war. It was previously locked, but the conflict is still not resolved. In fact, there are all sorts of accusations flying around. Would be helpful if some other editors came in and helped mediate the situation. Jacoplane 03:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Same guys seem to be in dispute over at Talk:Xbox & Talk:PlayStation 2. Jacoplane 03:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Media

I've made a simple template for tagging game media to a category, {{Media}}. Just put in the category you want as the parameter. Example: {{media|Final Fantasty}} would result in an image being put in Category:Final Fantasy media and the image would then properly sort with it's PAGENAME. I've already tagged my FF uploads with it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Computer and video games improvement drive dead?

It's been moved off the COTW template and consigned to the "inactive" category. Is it dead? Is anyone here willing to carry it on? I had been looking to nominate a few things for that, but I wouldn't want to administer the whole thing, yet. But if enough people here are willing to put effort into the thing and get it going again, I'd be onboard. - Hahnchen 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're talking about. Its on the collaboration template as gaming (stubs), and on the WP:GAMES template I use on my userpage...and is currently some Sims game. --Syrthiss 17:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, posted the wrong link, thanks for pointing it out, I meant the Wikipedia:Computer and video games improvement drive - Hahnchen 17:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see. Yes, looks dead to me. I'd offer to help, but most of my involvement in even the GCOTW ends up being copyediting and filling in links (which of course I am willing to do wherever) because I don't know lots of the games that get nominated well enough to write content. --Syrthiss 17:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it is pretty much dead. No one really updates it. Thunderbrand 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, what would people think about having the dead IDrive merged with the COTW? So instead of just having stubs qualify for the COTW, we can have big articles qualify. Because I was thinking of nominating Computer and video games for improvement. This would require at least a small team to rewrite and organise, and would require comments from others. It's not a project that I'd like to take on my own, but personally, I don't think the main article on computer games is any good. - Hahnchen 19:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we should have two collaborations a week: one that is a particular game or game series, and one that is related to gaming (genre, company, console, series, gamepad, etc). Also we've been having several COTW's that wind up winning but no one really does anything to them (this week's The Urbz for instance). --Larsinio 19:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's the kind of thing I was doing with the iDrive anyway, having nominated Machinima and wanting to nominated Computer and Video games. But the community isn't able to support both collaborations, then it be able to support both for the near future either. - Hahnchen 20:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I haven't been that active on Wikipedia for a while -- I'm getting settled in after a move, and my new job leaves me with less free time -- but I'm trying to get back into things. I was sad to see that this new venture had died in my absence, so I've pruned the nominations and overhauled the page in case there is any interest in starting it up again. If not, then no harm done. --Pagrashtak 02:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Tekken

I've finally gotten around to overhalling the Tekken character page and have added individual articles for each game. BTW, why did the game links have redirects in the first place..? Its extremlely lazy, and if people are going to do that, you shouldn't make the links at all. Also, about the Guilty Gear video game article, someone sems to have loafed again, and made a useless link for Johnny that redirects back to the main article for some sick reason. Please, guilty gear experts, could they construct a proper article for the link..?-MegamanZero 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardware stub template

I created a new hardware stub template. hardware-cvg-stub. Template:hardware-cvg-stub. I started adding all the applicable pages to it, but I need some help. Also we should update the stubs with GPL pictures that are tailored to it

Recently I have been going through the cvg stub category and sorting them to more specific ones. The hardware one will do nicely. Thunderbrand 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Having previously gone through the 2000+ CVG stubs myself for this purpose, I salute your efforts and will join in too. ADeveria 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Great idea. I know a few pages in need of this. Kil 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability of video game content

There's a discussion going on here that should be of interest to this wikiproject. It's regarding the verifiability of content found in video games. This has also become an issue in the candidature for featured article of Majora's Mask. The outcome of discussion could have big implications. Jacoplane 03:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So far it seems that everything's got along fine under the assumption that a game itself can be a source. That would be part of the "expertise" of the writers, having played those games. Unless I read wrong the consensus in that debate seems to be flowing towards the same consensus. Its no different than an article about a movie or book summary. A lot of the information comes from the publication itself. (BTW videogames are legally recognized copyrightable documents/works)--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If nothing else works, cite a walkthrough or three from GameFAQs. Fredrik | tc 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

SNK characters sorting

Any want to help sort Category:SNK characters by last name? it's a mess. --Dangerous-Boy 18:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'm already working on overhalling the SNK articles anyway. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Family Entertainment Protection Act

Sigh, I guess we all knew this was coming. Please help improve the article, as I'm likely to insert extremely POV edits :( Jacoplane 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Made some corrections and expanded it some. I don't think it was POV -at least your edits. K1Bond007 07:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

New stub?

Going through the CVG stubs, I'm coming across a lot of articles that I can't put into any stub categories. Most of them are articles pretaining to software and computer code, such as CryENGINE, Famicom BASIC, DromEd, and others. Should we create a new stub? Thunderbrand 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

something like Template:Software-cvg-stub . Would cover like any engine builders and such. GO for it you da man --Larsinio 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well first, I guess we should propose it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. I'll do it later. Thunderbrand 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good, been thinking of this very thing myself...I like the Template:Software-cvg-stub name for consitency. --ADeveria 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's silly that we would need to go through that whole process to create new stub templates. As if we as a WikiProject can't be expected to have some common sense and create good stub categories. It almost feels anti-wiki to me, and I'm inclined to think that we should just go ahead and create any stubs that we as a WikiProject feel are necessary. Well, not really, since that would go against WP:POINT, but still... Jacoplane 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I've written a rant about this on the stub sorting page. Jacoplane 18:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought the Stub-sorting project was merely advisory, and that any Wikiproject could make whatever stubs they want. They'd just like you to let them know first for naming suggestions, but letting them know after the fact is okay, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I created the new stub (see Template:cvg-soft-stub). I think it is working OK now and I put a article in it to see if it works. Thunderbrand 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of MMORPGs/Temp

This is the current GCOTW. Some consensus is needed on the table design, so that we can proceed with actually filling the data. It would be best if this was done soon, so as to leave enough time on the collaboration for actually filling the table. Jacoplane 11:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

New Infobox_CVG version

I've posted a temporary version of the Infobox_CVG template at Template:Infobox VG/temp, as well as an example on the Talk page. The intent was to eliminate the need for sub- and meta-templates (see WP:AUM), cleanup the table's wiki format and generally just make it nicer to work with. The new version still hides all the optional fields, and I even added an optional "footnotes" parameter - just in case it's needed sometime.

Since the main template is protected, one of the admins among you will need to copy that code into the live template. If you have any problems, please feel free to contact me. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes and unprotected the template until the changes get ironed out. One thing I don't really like is how the column bar moves depending on the information in the box. Example: Doom (notice the "Release dates" line) and then compare with Grim Fandango. ?? Can we get that set somehow so it's the same? Also I disagree with the use of a footnotes field. I believe we discussed it and came to the conclusion that those are pretty bad. If not here, it was the Arcade WikiProject. K1Bond007 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the "Release date(s)" field so it doesn't line-break. Are all the plurals ("(s)") really necessary? The footnotes field was just a "catch-all" - something to help for the one-off cases. -- Netoholic @ 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The footnotes field is -always- misused so that's why we've never implemented it. It usually ends up being a huge block and defeating the purpose of the infobox, so I really object to adding the field. The "(s)" deal has come up before - if the WikiProject wants it changed, then I can live with that, but until it's discussed again, I'd rather just leave it for now. I guess the same goes for the footnote field. K1Bond007 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, don't put any nowrap in infoboxes. It leads to all sorts of layout problems. Long strings will stretch out the box far into the article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The single nowrap was on the row header which will never be longer than the words "Release date(s)" and the entire infobox will never be more than 22em on any particular article. I don't understand this concern. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Release dates

Is there an official way to putting release dates in the infobox? I usually do it this way:

December 2, 1989 (NA)

Is that wrong because the region is in small text? Is the one below the correct way?

December 2, 1989 (NA)

Please get back to me on what way you think is the proper way. Thanks. --Thorpe 13:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I usually go with the second one. I don't think there is a "wrong" way to do it. Thunderbrand 17:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, though most of the CVG featured articles do it the second way. «LordViD» 21:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, most just don't list a region. If not listed, it's about 99% of the time NA anyway. K1Bond007 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
When release dates are given for multiple countries, I use the second instance. – Quoth 01:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I add small flag icons myself. It's easier to understand, adds colour, and breaks up the text nicely:
United States of America December 2, 1989 Image:XPlogo.png
--Tom Edwards 15:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Locked template(s)

Can someone get {{game-screenshot}} unlocked? I have some revisions I wish to make to it, and I don't know the channels to go through. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected it. Thunderbrand 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If Cyberskull can remind us here when he is done, lets reprotect it and add it to the template section in protected pages (where it wasn't listed currently). It shows up on a ton of pages. Do you agree? --Syrthiss 17:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I dunno. It was only vandalized once and the reason for protecting it was because it is a "high-risk template". Only one count of vandalism doesn't really make it high risk. Thunderbrand 17:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm done. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Distributor field for infobox

I suggest a 'Distributor' field be added to differentiate between groups publishing a CVG (including IP owenership, advertising, paying the developers and probably more that I can't think of), and groups merely producing boxes or providing bandwidth for it. Anyone? --Tom Edwards 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What would an example be? Thunderbrand 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Valve and EA and Introversion and Pinnacle off the top of my head. --Tom Edwards 17:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't really mind. As long as it is optional its OK with me. Thunderbrand 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this right?

|- class="hiddenStructure"
! style="background-color: #ccccff;" | Distributor(s)

--Tom Edwards 11:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't right, but it's working now. :-) Seeing as there can be a distributor but no publisher, should we make the publisher field optional? --Tom Edwards 10:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I would support making the Publisher field optional. That would also make more sense for games in Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels. Jacoplane 11:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Optional sounds good to me :) --Naha|(talk) 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, what's up with the cell width? It seems to be split down the middle, which is wasting space and screwing up alignment. --Tom Edwards 10:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots prohibited?

User:Nv8200p is blanking and removing all screenshots from videogames articles, he balnked Playstation and Xbox articles. The argument is screenshot is not compilant with fair use.

Personally this should have been discussed prior to just removal. Screenshots have been argued in the past and everytime a general consensus is that they're okay to use. Excessive amounts of fair use images is the problem here. PlayStation 2, IMHO, had far too many in the screenshot gallery. I think, until an agreement can be made, that the screenshot gallery should be limited to no more than 3 rows. Xbox was fine. I don't know what brought this on. They should have, at the very least, cited some sort of policy/discussion with screenshot images prior to removal - but they didn't. K1Bond007 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Also gathering from previous discussion, he's in cahoots with User:Borgqueen, and they're blanking and removal of images without discussion of concensus and disregard for articles is troubling. Perhaps a nomination for WP:CN is in order..? -MegamanZero|Talk 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think User:Nv8200p is a "clueless newbie," considering he has been wiki a admin September of this year. While I agree that there should not be "excessive" screenshot galleries in any article, I also agree that there should be discussion prior to removal. I think there was good intention here, it just caught us all by surprise! --Naha|(talk) 20:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I had to deal with such nonsense regarding the overzealousness of image placement in the KOF articles recently. However, he, being an admin, makes such actions unaccepttable, any more so (due to his administrative status), and not discussing deletions and blanking over a concensus with other editors is clear path to WP:EW, which is something I hope very much to avoid. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed --Naha|(talk) 14:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The idea that we have a weaker fair use case for screenshots of PS2 games in the article PlayStation 2 than in the individual game articles (or elsewhere) is utter nonsense. Regardless of quantity. Fredrik | tc 14:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed --Naha|(talk) 14:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical/Critical evaluation

Hey; I don't work on gaming articles, but I'm dropping by to offer a suggestion. When I look up video games on Wikipedia, I'm often less concerned about how to perform all the moves, or what all the special items are, than I am about:

  • what the game is/was all about
  • how it was critically received
  • how it was popularly/economically received
  • the game's place in the overall history of its genre, or of gaming in general - what innovations it created or improved
  • basically, why I should or should not care about the game.

I realize that these are somewhat subjective criteria (and require more critical thinking than simply listing all the levels in the game), but it's entirely possible to address these concerns in a NPOV way. The Beyond Good & Evil article, for example, includes the intriguing (but unsourced) blurb that it's "the best game that nobody ever played," and follows up on that in the "development history" and "social commentary" sections. Rayman, meanwhile, which was apparently created by the same guy, says nothing about the game's significance, giving us merely a list of characters, powers, stages. etc -- it's basically just an abridged version of the manual! I'd find Wikipedia much more useful if gaming articles tried to include some "big-picture" analysis as well as focussing on the details. Does that make sense? -leigh (φθόγγος) 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes sense. It's just that there are a ton of video games out there and it will take time to get them all up to a good standard, I guess you could say. Katamari Damacy and other video game featured articles are obviously what I would like to see the game articles look like. On the other hand, listing weapons, stages, characters is usually (I think) somewhat important to the overall article. Thunderbrand 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think if at the moment we weren't able to get up solid widescale information on a specific game (because of the incredible number of them) game manual type of information would be better then nothing. Also in relativly minor older games it's harder to get a good idea of how it was actually perceived by the public. Obviuosly breakthrough games like SMB3 or Doom are easy, but Rayman wasn't the most popular game at it's time, but getting a verifiable source to document a comment such as that is the tricky part, and the reason most games don't have information like that on their page. Chris M. 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on several video game series, most notable the Contra series, the [[Parodius series], Gradius series, and the Metal Slug series. I generally try to write an article the same way. Giving some brief intro, followed up bvy a stage list and weapon list, usually detailing what is new to this game in the series (im rather very detailed on the MEtal Slug games), a couple of trivia items if possible. Impact is usually hard to tell, unless a game is absolutely horrible like Contra: Legacy of War, or it is the first game ofthe series --Larsinio 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If a game is not particularly notable, or just one in a whole group of similar games, then that's still information that I think the reader should be given. Context, I guess, is the best term for what I'm looking for. If Blood (for example) was really just Doom with better rendering and the ability to play kick heads, then say so. If Bill & Ted's Excellent Game Boy Adventure was just one in a group of "single-screen collect-the-coins avoid-the-enemies platformers" (like, I dunno, Bugs Bunny Crazy Castle or something), that information would be useful to have. Obviously the article for Everquest 2 should include lots of comparisons to Everquest, but ideally it should also place it in context of the MMORPG scene of its day - not just economically, but technologically and aesthetically as well. Anyway. Enough out of me. Thanks for all the good work you guys do. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right leigh. There are too many articles submitted by fans of the game which don't read like articles at all, but snippets from a game manual, or even worse, a poorly worded walkthrough by a guy from gamefaqs who completed the game on easy. When I write an article, I do try to talk about the games ideas, functions and features which make it stand out from others in their genre. I write about their general backstory, but don't break it up into needless minutae describing each character in a broken bullet point format.
But things like sales figures, critical reaction can be hard to find, especially with older games. Chart Track publish and archive their European software charts online of the past few years, and I have emailed them for information on previous years which they have supplied. But they won't supply the number of units sold, I was told that that kind of information is only available to the publishers. I don't know the deal with the American software charts, run by NPD, but it seems you have to pay hefty amounts just to get anything.
And I've had a look at the Blood article before, and no, it's not very good. At all. In my eyes, lists of weapons, levels and enemies just don't make an encyclopedia entry. With an old game like Blood, you're not going to find many sources of reviews and analysis online. The most scant game article I've done is probably Malice (computer game), and even with that I had to trawl through web archives looking at dead pages. SiN is one of my better articles, but even then, I've put up a todo list up of things I couldn't find or get a good source for. But I think all the main contributors to the project do try and write proper encyclopedic articles about the respective games, it's just that a lot of people, passing fans etc just like to info dump. - Hahnchen 22:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Articles

Can we add articles into the infobox on the front page without asking permission of some sort? I'd really like to add Diablo II: Lord of Destruction into there as it has been marked for cleanup for ages. Rob 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Err...what do you mean exactly? Thunderbrand 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
He means in the CVG project infobox that is on the main project page on the right hand side. --Larsinio 16:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Gamebox contents to be exact. I never really looked at it in depth before - I didn't know it was that manual, there's some out-of-date stuff on there! --Pagrashtak 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know you can add and remove articles from that template till your hearts content! I've done so several times in the past and never been met with any opposition. Of course, add articles in the proper section and only remove articles once they have been properly dealt with - copyedited as asked for etc. One thing I have noticed though ..ther have been some articles listed on there for months. We really need to work at improving them and getting them out of that template and getting new articles listed on there so they can more easily be brought to the attention of the Project members. --Naha|(talk) 18:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I just removed some out-of-date entries. I'm confused about the expand section though. I looked at a few articles listed there; they were stubs, but I was expecting to see the {{expand}} template. Shouldn't an article have a request for expansion to be listed there? --Pagrashtak 19:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Check this out!

http://www.dfulmer.com/project/handheld_evolution/

"Note: Each portable system links opens up a new window to external site: Wikipedia."

Very, very cool :-) Well done guys and girls! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

ELSPA Ratings

A couple of points here:

  1. There's currently only one ELSPA rating image (Image:ELSPA 11Plus.jpg); would it make sense to add more? (Nintendo has some images.)
  2. If it would make sense to add more, and they were to be used in infoboxes, picking a decent size will be a bit tricky since ESRB/CERO/PEGI ratings are all in similar boxes, whilst ELSPA will just look weird: Image:ELSPA 11Plus.jpg. Any suggestions?

I know that these are fairly trivial, but I feel it would make sense to agree before going and doing it wrong. --Dave2 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they look awful on small scale and weren't designed to be used on that small scale. And if left big, enough they, um, steal the show. And if you start cropping them, we might as well ask what's the point of using images at all, since they aren't the real images then, just the cropped ones - we could achieve better results with CSS if you want some kEwL results. 11+! Not that I think it's a good idea or anything =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
That's an idea. Shame a div would be a bit more work than I can be arsed to do (to make it line up properly), so as to be able to give it a decent border too :P --Dave2 12:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Game series templates?

I've been wondering if this project should cover game series templates. I've noticed that there isn't no formal guideline - Template:Metroid series looks radically different than Template:Mario Kart series. The MK template is what seems to have caught on - the type on the side, and the games listed like so. Or should it be left to consensus with the individual editors?

i'd also like to ask qabout a particular template. I recently created the Template:Mario Golf series for Mario Golf. I found out that NES Open Tournament Golf stars Mario. Should NES Open Tournmant Golf be mentioned in the template, as a side mention, or not even listed at all? - Hbdragon88 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, all of them look quite different. I don't really mind. It kind of "personalizes" each one, you could say. I dunno about the mario golf thing. It wouldn't hurt to give it a link. Thunderbrand 20:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

CVG stub templates

Hello there. I have a question about existing CVG stub templates. There are two types of stub templates for games, by genre and by company. Are you people of CVG Wikiproject OK with this? I mean, if there is, say, a platform game from Konami, it can be marked with {{platform-cvg-stub}} or {{Konami-stub}}, or both. So if you look through Cat:Platform game stubs you may not see this game because it's marked with {{Konami-stub}} only.

On the other hand, the whole lot of CVG stubs is sitting nicely in the subcategories (with ~130 articles in the main category), which may be due to combined use of genre and company templates.

So, what's your view? If it's all OK, I'm going to inform WP:WSS about this, and add company templates to the stub types list. If not, some action like replacing all company templates with the genre templates may be needed. Conscious 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure we need many more company stub templates. I've been reducing the stub count in the cvg-stub category recently and I have rarely used company templates. Thunderbrand 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Should they be eliminated completely, then? Conscious 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
In my mind? Yes. Most of them can be filed under platform, action, fict, adventure-cvg-stub, etc. I would like to see what other people think though. Thunderbrand 16:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Boy

I've made a start with cleaning up and standardizing these games. I've created a template and tidied up the Wonder Boy article, but I'm yet to do the rest of the games. Would appreciate any comments that people have on the article(s). Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Help with Majora's Mask

I'm working to help The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask become a featured article (see the discussion here. I just did a lot of editing to address some objections by Fredrik — I'd appreciate it if someone could copyedit the article, as I'm sure I've made some mistakes in there somewhere. Also, I'd like someone to help with the objections about the images. I think a shot of the close-up of Link's pained face when he puts on one of the transformation masks (Zora perhaps?) would both illustrate a transformation and show that MM is darker than most Zelda games. Thanks to anyone who can help. --Pagrashtak 06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Majora's Mask is once again a featured article. It could still benefit from some image work if anyone wants to help tie off some loose ends, but it looks pretty good — thanks to everyone who helped. --Pagrashtak 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks

Can anyone with time help out with some wikibooks about games. Some examples:

Thanks 86.41.154.140 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll look them over, and if anyone would like to, they could add some to the b:Super Mario World wikibook. I cleaned it up a little, and I'll try doing some more in the future if I can. Chris M. 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

MobyGames

How useful are links to MobyGames? What if a user was purposely putting links to MobyGames in every page he visits? I'm saying this because every contribution of User:Ravimakkar is a link to MobyGames. I spotted him when he added a useless link at an article of mine Kingpin: Life of Crime. I was going to revert it, but was beaten by User:Nahallac Silverwinds. So how useful is a link to MobyGames? Some are alright, but looking at Ravimakkar's edits, it just looks like link spam. - Hahnchen 19:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted somewhere between 20-40 of these today by the same user as mentioned above. These links add NO USEFUL CONTENT. The "game summaries" that these links point to are extremly short, poorly written, and in some cases include incorrect information. This can also be seen as advertising spam. Its link spam, its not useful, its just clutter. At this point I encourage other editors to remove them from the gaming articles as they come across them. Thanks! --Naha|(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Generally the wikipedia articles have more information. Mobylinks are good for some things like developers, or game covers and shit like that. But not really for informative content. Nevertheless, i dont think it can be constituted as linkspam, and i have no problem keeping mobylinks on the articles --Larsinio 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The quality on Moby is inconsistent. Some are OK, some aren't, but things like the link to Moby games on Kingpin were just pure advertisment. Literally, box shot, 4 lines and big adverts for the game. But the thing is, we have a template for this at Template:Moby game. So I wasn't sure of people's views on it, although if like the user linked above, where every edit is a link to Mobygames, I'd pretty much call that linkspam. - Hahnchen 19:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is straight up link spam. This is basically all this user does. Today, I have corrected around 100 edits that added nothing but a link to Mobygames. Looking at his contribution list, there may be a few hundred more. I contend this is blatent advertising and linkspam, and poor linkspam at that. The majority of the Moby articles are horriby written and as I have already stated, many contain flat out misinformation. I will continue to remove them at the present. They contain no information that cannot be found elsewhere, off of the offical game sites or more trustworthy "fan" sites. --Naha|(talk) 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Before I joined Wikipedia I think there was a LONG discussion among the then-active editors and as I understand it they settled that the ONE link that would be OK in each article would be to Moby. I agree Moby is often flawed, but it does have a lot of data available nowhere else. User:Frecklefoot probably remembers it -- maybe we can find the archive to see the issues that were raised so we can learn from their debate. I'll put a note on his talk page. Coll7 22:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I remember having this discussion, but I can't find what I said then. I frankly don't care. MobyGames, in my opinion, isn't any worse of a source than Wikipedia, which like Wikipedia (not to blast it) I would only use as a starting point in research on a specific topic - in this case, games. The use of MobyGames as an external link I think depends on what kind of information and the quality/amount of information they have to offer about the game, person or company. Not every game they have on that site has the same amount or quality of information. It doesn't matter if it doesn't necessarily add anything that Wikipedia doesn't provide (not IMHO). What an external link should provide is alternate, useful, and accessible source of information. That's it. If it meets that criteria for the game, person, or company then add it. If not, don't. What I think needs to be discussed here (and not confused with) is the need for more references. External links are not references. That's not their purpose. Our video game articles here, no matter how well-written you think they are (with the exception of featured articles) lack references. As the amount of references increases, the amount of these types of external links should decrease - I believe that's a guideline somewhere. My 2 cents anyway. K1Bond007 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That's true. To help, I think we need to expand the guidelines section of the Wikiproject page and say something about references, including a suggested method for referencing an instruction manual, good sources to look for CVG information, and other such CVG peculiarities. For a while now I've been thinking that it might be a good idea to split off that part of the page into a style guide (I hesitate to say Manual of Style) or else create a separate style guide that goes into greater detail. To stay somewhat on topic, I've consulted MobyGames in the past when writing articles, which is why I usually include it as a link. --Pagrashtak 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
While I have stoped removing links, awaiting the outcome of this discussion I really don't have anything else to add now and stand by my previous comments and convictions about Moby Games: Moby articles are extremly uninspiring and lacking and often have incorrect information. The presence of links to that site add nothing to the Wikipedia articles. I also consider adding the same link to 200+ articles in a such a short time span to be link spam. In response to the reference problem - yes I completely agree - it is a problem and we need to nip it in the bud. Although its not just a video-game article problem, its a problem across all of Wikipedia unfortunatly. --Naha|(talk) 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Before Wikipedia MobyGames was often the ONLY source of this information. Also MobyGames records video game credits. As far as I know it is the only place recording this information. In the game development community this feature is much appreciated as it is typically their only form of recognition. Additionally images are MobyGames are either original ( if you could use such a word ) scan or screen captures. Meaning they do not accept images taken from other sites. You will typically find images not available elsewhere. Check out the cover art for Indigo Prophecy. I do have to admit the game descriptions are not up to the same quality level as Wikipedia.--Flipkin 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
What the case may or may not have been before Wikipedia is moot. In regards to "video game credits," if you are referring to facts like the Publisher(s) or Developer(s) of the games, this type of information for most games is readily available on a mryiad of fan/review/community sites, in addition to offical websites for the games/game companies (if they exist). As far as images go, I try to get them whereever I can - to find the best, most clear pictures that depict important content/aspects of the game and they are typically never from the same site twice in a row /shrug.
When it comes down to it, especially rare/older games, sometimes its hard to find information/pictures of them ..and you have get the material wherever you can find it, be it Moby or somewhere else. That I understand, don't get me wrong. Before this conversation took place, I had no idea the procject even had a template for the site for the sole purpose of external links. Do these exist for other game sites? It just continues to baffle me ...that this would be the site of choice. But, I digress. My opinion appears to be in the minority and I respect that. I love working on this project (and all of Wikipedia); there are far more noble and time-worthy duties to perform around the 'pedia to spend any more time quibbling over this minor issue. While the reason this conversation spawned was what I still classify as linkspam, I will not remove any more External Links to Moby from game articles. I do, however, urge everyone to check facts they get from Moby (or any game site) against 1 or 2 other sources before inserting them into an article. Happy wikkying! --Naha|(talk) 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
When I mean credits I mean the people who worked on the game example. --Flipkin 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since I was asked for it, here's my $.02 and some history. In the recent past, we discussed which links were acceptable and which were not. Several sites were bandied about, such as GameSpot and others (which I can't remember). They were all rejected because they were commercial, even if they had some "free" content. We decided that links to MobyGames were fine since the site is not commercial. Yes, it does have advertisements, but I really don't find them objectionable. AAMOF, I habitually tune out ads within web pages whenever I encounter them. Sometimes they're bothersome, but they really don't register with my psyche. And the ads are NOT pop-ups. If they were, I'd object strongly to linking to the site.
Personally, I'll keep adding MobyGames links to any computer/console game entries which lack them. Here's why:
  1. I habitually refer to MobyGames when researching an article for a video game article. It doesn't always have an entry for a game, but it usually does. If so, it has release dates, publisher info and other data which is invaluable.
  2. Some MobyGames entry are dreadful, but MobyGames entries get updated continually. Just because when you link to it it sucks, it doesn't mean it always will. We have the same situation here on Wikipedia. How often have you included a wikilink to an article which was just a stub even though it deserved a nice, long, juicy article? Do you forgo the wikilink because the linked-to article wasn't long enough for your tastes?
  3. It's not commercial. Yes, MobyGames has ads, and I already gave my thoughts on that above. I'm sure the admins of the site aren't making a goldmine off the stipend they get for including those ads. Whatever they get probably just covers the cost of keeping the site up and running (I'm making some assumtions here, but I think I'm probably pretty close).
  4. MobyGames is well respected within the professional game industry. Just look at developer's "rap sheets" and you'll see that many developers contribute that infomation (and photos).
  5. MobyGames far outstrips the 'pedia in number of and quality of screenshots (for the reason alone I'd link to them).
  6. MobyGames usually has full credits for games, which most other sites don't have (us included).
I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. I link to MobyGames and will keep doing it. It's an invaluable resource. Frecklefoot 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
And I'm sure it doesn't hurt that they have an aritcle about you there ;) *runs and ducks* (I'm just teasing, this is sound reasoning). --Naha|(talk) 16:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've said above that I don't really mind links to MobyGames, and I don't, some are useful. But it's objectionable when users log into Wikipedia just to insert MobyGames links into every article. Sure, we should assume good faith, but it just seems that they want to promote MobyGames and not improve wikipedia. I mean, Flipkin is a newsposter at MobyGames for example. Is it OK for someone to constantly and only insert links to a commercial entity into Wikipedia? And if MobyGames was purely a bastion of computer games information, why do they stamp all their images with the MobyGames logo in the corner? Why not just install put in some anti-hotlinking code and let others use their freely contributed images? - Hahnchen 14:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Right, as mentioned above, the original reason for this discussion was linkspam. Whhile I stand by what I did, I most-likely will not do it again because 1) it took forever and 2) the majority here seems to approve of moby links - and Freklefoot has made some good points. I think we can probably move on now. --Naha|(talk) 16:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read all this, but it appears to me that there are a lot of advocates of mobygames.com trying to, well, infect every computer or video game related article with a reference to that more or less notable database. The actual extent of that link spamming in the English wikipedia can be seen in google [2] (including redirect & talk pages). Why are they so engaged, I wonder... --RememberMe 20:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My 0.05€: I'm not complaining. Yes, Moby has shaky quality at times. Yes, they have obscure shit cataloged, which is a very very good thing. They have rather nice bunch of game credits listed up, which is ruleful. Yes, if you think the entries suck there, you can contribute (I've contributed to both MobyGames and Wikipedia, was just about as much pain). All in all there are worse sites to link to, MobyGames has ocassionally great stuff in it, so no, I am not complaining. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My 2¢: I don't care what website is linked to (for the most part) as long as that link is relative and valid information. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠

I think the MobyGames links need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. In some cases the links provide supplemental information that is not covered by the article, but in other cases, the links are basically devoid of any information. To just blindly add or remove all such links without considering the quality of the information contained within is a bad approach. By the way, I'm suspicious that the person or persons adding these links are somehow associated with MobyGames. It has been alleged that Flipkin is actually David Berk, one of the owners of the website. If this is true, the failure of this user to disclose his interest in the site makes me question his edits and the edits of others concerning MobyGames. This rampant linking seems a lot like self promotion. Gregmg 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot category division

Maybe we should make a division between screenshots that are released by the studio for promotional purposes and screenshots that are taken and released by other entities. This might be undesirable because it'd be easier to spot non-legitimate claims of fair use but it might be desirable for the same reason. Does anybody think this is a good idea? It might be a good way to quiet down those who blank all screenshots, but then it could get a lot screenshots determined not fair use and taken away. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean like creating a tag such as {{game-promotional-screenshot}} or something? Although we file promotional screens under {{promotional}}. Thunderbrand 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Since when does a screenshot have to be part of an official "promotional" pack for the game? Gaming magazines etc all take their own screenshots for the game which they deem fair-use, why not wikipedia? Personally, I think that there are too many of these {{things}} anyway. - Hahnchen 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, a screenshot is a screenshot, regardless of its origin and all (un-altered) screenshots belong to the same fair-use category. --Naha|(talk) 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
They aren't. The company takes and releases screenshots that they want used to promote the game. Other screenshots that may reflect aspects of gameplay that a publisher doesn't want publicized could fall outside of the fair use standard. They may not, but they don't have the implied consent that company-released screenshots do. We are very safe using those; others I would not expect to be challenged but could be.
It's fine if the screenshot template is deemed sufficient, I don't have a problem with that. This is just an idea I had and I thought it might help out with some people blanking screenshots. Thanks for your replies. :) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If that is truly the case, I would have never come to that conclusion on my own, my brain works differently I suppose. Out of pure speculation, I would have thought that the images the company produced to promote the game would be copyrighted and protected - not for others to use, while amature screenshots that I could take of a game would be free for me to use ..shots of a particular game save that is unique to me etc, not the other way around. Where can I find an "offical source" that states this type of policy? I'd like to be able to refer to it. Thanks! --Naha|(talk) 23:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If the screenshot accurately represented (and positively displayed) the look of the game the risk of a publisher or developer raising an objection is very low: publishers want screen shots widely distributed as a matter of principle. An example of something risky: Say that someone did a screen grab and it was very dark, so the characters were hard to see and the backgrounds were muddy, then uploaded it. It makes the game look bad, not good. The publisher or developer then has copyright law on their side when they object to the image and demand its withdrawal. Once their lawyers are involved they may hassle a website about other images, so the community sees that they defend their copyrights. Sticking to the official screenshots addresses both issues: you know they won't tick off the rights holders, and the copyright permissions are clear. Coll7 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, that is just common sense :) (still wondering if game publishers ever make offical statements regarding this), but I tend to agree with the statement below by Jacoplane. --Naha|(talk) 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Any screenshot taken from a game can be fair use, as long as it qualifies under the Fair use rationale requirements. Whether those screenshots come from the publisher or are taken by users is irrelivant. In any case, I don't think we should be tagging screenshots with {{Promotional}}. {{game-screenshot}} is fine. Jacoplane 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I agree the chance of this issue raising any actual objections from rights holders is very low, so this discussion is more about theory than pragmatism. In that context, in my hypothetical situation above the rights holder could claim protection under section 4: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." This is the usual basis for the (rare) hassles that happen online. Coll7 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should use promotional either. We should make and use promotional-game-screenshot if something like this happens. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
We should keep in mind that there are two kinds of "promo" screenshots: those that have been retouched and those that are straight screen grabs (which normally need to be brightened to match the actual look on a TV due to the dulling effect normal with screen grab software). The retouched ones may not reflect how the screens actually look and are journalistically "suspect"; the straight screen grabs are widely accepted by journalists as meeting their criteria for accuracy. Coll7 01:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
We should have two categories IMO. gameplay screenshots (which include titel screens, menus) and pre-rendered screenshots. Cinematics that occur with in-game renders would be gameplay. Maybe somethign like the following actually:
  • Game-screenshot
    • gameplay screenshot
    • title screenshot
    • pre-rendered cinematic screenshot

what you think? --Larsinio 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not too sure where this discussion is headed. But here are a few pointers. Game companies release official promo shots for the gaming press and fansite packages, these are fine under either the "promotional" or "game-screenshot" grouping. Anyone can also upload a limited amount of screenshots taken themselves or others if it fits in with the fair use rationale, these go into the "game-screenshot" grouping. I don't see why wikipedia should bend over backwards providing multiple choices for game-screenshot rationale. Flick through a gaming magazine, you find screenshots there from the title screen, cinematics and gameplay, you don't need a separate rationale for each one. They all fit into the "game-screenshot" grouping, why increase the redtape and bureaucracy involved in copyright and uploads, as if it didn't exist already. - Hahnchen 03:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
If this were to proceed, eventually there will be a screen that one user feels is promotional while everyone else thinks that it is a normal capture, and then we'll have a nice long edit war and a multi-page discussion, all over a not-very-useful template distinction.
If a screen is promotional and you feel like that gives you a stronger fair-use case, why not simply mention it in your fair-use rationale? --Pagrashtak 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This argument cannot be made as it would be a simple fact that the company has either released that screenshot or they haven't. If the suspicion is raised and the uploader cannot show a good source, the image will be deleted or moved into game-screenshot. It's not that big of a deal I don't really think anyone would fight like that. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 06:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
We've been in this situation before, where one user ignores consensus (and a simple fact) and insists on editing a page to fit his personal beliefs, which he claims are "undisputed facts", much to the consternation of the other editors. If you have been fortunate enough not to see it yet, you're lucky. --Pagrashtak 13:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we just put everything into the game-screenshot category as we do already? - Hahnchen 14:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
We can, and we should. This is a bit much. --Naha|(talk) 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Xenosaga

What do you guys think of the Xenosaga articles/lists? I'm still in the middle of cleaning them up and all (still a lot of work to be done...and I don't even want to get into Xenogears!). Deckiller 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd probably be better off nominating specific articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review. Jacoplane 02:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Xenogears plot information

I know that Xenosaga lists may have somewhat detailed plot explanations, but do you feel that detailed plot summaries and whatnot are not appropriate for the characters/events of Xenogears? I'm really torn on this issue. Deckiller 16:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing wikipedians?

For a while I have been wondering where did these two go: TheDotGamer and Pie4all88. TheDotGamer left a message on their page, but that was way back in August. Pie4all88, creator of the GCOTW, seems to have completely dissapeared, last edit in September 05. Maybe add them to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians? Thunderbrand 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe try to email them first? Jacoplane 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
In any case it might be a good idea to go through the list of participants and see which users are still contributing to CVG articles and which are not. The list is getting rather long. Jacoplane 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking about the list. I'll email them. Thunderbrand 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking we might remove the list altogether and simply ask users to add a category to their userpage. That would remove the clutter from the project page. I've created a userbox (I know many people hate these) that adds you to Category:WikiProject Computer and video games member. Personally, I feel this is a better solution than having the list on the Project page. Jacoplane 21:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The category should be named Category:WikiProject Computer and video games members — categories like this should be plural. --Pagrashtak 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed it. I think the cache needs to update first... Thunderbrand 00:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
NOTICE: Everyone who just added themselves needs to edit their user page to be included in the renamed category. Thunderbrand 00:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Can't email TheDotGamer because they didnt specify an email. Thunderbrand 18:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I presume this is the same guy. Jacoplane 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind the userbox. Thunderbrand 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Nor would I. -ZeroTalk 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)