Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

We need to do something about navboxes. We're getting inexplicable glitches in the hide/show functions of certain templates, and that was pretty much the only thing keeping increasingly-bloated templates from taking over articles.

Thus, I propose these as the new guidelines for CVG bottom-of-the-page navboxes.

  1. 80% width, class toccolours, color #CCCCFF;, cellpadding=2
  2. Favor centered text over left-aligned
  3. As little meta-commentary as possible.
  4. Avoid breaking the template up into sections whenever possible
  5. Link lists of things (characters, places, items, etc.) over the individuals even when the individuals have their own articles. Individual fictional people/places/things are almost never a good idea for a series template.
  6. Exclude unreleased games and games never released in English unless the series as a whole was never released in English. If space is at a premium, also exclude unreleased, upcoming games. If an unreleased game is particularly noteworthy (noteworthy as in Duke Nukem Forever noteworthy, not Foo-Raider-4-is-the-much-anticipated-next-game-in-the-Foo-Raider-series noteworthy), make sure to include it.
  7. A template doesn't have to be exhaustive; include only articles which are likely to be useful links from all or most of the articles linked
  8. Use nonbreaking spaces to make sure names don't split on linebreaks
  9. Separate • names • with • bullets
  10. Omit the name of the series, in the game names, when space is at a premium. In the case of "Foo Raider" and its sequels "Foo Raider 2" and "Foo Raider 3: The Barring", refer to the first game by the full name, then abbreviate the later ones "2", "3", and so on. In the case of the "Quux the Wombat" or "Kwazy Quuz" series, it may be appropriate to instead refer to them as "Quux 2" and "Quux 3". In a series of games differentiated by subtitles, using the subtitle alone is acceptable. DO NOT USE ACRONYMS (save when the game's name is itself an acronym).
  11. The title should be styled like so: '''[[Kwazy Quux (series)|''Kwazy Quux'']] [[Computer and video games|video games]]'''
    If there's no umbrella article for the series, leave the title unlinked
  12. Italicize game names. Don't italicize things that aren't game names.
  13. Make sure to pipe link any name with a space in it, then replace spaces with non-breaking spaces ( )
  14. Don't link redlinks or article sections. If we don't have an article for Kwazy Quux Gaiden: Densetsu no Quux yet, it doesn't aid navigation to link an article that doesn't exist.

If someone wants to write this as a proper guideline or put it in a MOS or something, feel free. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Pokémon games}} is a good example of what the final product will look like. (This is what it looked like before.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, AMIB, you really took a meat axe to that template, didn't you? (I was involved in a minor edit war in February over what should be added and how much divsion should occur). Anyway, I think 80% gives too much whitespace and would prefer 60%. We also need to decide on inter-template linking - I modeled {{Mario series}} after the {{EnderBooks}} template - which linked three templates together under one heading. However, with so many spinoffs - Mario Party, Mario RPG, Game & Watch, Dr. Mario, Mario Kart, Mario remakes, and so forth - it's gotten out of control as well. Hbdragon88 09:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I picked 80% because it's common and is readable on any size screen.
As for {{Mario series}}, yeah. It's out of control. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You should see the ones for the Sonic articles. One Sonic related article could have up to three large templates! {{Sonic}}, {{sonicGames}} and {{SonicFeatures}}. Take the Sonic the Hedgehog series as a prime example of this (which actually has four!). --tgheretford (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start doing this to game series navboxes first, then move onto other game navboxes. This will not be popular, so I'd appreciate the support of anyone who is sympathetic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm here. -- Steel 10:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only does this enforce stylistic consistency across the project, but it's also a good method of eliminating cruft, general inconsistencies and odd arrangements in the process. You have my support. Combination 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I like it too. I converted some templates, too. Thunderbrand 01:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I changed enough of them that anyone who watches templates will know. The white whales (that I know of) are the bloated Mega Man templates (although most of that cruft needs to be merged), the Halo template, and the Legend of Zelda template. Either this new idea will be hated and reverted on sight (although from the reception from the CVG regulars, this doesn't seem to be the case) or there will be enough interest to get a redesign to stick on the cruftiest templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll clean up {{Halo}}. Since there's no all-encompassing list of ancillary media to link to (novels, etc.), I'll create that. — TKD::Talk 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. — TKD::Talk 02:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In general good thoughts, but I don't like the concept of having a list that looks like this: "Foo Raider 2 3" which to me is an obnoxious and unprofessional abbreviating convention. I'd rather just spell out the title and the number. Andre (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, consider the case of {{Metal Slug series}}, which I believe is an example of what you're talking about. Adding "Metal Slug" to each would easily treble the size of the template, and using "MS" looks unprofessional. What do you suggest as an alternative? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I just switched it to show you what I think would be good, but feel free to change it back if you don't agree. The template is larger, yes, but well within the boundaries of the template's outline. I agree that using MS would be bad, although I think abbreviations are OK in some situations (PS2, for example) and I think there's a guideline about that on the main project page. Andre (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you're probably right about writing the full name out when there's space available. I'll note that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the level of support for this move is unprecedented. Doing my part: I've simplified Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, Dr. Mario, and Panel de Pon. I'm afraid to try to tackle {{Yoshi series}} or {{Mario series}}. Hbdragon88 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They'll get done. This has been a long time coming, it seems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, whoa, looking at all the changes you guys have done to the game navboxes, and I have to say, it looks bad. They looked good and professional before, and actually justified themselves. They met with Wikipedia standards, like the Simpsons characters and the various comicnav templates, like the X-Men and Avengers. Now they are basically nothing but a small list, and might as well be removed and turned into list pages. JQF 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand what you guys are trying to do, and most of the time I agree with stuff like this, but things like what happened to {{halo}} are... well.. what's the point in even having it anymore? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind nuking it altogether, but as it is now it's not useful. There's too big and then there's big because there's a lot of articles that are directly related to that topic. Maybe the real issue in some of these cases is not the nav template, but that there are that many articles to navigate to. -- Ned Scott 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The old templates were so large that they weren't useful. Everything but the kitchen sink was crammed into them, obscuring the important entries and often including or even encouraging overspecific articles to fill in "gaps" in the coverage. The Legend of Zelda template, for example, had cancelled games, fangames, and even the games only available through a cancelled game download service in Japan.

Navboxes shouldn't replace lists or categories; they should, when used, link a set of highly related articles, such as the games in a single tightly-linked series (so not every game Mario has ever appeared in). When you've got a lot of scattered related articles, use categories or lists, then link them from the template. {{Sonic games}} is a paragon of this philosophy; the platformers designed by Sonic Team are in the template, then a link to a list of all the unreleased, upcomic, spin-off, and cameo games are in an exhaustive list linked from the template.

I'm not sure {{Halo}}'s redesign was perfect, but it links the noteworthy games, then links a set of umbrella articles to cover everything. If you want to learn about Halo, that navbox is a good start. If you're looking for a specific narrow article, we have a number of more-specific tools, including lists, categories, and search. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that the new {{Halo series}} is, at the risk of a bad pun, a bit spartan, but that entitre category needs a good reworking anyway. Maybe once you're in an article about a specific character, we could include some navbox for other characters (instead of the general series navbox), but the old one was far too inclusive. I've learned in software development is that you have to make the common case clearly accessible and that it's fine to put "advanced" controls in a separate click if that unclutters the UI. Pragmatically speaking, If we were to add, say, Master Chief in the navbox, then other people start adding the Arbiter, then 343 Guilty Spark, and so on. Rhat's where the creep starts. There was a recent query as to whether Halo.Bungie.Org, a fan site, should go in. By establishing a clear boundary, that eliminates this issue. — TKD::Talk 11:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine I'll (reluctantly) discuss it here, one, why does each template have to be the same, two, I hate the new design and am not alone, three, it would be a whole lot easier just to fix the ones with problems rather than all of them, four, the "E.Whatever.V" thing in the corner is causing me problems, if I click "E" it says no such page exists and if i'd like to create one, and that's annoying, five, I is far harder for a non accustomed audience to navigate the pages mow (e.g. 2 instead of Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake), six, ties in with three, if you make a permanent change ot one you have to change all of them. I could go on further but I just can't be bothered, i'll be back in a couple hours to make my third rever to the Metal Gear series one †he Bread 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They need to look the same because many articles have multiples, and having a motley assortment of dissimilar templates looks awful. (Look at Wario, which still has several unchanged templates.) Do you have any constructive comments on improving the design? "I hate it" with nothing else tends to get ignored.
Now, a couple of your points need dealing with. If the edit link isn't working, that's a glitch, and I'll try and figure out what's causing it. As for the abbreviating, that's still an open issue; do you have any specific ideas on what would be better? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay they can all look the same, but why do they have to look as they are, to me it's all over the place difficult to navigate (these • are distracting)? I'm not good with all that syntax stuff but i'd prefer something to seperate non-canon from canon includes more things and does a better job of dealing with the ones that it has included, I'm short of time just now, i'll be back soon †he Bread 04:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you suggest as a separator?
As for canon and non-canon, that's the sort of metadata that belongs in series articles and game lists. Navboxes shouldn't have all sorts of extra info crammed into them; they become distracting and bloated. Instead, they should guide readers to the introductory and umbrella articles whichdo have this core information. Taking {{Metal Gear series}} as an example, the main, Kojima-directed games are up top, and the main series article is linked prominently.
This principle about meta-data is important; there's no way to give a new reader enough info in a navbox, just enough info to confuse them. We need to guide readers to the main articles, while tying together strongly-related articles. Weakly-related articles are just clutter, and linking them isn't useful because they'll already be linked inthe articles they're strongly related to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In order for the "V-D-E" functionality to work as intended you have to substitute {{pagename}} with a hardcoded reference to the template in question, it will otherwise pull the article name instead of the template. I think I've sorted them all but there may be a few left. Combination 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll double-check any articles where I used it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem with Template:Metal Gear series?

Stop. This is a one sided argument! I have seen this alot on this page most argumants agenced the templat have been icnord and no one has put in something like "Your ponts are valid but it is like this becuoes...." no one hass even put in something like "STOP IF YOU HAVE READ THE DISCUSHON ABUTH YOU WILL SEE..." And so on but worsed of all sinece lasted night a fue of the arguments agenst have been removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.105.3 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I can't even attempt to understand that comment. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues and ideas

I've numbered the rules above; I'm going to write this into a proper project guideline, but I wanted to see if anyone had any extra ideas or suggestions or replacements or complaints.

So, make any suggestions or suggest and ideas or complain (constructively!) or whatever. Each rule is numbered for easy reference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I’m going to have to register my complaint with point 7 (every thing else I either support or do not care about. Apart from 6 in certain circumstances) in my opinion, the big advantage of templates is that they can store a vast amount of information on a particular subject. And they should include all the bits of information that is relevant to the subject while still having a practical use.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of including “Everything but the kitchen sink” and I support the gist of what you’re trying to do (trying to unclog the templates), but the changes you’ve made to some templates make many of then redundant. What is the point of a template if it doesn’t inform the reader about the subject? The template {{Sonic games}} is now without point at is neglects almost every signal game in the sonic series. The extra link you add, List of games featuring Sonic the Hedgehog also fails to address this concern as games are lumped together by platform and thus it is imposable to distinguish noteworthy game from one another, whereas the previous template (although it suffered from a number of problems) was capable of doing this. El cid the hero 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a quibble with the specific case. What games were omitted that are so important to the series as a whole that they be linked from every single article? The links omitted (see the old version here) were derivative and largely inferior handheld games released by third parties, various party and racing games of little long-term impact or popularity outside of hardcore Sonic fans, compilation titles of little long-term importance, and some just-plain-inexplicable inclusions like Flicky and Mean Bean Machine. That template was a study in how too many links can greatly obscure the links of greater importance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, most of the templates were like the old Sonic template, and it is a case of an all or nothing situation. You can't just clam to have "notable" or "important" games, as then you have to define notable and important, which opens a whole other can of worms. I believe I've already pointed out some templates from other sections that are like the earlier templates which nobody seems to be thinking of trimming down. This also relates to issue number four, that there should be no sections, when clearly they will be needed. If you look all the old templates, which some are calling the more professional version (myself included), they had multiple sections, and worked just fine. JQF 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea who I'm replying to, here.
For most of the kitchen sink templates that I edited (can't speak for anyone else) I defined notable/important/relevant on the fly, looking for a series of interrelated articles. "Platformers starring Sonic developed by Sonic Team/its predecessors" seemed to be an obvious thread in the pile of randomness that was {{Sonic games}}. This is mentioned in the draft guideline; don't make a scope so huge that you end up with many unrelated articles crammed together. There may be a new niche for a template devoted to, say, the 8-bit Sonic games or the handheld Sonic games or whatever; this is a feature and not a bug. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign. What I'm saying is, you can't define notable/important/relevant without a consensus from other people. What is notable to one may not be notable to another, and vice versa. If you want to define it, you can do that, but you'll want to bring before others, and you'll have to do that for ever template. Otherwise, you open up the kind of debate going on here. If you want to define, for example, the Sonic games as "Platformers starring Sonic developed by Sonic Team/its predecessors", then you have to make that nice and clear, which would probably mean labeling the template "Platformers starring Sonic developed by Sonic Team/its predecessors". I think the old templates had nicely defined scope, which went along the lines of "Games in Series X". Why you think this is a kitchen sink approach is beyond me. If you've seen the templates in other sections, a number of which have been referenced in this talk, you'll see they work fine. The only template I've seen that is even close to "Kitchen sink" levels is the {{Simpsons characters}} template, and if you look at that, you'll see that it's nicely organized, sectioned template. And I don't think splitting the templates into subsections helps at all. This is part the reason I have such a problem with #4. Having sections and such has become a standard of the navboxes. If you don’t want them, your going to have to convince all of Wikipedia to drop them. JQF 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The old template included dozens and dozens of games. It had a vaguely-defined scope of "games related to Sonic in some way" (Flicky? Mean Bean Machine?). It was a hallmark of the problems with scope creep. If someone wants to define some other basic series of articles for {{Sonic games}}, I'm not going to lose any sleep, but if it gets huge again it's going to get trimmed again.
Needing to section a template is a good sign that you've probably stopped linking an article series and that you've started cramming a comprehensive list into multiple articles via a template transclusion. Comprehensive lists with metadata are why we have lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the scoop was as vague as "games related to Sonic in some way" for most of the navboxes. However, if it was, then yes, it would need to be trimmed. I fell, however, that you are going to the extreme. I fell that instead of trimming the fat, as you say you are, you’re leaving nothing but bone. As for sections being a sign of an over stuffed navbox, no, it's not. Have you actually looked at the other templates presented, like {{X-Men}}? Those are sectioned, and they show all important and relevant information to the main topic. I don't see how you can thing that. You’re a supporter of merging, according to your user page, so wouldn't you merge collection of lists that could all go on one page, and each would be it's own subsection? How would this be any different? JQF 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I did leave only the bone. Navboxes are skeletons, and should lead to the core articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, User:A Man In Black/CVGnavbox has a draft of a guideline on navboxes for this project. It's a rewrite of the rules above, but geared to a less wiki-savvy reader and with a whole lot more explanation of hows and whys. If you're curious about why such-and-such rule is the way it is (or how strict it's meant to be), the guideline writeup is a lot more verbose. Feel free to edit it, for anything from copyedits to major points I missed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think rule 6 should be changed a bit. Saying "no non-English games unless the whole series wasn't" is a bit too broad -- a perfect example is the Front Mission series. Two (three if the 5th game comes here) of the series in English, the rest not. Another example is Parodius which had some European releases of two (or three?) of the games. I could probably name some more. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; Front Mission, Fire Emblem, and Parodius are good examples (but do we have separate articles for each Parodius game? Really?) The guidline draft has some softer language about erring on the side of peripheral games, with games not released in English and spinoffs given as examples. That way we're not cramming (for example) the various Japan-only spinoffs of the Mega Man Battle Network series into a MMBN template, but the Fire Emblem template could cover the whole series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Having a rule about no non-English games sounds a like Americentric to me. Plus, having you ever heard of importing? Just because it was never released in an English speaking country doesn't mean it wasn't played there. JQF 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, English-language Wikipedia, you know? This is discussed in greater detail below. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see any greater details below, but English language doesn't mean we talk only about English things here. Are you suggesting we delete all the articles about countries that don't speak English? Or don't include them in lists of countries on the English Wikipedia? Are you saying that people don't want to know about the games released in other countries, but not here? I'm curious as to what exactly your reasoning is. JQF 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it's right above. Please spare me the red herrings and straw men; I wrote that thinking of series where there are fairly obscure spinoffs that never made it to English, such as the MegaMan Battle Network series. Obviously, core games that never made it into English (Dragon Quest, Parodius, and Fire Emblem come to mind) should be included. Were you making some other point? If you weren't, I don't think we disagree, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This new template format for the CVG templates is out-of-line with the movie and comic book templates (for example, look at the templates for Matrix, Terminator, Superman or Spiderman). Even music templates follow a similar format (look at The Beatles and Freddie Mercury templates for example). Using a different template format for the CVG articles would be inconsistent with the templates for other forms of media. Another flaw has already been pointed out by a few other people; the new templates are essentially redundant if all they include are a few games. Another problem I have is with #6. I have not yet seen a good reason for why upcoming canon games should not be included. It would be reasonable to exclude spin-offs but I still don't see any decent reason why upcoming canon games which are essential in the series (such as Metal Gear Solid 4) should not be included on the template. Jagged 85 09:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Being more restrictive than other content areas is unavoidable. Scope creep in templates is pervasive, and the only way to reverse it is to start in one place and move to another. Is there some reason they shouldn't follow our lead?
The goal of a navbox is to link only a few, strongly-related articles. What are the slim boxes redundant to? The huge kitchen-sink templates were ugly clutter redundant with actual list articles or categories.
As for upcoming "canon" games, who says what's canon? These templates are bad enough without cramming speculative, low-quality articles which may turn out to be completely wrong and misguided. That's said, it's a bit softer in the current draft guideline (which I suggest people read because I could use help with it); it's an example of something to cut when space is tight or when the articles are low-quality, not a draconian DO NOT HAVE UNRELEASED GAMES EVAR. If you'd like to discuss the specific case of the upcoming Metal Gear games, I'd be happy to do that on the talk page for that template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a navbox standard for all of Wikipedia? Isn't that what was being followed before? As for who says what is is canon, I think that that is the people who make the games. Having games that have been announced is fine, and having the game on the template makes sure it gets its fair share of attention, and thus is kept up to date, so it becomes more than a low-quality bad-info article. And remember that the function of Wikipedia is designed to remove or fix up wrong and/or misguided information. It's the whole reason that info has to be sourced, and goes through that whole process. JQF 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No, there isn't a standard navbox appearance. That's the problem, and it's why I decided to just go ahead and declare a certain appearance standard. There's {{Navigation box}}, on which this design is based, and then most of the non-pop-culture projects use vertical seriesboxes at the top of an article. The navboxes are in general pretty haphazard; I'm fairly sure the film project doesn't have a standard style, I KNOW the comics project doesn't have a standard style (they can't even agree on a fixed width), and the motley assortment of TV projects don't agree on much of anything. Our standard style is just {{Navigation box}} substed with some standard parameters, to be honest.
As for announced games, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Between announcement and release, games are often renamed, completely redesigned, delayed, cancelled, inaccurately described, deliberately deceitfully promoted (MGS2 anyone?), and, invariably, the subject of great speculation. An article for an upcoming game is nearly never a useful part of an article series; most of the editors who bring things to GA/FA quality avoid touching game press on upcoming games in articles on existing games because the preview press in the games industry pretty much sucks. (If I were ChrisGriswold and I could convince people to adopt good-sense rules, I'd be pushing for this project to deem preview coverage unsuitable as a source for a Wikipedia article save when that coverage was noteworthy in and of itself, as in the case of how MGS2 was deceptively promoted.) A navbox should be guiding readers through a series of strongly interrelated articles, and an unreleased game's article is almost never going to be usefully interrelated to other articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, don't see a {{Navigation box}}, and I can't find one by looking. If there isn't an official standard, I'd say that the old templates conformed to the unofficial standard. The comic project navboxes just went through a major change, but their end result looks like the old templates, and they still agree on that stuff being standard. Most of the TV projects do their own thing, as far as I know, so they aren't that good an example. As for what I'm guessing {{Navigation box}} is suppose to look like, I'd that that is just a simple navbox designed for simple copy-paste processes. The old templates look much more developed and, in my opinion, profession and encyclopedic. I know that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but if something like a name changes, people will change the stuff referring to it. Wikipedia is adaptive, and if it is the next game, I'd say chances are good the people will keep the info up to date. Things like inaccuracy and speculation have a system for being dealt with, as evident with every other article in current or future status. Most articles don't get to GA/FA status until after the item is out, so there is no chance of speculation and such getting in. And does a press article about an upcoming game usually talk about a game already released? Don't talk about ChrisGriswold here, as he isn't here, and is probably wrapped up in his campaign to have all Marvel Civil War comics merged into one page. Also, the one game you keep bringing up (MGS2) cannot be used to describe events surrounding all games. It's just one unique example, and is not a basis for games as a whole. Yes, a navbox should guide people through a series of strongly interrelated articles, which is why I'm here, and a future game is important to the other articles, as it is the future of the series. It tells people where the series is going. Don't you want to be informed about the future of your favorite games? As far as anyone knows, it is going to be part of the series, so you'll have to add it sooner or later anyway. Are you asking people to wait until the release date to add it the template? That just sounds counter-productive to me. JQF 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The old, unofficial standard sucked and was broken. The template to which I was referring was {{Navbox}}. We shouldn't link bad articles prominently until they have some hope of becoming good articles, and unreleased games are not likely to be major subjects of commentary in other articles. Preview commentary still isn't reliable by any sane standard. Future games may be important, but just as often they're not. (Games get cancelled, changed, postponed, redesign, sometimes the promotion is overblown, sometimes it's a lie, etc.) We should add things once we know they're important, instead of just assuming they will be. I'm suggesting that people err on the side of exclusion of speculative content when there's some doubt as to the value of that content.
This comment needs specific refutation, however: Don't you want to be informed about the future of your favorite games?
Halt. Navboxes are not for fans of the series. Fans of the series already know about all of the games in the series. Navboxes need to guide readers who aren't already fans to the articles they need to read to fully understand the whole, with general information given prominence over specific. Navboxes tie together a series of articles, and until a game is released its article is generally not yet a part of the whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, first, saying the old templates sucked is POV, which you shouldn't let get in the way of your editing, and as for broken, if I though they were broken I wouldn't be writing this. Second, I see what you were referring to, and now I must point out {{Navbox generic}}, which is a simpler form of the old templates. Third, you’re assuming that all articles about future games are bad, which is a generalization. I've seen future games pages which fall anywhere from stub to GA quality. Also, even if the page isn't that great, it doesn't make the game any less a part of the series, and by adding them to the template you can draw more attention to page, and get more people helping out with the fixing up of pages. Are you suggesting that we only focus on the good pages, and ignore the bad ones? If you do that, than the bad pages are going to stay bad, because nobody knows about them but hardcore fans. I'll agree that future games are unlikely to be referred in other game articles, but what about things like the character pages, and the series page? I'm not saying Preview info is reliable, but it is all the people have. As for not wanting to do it because the game may get cancelled, changed, etc, that's like saying you don't want a page to get created because it might get vandalized. Yes, change is possible, but that's what the little edit button is for, so that you can change the info if it falls out of date and such. Again, what's important to you may not be to someone else, and vice versa. I personally believe in adding anything that might be important, and if it's not, whoever removes it will say why they think it isn't, and I can agree or disagree, and we can take it from there. As for speculation, remember that everything has to have a source, to speculation usually doesn't get in to the pages, so you don't have to worry about it. As for my comment, you do realize that Wikipedia is run by fans, right? I agree that Wikipedia is not for the fans (that's what special wikis, like the Trekkies' Memory Alpha, are for). No, Wikipedia is for conveying information to the laymen, like you said. Now, if it's not in the navbox, how are the laymen going to know about it? Are you saying that non-fans don't want to know about it? JQF 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
WTF? Those templates were huge and ugly. NPOV does not demand that we put huge and ugly things in articles other than in articles about things that are huge or ugly.
You're conflating "game series" and "article series". A game can be part of a game series, but its article shouldn't be included in an article series until it's a useful part of that article series. The vast majority of preview articles aren't the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

AMIB i'm taking a brake from editing wikipedia for a few days to allow my temprement to cool down. however i will say the following, one: i am concerned with other templates such as {{Halo}} and {{Mario series}} which i believe to have been made useless. Two: i'm sorry for reverting the page like that, i did it in the heat of the moment. Three: future games should be listed in templates as they are a vitle aspect of a series and just because they may contain speculation is no reason to not includ them. and fore: i agree with what JQF says about what to includ as templates are for both fans of the series and newcomers and therefore should contain as much info as posable to make it more usefull El cid the hero 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Again. Vital part of the game series, not a vital part of the article series. Don't sweat taking a break; it's a good idea and the wiki will still be here when you get back. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this post is probably going to look suspicious coming after a user with practically the same name, but what're you going to do? In regards to rule 1, I'm not sure if standardizing the color for all of the templates is entirely necessary. Some garish color schemes pop up of course, but I feel like these can be resolved on a case-by-case basis, without the need to make a blanket ban on unique color schemes. Some games have a fairly strong association with a color, and using such colors in navboxes could make make them a bit more recognizable. To use Zelda as an example, green might act as a sort of unifying element for Zelda-related articles and navboxes. Not to say that all navboxes need color, but where it's visually appealing and makes sense I don't think it needs to be prohibited. Perhaps there's a less restrictive way to avoid crazy color schemes from getting out of hand. Suggesting using lighter colors maybe, or limiting color use to the title line only. El Cid 07:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you get a motley assortment of different-colored templates at the bottom of each page, in addition to the problem of occasionally-garish color schemes or disputes over which color should be used. This way we're using the same color as the navbox, which also has a standard, fixed color. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I know you really want to push this thing through, MIB, but I believe this is still in discussion and a standard has not been agreed upon. That aside, I agree that a color ban / standardization is a bit nit-picky. I suggest not using exact values for such a guideline, but give some reasonable room. -- Ned Scott 08:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Standardizing the appearance of navboxes is the whole point, and why I started all of this in the first place. Wario used to have four templates, each of which was a different color and size and style. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and picking a single neutral color prevents the inevitable mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Standards or no, I'd like to bring up a template that no one's mentioned yet (as far as I know): {{Half-Life series}}. I mean, wow. --PresN 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
While well done, I think that that template is too big, as it should just focus on the games. The other sections are good, so it should be split into three different Navboxes, basically Games (which would be the first three sections), then Characters (the next three sections), and then the last three sections can be another navbox, although the name will need some though. JQF 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would advize some new rules (guidelines),

1. color should not be standard.

2. all templates should have at least 3 rows and no more than 7.

3. 1 of those rows sould be called "mane series".

4. mager edits HAVE to be talked about.

5. rthe holl pont of having an template is so you can find things you whoulted have befor and for esy nav so most miner and related games should be put in.

I may put more on the list but what do you thingck of it? JosephK19 07:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst thinking carefully about AMIB's suggestions, I suddenly realised that not every user would realise that only game names are italicised. In some cases, it would be obvious after taking a look at the nature of the names in the navigation box, but in other cases, it's not (as in where there are movies made from the game). To avoid confusion, perhaps it would be better to either not include links to articles that are not about actual games, or to put them into a different section within the navigational box.
Of course, this opens up the templates to edit creep, which is what AMIB fears the most. Therefore, I think we should propose a non-game link limit, to ensure that the template doesn't get too big. How's about, only allowing three, non-game links?
Wolf ODonnell 11:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

non game examples

I haven't been closely following the discussion above. However, from what I've seen I think there's more than one issue here. AMIB has the basic idea here, but I don't think we'll get the exact same results for each nav box. Nav boxes need to be about articles that are directly related to each other or to a parent article. Most stubs in nav templates don't help and probably should not be in a nav template.

BUT, I don't think the point is to make all nav templates only include X number of links. Lets take a look at some non-game examples (same idea, but might include more templates outside of this WikiProject, to bring in some "outside" ideas):

Template:Cardcaptor Sakura, I believe all the links on that nav template are completely appropriate. It's not a small nav box, but it's not huge. All the links it includes are to articles that are beyond stubs and are pretty well written. The articles all share a direct relationship with each other. One could create a List of characters to replace individual links, but it's hardly necessary.

Another example, Template:Bee Train, is a bad nav box. It's smaller than my above example, but these articles don't share a direct relation other than being produced by the same animation company. The works themselves are very different and the over-all production staff and plots are not closely related.

Here's a really good nav box: Template:Haruhi Suzumiya. It could be even smaller by listing the links one after another, but using the table format makes this a lot easier and cleaner looking.

So yeah, just some things to keep in mind. I don't think we should make nav templates so small and unformatted that it defeats the whole point in organized navigation. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that a lot of the problems might be red flags to how the articles are organized over all. Fixing the nav template, while making things cleaner, won't fix the real problem. When you do find a huge template that contains links that are mostly related it might be because there's merging and 'cruft cutting to do. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nearly half of {{Cardcaptor Sakura}} is whitespace or metadata. I would redesign it by identifying the characters as the series of articles being linked, then linking the umbrella articles in a single line of links at the bottom; this would reduce size by nearly half.
All Template:Haruhi Suzumiya needs to reduce size by at least a third is to ditch that column on the left, which really isn't adding much info. You would probably have to make the links a bit more verbose to compensate; this wouldn't be a big problem, however.
Remember that video games, unlike these dissimilar examples, lend themselves to simple horizontal arrangement, in chronological or numbered order. Generally, when you have a case where that isn't true, where there's as much vertical arrangement as horizontal, you're no longer linking a series of tightly-integrated articles but instead trying to cram a comprehensive or semi-comprehensive list into a transclusion.
As for merging and cruft cutting, that indeed needs to be done. One task at a time, though; if we wait to fix this problem before fixing the problem of uencyclopedic, overspecific articles, the templates will never get fixed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Part of my point is the number of links as well as "acceptable size". Yes, there is white space, but that is not always an issue, it depends on the situation. Also, whitespace can be a good thing in that it helps the visual layout of something to be cleaner, making it easier to navigate and find the link you're looking for, etc. Smashing everything together can make the whole nav box useless. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, AMIB, agian you dismiss the spliting of them into columns. While you could take them away, it helps to have them there. If it wasn't though they were useful, then why did people use them in the first place? Why do you find them in so many navboxes? Also, no, not all video games lend themselves to simple horizontal arrangements. If they did, don't you think it would have been like before you got to them? Take the Legend of Zelda Template. Before you got to it the it mentioned the BS disk series, the CD-i games, and the LCD games. Now, nothing about those. That's a loss of information, pages that a user may not know about that are an important part of Zelda history. JQF 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I only have three points: we need to standardize the appearance, we need to reduce metadata, and we need to reduce useless clutter links like Satteliview games, CDi games, and LCD games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we need a standard. I suggest following the {{Navbox generic}} template, as that is what most navboxes follow. Metadata isn't that big a deal unless it isn't properly written, and things like the CDi and LCD games arn't "useless clutter", as they fall under scope (even by your standards) and are a part of the game's history. JQF 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd like to point out that none of these changes were put up on the navboxes' talk pages before or after, which they should have been, as a number of them ask to bring up any style changes before hand on the talk page. This is a result of there being no standard. No standard means that changes to each template need to be discussed on each template's talk page. I think if you had gone that route you might be getting better reception. I've gone through and looked at the changes you've done to most pages, and most I disagree with. The only navbox I think that really needed to be "dealt with" was the Resident Evil template. That one should be broken up into multiple templates. JQF 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, many of them lack a discussion page and {{navbox generic}} is but a proposed standard, if that. That's not a good enough excuse to revert. Combination 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Lack a discussion page? Every page has a discussion page! Even discussion pages can have discussion pages! And {{navbox generic}} is the norm for the majority of the navboxes, and was for the ones in discussion before this all started. I just re-proposed it to make it clear what most navboxes use. JQF 14:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Lack of, as in empty, non-existent etc. Then might I ask why you're reverting to something that doesn't follow {{navbox generic}} guidelines? At best, some of them may resemble the appearance of one, but the structure and code vary from box to box. Combination 15:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because nothing is written there doesn't mean you can't write something. And most of them do follow {{navbox generic}} guidelines. {{navbox generic}} is just a basic template, with no colors changed in the sections title and such. Some of them have moved the title to be a bar over the links instead of beside, but other wise are the same. JQF 15:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with all those who oppose AMIB's points. Without expressing everything that has alraedy been said many times, his ideas and messages seem to be the most unreasonable and non-viable way to go. It seems as if the majority of users agree with this as well. Your claim that the old templates are "cluttered" are overrated and a reduction of metadata is very unclear to me. If necessary, I will restate every single thing ( that has already been said ) against your argument that is valid, but I hope that such prior things will have actually laid an imprint within peoples mind as they can then weigh the two sides properly, instead of "my way or eff you". I'm not going to state that WIKIPEDIA! is a wikiality, but in many ways we all know it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krisp E (talk • contribs) .
I just want to make it clear that I do not oppose AMIB's points. Also, the entire point of a WikiProject is so that we have a centralized place of discussion, and that we don't have to start a new discussion on each and every talk page of those templates. We're talking about how to improve upon ideas, and this whole idea of "opposing" and taking sides needs to stop NOW. JQF and other's comments are disrupting what was a healthy discussion and collaboration about nav templates. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs consenus

Though I'm not completely for or against AMIB's proposals, please remember not to change the templates until some sort of consensus is reached among editors (such as with a straw poll) to prevent any edit wars. After all, this is still a proposal and not yet a guideline. Also, wouldn't Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates be a better place to discuss this, since this topic applies to all navigational boxes?--TBCΦtalk? 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would be. I'll go do that now. JQF 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

JQF (talk · contribs) has reverted every template he can lay his hands on. Fuck it, this isn't worth the effort if nobody wants anything improved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that there are "sides" to this issue. The more I think about it the more I understand AMIB's rational. This is a discussion, and we shouldn't be so quick to take "sides". Rather, we should push forward and take the good and throw out the bad. I've reverted those templates back to the ones introduced by AMIB. We can improve on these templates, but we need to more forward, not backwards. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify: I'm not saying that we should "take sides", I simply think we should improve on and discuss AMIB's template guidelines first before actually implementing it. This way we can avoid any edit wars or incivility among users.--TBCΦtalk? 05:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I do think your suggestion is in good faith, but it does make an "idea vs idea" type setup. I don't think we're finished discussing the exact look of the "new" template layout, so a vote or such would be premature. I guess there isn't a major need to edit all the templates before finalization, but considering the horrible shape most of them where in, there really isn't a need to leave them be. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Continue discussion

Lets continue discussion and improve upon the ideas proposed by AMIB. I think we can all find something that we all agree upon. I think there are many template layouts that would satisfy all involved that have yet to be proposed, but still address the concerns raised. We shouldn't forget the core issues here: standardize, reduce link clutter, etc -- Ned Scott 06:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates as I've noted above. After all, if a guideline is to be made for the structure of navigational templates, it must apply to all genres and not just video games.--TBCΦtalk? 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I've given some additional thought to AMIB's comments to my non-game examples, in that a lot of game nav boxes can be different from others. I think I was mostly thinking of Halo when I was giving those examples, and Halo has sort of grown beyond game.. so it probably wasn't the best example.
In any case, we're still discussing ideas, and I think we should visit Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates after our ideas have formed a bit better. I would not oppose discussion there, but it just seems premature to try to include everything and anything when everything and anything might not apply. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
One comment about Halo is that even though it's branched out into other media, the main video game trilogy still seems to be, for the time being, paramount. The film is still in production, and the books don't really seem to have taken off independently of the games. So I'd wager that most people are still looking for the main trilogy, or need an overview article or two to branch out.
That said, I do think that, once you're already in an article on a specific topic, a separate template for articles of similar specificity would be a good idea. For example, a template linking all of the characters with individual articles together would be fine if you're already in an article on one of those characters, but not from the main game series article. I guess what I'm going for is that, if you view articles as belonging to some sort of layer of detail, it's most efficient to design templates to link across that layer, and to overview articles for one layer down. — TKD::Talk 10:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I started making this out to be two sides, that was what I though it was becoming. And for the record, I kept reverting the templates because they kept getting changed to a set of standards that were still being discussed, which I think is jumping the gun. Anyway, the only points I have a problem with are: 4 - the removal of sections, 6 - the removal of non-English release games, and 14 - the removal of games without pages. See reasons for each below.
I think sections are important because they help the user understand things about the games in the templates. Take the {{Wario series}} template. Wario has been in two completely different series of video games, the Wario Land series and the WarioWares series. Both should be mentions, but they should be kept separate, as the two are their own series. And, if start throwing list of character, places, etc, you should have them sectioned off from the games, cause they aren't games.
I don't see how you can remove the non-English games. They are part of the series, so they should be there. Just because someone in America has never heard about the game doesn't mean they don't what to. The English wiki isn't suppose to be Americentric, and if look at Wii#Confirmed launch titles' list of launch titles in all regions, you can see that people want to about gaming all over the world.
Again, I can't see how you can remove games without pages. They are part of the series, right? So they should be there. Just because there isn't an article doesn't mean there won't be one forever. And who knows, if somebody see that redlink, and knows something about the game, they may start a page for it. That's how these things work. Same thing goes for "weak/bad" and future game articles. The more attention it gets, the more people will fix it up.
Those are the three items I have issues with. The others I don't see any problems with. JQF 13:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm going to revert the templates to before this discussion started, as making changes under proposed standards is jumping the gun, AMIB should have waited until a consensus was reached. JQF 14:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather we refrained from labeling a specific group of games canon, series, spin-offs and whatnot and remain neutral, and simply list relevant or related titles. The ado of interpretation can be left at the discretion of the reader. Furthermore, the VDE functionality provides quick access to template discussions as well as edit should someone wish to expand the template with additional items. Combination 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, like I said, I fell that some need that differentiation, as it is kind of an all or nothing situation. I don't think that "canon" should be used as a sorter, but series and such are officially labeled and should be used. Take the {{Donkey Kong series}}. That has three different series, which are all relevant to DK, and are related titles. By separating them into seperate sections, it makes the games easier to navigate. As for the VDE, that should be in. It's a pain to get to the template and make changes otherwise. JQF 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Basic principles

Reforming these templates needs three basic principles:

  • Standardize the appearance. It's inevitable that some pages will have multiple navboxes, so they need to have largely similar apparance and line up nicely.
  • Identify series of articles and link only the articles in that series. While article series will often coincide with game series, that isn't always the case. To avoid scope creep and bloat, navboxes need to be pared down to a series of interconnected articles, favoring umbrella articles over specific articles.
  • Reduce metadata. There's a tendency to include metadata not necessary for simple identification of the links. This not only bloats the template, as the metadata is relevant only to specific articles, but often encourages linking multiple series of articles, by splitting the navbox into sections.

All of the rules about excluding articles were getting at the second point; oftentimes obscure spinoffs are not relevant to the bulk of the rest of the games, and such games are often not localized to English. When talking about the Legend of Zelda series, the LCD games (simple games branded with the Legend of Zelda name, mostly unrelated to the bulk of the series) and CDi games (made by a third party under a contractual obligation) aren't closely related to the whole.

Is there any significant objection to the core principles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

AMIB, i whish to know what you means by your second point. could you please give me an example? El cid the hero 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to give examples without giving examples of what not to do.
For example, one could argue that every game that Mario appears in is part of a game series. However, these games will span decades, a dozen or more developers, and a half-dozen genres. Instead of making one single "Mario series" template, you should identify more-specific series of interrelated articles, such as "Mario platformers" and "Mario RPGs" and "Mario sports" games.
Likewise, you should avoid cramming all of the members of a large class into a template unless the template is linking only members of that very specific class. Linking every Resident Evil: Outbreak playable character is probably not okay for a Resident Evil, a Resident Evil spinoff, or even a Resident Evil playable characters template, but it would probably be okay for a "Resident Evil: Outbreak playable characters" template. If you were making a Resident Evil: Outbreak template (probably a bad idea since there are only two games), linking to a "Resident Evil: Outbreak characters" article or category would be preferable to cramming a dozen links to character articles.
In general, irrelevant offshoots should be avoided. This usually includes (this is all off the top of my head)...
  • Trivial remakes (e.g. Kwazy Quux 2 DX), because they're only strongly related to the game they're a remake of 99% of the time.
  • Cancelled games. Games that didn't even make it to market are generally not influential on the series as a whole. There are occasional examples (Star Fox 2), but they're rare.
  • Trivial compilations. Generally, compilations are not significant parts of the development or history of a series; they're just the same games repackaged a different way.
  • Upcoming games. Games are often cancelled, changed, deceptively promoted, exist in rumor form only, etc. Preview press is a lousy source, and while a game may be a part of the game series, its article is rarely a major part of the article series until after the game is actually released.
  • Extremely limited-release games, save when the whole series is limited release. This isn't so much about rare games as non-influential spinoffs of the series on obscure platforms or oddball services. The LCD Zelda games aren't particularly influential on or important to the other games, and the dead-end Mega Man spinoffs on the Wonderswan were outsourced to other developers and had little influence on the series as a whole.
None of these are written in stone, just good advice to combat scope creep.
If you're deciding if articles should be tied together in an infobox, ask yourself if the two most far-flung links in the template are still strongly related enough to make a link useful. Are Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 and Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam closely related enough to make a link useful? I'd say yes. Are Flicky and Mean Bean Machine closely related enough to make a link useful. I'd say definitely not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I have issues with the exclusion of games. The navboxes are an all or nothing kind of thing. If you name the navbox "X series video games", it is expected that all games from that series are in the navbox. Now, if you named it "Notable video games from X series", then you could do that, but that might open up the debate of what is notable, which calls upon POV, which isn't suppose to influence editing and such, so the whole thing may end up being scraped (but that's just what I'm guessing). Also, as I've said, excluding non-English release games seems incredibly Americentric, which Wikipedia isn't. Are you going to suggest excluding the original Final Fantasy III from the Final Fantasy template because it never saw a release of the original version in North America? What about the games that started in Japan and their sequels made it to North America, but not the original? How would you fell if the Japan Wiki did the same thing? I can't see that suggestion happening. Now, for your suggestion of mega series, you give Mario as an example, you can do that, and I foresee someone making a navbox for each genre. I don't have a problem with this, but I figured I'd point that out. Remakes and compilations can all just be put on a list page, which should be put in the navbox. Now, what you say about upcoming games can be said for any upcoming material. I just fell that as long as it is slated for release, it should be in the navbox, and that you are looking at it very negatively. I mean, honestly, how often do games that are part of major series (like the ones that have navboxes) get cancelled? Names rarely change, and then usually no more than once because the first name was only a development and/or codename. Most games I know of don't get deceptively promoted, and if they do, then it goes on their permanent record (ie public perception), as well of that of the ones doing the deceptive promotion, and it ultimately cost the company in the end. As for "exist in rumor form only", did you forget that everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced? Rumours don't stay on Wikipedia for long. JQF 00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems like that's a good reason to consider better names, not make massive templates. As for rumors and cancelled games, I beg to differ that they're rare. And before you protest, I removed each of those from a navbox in this recent cleanup. I could probably find more if I went further back. Unreleased games usually aren't relevant before they're released, and oftentimes they don't even make it to release. I would be curious as to whether anyone else is particularly convinced by your arguments on this point.
As for the non-English thing, how long are you going to harp on this? I've softened it, rephrased it, and basically gone out of my way to say that no, we shouldn't take an English-centric perspective, but instead that a game that wasn't localized for other regions is often, but not always, not terribly relevant to the series as a whole. (Take Dragon Quest for example: DQV = very relevant. That one DQ Monsters 1 & 2 compilation = not so relevant.) I don't think we particularly disagree about this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally am pretty much on board with the idea at this point. I've gone ahead and done a few navboxes already. I too think we should be lenient with the un-localized games, Mother/Earthbound gets shot to hell if we don't include Japan-only games, and I think we all realize that. But stuff like Kirby no Kirakira Kizzu probably doesn't need to be mentioned.
As for what's notable, I think that consensus won't be too hard when it comes down to it. Most of these navboxes already have a "Main Series" section, so it's really just a matter of limiting the box (primarily) to those games and splitting own entries into their own navboxes if needs be. It might be tricky for some series; for example, I personally had trouble with the {{Kirby series}} since it seems half of the games with Kirby in them are spin-offs. Nintendo seems to use Kirby as a guinea pig for a lot of game concepts. But that seems like an uncommon problem that would crop up.
Concerning unreleased games, like I said at the Mario template talk page, I think games reach a certain point where they are fairly set in stone. Playable demos or betas released, a concrete release date, marketing being initiated, those sort of things. I actually think Super Mario Galaxy is a good example of such a game that just reaches inclusion status. El Cid 05:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say Galaxy is right on the outside of the line. However, Galaxy is a good example of right where the line should be drawn, whichever side it falls on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think you think I want to have unreleased and cancelled games on the navboxes. I don't. What I'm saying is that I think you think all future games are 90% likely to become unreleased or cancelled. I think future games should be added to the navbox, because as far as people know it will be released. If the company says it will be released, then assume good faith and add it to the navbox. Until someone says other wise, it is part of the series. However, if you want to make it so the game has to fulfill X criteria to be added, make it so that it has to voted on, on the navbox's talk page. That way it is a group decision. Same thing goes for "non-notable" and "non-English" games. I thing we can agree that these kind of things needs to be dealt with on a navbox by navbox basis, because it has been pointed out that "non-notable" is different for every body, and that excluding "non-English" games would really screw up some of the navboxes. And if one person tried to do all that, it would definitely result in an edit war on a few of the navboxes. Oh, and to reiterate, sections should be kept because it basicallly turns the navbox into a list, which might as well be merged to the game series page. JQF 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and you are going to remove the navbox from all the pages that got removed from the template, right? JQF 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that future games are often renamed or cancelled, and their articles are often low-quality, poorly integrated into the article series. I wouldn't say that they're always or even mostly not released in final form, just often enough to be a significant problem when paired with the issues of article quality.
I fully agree that individual games and individual templates should be resolved on a case by case basis, but we need to establish that if you're getting much larger than, say, {{Donkey Kong series}}, you've stopped identifying members of an article series and started making a comprehensive list of all of the members of a broad category. We set broad standards here and kibitz over the individual cases on the individual talk pages, using the standard (is it a part of the article series yet?) set in the broad standards. (That's how guidelines work.)
As for sections, navboxes are brief lists. They're a list of articles in an article series. If you're adding sections, you're turning it from a brief list to an annotated table, which not only encourages scope creep but also means you're cramming a large table full of a great deal of information that may not be relevant to every article in which the template appears.
As for cleanup, yeah, that's gonna have to be done. I've been doing it sort of haphazardly on the pages on my watchlist, but we need to do it in a more comprehensive fashion. Anyone feel like volunteering to help? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that future games are often renamed or cancelled, but I don't think it is that big an issue, cause things can be ajussted accordinly in the event the game is renamed or cancelled. I just find you lack of Good Faith in companies very negative. I fell your saying "If there is the slightest chance it will get cancelled, it's not worth my time". That's like deleting a page simply because it get vandalised. The articles are often low-quality and poorly integrated simply because they are new and haven't gotten much attention. Every page starts like that. By adding them to the navbox, people will look at it and say "Oh, that's the latest game, I wonder what's up with it." They will look at the page, and some of them will say "Oh, that's wrong, I'll fix that", and that's how articles get better. The more attention a page gets, the better it gets. I don't know what your trying to say with that "final form" sentance, but if it's that games change while in development, doesn't every thing? Isn't that part of the game's history? Is that really a valid reason to ignore a game? I don't think it is.
If you agree about the case by case basis, then the item should probably be changed to "Games included in navboxes shall be dealt with on a case by case basis on the navboxes talk page", since that's what it needs to be. I don't think you can create a standard that would satisfy everybody, so why not leave it to the people who want to deal with it. I mean, the Project Final Fantasy can say what games they want on their template, and the Project Zelda can say for their's, and so on. Let those who have an invested interest in the game series say what gets put in and what gets left out. As for sections, I notice that the new templates still have characters and such. Shouldn't you properly mark that they are major characters in the series, like you would in any other list? I mean, doing this to every game and not the rest is fine if you make it clear to everyone that that mean it is a game, but shouldn't you still clarify what the stuff that isn't a game is on the template? Don't want to go and create unwanted confussion or nothing. If you want to eliminate scope creep, why not create standards for subsections? How about, no more than 3 sections after main series? Or, sections can only denote different series of games? Or, only one other section called "More Info" that links to the list pages? I was never saying "Let the sections go wild", I was saying "Why get rid of something that makes navagation easier?" JQF 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much faith in video game preview press from long experience. (Each of those is a game that was previewed that turned out to be drastically different from its final form or just been killed before release. This is off the top of my head; I could list more if you insist.) It's pretty much making-it-up-as-you-go-along, from the amateur level all the way up to the pros. It's one thing to have Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops, which is about a month away from being released IIRC. That's no big deal. I think the borderline should be drawn at Super Mario Galaxy; if the game isn't slated to come out in less than a year (especially if it has no release date), it's probably too far off to go into a navbox. Due to the low quality of preview press and the low quality of preview articles, I really do think we need to err on the side of exclusion, because these articles cannot be made into good articles until after the game is actually released. I'm not saying don't have articles, I'm saying don't cram those articles into navboxes until we have something verifiable rather than crystal balling. I'm beginning to suspect that you're the only one with a big problem with this; I'm not going to respond to anything but a fresh argument (from you, JQF, or someone else, it doesn't matter) on this point.

The standards for subsections are don't have subsections. If you prefer, the maximum is zero subsections. Link only to umbrella articles and only when strictly necessary. If you look, only the very smallest templates have links to specific subarticles (like specific characters); most of them have links to generic "characters" lists or nothing at all. Generally, if something was going to go in a subsection, that means that it wasn't relevant to the bulk of the games. Subsections aren't just a problem; they're a byproduct of a larger problem. Eliminating their availability not only reduces metadata in the template, making for a more-efficient template, but also discourages scope creep. Win-win.

The various Wikiprojects can decide specifics. I just want to set up some style rules. The Pokémon project has been pretty much indifferent, I've gotten compliments and encouragement from some Zelda-ers, and I haven't even touched most of the Square-Enix templates (Deckiller has some big merge project brewing so I'll probably hold off for a bit until I talk to him about where the new umbrella articles are going to be). I don't see a groundswell of opposition from the Wikiprojects to the generalities of this redesign, and specific objections can be dealt with when they're raised. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, think I already said this, but I'm not saying add crystal ball articles (Do those usually last longer than a week?). I'm just saying assume good faith. Aren't you suppose to do that on Wikipedia? If you want to go by your suggested standard for this, fine, but I can guaranty you'll have some issues down the line with it.
Those are your standards for subsections, and if you look at the other templates in other parts of Wikipedia, allot of them have subsections, because they are useful and help organize the navbox. The only problem you've said they cause is scope creep, and that can easily be fixed with something like the suggestions I made earlier. It's no reason to completely scrape them. If you don't want subsections, fine, but that means you shouldn't have the other links, like characters and such in the template, by your standards. You said the navbox is to help navigate through the games, then that's all it should be. That simple.
Now, if you just wanted to set up some style rules, then why did you make format rules too? Style would have just been things like size and color. Format is things like content. If you wanted format changes to, you should have said so. JQF 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

New suggestions

You know what, this has gotten to long winded. Taking in what’s been said, I've taken the standards you proposed and have re-formatted them to be updated per what we have agreed upon, and I think I've made it more professional sounding. How about these?
  • Style
    1. 80% width, class toccolours, color #CCCCFF, cellpadding=2
    2. Links should be centered instead of left-aligned
    3. Titles should be styled like so: '''[[Kwazy Quux (series)|''Kwazy Quux'']] [[Computer and video games|video games]]'''
    4. Game names should be italicize, and all other links shouldn't.
  • Format
    1. All major changes must be discussed on the talk page before hand, else they will be reverted.
    2. If there's no umbrella article for the series, leave the title unlinked
    3. Meta-commentary and Meta-data should be kept to a minimum.
    4. Sections should be kept to a minimum to avoid scope creep.
      1. Sections should only be added if deemed notable by a consensus of users.
      2. If a section other than the main series grows to more than a dozen link, it should either be trimmed down or split off into its own navbox per a discussion on the talk.
    5. Games included on the navbox should be decided on a case by case basis on the navbox page. However, a few general suggests:
      1. Unreleased games should be excluded unless deemed notable by a consensus of users.
      2. Avoid games never released in English unless deemed notable by a consensus of users.
      3. Avoid upcoming games until a consensus of users deem the article up to standards, notable, and likely to be released within a year.
      4. Do not link redlinks or article sections.
        1. If there isn't an article for it, it doesn't aid navigation to link an article that doesn't exist. As such, if you fell it is notable, create a page for it and ask if it can be added to the navbox.
        2. If the article section is really that notable, it probably should be its own article.
      5. If there are multiple sub-series of games, it is acceptible to section the games into each sub-series for easier navigation, clarification and visible name reduction.
    6. Use non-bearing spaces to ensure names don't split on line breaks
    7. Separate names using bullets ( • ) to avoid confusing meta-data.
    8. Omit the name of the series in the game names, when space is at a premium.
      1. In a series of games differentiated by subtitles, using the subtitle alone is acceptable.
      2. In the event of odd naming conventions, games may be referenced as 1, 2, etc.
      3. Do not use acronyms unless the game's name is itself an acronym.
    9. All links should link directly to the article. Make sure to pipe link any name with a space in it, then replace spaces with non-breaking spaces ( )
    10. Link lists of things (characters, places, items, etc.) over the individuals even when the individuals have their own articles. If there are a lot of individuals linked, a list page should be created. If there are more than a few list links of this kind in the navbox, they should be sectioned off from the main series for easier navigation and clarification.
    11. Avoid unnecessary links; include only articles which are deemed to be useful for most/all of the articles linked by a consensus of users.

JQF 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So, what exactly has changed from AMIB's initial draft? Combination 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All major changes must be discussed on the talk page before hand, else they will be reverted. - In direct conflict with established practice in all of Wikipedia
  • Sections should only be added if deemed notable by a consensus of users. This is license to make monster templates again. Remember, {{ASUE}} was made with a consensus of users. The project-wide standards are to keep people from doing dumb things on obscure talk pages because few people tend to frequent template talk pages.
  • If there are multiple sub-series of games, it is acceptible to section the games into each sub-series for easier navigation, clarification and visible name reduction. So we go back to {{Mario series}} wth 50 links again?
  • Separate names using bullets ( • ) to avoid confusing meta-data. This is just a style issue; if people wanted dashes or mid-dots or emdashes or pipes, I wouldn't care, but it has nothing to do with metadata.
  • In the event of odd naming conventions, games may be referenced as 1, 2, etc. This is poorly-worded, and seems to be bad advice. Should we refer to Super Mario World as "4"?

You've basically gutted "identify a tightly-linked article series and link only to that article series." The fact that other navboxes fail to accomplish this single most important function of a navbox does not mean we should repeat that essential failure. I feel like you haven't really addressed anything, just reasserted your points. Is there anyone planning to speak in defense of subsections or upcoming games besides JQF? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For the first point, how about we change it to All major changes should be discussed on the talk page before hand? After all, major changes aren’t to be taken lightly.
Yikes, {{ASUE}} breaks my suggestion of non-main sections going over a dozen links, as well as a number of the style suggestions. My opinion of that template is that if they don't want to turn most of those sections into List links, then most sections should be split into their own templates, which is exactly what I said above. It's suggestions like that that are meant to keep other things in check.
Same think goes for the old Mario template, should have either Listed or Split. Did you miss that part in my suggestions?
About the bullets, I though it had some thing to do with the metadata, what with what you said and that the previous divider being the |, which is used in metadata allot. We can move it to style then.
About the odd naming conventions, I was trying to make your suggestion for what to do with series with names like Kwazy Quux and Quux the Wombat easier for users to understand without referencing a fictitious videogame series. If you know of any real world examples that can be used to clarify, it would help.
Oh, didn't realize I'd missed that part. We can add The navbox should be for identifying a group of linked articles relevant to the subject. I'm not aware of any navboxes that do "fail to accomplish" this, and, on reading Wikipedia:Navigational templates, I see nothing that says anything like this. I may have missed it, but the closest thing I see is the use of "related articles", which ultimately depends on the navboxes' title, as we talked about earlier. If you notice, I have addressed things, such as putting in suggestions to avoid scope creep, which is the one big thing you've been having issues with, and take the long paragraphs you had earlier and put them into bullet point form for easier reference. Also, others may not be speaking because they feel I am doing fine. If you look back, you'll see that this discussion has basically become you and me.
JQF 15:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the numbered list you wrote has a lot of problem, and that numbered lists usually aren't the best way to suggest style. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're getting at. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume you meant problems. In case you didn't notice, I only really changed a few things between your original list and my re-write to create a compromise between our opinions. Most of the changes were simplifying what you had written, so I can't fathom what problems you are seeing that you didn't already point out above, which I fell I addressed.
Numbered lists aren't the best way? So, what is? As far as I am aware, numbered lists are used because it is essentially a bullet point style list with the ability to easily reference items on said list.
You're not sure what I'm getting at? Did you actually read my post? I said I added "suggestions to avoid scope creep, which is the one big thing you've been having issues with". The suggestions I made limit growth, and what to do in the event of "overgrowth", so that you don't have to trim it back down.
Next time, could you be more specific? Maybe go into details? Maybe tell me what problems you have with it, what sentences confuse you, whatever problems you have with comprehending the situation, that way I am better prepared to help you understand it.
JQF 00:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You're saying a lot of things without making a point that I could discern. What do you actually want changed about the proposed standards? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I only just came across this project and I noticed this. I can't help but wonder whether this proposal was because of some childish wish to go behind the backs of those who worked on the Megaman Zero articles, whom you've annoyed consistently by making changes that destroy the factual consistency of the articles.

Personally, I have no real trouble with your suggestion as applied to some of the more wieldy templates like the Final Fantasy series template. However, I do have an issue with your colour suggestion. Nearly, every single template in Wikipedia uses that exact same shade of blue. To distinguish the videogame articles from other ones, surely, it would be best to utilise a different colour altogether, such as #90EE90 or #FF6666. #CCCCFF as background colour for templates has been done to death on Wikipedia. We need a change in direction.

Wolf ODonnell 18:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please. I really doubt that he started a campaign to formalize rules for cvg templates as part of a personal vendetta against Megaman Zero articles, of all things. --PresN 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Setting aside the somewhat baffling accusations about Mega Man Zero articles, I agree about the color, frankly, but it's what the project is already using for everything. I'd be happy to change it, but I'd want to change all the WP:CVG's templates at the same time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my suspicions were aroused when you mentioned the Megaman templates, because as far as I could remember, they were never that large to begin with (certainly not when compared with other videogames series). And I could still remember the heated debates over article styles you had with the majority of those that worked on the Mega Man Zero articles. That's besides the point, however, and I won't mention it any more.

What I think we should do as of now is get a consensus on the colour change. After all, not having the time to change all the templates at the same time is all good and well, but we need everyone to agree on a new set colour, to help distinguish videogame article templates from political article templates. In fact, now that I think about it, we should do this for all the different category templates. Colour-coding the templates would make things much easier to identify.

P.S. How would you go about changing all the CVG templates? Seems like such a daunting task... Wolf ODonnell 12:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mega Man templates had individual characters that appeared in only one game and every minor concept ever; they weren't problematic aesthetically, but they were some of the worst over-clutter candidates save for the gigantor templates like the old Resident Evil box.
As for a color change, I don't think there's significant opposition to a non-ugly standard color. I think changing the non-ugly standard color we're using would probably be material for an entirely different discussion, as it's also used in the infoboxes and some other templates. As for a daunting task, well, I did just propose standardizing hundreds of far-flung navboxes, so I don't think changing some color tags would be such a big deal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure you understand what I'm talking about. We change the colour of the background for all videogame templates. That way, the user need only look just at the colour to see what kind of article they're reading, instead of having to read the categories below as the categories can get quite cluttered. All I ask is that we all vote on a different colour and make a stand. We could pioneer this new suggestion. Wolf ODonnell 12:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the user can always look at the first sentence of the article to see what they're reading about. I don't understand what you're proposing; the idea of Wikiprojects using color coding in their templates was shouted down overwhelmingly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a Metroid template that has useful links. Could you check this user page? I'm working on 2 different templates, one with links to all major Metroid pages, and another that I've compressed with links to only games and lists. Let me know on that talk page (or here if easier) how I can improve the compressed template - Mit  kebes  T  15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario 64

Super Mario 64 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 15:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever

Is this worthy for GA class? I just wanted to get a broad assessment before going for a peer review. Hbdragon88 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead-in and plot have no references at all. "the popular Duke Nukem series" and "It is notorious for its protracted development" are almost POV, and will definitely need references. The external links section needs to be trimmed down to 4 links at the most. I haven't really read it, but the timeline section seems to be following a format of "In 2001, they did this. [new paragraph]. In 2002, they did this". Don't take my opinion as crucially as others, but consider the improvements.--TheEmulatorGuy 03:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, your input is appreciated. Will be working on those issues for the next few weeks. Hbdragon88 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Ubisoft-screenshot}}

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops; screenshots of software for which Ubisoft owns the copyright can be used freely, as long as we attribute them to Ubisoft. This is kosher; there's a summary here, and the permissions are listed with the Wikimedia foundation.

This means that the usual restraints on being sparing with images are not applicable to Ubisoft games, and that we can use images of Ubisoft games in much less restrictive subjects (for example, we could use a screenshot to illustrate an article on a genre, for example). If you've uploaded any screenshots of Ubisoft games, make sure to tag them with {{Ubisoft-screenshot}}.

Please only use this template on screenshots uploaded by the person who took them; any other screenshots should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}}. Note that this doesn't apply to boxcovers, promo art, or other related images, which are still fair-use images and should be used sparingly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if people could help me tag any images that aren't taken by the uploader with {{subst:rfu}}, and if you have any Ubisoft-published games and can take screenshots, by all means, do so! Ubisoft publishes the Myst games, the Rayman games, all of the Tom Clancy games, as well as many others. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's better than the one I made. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been mentioned before on WP:CVG (at least twice I believe), but never actually implemented. Either way, great job on the template.--TBCΦtalk? 05:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, commons:User:Avatar/Ubisoft only applies to franchises owned by Ubisoft, not just those they publish.--TBCΦtalk? 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
That's actually what I was gonna bring up next. Puzzle Pirates was published in stores by Ubi, but is developed and owned by Three Rings Design.

I've added a note to the template to reflect this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should such images be uploaded to commons? I was also wondering if there is a category where such images are collected. jaco♫plane 12:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want, and I don't think so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
So would anyone object if I added a <includeonly>[[Category:Ubisoft screenshots]]</includeonly> to the template? jaco♫plane 15:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Go right ahead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that it doesn't matter who takes the screenshot. As long as the image is copyrighted and owned by Ubisoft, then commons:User:Avatar/Ubisoft applies.--TBCΦtalk? 04:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A screenshot can arguably rise to its own copyright claim for selection of when to take the shot, timing, placement, etc., and gamesites will often have reason to want to defend this. The reason user-created is stipulated is so people can't rip off gamesites. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fangame articles

I noticed the Sonic fangame articles have been put up for AfD, with a lot of consensus citing that fangames are not notable enough and should be deleted. As a result, shouldn't Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels and almost every article be put up for AfD? --tgheretford (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the nom for deletion states that it fails WP:SOFTWARE. Whether or not all the games in that category fail WP:SOFTWARE is subject to debate. Of course, WP:SOFTWARE, is a guideline and not policy so the only way you're going to get deletion is by clear consensus. Mass AFDs usually only go through on clear cases of mass hoaxes, spamming, etc. so I doubt trying to put all these articles up for deletion would succeed. —Mitaphane talk 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems very notable to me, based on the 'number of google hits' straw poll. Have voted at the nom page. A worthy piece of software. --Oscarthecat 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD is really just a vote based on who shows up to vote. In the case of Sonic: The Fated Hour, as an unreleased fangame it had no notability whatsoever and was deleted. The other three fangames got strong support from its fans (who are also Wikipedian editors) and survived their initial AFDs (I suppose that some have been renominated again). Hbdragon88 03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering placing most of the articles in that category up for deletion. Most are totally unsourced, and some aren't even about finished, playable games. A mass AfD probably wouldn't be the best idea, so I was thinking something more like AfDing five or so articles separately every day. How's that sound? I wouldn't mind help, either, both in choosing which articles to nominate and making the actual nominations. --Slowking Man 07:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A proposed guideline WP:SOFTWARE, and not unquestioned one. Unfinished are one thing, however, for most of others a non-trivial web publication still can be found. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If the some of the games aren't finished they would definitely fall under WP:NOT crystal ball, barring some notable outside coverage. I'd shoot for those first. —Mitaphane talk 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What about fangames that are approved or supported by the authors of the original work? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the basic principle of fangames which are the subject of commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject itself isn't a good one. It works for pretty much everything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Serial Experiments Lain

Hi, I've been working on the Serial Experiments Lain article, and need help with the PSX game part. The anime is quite famous, so it wasn't a problem, but the game was never released outside of Japan, and I could find no reliable information whatsoever on it, apart from a few screenshots, and an AMV on youtube. Does anybody know where I could make some research? The game was released in 1998, and is some kind of network simulator, where you gather pieces of info in order to understand Lain's story. Thanks in advance to anyone who could help.--SidiLemine 17:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some looking, I'll post things here as I find them.
"In the game, users can interactively access fragments of Lain's memory. Then users can actually feel the Lain who exists inside the Web. In the TV animation, people can understand Lain by following the story." - Yasuyuki Ueda in Animerica Vol. 7, No. 9 - I found it on this page: [1], so good thing it's referenced, eh? Might want to find that Animerica somewhere to confirm. --PresN 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There's obviously the pretty bad source of [2], but I assume you saw that already. --PresN 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't. Thanks! --SidiLemine 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What should be done with Category:Alien and Predator games?

The problem is: Aliens don't always appear in Predator games, and vice versa. The category needs a rename, and a possible split: Alien games, Predator games and Alien vs Predator games I suppose could work. They are two seperate franchises, but have had numerous crossovers (but not all movies or games feature both Predator and Aliens).

  • This also brings up the issue of this template:

{{alien}}

As you can see, the Alien template lists Predator as well. The template probably needs to be changed, or a Predator template should be made. I see no reason why they should be clumped together, just because of numerous crossovers. They are still two seperate franchises. RobJ1981 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I believe maps for video games are a valuable resource for game players. Sometimes a map can be more helpful then a FAQ. I feel both are very useful when playing a game. That is why most strategy guides have Maps as well as walkthroughs for games. The user "ReyBrujo" believes that maps "do not add useful information for the casual reader". He will not allow me to add map links for video games.

I feel differently. I think if the casual reader would find a FAQ useful, then they would also find a Map useful.

Please help me to make links to maps for games an officially approved link on wikipedia.

Thanks, Snesmaster 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I explained in the user's talk page, I have no problems in accepting nesmaps.com external links if the WikiProject agrees. -- ReyBrujo 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia is not a game guide, so linking to them doesn't really seem to be fruitful. A link to the Gamefaqs entry, which I've seen on a number of pages, seems to make more sense than the specific linking to maps. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I would think "not a collection of links" would also come into play. However, sometimes adding these links can help give some fans a bit of .. an outlet.. of sorts.. showing that there is information on this, but it is not on Wikipedia and it should stay off of Wikipedia. Basically, as long as we don't get wild about adding such links, they could actually help reduce game 'cruft and bad articles. -- Ned Scott 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Maps on the page shouldn't be there, but links to pages with maps are fine in my opinion. guitarhero777777 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything wrong with maps so long as they are there to illustrate a bigger picture and not just added for the sake of adding content. For example, if you were going into discussion how Hyrule has been portrayed through the Zelda series then maps would be important to illustrate that point. On the other hand, putting a map of every dungeon in Windwaker is needless for both people who've played and have never played the game and is just filler. —Mitaphane talk 23:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That is an extremely great point. I fully agree with you. guitarhero777777 23:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the basic consensus is that it is ok to put a link to maps in the external links section for a game, but not to put a map directly in the content unless it has some specific relevance to illustrate a point. Did I get all that right? And if so can I start putting links in for the games that have maps available on nesmaps.com? Thanks for all of your input Snesmaster 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this means you should start adding links to nesmaps.com. Links to maps are fine, but why that site in particular when there are many map sites (as well as maps on GameFAQs)? Andre (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now nesmaps.com only has maps for 7 NES games. GameFAQs, does not allow users to post full size maps made from screen shots. They just allow drawn maps, or scaled down maps. nesmaps.com allows full size high quality maps. I was just using that page as an example. If the game had better maps on another site then I would recommend placing the link to the site with a better map. You speak of many map sites. I feel the most important thing is to have a link to one map site (The one that has the best or most complete maps for the game in question), if high quality maps have been made for the game. Snesmaster 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, what I meant was, instead of applying a single map site to all the games that it features, let's on a case-by-case basis find the best map page for each. Andre (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me. Is it alright if I put some links in now for 5 or 6 Nintendo (NES) games and then if better sites are found that the link I place in gets replaced with the better map site? Snesmaster 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a few issues with this. First, Snesmaster, I noticed that your account has been active for only a couple of weeks and your contributions have consisted entirely of placing the nesmaps links, so I am led to believe that nesmaps is your site (but correct me if I'm wrong). It is poor form to add your own personally run website as a link to Wikipedia articles. If your site is notable and as useful to the reader as you claim, other editors will put it in for you. This is spelled out in Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided.
Second, there is a significant difference in linking to the gamespace in GameFAQs and the map in NESmaps. For one thing, GameFAQs is a well-recognized, notable website that is generally accepted as a useful source of information about a game. NESmaps does not even have its own Wikipedia page (not that that automatically makes it notable). Also, the gamespace at GameFAQs contains a forum, user reviews, and general information about the game, where as the content of NESmaps is only useful for someone who actually wants help playing the game (unless it is used in the context similar to the Hyrule article mentioned above, in which case it is probably more useful is a low-res map is actually included in the article).
I would vote against allowing the links to NESmaps unless we come to a true consensus that it is appropriate. I don't mean to be hard on the NESmaps site - I really think it would be useful to me if I played one of the games. But I can't see how it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Sraan 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You do have valid concerns. You are correct that the NESmaps site is my site. However I still feel maps are a valuable resource for gamers. I have no problem with the nesmaps.com link getting changed to another map site if a better map site that is more notable is found for that particular game. Snesmaster 02:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with Mitaphane. The maps are important to get an overview of a game. Another site with some good maps is here: http://www.worldofspectrum.org/. pabouk 07:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
They are? Howso? If there's something specific in the text of the article that is helped by linking a map, I can see that being ok -- but otherwise, as an external link, I don't see how adding a map link helps an encyclopedia article. Think about it, if a map link is added, someone else will add a FAQ, then a fanreview...where does it end? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are. In many cases the map could be useful to get an overview of the game's graphics, overall design, complexity etc. Please read the fourth paragraph here: Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link. I think that the map could be as important as the examples given at the end of the paragraph. pabouk 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Screenshots help you get an overview of the game, graphics, etc, but maps are for the sole purpose of helping complete the game. That paragraph just doesn't apply. Honestly, who is going to say "Well, I don't know if Super Metroid is worth my time unless I can see in detail every room in the whole game. Once I take a look at where all the power-ups and bosses are, then I will have a really good understainding of Super Metroid?" Either way, in accordance with Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided, Snesmaster should simply suggest his site on the games' discussion pages, and if the community decides it is worth inclusion, it will be taken care of.Sraan 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel games should have one link for an FAQ site such as GameFaqs, and that it is not necessary to link to other FAQs, unless GameFaqs does not have a FAQ for that game, then I think it would be ok to link to a site that does. I feel the same should be the case for maps. Allow one map link for a game. If multiple map links appear, then remove the one that has fewer maps for the game, or lower quality maps. I don't think we should link to fan sites, unless it is an official fan site (then it might be ok). When I had a link up for Kid Icarus for the NES to nesmaps.com, (it was up for a few weeks before it was removed) over 100 people clicked on the link to view the maps for that game. That shows that a lot of people found the link useful as a resource. Also if someone is doing their own research on two games and comparing them, it would be useful to be able to view full maps of the games to be able to make comparisons between the two games. Snesmaster 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Sraan here, being another editor of the Zelda and Zelda 2 articles where this has been a question for quite some time. It has only been a question, however, in the mind of Snesmaster, who is the only editor of the Zelda articles who believes the inclusion of this link to his own site is a valid one on Wikipedia. Whether or not this matter is ambiguous, there has been a clear concensus on the part of the other editors of NES game articles where this issue has arisen that map links belong perhaps in StrategyWiki, but not in Wikipedia's articles on these games. Only because Snesmaster continues to edit in bad faith, ignoring the concensus against him to vigorously market his own site (originally added anonymously and continuously from ever-changing IPs) does this persist to be an issue. From the point of view of other editors, it was long since resolved. From the point of view of Snesmaster, Wikipedia should be a platform for driving revenue to his site absolutely regardless of opposing concensus --Yst 08:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the layout of a specific level like, say, World 1-1 of Super Mario Bros. is not a "map" and is considered game guide material. However a link to the map of say, San Andreas, could be of useful information provided it didn't contain any of the icons that show you where things are located. A basic world map with maybe the names of major locations should be alright, yes? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 09:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yst, I think we are leaving the topic of should links to maps for video games be a part of wikipedia. Who cares if I did not know about setting up an account when I first started posting the link? The point is I learned how to do so and am trying to go about the proper way of getting them added now. It seems to be about a 50/50 split of people who agree that links to maps are fine and people that think they are not. How can we come to an agreement on this topic? I am happy to abide by whatever decision is made. The only reason I put the links back in the last time, was because I asked the person who originally removed them if I could and he said it would be alright as long as I mentioned this ongoing conversation in the edit summary. Snesmaster 22:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Concensus doesn't override WP:NOT, however. The issue is not is they are useful, but if they are appropriate. If they are giving a better visual example, as someone mentioned above, then it can work. But a general link to maps because "people might find maps helpful" is /not/ for here. Understand? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It does not look to me like there is 50/50 division. The editors above have generally said that inclusion of a link to a map may be helpful in specific circumstances, but in general they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. And, the point is moot, because as I referred to already, it against Wikipedia policy to post a link to your own site, regardless of how useful or appropriate it is. I think we can probably all agree that Snesmaster can suggest his site on the talk pages of the games, and let the wiki community place the link if it is wanted. You may not place the link in the article yourself (even if you don't get a response either way on the talk pages). I will say that, as a frequent editor of Zelda articles, I would argue against the inclusion of the link on those pages, but you are welcome to try. Does this sound like a reasonable compromise for everyone? Sraan 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Melodia Chaconne provided us with one site that has maps for computer games, and nesmaps.com has maps for Nintendo Games, snesmaps.com has maps for Super Nintendo games, and vgmaps.com has maps for most gaming systems. I will take the advice of posting suggestions to the specific gaming pages for any map links to be added. Of the above listed sites I made snesmaps.com and nesmaps.com, the other were made by other people. I think it would be kewl if all games that had maps available had at least one link to them. This is because I feel a map is just as valuable as an FAQ or a Video of the game which are allowed to be linked. I thought wikipedia was for anyone to add useful information about a topic so people could research it. I don't understand the structure of wikipedia. Sraan is a frequent editor of Zelda articles. Was he elected by someone to do that, paid by wikipeida to do that, or did he just start the wiki page for it? How does someone become a frequent editor, and gain the authority to approve or disapprove of other peoples edits? If the only problem is my adding links to my own site, can I add map links to other peoples map sites? Snesmaster 02:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No one elected him, appointed him, or paid him, as he's not an admin. He, like everyone else here, jsut edits whatever he feels like. Any "status" he has is an unofficial status given to him by people who respect him, just like any other social group. He has the same right to approve or disaprove of people's edits as anyone else here- as in, he's free to have his own opinion of things. Admins are editors that have been voted on as worthy enouhg editors to have access to more advanced editing tools, though that still doesn't place them above the rules, which are either handed down by the site owners or agreed upon by a consensus of editors to be good. The various rules that you are breaking, or thinking about breaking, are that you should not add links to your own site, whether or not your intention was spam/advertisement, as intention is too subjective to decide. Also, WP:NOT, specifically, Wikipeida is not an indescriminate collection of information. A lot of people think that WP is supposed to be the collection of everything- btu it isn't. It's an encylopedia, and anything added needs to be notable, verifiable, and relevant. Game maps, whether from your site or anywhere else, are too subjective to be included on anything but a case by case basis. If you feel, as you've stated, that every game article should have a link to a map (if applicable), then I, and most people here it seems, disagree. --PresN 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Though if I could find a way to get paid for editing video game articles on Wikipedia, that would be great... Snesmaster, I would recommend spending a little time on the Wikipedia help pages, perhaps starting with Wikipedia:FAQ to get a better idea of how things work. And try involving yourself in the editing process on things that you are interested in, like video games, and you will pick these things up. Sraan 06:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help and advice I have recieved here on this topic. I have certainly learned a lot more about wikipedia then I knew a month ago. I will make sure to check out the resouces listed above. Snesmaster 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comments

Can someone comment at Talk:Ever17 about the plot summary I added (Ever17#Details)? (Note: it's full of spoilers, so if you plan on playing the game don't read it.) I tried to keep it short and only describe the basics of the convoluted plot. --Mercercounty 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Reviews

Does anyone know of a good source of Japanese reviews, own copies of Famitsu, or read / write the language for searching? I don't like passing FAs with rational, unaddressed objections, and this might happen twice if Raul forwards MNSG. Our CVG articles usually have very little input about Japanese criticism and reception, which is pretty important considering the market there (and that several games originate there). This is a plea for anyone who might have access to this information or some kind of Japanese Game Rankings. --Zeality 18:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Video game hoaxes

List of computer and video game hoaxes: If anyone would like to, please consider contributing to the completion of this potentially good article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone cool down

I've temporarily protected this page. Everyone needs to cool down for a little bit. And specifically, only use this talk page for the associated WikiProject and please do not use it for any divisive purposes. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

100th GCOTW

The current GCOTW is the 99th collaboration to date. That means that the next collaboration will be the 100th without interruption (well except for a short hiatus in January 2005) since Super Mario 64 was selected on October 7, 2004. I hope everyone will make an effort to nominate articles for next week and contribute so that this collaboration will be a success. We should all take a moment to applaud Thunderbrand for his consistent effort in keeping this going. jaco♫plane 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! A hearty pat on the back for Thunderbrand's unending work ethic! --InShaneee 05:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, thanks! I would like to thank everyone who has helped with any GCOTW and made it the success it is. Thunderbrand 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pikmin should probably be cleaned

Alot of the articles in the categories should be put up for AFD (in my opinion at least). There is articles just explaining certain areas. One article should have the information, not many. Pikmin has had a total of two games, and most of the areas are basically the same in each game. I thought I would mention it here, before I AFD them. The 2 Pikmin games are popular, but that doesn't justify an article for each area and/or level. RobJ1981 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Work

Hello, I'm Dfrg.msc, and I want to make some constructive edits to Wikipedia. It's not that I am unable to, I would just like some guidance. So, if you have any specific tasks related to this topic, please inform me on my talk page, be specific and include links and I'll help out as soon as I can. Thanks, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Any idea what level or kind of work you're looking for? I'd imagine I could come up with something. --PresN 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New FAC

Just a heads-up: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon. Thanks for reviewing if you stop by. --Zeality 15:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Stopping in again. I've addressed the first round of oppositions, but as Tony noted, I've written this thing entirely myself and could use some fresh eyes. If one of you can glance over it and copyedit here and there, it'd be appreciated. Deckiller may not have time to run through it, so help is needed. --Zeality 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm catching flack for the plot summary, as was the case for most our recent RPG FACs. Can someone go there to help elucidate why we've decided to have comprehensive plot summaries and why they don't violate WP:FICT if important out of universe information is still represented? --Zeality 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Game quote referencing

What's your opinion on it? The concept is being evaluated for featured article candidates. I like the precision, but then again, it does bloat up notes with self-references. --Zeality 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with them. They help out a lot when referencing the plot. Thunderbrand 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hellishly tedious to read through. However, they are probably a better option than simply having a general reference that says "The game script". --tjstrf Now on editor review! 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
These references can be collapsed into a single citation: cite the game itself, or cite a text dump of the game script. Besides, as I pointed out, citing the primary source (the game's text) and drawing plot-based conclusions toes the original research line. Obviously, I can understand if no secondary sources exist for VG articles, so in the end I see nothing particularly wrong with it. I just don't like citations for every_single_quote. It bloats the reference section with primary source citations. --Tristam 01:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop 'N' Swop

Stop 'N' Swop I'd like some input from editors on what contents is appropriate, or if the article is appropriate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice: merge the article with Banjo-Kazooie and weed out the speculative nonsense. --Tristam 07:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

VGCharts (2)

VGCharts is now being inserted into List of best-selling computer and video games, despite a consensus against it. I would like it if some members of the project would comment. Thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the concensus against VGCharts, neither in the article's talk page nor in the first discussion above. Also, in the previous discussion Polling is evil was cited, but what was left out was that surveys can be useful in some cases to determine whether there's concensus, it is even listed as one of the steps towards resolving disputes. I believe this may be one of those cases in which a survey would be useful. Dionyseus 09:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Voting or a "consensus" won't change anything. The charts fail WP:V, a required policy. -- Ned Scott 10:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I should say that better, a consensus here cannot over-ride WP:V. Although, I doubt the charts would even gain support in the first place, in light of what was brought up. -- Ned Scott 10:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
How does the chart fail WP:V ? In the first discussion ReyBrujo made a good argument that VGCharts might actually qualify as a reliable source, but no one replied to it. [3] Dionyseus 10:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
They disclose their own flaws on http://www.vgcharts.org/welcome.php for starters. Note that WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So even if the question was raised, the fact that we haven't established it as a reliable source means we shouldn't include it until we can. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have already made my comments as Dionyseus said. One way to easily determine if VGCharts is a reliable site is to see if other reliable sites use it as reference. We can say it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for notability. -- ReyBrujo 13:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
(kicking back indent) - One problem is that we cannot tell if VGCharts uses consignment data or actual sales data. If they use consignment data, it's not a valid indicator of sales, since units shipped on consignment are not actually sold. (I cannot access the VGCharts site from work. GG proxy server.) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Video game consoles are top-importance articles, no?

For whatever reason, the next-gen consoles are rated low in importance. Common sense should tell anyone that these articles are the very most important articles to include in WP:1.0. These relatively obscure games are mid and top-rated, while the Wii and PS3 are low. Xbox 360 is mid. These articles should be at least high-rated, they aren't some random bleemcast.

See Category:Low-importance computer and video game articles Scepia 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say all of these console should be of "mid" priority. They are important to video gaming, but right now 2 of them haven't been released. History is an important factor to consider here. The NES(as well as Nintendo) I would categorize as "high" as it turned around the market for gaming consoles after the crash. The Wii, might revolutionize gaming, or the PS3 might revolutionize home entertainment but until the consoles and the games are out there it's anyone's guess. —Mitaphane talk 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, anything can be expected. Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! is considered of low importance while Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King is considered of high importance, even though Brain Age has been given more press worldwide, been featured in countless notable TV programs, has sold two or three times more than Dragon Quest, and has won international awards. -- ReyBrujo 22:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they are notoriously unstable and stratified with constant vandalism (I believe all three next-gen consoles are among the most edited articles, and both Wii and PS3 have had WP:LAME wars). WP 1.0 is all about stability, and I think that the history of the previous gens is far more important than that of this current gen. Anyway, the whole rating system is highly arbitrary, don't take them too seroiusly. I have no idea with DQVIII is high-rated - high-rated only goes to the very most notable games. Hbdragon88 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Recently, many articles have been rated purely by sales data without taking other aspects into consideration, such as impact and history. It's all a bit whimsical at the moment. Combination 00:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Dragon Quest VIII is one of the best selling DQ games in Japan, behind III and VII. Additionally, I think it's one of the few, if not the only DQ game to be released in Japan. It sold >3.5 million in Japan, and possibly more than 1 million in Europe (it was 600k several months ago), and possibly >600k in North America, thanks to the price drop. That's 5.1 million at least - Brain Age has only sold less than 5 million, let alone three times as much as DQVIII. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that's just silly. DQ should be mid or low, and Brain Age should be mid. The latter is actually known by lots and lots of people. Scepia 00:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what? DQ is a VERY well-known game. At what point is the first RPG ever not of high importance? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is famous. Nevermind that. The problem I have is that these no-name games that only have a claim to fame due to their innovation are rated higher than famous title like Brain Age. The interest for a notable title for a notable console is so much more than the interest for a forgotten title that did something interesting at the time. It's all about what's now. Scepia 00:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Gamespot (www.gamespot.com/news/6160557.html) Nintendo announced Brain Age sold 8.51m worldwide. We only have some rough numbers for DQVIII. In Europe, as of July, per [4] they sold 400k copies. Of course, I know DQVIII has many fans, and that the game is considered the best ever, and all that stuff. However, I believe Brain Age importance is pretty higher than DQVIII, although it is not a game, because it has been featured in Time Magazine, Discovery Channel, Seven News in Australia (according to the article), plus USA Today [5], BBC News [6], Washington Post [7], Business Week [8], etc. Like it or not, you are more likely to get a casual user wanting to learn about Brain Age after the massive worldwide advertisment than Dragon Quest VIII or even Final Fantasy XII. Like it or not, a game like Nintendogs or Brain Age have had massive advertisment, higher than DQVIII or FFXII. If you determine importance due sold units, BA and Nintendogs should have a higher rating. If you measure using media exposition, again BA and Nintendogs beat those games. To put it simple, only gamers know DQVIII and FFXII, while everyone, gamers and non gamers, know Brain Age and Nintendogs. -- ReyBrujo 01:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with ReyBrujo. The first Dragon Quest certainly wasn't the first console role-playing game. That honor would probably go to AD&D: Treasures of Tarmin or Dragonstomper (aka Excalibur). Then again, we're not even discussing the original Dragon Quest. We're talking about a recent game that's not the first (or second) best-selling game in the series, but the third. --Tristam 00:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Fisher (Splinter Cell) and Sarah Burns (Splinter Cell)

Hi video game geeks. I assume you know what Splinter Cell is. There's a merge needed between the Sarah Fisher (Splinter Cell) and Sarah Burns (Splinter Cell) articles. I also assume you'll know better than me which is the preferred name. --Dangherous 14:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I moved into Sara Fisher since both articles refered to her as such. Also you might want to read WP:WAF. —Mitaphane talk 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed computer and video game articles needs alot of help

This has been mentioned before, and I think it's time to mention it again. As of now there is 3073 unassessed articles still (plus all the untagged video games of course). The number goes down very little each day. I do some each day, but I shouldn't be the only one assessing. Anyone care to do a few each day? I think a goal of 100 articles total (or more) each day isn't a big thing to ask. 10 people doing 10 each = 100, no problem in my opinion. RobJ1981 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just finished tagging all WP:PARA's unassessed articles. I'll try to get a start here. --InShaneee 00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, for editors that can use the AWB, you can use Kingbotk's plugin to automate the assessment proccess. This speeds up the tedium much. —Mitaphane talk 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bully (video game) is in need of serious cleanup

The article is almost all lists (pretty bad ones for the most part). Someone that has played the game needs to go through the article and help clean it up. The character list is huge: not all of them can be that notable. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game guide. It's not important to list each and every character in the game, just the important ones. The plot and gameplay could also be expanded a bit. I've done some work on the article already, but I've never played the game so I can't determine which characters need to stay or go. RobJ1981 05:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've played through the game and when I have some free time I'll also help with the clean-up. You are right in saying that not all characters are notable. The "Little kids" section can go entirely. They have no relevance to the plot. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Game guide

I have started a proposal for a policy/guideline for what would be considered breaking WP:NOT and not, seeing as this has been an increasing problem with many gaming articles the past months. Any and all help much appreciated. Havok (T/C/c) 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this is already covered on the main page of this project. Andre (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing stages

I've been in an argument on this page for quite a few days and I don't feel I'm getting anywhere. Basically I want to remove the "list of stages" section from the article, but another user demands it be left in. I see listing stages as analogous to listing chapters in a book, and as trivial article fluff. Is there any official word on this? --Wafulz 17:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of anything for or against stages. I looked at the project page for anything, but didn't see it. In my opinion, stages/levels shouldn't be listed. It makes the article look bad, and look like a game guide. A video game article should be about gameplay, plot, characters and what reception the game got, etc. RobJ1981 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I went by the fact that it doesn't add anything, and none of the good/featured articles mention stages at all and would probably have them removed as a largely purposeless list. --Wafulz 18:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Current events page

OK, so I have to say that the Portal:Current events/Video gaming page is not exactly being updated much for the moment. I've put it on hold for a while until I have more time, very busy with school at the moment. It would be nice if people from this WikiProject could update Portal:Current events/Video gaming/In the news once in a while though, only with major events. With the release of the PS3 and the Wii soon that shouldn't be a problem. That In the news template is also transcluded in Portal:Computer and video games so it has a high visibility. Thanks in advance, jaco♫plane 18:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone does want to make the effort in the meantime to update the current events page, it is necessary to create articles like Portal:Current events/Video gaming/2006 October 12 for the new days (can we get a bot to do this? Manually creating all these day articles is kind of a bitch!!! If anyone knows a solution for this they're my hero), just make sure to update the following line with the correct date when pasting: {{Portal:Current events/Video gaming/DateHeader2|2006|10|12}}. If there are any questions please let me know here. For the most part the current events page is copied from Portal:Current events so the procedures are similar to that page. jaco♫plane 18:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've began to update the page for November, having archived the October articles to the monthly archive (it was a redirect to the current events page), but I didn't remove any of the pre-November headlines because I haven't looked into what important events have happened in November. I did add the JP launch of PS3 but that's obviously not enough. New to this region of Wikipedia so I'll be as bold as possible without screwing things up, but yah, we need to work on this: linkage from the main Current Events page means the lack of updates is somewhat embarrassing. Kelvinc 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Workshop

Hey does anyone know what happened to the Workshop? Was it a good idea? Did the Peer review and GCotW negate the existance of such a thing? Just wondering.--Clyde Miller 02:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, though I'd say it was more Peer Review and this talk page doing it in. --PresN 00:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid

I've done a lot of work on Metal Gear Solid to progress it to Good Article status. Although it is clearly not finished, I'm stuck for things to do other than complete the references. It's clear every section needs expansion, but major expansion isn't needed for Good Article status. Does anyone have any ideas, or could help out? --TheEmulatorGuy 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You should take it to peer review. jaco♫plane 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The two sections that need expanding most are Gameplay and Story. Try not to go nuts with the story though, another two paragrpahs would be enough. It's a pretty solid article and reaching GA shouldn't take much more work (if any). -- Steel 19:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Level-5

I just came along this category. Level-5 is a video game developer in Japan. The category is just Level-5 games, and the Level-5 article itself. They've made some games, not a whole lot. My question is, should the category be deleted, or renamed to Level-5 games? RobJ1981 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Real Time Strategy

Is there a general "baby project" for Real Time Strategy games? or is that being too specific, and said games should just be listed under "Individual Games" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwilleranfan (talk • contribs) .

Not sure what you mean. No, there isn't a WikiProject for RTS's, but what is this "Individual Games" listing you're talking about? --PresN 17:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Things like Command & Conquer and Command & Conquer: Red Alert need some TLC, so if you can round up some editors, an RTS project has its work cut out for it. --Zeality 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Half-Life WP

I've proposed a project on the Half-Life series. It's goal is to imrove HL related articles in a more co-ordinated fashion. Interested editors are invited to add their name to the list of participants. -- Selmo (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental definitions need sources

We may be at the brink of Armageddon here. The Verifiability Cabal is out there to get us.

Consider the following hypothetical example you may end up reading one beautiful day:

A computer game is a computer-controlled game where players interact with objects displayed on a screen for the sake of entertainment.[citation needed] A video game is essentially the same form of entertainment, but refers not only to games played on a personal computer, but also to games run by a console or arcade machine.[citation needed]

Or:

A console game is a form of interactive multimedia used for entertainment.[citation needed] The game consists of manipulable images (and usually sounds) generated by a game console, and displayed on a television or similar audio-video system.[citation needed]

We have, by necessity, the need to give tons of really fundamental definitions, ones that are not necessarily all that well sourced anywhere.

Some say this is not a realistic horror scenario. It is a realistic horror scenario, however, if you read the Wikipedia policies. The only thing that stops people from demanding sources to these fundamental definitions is that they're being reasonable.

Okay, I admit it: I accuse people of having verifiability paranoia. Now I've developed paranoia about people having verifiability paranoia.

So I'm asking people's help here: Please add sources to these utterly fundamental and, only thus far, utterly unquestioned bits of knowledge. I'd hate to see them go because they can't be sourced. I'm profoundly clueless and I have absolutely no idea where to even begin looking for definitions for stuff like this.

Wikipedia values expertise because experts know their mentors. They know the Authorities who know what they're talking about. If someone asks me to find a source for a claim about algorithms or something, I can easily say "go look for it from Knuth or something". I'm supposed to be a computer expert, and it shows: I've been programming most of my life, it's easy to think of some Authority who knows stuff. But someone please help me - apparently, a decade of MUDding is far from enough for me to think of an Authority who knows anything at all about alternate characters. And following the game sales for a long time me clueless on where to find sources on these outrageous claims about expansion packs.

We're doomed.[citation needed] --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

O-o-o-o-k.... Not sure quite what you're getting at here. You're basically asking people to... add sources? To articles? So that they aren't deleted? That's sort of in-line with WP policy, and sort of what we try to do- you don't pass GA or FA without them. (And I won't even pass an article for B-class without them.) I'm really not sure what, besides that, you're getting at. --PresN 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the problem here is that certain editors think that not passing WP:RS is grounds for deletion, when it's not. Not passing WP:V would be, but that should simply require you be able to authenticate the existance of the subject. (Notability is a whole other issue.) --tjstrf Now on editor review! 19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Current computer and video game events

Does the category serve much purpose? I noticed it only has 6 articles in it. 3 for a portal on current events, and 3 for other things: Pump It Up seems to be listed, just due to the fact a new version is coming out? Bully (video game) seems to be listed, just because of the ongoing controversy of the game. MSX is listed, due to the fact that MSX games will be on the Wii's virtual console. Does this category even need to exist? Overall, there usually isn't many computer and video game events. There is E3 once a year, controversies with games and so on... but that's not a whole lot. RobJ1981 16:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's only populated with a software or an E3 tag (and E3 no longer exists in it's known form), a hardware tag seems to be a major oversight. I can understand its reason for being there, but if it's not used or populated it should go the way of the do-do. If it is to stay it needs an overhaul - hardware, software & event tags for starters. - X201 16:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There is very little in it at this time because there is very little going on at the moment. Such is the case with all of the current even subcategories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than add the category to the category section of an article, I think it would be better if the {{current game}} template were added to the top of an article. One major plus point of this being that it is that it is more likely to be spotted and removed by other users when it's time has a current event has passed. - X201 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of computer and video games considered the worst ever is a farce

The List of computer and video games considered the worst ever is an absolute joke, and the users "maintaining" the article aren't exactly helpful either. A game has to be unimaginably bad to feature on that list, surely, some reliable publications have to put it on their "worst games ever" or give it their lowest ever review score.

How many publications actually consider Bomberman: Act Zero to be the worst game of all time? Yet it somehow features on the list. I removed it from the list, citing "[it's] shit, but isn't considered the worst ever" and was reverted. It seems that every change has to be taken to the talk page, indeed its addition to the list was discussed here, where the decision to add it really stemmed from its low average scores. If you would like to see my reasoning, and why this game isn't considered the "worst ever", please go here and talk some sense into the folk there. User:JackSparrow Ninja also has a simple lesson for you there. - Hahnchen 04:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero publications. Three publications described it as a very bad game. Not every bad thing is the worst ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is hopelessly POV, crufty and all that WP is not. I'd hit it for AFD. -_- Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well it's already gone through 3 and they were all keep. I don't know if that influences anything, but I think it's worth mentioning.--Clyde Miller 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not going to get deleted. See the many previous AFDS for the film version. - Hahnchen 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've cleaned out the vast majority of it as unsourced POV. Hopefully it sticks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, what a mess. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
User:JackSparrow Ninja has just reverted everything. I for one, being a neutral party, think MiB did the right thing here. This is overly WP:POV and WP:OR. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. WP:V gives us the right to remove unsourced and OR information from articles on sight. The burden is on the editor who wishes to include, not on the one who wishes to remove. With this in mind I've restored AMIB's edits. I have a bad feeling that this will be another one of those boring, dragged out disputes. -- Ned Scott 09:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There are 54 references. Are all not verifiable?--Clyde Miller 19:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of those references included sites such as "Gamecrap", Something Awful, and a joke page on OverClocked. I pared it down to reasonably major publications describing a game as "worst ever" or some synonym. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
well I checked the current version, and it looks like it's turning into a pretty good article. I don't know what the people maintaining it think though.--Clyde Miller 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned on that talk page, we could mold it to be like the Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever article. That should solve all problems with verification. guitarhero777777 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning - fair use cvg images about to be deleted

User:Combination has recently tagged a number of video game related images as lacking a fair use rationale despite being tagged with the standard screenshot and game-cover templates, or as lacking a source when the source is obviously the game itself. I don't know if there was recently a decision to require image-specific rationales so I'm not personally going to mass revert. Fredrik Johansson 13:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What he is doing is fine. If the source is the uploader, it needs to be explicitly stated. All images need fair use rationales too. If he didn't do it, someone else would eventually, and I commend him for it. Thunderbrand 13:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the source should be stated for screenshots since creating them is a creative act possibly subject to copyright, but there's nothing that needs to be sourced about the scanning of existing two-dimensional artwork (although it is of course courteous to do so). Further, I don't see why rationales in the standard templates are insufficient. Please enlighten me. Fredrik Johansson 14:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The Upload page states pretty much everything you need. Thunderbrand 14:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between license and rationale which details the purpose of the image. Any non-compliant material uploaded after 4 May can be deleted at any time, and by tagging these images uploaders will be given seven days to take corrective action (OrphanBot will deliver notifications). Combination 15:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see now that Help:Image page states:

Remember there is no "general rule" about fair use, each "fair use" must be explained and a rationale must be established for that specific use (i.e. every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for using the image on that page even though fair use is claimed on the image page).

The way it is worded, this is an extremely silly piece of policy. Why do images whose uses are identical require "distinct" rationales? What if I sit down and write an original rationale for my image and it accidentally turns out to resemble the rationale used by some other image somewhere on Wikipedia? I'm joking, of course, but the point is that it doesn't make sense to generalize this much. There may be no "general rule" about fair use, but there certainly can be general rules for certain categories of images that are used the same way, such as 99% of our game screenshots.

I should note that I'm all in favor of strict copyright compliance on Wikipedia, and I also commend those who work hard to ensure that as many images as possible have appropriate licensing information. But there are two problems here: 1) images are unnecessarily being deleted even in cases where it would be just as easy to fill the bits of missing information on the description pages as to tag them for deletion, and 2) "distinct" rationales are a waste of time in some cases. If I were to upload a game screenshot some time in the future, I would probably look up some existing screenshot page and copy the fair use rationale verbatim. I don't see why I couldn't just transclude a template. In fact, I'd probably create a template in my own user space for the purpose if I were to upload a large number of images in the future.

Now, OrphanBot would be great if it actually did deliver those notifications :-) My images were uploaded long before 4 May, by the way. - Fredrik Johansson 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference in terms of fair use of whether I scanned a video game cover myself or got it from some random website??? The copyright belongs to the publisher no matter what so what is the point of saying "I scanned this myself". Either it's fair use or not, the "source" is irrelevant. I think it's self-evident that the "source" is the boxart of the game itself. Providing a random URL has no meaning whatsoever. Providing a fair use rationale is definitely a good idea and I have to admit that I haven't done so everytime, so I'll try to go back into my Image backlog and add that. Still, the rationale is pretty boilerplate so even that could probably be done with something like {{CVG screenshot rationale}} in my opinion. jaco♫plane 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Fair use and it's policy sub section, WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree with Jaco (and I don't completly understand Ned's comment's relevancy), but I usually try to add a source URL in my images if they are not taken by me for the pure and simple reason that if the image requires downsizing or reshaping, it is good it know where it came from. By the way, is this a good place and time to agree some basic ideas for this fair use template? Most rationales are the generally the same, but it might be good if an agreement was made on what should go into such as a template.--Clyde Miller 22:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that we should be having this discussion over there? I'm asking because I'm not sure what you meant by posting those links. Also, I should point out that fair use issues related to this WikiProject were previously discussed here, here, and here. jaco♫plane 22:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow I guess I should have been providing the source URL for other reasons too. Oh well at least I've been doing it.--Clyde Miller 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? What other reasons do you mean? jaco♫plane 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Steel told me in this one that I need to provide a source.--Clyde Miller 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
A relevant discussion which has not been linked to is Do_screenshots_need_additional_source_information?. But the source of the screenshot/boxart should NOT be some random mobygames/gamespot page, but the copyright holders. Also, what Combination is doing with the tagging of watermarked images is a good thing, I was thinking of doing something like this myself, but it seemed too much work for little pay off. The worst offender is that green gamespy logo, its a crap logo, so why paste it everywhere? - Hahnchen 02:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shrine of Data (Game Units Sold)

Hanchen introduced me to Shrine of Data today, a Japanese game sales tracking site that went down some time ago (fortunately archived; here's an example). It's being used at Perfect Dark and Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon (which is still in FAC if any of you can please review), and I'm curious if anyone has any objections or endorsements of its reliability. It's sort of impressive that it's presenting precise units sold as opposed to units shipped. But we don't know too much about it, so if any of you have more on the subject, please come forward. --Zeality 19:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Game Reviews

I think there are too many game reviews being posted as encyclopedia articles. For example, please review World Series of Poker: Tournament of Champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by RmanB17499 (talk • contribs)

Blatant plagiarism. It's been tagged as a copyright violation. --Zeality 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted back to it's pre-copyvio version, which is a stub. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Boss (video games)

For an important gaming concept, this article is seriously lacking. It mostly consists of an ever-growing list, arranged according to an original boss taxonomy. 'Last/final boss' is a familar gaming term, but what about 'stylish boss' or 'stalker boss'? Any input or comment would be most welcome.--Nydas 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Find reference materials and itegrate them into the text. The section is falling into original research teritory (if not already there). Also, it may be that large sections of this text are just inheritantly POV and will have to be deleted. For example, Strong boss, "This boss is difficult to defeat because it has a lot of energy and/or deals a large amount of damage." Says who? What's difficult for the average gamer is a lot different from what's difficult for a novice gamer. -Mitaphane talk 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs to be improved, as bosses are indeed an important CVG concept. I was going to nominate this for GCotW ,but should it be nominated for Peer Review instead? It's not quite a stub but it needs major improvements. New User 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Help request: Unreal Engine

I'm requesting some writing assistance for Unreal Engine. My abilities to regurgitate references is somewhat limited, but I've put a number of sources up on the UE talk page. If someone would take a look and see if they could create an improved article, I'd be extremely happy. Thanks. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I stuck the game engine infobox in for you, but not very filled out. I don't know much about the engine, so you'll have to finish it.--Clyde Miller 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd need to wait for their release of UT2007 before hitting the box with version/release date of UE3. But there are three major releases of the engine that a single infobox may not accomodate properly. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)'
You may want to consider multiple userboxes then or splitting the article. I don't know much about that and I would suggest you wait for other input. I'm not sure what the deal with multiple userboxes are.--Clyde Miller 02:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
All of the flavors of the Unreal Engine share many common components. It's mostly the graphical rendering engine and physics engines that have changed significantly from release to release. The UScript roots, UnrealEd editor, and filesystem structure have remained similar across the various versions of UE. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then there's no need to split it, just organize it. I don't understand why, but the release dates look really awkward, crowded, and unreadable. I'm not sure why. Maybe try only putting the latest release date and version (2.5). I'm not sure.--Clyde Miller 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Each engine is distinct, even if they share common roots. I don't know if the box can be modified to accomodate this engine, that may be something to ask another editor. And with Gears of War being released, Unreal Engine 3 is technically live. (although I don't know what engine build it is using, since I don't have an XBox 360) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Tech work isn't my forte either, so you may want to look around or wait for a response from someone who does know. Maybe you could try to put it in a list form, but again, I don't know how.--Clyde Miller 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

White Engine

I just wanted to mention here that I have reinstated this article with new sources that confirm from Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Versus XIII staff that this engine will now be used on ALL next-gen games from Square Enix. The article will be able to grow in the coming months as more information on these and other games are revealed. If anyone has objections, please voice them. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it again. The consensus to merge it was made only two months ago, and the basic premise hasn't changed. This isn't the first time that Square Enix has said that they intend to use the engine for multiple games, but the fact remains that none of those games have been released yet, and only one or two have even been announced. There's next to nothing concrete known about the engine, and the source cited in the article states that it's not even completed yet. Wikipedia is still not a crystal ball, and I don't see any reason to doubt that the consensus reached earlier still holds. It's best that this discussion be continued at the Square Enix WikiProject, as there's probably a higher concentration of interested editors there. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I copied this to Square Enix so they can discuss it.--Clyde Miller 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the crystal ballishness of this is getting vaguer by the week, since there have been two interviews in magazines in the last two weeks detailing Version 1 of the engine by Nomura as well as his take on what Verison 2 and 3 are going to include. Granted, they are in Japanese (Electric Shock Magazine and I forget the other), but the information is steadily rolling in now. I will not reinstate the article yet again, but there is probably going to be enough for a full article very soon. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Crap going on at Sega Mega-CD

See the history. See the reverts. A user is not happy that the article does not reflect his US-centric views and keeps on altering/reverting the article. I actually don't care that much, but he keeps on spouting consensus/AFD/red tape/process/consensus/consensus/talk. The article was moved from Sega CD to Sega Mega-CD in line with the Sega Mega Drive move, but now a user wants to plant that flag for the US by changing the subject of the article from Sega Mega-CD to Sega-CD. High Five! - Hahnchen 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, WP:NC applies as Mega-CD is the popular term. Combination 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NC is also part of the problem. Those who favour Mega-CD cite WP:NC as covering the fact that the rest of the World knew it as Mega-CD. Those that support Sega-CD cite WP:NC saying that it covers their standpoint because there are more of them (English speakers) and that speakers of another language don't count because they can use the other language Wikis. I know that the former argument holds more water than the latter, but some people refuse to see the argument. And at some point "The Google test" will be brought up as well. - X201 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I think this now qualifies as a WP:LAME war? Both the Genesis and the CD have gone through some major edit warring over the title alone. I remember the tim when the title used to be at Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis. Good times, goood times. Hbdragon88 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Engines

I noticed that a lot of talk has been going on about game engines (I should know, I'm involved). Does anyone know if a game engine has ever been made into a good article? I worked with some, even wrote one, but I found they are mostly stubs. Why are they so forgotten? What makes a good game engine article?--Clyde Miller 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you definitely need to go into more technical detail than a typical CVG article. The reason engine articles are never that good is because users just lack the technical knowledge. Whereas it might be quite easy to source plot guides and reviews for the latest final fantasy, it's going to take a lot more know-how to present its engine specifications to the reader. Of the engine articles I'm familiar with, I think Source engine is probably quite good. - Hahnchen 03:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I recall that name from before, but I forgot what it was. Short of an infobox, that is a pretty good article. I suppose lack of resources will hamper me writing such an article though.--Clyde Miller 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Question here

Why is the PlayStation 3 article rated as Mid importance, but the Wii article is rated as low importance? JONJONAUG 13:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This was brought up above. Basically it comes down to this: the importance ratings are just a guage for what should be worked on for Wikipedia 1.0; there is nothing official about it; bump it up to mid if you want. I'd say probably all the next gen consoles should be at mid importance. —Mitaphane talk 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would think that all of the current consoles, which both the Wii and PS3 will be by next week, would be high importance. Koweja 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the prior discussion mentioned above. Two important things brought up (for the importance of W1.0 inclusion) were stability and impact of the topic. Right now both the articles are in a constant flux(the Wii article has around 30 revisions for just today) because there is a lot coverage going on. Also, the impact of the Wii and PS3 won't be known for a while. I'd say it be at least a year before things stable out and we what impact the consoles have had. —Mitaphane talk 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists on TMNT article

Hi. I brought this subject up at the GA project, Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_candidates#question_regarding_nominated_article_Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles:_Turtles_in_Time, whether the lists of enemies and of levels of the GA nominated article Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles:_Turtles_in_Time is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. In that post, I referred to your Scope section, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Scope_of_information where you say A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture.

As far as I know, there isn't any guideline on this, although one draw conclusions from What Wikipedia is Not. Since the article is question is under the scope of this project, could you take a look to determine if that sort of information is appropriate for a GA article? I opened a section at Talk:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles:_Turtles_in_Time#Question_regarding_the_lists where you may reply.

Fred-Chess 17:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Flags for North American releases

I've noticed that a lot of consoles and games do one of two things for the North American release:

  • Label it "North America" and put either no flag or the US flag by it
  • List Canada and the US separately even if they have the same release date

Now, North America isn't really an accurate label since Mexico is part of NA but doesn't always have the same release schedule as the US and Canada, so it would be best to say US & Canada instead of NA.

In order to prevent duplicate entries, I propose that we use this flag File:US and Canada flags.png instead. It lets us list two countries' release date in one statement without only using one flag.Koweja 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We've had this discussion, and it was decided to use the ISO country codes. It was pointed out that Flag graphics make life harder for blind people who use speaking browers. - X201 21:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't realize that this had been discussed. Koweja 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh? How many blind people play video games? It strikes me as rather accessibility paranoid. Especially considering that the somewhat visually impaired likely would have an easier time seeing the flags than reading the light gray ISO codes. --tjstrf talk 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't the main criteria in the flags debate, just one of them. But just because someone can't see a game shouldn't make it harder for them to find out about it. I've been looking for the archive of the debate but haven't found it yet. Flag icon for North America - X201 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess those reasons work. Though it's a nice case of between-WikiProject inconsistancy that should be ironed out someday. --tjstrf talk 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in WP:FLAGS, an essay/MOS proposal that in fact tries to iron out differences. Nifboy 06:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, accessibility is a good point that I should have thought about. It's not just blind users (and btw, you should never say "a blind person would never do xxxxxx" - you'd be surprised). Small icons also cause a problem for people with poor vision (but can still see) and people who simply turn off images. However, if the images can have alt tags, it shouldn't be a problem. That said, I am off to read the debate and see what the other issues were. Koweja 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a video game. Visually impaired people would be more likely to use a text-only browser, in which case the ISO code is much more clearer than a country flag. Hbdragon88 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who prefers the ISO codes from a design standpoint (the tiny little icons look messy, IMO), I would think that the flags, properly used, would be far more useful to people in a text-only browser: the word "Japan," as presented in an ALT tag, would be more immediately understandable than the code "JP." But it's a minor point, anyway: the infobox itself is unlikely to be particularly useful when rendered by a text-only browser, so worrying about a tiny image inside of it seems to be missing the forest for the trees. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Images are ugly, ISO codes are unambiguous. Why are we futzing around with this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Surely, wouldn't it just be better to do what Gamespot and IGN do, and use NA for North America and EU for European Union and JAP for Japan? Of course, that doesn't take into account Australia, which for some bizarre reason is included into the European market, but it would be much better, wouldn't it? Wolf ODonnell 13:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest using the ISO standards, for consistency's sake. I think ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 for countries (JPN for Japan, USA for the United States, GBR for the United Kingdom, etc.) works best. Unfortunately, there's probably no really effective and accepted continent code we can use: the ISO has a one-letter region code, but it's not really intuitive (how many people would automatically know that "F" means Africa, or that "L" means East Asia). But it's not like this problem is any simpler with flags, so I think we're all agreed on that front. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Clone Farms

Just wanted to discuss the topic of Clones/Ports listings here to get something on the main project page regarding standards for these listings. For the most part the general consensus on pages by established contributors has been to only include official ports and noteworthy (popular/historical) clones. Though there has been a tendency of other users establishing a "Clone Farm" on some entries, that really consists of long listings of "remakes" - i.e. homebrew dime a dozen copies. Consequently, I think something should be added to the main project page to discourge "Clone Farms" (remakes listings) and clearly establish guidelines for Ports and Clones listings respectively. --Marty Goldberg 23:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Sure Mika1h. An example would be this old revision of Breakout, where the external clone links were nothing but a linkfarm of modern homebrew "remakes" or "play-alikes". Such dime a dozen homebrew remakes are usually added to articles for self-promotion purposes.
An example of something that I would view more acceptable (and should be used to write up a proposed standard) would be something like the way Clones are presented in the current Pac-Man article (under the "Clones and Bootlegs" heading). There the topic refers to historically significant commercial clones and bootlegs (most of which are from the time period of the game in question). Even the linked to related article (List of Pac-Man clones) also limits it to historically significant commercial clones. Such inclusions also enhance the article by more accurately reflecting the game's influence on the game market at the time. --Marty Goldberg 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add a preliminary version in to the main page then. Feel free to add to it, etc. --Marty Goldberg 17:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Berzerk

What on earth is the significance of this section in the article?

Earning 910 points on yellow robots To earn 910 points on the yellow robot levels:

1) Exit the first two levels without shooting any robots 2) On the third level, kill 5 robots for a total of 250 points 3) Kill all 11 yellow robots on the fourth level to earn 660 more points (for a total of 910)

84.64.75.86 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

None, I'll remove it. Timkovski 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

nexgenwars next vgcharts?

nexgenwars.com appears to be the next vgcharts. I think it is time for me to open my own site to measure console success. Who wants to help me to set it up? Seriously now, this site does a statistical medition (I guess that, based on the last official sales information, calculates how many units they had sold every second, and then calculate the amount of units accordingly). This is much worse than vgcharts, because by just CTRL+F5 the page will deliver "updated" numbers, numbers that will make anonymous update the article. Just check the Console wars article. I suggest recommending against linking to it until it has been considered a reliable source by reliable sites (like IGN and Gamespot), dismissing Joystiq, Kotaku and other gaming blog. Anyone thinks this is reasonable? -- ReyBrujo 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Metroidvania

A gaming neologism describing side-scrolling adventures. The article is well written, but I'm unsure as to whether a fairly uncommon term like this deserves its own article and category.--Nydas 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

XEvil

This article is currently marked as a start article. At the time that it was marker this did fit however, since then I have made some significant changes. I would like someone else to review and possibly change it's status. Kc4 06:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments left on the talk page. Nifboy 08:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to list CfDs on the project page, but there are several categories up for discussion at the moment on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 23, including Category:Computer and video game themes. Marasmusine 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting Team

I propose we create a Copyediting Team that can go around and help edit articles. Anyone is invited; this is the group to call on when we have requests for copyedit/FA/GA pushes. What do you all think? — Deckiller 15:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just put important articles that need copyedits in the to-do list at the top of this page. I don't think a seperate project should be made just for copyedits to get new FA or GA articles. This project can easily cover that. RobJ1981 17:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It's probably better to add it to {{Gamebox contents}}. jaco♫plane 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that 95 % of the project articles need solid copyedits. — Deckiller 01:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you there. Even some of the Good or featured articles could use some copyediting. It also seems apparent that many people who are knowledgeable in video games or good at writing such articles seem to lack "brilliant" or even sometimes "good" writing skills (me included).--Clyde Miller 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Go here.--Clyde Miller 23:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_19&oldid=1144702144"