Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 57

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. 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 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

I've been having an edit war with some anon user who insist on keeping the articles Hadoken and Shoryuken rather than leaving then merged to Ryu, even though both articles simply just list of variation of the same technique used by Ryu and other characters in the Street Fighter series, along with the obligatory "pop-culture references" and "trivia" sections.

I don't see much point in having either articles since the different variations could simply be described on the character-specific articles themselves on a Gameplay or Techniques sub-section (i.e: Ryu, Ken, Akuma and Gouken), not to mention the fact that they're filled with original research, unsourced allegations of apparent "retcons", and they seem to be more of various editors' perceptions of the techniques, with greater emphasis on the very minimal plot the series has than their actual use in gameplay (i.e: a well-placed Gou Shoryuken can be fatal to an opponent – it has the ability to kill anyone in one stroke if the practitioner is skilled enough). In other words, there's little point in having these articles. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, going either way with the thing, it can be difficult to "determine" where the pop culture references are for uses of Hadoken and Shoryuken in pop culture. Stuff like the Deadpool bit for example more directly references Street Fighter itself than Ryu, Ken or Akuma, but another usage will reference one of those two instead. Ultimately though the articles might be better redirected towards the street fighter series article, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ since the standard versions of the Hadouken, Shoryuken and Tatsumaki Senpukyaku are only used by Ryu and Ken in the series. Akuma uses more powerful versions (the Gou Hadou, Gou Shoryu and Tatsumaki Zankukyaku) and so does Gouken in Street Fighter IV (who doesn't even have a Shoryuken as a standard Special Move). Dan, Sakura and Sean all use special moves based on those techniques rather than the actual techniques (i.e: the Gadoken, Shooken and Koryuken). The only exception is Sakura's Hadoken.
Ryu is pretty much the original character to use these techniques, since Ken was originally the Player 2 version of Ryu in SF1, so its natural to redirect Hadoken and Shoryuken to his page (especially since Ryu is the lead character of the series).
The only other alternative is to merge those two and Senpukyaku to one article. There is actually an umbrella term for all three of those techniques, but its not used very often, even in Japanese language media (the techniques are referred as the "Three Sacred Techniques" in Super X and EX2 according to All About Capcom Fighting Game).Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think a merge is highly appropriate. Details about how moves are performed and what they do go against WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Everything else is a list of pop culture references which could be used to improve an article about Ryu, Ken, or the Street Fighter series in general. Randomran (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Detailing the gameplay differences between characters is important, because not everyone follows the Street Fighter series for its storyline and people don't just choose Ken over Ryu (or vice versa) just because they prefer his red karate gi and blond hair or something. There are actual differences between them in terms of playing style (with the exception of SF1, since even the first SF2 had subtle differences between the two). But having an entire article for one specific Special Move is a bit absurd, especially when they focus more on the minimal plot the series has than their actual uses in their games (i.e: is it a Special Move, a Super Combo, or what). I've cleaned up the articles a bit and removed the "Users by canon" section, since the only criteria for "canon" is whether they been featured in a mainstream Street Fighter game or not (as opposed to a game in the Vs. Series), a moot point since the formerly "non-canon" Metsu Hadouken is now Ryu's Ultra Combo in SF4. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Following on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 56#Dealing with Total War factions, where project consensus on the issue of listing every single faction in Total War articles quickly made itself clear, can I request some comments over at Talk:Empire: Total War? I completed my rewrite of the article, and as I feared, the fans don't seem to be taking the removal of the faction lists well, throwing out the typical arguments that we have lists on the anatomy of real animals, so we should have lists of fictional factions based on real ones, and that all other Total War articles list their factions (despite not a single other Total War article being even vaguely of decent quality by Wikipedia standards), so this article should too. -- Sabre (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Captain class frigate, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick thought, should we list these cross peer reviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review to give them more exposure, and maybe ask the Military project to do the same on their PR page? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

Sounds like a good suggestion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question, how should archiving be handled? Should they just be removed once they are closed, or removed and added to a special section in the PR archive? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

My sole reservation is that the Milhist review dept page is already very long. I have asked the other coordinators what they think and their mileage may vary. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the consideration. I would argue that given the small number of partnered reviews, the extra length would be negligible. But I can certainly see you have a valid concern and will respect whatever decision the Milhist project comes to. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Update- I added sections for the MilHist reviews at WP:VG/PR and the PR archive. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Happily, it doesn't seem to be a problem at all at Milhist. Easiest would be if the whole peer review request section could be transcluded directly to a new "Partner peer review" section at Milhist: then individual entries would only need updating at this end. If you could tweak it here to achieve that (or come up with a similar mechanism), I'll set up the new section at Milhist. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I just noticed the response. I believe that can be accomplished with the only include tags. My only concern is that the PR request section can sometimes get quite long. Would this be an issue, or would you just prefer to limit it to partnered peer reviews that are announced at WT:MILHIST? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Probably best to limit it to the partner peer reviews. In practical terms, I thought it would be easiest if Milhist transcluded your entire peer review page, using <includeonly> and </includeonly> tags to display only the partner peer reviews. This will require some maintenance at your end, ie making sure that the tags don't drift or get deleted, but is probably the simplest and most effective option. If you guys are happy with this, we can start rockin' and rollin' within hours :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with either way, but think limiting to the partnered reviews is the best practice for now. Let's see what others here think.

If we do transclude the requests, we've got a couple people watching our PR page that can make sure the tags are placed properly. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

<start rant> I hope everyone can indulge my rant/experiment/long-winded post. Anyway, for those that don't follow the Featured article candidates discussions, a long time and well-respected reviewer, Elcobbola, has recently retired. The reasons aren't entirely clear, but SandyGeorgia, the FAC delegate, believes Elcobbola to have been driven away by incivility and rudeness at FACs, doing the important and thankless job of image reviewing, and carrying a heavy burden with little help.

To get to the point, this is an idea I've batted around in my head for a while, but never got around to doing. Now is as good a time as any I guess. Editing on Wikipedia in any capacity is generally a thankless job. Add in the uphill battle of creating quality articles, and you've got an unwelcoming environment for volunteers. To help change this, I propose that for a week we try to go the extra mile to show appreciation to our fellow editors. Sound a bit silly? Maybe. But what will it really hurt to give it a try?

Sometimes situations call for us to be stern and unforgiving, but we can't forget the need to be friendly and appreciative as well. Call me crazy, but I've always felt being able work well with others is a skill and trait that will never go out of fashion. We're all here to do the same thing; create quality articles. It makes sense to me that being able to work together and get that pat on the back will only make that goal even easier.

Feel a person has done something worthy of notice, then give them a barnstar. There are several types you can give out for whatever reason, and there are numerous editors which have done many thankless jobs that deserve recognition. Most probably wouldn't ever ask for a "thank you", so I'll ask for them. Please give them the thanks they deserve, whether it be for a large or small task.

Don't feel like giving out a barnstar, then simply making an effort to respect your fellow editors in discussions is another option. If you're engaged in a heated discussion, take a minute or two before responding to the latest message, make sure you use the preview option before posting to see what your response actually looks like, or just try to keep in mind that there's an actual person on the other end of the screen. Editors will always come and go, but if we create a welcoming and supportive environment, they will stay longer. <end rant> (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedians tend to be a "work hard, stay logical" kind of bunch. It's sometimes important to take a step back and say "oh yeah, I hope that other Wikipedian knows I have a lot of respect for them". It sometimes gets lost in our "workoholic" culture, and trust me that people like it when someone notices what they do. And the more you mean to give it, the more it means to them to accept it. Randomran (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today, User:Ben Standeven merged the two articles Chronology of console role-playing games: 1980s and Chronology of computer role-playing games: 1970 to 1989 without any discussion, stating only that "computer and console RPGs weren't distinct that far back". I was wondering if I could solicit some feedback on the merger, here. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain how the articles are worth keeping? I'm ready to AfD the lot of it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why on Earth would we delete them? (I agree with the merge, though) Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

They are part of the Lists of video games series of articles. SharkD (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how this lists are helpful besides opening up debate over what falls in what category... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, merge the lists. But chronological orderings of things is very useful - probably the most useful ordering of games available for me as a video game scholar. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree on merging the lists. Deletion is harsh. There's value to including a short list of information beyond what you might see in the category. But drop the computer/console distinction, as Phil Sandifer and Ben Standeven put forward. Centralize as much as possible, and just include that distinction in the "platform" column. Randomran (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on the merge - I think that they are after all not the same. I'm not exactly familiar with the earliest examples of RPGs, but I'd say the fact computer RPGs are played with a keyboard/mouse later on is a significant difference from console RPGs. Also, if we are claiming they are the same, then where is the cutoff point? Why is it 1990 and not 1985? If we go down that road, then it's "original research" - a console/computer divide, on the other hand, is perfectly clear. --VPeric (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC) [of course, you could just merge _all_ the lists, but that might make 'em too big and cluttered]

I'm fine with ignoring the distinction up until present - when the lists are ordered chronologically, it's perfectly easy to just follow the thread you want of console or computer RPG when scanning the list. I think, for most purposes, the distinction is artificial. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

These lists don't provide any sort of context and usefulness beyond being a directory; what we should be worried about is improvement of the actual genre articles, where the most important RPG's will get mentioned anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Chronology is a useful context in and of itself. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Early consoles also had memory restrictions, meaning you could save less often and less data. With less room to save, persistent data had to be limited considerably. SharkD (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Platform matters a great deal. But I don't really see the advantage of splitting the list when platform is clearly marked on each entry. It is not as though computer and console RPGs have not always had significant impact on each other. Why split the chronologies? Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil seems pretty reasonable, here. There's an obvious relationship between RPGs of all platforms. And we have a column for platform that makes separating the lists by platform completely unnecessary. Randomran (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the distinction between console/computer is useful, as it covers other differences (such as cultural ones) that have coincided with the development on parallel platforms (see Cultural differences in role-playing video games). The entire structure of the articles on the topic of video RPGs is based on this distinction. Also, the first sources in History of computer role-playing games and Console role-playing game both recognize this distinction (see: [1][2]). Lastly, the original proposal was not to merge the entire list; it was only to merge the first decade(s). SharkD (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right; while I would not be averse to merging the entire batch of lists, my original point was only that "console RPG" and "computer RPG" weren't considered separate things until well into the 1990s, and so the lists covering earlier times should not be separated.Ben Standeven (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the first notable RPGs for console came prior to 1990 though. Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy being the 2 biggest. I think before these 2, the distinction was not so great. Since the last 2 games DQ drew mostly upon were Ultima and Bard's Tale and DQ and FF have have had the most impact on console RPGs, this would be the most ideal time to split them from computer RPGs.Jinnai (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK; the american release of Dragon Quest was in 1989, which seems like a reasonable place to start the split. 1986 seems too early to me, though. Ben Standeven (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Sin article be renamed? I haven't put in a formal request, since I'm not sure what the rules on capitalization on VG's are. See: Talk:Sin_(video_game)#Rename_article --DanielPharos (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSTM, we don't use non-English spellings of trademarked names for article titles. Thus, the article is correctly named. --MASEM 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't really agree with it, but OK. So that means SiN Episodes should be renamed to 'Sin Episodes'? --DanielPharos (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. --MASEM 16:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I hijack this to ask a related name question? If a company's legal name is "The Creative Assembly Ltd" and the company refers to themselves on their site as "The Creative Assembly" or occassionally "CA", should the article be at Creative Assembly or The Creative Assembly? -- Sabre (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:THE. Following the logic, you need to determine if you would capitalize "the" in "John Smith is the CEO of The Creative Assembly." It sounds like it would be, thus, "The" is needed. --MASEM 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They have three companies registered at Companies House in the UK: All of them are registered with 'The' at the beginning, The Creative Assembly Limited, The Creative Assembly International Limited and The Creative Assembly Studios Limited - X201 (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Races of The Legend of Zelda series - It's disputed whether a consensus was reached over the merging of this article. Randomman (whom the dissenter says has no place in the discussion since he was a "hit and run voter") and I both thought it should be merged, while only one user disagreed with a merge. In addition to this, I contacted TTN about it at some point, though I am not positive to the when or where. Can I get a stronger consensus on the issue? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with what? SharkD (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be Universe of The Legend of Zelda#Races. --76.66.186.121 (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is already fairly long...Jinnai (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not picking sides, I think consensus should call for more than three opinions. And as Jinnai said, the article is already bloated. More voices would have been beneficial before action.--Koji† 22:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article probably needs to be cleaned up and summarized in a few places. Randomran (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The merger seems OK to me. Maybe the article could be trimmed a bit. SharkD (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the content deserves to be mentioned, but I think if you limited article content to that which could be reliably sourced, it would axe about half of the content and cut it to a reasonable size. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

People at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development history of the Final Fantasy series suggested that all development sections of the 8 featured and 4 good Final Fantasy articles be removed from the game articles to be placed on the Development article. Since the deletion page has been closed, I'm creating this topic here to discuss the idea further. Any thought on what should be done? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is, in a word, moronic. I have the sad suspicion people either don't realize what they're doing is effectively destroying articles for the sake of redundancy and forced-topic-making, or they just want to grab a star at some point. There has been no good argument made for why a common dev article must be made when the articles by criteria should have all the information needed, and are linked together anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That AFD was strange and closed in an odd way; obviously no one wanted the information deleted, but the question of where to put infomration was really the issue. I strongly urge those that wanted this article to reconsider it. I'm looking through it now and note that it is too disjointed (each game was developed separately and only minimal overlap is there), there's now too many non-free images with that page, and just a whole host of other problems outside of the missing references and the like. Plus we have the issue that Megata states above. "Development" sections are a key part for showing the real-world aspects of a VG article and should never be stripped from them, the same as with the basic reception information. I don't see any sign that the FF articles were getting too long, so stripping a section seemed like a inappropriate step. If an article on the development of the series was presented from a more high level overview (the development timeline for the cases, were there times two or more FF were being worked on at the same time, etc.), leaving the technical details of each game to the game's article, that would be a better solution. --MASEM 13:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, my vote was in favor of keeping because I did not see a problem with redundancy - that is, I supported maintaining the sections and the article. I would suggest simply doing this - there's no reason to let an AfD result wreck eight articles, and particularly not to allow it to reduce articles to non-featured status. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy is bad - you basically now have two versions of a game's development history that may progress in two very different ways, and becomes a maintenance nightmare. Some redundancy is fine - if the development article was a large scale overview, obvious some details from individual games would be copied, but that's not the same issue as trying to recount the same level of detail in two articles. --MASEM 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that if they develop in different ways the good from one can be merged into the other and visa versa. But in any case, I think redundancy is certainly preferable to breaking articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to avoid two things: redundancy and breaking featured articles. To me, the only way to do that is to change the Development history of the Final Fantasy series into an index to the main articles and their respective sections. If the main articles are too long, they need to be split in another way that doesn't remove key content that's *required* for featured article status. Randomran (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article has taken the wrong approach. Articles are meant to be overviews of topics—not a repeat of other articles as pointed out above. If this article has any chance of surviving it needs a complete overhaul in its structure. The organization should be focused on the common elements and themes. It should start with a section on "Common themes"/"Design goals", then be followed by a section on the "Graphics and technology". Most of what is currently there should be significantly trimmed and put into a section titled "Main series", and a similar section should be created about about spin offs. I would then end with a section titled "Localization and remakes".

I feel it should also be said that you'll find very little on the web about most of this. A large chunk will have to found in printed sources like magazines and books. An article like this is possible, but won't be easy. This probably would have been a good one to start as draft in userspace. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. Right now you could template in each section into two different articles and not notice a difference. An article like this needs to be more than the sum of its constituent parts. Nifboy (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem here. The main game article give a summary and the development articles discuss the development in more detail. From where I am standing that's Wikipedia:Summary style and therefore a valid spin-off topic. As long as the main article sections are kept small and have a link to the expanded articles, I see no redundancy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• 8 Featured articles to be demoted? Can you point out which ones? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The implication was that if the development sections are removed, the article is no longer comprehensive and thus doesn't meet all the FA criteria. Giggy (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of the FF game articles are at FA (excluding spinoffs like ffx-ii). --MASEM 12:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're hard-pressed to find a consensus to stub or listify the article after the AfD. Thus I continue to think that redundancy is the best available option. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that this problem would be remedied if the one article went bye-bye. I hate to flip-flop, but if there is a renewed consensus here to delete per what is above (i.e. different situation than the first AFD), then why don't we renominate the article for AFD? As I said in my keep !vote in the first AFD, "one or the other, but not both." However, that was without realizing the impact on eight other good articles; I'll trout myself there for the lack of hindsight. MuZemike (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to re-AFD it - it's not a bad-faith nomination, but I think it needs a better input than what we got - several points here need to be restated there. Specifically:

Per notability guidelines and what we strive for in video game coverage, development is a core aspect of a video game's article - without it, we really can't consider the article as best quality. Development of a video game should never be stripped from the article. Thus spinning out this section should never be done.

Having the same information in both the development article and the game articles is not an acceptable solution as this can create divergent information as content forks may do so. Across WP we should avoid excessive duplication of information to start.

The new page now raises serious NFC issues - each dev section had one or two non-frees, and when part of the 2-4 other images per game article, was a reasonable amount. Now you have an article with 15-20-some NFCs, and that's starting to push the bounds that are acceptable.

Now, a "development history" of the series, focusing on the general trends (eg pre, during, and post the Squeenix merger) makes sense; that would be a very different article. It might not be long but would be a good part of the FF series article if this was the case, but even if not, series articles are different from game articles, and splitting off a detailed history might make sense. --MASEM 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would interpret a re-nomination as being a good faith act, emphasizing the points that Masem raised. 1: Redundancy is bad because of content forking and the potential for the two articles to go out of sync; 2: We need the development sections in the featured articles, or else they would be demoted; 3: There is no development history of FF, only a bunch of development sections on a bunch of different games compiled into the same article; 4: A development history article with a lot of images raises copyright issues that can be avoided by just leaving those dev sections in their original articles ... That said, an AFD isn't absolutely necessary. I suggested turning it into a disambig page, but Masem's idea to turn it into a broader history of the major milestones in the FF series would be another way to make it work. I recommend aggressively re-writing it, rather than taking it to AFD again. (But I wouldn't object to an AFD.) Randomran (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. At least reduce/greatly summarize the content of the article or even possibly making it into a timeline would be good. It would save us another trip to AFD in the process. MuZemike (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that a "series development" section already exists here. Whether or not this is sufficiently comprehensive is a debate for another day--the point is that it exists. Anyway, my argument for DRV is that WP:DRV states that it can be used to review a discussion closed as "keep" as well (and not wanting to AFD something less than 2 weeks after a previous AFD). However, AFD with new rationale (and a new current state of the article) is a valid option at this point too. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be enough. Perhaps consensus has changed very quickly, in light of new information, and a merge/redirect to that section of the series article makes a lot of sense. Randomran (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I will note that I don't think a DRV will do anything - consensus was clearly keep - and not that those that stated "keep" were wrong, just that there's a difference of opinion here. AFD with a different approach will likely be the more useful solution, presuming that there are those that object to when the article is changed. --MASEM 21:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Randomran's idea. A bold merge/redirect to that section can be done now and if the series article gets too long, that section can be re-split out as necessary. The key difference here is that it shouldn't be a amalgamation of disparate dev sections, but rather a cohesive article. But only if it is absolutely necessary. The info should be conveyed cohesively but it's preferable to be in the series article rather than out on its own. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Note — there is also discussion regarding bring the recently-closed AFD to DRV here. MuZemike (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, haha. I thought this discussion was over because no one had responded for a few days, but I guess it started again just now. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been chipping away at improving the fighting game article. There's a lot of original research and unverified claims. I'm reasonably confident that I can clean-up and verify many of the claims made about the gameplay of fighting games (e.g.: special moves, multiplayer). But I could really use someone who knows/loves fighting games who can steer me in the right direction with the Fighting_game#History section.

In the history section, I think I did a good job explaining early fighting games, and the golden age of fighting games where SF2 and the MK and Virtua Fighter series were all booming. But as we hit the late 90s, it gets a little fuzzy. Keep in mind that the history section is not an exhaustive catalog of all games, but a summary of the overall trajectory of the genre. Compare with featured article 4X#History. I'd appreciate any suggestions (or sources) people can dig up. Thanks! Randomran (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The All About Capcom Head-to-Head Fighting Game book has an article detailing the evolution of Capcom's fighting games, including the introduction of features such as Super Moves and Tag Team, and I'm pretty sure All About SNK Head-to-Head Fighting Game must have a similar article. The only problem is that books are too, well, Capcom and SNK-centric. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good start. But you're right, midway it does seem to get a bit fuzzy. I think the main difference between the "early" and "rise" sections is that the first describes how the games shaped the genre, while the latter focuses on the popularity. The popularity is important, but more context is needed. Try including more info (if you can find it) about how the titles impacted the genre beyond their popularity. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Trust me, guys. I've been looking. I could really use some help here, especially with the latter half. (e.g.: the past decade.) Some of the sources I've used thus far are very focused (e.g.: "The History of Street Fighter") but I've tried to avoid giving this one source undue weight. If people can access other sources like that, I'm sure we can incorporate them without giving them too much weight. I'm really quite stumped at this point. I can probably explain why those games are more than popular -- how they influenced the direction of the genre. But I haven't the faintest idea what the big milestones are from the past 10 years. Tekken? Smash Bros? Randomran (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that big into the fighting genre, but Tekken and SSB sound reasonable. The Soul and DOA series were big too. Those two have also been criticized for their use of skimpy outfits and characters as sex symbols. Don't know what to do with that information, but it sounds like a trend worth investigating if you haven't already.

If you're looking for more sources Ultimate History of Video Games was released in 2001 and should cover some of the bigger releases in the 90s. I'm sure Game Over will cover the effect the Nintendo home conversions of SFII and MK had. Not sure were else to check. Hope that helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

For games like Battlefield 1942 or other first shooter games can we include a list of weapons in the article or even make a seperate article for it?--EZ1234 (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is no; see WP:VGSCOPE. The long answer is, examples are usually fine, and if the list is short enough you might be able to get away with it in prose (see Doom (video game)#Gameplay). Separate articles are for the most part right out, e.g. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Gears of War for a recent example. Nifboy (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally no, as Nifboy said. But a summary with a few examples would be fine. If there are few enough weapons in the game, you could name them all in prose. But generally, we don't do lists of weapons with 3 or 4 line descriptions of what each weapon looks like, where you get it, what it does, how it fits into the storyline... Randomran (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok just a quick question. If i was to make a list that contained primarily books, a video game, toys, board game and a card game would the title "List of XYZ media" be the correct title to use? Salavat (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That was the rationale behind the naming of List of Kingdom Hearts media and List of Halo media. And that's what I would name a list with such items.

Now that you bring this up, what guidelines should we follow for the naming of franchise lists? I've seen "List of XYZ media", "List of XYZ games", "List of XYZ video games", and "List of XYZ titles". The media one seems pretty clear cut to me, but what about the others? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

If it is a mixed-media franchise (pokemon, halo, etc. etc.) "List of X media" makes sense. If it is strictly video games "List of X video games" makes better sense. However, this should only be used if the franchise is only made available through video games, and/or the other outlets are non-notable or covered elsewhere (for example, not the best one, but Ratchet & Clank have a manga out, but I wouldn't call the R&C franchise a mixed-media). If the franchise is truly mixed-media, a separate list of video games only does not make sense (though a redirect from that to "List of X media" is completely reasonable). --MASEM 16:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You also need to consider if a series article covers the entire list fine or not before you even think about a list article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's take List of Castlevania titles for example. This is clearly a video game franchise, but has started to expand. At first only a film was planned so the list was named "titles" because the sections were "Video games" and "Other media". A Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse anime is also planned, and a radio drama is airing. With 3 non-video game titles, should the list remain a collection of "titles", or switched to a collection of "media"? And if it is renamed to "media", does that mean the soundtracks should be added too? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

I have proposed renaming Category:Sega CD games to Category:Sega Mega-CD games. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 7#Category:Sega CD games. Garrett^Talk 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this going to devolve into another heated shout-fest just like the fiasco regarding Sega Genesis versus Sega Mega Drive? MuZemike (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I still find it funny most of the references for the Sega Mega Drive article the last time I looked referred to it as the Genesis on a related note.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Ah nope, seems that's been rectified.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to move Sonic's Ultamate Genisis Collection to Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection, except I couldn't because it already exists.

The version with the speeling errors in the title has a better (IMO) introduction which can be patched up, but I'm not sure how to merge them and their histories (particularly as the spelling error title doesn't seem like a good redirect). Would someone rectify this please? Take a look at the collection, it includes Streets of Rage 2 :D. Someoneanother 15:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The second location didn't exist (redlink) so I'm not sure why you couldn't move it. Have now moved it. - X201 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Hong on.. another spelling mistake has crept in - X201 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Explanation of my move cock-up. I didn't check the spelling in your post and just copied and pasted the target name and moved the article, in the meantime you spotted your spelling mistake on here and corrected it. I spotted the spelling mistake in the moved article and came back here to see that the spelling was correct :) . Anyway I think the best course of action is: Seeing as how there are now 2 articles and one redirect copy the text from the article you want to the article at the correct location then turn the misspelt ones into redirects ( and possible deletion later) - X201 (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Have copied the text from the misspelt article to the correctly spelt one. Have redirected the two misspelt titles to the correct one. - X201 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, meant to preview but I'd copied the first title and double-checked the second so thought it would be fine. I was wrong. I'll try and fix up the resulting article and get some cites laid down when I get a minute, thanks for your time. Someoneanother 16:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing argument between me and JAF1970. I have redirected the article to Dead Rising but that author reverts. There is no information regarding. There is just leak that the game is in development but there is no official confirmation by Capcom regarding the game. Many games have been confirmed such has Bioshock 2, BioShock 3, Mass Effect 3 but all this article is been redirected to the main articles because it lacks information. DR 2 is in same situation and must be redirected to the article. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The information available warrants a sentence at most in Dead Rising. There's no need for an article at this point, when nothing is known about it except it exists. -- Sabre (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge it. Stubs are good when there is a lot of research potentially out there... but when there isn't, it just encourages a lot of speculation and cruft. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect. It's not even confirmed to exist. - hahnchen 19:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect. No need to give emphasis on rumors.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Then can some one bring it into discussion and redirect it please. Iam already under 3RR warning and one more revert the admins would ban me. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't be blocked, because you haven't been blocked before. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was about to be blocked. [3] :P--SkyWalker (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone do a quick text review of List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour before I send it to FLC? Amount of text is minimal, just need a sanity check. --MASEM 21:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked it over quick and made a few small changes. Feel free to make further changes if necessary. Maybe a third opinion would be a good idea too. Randomran (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a once over too. I also recommend briefly mentioning reception directly related to the songs to help establish notability of the songs. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

I've noticed that there are several redirects with 'stub' wikiproject templates on talk pages. This is needlessly adding to the amount of stubs that this project has, and I think is just not needed anyway. I just want to get the go ahead before I start removing them. Is there any reason why they shouldn't be removed? Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirected articles should not have stubs. Delete away. --MASEM 23:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be an effort to remove these templates. Makes it hard to navigate through articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lemme run through the VG project with WP:AWB again; I try and do so on a monthly basis for exactly that reason. If you want me to hit a different project just ask. Nifboy (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Knocked out sixty seven affected articles. Nifboy (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody know where I can get an official review for a Sonic character called E-123 Omega? I've been searching everywhere for a review of him to add to his reception section on another wiki. Once the article has had all the necessary work I shall try to turn it into an article here.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of digging and came up almost totally empty handed. I found [4] where they complement animation as looking fluid and realistic. I'm not sure it would be enough to support its own article on Wikipedia, but it might help you at more lax wikis. And it would definitely be a solid addition if talking about a list of characters, since it would make GA-status possible. Randomran (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 as one example. I think these types of lists need to go. Non-playables are rarely notable. Having a complete character list isn't the goal of Wikipedia. Even with the list articles themselves: only key characters are listed, not every minor character that doesn't add much to the game. Non-playables are better suited for video game websites. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning a rewrite of the article on gravity guns, aiming to secularise it and discuss the overall concept as opposed to focusing more exclusively on the Half-Life 2 one. This was recommended in an AfD about a year ago, and nothing's really happened to the article besides it being moved from Zero-Point Energy Field Manipulator to Gravity Gun (Half-Life). I've now moved the article to gravity gun. I'd like some advice on whether this approach will work, and possibly some advice on how to construct the "influence" section to something clearer than the usual method of listing every single incy wincy mention of a similar concept (as was the case previously with cloaking device). In addition, any references for non-Half-Life 2 gravity guns would be appreciated if you know of any. A whole chunk of HL2 ones were provided in the AfD, they should be sufficient for the HL2 element of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As I recall there were mentions of the limited gravity-gun abilities of the device in Portal as well... Perhaps you should just lump other similar game designs into a 'Similar devices' or something, as focusing on the HL2 seems the best option. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think generalizing it is a decent idea if you can think of other games that use a similar concept. But as far as I know, it's only in Portal and HL2. Either way, the rewrite is much needed and much appreciated. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil has a 'grabber' which is referred to as a gravity gun. Someoneanother 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal doesn't really count as a gravity gun, its hardly a major focus of the game, although a quick mention in the influence section probably would be apt. However, the Doom 3 one is the other major one - the Doom 3 one was conceived by id Software before the release of HL2, even though it was at first cut and then reintroduced in the expansion. Thats why I'm structuring it around the HL2 and Doom 3 ones as the principle ones: a lot of reviews I've read paired the two off against each other. Plus, they operate in different ways, so there's plenty to contrast. -- Sabre (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples: As I understand, Dead Space has something similar (a "kinesis" module for the suit, whatever that means). Also, the Rock-It Launcher from Fallout 3 might apply (basicaly, it fires all sorts of random objects you find at enemies) - again, I haven't actually tried it, so I'm not sure. Hope that helps you a bit. --VPeric (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it, does anyone know what physics engine Doom 3 runs on? -- Sabre (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

VPeric's right about Dead Space: "There are also, in what seem to be becoming standard, the "magic" options: a telekinetic booster pack that allows you to grab far away objects and hurl them across the room (not the only slice of Half-Life cribbed by Dead Space)" - Dead Space reviewed by The Escapist. Someoneanother 06:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For the life of me, I've been unable to find any reliable secondary sources that say that Super Mario Bros. 3 features Mario Bros. Help? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of Super Mario Advance 4 reviews mentions it. --Mika1h (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried sourcing the manual? Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mika1h, I didn't actually mean the GBA MB, but the original NES version's MB.

No, I haven't really looked for it much. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just cite the game. This is the sort of claim that primary sources can be used for. That said, it is not the original NES Mario Bros, but rather a minigame based on Mario Bros.Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering merging this, but I'm not sure it's notable enough. Can I get some input? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

GoldenEye: Source ?. Are you talking about the mod?. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge to what? It's already in List of Source engine mods. If it isn't notable, just send it to AFD - a modDB "reinvention of the year" award is not exactly mindblowing. - hahnchen 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also say merge (into GoldenEye 007). It did draw some attention in the gaming press.[5][6][7][8] but I haven't seen anything yet that would suggest you could build a whole article about it. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Print sources are probably the way forward. Magazines tend to give more substantial coverage to mods than online sources. If print sources are out there, there should be enough to create a brief article. -- Sabre (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that ModDB is not a reliable source for establishing notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't exactly get that much of a response last time, only one uninvolved editor injected their view. Can I please request some additional comments over at Talk:Empire: Total War on the issue of removing a list of factions? As previously stated, Project consensus seemed pretty clear on this page, but it seems necessary to present it on that page as well. The fans appear set on defending it against established policy. -- Sabre (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a request for comment over at Coleco, there is currently a debate going on with a new editor (claiming to be a long time editor under other accounts) that has been going nowhere. He apparently is not familiar with our Pop Culture guidelines, does not feel the need to recognize them, nor to address any sort of consensus. I've offered to move the two citations to their respective pages (Coleco Adam and Colecovision since they really belong there) still to no avail. Basically just snide remarks, and his own interpretation of both policy and guidelines. Any commentary/input would be appreciated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what WillOakland's issue is here. The specific episodes are referenced, so I don't see how he can say they are uncited. I'm definitely detecting a hostile attitude from him. Asher196 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I tried to talk with him to get a resolution and provide relevant links for him to review on Wikipedia regarding processes, guidelines, and policies on here after he claimed WP:OR and name dropped Jimmy Wales like he was speaking for him. Got accused of providing links because I'm in to "drama", which is why I finally just said I'd RFC it here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied more directly to Will stating that I think he's going over the line with respect to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:TE. Let's see how he responds - I hope it'll help him get back on track to discussing the actual issue and not just attacking you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. As I stated to him directly and above, I could even see moving those two entries to their respective pages as a form of compromise, but he seems intent on complete removal. Which makes my overall concern that he'll continue the process throughout other video game related articles, regardless of any guidelines we established through consensus here. That's when it'll start deteriorating in to disruptive editing, which I why I was so adamant about getting everyone involved now to try and nip it through discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't agree with Will's particular method, which looks to me like taking an axe to something that should be gone over with a scalpel, but I happen to agree with removing that particular content for reasons I stated on that Talk page. It goes to show that sometimes removing the content may be the right thing to do, but it should be done with care and with open discussion when and where called for, and it becomes disruptive when edits and removals are made without reaching consensus first. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it'd be nice if we could get more people doing that sort of work, removing Wood#In popular culture crap from articles wherever possible. His particular response is not the way to go about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Summarily removing it such as YOU did is not the way to go about it either. Asher196 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) As I mentioned just above, this sort of thing should be done with care and with respect for consensus, but I agree that more attention should be paid to it as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, is exactly why the "Consensus needed" scenarios were added to the guidelines. The content in the article certainly fell under that. However, I don't believe blindly removing In pop culture sections is the way to go in the least - the guidelines were created by consensus here for a reason, and in fact we just had Space Invaders reach FA status with a Pop culture section using those very guidelines. I for one was very happy to see that happen because it validated the hard work members of this project put in to establishing those guidelines. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I looks like the user in question has had frequent problems with edit warring and incivility in the not-too-distant past. A general RFC might be in order here, and I mean of the user conduct variety. MuZemike (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he had just spilled his conduct over to my talk page now with posting a single line sarcastic comment accusing me of doing the RFC here to try and cause drama. And there's the edit he put on the Coleco talk page - ("Well, I see the drama bus has arrived. WillOakland (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ") and has now replaced with a paragraph once again stating he doesn't recognize any sort of consensus on the matter of Pop culture sections. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a dispute with Beem2 (talk · contribs) over whether gaming crossover counts as a genre that can be put in game infoboxes. I noticed Beem putting "crossover" into the infobox for Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Cross Generation of Heroes, and I reverted it since video game genre defines genre as a difference in gameplay, not theme. Beem reverted back, and when I left a message on his talk page about it, he responded back claiming "cross over" does have a difference in gameplay (which I don't see - crossover fighting games still play the same as other fighting games) and that it's also been included on articles such as Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe. Now, does "cross over" count as a genre of game and thus should be included in an infobox or not? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Crossover is more of a plot/theme thing. I don't think it should be listed in the genre. If Captain Price and Sergeant Hale met, it'd still be an FPS. Genre is to describe how the game plays/what it revolves around.--Koji† 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not a genre. Although some people do slip in stuff like space strategy video game when describing genre. Really, keeping it to gameplay is better for clarity and to avoid the kinds of disputes you're talking about. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Crossover is a valid genre in film, TV, and books, I think, so I think it should be with video games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Passive entertainment genres focus on setting or themes (western, sci-fi, romance), video game genres focus on gameplay (fighting, beat-em-up, platformer). Settings and themes can certainly be used to group video games, but that isn't what core genres are about. Warriors Orochi is a cross-over, but you can't compare it with Marvel Vs Capcom without reverting to actual genres. Hm, just noticed cross-over is being used in WO as well. Both the article itself and categories/lists can be used to group games via themes and settings ad nauseum, but the genre(s) should tell readers how the game plays. Someoneanother 08:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Namco X Capcom is categorized as "crossover" in the genre field as well, but you can't tell me that makes its core gameplay similar to either MvC2, TvC, MKvDCU or WO. "Genre" in the video game world has always meant difference in the basic game mechanics, not theme. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 14:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm echoing what Someone another and NeoChaosX said. TV and books are categorized by common elements in the plot or setting. But games are categorized by common gameplay. (Puzzle, Fighting, Platform, Shooting...) Randomran (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As of now, I removed crossover from that article since it's not really a genre. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So is it safe to assume there is a consensus that "crossover" is not a genre, and thus should be removed from the infoboxes of other games? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain that is classified as part of a gaming genre. Your argument is that "Crossover" doesn't deal directly with a game's core gameplay thus isn't classifyable as genre, which is false since it deals with two different factions coming together as one (storylinewise). Whether a game be an rpg or fighthing game is irrelevant.This is a reason why Capcom dubs their Crossover titles as "Versus Series" since crossover is linked to the storyline (Capcom Vs SNK). Are you going to tell me that "horror" doesn't qualify as genre as well since it isn't directly linked to gameplay?Beem2 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You invalidated your argument right there - how do two sides coming together in a story affect basic game mechanics? They don't. The basic gameplay of Capcom's vs. fighters are no different than any other fighting game (two or more characters in close combat), they just happen to have characters from other companies included in them and in some cases characters have wildly exaggerated attacks, all of which is a difference in theme. Again, video game genres are defined by their basic gameplay, and crossovers don't affect basic gameplay, which is why it shouldn't be a genre. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep there's pretty much a consensus that it's not a genre. Although you should definitely report that it's a crossover in the article somewhere. Randomran (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If "crossover" is a valid genre, then the gaming industry would be substantially using it. Showing us that reliable sources classify games as such would do much good to advance that position; otherwise, it is simply original research. Jappalang (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We didn't get too much feedback for the previous discussion, so I'm restarting the thread.

For those unaware, we were discussing including the various partnered peer reviews on the Video games and Military History review pages, WP:VG/PR and WP:MHR. Something has already been set up on our page, but the topic still up in the air is what to do on their page. They've generously offered to transclude our entire VG peer review section on their page with the use of <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags. This will display the section when go to the page and display only that section when transcluded elsewhere.

This is the easier solution that will require little maintenance on their part. The only drawback is it can greatly lengthen their already very long page and we need to watch the tags on our end. The alternative would be to transclude the individual reviews on their page similar to how have ours set up. Less chance of mistakes, but more maintenance. Any thoughts or other solutions would be appreciated so we can get this up and going? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

The number of open partner peer reviews from WP:VG could be restricted to two at a time. Two transcluded reviews would not overwhelm MilHist PR page. Jappalang (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Would it be the two most recently added reviews? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I suppose. Within reason, of course, so that they automatically don't get pushed off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe flex the number between 2-4 then? A new peer review generally is just a single paragraph and won't take up much additional space. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I don't think this approach would achieve much, milhist reviews rely a lot on the talk page notices on the main talk page (the ones that Kirill posts here every once in a while). Something that would help substantially is someone of our side doing that work (talk page notices there) for our peer reviews. Any volunteers would be greatly appreciated. User:Krator (t c) 23:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Should the notices be done for all new peer reviews or specially selected one? I was under the impression that whoever opened the peer review should post a notice if they wanted an outside view. But now that you mention it, if they don't know about the partnership they'd never request it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Update- I added the include tags to WP:VG/PR. I included the whole request section since it's relatively short for the time being. We can remove some once it gets too long.

The only thing left is deciding what to do about the announcements on WT:MILHIST. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

This is something that's been bothering me for a while, time to get closure on it. Basically just about every Command & Conquer related article is a mess, and to get a template for the other games I've been working on Red Alert 3. A sticking point is the cast and characters section, and the main articles. At present there is are articles for most characters divided by faction (so Allied characters of Command & Conquer etc). These articles are almost wholly non-referenced, at least not to 3rd party sources, and I would say non-notable. There are exceptions - I'd argue Kane and Tanya are iconic enough to warrant their own articles (possibly not the latter) and indeed the C&C miscellaneous articles have been cut down a lot already, but should these characters articles exist?

Actually, when thinking about this I would extend this discussion to the faction articles as well where notability can't be proven - I'm not sure how many other computer games have pages for factions not existing in a context outwith the series.

There are a few options here (this list is not exhaustive):

• Keep all articles as they are, just cleaning them up, adding references, etc as any normal article progresses.
• Submit them all to AFD - individually of course - citing the likes of WP:N as reasoning
• Cut down on the number of lists, for example by having one list per series
• Keep a couple of them, remove the rest
• Take a few key characters - like Kane and possibly Tanya - and expand them into their own articles (Kane already has one right enough) while deleting the broader lists
• As above but keep the lists for (a smaller number than at present of) minor characters
• Keep the faction articles and merge the character lists into them

For reference I'm talking about the following articles:

• Allied characters of Command & Conquer
• Soviet characters of Command & Conquer
• Imperial characters of Command & Conquer
• Nod characters of Command & Conquer
• GDI characters of Command & Conquer
• Yuri (Command & Conquer)
• Kane (Command & Conquer)
• Brotherhood of Nod
• Global Defense Initiative
• Scrin
• Miscellaneous factions of Command & Conquer

I'm undecided on the best course of action and as such open to any of the above options. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Nod, GDI, and Scrin are basically retellings of plot, plus a lot of game guidey stuff. The individual character pages are essentially the same.

Kane starts off well enough, and could probably be salvaged. Yuri, not so much, though possibly another that could be salvaged.

I suspect a merge of GDI, Nod, and Scrin would work, probably to Command and Conquer series. A paragraph on each, at most. The rest I'd scrap, but that's just opinion. --Izno (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if sources are available or not, but merging sounds like a good idea. I wouldn't go the AfD route though. Find a central talk page and discuss it there would probably be better received by editors that don't want them merged. AfDs don't always end that well either.

If you're looking for some info to figure out what to do I suggest checking out Talk:Characters of Kingdom Hearts. We had several lengthy discussion about the reasons to merge. In the end we were able to quiet most of the opposition and got the character page to FA. Admittedly though, I don't know if the article meets today's FA standards. :-| (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

I've cross posted this to the talk page of the Command and Conquer task force and the article Command & Conquer (series). In work just now but when I get back I'll link here on the talk page of all the above articles. Can't really think of where else to put this, though I would like a decent discussion of this as it's shadowed the articles for years and until I sort what's to be done with the cast and characters I doubt I can get Red Alert 3 to GA. I'm inclined to agree with Izno here, though perhaps a "Factions of Command & Conquer" page could be created to cover them all? One paragraph on each in such an article probably equals, er, an article. Possibly a characters page as well distinct from factions but still encompassing all bar Kane, who I think is probably notable enough for its own article, he even got an expansion pack named after him so stands out above any other character. Yuri was only in one, and while a playable faction in multiplayer in the expansion not in single player and not in the other games. Might even create the above suggestions in UserSpace this weekend, see how they turn out? I'll check out that Kingdom Hearts article when I get a chance as well, cheers for that! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no way that a single game series needs that many character lists. You could probably clean the lists up to half their size and merge them into a single list. Or if you prefer a more incremental solution, having one list per game would be more in line with current practice. Randomran (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A single Factions of Command & Conquer page seems like a good idea to cover all of them (this would help with clearing the main Generals article which currently has its factions within it, which is a bit too Game Guidey for my liking) One game list is too close to what we have just now I think, or else it would create more lists - which considering external commentary is unlikely to be in high supply for anyone other than Kane, Yuri or Tanya leads me to think one list, brutally cut, is the way to go. It can be argued I suppose whether Yuri and/or Tanya deserve their own articles, can't see anyone else in that position though. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Massively multiplayer online role-playing game, where an IP is persistently adding nonsense to the lead of the article and I've already used my three reverts. --Silver Edge (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The supposed citation that accompanied the change required a login to check it. I created and account and there is no information present on that page to support the added information. - X201 (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional:In my opinion it is vandalism and so shouldn't count as breaking the 3RR - X201 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on this article for a while now and am trying to make it an article on here. The work there is from the original article on Wikipedia before it was merged. I figured I'd hit two birds with one stone by helping out this article and possibly bringing it back to Wikipedia. I already have opinions from three members here, (Red Phoenix, SynergyBlades and A Man In Black), but I figured if I get as many views as possible and work out all the kinks you see, then the article would be brought back without protest. AMIB says I need to get reliable references from non-fan sites and ones not employed by SEGA. RP says I need to find sources that establish Omega's importance outside of the Sonic universe because of WP:FICT. And SynergyBlades says I need to get rid of most of the in-universe detail, but I was going to do that anyway. I just need to know if there's anything else that should be done.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just what people already said. The plot might need to be more concise. You need to get rid of the fan sites and forums as sources, as they're considered unreliable. And you need sources that establish his importance outside of the sonic universe, which can only really come from reliable third-party sources like game journalists, game scholars, and so on... Randomran (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That last bit sounds like it fits in with what both RP and AMIB said. So what I need to is remove the plot junk and unreliable references and find a review of Omega from a game journalist. This automaton isn't exactly very popular, so the chances of him getting a review from a jounalist are about 50,000 to none. Thank you very much for the help. If anybody finds a review of Omega from a game journalist, please tell me. But as Randomran will tell you, that's no easy job. I'll be seaching myself but an extra few pairs of eyes never hurt, and I wear glasses so I could use them.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Doom4releaselogo.png This image was recently uploaded as a free use image for Doom 4. However, it clearly has a copyright problem - either its an official logo released by id, or its a derivative image of the Doom 3 logo. In any case, it is clearly copyrighted material and cannot be licenced under GFDL as currently stated. I don't know the appropriate templates to deal with this, nor can I find where it may have come from. Could someone please address this issue? -- Sabre (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I highly suspect it is a fanmade image. AS you said, there are two copyright violations on this image—the id logo and the Doom series design. I slapped a Template:Npd on it. Unless a source of the permission is explicitly given (unlikely that id would let go of the rights to their company logo and art for the Doom label), an admin would delete it by 22 November. Nobody should remove the template frivously. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just went ahead a fragged it as a speedy - crit. I9. It's a blatant copyright infringement to release it under the GFDL, when it's clear Id has not made such amendments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that only yesterday I put a thread up about the idea of merging the faction and character articles. Since keeping track of 3 large scale mergers covering so many articles/sections at once can only end in chaos, I'll do it one at a time. The factions are a simple matter for me, most of the articles are tagged, nearly all the references (including 48 from 50 in one article) are primary or ingame quotations so they should be merged. So I've gone ahead and created the proposed factions article here: User:Caissa's DeathAngel/Factions of Command & Conquer where I intend to create it during the discussion. The discussion itself can be found at the talk page to the central Command & Conquer article, to which all the merge tags link, here: Talk:Command & Conquer#Proposed Merger of all Faction articles to new Factions of Command & Conquer article. Please direct any comments or contributions there. Thanks. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to bring this featured list candidacy to the projects attention. Apparently, the only thing keeping the list from being promoted is the use of {{VGtitle}}, a template in heavy usage on the featured lists of Castlevania titles, WWE SmackDown video game titles, and Harvest Moon titles. The central issue seems to be, that there "is a huge amount of empty space by using this template". -- Goodraise (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate as to what is meant by a "huge amount of empty space"? I guess I'm just not seeing it in the Castlevania and Harvest Moon lists. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

Well, I'd love to. But I used a quotation, because I don't quite understand it myself. Nergaal (talk · contribs) brought it up here. I don't understand it. I don't agree with it. But apparently the reviewers think the template is not suitable for a featured list. Or maybe it's just this list they don't think it should be used on. I simply don't know what to do. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll comment there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

Maybe for the OnePiece list you should try adding at least a sentence or two to each entry and that maybe the white space is where the text goes. A quick sentence about something the game has or done could help fill that notes box and maybe that might fix the problem. Salavat (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes needs help. We're trying to get it to GA right now, and perhaps even FA in a little while. Any help that can be thrown this way would be greatly appreciated. Some specific things that needs more people include Plot, which needs to be shorter and less in-universe, and Reception needs to be expanded. Gary King (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And help you get yet another featured topic? I think not :P Besides, I'm already conscripted to do your blasted image reviews... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a request for comment over at the Dedicated video game consoles template, there is currently a debate going on with anothert editor who is trying to force a pong console (Nintendo Color TV Game) in to the same generation as the 2600/5200/colecovision/etc (2nd generation) rather than the 1st generation listing (Pong systems). I've stopped at 3rr and advised him to discuss on the talk page and am doing an RFC as well to get the project's consensus. My own thoughts is it has no business in the 2nd generation listing and should remain in the 1st generation listing where its been. I'm also leaning towards questioning its notability for even including it in the template, which is a listing of notable systems of a generation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Cretan War (1645–1669), an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss here - Talk:Mario Party (series) - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Myst V: End of Ages is at FAC now, and currently is sitting in no-comment hell. Just trying to rustle up more reviews before Sandy archives it-I don't care if you end up opposing, I'd just rather have good comments to work on fixing than have it fail due to inactivity. Thanks in advance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:CSversionhistory (talk) seems excessive info (per point #9) and also has a condensed, prose-style writeup in the main article. Thoughts? Should this template be deleted? DP76764 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See reply at the talk page. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very good with photoshop or anything like that. I'm not even sure if I'm supposed to, but I was hoping someone could edit out the bottom-right logo of this next image:

this one

... and put it into the article on Body Harvest. (Or if it's okay to have logos, then just put it in the article on Body Harvest straight up.) This image in particular is helpful, because it shows that the game is sort of a hybrid third-person shooter plus driving game. Randomran (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this?.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's solid by my standards. You could even get away with cropping out the bottom, so the blur is let obvious. But it's not totally necessary. Think you could throw it up on the Body Harvest article? Randomran (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is going to care about the blur on the bottom?. Well you me want to add the image?. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody I guess. Thanks for working on it. If you could add the image, that would be greatly appreciated. Randomran (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok added. Please do the rest. Iam having a hard disk problem. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million! Randomran (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the logo is there for a reason... You're not supposed to use it on other websites. If you want to add a screenshot of the game you must take the screenshot yourself. SharkD (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is developed in 1998 and the platform is not available and plus no one is selling the game. How could he possibly take a screenshot of the game that is not available?.--SkyWalker (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use applies with respect to the copyright holder of the game (i.e. the original work of art)—not the image. You have to ask permission to use the image. The exception is when you are critiquing the magazine itself.

Also, removing the logo is a pretty blatant and obvious infringement upon the copyright holder's rights. SharkD (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In working on consolidating and improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Myst video game series, I've begun to expand and source out Uru: Ages Beyond Myst. My question here is gathering opinion on merging the game's multiplayer aspect, Myst Online: Uru Live, into the main video game article. The 'Chapters' section of the multiplayer game would be merged into the Plot of the parent article, and the multiplayer section is going to be expanded to talk about the constant cancellation/revival of the MMO aspect of the game, but I'm not sure a separate article is the best way to address this. In other words, I think the multiplayer section's development, implementation, cancellation and various releases can be summed up in the Uru article. Thoughts? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of coverage out of it as a separate game out there, [9] [10] [11], I think it could probably stand on its own. There's a GameTap box shot on GameSpot you can use as well. I think a merge may be a little premature. -- Sabre (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge there's boatloads of information which hasn't been added to either articles; I'm still gathering up sources. That said, I'm concerned the splitting of Myst Online destroys the comprehensiveness of Uru. Originally Ages Beyond Myst was Myst Online, before Cyan tacked on a single-player aspect. The development of Myst Online was thus the development of Uru for much of the conception cycle. Much of the info, consequently, as well as media previews and attention to the game, was for the multiplayer aspect. Remove that from Ages Beyond Myst, and I think you end up with two articles lacking in context and scope. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, when you put it that way, a merge does make more sense. -- Sabre (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since discussion has since started and is progressing on the talk page, further discussion should go to Talk:Uru:_Ages_Beyond_Myst#Merge_in_Myst_Online. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I have started here, and comment if you have an opinion. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote a rather lengthy piece here. User:Krator (t c) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who added the deletion tag (G11: Blatant advertising)?. I don't understand. The game is to be released on 2009 by Atari and their are loads of notable links to prove the article notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored the page. Looks like a simple mistake. The page's appearance probably was what made the G11 more credible, but I've reverted back to a better version. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, For a min i was wondering which policy it failed now iam glad the page is back. Thanks again bcr.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion, but it just might be saved if some video game junkie digs up some sources. Any of those here? ;) - Mgm|^(talk) 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Could an administrator merge the history of Bit Generations to Art Style? Thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but.. why? --Conti|✉ 21:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Art Style and Bit Generations are essentially the same thing - Bit Generations is the Japan-only series of GBA games, while Art Style is a series of remakes of these games in English regions. They essentially cover the same games, but Art Style is more well-known. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that a history merge is appropriate here , but if it is, the content should be merged together first. –xeno (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's the same topic, a merge would be appropriate, but not a history merge, since the content of the two articles is not the same. --Conti|✉ 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean merge the history of the articles, or merge the articles about the history? If you mean the former, simply link to the talk page of the old article from the talk page of the new article. You can even use an Archive box to make it stand out. SharkD (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The former, but I decided to simply merge the two articles. Not a very good merge, but I was in kind of a hurry. Art Style's a pretty interesting game series though, seems Nintendo's really pushing this new series - I believe they're making two new ones for the DSiWare as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviews are welcome for The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass/archive1. Gary King (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I could user some other VG Project users to keep an eye out on the articles for Street Fighter II and Street Fighter IV, as there's a user there who's insisting on pushing original research about the relationship between the two games. He's been indef blocked as Big Boss Inc. (talk · contribs) but now he's shown up again as an IP sockpuppet. Admittedly, I've been warned for going 3 reverts on both articles, but I still use a few other folks to keep an eye out for this guy on those articles. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked, but I could still use a few more editors to keep an eye on this article. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I need someone to provide me with a translation of the Japanese in the 5th paragraph of [12] (about Ico, Steven Geraghty, and Libera). Google gives me the gist to know it is what I need but I'd like to provide the quote in non-Engrish if possible. --MASEM 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good lord that's a terrible run on. My Japanese isn't that great, but here's my interpretation of it. The first part of the sentence sounds like it's about a separate soundtrack/album. I didn't read the rest of the article so I'm not sure. I'm also not sure if the last part applies to the Angel Voices part or the Ico part.

"Furthermore, Angel Voices, which adds to the classic and healing genres, by the the same composer who last year managed the game soundtrack ICO: Melody in the Mist with vocal participation from vocalist Steven Geraghty of Libera, which also accomplished a big hit and new memory."

I think the only part you really want is the middle part: "大島ミチルが手掛けたゲーム・サントラICO霧の中の旋律ではLiberaリベラのヴォーカリストSteven Geraghtyスティーブン・ガラティがヴォーカルで参加" which means: "Oshima Michiru who managed the game soundtrack for ICO with vocals by Steven Geraghty of Libera"

I'd recommend a second opinion to verify and/or correct my translation. I wouldn't provide an exact quote if that's what you're thinking of using. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

I'll see if it's needed by the FAC. (Angel Voices is another Libera album, so this makes sense). --MASEM 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you need to quote a translation for that (Guyinblack25's was pretty accurate for that statement). Just quote the original statement if you must (although I would only put in such for direct quotes that are translated). Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made an RfC template for the project. To use it just add {{VG-RfC|NAME OF DISCUSSION}} to any page. Eg, for this message add {{VG-RfC|RfC template}} to produce

A discussion regarding RfC template has been added to the talk page of the Wikiproject: Video Games. As a contributor to the project, please add your opinions to it [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#{{{2}}}|here]]. Thank you.

Thoughts? --Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 11:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should include the section heading. Gary King (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be careful about using the term (and link) of requests for comment unless there is actually one being filed. If this is just a notice that a discussion about the article has been started on this talk page, it should be re-worded.--Koji† 16:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but the concerns above are valid and should a discussed before this is used. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

I represent Planet Cazmo, a virtual world of online community and video gaming for youth. We're looking for someone who can learn the facts about the state of Cazmo in order to write a good 3rd party article. We have numerous noteworthy activities. Is this something people do? Thanks. Pileated47 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Pileated47, Ambassador@PlanetCazmo.com

Right, first off your post is very misleading. I assume you mean you want someone to write a Wikipedia article about you? Your post makes it seem that you want someone to write an article about you, but not for Wikipedia... that aside, could you provide some decent reliable, third-party sources to demonstrate your notability? _TalkIslander 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rayne (Bloodrayne) and Rayne (BloodRayne). Thanks! - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got it all fixed now, check both articles (and talk pages) and let me know if it looks ok. Pagrashtak 15:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Warren recorded and published interviews-cum-lectures with thirteen "gaming luminaries" last year. They are freely-available goldmines of information that have yet to be tapped on Wikipedia or anywhere else. This will not do! :-P

There is all manner of historic information, particularly in Harvey Smith's, Marc LeBlanc's and Seamus Blackley's videos (I've yet to watch past Blackley's), about the founding and founders of the modern Western video game and video game console industry.

The problem is that it all needs extraction from 2-to-3 hour audio streams. There are 3.1 gigabytes of low-res video (35 hours-worth by my rough, and conservative, calculations) to process. This is going to have to be a group effort, where everyone takes a chunk of video, say 10 or 15 minutes, to transcribe.

Is anyone up for it? --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you can't download from Bittorrent there are HTTP mirrors here and here. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Shame that Paul Weaver's video is cut short. --Mika1h (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good god. I'll probably forgo it as none of the speakers are in my projects scope, but that does indeed appear to be a great treasure trove of information that can be used. Thanks for the links. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw this edit and at first blush thought it looked like silly vandalism. However, I checked the source instead of reverting and there is some truth to it. Nintendo Power has gone through several different review strategies—when The Wind Waker was released, the publication had one short, written review with additional two-sentence (or so) comments from five reviewers, and five separate scores from the reviewers on a 5-star scale with half-star increments. No single or combined score was given. In the case of The Wind Waker, all five reviewers gave five stars, (5×5=25) so I've switched to stars in the article. That's a simple case, though—what would we do for a case like Golden Sun, where three reviewers give 5/5 and two reviewers gave 4.5/5? Short of leaving it out of the table, I don't see a clear solution. Any thoughts? Pagrashtak 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Game Informer does something similar with their "Second Opinion" section for reviews. I remember another magazine uses three reviewers, but I forgot which. I've normally avoided using them in review score tables unless they all gave the same score.

I've seen the cumulative scores in a few articles before also, and think it's not a bad idea; that's how the Famitsu scores are given. I don't know if it's the proper course to take though. :-| (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Another reason why I think that if we can work practically towards removing tables of reviews and instead focus more on the content than scores themselves (though still linking to MC/GR aggregates), this would be better. I've done it for a couple of articles (one FA, one going through FA) and seems perfectly fine to me. Such "second looks", particularly if they vary from the original review significantly, can still be called out appropriately. --MASEM 16:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Leave it to Masem to take the opportunity to rail against score tables again :P But he does have a point; with such "round table" reviews or second opinions more attention to be spent on what differing conclusions (if any) the reviewers from publication X drew, rather than "Jimmy the Reviewer gave it an X, while et al". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the focus of the reception should be on the prose rather than the review table. But I don't think they should be removed all together, even if they are abused now. This is a good argument in minimizing the number of scores though.

That being said, perhaps we should just keep such review scores out of the review tables. Nothing wrong with limiting the number of scores or even excluding it like Masem does. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

A review table without scores would be.. well, not much. And I'm not say this is a reason to scrap review tables, either. Just that we have to be careful to use them as either crutches to replace a good verbose text section, or as a way to bias the reviews of a game. --MASEM 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but that is something that should probably be mentioned or discussed further in the writing draft when one of us gets the chance. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

As you all know, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is Today's Featured Article on the Main page. This means increased traffic as well as greatly increased opportunities for vandalism. Please think of watchlisting the article to keep tabs on the article, and revert any and all vandalism if necessary. MuZemike (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One a side note, the talk page comments have been largely positive compared to other video game TFAs. Either there are a lot of OoT fans or people are glad to see older and influential games featured on the main page. Probably both. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Still got the standarised "shouldn't there be spoiler warnings?" comment though! -- Sabre (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

True but if that was the worst we had to deal with we are in good shape here. --70.24.176.144 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's actually going more smoothly than I thought. Pagrashtak 19:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds, but I've applied the basics of the format found here to the college basketball WikiProject. If anyone has any large objections I'll be sure to revert it back to the old standard there. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. If a design works well, why not use it else where? Plus, I stole my userpage design from enough people. -- Sabre (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, beautiful. I was just checking to make sure there weren't any vehement objections but apparently not. Thanks. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this short.

Proposal: make it the standard to format release dates in infoboxes like it's done on today's featured article, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, with a collapsible list showing the earliest first.

User:Krator (t c) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I looks like it will comply with WP:Accessibility and satisfy detail oriented editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

It looks awful when the "[show]" overlaps the "1998" in the date, it doesn't expand itself when printing, and it doesn't expand itself when Javascript is disabled in the user's browser. I prefer the setup where the infobox contains the original release dates and a link to the section where all the remakes/re-releases are covered. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

DrSturm (talk · contribs) contends that forums are a reliable source, whereas WP:V says no, usually. Article at issue is Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone, site given as a source is a fansite, http://www.leyviur.net/.

Advice appreciated.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Forums are very rarely reliable sources. You hit it on the head here, you have no idea who wrote it, there is absolutely no editorial oversight, and no way to verify fact checking. Forums may qualify s a reliable source in very closed areas of WP:SPS, such as if a developer made a comment on the official forums, in a reasonably official capacity, but it couldn't be referenced to a proper third-party source. The usage of this forum in the article in question isn't acceptable as a reliable source, that sort of information should only be included if a proper source, ie someone in video games journalism writing for a respectible publication such as IGN or the like, has commented on it, not someone with no credentials on a forum. I also sense a conflict of interest, the person adding the sources is a major contributor to the forum (as member no.1 probably also the owner), and the author of some of the threads linked to. The use of this forum to reference the points being made is really not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. -- Sabre (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, really should have spotted that possible COI as I've looked at that page.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Better idea: Point him directly to Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. It has a section that directly addresses web forums. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we could accept forums as sources in these situations if it points to an overwhelming consensus of posters corroborating a factual (emphasis: factual) point from first-hand experience. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case, WP:OR applies. Forum stuff aside, this is all original research and isn't acceptable anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading a page of text and extracting meaning from it cannot be OR. It's the process gone through every time a source is checked, and Wikipedia would have no articles if it was banned. Unless you mean that it's OR by the forum posters, in which case I think you are misunderstanding the rule. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is when the person, someone without credentials or editorial oversight, conducts their own tests, posts results on their own forums, and then adds it here as a source. That's original research. Remember there's a potential conflict of interest problem here. -- Sabre (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that certainly is. I was talking generally though. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you should judge consensus based on posts in a forum. Multiple posts in a forum could be made by the same person signed up under different names. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said of many sources used on Wikipedia. Of course, the body of the article would point out that the source is "forum users". --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you don't know if it is multiple users. It could be one or two people. By allowing this as a source, anybody could create a forum or sign up for one with multiple names, post many times about a certain issue and there'd be a source for a fabricated issue. It's just too easily manipulated when compared to what a reliable source should be. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a theoretical complaint (for a start all forums I've ever seen display join dates, in profiles if not on posts). As long as the forum itself is of reasonable repute, it's silly to damage Wikipedia's quality by getting hung up on things like this. --Tom Edwards (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The counter argument (echoed in policy) is that inclusion of forums as sources damages Wikipedia quality far more than not including them. How do we know that this forum is of "reasonable repute"? Simply looking at a page and going "this looks in order" is not acceptable. I haven't been shown any evidence from reliable sources that this forum is known to be reputable or reliable. -- Sabre (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm talking generally. I haven't even visited the forum this conversation started with, though it sounds like you are right about it. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Occassionally in forums, there are sources provided to support what is said. When that happens, we should ignore the forum and jump right on the source and use it if it is reliable. An other case would be that a producer/author/director/programmer is unchallengeably proven to have posted in that Forum (for Exemple, it is proven that Guillermo del Toro posts in the One Ring net forums). In that case, I think that only what is said by that person should be used in the form of:" In X forum, Y claimed that...". But, aagain, that is rare and has to be proven.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend starting dispute resolution on this, starting with editor assistance. It may also help to report this dispute to the conflict of interest noticeboard; just make sure you slap on a {{coi}} tag and place a warning {{subst:uw-coi}} on the user's talk page. MuZemike (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be banned from editing Wikipedia before I give this up - great. Reported to COI, article COI tagged, user COI warned. Thanks to all for the help.Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a clear a statement as any that consensus won't be followed on his part. Well, he's dug his hole. The only way he'll climb out of it is with a willingness to follow established policy here. -- Sabre (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As much fun as the forum = kill-on-sight mentality is, I'm of the opinion a COI notice is both overkill and WP:BITEy. What I see on that page is a typical case of cataloging bugs and other irrelevant nitpicks, which is the real problem, while the citations to forums are more of a distraction. Nifboy (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the BITEy aspects, the editor in question has been a member since 2006, so he's hardly a newcomer. -- Sabre (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning a user for editing a conflict of interest, judging by the wording of the template, I think hardly construes biting a newcomer, had this user been one. However, since he isn't, my point really isn't that moot. MuZemike (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that all the other citation templates have removed the formatting of the date if given in ISO (YYYY-mm-dd), I have removed this from the {{cite video game}} template. This should only affect those that rely on this for articles going to FA (as template dates should be consistent), and otherwise will not impact articles directly. --MASEM 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since late October, there has been discussion about ESRB being a source for future releases on List of Virtual Console games (North America). See: Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#Question_about_future_releases_section and Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#Remove_all_titles_referred_to_as_future_releases_by_their_ESRB_rating. for more information on this issue. I personally feel ESRB isn't a reliable source on it's own (I stated this and my other views on the matter in both of those discussions). RobJ1981 (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this, I believe any decision on this should reflect ESRB's usage as a source for anything, as it is common practice to register a game and end up doing nothing with it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, if the ESRB has rated a game that's probably worth a mention on the game's page but shouldn't be taken as an indication that the game will be released very soon now, which is how people are treating it. Some of the long-standing entries on the list of games (i.e. two years or more) are more WP:CBALL than the rest. Nifboy (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The ESRB is a valid, industry-sanctioned source.[13] If you want to change the phraseology describing the status of the titles to something more fitting, then by all means. Perhaps listing the date each title was added to the slate would be to everyone's satisfaction. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no? We're not going to change the definition of a future release so we can have a bigger list. I know that having a valid list of titles with strong sourcing is so silly, but let's give it a shot. It would appear that your only argument is that "it costs money to register with the ESRB, so it must be coming out", which means that since Kirby Super Star was once registered as a VC game with the ESRB, it is indeed coming out, because Nintendo spent a nominal fee to have it registered. And Capcom must be making Viewtiful Joe 3, despite having no developer to make it, because they registered the domain name long ago. And Square Enix must be making Chrono Break, because they filed a patent. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to comment about Cheesemeister: he is one of the regular editors of the article. He always seems to disagree with any suggestion for change. Anyway, if no one cleans it up within the next week or so, I will personally be removing all games in the future releases section that only have ESRB as a source. This crystal balling has gone on long enough. Link makes great points, which prove ESRB isn't a reliable source on it's own. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it's relaible that they /rated/ a game, but not that it'll be released. I fully agree that it doesn't mean any sort of "soonness". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see the ESRB as a valid source because a game has to be rated to be released. If you read the discussion in the VC NA article you will see that Cheese and myself showed proof via system name. Just my two cents. Also, I've said this time and time again, don't just pick on one article, there are others that do this as well. Rob knows which pages I'm referring about. I hate having to repeat myself over and over again. Thank You. Edit: I also don't see this as crystal balling. Neo Samus (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to listing the games that have been rated. That does not seem to me to be equivalent to declaring that they will be released soon. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To say that being rated and being announced are related is pure OR. We've already shown many examples where the ESRB rating didn't result in a game's release, so why is it a reliable source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Neo Samus: did you even read A Link to the Past's post? He gave several examples where the ESRB was wrong. I would bet there is more examples as well. This isn't "picking on an article", this isn't a school playground where someone gets teased. Don't compare a non-living article to something that refers to living people. Also, where else is there a future releases section based solely on being rated by things? I checked: all current generation systems/download services don't go by speculation like the North America VC list does.RobJ1981 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_Live_Arcade_games has a Future Releases section. I believe PSN pages does too but that I cannot confirm since I haven't been to that page in a while. I'm not comparing this to a school playground, the point I am making is if you are going to start an argument about this (and other issues) you have to look at the bigger picture. Darn it. I was trying to read too fast and didn't realize there sources. Sigh. Neo Samus (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added ESRB-rated titles under a separate table, with a disclaimer stating that they're not guaranteed. If you don't agree with this proposed compromise version, please discuss it and reach a consensus before editing. Thank you. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't a test page for you to try out new tables. Use the sandbox, or your user space for that. That would've been the correct thing to do, instead of just placing it in the article and saying no one should change it until discussion happens. Either way: the seperate table is speculation, and doesn't belong. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. A new table with a note saying it's not guaranteed isn't a compromise. It's just your way of sticking the information back into the article. I also want to point out: several regular editors of the article have been re-adding the ESRB rated games back into the article. From the looks of it, they either ignored this discussion or just chose to do what they want. They claim there is no consensus, but this discussion here is more than enough proof that the list doesn't belong. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Proof? I was very thorough in proving out the logic in using the ESRB as a source. I'll repost it here for those who missed it.

What is the purpose of this article? To inform people of facts regarding current and future VC titles. Who would read it? People who want to be informed of these facts. Aren't there other places that have similar lists? Sure, but what purpose does this article serve if not to deliver the facts available? How do we know ESRB-rated classic titles in the Wii category will be released as VC titles? We have hundreds of examples of this listed: a publisher wishes to re-release a classic title for the VC, and as a part of the process of doing so, has the title rated by the ESRB. The title is later released on the VC. But what if a particular title is canceled? Titles like Zombies Ate My Neighbors have been removed from the ESRB website, and as such, have also been removed here. But what if it's been a long time since a particular title has been listed? Some titles are held in the release queue longer than others for marketing, licensing, strategic, or other reasons; NOA is not very transparent about it.

However, given that it costs publishers actual money to pay for a title to be rated by the ESRB, the title in question is listed under the "Wii" category and not the classic platform, and there isn't a title synonymous with a classic in the works (i.e. Sonic the Hedgehog), we can then conclude based on the ESRB rating that a classic title is due to be released on the VC. One might complain that the ESRB isn't a primary source, and that this is all speculation. The ESRB was established by the video game industry itself, and as such, can be considered a primary source. Ratings that appear in its database are there at the behest of publishers preparing titles for release. To say that a game is not slated for future release with facts from a game industry-established entity saying otherwise is, in fact, a contradiction. Vectorman and Super Turrican 1 & 2 are just a couple obvious examples of games that were ESRB-rated for over 6 months before VC release. Denying the facts listed on the ESRB website would only serve to confuse readers and prompt them to re-add titles missing on the article. If this article does not list some upcoming titles that are supported by the evidence, it does the readers of this article a disservice. Bottom line: list the facts, don't hide them. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The price argument is not valid. We've seen games get rated for the ESRB and never followed up on - Bit Generations titles, various VC titles, etc. We've established that the ESRB is not a reliable source, because it never states once that the titles will be released, merely that they have been rated. Listing titles implies that they are to be released, when no one said anything of the sort. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ESRB has never said "once a game is rated, it will come out". Link provided several examples of rated games that didn't come out (see above about Kirby Super Star, Viewtiful Joe 3 and more: since you obviously didn't read it, or chose to ignore it). Wikipedia isn't for speculation. Until something has a source other than ESRB, it shouldn't be listed. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Once a game is rated, we've seen that it's extremely likely it'll come out. How many dozens of titles have we seen this happen to, on the VC alone? Yes, there are a few isolated exceptions when a title is canceled after being rated, and generally these disappear from the ESRB database. Companies put money down for a rating with the intention of releasing a product. Action by these publishers towards release is basically tantamount to an official announcement. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing that up? It's not tantamount to an official announcement because they don't always get released! Please, just explain how your argument is not speculative in nature. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Extremely likely" isn't 100 percent. Neither is "basically". Articles should have reliable sources, not just a "maybe it will come out, after all..it did get rated!". A few isolated exceptions is what Link said, but I would bet there is several more. The fact that there is exceptions shows ESRB isn't always accurate. We can't just go by "most games rated have came out, so these will too". Games with just a rating are speculation at best. As I stated before: just put the list on a word document, print it out if you want: and there you go. The information simply isn't helpful to the article, so why must we just repeat the same things over and over again to you? Unless you can give better reasoning, the information will remain out of the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More times than we can count, titles released on the VC have come from the pool of games that had been ESRB-rated, but weren't listed by other sources. Removing all of these titles, being the bulk of titles in the future releases list, does readers of the article a disservice by not letting them know what can be reasonably expected to be released. That's one of the main purposes of the article: to inform interested readers of what's coming up. You said yourself, Rob: "There should be something in place: if the game has been listed for at least 6 months and no release date or year has been mentioned: remove the game." While I disagree with an arbitrary deadline, you at least agreed in principle with retaining ESRB-rated titles. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No he doesn't. Now please stop! Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He said so right here, in his very first comment. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea - propose that it be added as a reliable source to WP:VG's source guidelines. Until then, it should not be considered a reliable source, and as such, should not be included. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See you there... --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though most people agree it's not reliable: people such as TJ Spyke, Zomic and IP editors continue to re-add the list of ESRB rated games. It's pretty clear there is indeed a consensus: which is to NOT list games only rated by the ESRB. This is getting very frustrating. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit war message is even more frustrating due to reverting all games listed by the ESRB. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just making a quick proposal for it to be moved to the now-disambig between two articles. We've already got a disambig page for Star Fox, which is what anyone would type in for the Atari 2600 game, and for the most part, the 2600 game is known because of the legal issues. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You really should remember that putting links in make your discussion more helpful to people, Star Fox (SNES), Star Fox (video game), Star Fox. As for the move wouldnt you move the Atari one to "1983 video game" and the SNES to 1993 video game". Salavat (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said though, the 1983 video game is only notable because of the 1993 video game - the only thing that is notable about it it seems is the naming controversy. From what I can see, there's no development nor is there reception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anymore comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is, I'm trying to figure out the usage of the latter.

In articles of games that use Toadstool and/or King Koopa, should their original names be used (unless of course a remake of that game changes the names)? And further, when discussing those games in other articles, should the original names be used? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The names used in the specific article subjects relevant to that instance should be used. We're not here to try to maintain our own version of the Mario canon. We just repeat what the subject itself uses. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If the game in question uses "Princess Toadstool", use that. If its "Peach", then use "Peach". If there's a difference between the Japanese version and English localization, point that out and stick to the English name for the rest of the article. Many users here (mainly anon users) are too concerned with "canon", that they forget to preserve a real-world perspective. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at Aerith Gainsborough for a good example of how to do it -- she's called Aerith, except in the parts that talk about FFVII and FFT, where she's called Aeris in the English versions. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently: List of PlayStation Network games, List of Xbox Live Arcade games, and List of WiiWare games show the file size of downloadable games. There is also discussion to add it to Virtual Console lists: see Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America). Is this needed or not? Personally I see it as content that doesn't help the majority of readers out. I think this falls under shopping details. People shouldn't be coming here to find out if they have enough space for a new game. Also it should be noted: infoboxes for regular game articles don't have this information. Plus, for last-generation consoles (GameCube, PlayStation 2, etc): those game articles don't have information on how much memory card space is needed for every game. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

File size is pretty excessive. Wikipedia isn't the place for every detail. You just need a summary so people understand the general concept. Randomran (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing file size isn't unprecedented, you'll find that cartridge based games such as Metroid Fusion, Donkey Kong Country and Professor Layton and the Curious Village will list the capacity of the cart. The capacity was a trait that used to be listed in game reviews back in the 90s, and can give some indication of scope, and with file size limits on services like Xbox Live Arcade, I think the size is a notable aspect, more so than the price, which has also found its way onto some of the lists above. - hahnchen 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons on some games (like Super Metroid or DKC) to point out file size, as that was a part of the marketing campaign. Unless there's some sort of point for the size to be there, it's not really notable. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, file size is something you note when it's exceptional: a big game for its time. Otherwise, covering which game was 6 megs and which was 7 megs doesn't really do much but clutter the article up. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Half the items could be dropped from the WiiWare list, namely everything including and between Mii Support and Block size. As far as the XBLA list is concerned, again everything from Price onward is unnecessary and only serves to bloat the already-big list size. Finally, for the PSN list, definitely drop the origin and possibly the trophies list (though I know there has been some heated discussion over that, but that's my take). Oh yeah, and ditch the flag images - nothing but excessive HTTP requests there. MuZemike (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I do like how the Virtual Console list is set up, with the exception of the ESRB rating column; I would say it's not really needed. Other than that, it looks clean and concise, and all it would need is a reference for every game on the list. MuZemike (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone go through the download lists and clean them up? I don't have the time right now to do them. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think file sizes are pretty important, especially for WiiWare and Virtual Console games where people may come to Wikipedia to find out about a game and find out if there have enough free blocks to download it. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure they MAY come, but they also MAY come to find out many other things that are against general convention. This stikes me as similar (though maybe not QUITE) to game-guidishness. We don't have file sizes in PC games, which would we add them here? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It falls under shopping guide details. Wikipedia isn't the place to go to find out where to buy a game, how much space it takes up, etc. People shouldn't be using this encyclopedia as a shopping guide, when there is many video game sites that are better suited for that. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to remove it from the Microsoft list, the Sony list is the only one that still has file size I think. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I removed the file sizes for List of Xbox Originals to help RobJ1981 out. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also I removed file sizes for List of PSOne Classics and List of PlayStation Network games. I think the List of PlayStation 3 games doesn't have the file size. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Melodia Chaconne: Concerning articles on PC games, we do "have file sizes in PC games", such as how much free hard drive space on the computer is required to install the game, listed in the templates {{Infobox VG}} (in the "System requirements" parameter) and {{VG Requirements}}. --Silver Edge (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After working on and off both of these lists for several months, both are, for the most part, complete with a separate reference for each and every game on both lists. However, this leaves the NES list (779 entries) at 105KB and the Famicom list (1077 entries) at a staggering 148KB. Before I go the split route, I want to ask and see what else could possibly be cut out before doing one. I would think my suggestion for the NES list would possibly be to cut out the developer column. At a minimum, both (and most other video game) lists would need a title, some sort of date of release, publisher, and reference. Suggestions? MuZemike (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest splitting off the larger (more prolific) publishers. (Similar to how DC and Marvel are typically split from comics-related lists when they get lengthy.) - jc37 19:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with getting rid of the developer column. You may also want to remove the English title column, as it's just taking up space and is better served by the links to each title's article. As for the references, each title's article should have this link already, so duplicating it there is unnecessary. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As this is the english Wikipedia, the english name might be worth keeping? - jc37 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the use of keeping it actually on those grounds. It'd make quick searching through a list easier. But yeah, developer column is not needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I gathered from the discussions on the talk pages on some of the other VG lists was that you had to provide a reference for all titles. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NOA has a PDF list of all NES titles, currently listed as reference #3. Additional references are redundant. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's only for games they licensed though, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. That doesn't include games by Tengen, Color Dreams, Camerica, etc. I could remove the developer column from the NES list, and then we can remove a lot of the redundant GameFAQs references for the games on the official NOA list. MuZemike (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Something to add in here. Would Kart Fighter, Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) and Mr. Splash be fine to add to the Famicom list? GameFAQs has a page for Kart Fighter at the very least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am wary on pirates and have been in the past, but they are verifiable. My concern is that I don't want to proverbially open the flood gates and everyone start adding every homebrew remake, hack, etc. I would say it's OK provided the games can be verified by a reliable source as listed in WP:VG/S. MuZemike (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, added Mr. Splash to the list using the Kotaku ref (Someone speaking Japanese needs to translate that Gizmodo page, my translator is missing these days so I'm unsure on the manufacturer). FFVII Fam is the only other I'd suggest adding as there are refs to cite for the list, but the date is only known as "2005". Will that suffice?

Other than that the article intro needs to be adapted now it seems ^^;--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but make sure you use the {{dts}} template to maintain sortability with the dates. MuZemike (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Removed the developer column from the NES list; it's at 94KB now. I'll start on eliminating the excess references. Is there a way to make a citation where you don't have an atrocious-looking reference from "a" to "dq" like reference 1 in List of Playstation 3 games? (This was why I opted for referencing using just URLs.) MuZemike (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)