Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

What I've been up to!

If you haven't been following my Dragon magazine thread above, I've been chronicling all the video game reviews they have done from roughly 1980-1995 - that's quite a few. :) So much so, that it's getting hard to follow in a sprawling thread, so I created a page to organize it much better. :) If you have a significant portion Dragon collection yourself, and would like to help out, feel free to add your name to the contact list there, and/or add the page to your watchlist. BOZ (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple character redirects by User:EEMIV

This user has been redirecting and/or nominating for deletion a number of videogame characters, such as those from Medal of Honor (series) and Monkey Island (series). I've flagged a couple of the AfD'ed articles for rescue, but there's a good bit of cleanup work that could be done on all of the articles. Your help in sourcing, footnoting, and removing original research and excessive plot summary would be welcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Might I point out, and emphasize, that if you're going to dogpile and shout that an article should be kept to at least try and improve it? I do know not everyone does this, but enough do go "oh we have this source and all these sources" without putting them to use in an article (how are you saving it when someone else can AfD it again for the same perceived issues?) or even better citing things like google search numbers or book mentions as reasons for keep without actually checking to see what's being said and if it'd be applicable as reception.

I like character articles as much as the next guy, but he's right: most of these have just been sitting around with no improvement or even an attempt to give notability. If people are going to cry foul about how they should stay, they should try actively improving it instead of getting their undies in a bunch and then leave the mess for some other poor soul to contend with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Most video game characers do fail WP:Notability. Their articles are typically just "essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles", and not worth discussing in-depth.LaukkuTheGreit (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree but EEMIV seems to have a history of such actions and therefore his redirects might be trying to make a point. It seems the speed of his redirecting may be the issue.陣内_Jinnai 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a benign explanation for redirecting articles so quickly: Tabs. Nifboy (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's more benign to use rapid manual methods than to do automated or semi-automated edits, it's the result that counts. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A deletionist launches an AfD campaign, the inclusionists respond, neither seems to do any proper work to the articles concerned. Yup, business as usual. It (currently) looks like the Monkey Island articles aren't going to be deleted, although the merge possibility is coming up. I suggest we find a proper place to put the characters, with spinout articles for Guybrush and LeChuck if necessary. World of Monkey Island is messy and in need of improvement anyway, but has basic character info in it already; alternatively, the creation of a dedicated Characters of Monkey Island could be a way forward. -- Sabre (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

From the perspective of "How would be the best way to organize what's already there", I'd rather see the common themes in World of Monkey Island merged back into Monkey Island (series) and the character list in that article broken out into a list article, and all the characters put in there. Right now there's so much redundancy going on between the series, world, games, and characters' articles that we've got something like five or six different summaries of each game. Nifboy (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, just such a combination list , that had been previously merged, was deleted from the main article earlier today by TTN? [ [1]]. I'd be very glad to support merges and sometimes even redirects, but not if this is going to happen to the content. I have a good deal of sympathy with the position that there is not necessarily all the much to say, even if there is a reference. But it's more important to protect content than to worry whether it ends up divided into too many unnecessary articles. The first step for those who want to defend merging would be to revert these removals, which I would take as a sign of good faith. I am finding it difficult to continue toassume AGF in this entire process., when it has become

1. Try to delete the individual articles. If that fails,

2. Try to delete it again, and sometimes again and again

3. And if that fails, accept a result of merge

4. Merge only a sharply reduced amount of content, and hope nobody notices.

5. Then take the remaining content, and make it into a bare list.

6. Or skip the merge part and boldly redirect, and hope the thought of the conflict involved will discourage reverts.
DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That was hardly the sort of approach that would be feasible or worthwhile, it certainly wasn't the sort of "combination list" that would work in a "Characters of" article. TTN removed an indiscriminate list of every single last character in the entire franchise, which in an adventure game series means a lot of characters that don't do anything and can barely have more than a sentence covering them: the equivalent of extras in a film. A proper character-in-series article covers main, supporting, reoccuring and key minor characters, not absolutely every character regardless of actual value within the franchise. A substantive number of those in that list would be covered in a proper take on the subject (Pegnose Pete, Haggis McMutton, Rapp Scallion, etc), but a lot have no significant purpose (Mancomb Seepgood, Ralphie, Old Blind Pew, Dead-Eye Dave, etc). That was one of the few edits of TTN's I actually agree with. -- Sabre (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

School Rumble copyediting needed

Anyone who can help copyedit the article would be appreciated so it can be brought up as a FAC.陣内_Jinnai 08:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion clarity

Content disputes, merger proposals, problematic editors, articles for deletion and edit wars are often linked to from this talk page. Editors want another pair of eyes to look over the discussion, or someone to fight the flames. This is completely legitimate, but some call it callous to discuss such matters almost behind people's backs, as they would not know of the ongoing discussion here were they not to specifically look for it. To an extent, I expect many of us agree that sometimes it appears more like a call to arms, and isn't very inviting.

We need more clarity (buzzword) to what we're discussing, and it's essential that we make people aware of our threads, so they don't feel we're working like an underground gang of editors. For this reason, I propose that we have a standardised format to link back to our discussions here, which we can implement manually or through a template. This would allow absolute clarity in such matters.

At my sandbox, I've rolled down a little example of how such links could look. They are added directly after the heading of the thread in question, and are signed and dated (preferably by the editor who first posts here, but anyone will suffice). The text can vary, but it should always contain a link to the thread on this page. The link should always be in the same place (the start or the end? Discuss formatting below) and should contain a standard caption ("WikiProject Video games"?). The message itself can be changed for clarity.

Ultimately, this allows people who join the conversation to quickly see what we've said about it here, and recognise the history behind the discussion. I feel this sort of standardised message is important to ensure people recognise what we're up to. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that linking discussions is becoming a problem. We already have a similar template (Template:VG-Discussion), however, I'm not sure how much it is actually being used. Perhaps an edit notice on our talk page to remind editors to use it or something similar and to properly link discussions would help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

That would float my boat very nicely indeed. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this for the edit notice?

"This WikiProject talk page is for discussing improvements to video game-related articles and guidelines. If you came here seeking guidance and additional point of views for general topics, content disputes, incivility, etc., please be sure to link to the relevant page(s) and discussion(s) as well as provide a link here on the relevant page(s) the discussion originated."

Feel free to copy edit and expand the text.

I believe because it is in the project namespace, an admin will have to create the notice. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Yeh, sure. Anything will do, but it would be nice to have a link to the template you suggested above. People are much more likely to do something if they can copy and paste a template than if they had to write out a link. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with edit notices, but can they include wikilinks? Linking to the discussion template would be a big help for that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Any admins in the house that can create the notice? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Anybody? Don't be shy now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

*Bump* Sigh... sometimes I wish I was an admin. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Per the directions at WP:Editnotice, I requested an edit notice for the project talk page here. Feel free to tweak the message I left there before it gets created. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

Bringing the Dragon Quest WikiProject back as a TF

I'm wondering if there is enough interest to bring this back as a task force? DQ is not covered by the SE WP due to it being developed by a different company and only published by SE. I can't see it having full project status, but a TF maybe.陣内_Jinnai 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do love Dragon Warrior Monsters. I might join. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We probably need a few more people.陣内_Jinnai 04:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in; I enjoy Dragon Quest. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes = ] EVAUNIT-666 13:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the basics for the proposed task force. Want to make certain this has enough backing and we get the codes needed implemented (ie tf listing. Feel free to update the page.陣内_Jinnai 03:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Toad (Mario)

The original Toad article was merged recently, and now someone has gone and created Toad (Mario) for the usual fan related reasons. It should be redirected back to the list and the history should be merged with the original article. I'm not in the mood to deal with fans at the moment, so hopefully someone else wishes to take care of it. TTN (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They brought it back as an article because the list section was getting too big, because there is too much to tell about Toad. He has been in every game. He is a very notable character. Just wondering, did anybody search for some reception? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in reliable sources...Toad's longstanding as hell, but unfortunately that doesn't mean people have actually talked much about the character. Or the ideas behind the character for that matter. The two parts for reception really don't even have that much to do with the character in terms of reception (one is solely due to his role of being there at the end of each fourth level, if it'd been Birdo the song would've been from his/her/its pov...and the other is a promotion bit that doesn't have to do with how the character is received by third party audiences).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is New Super Mario Bros 2 coming out that will feature him as a playable character. After that some things might pop up. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally we don't work that way Blake...but I can see your logic behind that too in this case: if something appears it'll help build the article with some reception, but if nothing appears it'll help re-affirm it belongs as a character section. If TTN agrees we could revisit this in a few weeks, see if it's still getting heavy edits and if any reception's been applied. If it hasn't I doubt anyone here will seriously object to a re-merge, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Toad is notable enough to have its own article. Notability has nothing to do with number of appearances. In fact, some characters are notable despite not having had a single appearance at all (case in point: Sheng Long). Notability and appearances are two different concepts as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Quest 9 source issues

Megata Sanshiro has tried to revert and contended that several sources that do not name specific names are not credible on DQ9. Both of these sources are reliable. One is IGN and the other is Brian Ashcraft who is Night Editor for Kotaku and also an editor for Wired, thus meeting SPS critiera. 2 articles meantion items without giving specific names and these have been tagged as with and or attempted to be completely removed in some cases multiple times. So I'm wondering how to deal with this beyond simply reverting his attempts.陣内_Jinnai 20:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now requested FPP because the issue is getting out of hand with others and ip edits.陣内_Jinnai 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen and as said on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Megata Sanshiro, Jinnai misread the article history; the IP acted against me and I reverted the IP, I'm not it. :'-( Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed he got it backwards when he posted this but figured I was reading it wrong (especially since even considering that it'd be out of character for you).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I apologize. There was so much reverting going on I got confused. I asked for it to be closed. Not sure who to go to for a speedy-close.陣内_Jinnai 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ubisoft" Star Ocean screenshots nominated for deletion on Commons

I post here as WP:VG/I does not seem very watched

I noticed some discussion regarding Ubisoft permission in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 71#Clarification about Ubisoft screenshots. You may want to know that the mentioned Star Ocean screenshots have been nominated for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Star Ocean 3 - Character select.jpg. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep all the way. If they don't own the UK version of Star Ocean 3, that would mean they didn't own that of Lock On in the first place (a game not developed by Ubisoft and not published by Ubisoft in its country of origin). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I really think that this Ubisoft free image stuff should only extend to games they've actually developed through studios they own. ie, this would cover Ubisoft Montreal stuff such as Splinter Cell, but not Ubisoft's publication of Dark Messiah. Ubisoft cannot speak for developers they don't own in this way, and this stuff about publishing in one region but another publisher publishes in another area only serves to create larger grey areas. -- Sabre (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So according to you the Ubisoft free image policy shouldn't apply to Lock On. The problem is, our entire Ubisoft free image policy is backed up by the permission we have for that game. It all started there. We have an Attribution-Ubisoft template and a free image policy for "Ubisoft games" because Ubisoft gave us the permission to use screenshots of Lock On. In my opinion, the policy should thus apply to games like Star Ocean 3, which are in the same situation as Lock On. On the other hand, you seem to imply that our entire Ubisoft free image policy is baseless, since according to you Ubisoft wasn't a Lock On copyright holder in the first place (despite the impression that they talked to User:Avatar as if they were one). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You read too far into my words. I'm merely expressing a concern that perhaps this Ubisoft permission may being erroneously extended beyond its purview in some cases. I don't know the full history of this Ubi-agreement or the legal basis—leave that to those with a proper understanding of copyright law. -- Sabre (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they would have given such permission if they couldn't have. They likely would have just said to ask someone else. My guess is the contract states that they have final word on such matters to give such permission.陣内_Jinnai 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just saying: it would maybe be more useful if you post on Commons DR rather than here, so that anyone can debate over this (if you wish to, of course).

Just a quick word on that matter: I do not know if you go on Commons often, but I do. And we have people thinking they have the right to freely license media they upload though they don't just everyday. As serious and respectable as they can be. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Soul series task force?

Would anyone be interested in it if one was started? As it stands, there's a great deal of information available online that could easily be used to development character articles if accompanied with some reception and work done to summarize plot information, and there is untapped information for the games themselves. Whatever the case there is enough that a joint effort could certainly do some good on these.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

To better explain, this means the Soulcalibur series of games. Anyone?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that went nowhere...for anyone interesting, the project space can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Soul. We look forward to any and all help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Help finding sources for Birdo and Midna.

User:New Age Retro Hippie/Midna, User:New Age Retro Hippie/Birdo. Midna is much more doable than Birdo, but I feel that they may have a chance to reach an acceptable level of notability.

Note: I'm aware that the "Birdo cosplay" thing is iffy. And that you probably should disable images related to the Birdo cosplay if you remain uncorrupted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow. Nice job. I wish you luck with making these. I will see if I can help at all, but I doubt I will be able to find anything you haven't already found. (I use the custom WP:VG Google search)_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've managed to make Midna a good enough article; could I get an administrator to do a history merge to Midna? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just on a passing glance, I would not include the cosplay bit. I don't feel it really adds anything to the character article in any significant way and in fact detracts from the intended tone.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it is like the whole Mudkip deal? It should have a mention, but it shouldn't be what the article is standing on? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's kinda barely tied to the character, and more about the disturbing appearance of the cosplay itself. I guess a comparison about how such a thing would fit into a character's reception could be Dance, Voldo, Dance, in which the character's natural animation and "behavior" is integral to how it's received. As it stands the cosplay section can be removed without compromising notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think cosplay should be kept out of articles unless it was responded to by the company/developers. If fanart shouldn't be mentioned/pictured in articles, why should cosplay - it has the same kind of "creative license". The ridiculousness of this just makes it more dubious. If there's a statement on the popularity of a certain character, fine, but mentioning individual instances is giving undue weight.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Quest TF

WP:DQ - if you added yourself to the list, please redo that as I redid the way it's done. there should be a TF list soon.陣内_Jinnai 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the {{WikiProject Video games}} template updated for the DQ task force, and is there a list of articles that need to be tagged for the DQ task force? MuZemike 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did all the major ones. I'm not sure if the developers and their key personnel should be under the scope.陣内_Jinnai 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Split Midna out?

I believe this version of the Midna article, User:New Age Retro Hippie/Midna, should be its own article. It has both sections required to form its own article, and it's somewhat well-written. It may have been merged once, but I believe it was merged for lack of notability, not the character itself being unworthy of being separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Few things: I'd put the creation information before the summary of her appearances, as that readily is something that should inform viewers what kind of character they're reading about. Lead could use more bulk, but you knew that. The card game bit seems a bit out of place in the last sentence too, might be better to discuss development directly. On the surface...it looks like it could stand as an article. I say that because I'm still a little eh about the length of the summary section. I'll take a closer look later on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I trimmed it down significantly. It'd be good for people who have completed TP and objective third parties to comment on what should be included to flesh it out. And I agree about the conception thing; I was going to do that, but then I was like "oh hay DayQuil" and drank some and got distracted. >.> - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, good work! I would agree with a bold splitting out immediately. :) --Izno (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty amazing. Her entry in the list article went from a plot-only mess to a plot-and-random-commentary mess, so splitting it back out with some organization will do it good. Nifboy (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick bit: "Midna made minor appearances in Super Smash Bros. Brawl in the form of multiple collectible stickers and trophies."

That line should probably go under Summary more than reception, just looks a tiny bit out of place. Combining it with the In other media line should make for a small but viable paragraph. I have no other qualms at all though about the article and think it's fine to unleash. I've contacted an admin about your request for a histmerge so it should get done pretty swiftly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The admin I spoke to suggested just doing a straight up merger, so you should be able to just take what you have, paste it over there and be good to go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Iunno; I do like to keep a full history of edits for an article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Since they're just your edits, it makes absolutely no difference how it was changed over time.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah well. I did use Google Books for the first time, and found a couple neat things about Midna being compared to Navi, Issun, and Tinkerbell. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, looking at [2], I found some sketches of Midna; is there any way I could retrieve this image (you can find it by going to Characters > Midna > Sketches)? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if they really would add anything to the article. They're not too different from the finalized character renders to be honest, and no notes to make use of.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. What if we used it as the main image? That is, if we could find it with a little greater level of detail and from a reliable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of a featured topic

Please feel free to discuss here. This is the first time I've done this so be nice. Spiderone 12:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Game Watch

Apparently, just as with the above section, there's also another one in Mr. Game Watch, in which the actual name Mr. Game & Watch was merged into Game & Watch. MuZemike 21:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

College newspapers as a source for Pokemon reception

I'm on the fence with this one: [3]

Basically there's reception being given that would work for all three of the starter evolutionary lines, and the about page shows there is evidence of an editorial process. However, we don't know the author of the article. Since the source discussion page seems to have croaked for awhile I'm posting this hear to ask fellow editors: would this fly as a source or be problematic when you hit GAN and higher?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not good enough. It's not a matter of how reliable a college newspaper is, they may have an excellent editorial process, and fewer mistakes than AP. It's that in general, no one gives a shit about what college papers say about anything. Regardless of its accuracy, the problem is that his voice is irrelevant. - hahnchen 23:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of company/series categories

I'm not sure what can be done about this, but there seems to be a habit of using company or series sub-categories to stand in where only specific articles are really appropriate. As an example, look at Category:Video game publishers. Capcom is a publisher. Category:Capcom, which includes all the company's sub-topics, is not actually relevant to the category. But it is the Capcom category, and not the Capcom article, which is listed as a publisher. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A fun little thing for editors to try out.

Well, I was considering going through stub/start video game articles, a-z, and trying to improve them as much as possible. I think this would be fun for some, as in some cases, it would be fun for people to learn about some games (for example, one of the most enjoyable articles I've ever worked on was Corrupted Blood incident, because I had no idea what it was before reading about it). Anyone interested? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What you're describing is COTW. And whereas collaborating on articles, and playing old games is fun, the VG editor's interests are so diverse they never intersect. I think you'd need a better hook to get more people involved - maybe a dedicated working area in the VG space, with the aim of dumping the output into the mainspace when it could break onto WP:DYK. Or maybe create a games club where editors could discuss the subject outside of a purely encylopedia writing exercise. Such "community" exercises may not be in the pure spirit of Wikipedia, but may result in more participation here - COTWs have consistently failed in the VG space. - hahnchen 11:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he is saying just grab one and start on it. It doesnt have to be with the whole project. If we all do one article, we get a GA, maybe FA. If everyone works on different articles, we get 50 B-Classes upgraded from stub. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the concept of COTW. And it has never really been that successful, because you never get enough buy in from other VG members - our interests are too disparate. - hahnchen 14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Collaboration of the Week supposed to be many editors working on one article? I think the suggestion here is that individual editors work on many articles by picking something at random (perhaps outside your regular comfort zone) in our stub and start class assessment categories. –xeno^talk 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes! This is exactly what I am trying to say. CotW is everyone working on one article. What "Retro Hippie" is saying is everyone should work on different articles and greatly improve a larger range of articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a fun little exercise to do, but admit it it's not for everyone. If an editor finds video gaming in general to be interesting and would like to expand their writing capacity, working on a stub/start article that is out of your comfort zone would certainly do the trick. I thought it was quite fun to improve Computer Bismarck. Even though I never played the game, it was interesting to learn about. I just noticed I had a few good sources and some digging turned up even more. Same thing with Bubbles (video game). It can be surprising what you can do with some of these starter articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Well, it's certainly not CotW; CotW's purpose is to improve important articles, while this project is to do articles that would not make the CotW in our lifetime. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's exactly like GCOTW in terms of subject, but the concept of getting people together to expand articles was the point of the original COTW. (I think that's what you were suggesting, others seem to think there's no collaboration in it) If it is COTW-like though, I reckon you'll need some new hook to make it last. - hahnchen 21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my point is that regardless of similarities, it does have its own niche, which is improving overlooked articles that COTW would never cover. The mere hook is to improve articles that, if we didn't go on a basis of "improve articles you'd never normally touch", they would never be more than a stub/start-class article. I've seen many a supposed dead-in-the-water articles go to AfD and bounce back, mostly older ones, and I know many people enjoy improving at-risk articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that articles like I, Robot won't be part of the project. What other articles would be in its scope? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't exclude important articles. It would be based on improving stub/start articles video game articles, regardless of importance. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly would the project be called? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Iunno. I'm not good with names, I just like to write! :3 - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Video games Stub & Start-class articles improvement drive ? –xeno^talk 13:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Given our track record with maintaining collaborative efforts in the long term, perhaps a short, one time event would work better. Some competition like the WikiCup, Wikirace, Amazing Race Wikipedia, or The great triple crown race of 2008. The goal would be to work on poor quality articles and bring them up the quality scale. The greater the climb the more points awarded. For example, Stub → FA would be worth more than B → GA. Importance could maybe be a multiplier (low = 1, mid = 1.5, high = 2, top = 2.5). Have it go on for about two–three months to allow for review processes like GAN and FAC, maybe even A-class review. The winner gets a special barnstar we'll make, and, of course, the ever important bragging rights we gamers work hard for. If it's successful, we can do it every year or whenever depending on demand. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

Sounds like a groovy idea Guyinblack, im in support of it. Cyberdemon007 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, but maybe something more frequent would be better? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gib, I'm working on I, Robot right now. Would I be allowed to enter it if I'm currently working on it? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far, this has driven me to improve two stub-class articles; Plants vs. Zombies and 'Splosion Man. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait until we get some feedback from more members first. If about 8 or more people are interested, I'll create a subpage and outline some more concrete rules. And if it proves successful, we can easily do it again.

Right now it looks like GamerPro64 and Retro Hippie want to compete. Cyberdemon supports the idea, but I don't know if they plan on competing. As far as articles you're currently working on, I'd have to say that they probably won't count. To make it fair, I think edits and quality changes during a certain time frame should count towards the competition. Otherwise some of us can dig through our list of past work and rack up an unfair amount of points. But just because you've started work on an article now, doesn't mean that work you finish during the competition is disqualified. Just means the starting point of the article is a higher rating. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I probably wont be taking part, as my content adding skills are not that great, I tend to create, not expand, but I do like to see pages expand with work by experienced editors, hence why I supported it. :) Cyberdemon007 (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe more concrete rules will attract more interest. Here's what I'm thinking will be a good point system.

• Every incremental increase up the quality scale (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, FA) will be one point.
  • Stub → Start = 1 point
  • Start → C → B = 2 points
  • C → B → GA → FA = 3 points
• Importance will be a multiplier of the quality points.
  • Low = ×1
  • Mid = ×1.25
  • High = ×1.5
  • Top = ×2
• Bonus points will be added to the total for milestones.
  • Successful Did you know? (fivefold expansion of a short article in five days qualifies) = +1
  • Successful Good article nom = +1
  • Successful Featured article candidacy = +2
  • The new content in the expanded article leads to an importance increase = +1 and the new multiplier value will be applied.
  • Bring a delisted GA or FA back to it's former glory (Only delisted GA → GA or delisted FA → FA) = +1

For example, a low-importance article that goes from Start → FA will be worth 4 points. If it only goes through FAC it gets 2 bonus points. If it goes through GAN and FAC then it gets 3 (1 + 2) bonus points. A high-importance article that goes from B → FA will be worth 3 (2 × 1.5) points plus whatever bonus points are earned.

Though this is will be a "competition", the ultimate goal is article improvement. All policies and guidelines still apply of course, so it's pretty much business as usual. The only difference is that you'll get a shiny something for your efforts. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

So what's the prize for winning going to be? How about the winner gets to pick an article that we as a WikiProject commit to get to FA within 2 months or something. JACOPLANE • 2009-09-10 16:37

I was going to make special badges/barnstars/awards/whatever you want to call them. But if you can get the project as a whole or even just the competitors to agree with that, then I'll certainly support it. (No offense to everyone here) But getting everyone here to agree on one thing is probably impossible. We all have different views about what goes on here at Wikipedia and the project. :-/ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Well, we could ask before the competition starts that people commit to spend a certain amount of time editing an article of the winner's choosing. If people don't live up to that commitment they could be eternally shamed by the winner bringing it up again and again :) JACOPLANE • 2009-09-10 17:58

Personally, I think that a barnstar or somesuch would be better. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly easier to organize, but not exactly a great incentive to get people to participate... JACOPLANE • 2009-09-10 18:27

I like the idea of everybody separately improving different articles, but making it a competition wouldn't exactly work. I think a Barnstar for doing a certain amount of work would be fine. Like different barnstarts for whoever gets 5 or 10 points on your scale? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Question. How many points would you get if you brought an Article to GA-status if it was a former GA? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Blake- I plan on making more than one award. I won't give out details, but the top scorer won't be the only one getting something.

GamerPro- That's an interesting scenario I hadn't considered. I'd say bringing a delisted GA or FA back to its former glory would warrant a bonus point. Otherwise, I think the same scoring system should apply. I updated my post above to include it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm just sad that two recent works, Plants vs. Zombies and 'Splosion Man, won't count! D: - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you noticed, but you still have Plants vs. Zombies listed as a stub. I think you should update that. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Any other takers? I'd say 2 or 3 more editors would be enough. Once the discussion gets archived, I'm assuming there's not enough interest. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

People who are interested in competing

1. GamerPro64 (talk · contribs)
2. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm interested; I don't know if I'll have time to do a whole lot, but I'm certainly interested. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Sure, why not. Half the things I could enter I have already started/finished though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero (Megaman)

The article Zero (Megaman) was (re)created under a different name as Zero (Mega Man), which was recently merged into List of characters in the Mega Man X series (see Talk:List of characters in the Mega Man X series#Merge. Thought I'd give a heads-up here. MuZemike 20:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he informed me a few days ago about it, and I told him to find sources for notability if he was going to work on it so it could stand as an article, apparently though he's unsure where to look for such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a few things worth including in that article already. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean with the current sources, those were in the original version that got merged I believe.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to keep the article as-is, then? If so, then a pagemove and histmerge is in order. MuZemike 14:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved all the info from Zero (Megaman) to Zero (Mega Man). Since they're going to be histmerged anyway most likely this just gives the article its proper home in advance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviated names vs full names

What is the consensus on the way of listing characters whose names commonly appear abbreviated? A clear example would be Johnny Cage whose name is normally listed as just "Cage" or Ken Masters who is commonly listed as Ken. There's also the case of other games in which names appear as an initial and last name (R. Mika for Rainbow Mika). My take would be to use the full names for the sake of completitude and create redirects for the abbreviations, which seems to abide by the MOS on personal names, but I wondered what was everyone else's opinion. --uKER (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Mind you, once in the article proper (after its title and introducing the name) you can introduce the abbreviation and use that from there out. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's also fine with me. No point in reiterating the full name throughout all the article. --uKER (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. As long as the shortened name is used consistently, I see no reading issue. Johnny Cage uses "Johnny" and "Cage" interchangeably, which I think can be hard to follow sometimes. Pronouns are a good alternative to this: he, she, the character, etc. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Great. Now, I've seen TOO MANY discussions in countless character articles about this issue, and currently there is no consistent criterion for it. For the sake of getting this enforced, shouldn't it be listed somewhere in the MOS for videogames so we can cite it? Or should we just go by the MOS for proper names I cited before? --uKER (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as the full name is used once in an article firs/last name is find or even nickname. So long as people who are not familiar with the shortened name recognize it.陣内_Jinnai 23:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So essentially we do like we do with the RPG characters, utilizing full names where available. We will have some special cases to this most likely (It's easier to argue "Ivy Valentine" would be more recognizable than her full name "Isabella Valentine"). I really like this idea because I've never been fond of "forced" disambiguation with articles in their titles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd REALLY be glad if it was that way. I find that to be a simple, consistent, informative criterion, with little place for argument. But on the other hand I seem to find that the MOS has this guideline which says otherwise, proposing a fuzzy excuse for a criterion which suggests that characters should go by their full name only if it's mentioned ingame, which lends itself to endless debates over whether a character should be named one way or another, based on whether they got a one-time mention in another character's ending sequence in a non-canon spinoff game; a game for which the title should somehow be permanently attached to the article to avoid such discussions. This said, should we perpahs update the MOS? --uKER (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that criterion's fine really, when you consider what it's really about. A long while back there was a thing where various characters had their names only appear in very obscure source, such as the character Rolento, whose name only shows up in full on an arcade flyer. However I didn't realize the terms for this were that lax...the last time I butted heads with User:Mr.bonus on the matter of "Ken (Street Fighter)" vs. "Ken Masters", he was fervent that it had to be mentioned in a specific case. I never thought the MoS had actually been updated off the argument we had at the Cabal though (which in a way is kinda cool).

So I think the matter here might've resolved itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have one minor qualm with that guideline. What if the name appears in another as notable or more notable work, such as being a character in the game originally where the common name is used, but later appears in a canon series with the full name that is also notable, possibly moreso than the video game. The guideline doesn't really say what to do then, especially if it falls under multiple wikiproject scopes.陣内_Jinnai 01:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Has that happened enough to worry about though? The only case I can think of where we have an article like that is Ken Masters, but his name became commonly, well, Masters during Street Fighter II. Only other case period is Cody from Final Fight, who became "Cody Travers" in Final Fight Streetwise. I'm not sure it's enough to worry about though specifically as it's extremely rare, and when it does it doesn't hurt a subject to move the article to its new name (if memory serves, when Cody had an article the shift was without issue post-Streetwise).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ash Ketchum who is based on one of the default name choices from Pokemon Red and Blue aganinst the similarly named Gary Oak.陣内_Jinnai 02:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well with something like that yeah discussion is probably a good idea, though in this case it's kinda simple. Ash Ketchum and Red are two different characters: the anime makes this clear by showing Ash watching Red on television. While Gary and Blue are the same character, the original character Blue is still referred to such in Pokemon Gold and Silver (which for the record still calls Red, well, Red, to boot).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTH for Ash's character and goes against his anime character's creation concept.陣内_Jinnai 02:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed that after digging some more: seems the character in question he's recalling is "Red" from the manga and not the video games. But still in this case in all honesty "Red" from the games is the inspiration for the character, and even if they are the same character, Red takes precedence because he originated as a video game character. If you wan to go further while Red is called Red in the manga, he's apparently a different character there as well.

I guess if you want an example, take Guile: many people are unfamiliar with the game, but familiar with the movie and when they see the character will call him by what they saw in the film: "William F. Guile". However in the games, Guile is just simply Guile with no further name. For all purposes that works just fine and a section in the character's article can note the name change without falling into OR.

And now thanks to you I'm seriously wondering if Ash and Red shouldn't be combined to form a superior article. Thanks Jinnai, I can already see the vein bulging in Blake's poor noggin when he hears this suggestion x_X--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

lol. Well, I think it might do some good to merge them. They are both essentially the same character in different universes. It would be somewhat difficult to merge them, and it might cause some debate, but it would work. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll hit up Artichoker tomorrow and see what he thinks on that matter, combining the two articles might ultimately be the best move. Talk about your plot twists.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Mario series characters

Basically, there is a dispute on the talk page over the status of the article, where complaints are being made that the article has almost no out-of-universe information, while another user is arguing that such content is unnecessary for this type of article. If I could get some additional opinions, that would be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Elaine Marley‎

Sorry for being a bother with this one, but it just won't stay under. The AfD for the article was closed as keep...but only as to keep it a blue link on wikipedia, pretty clearly stating "There is support for a merge, and some for a redirect, and discussions about this may continue on the article's talk page;" So with that I removed the plot summary fest, and reduced it to a section on the character list with all real-world information and references intact: basically what the article would be reduced to if someone cleaned it up.

...and now I've got User:A Nobody trying to revive it insisting we have a discussion for merging (when the AfD more or less *was* a discussion for merging). I don't mind topic revival if the subject is worked on, but this is basically "restore for the sake of having it."

Any help?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What part of "discussions about this may continue on the article's talk page" are you not getting? The closing admin said to continue the discussion on the talk page rather than unilaterally just go ahead and redirect anyway, which is why not just me but two other editors has also reverted you: [4] and [5]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What part of "support for merge or redirect" don't you get? The only thing that can happen now is everyone comes in, says the same thing they did before, and then we get a few more people into the mix, but the discussion ends the same. The afd was closed as "keep" because there wasn't a reason to remove the article completely, the closing editor even stated that. And it doesn't change the fact that that summary on the character list is really all that's left once the article is cleaned. Are you really going to sit there and argue we should keep massive (and OR-y/conflicting) plot summaries for the sake of having the article "rescued"? All that does is make labor for later editors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Support" is not a replacement word for "consensus". People "support" abortion. People "support" a woman's right to choose. Put five saying one and five saything the other together it does not mean the one opinion "wins." The AfD was split pretty evenly between "keep" and "merge". There was no clear or overwhelming agreement on what kind of keep. And as such S. Marshall called for additional discussion, i.e. he realized that there was certainly no support to outright redlink or delete edit history (only the nominator said to do that), but as far as what to do next, it still needed to be ironed out through discussion and not unilateral interpretations of the discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Put five saying one and five saything the other together it does not mean the one opinion "wins." The AfD was split pretty evenly between "keep" and "merge"."

But it's not a vote, it's a case of compelling arguments to reach consensus. Nobody gave a strong one not to clean out that article, and once cleaned out, there wasn't much left of an article save for one line of development, and two for reception to assert any notability. And again, why exactly do all the editors have to come forth and repeat themselves?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is about compelling arguments, and the most compelling arguments were clearly that it is a notable character important to multiple games covered in multiple reliable sources, i.e. a call to expand and improve the main article. The same editors do not have to repeat themselves. Maybe new editors will comment. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do that, fine, so far as you argee to allow the removal of the plot summary and OR that there was consensus to clean up. If there's support for what remains to be improved upon as an article then we've managed middle ground. Agreed?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, not "all" plot summary should be removed. Made more condensed, if that is what you mean is fine, but the whole not plot idea is a proscription against an article being entirely plot or being something like 80% plot, i.e. it should be balanced, but it is still appropriate in such an article to provide a coherent summary of the character's progression in the different games and that can be sourced from the games themselves or even in some cases the reviews that discuss the story, but hey I might go play tennis now, so take care for now! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, such a unsourced section about canonical "inconsistency" is a big red flag pointing to original research. I agree with Kung Fu Man that such a section should be removed as soon as possible. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

(Damn these eternal edit conflicts!) Ok, both of you hold back here, otherwise this is just going to go in circles and everyone's going to get irritated. Yes, the article's complete rubbish at present, but I think it has some potential. Clearly we need to clean up that plot summary into something more manageable and take a flamethrower to the original research. Kung Fu, you say you've "No prejudice against fixing", so how about I give that a shot first? I know that this isn't the sum total of available development information; I've seen more in the past long before this turned up at AfD, I'll try to dig it up and have a more detailed look for more reception info. In the meanwhile, I'll have a tidy-up around the article to bring the current mess into control, so it is being worked on in any case. If after that we don't have sufficient sources to sustain the article, then it will make merging a cleaner process. If we do, then we have a "yay, another decent article" situation. -- Sabre (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In that event, I have no qualms. Sounds good S@bre.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'll start shifting through the article tomorrow with luck. Feeling too crappy today for my brain to function properly. -- Sabre (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Faction task force

This task force just popped up this morning. It only has one member, the creator, GroundZ3R0 002. They already added it to the sidebar. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I just commented it out on that template, as I'd like to get discussion here first to see if such a task force is necessary, or if the scope allows the creation of one such. From what I can tell, the scope does not necessitate the creation of a separate task force. --Izno (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A task force seems like overkill. --Torsodog^Talk 15:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like that big of a series to have a task force. Really, they could use the series's talk page. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New random article tool

Regarding the previous discussion on picking a random article to work on, you might find my new randomlink.js tool useful for unbiasedly picking a random video games article. You can configure it many different ways, such as choosing only stub class articles. —GregU (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex Kidd

Does anyone think something can be done with Alex Kidd? If not, there is a version that acts as a series article within the article's history. TTN (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd aim for something in between the two versions. Specifically, I would re-write the "character description" to act as a short prose overview of each of the games, instead of just having the list in your version. History is OR and cameos are trivial and can go. Nifboy (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article not displaying?

Is this article not displaying (except for categories) just for me, or for other people too? Geoff B (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's something wrong with {{VG Reviews}}: it's buggering up the rest of the article. In fact it's affecting all articles once the cache is either changed or purged.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a global issue, nothing we mere mortals can do. See WP:VPT#Vanishing articles? Devs are on it. –xeno^talk 00:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to be fixed now. If you run across a page still not showing up, try adding "?action=purge" at the end of the url in the address bar.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Minsc and Boo!

Kung Fu Man has been hard at work on Minsc for some time now. Would anyone be able to help provide some citations on the "In computer games" section? BOZ (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving old game reviews

Several notable VG/CG publications used to host their reviews online, and they're fairly easy to access. The reference library, while useful, is not comprehensive enough to prevent source-finding headaches. Maybe we should start archiving older print game reviews found with archive.org? Thoughts? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with some sort of easily accessable archive for print reviews. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't archive.org do it automatically? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all sites, some like 1UP get blocked from being archived by them by robots.txt, and IGN gets screwed up thanks to it accidentally archiving the advertisement splash pages often. Web Cite however works for both.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is as mentioned above that Archive.org is automatic, but it might not catch all pages. WebCite, meanwhile, has to be done on a case by case basis which means it requires some forthought. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WebCiteBOT is designed to automatically archive links with Web Cite when they are added to an article. I haven't noticed its effect, but it appears it has been active. —Ost (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• (Outdent) Actually, I was thinking about magazines like CGW, PC Gamer and EGM. Their older reviews (mid- and late-90s) were once hosted online, but aren't anymore. With archive.org, I was thinking that we could compile a huge list of archived print reviews and expand the usefulness of the VG Reference library. That way, editors would be able to refer to our library instead of being forced to waste energy digging for themselves. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. You want an archive of archives of reviews. I agree that it would be useful, although I don't know how extensively those magazines have been archived nor how difficult it would be to track down the articles from archived versions of the pages. Even if most reviews are archived, I've found it annoying at best to click on a links in archives at the Wayback when they try to take me to the original link instead of an archived version of the site. If there are a archives of the indices of reviews for each magazine, they would be extremely helpful as those few links could be used to jump to the individual reviews (perhaps after prepending "http://web.archive.org/web/*/" to get the archive). But if we had to use an archived site's search feature to find the reviews, I don't think it would return results.

I guess I'm saying that the idea sounds good, but I think it would be difficult to implement. You may have more experience navigating Wayback and may have some tips that would make searching for the reviews easier than I anticipate. —Ost (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few: PC Gamer UK, Computer Gaming World, Small listing of Next Generation Magazine reviews, PC Gamer US. Some review links may be dead; I didn't check them all. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one: Complete archive of all Computer Games Magazine articles. There may be defective links. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Better PC Gamer archive, later archive of CGW reviews. These and those above should give you an idea of what can be accessed. There is a near-infinite amount of reviews waiting to be found. I think we need to start making them easier to find for the average editor; Archive.org can be very time-sucking. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On top of this since EGM and 1UP were the same joint, you can probably forget recovering any lost reviews from them at this point. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• It would be useful to expand Wikipedia:VG/RL#Online_resources with archive.org links. A few notes and archive.org seed links to where PCG, CGW or other archived reviews may be found. - hahnchen 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Webcite I think there is a tool to archive all links on a page. One problem we have is Media Create's game ranking page is updated weekly and not currently archived by archive.org on a weekly basis. This is a very valuable cite for game rankings as their print publications are too expensive for most people.陣内_Jinnai 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a mock-up of what I had in mind. It would be a sub-section of the Reference library that houses links to reviews. More indexes could be added as they are found, and the alphabetical game listings would grow over time. This way, editors who do not know the ins-and-outs of navigating the Internet Archive will be able to quickly access reliable print reviews. Any thoughts or suggestions? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the idea further: User:JimmyBlackwing/Sandbox. It looks to me like an efficient system. I think with a little more work it could easily be made into a Reference Library subpage. Anyone have any input? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The seed index pages are useful and we should be linking to them at the library. But I think the individual reviews would be unmaintainable. - hahnchen 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The indexes you found are great resources to add. I don't think you'll get any opposition to adding them to the page.
        But I agree with hannchen that reviews for the individual games would be too difficult to maintain. Mainly because where do draw a line to stop adding? Such a list would be as unwieldy as the magazine archive use to be when all the mags where listed on a single page.
        I think posting them to the talk pages of the relevant game articles would be more productive. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC))
        • Reviews would not cease being added until there weren't any more to add; considering that this is basically how the greater Reference Library has always operated, I don't see how that's a problem. When the Reference Library suffered from just-adding-what-it-could, it was taken care of. If the Reference Library had time to change with necessity, why not this? Already, it would be a simple task to create sub-subpages to contain individual alphabetical entries when they become too large. If alphabetical listings don't work, there are other possible sorting methods. Sorting by review source, for example. On the other hand, posting them on talk pages would be nearly impossible without a bot, and even then, some of these reviews are for games that do not yet have Wikipedia articles. Maintenance for this would not be that difficult, as the links will never die, and once the listings have been split up, they'll never be too large.
          Plus, think about how useful it would be to editors to have a resource like this. Many of these reviews cannot be obtained through our current Reference Library, and some of the articles may not even exist elsewhere. And while you say that editors could navigate the indexes themselves, some of those archived pages are too broken for someone who doesn't know their way around Archive.org. Individual review listings could solve this problem, and permanently improve the VG article-writing process. Instead of being forced to trawl Google and dig up old reviews, editors would barely need to leave Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Jimmy- If you feel that strongly about it I see no real reason to omit it. Though I still think it's unnecessary, I concede that the editors that would use it would appreciate the easy access. So a subpage sounds like a good compromise. If you want to dedicate the time to the page, I say go for it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC))
            • Thanks. I've been archiving more reviews in my Sandbox; once I get a few more, I'll begin work on a subpage. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've created the page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive. I'm not really sure if I did it right, as my experience with Wikipedia's management/maintenance side is limited. Any input would be appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploading an image

I guess this is not the ideal place to ask this but as WP:UPIMAGE's talk page is pretty much dead, I post this here. When I try to upload a new version of an image (for example, a smaller version of File:MechAssaultPhantomWarBox.jpg) it gives me a warning:

"A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. You can:

• go back and upload this file to Wikipedia using a different name.
• upload it to Commons, if your intent is to replace the image that already exists with a better version."

Why can't I replace images anymore? --Mika1h (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The exact same thing happened to me a few days ago. It said something about a file called "$1" already existing, which is odd because I was trying to upload a new version of File:Pokémon Rumble logo.png. I gave in and ended up uploading it as a whole new file (File:Pokémon Rumble.png). I deal with images pretty regularly and that was the first time I had any problem. I bet it has something to do with the recent MediaWiki software updates. -sesuPRIME 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already a discussion at the village pump. I had the same issue. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Square Enix Europe

Square Enix Europe - there is no such company yet, and yet the article was moved from Eidos plc. Am I missing something? Is there a reason to move a company article to the working title that they might have in the future? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite 2 says that it is the current working title, not a future one. As in, that is the way they are referred to now, but it might change again. --PresN 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything is future tense. Square Enix Europe is the working title of the company that "will" be formed. http://www.square-enix.com/eu/en/company/ Still says Square Enix Ltd., although the top of the page does say Europe right after Square Enix, it isn't incorporated into the logo, and that is nothing near an official statement. None of this is mentioned in their Aug. 21 annual report to their investors. This press release implies that Eidos Interactive (not Eidos plc) has been integrated into a European business unit, but that doesn't mean any company names have changed, and this contradicts the ref mentioned above. I see no binding evidence that the name of Square Enix plc has been changed, just that it "will" happen. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd opt to leave the article names as Eidos for the time being, until we have definite information that helps to sort out all the names and relationships. In the worst case, the existing Eidos articles can be written in a historical context. As yet, there's no actual need for a Square Enix Europe article. Its notability thus far can be covered in the main Square Enix page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Review archive notification

Having worked through the idea in the above topic, I thought I'd break down the implemented version for anyone who's interested. I've been using the Wayback Machine to access print reviews that were hosted online at one time or another, and archiving them at the newly-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive page. These are from sources like Electronic Gaming Monthly, Computer Gaming World, Computer Games Magazine, Edge and others. A huge amount of previously-inaccessible reviews have been found. A few highlights include Electronic Gaming Monthly's Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Goldeneye 007 and Final Fantasy VII reviews, and the PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World reviews of Half-Life and Grim Fandango.

Unfortunately, the archive is naturally biased toward mid-late 1990s and early 2000s reviews, due to the lack of early '90s Wayback links. However, the former timeframes are still notoriously problematic, and this new archive will hopefully make writing articles significantly easier. I'm constantly updating the archive, and anyone willing to lend a hand in excavating reviews from the Index list is welcome. Also, if anyone knows of other print magazines that hosted their reviews online, besides those on the full Index list, tips or archive.org links would be appreciated. Beyond that, I just wanted to make sure people knew that this existed, so that it can be adopted into practical use. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered that Game Informer's old website, which they used from 1997-2003, has quite a few of their reviews from that time. As far as I can tell, all of GI's reviews from around September 2003 to the present (plus some hit-and-miss reviews from before then) are available on their current website. -sesuPRIME 06:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! That'll be really useful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

Given that Nightshade (1985 video game), Nightshade (Nintendo Entertainment System), and Nightshade (PlayStation 2), are different games with an identical title, is it appropriate to use disambiguation hatnotes on each one linking to the other two? DAB links were recently removed from one of them citing WP:NAMB. NAMB says don't disambiguate titles that are not ambiguous, and I guess that someone going to an article with (PlayStation 2) in the title probably isn't looking for the (Nintendo Entertainment System) one, but the fact remains that they are all video games, and WP:NAMB seems to be referring to subjects that are totally different and non-confusable such as the given example Tree and Tree (set theory). So should the DAB links be included? Miremare 15:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They're all video game, and thus should be disamb. among each other. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered about that. It seems to me, that you're right -- they aren't ambiguous, but I think the theory is that someone may click a link expecting one page and getting another (as opposed to a search), which is why the want to put a hat note. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say no because the rationale does not scale; we don't want to have a list of possible others at the top of every page when the number of other candidates is longer. See the recent discussion on "Empire" games. So far we also don't have any actual indication (only a supposition) that people are having problems clicking on the right links. The 1985 article should probably be retagged as "ZX Spectrum" (or more generally "computer game") for consistency and this eliminates the likely point of confusion in this case. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If there were, say, 4 games named the same, then I would skip the dablinks and make a true disambiguation page, with a hatnote to that. Also, the games should be named by the year of their release, not platform, per our naming scheme. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see a case for a threshold of 3 games, since with 2 games you are making one hatnote either way. With 3 games, this becomes 2 dablinks per page or 1 link to the dabpage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

3+ is a reasonable number for a disambig, especially when the name is common like the example given. 4+ if it's more of an unusual name/title.陣内_Jinnai 04:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyeditor for Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy

I am trying to locate someone to help copyedit Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, which is currently at FAC, per JimmyBlackwing's request. He is particularly concerned with redundancy and overspecific information. If you have time to do it, thanks. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a little help, maybe

A while ago, I noticed how much work List of video game console emulators could use. In its current state, it's kinda terrible. I merged the list of snes emulators a while ago, but due to wiki-angst I left for a while. I'm getting to work on it now, but there's a lot of stuff to be done.

• The page needs to be formatted to either be all lists or all tables, which I'm kinda working on in my sandbox, but I'm not so great at it
• List of Nintendo Entertainment System emulators needs to be trimmed of all the non-notable emulators, and merged (right now it pretty much reads as a list of every NES emulator ever)
• Non-notable emulators need to be removed from the article in question
• There's also a bit of research to be done if it's all to be put in tables, finding out what platform it runs on, whether it's an active project or not

A suggestion on the talk page was to remove the "current version" column and replace it with a "Cancelled?" column, I thought that seemed like a good idea, but think it should be an "Active?" column. I've already done a mockup on what that'd look like in my sandbox, but I'm sure there's someone who could do a better job of it than me.

Anyone have any input to offer? Maybe a bit of help if you're not busy? :3 Lychosis ^T/C 17:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would work better if it was renamed to Table of video game console emulators and was just one big table with sections for each console. Also, all the redlinks should be removed and all the emulator articles be merged there, including non-notable individual articles.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make No$gba, but I found it it was deleted less then 2 months ago. I don't want to bring back a dead article. I dont see what the other DS emulators have that it doesn't though. What I hate about deleting is that all the progress is lost. I would have to remake the infobox and everything. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if it was deleted two months ago, if you could put it back together while establishing notability and putting in references and stuff, recreating it wouldn't be a problem, right? Lychosis ^T/C 04:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Active/Canceled field. I would consider this to be misleading. Some of the best emulators are no longer active (for months or years) because they have fulfilled the goal of achieving (near-)complete game compatibility with the target system. There's no way to tell the quality of the emulator from the frequency of its updates. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why I opted for an "Active?" field rather than a "Cancelled?" field :). I'm gonna try and do some more work tonight, but I can't do any research stuff, 'cause I only get time to edit at work, and my internet is locked down there. I'mma try and get all the redlinks out of there, and get as many of them into tables as I can. Lychosis ^T/C 18:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Source update

I've located a book called Retro Gaming Hacks by Chris Kohler. The book is all about emulators and includes rudimentary discussion of individual emulators. This should help form a baseline for which emulators should and should not be included in Wikipedia. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't notice your reply here! That's great! It'll help us get a little closer to getting this done.  :) Lychosis ^T/C 04:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Video game reboots

Not sure how useful it actually is. The games listed in it so far don't all appear to be "reboots". The Silent Hill game (from what I know) is just a remake of the first. I don't think it's intended to just be a serious reboot. Star Fox 64: another speculative "reboot", seeing as the Star Fox series wasn't that old when this game came out. The term "reboot" isn't always used when games are released, so I'm not sure how useful this category will be. Thoughts? RobJ1981 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Remakes rarely qualify for reboots, I think. But what about games like Resident Evil 4, which gameplay could be considered "rebooted" but the story is a direct sequel to previous games? --Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Original research. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Remakes aren't reboots. If the gameplay has been changed, no matter how drastically, it's a remake. If it uses an existing IP and creates a new universe around it, it's a reboot. For example, the new Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver games are remakes - if a game went and made Ash Ketchum into a bald space marine, it would be a reboot.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay has nothing to do with rebooting. A reboot is when the storyline changes and a parrellel timeline comes into existance and all new games are built upon that timeline. This is essentially what the newest Castlevania game is. Very few games are reboots.陣内_Jinnai 21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed Star Fox 64 from the category because it's not a reboot, but a mere remake. The category does seem like original research; it's too objective. -sesuPRIME 22:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

. ...seem like original research; it's too objective. - That's the weirdest reason for being OR I've heard. Reboots are clearly storyline only Castlevania Reboot 2010陣内_Jinnai 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant 'sub'jective. --PresN 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my point stands. Reboots, across the board, are purely storyline. See Reboot (fiction).陣内_Jinnai 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Colin McRae: Dirt. Its not a reboot, just a change of style/direction by the developers. - X201 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Need for Speed: Underground the same thing then? --Mika1h (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that when games that have barely any plot change in style, it would technically be a reboot but not really. Films ALWAYS have story as the central focus, so it's not a problem.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reboots clearly are only storyline, even for video games. Every RS that uses the term "reboot" always notes how it changes the timeline and creates a parallel one (though not always in those words) (note that page does not have many RSes, but they do exist).陣内_Jinnai 04:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Character article audit

The above is an audit of all the current character articles on wikipedia and their current status. Not much to say beyond that other than at the very least, the majority of them do demonstrate notability as compared to a few years ago where almost half did not. Of all of them as well, very few are stub-class. It also shows that less than half of our High-Importance articles fall below the GA mark, something that in many cases such as Mario and Lara Croft can be tackled with the proper work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Something else to point out here: over half of our High-Priority articles are Nintendo-related. Should we consider bumping up some? Only one I could really see bumping down would be Wario at this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot of improvement, but I don't think the stub-class material has mostly disappeared or been improved IMHO. I think this material has simply been moved to list articles. While the standalone character articles are of a good quality, most list articles are still very stub-like (and might actually be even "worse" than a few years ago due to merging without cleaning). Still I guess lists are a much lower priority than standalone articles. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur; our lists are, by and large, pretty bad. They've done well in keeping sprawl down, but there's a sense that they only get improved in preparation of breaking them out into their own articles (e.g. Midna). Nifboy (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of these do need to be worked on. Some also need a priority change. You forgot to put Jigglypuff as a B-class. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That example is actually not great; Midna was actually improved to improve Twilight Princess' list, but I eventually decided it could work on its own. :p A better example would be Travis Touchdown. x3 - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, kinda related to my second bit above and after some consideration, I'd like to suggest the following changes between High and Mid:

• Downgrade to Mid: Bowser (Nintendo), Kirby (character), Wario
• Upgrade to High: Gordon Freeman, Solid Snake, Ryu (Street Fighter)

I realize I suggest downgrading Bowser but leaving Doctor Eggman, but there's a reason: Eggman/Robotnik is Sonic's first recognizable nemesis, which could also be said for Donkey Kong (character) which remains high. This would cover more bases as a result too in terms of character variety. I would suggest someone in the High-cat representative of 3D fighting game characters as well to fully balance things, but as it stands the only ones we'd have to fit that bill would probably be Heihachi Mishima and Ivy (Soulcalibur), the latter of which would be a good comparison against Lara Croft in terms of character and sex appeal.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Donkey Kong had a series that made Mario popular though. I'd say Doctor Eggman and Bowser should be mid.陣内_Jinnai 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking through all the character articles here's what i think needs to be done:

• Downgrade to low: Akuma (Street Fighter), M. Bison, Dante (Devil May Cry), Gordon Freeman, G-Man (Half-Life), Guile (Street Fighter), Ryu Hayabusa. Heihachi Mishima, Dan Hibiki. Liu Kang, Necrid, Reptile (Mortal Kombat), Ryo Sakazaki, Scorpion (Mortal Kombat), Shang Tsung, Sub-Zero (Mortal Kombat), Guybrush Threepwood, Toad (Mario), Iori Yagami, Amy Rose, Raiden (Mortal Kombat), Nina Williams, Poison (Final Fight). Sarah Kerrigan, SHODAN, Kane (Command & Conquer), Jigglypuff, Mew (Pokémon), Nemesis (Resident Evil)
• Downgrade to mid: Luigi, Miles "Tails" Prower, Kirby (character), Bowser (character), Doctor Eggman, Wario
• Upgrade to High Chocobo, Chun-Li, Princess Peach

I also was bold and downgraded Pokemon Trainer to low.

We specifically have too many mid-class characters, almost as many as we do low-class (possibly more). Most of these come from fighting games.陣内_Jinnai 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet we pretty much advertise that low-importance articles should be considered merge fodder:

"Low importance articles and all lists cover very specific or obscure knowledge. Any other notable article or list not described in the table below is of low importance. A low importance article is not the same as a bad or unnecessary article. But in some cases there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both topics."

So there's bound to be more mid articles. If the subject has had some lasting impact, such as Mew being directly attributed to helping Pokemon Red and Blue be successful, that's a lot more impact than say Astaroth (Soulcalibur), which while I wrote the article doesn't give anything to the series or set any real tone for it, so it should be low.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Of the above, I can see the following working out:

• • Downgrade to low: Akuma (Street Fighter), G-Man (Half-Life), Guile (Street Fighter), Ryu Hayabusa, Necrid, Reptile (Mortal Kombat), Ryo Sakazaki, Shang Tsung, Toad (Mario), Iori Yagami, Amy Rose, Raiden (Mortal Kombat), Sarah Kerrigan, Kane (Command & Conquer), Jigglypuff
  • Downgrade to mid: No qualms here.
  • Upgrade to High Chocobo, Chun-Li...why Peach of all characters?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • 1. I think that notion of "low = bad" should be abandoned. Simply put, a low importance article can still have a lot of coverage in reliable sources.
      2. Peach is basically THE female video game character; she's not the first princess or damsel-in-distress in video games, but she's probably one of the most well-known ever conceived.
      3. I agree with Kung Fu Man on Mew; Mew was a significant aspect of Pokémon. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Akuma (Street Fighter), Amy Rose, Bowser (Nintendo), Dan Hibiki, Doctor Eggman, G-Man (Half-Life), Guile (Street Fighter), Kirby (character), Miles "Tails" Prower, Necrid, Raiden (Mortal Kombat), Reptile (Mortal Kombat), Shang Tsung, Wario all downgraded.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mew was a specific aspect to Pokemon, yes, but not to the series as a whole. Compared to the impact Mewtwo had in advertising and whatnot, it's not major. Mewtwo could also be downgraded as well.陣内_Jinnai 02:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mew is in a way technically one of the first examples of downloadable content as an addition to a game however, and also set the tone to be repeated many times over in later games. As for Mewtwo, the character in both a video game and anime sense has undergone study by scholary sources and had a clear impact as an icon of that series when it first came out. I don't see any good coming from downgrading it as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright. The issue is I'll admit borederline with Mew so I'm not going to push it. What about downgrading the ones from high to mid posted? And upgrading Chocobo and Chung-Li (i'm actually surprised Princess Peach was contested more than Chocobo).陣内_Jinnai 20:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All the high-to-mid proposals were done, actually. I'll upgrade Chocobo and Chun-Li since nobody objects...Peach though I just don't see. While you could argue the "damsel-in-distress" iconicity of her (is that even a word), she doesn't feel as important as the fellow rescuing her, especially considering the existence of Pauline and Daisy. If a third person comes forth and pushes for her to be high though I'll drop by objection, because I can see the other side of the argument.

I would still like to push Solid Snake for high though: I think the character has had significant impact and is a recognizable enough icon to be on par with Mario and Sonic in their own right. In fact it was at one point listed as an example of a High-importance article on the list before getting demoted by if I recall correctly one user, wasn't it?

I'd like to push for Ivy (Soulcalibur) too. I know it seems biased because I worked on it and my own statements regarding importance on wikipedia, but hear me out. There is a high volume of discussion on the character that examine her in the context of hyper-sexed female characters in video games in a post-Lara Croft era, as well as questions on what is too far in that subject. She's also been a point of comparison against similarly defined characters, more or less setting the standard for them as it were (especially given Battle Arena Toshinden's Sofia could be called "the first" of this type of character pushed as an icon and was passed over). I'm not saying she's as important as Mario, but as importance goes the sources do support her being higher than mid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the importance assessment criteria for characters could use some clarification and tightening up. Currently it states they should be "cultural icons", "including company mascots" to be given "high" priority. Does that mean the mascot, the face of the company or just a long running character with merchandise etc? The former would allow Mario, but not Bowser, Peach etc. while the latter is obviously more inclusive (and vague). Normally I would say that a reliable source must call the character a "company mascot", but if that is the case, ToeJam & Earl would be high-importance, yet there isn't enough info for them to even have an article. That winged-spaceship thing from Fantasy Zone was demonstrably once Sega's main mascot, yet its name (Opa-Opa) is a redirect to Fantasy Zone. I also think "cultural icons including company mascots" is off. I would think sources will be much quicker to call something a "company mascot" than a "cultural icon". I would recommend tightening it up to "cultural icon" or "primary mascot" and multiple sources must call it something to that effect. bridies (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Legends of Wrestling artticles

The articles for the three games in the Legends of Wrestling (series) mainly comprise of roster lists. Would a list of characters in the series be more appropriate? This would free up the articles to be more in line with other articles on video games. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yah, probably. It would be best to use something like Mario Kart#Playable characters has. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll sort something out in my sandbox and then put it either in the article about the series or create a list page and link through. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at this list, let me know what you think. See User:AirRaidPatrol 84/legends list. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo Power issues about Dragon Warrior

I was wondering if anyone has any issues of Nintendo Power that talk about any of the first three Dragon Warrior games for the NES. Also, and less important, does anyone know about the choose your own adventure stories put into old Nintendo Powers based on Dragon Warrior? Thanks : ] EVAUNIT-666 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to dig through my collection tomorrow, got a few other things on my plate right now. If I remember correctly though, the old Nintendo Power magazines where more like compilations of game guides. Except for the rare feature about development a couple times a year, info about gameplay/release delays and their top 30 lists are about all I find them good for. Don't remember anything about a choose your own Dragon Warrior adventure, do have a specific time frame it would have been published? That would make it easier to find. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm really looking for anything usable. Development or reception is what everyone wants, but story or gameplay explanations are good, too. For the choose your own adventure thing, I really have no idea; it was just something I heard about in a forum a while ago. Thank you so much though : ] EVAUNIT-666 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with Ridley article

I've been working on bring the Ridley article back, and I need to expand the Creation section somewhat (and I could definitely use help with the Appearances and Characteristics; haven't played a Metroid game in a while). Thanks! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told I'm really surprised he and Mother Brain *don't* have articles at this point. Well not that surprised but still you'd expect them to exist.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've yet to find many sources for Ridley, so that could be it. I'm guessing that the creation of the Ridley boss battle isn't enough for the section,? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told not really, it covers one aspect of the character but well after he was established. We need more conception information if possible to really make it solid: what was the idea and how did it progress and so forth. You could get away with not having it, but generally those articles have a great deal of reception and real-world importance behind them to pull that off (i.e. Terry Bogard, who has no development information on why he was created but had significant impact).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial searches really only turned up so little for Ridley; I'm not sure Yokoi intended on Ridley being so major initially, but if not, there should hopefully be something discussing how and why they made him major. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, personally, I'm not sure Mother Brain could be its own article; I haven't really seen much discussion of the character. Then again, I've never looked for any. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

They all USED to have articles, but were merged years ago, and apparently no one cared enough to make a referenced article. The top candidate for having a separate article is Ridley, being the most used Metroid antagonist and now ostensibly the main antagonist besides such gimmickry as Samus doppelgangers. Mother Brain has dropped out of the picture since Super Metroid, but there might still be some info floating around. I was thinking about the possibility of making an article called Metroid series antagonists instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We could always do a characters list for Metroid. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it wasn't really lack of care, it was what you have observed, that there is little development information on any metroid character individually except for Samus Aran who still has her own article. I think with Kung Fu Mans and others fantastic efforts to improve character article quality could potentially yield a "list of metroid characters" article, and then if one character bursts forth with info it could be split, but you are seeing yourself their individual lack of notability (though of course, I'd love to be proven wrong!) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Metroid (series)#Antagonists has some sourced information on Ridley. Have you salvaged anything from there? Also, why is "Reception" in front of "In other media"? Just wondering _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Automatic Notification of Inactive Membership

I think it should be noted: most, if not all, Wikipedians have a life outside of the encyclopedia. I don't particularly enjoy getting an inactive notification for this project just because I haven't edited a video game-category article since September 20th (when I edited PlayStation 3 system software), because, last time I checked, PlayStation®3 falls into the realm of "video games." And yes, I am complaining. I don't want these notifications piling up in my talk page every few weeks or so. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 04:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You weren't singled out, GSK. That was sent to everyone who has categorized themselves as members of the project and is active on Wikipedia. The idea is to flush out inactive members who are still on the member list, so that we have a more accurate idea of who is participating. I wouldn't really worry too much about how often you need to edit a VG article, etc., if I were you. The notice is really to just weed out people who are either no longer editing Wikipedia at all or sincerely never wish to take part in VG article discussion. You certainly won't be getting these every few weeks. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm very much aware I wasn't singled out. If someone gets even one message concerning inactivity, one would be led to believe more messages would be coming if inactivity continued in the future. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 04:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

But, the message stated specifically that it was delivered due to the fact that a member list had recently been created, and members were required to indicate whether or not they were active. It wasn't saying you were inactive. :0 Lychosis ^T/C 04:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a notification of inactive membership. It's a confirmation whether you're active or not. You're free to be inactive and not join the project...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That list doesn't include out TF memberships. I'm in 2 TFs and not listed.陣内_Jinnai 08:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jin, that's probably because the userboxen on your user page don't categorize you into C:WikiProject Video games members. =o --Izno (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in a subcategory though.陣内_Jinnai 22:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We only used members of the main cat when we generated our list. 123 other editors were also missed... –xeno^talk 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I wrote the notification, I apologize for any misunderstandings. Either way, it's good to see some old time editors posting on here again. :-) It's also good to see such a large response to the new membership list.
To add to the comments above, the purpose of the notification was more of a one time ping to find out which members are actively editing within the Project's scope. Depending on how we monitor the member list, additional notices may be sent out, but not with any regularity. Maybe once or twice a year in a mass clean up of some kind.
Of course, the Project newsletter (*cough* shameless plug *cough*) will probably give some details about what is planned. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

• As Guyinblack said, this was just a one time thing, kind of a "gut check" to see how many of the 1300 folks on this list are still 'tuned in' to WP:VG. As he said, it won't be regular but if you are concerned about receiving future such messages, you can add {{bots|deny=Xenobot}} to your talk page. (Note this will prevent you from receiving the WP VG newsletter, if you are a subscriber.) –xeno^talk 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Kirby: Nightmare in Dream Land.jpeg

Is this image really free?陣内_Jinnai 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, otherwise we could just use pictures of game boxes to substitute for box covers, or arcade cabinets to substitute for pamphlets, etc.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick eyes help for main page VG article

Stealth main page appearance of The World Ends With You on the main page today requires a few extra eyes to watch on. (blah blah, did not ask Raul for this, blah blah this is #7 for me and I'm pretty sure less than a month from my last one... :-/) --MASEM (t) 01:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to help. Its amazing that your Featured Articles keep appearing on the Main Page. I'm gonna bet that Grim Fandango is next. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchy Online FAN

I've nominated Anarchy Online as a featured article candidate. Please stop by and comment/oppose/rip-apart the article. Over the last few months it's been improved as well as I am able, and I think it now stands a chance of passing. Sebquantic (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Live!

I'm trying to finish up Mewtwo's article and push it for GAN, but I've got a problem: how do I cite this? If it were a film or video game I could easy cite those but I've never run across an instance where I had to cite the material in a musical before.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask the people at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre? GamerPro64 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't aware there was such a project. I'll hit them up and see what they can advise. Thanks GamePro!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Link problem

Can anyone go on this link? I myself am having trouble going on it. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the owner took it down. Doesn't seem to be official either from what I can tell.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn you Google! That's strike two! GamerPro64 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Neoseeker

(repost from WT:VG/S)

Is there any reason to doubt this as a source when it comes to reviews and staff content? Three books and a few independent publications cite it directly according to Google Books and Google News, so there seems to be some argument in favor of reliability for the website.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten, just been busy. Will address this later. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Do you have links to said books and publications? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Going with the books, Game Careers and Publications, Satirica mentions it in regards to one of its editors, recommended in Xbox: Blow the Lid Off!, a camera review cited here, and in publications various such as the Manila Bulletin and Globe and Mail. They've also got interviews with people in the gaming industry, such as one with Soulcalibur IV's dev team here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The book mentions are kind of weak, without looking at the specific newspaper citations, I think it's in a dark grey area. But I think the mentions give some creditability, so the developer interviews seem find to me; mainly because the info is coming straight from the developers. That's just me though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

English

Does this page use British English or American English? I find some British English words and American English words too. Jeremjay24 21:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games ? Probably a healthy mix of the two... I don't think consistency here is that important, and certainly not so important as to incite a lang-war among VG editors. =) –xeno^talk 21:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that American english is the default language for Wikipedia, since typing lorry redirects to truck and colour redirects to color.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your lorry and colour and raise you a yogurt and a push-up. –xeno^talk 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the guideline is at WP:ENGVAR (that neither is preferred). But since America probably has more influence on video gaming than Britain, I think it's probably American english for this project.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unofficially, yes, unless the game was created in Britian (or Australia or India for that matter) then probably the American dialect would take precident. Possibly also if the game was released in Britian, but not America and was created in another non-English nation. Articles that would talk specifically about British history of video (computer) gaming should be in British English.陣内_Jinnai 23:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no blanket rule (unofficial or otherwise) that states articles should "use North American English unless..." each article is subject to WP:ENGVAR on a case by case basis. - X201 (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles use the regional variety of English that the first major contributor uses, unless there's a good reason for changing, such as strong national ties. Miremare 02:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the poster's original question - This, and indeed all discussion pages have no rules about what variety of English should be used. Use your own version, with your own spellings, and if others have a problem with it then that is their problem.
Article pages have no default version of English. Although the version of English may be changed if that article has a strong national tie to a particular country (see WP:ENGVAR. In an effort to stop petty childish arguments, the WP:VG guidelines recommend that VG articles should use the variety of English that is associated with the nationality of the developer. - X201 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean I just ignore the British English words? Thanks. Jeremjay24 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If the rest of the article is in British English, yes. If not, then swap to American (though most people don't bother unless they're doing another edit at the same time). If the article is on Lionhead Studios, then British English is preferred as it's a British company. Bungie Studios and Microsoft Game Studios should use American English. BioWare is a tough one. While the article should use British English as it's Canadian (I'm unsure if there is any difference between British English and Canadian English), its games use American English. However, the general rule of thumb as it was explained to me is that you should use the language that the developer uses (I don't know what to do in the case of Urdu-speaking developers, however. I'd guess in those situations, you use, as Miremare said, "the regional variety of English that the first major contributor uses"). That answer your question? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bioware's article should use Canadian English rather than American English or English English; there are differences from both. The games' articles should do too. The complicated bits come with things like franchises. Take, for instance, Batman: Arkham Asylum: the game was developed and published by Brits, but the franchise is strongly rooted in American origin. Which should take precedent? I don't think there's a right answer to that. (Though in an ideal world, every English speaker would use the (closest modern thing to the) original and best Queen's English... learn to spell you New World dialect-corruptors! :) ) -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean THIS article. Jeremjay24 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This particular discussion page has no rules on which version of English should be used - use your own. The actual project pages (guidelines, templates, task forces) have no set version either, they are a mixture of English varieties and reflect the wide range of nationalities that have gone into creating them. I would vehemently oppose any attempt to "standardise" them into one single version of English. - X201 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article, this is a talk page for a wikiproject. What page are you referring to? --PresN 04:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess he's referring to the Project. I could be wrong though. ӣicҟin\\talk with me\\\\\\\\\\ 04:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Should reception determine what subject an article is more familiar under?

♦♦♦ The following discussion happened elsewhere and was copied here to provide context and spark discussion.

The reasoning is completely subjective to be honest. While it's easy to say to you that the character is more recognizable for being an anime character to you, to another editor it might be more recognizable as a manga character, and to someone else, a video game character. The only litmus test we ultimately have is to go with the character's first origin as that avoids any bias or original research.

I guess a good analogue are the Pokemon species articles themselves: awhile back it was argued that they should have anime-styled templates for the infobox because they were "more recognizable" in the anime, but consensus was that they use the standard VG character box to keep it consistent and due to their origin as video game characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's objective. Look at the reception the video game characters and the anime characters get. Look at the scholarly analysis.陣内_Jinnai 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how one character getting more attention in one format in such material than another accounts for anything. We don't have a MoS standard for such either, as far as I know? Much of Mewtwo's reception regarding it as a character, for example, is taken exclusively from its anime appearance. Yet it still has the VG character template without complaint.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mewtwo and Misty/Brock are completely different. I had a long paragraph about it, but edit conflict cut it. Basically Mew2 was designed even in the game to be a special pokemon. Misty and Brcok were designed as just another gym leader and other than gameguide material, there isn't anything of note about them, other than that they originally appeared in the game. You also continue to use their anime appearance in a video-game template which reinforces my point about the anime being more important.陣内_Jinnai 02:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I really disagree with doing this, as it comes across as original research. I'll start a discussion on WT:VG and see what they say, it would be good to have a standard here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please link it on WP:ANIME as it also very much concerns that wikiproject as well. Probably pokemon wikiproject as well.陣内_Jinnai 02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jinnai and I are having a debate over Misty (Pokemon) and Brock (Pokemon), with him contending that, because the reception information and scholarly studies focus on the anime aspect of the character, that its more recognizable as an anime character. I on the other hand contend that that is original research and subjective, and that to a viewer the anime, manga, or video game version of the character may be the most recognizable version to different viewers, and that the only proper way to handle it to avoid bias is to treat it as the subject of its origin, a video game character.

Treating it from a viewpoint as if you have no idea who those two are, what do you think on the subject?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, I believe character articles should focus on their original work first, adaptive works later. If they are video game characters first, that should be the initial focus of the article. That said, if the bulk of reception information is about the anime or manga character, likely the article will end up unbalanced unless the information is cut back, which could be difficult to do neutrally. Not sure the best way to deal with that aspect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to elaborate on my point. First it is not original research as it's backed up by reliable sources what they focus on. A similar argument was brought up with anime recently and why it focuses on Japanese animation. If we are to believe Kung Fu Man, then there should not exist an article called anime, because that's OR to say anime is basically the word for Japanese animation. We base other items on what is the most recognizable, like names, and this is just an extension of that. It is clear that the these two video game originating characters have only reception for their anime counterparts.

Let me also point out Misty and Brock are unique in the Pokemon scheme of notable characters. Both exist in the first 2 games, but as completely unremarkable characters that did not recieve any reception beyond that which would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. Ash, Mewtwo, etc. all have more about them in the game than these characters do. This is a rather unique situation we are dealing with.

BTW, this subject is posted on multiple wikiprojects do it is overlaping nature and possible ramifications.陣内_Jinnai 02:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Good question. I see (manga) used as a dab a lot, when in my opinion (no RS to back this up), the anime is way more COMMON. I don't think we should go with what's earliest, but with what readers are most familiar with. I think a (I know this is crazy talk) google web search would be helpful in these decisions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, don't use google. What I am basising this on is what RSes consider worthy of mention and it's pretty much hands down the anime, especially for the "high quality" sources required for an RAC.陣内_Jinnai 02:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not as unique as you make it out to be Jinnai: many fighting game characters for example are fleshed out much more readily in anime and manga material than they ever were in the games. Case in point, pre-Street Fighter Alpha portrayals of Ryu and Ken. Through material such as Street Fighter II V, the live action movie and subsequent cartoon, and several other appearances one could easily argue they were more well known than through the games. It wasn't even until the Alpha series that either character had much of a storyline beyond "be the best". So really, not that uncommon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at both pages I see the dispute is primarily whether to use {{Pokémoncharacterinfobox}} or {{infobox VG character}}. Aesthetically I prefer the Pokemon template, but I'm confused by the implication by both sides that the Pokemon template somehow "focuses on the anime", especially when it lists their first game appearance rather than their first anime appearance. Nifboy (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually trying to phase out {{Pokémoncharacterinfobox}} to be honest before this started...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but, why? If this was a discussion over whether to use {{Infobox animanga character}} or {{infobox VG character}}, and those were the only two choices, I would understand the discussion. But {{Pokémoncharacterinfobox}} is germane to both and more relevant than either. Otherwise I would just slap the extraordinarily generic {{Infobox character}} on it instead, because saying saying Misty is "an anime character" or "a video game character" is insufficient in both cases. Nifboy (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well my stance was that the infobox previously used was very user-unfriendly to someone completely unfamiliar with the characters, anime and/or video games at all, so I was going for something simpler and less invasive, since the VG infobox allows to list all the related voice actors and appearances at the same time. Despite my edit summary I wasn't considering that the infobox was somehow representative of a subject "solely being for video games": it was just clearer and covered all bases.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have noted some key differences already though Kung Fu Man. There are multiple media types first off. For Pokemon there basically are 2 major media types: the video games and the anime. The movies are a subset of the anime as they are all anime movies. Furthermore, Street Fighter is not a cultural icon to the extent Pokemon is. Ryu and Ken were never compared to Mickey Mouse like another Pokemon character has been, FE. There were no studies done (as far as i can tell) on the impact the non-video game characters have had. Furthermore, there seems to be actual game related real-world impact for [Ryu (Street Fighter)|Ryu]] and Ken unlike Misty (Pokemon) and Brock (Pokemon).陣内_Jinnai 02:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Would google say that Ryu is a VG character, and Misty is an anime character? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. While Misty first appeared in the video game, her analysis is largely disassociated with her video game role unlike Ryu who more closely resembles and follows it.陣内_Jinnai 03:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai, you're looking at this rather exclusively from one outlook, however to the Japanese the manga, which itself treats the characters differently as well, is another. Also this is being based on solely the reception found at this moment. There's nothing to say that down the line more reception might be found in favor of a different incarnation, or that there is currently but Google Books and other sources don't cover it yet. Not to mention you're basing the entire weight of this solely on not that many sources each, despite the depth of their studies. If a large number of sources for reception are found that focus on Ryu as an anime and manga character, should the infobox shift? I think not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to presume there will ever be any real reception on the video game characters other than not wanting to deal with the issues I present. Pokemon Red and Blue/Green have had multiple releases in different countries including a remake. Neither had any real commentary on them. There was only trivial commentary on Pokemon Yellow, which was noted to be based on the anime anyway. There is no reason to presume given the amount of time lapased since the last remake there will even be any commentary of note on those videog ame characters.陣内_Jinnai 03:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to presume there won't be however either. Over half of the sources MissingNo. for example rest on originate post-2007, well after the game's release, so reception on in-game items can, and have, occurred well after something has appeared. And even to that end, Nintendo could, for example, easily release a game focusing more on the individual gym leaders that warrants reception and so forth and blah blah blah. And while that sounds like WP:CRYSTALBALL, the point I'm trying to make is that as a standard we should have a set idea of where a character is one way or another without relying it on something flimsy such as reception, which rests totally on the whims of any reviewers or scholars at the time. The focus of the article should be set in stone from the getgo.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that such an assertion that the focus of an article should be on a case-by-case analysis is just going to make everything very complicated, and send the number of disputes skyrocketing over something so trivial. We should nip this in the bud and say "first appearance should be its focus." I assure you you'll find more plot and coverage of the Kirby character from the anime than the video games. There's just too many characters where the line is blurred, and we simply cannot create a precedence to increase the already high potential for dispute in any article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Something to point out after speaking with Nifboy above: my primary reason for using the VG template was because it was a lot less invasive and user-unfriendly to someone unfamiliar with the subject of Pokemon at all. If anything it allowed for a clear look at the character's origin and actors portraying him/her. Despite my edit summary that was my primary intention with using the infobox as I did.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoot, this is just about infoboxes? That I don't care about. But, in general, we should use sources to decide. We do it for everything else on WP. It's the only objective way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, to me the real question is, "What info goes in the infobox?", and once that's decided we stick in a infobox that covers all of those bases. And I kinda like how the Pokemon template has first appearances for all three of game/anime/manga, treating them more-or-less equally, but I also like the extra WP:WAF-y information in the VG template. Nifboy (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my thinking behind the vg infobox usage. I think Jinnai looked at the summary and thought I meant the anime aspect was insignificant comapred to the vg one, which wasn't my intention. I *really* should've worded that summary better.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of a silly argument. Misty and Brock are minor aspects of a few entries in the game series, but are main characters n hundreds of TV episodes and a few movies. As game characters(not even really characters, more like bosses) they probably have no attention from sources paid to them at all and instead are always identified by their anime incarnations(who actually aren't similar to their game forms aside from their names and sometimes their design). Therefore, use the non-vgcharacter box. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the issue has been resolved by making {{Infobox VG character}} a little less VG-specific. Nifboy (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)