Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Glitches notable?

Are glitches/bugs notable? As an example the bugs and unofficial patches section of Fallout 2. --Megaman en m (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, keep the first paragraph (but find a reliable source for it) but lose the download line from the first para and junk the second para its too gameguide/instruction manual. - X201 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rarely they are. Every game is a software product and bound to have bugs. The ones that are more spectacular may been described in secondary sources and that's when it is appropriate to talk about them, though explaining how to create the glitch is improper. --MASEM 15:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A glitch would rarely deserve its own article, IMO. But I think there is room to describe *major* glitches, if they've been covered in reliable sources. Getting into exhaustive detail about minor glitches and artifacts would be WP:UNDUE, though. Randomran (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with random, mostly. Some bugs and glitches get serious consideration in third party sources. Those may be covered in whatever detail is appropriate to serve as a summary of those sources WRT to the topic as a whole. Some examples (may not be games): Corrupted Blood, Pentium FDIV bug, Year 2000 problem (Lulz), 10NES problems and so forth. glitches and bugs which receive little to no coverage should only rarely be mentioned. also note that Wired's blog, CNet, Gamasutra, and some other online sources are considered reliable sources on the subject, so there are likely to be sources out there. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots from free games?

Hello. I just read over the section regarding screenshots, but am looking for clarification. I am looking at adding a couple of screenshots of a free video game. Is there any restrictions on uploading screenshots from this type of game? Thanks for your help. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Free doesn't necessarily mean it's not copyrighted, so regular fair use rules would apply unless the game was released into the public domain, GFDL, or a significantly compatible license. –xeno (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will try and find out what type of license it has. The game in question is Zombie Panic which is a freely downloadable Source mod. IIRC, one of the developers is a Wiki user, so I'll try to contact him. Any other thoughts, guidance, etc. is of course appreciated. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• If the license of the game is compatible with wikipedia, then screenshots you take can be used under our free license. This is tricky because a lot of games which are released to the public domain are done so using the GPL, which isn't necessarily compatible with the GFDL. Also note that all of the game must be freely licensed (IIRC). E.g. the ioquake3 engine running a proprietary pak3 would not meet our license. Protonk (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't use a free image for Zombie Panic. Merely by virtue of being a Source mod, it uses materials, technology and code from Half-Life 2, ergo copyrighted by Valve Corporation. It doesn't matter how the development team distribute the mod, you can't use a free image for it. Fair use rules, unfortunately, still apply. -- Sabre (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. That is very helpful. So far, the only images I've loaded to Wikipedia are ones I created myself, so I am a little unfamiliar with the fair use justification process. I'll have to do some reading/research before uploading anything for ZP. I also have a note into a dev with ZP regarding both screenshots and using the logo. Thanks again.Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the WP:NFCC. Basically, if the image you are adding can't be replaced by a free equivalent (text), doesn't mess with the copyright holder's rights (you don't copy or otherwise duplicate an image they use on the box to sell a game or on the site to promote a mod), and the article would be worse off without the image (not just that the image adds something, but that it adds so much as to help us significantly understand the subject, see the non-free image of Donkey Kong in single screen platformers). there are more there, but NFCC 1, 2, and 8 are usually the big ones. When you have determined why an image should be used, just write that down on the image description page for each use of the image. There are templates to help you, but don't just put boilerplate rationale. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention subpage

Two questions:

1. Is there a reason for it to remain separate from the main guideline, or could we merge and redirect here?
2. If the answer to the second half of that is no, wouldn't it be a good idea for the talk page of the subpage to be redirected here? --Izno (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Expansion packs

Where should info about expansions go? As a subsection at the end of Reception? There aren't too many FAs on games with expansions, but one (Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings) has a paragraph regarding expansions at the end of Reception. Thoughts? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think these hold true per summary style:

• If there isn't much to write, a paragraph in Reception
• If there is more to write, then break it into its own section, "Expansion".
• If it's a major expansion, say to an MMORPG, break it out into its own page.

Of course, these are general rules. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I generally shove them in a "versions or sequels" section (a'la StarCraft#Expansions and versions), or an entirely independent section to themselves (a'la Doom 3#Expansion. I tend to put the section after the development section and before the reception section. -- Sabre (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability needs to be established at Dragonrealms

The article on DragonRealms needs to have notability established. Note I am not saying that the game is not notable (I don't know enough about the topic to say that), I am saying that the article needs attention, and part of that is stating why the game is notable. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have better luck bringing this up on the main VGProj Talk Page. The Article Guidelines talk doesn't get all that much attention in comparison. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Modifying box art

Modifying box art to remove platform designations is a form of original research and should not be suggested in these guidelines. I've removed a passage from the guideline which suggested this was okay. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

remakes

Added the paragraph, as it has been agreed upon, under content. Feel free to move it if you feel its better suited elsewhere.陣内_Jinnai 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind, we'll probably want to re-evaluate it in a few months to see if it's working out ok. Maybe even expand on it to include newly announced sequels. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Should we add Super Mario 64 DS as it is now as the "bottom of the line" example of what would constitute a non-content forking remake article?陣内_Jinnai 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, here's the permanent link to the current version. Not sure where to add it though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Added it as a footnote along with links to the sections that people agreed it was a good example.陣内_Jinnai 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines - Possible conflict with WP:NOR

This edit [1] removed the section of the guidelines that related to the "Platform neutral" guideline for boxart. User Locke Cole says that it goes against WP:OR and that cropped boxarts with platform branding removed constitute original research. WP:OI does state "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo." My interpretation of the situation is that the above statement from WP:OI is intended for obviously altered images like faked photos of Elvis at Preswick or images altered to show a person in a bad light. I feel that the original guidelines do not breach WP:OI or WP:NOR because we are not trying to falsify information by showing boxart without branding. - X201 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there's no conflict with OR here. There is nothing "original" about a box image without the platform banner if it exists on multiple platforms, and it avoids edit wars on highly popular games that don't have a PC box but do have PS3/360 boxes. --MASEM (t) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with the points already made by X201 and Masem, there is no attempt to distort facts or alter anything from the actual artwork chosen to represent the game itself, thus no conflict with original research stipulations. In addition to the points raised above, in some cases, platform branded artwork can be accused of misleading to people unfamiliar with the topic, such as those which have something like "only on Xbox/PlayStation/inane console name 42" branded on them, but receive another platform release a few months or a year down the line. Platform neutral artwork where possible helps eliminate the chance of a reader coming away with the wrong impression of the topic from the opening image. -- Sabre (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers history, not revised history which is what cropped box art represents. That'd be like going through movies and films and removing "DVD" or "Blu-ray Disc" (or heaven help us, "VHS") from any pictured box art. It would no longer represent reality, but some divine utopia which does not exist. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if we chose a sane method of selecting box art. Base it on something neutral, such as when the title was released for a specific platform. If it came out on the XBox 360 first, use that box art, if it came out on the PS3 first, use that, and so on. Modifying the box art to crop it is, IMO, original research. A bit like putting something in quotation marks in text and attributing it to someone when there's no source to verify that quote. A sane rule for choosing which box art to use would keep the fanboys at bay, and help keep Wikipedia presenting things which actually exist (as opposed to presenting things which do not exist, such as the cropped artwork being pushed here). As an aside, why are there now two sections discussing this? —Locke Cole • t • c 12:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not sane for thinking this way? Thanks for pointing that out, I'll be sure to incarcerate myself in a straight-jacket at the earliest opportunity. -- Sabre (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, what? I never said anything about anyone here, only that there are better ways to handle this than to resort to original research. As it stood, the passage I removed conflicted with an official policy here, and that is unacceptable. A better way would be to come to an agreement on a standard for selecting box art and enforce that (and that method should be "sane", no reflection on those who take the time to discuss and craft said standard). I offered my advice: platform of first release, do you have another alternative? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An innocent jibe, nothing more. But if you want the long version: the statement that your method is sane infers that the current method is not sane. Ergo, those who created that method and those who advocate it are not sane. Though that might be original research. Seriously speaking though, your method doesn't work with the majority of multiplatform games with large fan followings, where the release is con-currently over all the platforms—no one platform has superiority. It is in these cases where the need for platform neutral artwork presents itself. Which platform should represent The Force Unleashed, for instance, a game released on nine separate platforms at the same time? The answer: none, hence the neutral artwork which appears on the cover of every edition of the game. -- Sabre (talk)

Date of first release, and if all those are equal, sales? This is an encyclopedia, and part of the concern with writing an encyclopedia is historical accuracy. People who went to the store to pick up Grand Theft Auto IV didn't see some box with nothing on it but artwork and the games logo; they saw platform information, ESRB ratings and so forth. At the very least it's a misnomer to call these cropped images "box art", because it ceased being the box art when it was modified. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Every boxart does have a source. The image source is listed in the Fair Use info and there are also numerous websites that can be used to verify the image as well as specialist boxart sites that display numerous versions of different boxarts. Any user can see where the image has come from and compare it against the original any time they wish which makes the images far more verifiable than quoted text.

What did you mean by "why are there now two sections discussing this?" - X201 (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and those sources prove that the box art is not representative of what people saw, historically, when they went shopping (or downloaded a digital title). That's my point. By modifying the box art you're revising history. As for sections, I'm referring to the section directly above this one which I started when I made the change to the guideline page. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(Slightly semantic, sorry) It is representative of what they saw, granted its not a facsimile but it is the game they saw. Its not as if we're trying to portray one game as being something totally different.

Sections - Sorry that was my fault. I missed your post. - X201 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOR makes a distinction between original research made to avoid having to make a choice (one box art with platform X or one box art with platform Y) and original research made to mislead readers (box art showing it released on platform Z when it never was): both are not allowed. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(damn edit conflicts!) I really think you're reading far too much into this. We aren't trying to change history, Trotsky is still in the photograph. The artwork of the game isn't being affected, removal of a simple platform identifier that was stuck on-top of the artwork for publication doesn't drastically change anything. The artwork is still what people saw on the shelf. These aren't all-new original images for representing the game, or drastically altered images, which is what WP:OI is meant to guard against. -- Sabre (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It may seem minor, but again, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and one of the facets of an encyclopedia is accurately portraying things. Removing platform designations, ESRB ratings, etc. does not help with the accuracy of the article and is original work. We shouldn't be encouraging this. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world we really should be uploading the original artwork that has been made for the games box art. This artwork would be platform neutral. The image is also there to identify the game not the console and like as said above console neutral versions stop edit wars between console crazy people from uploading there game under their favourite console tag. Console neutral also helps detract attention away from a specific console and removes bias. I agree with Sabre your reading way to far into this. Salavat (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As an example of "original artwork" GTA IV - X201 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate that the image doesn't reflect what anyone ever actually saw. Probably the most important thing about an article professing to be of historical interest. In ten years will that image be considered accurate? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If in ten years the image is no longer accurate for that article, we can always change it. It's not like the images we post to the articles are completely set in stone - this is a wiki, after all. But the consensus has been, for quite some time, that the image should be as representative as possible of the subject. I argue that a cropped image that discards the specific platform's logo is more representative of a multi-platform game than box art for a specific platform, unless' there is a significant difference in box art between the different releases. (If the 360 version of a game has vastly different art than the Wii version, for example, then a judgement call needs to be made as to which one better represents the game.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

←(Un-indent) While I see no reason to crop box art, I do not believe it be original research or an original image. There's a difference between a derivative piece of work, and a cropped piece of work.

• A cropped image still retains the same properties as the original image, only the focus has been changed.
• A derivative work that could constitute original research would be adding or removing specific areas of an image to portray a different concept.
• While cropping does remove a portion of an image, it does not alter the concept of the image.

For example, cropping File:SSF HD Remix Boxart.jpg to remove the Capcom logo is fine because you haven't really altered that portion of the picture, just removed it from view. However, photoshopping just the logo out of the image as if it were never there creates a derivative work. Edits like that are what lead to original research. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't agree with this. When you remove a portion of the original box art you're presenting something that never existed, and that is the definition of original research. This is particularly important for box art for physical games (SNES and NES games spring to mind, for example: Punch-Out!! (NES), Duck Hunt, Super Mario Bros., and for some cross platform titles, Batman Forever (video game), Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story (video game), Madden NFL '94, Madden NFL 97, Madden NFL '95). At the time I checked these, they all had actual real box art, not cropped to exclude the platform or other characteristics of the packaging. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a difference of definitions here. Zooming in on a portion of an image does not show something that never existed. It existed before, just as part of something bigger. A weird example, but imagine a forest of trees. You can see the whole forest from overhead, but one day decide to take a closer look. To do that, you cut down and remove trees around the portion you want to see. The trees left existed before, it's just now you can only see them.

If you decide to trim the trees, paint them pink, and make tree sculptures out of them, then you've altered them in an original way. Relating it to box art image, the trees are pixels. Cropping does not show anything new, simple a more focused view of it. Changing the pixels to represent something new would be original research. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure your analogy is working very well, Guy. For purposes of the wiki, when we crop an image, we create a new image that contains only a portion of the original image. The original image still exists and is unaltered, and I think that's what you were trying to say. However, your analogy describes cutting down the trees around the area you want to look at, which is an irreversible change to the original site. That's more like altering the original image to create the new image.

I can also see Locke's point, that providing only a portion of the image in question does not present the WHOLE image, and in some cases people could be legitimately confused by seeing only a portion of the image. For the Street Fighter example, let's say the cropped portion only showed Ryu's arm. Someone not familiar with the game may not have any idea what he's looking at. So it's up to whoever does the cropping to make sure that the image still accurately represents the property, and I think one CAN make a common-sense decision that the portion of a game's box art that is COMMON to all of the platforms it appears on represents the game as a whole. To present just that portion is not WP:OR: It is verifiable, it is supported by reliable sources, and anyone who sees the cropped image and then goes to a game store and sees the same image on the game's box will be able to recognize it immediately. That's the litmus test I would put such images under. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't agree with this either, Guyinblack. In your example, you say it would be okay to remove crop out the Capcom logo. I disagree, because that logo is part of what represents that property as a whole, without regard to the platforms it's released on. However, if you have the same image (including the logo) on several different platforms, I do agree that removing the platforms' logos to come up with a single representative image of the whole property should be fine, and does not constitute OR. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I would crop out the logo; just like I wouldn't crop out the platform portions. But depending on the purpose of the image, I believe it is within non-free content criteria. If the only purpose of the image is to show the game's cover art, then cropping is reasonable in my opinion. You have brought up some good points though. Excessive cropping can reduce the subject's quality and identity. But maintaining a large enough common portion of the image is within reason.

In regard to my analogy, trees can grow back and can be replanted. Either way, it was meant as an example by comparing pixels to trees and not as an exact description. However, you did understand my intended message.

In regard to Locke's point, I see the reasoning behind it and do think there's no reason to remove such content. However, I've seen nothing in the image guidelines that prohibit the practice of cropping out the console info. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

To me, cropping is similar to reducing the resolution of an image in terms of violating OR: You really have to be trying to misrepresent the image in order to violate OR via cropping, and I don't believe that's the case here. Nifboy (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

When the image shown is not historically accurate (as is the case with cropping) it becomes OR. I'm at a loss as to how anyone could think different. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If its wrong that WP fails to show boxart exactly as a reader would see it on the store shelf, does that mean that we have to show every boxart for every English language region? The North American LittleBigPlanet boxart differs from the one that is used in The UK, Australia and Europe, so does that mean that we have been deliberately deceiving North American readers because the WP Article uses the UK/Aus/Euro boxart? It works the other way too, the copy of Fallout 3 that will hopefully fall through my letterbox either today or tomorrow, will not have the ESRB rating on the front because I don't live in North America, so that box art should be removed from the article because, from my viewpoint on this side of the Atlantic, that image is OR? - X201 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as it was something someone saw somewhere, and not some derivative original work (as a cropped image would be) I have no problem with it. Again though, this is why it would be better to spend time hashing out when to use a particular platforms box art or a particular regions box art. It might take some effort to hammer out the details, but it would avoid tripping over WP:OI and make the encyclopedia better in the end. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point, Locke. Cropping the image does not CHANGE THE CONTENT of the image! It does not constitute derivative work. Drawing your own image, slapping a logo on a different image, or otherwise Photoshopping an image based on the original constitutes a "derivative work", but just showing a portion of the original image, reducing its resolution, etc. does not constitute derivative work. I think you have severely misinterpreted the policy here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OI

Quoting WP:OI;

Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed.

— WP:OI (bold emphasis mine)

The "unpublished idea" here is that the box art looked like this. It doesn't and it never has. What one sees in the store looks similar to this, but similarity is not a defense from original research. The emboldened part is particularly important here and needs restating: "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed." There are no exceptions given for cosmetic changes, or those stemming from a style choice. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That section is focusing solely on original images, or rather, solely user-created images. It has no application whatsoever to the issue at hand. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet that same section goes on to state "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo.".. the "fact" being distorted is that the modified image represents what was seen in stores, online or elsewhere. I still stand by my suggestion above that editors here should find a way to choose a platform specific image and use that as a guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone in WT:NOR just pointed out, cropping photos in the manner we're describing here is just like quoting a passage from a book or news article, rather than copying the entire book/article verbatim. Quoting a short passage is appropriate and is not original research if you can prove that the passage has not been modified. (In text, passages are sometimes marked up to provide context.) The same goes for images: Presenting an unmodified portion of an image does not alter the image and does not constitute WP:OR. However, the person responding in WT:NOR points out that this could be non-neutral - presenting only a portion of an image could cause the image to inappropriately represent a topic by removing context or placing undue weight on a particular element.

A hypothetical example would be to crop a Street Fighter image such that it only shows Ken's face, cutting out Ryu's. That wouldn't be original research, but it would be placing undue weight on Ken in an article that's about the game, not about the character. So, as with quoting passages, when cropping images, it's essential to make sure we provide the proper context for the image in question. I posit that showing the whole, recognizeable art of a multi-platform game without showing platform-specific logos is acceptable, does not violate any policies, and gives readers all the context they need to identify the game itself, while also avoiding weight issues on any particular platform. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It clearly has looked like this, the cropped image was still published as a part of the original box art. I go to Amazon, type GTA 4 and I will see the artwork on the GTA4 page presented in some form, spread over three platforms. The focus has been slightly changed, but that does not mean an entirely new original image. What that sentence guards against is uploading something like this as the GTA4 box art: that is not the original box art, it is an unpublished fan production and it does not represent the game. That is what would be considered an original image. -- Sabre (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, similarity is not defense. You're misrepresenting what was seen by cropping the image. It ceases to be "box art" and is instead just "artwork" seen on the box art. And it definitely meets the definition of OR, since no box existed with just that cropped view as the face of the box. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But the art existed and that is what we are uploading, we arent uploading the complete box only the front cover artwork. Your argument is also flawed in the sense that your saying cropping of the console tag from the front is making it original research, but then wouldnt cropping the front cover away from the entire cover make that original artwork, because on shelf the front and back are attached and are as one? Salavat (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, we're a two dimensional medium, even on the internet. And unfortunately even rules must give way to the laws of physics at some point. But if one goes and takes a picture of the cover, they'll either see the front, the back, or the side, not all three at once unless they remove the paper from the case. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not similar, its exactly the same bit of artwork that appears on the all editions of the full box art that include the platform indicator. While it might meet your definition of OR, its clear from this discussion that it doesn't meet anyone else's. -- Sabre (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A WikiProject guideline should not be circumventing an official policy. We don't allow OR, it's not up for debate here. A discussion at WT:NOR would be more useful to gauge whether or not those uninvolved with this project agree with you. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Circumventing your intepretation of an official policy. This entire debate is over interpretation, where its clear your intepretation is in a minority. So there's been a talk page discussion, it didn't go your way, so its brought up here in an attempt to change the guideline. That didn't go your way either, so you want to move it up to a policy page in hope that someone there might agree with you. The honourable thing to do would be to accept that your argument doesn't reflect the consensus and cut your losses. -- Sabre (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

On a side note could i go as far as asking if Locke Cole has a full understanding of the image policies here, quoting from a revert of the said cover that started the discussion, a revert of Calamity-Ace's edit, "plus image is too small". The image was reduced to 256px by Calamity which is the ideal size, Locke then reverted to 480 which would be to large (yes?). So in short i was just thinking that maybe he could be just working on limited knowledge when it comes to images or maybe a case of ownership towards the uploaded image. Salavat (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Any smaller than 250 would be too small, but 250-6 is around the size it displays in the infobox anyway. There's not really much reason to have it any larger, certainly not nearly double that size that it appears in the article. I'd say 300px is a good upper limit for box art sizes as far as keeping within WP:NFCC for low resolution goes. -- Sabre (talk)

Yea, was about to post that the current image is too large. There's a reason "low resolution" is part of the non-free rationale. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, that isn't what started this discussion. Another image, File:Superstreetremixcover.jpg (which was deleted today) was uploaded by someone who apparently felt the XBox 360 artwork was more appropriate. Another editor cropped that image, and then it was added to the article. I'm aware of our fair use rules, and there is no strict numeric value for image size. I disagree with your claim that 256px is "ideal". Readers clicking the image links expect to be taken to images which are not the same thumbnail they've already seen. As for the platform issue, well that's already been discussed at the article talk page, and there's consensus there to retain the existing image (or at least, no consensus to change it). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said that 300px is a good upper limit. Nearly double the size of how it appears in the article is hardly compliant with WP:NFCC's demand for a low-resolution image when the image is copyrighted. If the image wasn't copyrighted, then that's a different matter. The current resolution would be torn apart at FA or GA level. -- Sabre (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked if a discussion at WT:NOR would be more productive. Okay, sure, let's take it over there, since this is stepping into the realm of general Wikipedia policy and goes beyond the scope of WP:VG at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic started at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Cropped images = Original Research? . I asked for comment from people involved in that policy. They may reply either there or here, so please watch both pages. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic has been forwarded to WP:NORN. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The cropping of platform specific banners on box arts, does not constitute original research, but that isn't even really the issue at hand if you read the prior arguments (which is why I've commented here). The argument has been about whether identifying art should be 1:1 reproductions of products seen on store shelves, with the OR argument tacked onto the side to discredit the use of cropping.

Box art is primarily used for identifying art, but that does not mean that identifying art must be a 1:1 reproduction of an actual box. The identifying art that developers produce does not include system branding, that is added by the platform holders to ensure consistency across their library. File:GTAIV Logo.jpg for example, is the perfect piece of identifying art for GTA IV, cluttering that image with banners and age ratings does nothing. Those will vary between platforms and markets anyway, and given the data already given in the infobox, is largely redundant. Including the XBLA advertising banner on File:Megaman9cover.jpg actually detracts from the image, giving readers the first impression that it is an exclusive title. - hahnchen 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

COPYVIO implications

Actually I think removing the logo might violate WP:COPYVIO as it's altering a copyrighted image to specifically remove a logo.じんない 05:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. Fair use allows modifications of images, and per non-free, as long as we trace the source and identify the change, there's nothing that is a copyvio. The question of being "original research" still remains, but I doubt that's an issue. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am specifically referring to WP:Logos#Trademark concerns - the third paragraph. While the text doesn't in itself apply exactly here, we are rather than adding new logos, removing existing ones.じんない 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Still not really; removing the banner is not an attempt to confuse the reader that a completely different company is responsible for the work. --MASEM (t) 12:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh there really is no confusion. Say i went into buy a game from the PS2 section of the store, i would be looking for the artwork of the cover and not the console tag and then the next day i wanted it for the Wii, i would go looking for the artwork again. Salavat (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you would be looking at the console tag. If you had a PS2 and not a Wii, you'd make certain it was a PS2 version and not a Wii version before you bought it (well I hope at least).じんない 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh but, maybe i wasnt very clear, but obviously there are going to be all tagged with the specific console in store, and so in that section with all the ps2 games you would look for the specific title your after. Salavat (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, if there's a PS2 and a Wii version of the same game with the same artwork on the box, I would feel really sorry for someone who could not identify the game or distinguish the versions because Wikipedia didn't have a console tag in its image of the game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely by removing the console logo we're actually reducing the the amount of copyright material we're seeking to use under FUR. And that can only be a good thing. - X201 (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Less material, but an altogether new can of worms. Seriously, wouldn't it be better if we had guidelines for picking one platforms box art over another and just sticking to it? If someone is opening up Photoshop/Paint.NET/Gimp and cropping an image they're subjecting the encyclopedia to numerous issue, ranging from potentially violating our own pillars and policies to potentially opening us up to legal issues if any of the companies involved with these games decides they don't like what we're doing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the reason I brought it up. I think it may require someone well versed in copyright or trademark law.じんない 18:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this topic has been busy this weekend.

While I'm no image expert, I'd say Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria already gives some info on this. 3B states "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." I still believe that cropping does not create a derivative work, and thus removing such portions is within reason.

If someone hasn't already contacted some of Wikipedia's image experts, User:Durova or User:Elcobbola come to mind for people to contact. Though I believe Elcobbola is more active on Commons. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Contacted Durova. Hopefully we can get this point cleared up.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and trademark are separate areas of law. It appears that both weigh in this discussion. Please allow due discretion: as a Commons administrator I frequently encounter the former but not the latter, and during graduate coursework in a writing program a course on related law (including copyright) was required curriculum. This provided a limited framework of understanding, mainly for self-defense. Despite a long list of featured picture credits, I am not a lawyer and am unable to give expert opinion even on copyright. Regarding matters of trademark I confess profound ignorance. So with those caveats in mind, if there's any objection to removing a trademarked logo via cropping I am unaware of it. Issues of NPOV, etc. (if any exist) would be addressed separately via policy. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted we are looking for expert opinion at WT:Logos on this part.陣内_Jinnai 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be happy to throw my opinion(s) in on the matter, but I think we should see an example of what we're talking about and what specifically needs to be addressed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the example that brought this up was my mentioning that cropping out the bottom portion of File:SSF HD Remix Boxart.jpg so the Capcom logo is no longer in view would be fine. That particular image has also been cropped to remove the PlayStation Network logo. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Finally got an answer at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Need someone versed in trademark and probably copyright law to give an answer. - it appears cropped versions should be fine, if not preferable from a copyright standpoint. Now its just the NPOV issue.陣内_Jinnai 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Licensed soundtracks acceptable?

I can understand licensed soundtracks being added to music-based games such as the Guitar Hero or Rock Band series, but what about licensed soundtracks that are more or less just background music for a game, such as the Tony Hawk's series? I added soundtracks to articles of that series long ago, and they have long since been removed for apparently being a non-notable list, however I don't see anything saying that they shouldn't be added. Are licensed soundtracks notable information, or does it fall under part 6 of inappropriate content, "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts"? Licensed soundtracks aren't explicitly mentioned there, but I don't see anything else that would explain why they would be removed. For the record, I am not talking about games that have a separate soundtrack released on a CD, just background music from the game. --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is an official soundtrack, it should at least be mentioned. We don't have to go into detail about what other albums the songs play on, what bands are there, etc. NM. Misread your statement. Generaally unless the music is an integral part, it doesn't need to be listed. The exceptions to this usually come as a response from reviews or controversy.陣内_Jinnai 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if the soundtrack, released separately from the game or otherwise, did not receive any third-party coverage, then you should probably omit it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Cover art

The screenshots and cover art section contradicts itself. In one part, it states that "Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.", while another paragraph states that "Cover art should appear in the infobox (see below for more info on the infobox), and ideally, the most recognizable English-language cover should be used to illustrate the subject.". This needs to be fixed, preferably by incorporating the "most recognizable English-language cover" rule into the earlier paragraph's priority hierarchy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also it's not the first time the guideline contradicts itself (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 71#Contradictions in the video game image guidelines). Another awkward wording is that the section refers to Template:Ubisoft-screenshot when the template has been renamed Template:Attribution-Ubisoft for over one year now. I think the guideline needs to be revised and rewritenn very thoroughly; all these contradictions are likely due to the fact that the section is so long and thus that few people actually bother reading it thoroughly. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the most recognizable box art in the English-speaking world should get priority for infoboxes, with the rest of the priority hierarchy only being applied if recognizability cannot be determined. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What criteria are you using to define "most recognizable"? - X201 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the "most recognizable" would be the box art from the first release in an English Speaking country. In most cases, it will be the same if a game is released in multiple regions, but there are some instances where the artwork will be different, or the name might change. In those cases, this can be discussed in the article, but the box art itself should be of the region that first had the English release. Sgetz (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that being released first makes it most recognizable. How about "highest-selling" or something along those lines?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to get rid of one, then I'd get rid of the second one. "Most recognizable" is simply too subjective and would install a natural bias towards the US; with a population of 300 million to the next highest English-speaking population of 60 million in the UK, there are proportionally more customers and sales to push the US idea of "most recognizable" than any other English region, except in truly exceptional cases. Using other criteria such as "highest-selling" would result in a similar problem. Going by the developer's nationality (or in some cases, country of origin for the franchise) is more balanced and considerate towards WP:ENGVAR—for instance, it would be silly to have a game done by an Australian developer and written in Aussie-English have the American box art when an Aussie one is available just because the publisher released to the larger American market first. If the developer's not English-speaking, then just go with whatever English-language cover is uploaded first. -- Sabre (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention: PAL, AUS, or NA region titles?

Code (video game) wasn't moved to Base 10 (video game), Picopict wasn't moved to Pictobits, and Nemrem wasn't moved to Zengage when they hit NA, and yet this morning I wake up to see that Kubos has been moved to Precipice (video game), with the reasoning given as 'Nintendo announced that this is the title of this game per this article: http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=19272 '. I know WP:ENGVAR covers spelling within articles (though I don't know if this counts as 'spelling' per se), WP:UE advises leaving it at the latest stable version (though it also says 'after the article has ceased being a stub', and the article in question is still a stub) if there's two different English words/titles involved, and Wikipedia doesn't hold any version of English as more correct than any other, but the WikiProject Video Games Naming Convention section does not cover this situation, so it would be nice to have project-official clarification on the matter.

long story short, should Precipice (video game) be moved back to Kubos on principle, or should it be left where it is since it's a stub-class low-importance article in terms of the project, and i'm probably the only one who noticed? ^^;;; -- Khisanth (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Release dates

As all English-only and English-first rules, an execrable example of bigotry and arrogance. Anarchangel (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Or is it a desire to provide the information most relevant to the readers of the English Wikipedia? –xeno^talk 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So in order to provide X, censor Y? Anarchangel (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more like "in order to provide the most relevant information without unnecessarily bloating an infobox...". Wikipedia is not a buyers guide. –xeno^talk 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So this is a rule because of your aesthetic that the infobox should be a particular length. Unless you have objections to WP users gaining the benefit of knowing when a particular release is or was in a particular country? Anarchangel (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what gives? I see nothing in particular given your editing history to spur this comment... --Izno (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only did you prejudge my statement as personal bias, even when proven wrong, you are incapable of seeing another motivation. That's sad. Anarchangel (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain this can be discussed without harsh words. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Prejudge? No, I was merely looking to see what spurred this, and to ask for further information. Have some good faith. Further, I'll agree with Guy. --Izno (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't even expect my comment to be noticed. Let's get started then. If WP:PAPER, and given that Xeno's argument is invalid, as censoring Y does not prevent providing X, then there must be some other reason for not including mention of non-English speaking release dates. Already one has been proposed, that info boxes should be of a particular length. So there is the utility of knowing when a particular release is due in a particular country, vs an aesthetic. I put to you that layout preferences, quite apart from being subjective and varying from person to person, are secondary to content. If this is accepted, then the first bullet of WP:VG/DATE should be removed. Anarchangel (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision: The aesthetic not in itself a problem. It is worthy of mention. To avoid it interfering with needed content, it should be phrased as a recommendation of succinctness, with the English/non- distinction removed or qualified. Anarchangel (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

...Yeah, I remember you guys now. RFCing is just the very thing for this page. Anarchangel (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, infoboxes are for a quicksnap shot of a game. The list should be cut down even more in my opinion. Of course we shouldn't exclude a non-English release date because it isn't English, but to avoid an indiscriminant list in the infobox, it is necessary to limit. If a release is notable in anyway, it should be mentioned in the prose. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Online Multiplayer content

Online Multiplayer is a very important aspect of many games today and I think that it might be helpful if we had guidelines for what types of information is and is not appropriate for sections of articles that discuss online multiplayer. Would a discussion about how the online multiplayer part of a game is different from the single player part of a game be alright? What if such a discussion included a mention of how the basic strategy differs, might that help people understand the game better? Would a mention of how the experience differs between single player and online multiplayer be appropriate? How would something like those last two items be properly referenced? It seems like the only references for something like that would be to refer to the game itself, a consensus amongst editors familiar with the game, and/or to discussion forums, preferably the official forums hosted by the game's developers. (In my experience, information where a journalistic reference does not exist is often easily verifiable by playing a game itself or by investigating alleged facts, such as visiting a website to verify that clan ladders exist.) Would information about online player counts and places where people tend to congregate ("the community can be found at this IRC channel") be permissible? Would information about the online multiplayer community itself, such as a description of the game's competitive clan scene ("several competitive sites offer clan ladders for this game") and how online games get organized ("team captains draft the teams and then they join the game server and a voice communications server") be appropriate? Would a list of popular mods (such as instagib) be alright? In some cases, might it make the sense to have and permit separate articles about some games' online multiplayer components, especially those that have very extensive and popular online multiplayer components? I think that explicit guidelines for all of this would be helpful and I hope that someone will draft them and that a fruitful discussion can take place. WhipperSnapper (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cast?

I've noticed a large number of B, C and below articles have a cast list. Featured articles typically have no such list. It's rather difficult to explain to new users that a dedicated cast list is not usually necessary, and certainly a full cast list is not necessary in many cases. I've seen some articles that handle cast well by combining it with a character list, such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game). I'm not asking for a new bullet point, but mentioning that a cast list is unnecessary in WP:GAMECRUFT would give me something to direct new users to. Thoughts? --Teancum (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would only argue for a cast if there is significant character development (most games don't have this) and that the actors are more famous than naught - for example, I may consider a cast list as a possible scenario for Brutal Legend since there's 5 non-tradition game VA involved, but that's still in question. Best to leave it out, and if VA names are important, do it like done in some movies, putting them after the first appearence in the plot section. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I've done in the past, just a broad overview like Kingdom Hearts#Voice cast. But that was done a couple years ago. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Cast listings - no, but in the prose noting major cast members would be appropriate.陣内_Jinnai 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So I suppose my question now is what needs to be done to make note of this in the guidelines. New users are quick to disregard anything but "official policy" --Teancum (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Teancum's argument above regarding A, B, and C articles is a logical fallacy. Most B class articles have attribute b, and most A articles do not, therefore only articles without attribute b can be A articles. Purest fantasy. The addition of June 10 removed. Anarchangel (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The preceding comment preceded and was with regard to the following mainspace edit and summary: (Actors, whether in radio broadcasts, on stage, in film, in operas & TV, are all worthy of mention in articles concerning works in which their work appears.Why should it be different for video games?)

The following comment was preceded by a revert of the above edit, with summary: (This is the video game set of guidelines?... This is the revert after the bold, so please discuss! :)). Note that the editor reverted, and asked me to discuss my edit, all before going to Talk himself. Additionally, is the question in the summary not somewhat disingenuous? The actors of my analogy have many points in common with the actors in Point 10, and the analogy is not unclear. Anarchangel (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be fallacy, but guidelines describe how the wiki works... We look to our featured articles when we consider what ends up in these guidelines as well as other policy. If most FA quality articles don't have x item, then it is both useful and worth noting that in guidelines. --Izno (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At any time that any user looks to FAs or GAs for criteria of how articles should be, without looking at the criteria themselves for their merits, then that user is behaving irrationally. Furthermore, Teancum's argument is not in the guideline, therefore I would not have removed the guideline from the article on that basis. I removed it on the basis of not having received a balanced and thorough discussion. His argument was the reason for inclusion, and a logical fallacy. This guideline requires thorough discussion. It has received illogical musing. The onus is upon the editor seeking to include content to provide a rationale, so if anyone should be reverting, it should be Izno, please.

Basically agree with Jinnai on this, mentioning major cast members in a prose section is appropriate, but listing voice casts strikes me as a bit crufty. The situation is not directly analogous to TV and film articles as voice casts aren't usually central aspects of a video game's notability the way film and TV casts are. I don't have a problem with Teancum's wording and I like the examples of appropriate mentions given by Guyinblack25 above (Kingdom Hearts#Voice cast) and Teancum's edit to the guideline (X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game)#Characters). If there's significant dispute about this addition, an RfC might be in order? --Muchness (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a point to the following, but I just thought I should take this opportunity, when likes and dislikes are being mentioned, to indulge my opinion just a tiny bit:

(Re: "The situation is not directly analogous...") That's why I like video games. They have two separate yet integrated forms of content: the gameplay, and the acted drama, and in my opinion, are potentially superior to film in much the same way that film is superior to photography, to say nothing of the fact that they can include aspects of literature that escape film also. If it were not for their execrable reputation, perhaps more talented writers would contribute, in much the same way as television and before it, the movies, were once an anathema to writers.

It is only your assertion that acting is not the 'central aspect of a video game's notability'; for evidence to the contrary, see the video game article entitled, "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Feature Voice Performances by Patrick Stewart, Sean Bean, and Terence Stamp"

My complete quote was, "aren't usually central aspects," and by agreeing with Guyinblack25 and Teancum I was making the point that they warrant a mention in cases where they are a notable aspect of the game. --Muchness (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Guyinblack's comments are not part of the guidelines, and actually substantiate the overreaching of this guideline, as Kingdom Hearts is a FA, voice cast list and all. Other than that, his comment amounts to a preference for prose, upon which it would be seem to be unwise to base an entire guideline, particularly as it has almost certainly stated elsewhere.

Video games based on movies have a deplorable reputation; in that sense, perhaps, voice acting in them is relatively speaking, more notable.

I do not really have anything to say about 'a bit crufty', but then, I do not feel I should, either.

I of course hope that an RFC will not be necessary, but I hold in great esteem the wisdom of the occasional wise person, more likely to be found when the net is cast wider. -copy-paste due to edit conflict this date- Anarchangel (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issue with a "Voice Cast" section is that it's redundant. Such cast can easily be covered in the prose of the article, either in the plot section, or in the characters section, similar to how movie articles do it. Having a dedicated section to the voice cast is just list cruft, and it invites non-seasoned wiki editors to add voice actors for minor characters, such as "Security Guard #5", or even worse, to list every possible role for every actor. For example: in Fallout 3#Voice_actors are "Harold the Tree" or "Scribe Bigsley in Broken Steel" truly notable characters? I don't know, but they should be mentioned in the characters section and the actor mentioned there if so. Mentioning the actor in the characters section puts the focus on the in-game character, rather than the actor portraying them. It's not mentioning who voiced XXXX character, it's how we do it. --Teancum (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct. You do not know. And I suspect no one who does not now, will ever, as such information is routinely removed from articles as Cruft. Yet your attempt to belittle the subject (Would you be comfortable dismissing Liam Neeson and Malcom McDowell?) was a poor choice in the case of Harold, whose character literally and figuratively evolves throughout the entire Fallout (series). But look on the bright side, neither do any of the incessant horde of deletionists at AfD know. So in a way I suppose you could say that making decisions without any facts is common WP practice. And so is deciding that only information from the first half of the credits is worthy of inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, let's keep this neutral per WP:NPA. If you have an issue with the policy, post it here. If you have a personal issue of how I adhere to said policy take it to my talk page. I clearly said I did not know whether Harold was an important character, yet you continue to make this personal. Future such attacks will be reported immediately. If you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page. --Teancum (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Lists of voice actors in video games

Is, "Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters ... not appropriate"? (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Inappropriate content and the discussion above)
Anarchangel (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is another aspect of WP as buggy as RFC code. As you can see once you are editing, the policy tag is correctly added, and this RFC shows up just fine on the RFC policy page. Just not on the template visible on this page. Anarchangel (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally no, IMO. Cast lists generally aren't appropriate unless the cast reaches some sort of notablility, like playing the role in a film adaptation or if the voice actor has won some sort of award for his/her work on that VG. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No to independent lists. Yes (on a case-by-case basis) to mentions in relevant prose sections as discussed above. --Muchness (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the guideline provides enough flexibility and is written appropriately. –xeno^talk 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been opinions expressed by B, M and X, opinions that have been expressed before, above, but no reasoning, and no facts. There's nothing to answer, other than the over-reaching assertion by B:

Even if actors standing in front of a microphone had less notability than those standing in front of a camera, they still would have some notability, contrary to Bovineboy's assertion. Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Per GA class film articles (Anarchangel had earlier referenced how films list casts) you can see that cast lists and not just random lists, they flesh out each individual character, listing the actor and a short bio, following WP:FILMCAST. You'll note the similar format listed in WP:GAMECRUFT. Author had his cast list removed from Fallout 3 per the criteria, and was notified such lists should be made prose. I see no issue here. A flat-out cast list just doesn't add to the article - it should be prose of some sort, and should only list notable characters. Current content in the Fallout 3 article does not add to the article, but detracts from it. --Teancum (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not the author of the Fallout 3 list. Perhaps you notified someone about the deletion, it certainly was not me. Looking at your contributions, I am guessing you are attempting to portray your edit summary as notification. I suggest that you refrain from such deception, and from attempting to read my motivations, for many reasons, most relevantly that they are not anyone's concern on WP, ever. You wrote the criteria, Teancum. 'removed per the criteria' is effectively, 'removed by me, per a rule written by me'. If anyone has a conflict of interest in this and should recuse themselves, it is you. Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FILMCAST could not be more different from Gamecruft, as it is currently written. FILMCAST begins, "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose" note that it does not say, 'which must be', but, 'ideally'. Inappropriate#10 starts with a blanket suppression, and only mentions prose in the final sentence. FILMCAST is eight paragraphs, Inappropriate#10 is one. FILMCAST carefully details multiple locations in the article for actor's names to be entered. Inappropriate#10 of course, says nothing on that subject. However, they do have one significant point of agreement, which you have not mentioned: FILMCAST: "a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate" Inappropriate#10: "In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast". Quite obviously, the issue here is the first sentence of the guideline. That is why I titled the RFC with the first sentence. This has not been addressed. Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree a bit with BovineBoy in that not all cast lists are appropriate, but I'm sure as anything else, there are the few exceptions out there. What we should not be doing is regurgitate the entire credit roll from a game and place it in the article or in an independent list as that is too indiscriminate, or even regurgitate every single voice actor credited in a game. My rule of thumb would be, if it has an article or might be notable enough to warrant mentioning, then mention it. That falls under editorial discretion depending on the article discussed. MuZemike 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That characters who have their own articles should be mentioned is obvious, even in stand-alone lists (WP:STAND), this is a major point in favor of inclusion. However, re: "regurgitate every single voice actor", it is easy enough to separate credits into 'Major voice acting roles' and 'Minor.." sections. It is not entirely clear if you think the wording should continue to specifically deem lists inappropriate, or whether that sanctions the wholesale deletion of all lists from all articles that Special:Contributions/Teancum (search for "rem per WP:GAMECRUFT, point 10") has performed since he first added point 10. Anarchangel (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing you neglect to note is that none of those edits were made until after the original cast lists consensus was made, nor did I add that section to WP:GAMECRUFT until after such consensus. Given that I can't help but notice the personal attack. Let's keep this neutral. Let me be 100% clear - having a voice cast in an article is not inappropriate. The point of all this is that to just have a list doesn't focus on the characters of that game, but rather the actors. Placing the voice actor in the character description allows readers to read up on the actor, but focuses attention on the article and characters within it. As far as removal of lists, a large chunk of the articles I have removed voice cast either 1) didn't have anyone notable in the cast, or 2) was a stub/start class that would likely not have a user actually update the article per the guideline. Fallout 3 is an excellent article, and we're not talking about removing it permanently. It's an article well followed and it's likely a dedicated Wikipedian would actually check WP:GAMECRUFT and then re-list voice actors per the guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As we all seem to be in agreement that prose is preferable, and since there are no other proposals or comments regarding wording, I prepared this proposed replacement for the existing text. The placement alternatives are from FILMCAST:

"Prose is preferred over tables and lists where listing the voice cast of an article is concerned. The information can be placed in Production sections (rationale: the default, to some extent, or there is information regarding the production that is relevant to the actors or vice versa) integrated into the plot section (rationale: character-driven plot), in its own section below Production (rationale: the actors are particularly notable), or above it (rationale: actors are notable, and the Production section is not detailed), whichever is most appropriate."

This really shouldn't come down to comparisons to films. Video games are a totally different animal. Films are so often accredited for the writing, directing and acting, so a cast list makes sense. Video games are more about production and gameplay. A cast list just doesn't make sense, IMO. Of course there are exceptions, as there is with any rule, but for the general majority of video games, the voice actors are rarely covered by third-party sources or reviewed by game reviewers and are even more rarely listed as something important to a game. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, one could say it comes down to actors. They are the subject of the lists. I already refuted your statement about 3rd part sources above, with "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Feature Voice Performances by Patrick Stewart, Sean Bean, and Terence Stamp". You say nothing about the suggestion. Reiterating refuted arguments and ignoring my new ones is not furthering consensus in any way. Let me suggest the option of conceding points, which you may not be familiar with. Good for the soul, too. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think that cast should be included somewhere in the article, I agree with you on that. And your right, for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion it would be sensible and notable to to include the cast (preferably not in list form, but that is just a personal preference). But you should see that not all games have a notable cast. Rarely does a game come down to the actors (notice rarely as in there are exceptions). I really haven't seen too many games that critics said the voice acting made or broke the game. Of course, I could be wrong with this. And you really should be careful about "furthering consensus": one person disagreeing with every editor, a consensus does not make. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of issues I see: 1) we need to make a standard, prose or no-prose. To say it's preferred will give too much wiggle room in the future. 2) no examples are give, and so users have no reference for their articles. --Teancum (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Preferable is the same standard that is applied for film actors. The rationales are far superior to examples, which are in real life notorious for allowing just the sort of 'wiggle room' that you prognosticate. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt and point out that recent edits by user Special:Contributions/Anarchangel have reverted several edits before this dispute was complete. Can we make the effort to be civil and discuss this through until its completion prior to reverting previously established edits? Clearly we're both seeking for what's best for Wikipedia, but given pretty standard operating procedures we don't make a move until the dispute is cleared. Additionally the general consensus thus far has been to not have cast lists, but listing notable actors in prose one way or another. I am re-reverting such edits until the dispute is complete, as currently that is policy. I am fine with someone adding them back in later if policy is changed. --Teancum (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please. You edited all those articles before the discussion was complete; as I noted above, the discussion before the guideline was added was peremptory and illogical. My edits also took place after my reexamination of this issue had begun, and before there were any objections to it. I am squeaky clean, always. You, on the other hand, are not even adhering to your own guideline, with blanket deletions of any voice cast list you can get your hands on. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the current guidance at WPVG is good. Cast listing is pretty ancillary to most games. Where cast listings are central to the work, well that's why it's a guideline. Protonk (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Given that I am viewed as having a personal interest in this I'm bowing out of this conversation. Suffice it to say whatever the final consensus comes to is what I will follow. --Teancum (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Per the debate concerning the cast list in this article:

[[2]] Wouldn't it be better to simply include the voice actors and motion capture actors within the appropriate character's article? Simply place it in the infobox for the Mortal Kombat characters and in the appearnce in other media for the DC characters. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Foreign voice actors of English-developed games

I'm sorry that I didn't really follow this discussion, but I have a question that is partially related to this discussion so I think I should open a new section here. The question is: if a game is developed by an English-language company and released in English-speaking countries first, are the non-English voice actors notable? (See Crash Tag Team Racing#Voice cast for example.) We already know from VG guidelines that non-English release dates are not notable in such cases, but what about voice actors? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing a Reception section

Just an inquiry about properly writing a Reception section. When using the VG reviews template, how many of the Review score fields need to be filled in? Would filling in all of them be too much? Similarly, how many of these review scores should be mentioned in the body of the section? VG Editor (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems a point of some contention (minor) within the project still, but I'm personally for including two of the meta percentages, as well as four or five of the underlying reviews. It would probably be ideal for those in the template to be used in the prose, along with other sources if necessary. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Game Sales

Is there some kind of guideline or consensus on including game sales figures for games? I've noticed some articles list them and some don't. It's also a little strange because some games include the sales figures of expansions in addition to original sales, which inflates the figure compared with single product releases (eg Guild Wars includes all campaigns and Halo 3 only includes a single game). 122.111.0.60 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the variation in sales figures inclusion is the availability of this information, since its dependent on the developer or publisher having released it. If sales information has been released, then it should be included: it is a vital part for strengthening an article's coverage of reception. But if we can't get hold of it, there's not much we can really do.-- Sabre (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving MobyGames to "Inappropriate" since it almost always is?

Mostly posting here to cross-reference a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#MobyGames paid Wikipedia?: I don't believe MobyGames has enough substance to justify linking to it as much as we do. See for instance this page on Hunt the Wumpus, which, if you take out all the content not already on Wikipedia and unique to that game, some screenshots (which you can get just about anywhere), links to Amazon and eBay (commercial), a bit of trivia, and a forum. It's pretty underwhelming as a whole. Nifboy (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Got my support. -- Sabre (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Same. In my limited experience with it, it seems to be too difficult to tell when to place it and when not to. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I never understood why they would be allowed. If I had the time, I would dig my complains from having such links in our articles when they add very little. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be gaming the system. No pun intended.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since that's 5-0 in favor I went ahead and moved it, adding a rationale. Nifboy (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to wait a little more than six hours before committing the change, especially given the number of users who have used the site for ELs in their articles (much more than 5, FYI)? I mean, since we're already "voting". I think the existing wording is fine. SharkD (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is, essentially, "Don't link it unless it's substantial", which IMO should put it under the "inappropriate" heading, regardless of the wording change. Right now users are seeing it in the "appropriate" section and spamming it all over the place even when MobyGames has nothing of value as a link. Nifboy (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it shouldn't be in either area. Stating it's appropriate or unappropriate puts undue weight on something that should be judged purely by the extra content it brings to that specific article rather than what category it's listed under in the guidelines. Appropriate promotes spamming, and inappropriate promotes auto-removal. Regardless, this consensus building should stay active for at least a few days vs. 6 hours. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Marty: it's usage should be a case-by-case basis and not under one category or the other, and would be best used under the judgment of the editor(s) involved in the article's development. And yeah, that was an overly fast conclusion to this discussion especially given it apparently occurred when many of us are asleep?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is on a case-by-case basis, will it really change anything? After all, some might think that it does have merit, others won't, others may not check to see if it's already been checked for merit. It's all going to turn into a big mess no matter what we do. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Even if it is on a case-by-case basis, will it really change anything?" Um, yes? Given the alternative routes would imply it should be used everywhere or not at all, I'd say this is the best option. We can't account for how other editors might take it and we don't prohibit links in general: as long as it can be justified for one reason or another, it should be fine.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That quote was meant to be read in conjunction with the rest of my post. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"The current wording is, essentially, "Don't link it unless it's substantial", which IMO should put it under the "inappropriate" heading, regardless of the wording change. Right now users are seeing it in the "appropriate" section and spamming it all over the place even when MobyGames has nothing of value as a link." I don't really care which section it is placed under as long as the wording remains the same. SharkD (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The change you're trying to make is dealing with two vastly different issues:

• One part of that statement is about gaming databases. What the guidelines state is that we should link to them if they provide a source of information that we otherwise would not include in the article like credits and screenshots. That is, if one has not been able to include a game's website, or its developer/publisher website, then this database link is the last consideration that should be made. Thus, it's not a link to avoid, but it is a link to use in lieu of any other links. Thus, wholesale removal of this line is not appropriate.
• The specific advice about MobyGames - as specifically there are more than just MobyGames for game database information. There needs to be a discussion if MobyGames is better than AllGame, or do we use the best one for the situation. Now if its agreed that we should avoid MobyGames, then we need to rmeove that as an example in the statement, but not the statement itself as was done per the first point. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• If sources are that limited for information, then editors should include the credits and a screenshot in the article use the mobygames content as a source instead of having it as an external link.
• By allowing a link to one game database you are automatically allowing every other game database to be linked to.--Lorson (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

When browsing through articles within the scope of Project Video Games I have come across a few where the image in the infobox is a screenshot. In my opinion the image in the infobox should always be box art, with a screenshot in the main body of the article. I'd like to gain a few more opinions on the matter before making wholesale changes to various articles, so what do other editors think about images in infoboxes. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Which articles in particular are you talking about? Depending on the article, it could vary. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Example is Liquid Kids and before I altered them a few of The Addams Family articles has screenshots in the infobox. I think what I am proposing is a standardisation across all video game articles so that there is always box art and a screenshot for a game. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn. For most cases was have a blanket FUR (and some strong consensus) that box art is ok on all of these pages. On the other hand, some articles are so short that having two fair use images is hard to justify. In those cases I would prefer that we show what the game looks like over what the box looks like especially if the box is mundane and the game content interesting. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The question could well be ablut why the images are used. I like to use the images for identification purposes. To the casual reader who perhaps doesn't know all that much about video games the box art may aid more towards identification (as this is all they may have seen on a shop shelf or ebay listing) than a screenshot would. I have been tending to place screenshots in a "gameplay" section of the article as it is more relevant to that than in an infobox in my opinion.

Also, the infobox tends to contain technical information and release dates etc, and a screenshot isn't really appropriate in this area of an article, whereas box art is far more appropriate as it relates more to the details of the game. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly a lot of box art tells us more about what the marketing team thought would be cool than the game itself. If I want to identify a game like zelda the box is great. It was an iconic design that had some connection to the game. Bases Loaded (video game) less so. Another issue is availability. If we have a case where the box art is available or even on the page and a screenshot is being used in the infobox, then I could be convinced that it should be replaced--articles aren't that big. But if there is no box art forthcoming, I don't see the logic in moving a principal right justified image down the page for the sake of consistency. Protonk (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Most box art images are reletively easy to find either on the internet or by scanning the box, and the vast majority pass a fair-use rationale. However, I agree that if it proves impossible to obtain a box image then the screenshot will have to be acceptable in the infobox. If there is no box art on the page then it should get tagged on the talk page for the article and the image department will endevour to sort it out. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue is now being discussed at length on the main talk page for the project here. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-English release dates

Normally, non-English release dates are generally accepted when a game is released first in a non-English region and/or was developed in such a region. But shouldn't the owner of the intellectual property (which is not necessarily the developer) and a franchise's history also play a role? For example, Battalion Wars. The Japanese release date was removed since the game was developed by a British company. I don't think the inclusion of non-English release dates should be solely decided on the developer when said company doesn't even own the rights of the game and won't be allowed to develop it without the copyright holders agreement. The game is fully owned by the publisher, Nintendo, a company with its headquarters in Japan. The Wars series itself was established in Japan and was even exclusive to this region for many years. And it's not like that the (Japanese) copyright holder had no influence on the game's development, they had, as the credits prove. The property owner always has the last word on the game's content. In my opinion, the Japanese release date belongs to the article for reasons explained. --Grandy02 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"TBA" when announced date is missed?

Is a release date of "TBA" appropriate for an unreleased game that has already missed its most recently-announced date (as has happened with Guitar Rising)? NeonMerlin 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Verb tense for referring to cancelled and unreleased products

IMO the verb tense section should explicitly state that unreleased games, systems and other products should be referred to in present tense because they already exist in some form. I also think we should use present tense to refer to cancelled products. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate costs

In the list of inappropriate content this article mentions cost: "The cost of games, products, or subscriptions in any form should not be included in articles". I'm guessing by this we mean the purchasing cost? e.g. how much it costs to buy a particular game in a store. But do you think it is okay to mention the costs of developing or producing a game? In some cases this might be interesting to note in the Development History or Reception sections. I don't think it is needed for every game.

I'm going to be bold and update the page. Feedback is welcome. --Culix (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As with all such content, both purchase price and development cost CAN be noteworthy on a case-by-case basis. For example, say "Assassin's Creed 3" retails for $120 when all other games on the same platform retail for $70, and there isn't anything in particular about the new game that justifies the cost. That's going to get a lot of press coverage and would be worth noting in the article about that game (the game costs an unusual amount in the stores). Such a thing is unlikely, but if it were to happen, it would be an example of a "particularly noteworthy" detail that would be supported by sources. As for development costs, such data is always worth including if it falls in that "particularly noteworthy" column - for example, if "Assassin's Creed 3" ends up having the largest-ever budget for a video game, or a larger budget than Hollywood's biggest blockbuster movie of the year, etc. Again, that sort of info will be well-sourced and easily verifiable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks for the reply! --Culix (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The "In general, anything can become suitable for coverage in Wikipedia if it is given significant attention by reliable sources." line in the exceptions section already covers this. Perhaps the cost exception line in the inappropriate content section could be converted to an example in the exceptions section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I revised the point in the main "inappropriate content" list to make it more concise. There actually already is an example in the "Exceptions" section further down - the PS3's launch price. So I think we're covered. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding subheaders for Organization

The Naming Convention section has nice H3 headers that show up in the TOC. What do you think about doing this for the Organization section too, for games, characters, and settings? Do you think that would disrupt the flow of the article or make the TOC too long? Or would it be useful because you could link directly to those sections? --Culix (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are GOG.com links acceptable?

GOG.comis a website that has gotten quite famous for distributing old games in a playable state on current hardware. A lot of users are adding links to various games' GOG section; where the game can be purchased. I'm torn on this issue, because on one hand - GOG is clearly a commercial website like Gamespot, IGN, and 1UP, etc, so that's no good. On the other hand, GOG is the single most known distributor of old games, and often contains some relevant info on the games they sell.

So what is the verdict on this? Eik Corell (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Would probably fall under "advertisement". Even IGN and Gamespot include some information we don't. SharkD  Talk  11:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DMOZ

I think DMOZ should be mentioned [edit: in the External links section], as it is often ignored, and can be used to cover a lot of other external sites people may be tempted to add in one fell swoop. SharkD  Talk  11:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate content for lists -termilogy

Should we add terms/terminology? I am in a slow, but continual process of cleaning up the Tsukihime article(s) and believe that in-universe terms should also be removed. Criteria 6 doesn't exactly go out and say it is inappropriate though since the examples given are all tangible (well at least virtually tangible >_>).

Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.

I think changing it to:

Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, in-universe terminology and so on are considered inappropriate.[...]

陣内_Jinnai 08:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to remove glossary sections, or in-universe terms in general? In many cases, tight restrictions on in-universe terminology would force us to use awkward, needlessly verbose language to avoid using in-universe terminology, and we don't have any similar restrictions for in-univrse terminology in articles about television or literature. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well to be frank I think that is because it isn't as big of an issue in telivision or literature in general. It is moreso with video games, and to a lesser extent anime, because of the culture around them seeks to be exhaustive (FE, wanting to have an article for every pokemon character in the past). While there are certainly isntances that occur with this outside video games, they are generally focused around a particular series. Specifically what I meant this to apply for is various in-game terminology which I see a lot of articles use. It isn't clearly traditional trivia because it may have relevence in another format, but a listing of terms is not that.陣内_Jinnai 05:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change

Language/region preference

Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.

What is meant by an English-language region? Most European games are developed in English only, should it matter if a game is developed in the UK or Germany if they are both in English? I suggest changing the above to:

Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game's original release is not in English use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.

If no one objects I'll change this in the next few days. --MrStalker ^(talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with guidelines, but it seems fine correction to me.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was one of the people behind the wording of that rule. The reason "If the game is not developed in an English-language region" was used was to raise the importance of the developement location over the release location. I wanted to keep release dates and release locations to a minimum in the guideline and keep it specifically focused on the developer. - X201 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if I understand you correctly, this new wording should be more precise to your original purpose since it to a greater extent prefers cover arts chosen based on developer location rather than where the game gets its first "English-region", i.e. North American or UK, release. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Console neutrality

Also I think this need some clarification:

Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without the console's identification can be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a console-neutral picture.

Shouldn't PC be considered platform neutral? I guess this particular line is in the guideline because we don't want to promote any specific console with the console war(s) going on, but when it comes to PC it really doesn't matter, does it? When I say PC I mean PC covers with the old "PC-DVD only" markings, not the "Games for Windows" markings, because they obviously promote Windows as a product. Any generic PCs on the other hand I don't think matters. So, I suggest changing to:

Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without any platform-related logotypes can be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a console-neutral picture. PC game covers with "PC-DVD only" markings (or similar), but not "Games for Windows" markings, is considered console-neutral.

Again, if no one objects I'll change this myself within the next few days. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that these are fair use, are we allowed to actually modify them? Isn't that kind of derivation of work which I assume isn't allowed for fair use imgs? I have no idea though, so correct me on this. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  10:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I can't say for sure what the rule says about it but I guess cropping and resizing isn't actually modifying in a sense, this is what we've always been doing so I would be surprised if it wasn't allowed. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Some guy a while back started a huge discussion on the validity of altering cover artwork to make it neutral. It started on this page, escalated to WT:VG and then onto WT:OR (I think), where it came down quite clearly on the "yes, its ok" side of things. -- Sabre (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okey then, now that's been clarified. What about my proposed changes? --MrStalker ^(talk) 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"logotypes" part seems fine to me. Shouldn't "can be used" be "should be used"? About discouraging "Games for Windows". If the game is only for Windows (which is many) I don't see a problem with leaving that logo in. It's not promotional if the game is indeed only for Windows PC and nothing else. I rather it said ""Games for Windows" markings should only be used for Windows-exclusive games" or something. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

PC-DVD is a Windows-only marking, as much as "Games for Windows" is; games for Mac are not marked with PC, and as Linux really doesn't have native games it's a moot point in that direction. Point is you're still favoring one system over another. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed PC-DVD can refer to more than Windows. If PC-DVD is indeed only Windows games (which I did not know), then I am all for the former and dropping "for Windows".—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering about this. I always think "Windows system" when I see "PC" on games. —Ost (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know "PC-DVD only" means Windows, but I'm not sure. Anyway, question is what is the intention of the rule? Since the term "console" rather then "platform" is used in the original text I've interpreted it like it's to not favor any specific console in the ongoing "console-war", but since PC is neutral in that war PC covers are also neutral. Besides, the "PC-DVD only" markings are much more discrete, doesn't include any trademarks or logos and only take up the top left corner of the cover. It serves more as notice that you need a DVD-player to play it than anything else. I wouldn't say it favors Windows in any way. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you want to be explicit that marked games only be used for console/OS-exclusive games. Not everyone knows how to remove markings from the covers and cover art without the platform may not be readily available. —Ost (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably not a good idea being too explicit. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I understand the sentiment, but this is starting to sound WP:CREEPy. I think that this could better be served without explicitly whitelisting or blacklisting cover markings, with a phrase like Game covers from PC games are considered console neutral if they do not indicate a required operating system. Although personally, I don't even think that that is necessary; The portion feels more like a footnote and if the issue ever came up, directing people to this discussion would demonstrate the intention. —Ost (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I think your point of not mentioning any specific markings is a solid one. That way it just states what the consensus is, rather than saying this and this is (not) allowed, avoiding instruction creep. Also I was thinking of replacing "console" with "platform" to clear up any ambiguity. So, how about this instead:

Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without any platform-related logotypes should be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. Game covers from PC games are considered platform-neutral if they do not indicate a required operating system.

--MrStalker ^(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, since you can't call a cover that states "Mac-only" neutral.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

...Except PC games are still platform specific. Why the hell are we legislating all this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. A PC DOS game is not the same as a PC Windows game nor a PC Linux game, etc. Consoles only have 1 OS by default so we list consoles by their system, not their OS. Computers, particularly PCs, have multiple OSes so the industry uses OS to separate them.陣内_Jinnai 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't have anything better to do! Jokes aside, yes covers that just say "PC-<something>" usually requires Windows, but point is it doesn't say so on the cover, it doesn't have any big fat trademark logo on it that console covers do. Those logos are designed to attract attention and promote the console which the PC-CD markings are not. I don't know for sure, but I think this was the intention when that paragraph originally was formed. One positive side effect would also be that people that don't know how to handle image editing programs could take the PC cover and it would be fine. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To an extent they are advertising. FE, when Windows Vista came out there were stickers and items that listed an item as Vista compatable as a way of marketing to consumers that this item is compatable with Windows Vista and the person buying it would be more comfortable making the purchase. Some software also had these logos.陣内_Jinnai 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to consensus for the two above changes so I've gone ahead and made them. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

multiple covers

I'm wondering if we could/should suggest using multiple covers if there's significant coverage of the artwork itself, for example if the original cover is controversial in some way and the game is rereleased with a different cover. I think there's precedence in articles about albums. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is already covered: "Cover images can only be used in the body of the article if there is significant commentary on the cover itself." --MrStalker ^(talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call, not sure how I missed that.  :) Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

About that, what about titles like Dragon Quest 4 or Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages which use 2 in the infobox. For the former, the release dates, covers and art are radically different and finally the latter is the more well known one (which part of the image's fair use rationale is helping readers recognize this is the right article for what they are looking for). With different titles while the latter is an article about 2 games?陣内_Jinnai 05:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess if a game isn't notable enough to have its own article then it isn't notable enough to have its own cover art pictured. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Might make sense for the latter, but the former is its own game. Many people do not spinout articles needlessly for every remake.
Although the Zelda one is more in keeping with the useless spinout debate. I am certain both could be split out into their own articles and pass the GNG, but would it increase the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia to do so? So in neither case is it really a question of notability (both examples could have an article that passes the GNG for each game).陣内_Jinnai 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception sections

Quoting from this project page (the essential content paragraph):

A "Reception" section. This shows the impact that the subject had on the game industry: commercially, artistically, and technologically.

I would say that a reception section is only appropriate content of a video game article when the game had a SUBSTANTIAL impact on game industry either commercially, artistically and technologically. Most games do not qualify for this. And even for those games that do, it should be clearly stated HOW the game had impact, not only list review ratings in a number of magazines. Review ratings from computer magazines are consumer advisory content, but not encyclopedic content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.250.245 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Listing review scores is not enough, but your ideas beyond that are not generally supported for media of any type as long as it passes the WP:GNG. That doesn't mean that its always best to have a seperate article, just that the GNG supports reviews as valid reasons to show notability of an item, including video games.陣内_Jinnai 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the standard treatment of most media types in encyclopedias is to not write much about reception. It is usually only noted if it caused some sort of outrage, sales were very unproportional to the reviews, or were intially not highly regarded but became a classic much later, or is notable for some other reason. For example literature articles, very little is written about sales and how much the critics community liked it. Compare to video game articles, which sometimes have reception sections longer than my screen, sometimes even "prerelease reception" sections. I agree that GNG supports reviews as indicators of notability of the game itself, but it does not support reviews as indicators of notability of the reviews. 213.66.250.245 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is some other real world impact, then yes, that should be explained. However there are times, such as Chrono Trigger where the reception of the item is of key concern. Sales data is a bit different. Listing basic sales data is all that is needed, except price unless the price was notable enough to have RS commentary. It's not black and white except to say that more than basic scores are needed and having several paragraphs for each source is too much. It all depends on the topic, the amount and depth of the commentary, and balance so that the article doesn't look like it is too {{in-universe}} nor just about sales figures and reception.

FE: an article I worked on, School Rumble, is likely to get a FA soon and has a substantial amount of reception. However, each point is about the various major media types that have been released and the way they are viewed differences depending on the what is being reviewed and how. Thus it has a huge reception section.陣内_Jinnai 14:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Check for instance Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitmans poetry classic from 1855. It also has a quite long reception paragraph, and I think it is justified. I even agree with the people on the talk page claiming it could be expanded. But it is a good article, including the reception paragraph, which is written in clear prose, is not overly detailed and conveys efficiently how it was recieved. I think that kind of reception paragraphs should be the model to follow. If I were to add that Leaves of Grass were placed 32 in the Top 100 Greatest Poetry Collection List of the Poetry Magazine 1888 it would not really add much quality to the article (I dont know if it was 32, I just picked a number).

I know that wikipedia articles on popular media, like movies and computer games, it is commonplace to have long sections of quotes by magazine reviewers, placing in dozens of lists, reviewer scores and such. But I think much of this information is not really encyclopedic, but more of a trivia nature, and most articles would be improved without it. 213.66.250.245 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also a start-class article, the second lowest. It may be close to a C-class, I didn't check it too thoroughly. But in comparison to the two i listed, Chrono Trigger a FA article, and School Rumble a FAC and probable future FA article, that's what we look toward as benchmarks, not lower-class ones because those have issues and often haven't been vetted by parties not wholely invested in the subject. You'll have to find some FA articles (after 2007 and preferably 2009 or later) that have such before you can begin to make a case.陣内_Jinnai 18:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand one point, 213.x, in that unfortunately many articles' reception sections aren't that good. We shouldn't be giving scores without context, and we should also not be just parroting critics; to be meaningful and useful to readers, you have to synthesize and summarize wherever possible to be clear and concise without distortion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You just made my eyes bleed. We should not be synthesizing antyhing. Summarizing is good, but we should not be drawing our own conclusions. We have to use verifiable information from reliable sources and this unfortunately leads to a bit of parroting. —Ost (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to be obtuse. Sure we need to avoid the alphabet soup of proscribed thoughts, but summary is synthesis, whether we like to admit it or not. Sticking to the sources without regurgitation is a tough balance and David has described it reasonably. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The ideal is when it is possible find sources which has already summarized and synthesized the reception for us, but we will have to look deeper than just GameSpot and similar sources to find it, and we can not expect to find it for every game. 213.66.250.245 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

←People who haven't done lots of research outside of Wikipedia, I fear, have given synthesis a bad name. Fact is, when you've got a massive pile of sources, you are synthesizing them into a whole article. That doesn't mean you combine sources to suggest a third idea, it means that you are putting some intelligence into the construction and presentation of facts. Summarizing would mean that a reception section would be one or two sentences on every notable review of the game out there; the worst Wikipedia articles are made in this brain-dead manner, and we suffer for it. Any large topic is a matter of insightful reduction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I may have jumped too high when I saw a wikiword like synthesis. I agree that summarizing is needed and acceptable, and I understand that it can be seen as a subset of synthesizing. Finding sources that already summarize reviews would be ideal, but in most situations we have to settle for objective summaries of attributable critiques. —Ost (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only been a few sources that summarize reviews that I've ever seen. Joystiq does "frankenreviews" where it takes 5 scores and includes a quote without analysis from the review. Plus, Joystiq still remains in our unreliable section. Gamasutra on the other hand has "Critical Reception" articles for select titles (see [3] for example) and while they add some of their own language, the bulk is still a combination of review score and several review quotes without synthesizing them together. Long after a game's been out, there may exist such sources that make all those connections but that's only for select games that get high praise. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL#Non-English games

This guideline set basically says that if the translated title resembles the original Japanese title in anyway, the romaji version of the title should be omitted. This was brought to my attention after Jinnai reverted my edits to the lead of Bishōjo game after I added "Bishōjo gēmu" and "gyarugē" to the lead. Basically, I don't think anyone does this on the project at all and I think it conflicts with the Japanese manual of style. This bit of text should probably be removed, because there are very rarely any titles that are identical when read in English and Japanese. Resident Evil should include the text "Baiohazādo" (as I just added it) and SoulCalibur should have "SōruKyaribā".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You might get more discussion posting this at WT:VG.陣内_Jinnai 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

New Non-English games guidelines

I'd like to propose some new guidelines to improve the Non-English games section a bit, namely some elaborations on long nihongo templates, usage of boldface, and official/unofficial translations.

• 1. The issue was drowned a bit in the discussion about romanization of foreign-language words last time, so I'll bring it up here again. Basically, if fully utilized nihongo templates [in the format: Title with official romanizations of proper names (kanji + kana, rōmaji, official or unofficial translation)] for foreign language titles get so long they hurt the readability of the lead paragraph, they are to be included as a footnote. Example: the two Oracle games. Use common sense to determine when this is the case, otherwise discuss it.
• 2. The guidelines should mention that foreign language titles not commonly used in English should not use boldface (with a link to WP:BOLDTITLE), as I see this happening a lot in video game articles. Prime Blue (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• 3. We need an established format for official and unofficial translations. We already determined that unofficial translations are to be enclosed in quotation marks. I think it should also be mentioned that those translations are not to use italics, but to instead use that for official translations, which always need a reference.

My proposal for a newly worded "Non-English games" section

Japanese titles

The inclusion of Japanese titles can enhance a video game article by providing additional cultural context. However, they should only be given for games of Japanese origin whose official English name differs significantly from its Japanese name. Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles. Otherwise, one of the following formats is to be used:

• If a Japanese title has the same meaning as another regional title, use a nihongo title template with the format {{nihongo|'''''English title'''''|kanji/kana|rōmaji}}:

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (ゼルダの伝説 トワイライトプリンセス, Zeruda no Densetsu Towairaito Purinsesu) is an action-adventure game [...]

• If the game is known in English-speaking countries by its phonetic Japanese title, use the format {{nihongo|'''''English title'''''|kanji/kana|rōmaji|translation}}:

Katamari Damacy (塊魂, Katamari Damashii, lit. "Clump Spirit") is a is a third-person puzzle-action video game [...]

• If there is a significant difference between the two titles, put the Japanese title in a separate nihongo template using the format {{nihongo|''Japanese title with official romanizations for proper names''|kanji/kana|rōmaji|translation}}. Foreign language titles not commonly used in English are not given in boldface but in italics. For example:

The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, known as Zelda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Bōshi (ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎのぼうし, Zeruda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Bōshi, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Mysterious Hat") in Japan [...]

Translations

As shown above, the meaning of the Japanese title may differ from the English title. In these cases, the Japanese title should be accompanied by an English translation.

• If an official translation for the foreign title exists in the country of origin, give it in italics and provide a reference for it after the nihongo template:

Castlevania, known as Akumajō Dracula (悪魔城ドラキュラ, Akumajō Dorakyura, officially translated Devil's Castle Dracula) in Japan [...]

• If no official translation exists, give a literal translation and enclose it in quotation marks to indicate its unofficial status:

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, known as Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island") in Japan [...]

Readability issues

In some cases, there are several Japanese titles, or the fully-utilized nihongo templates are so long they hurt the readability of the lead paragraph. To prevent this, include them as footnotes using {{ref|JAP|JAP}} after the English title. Place the actual note with the Japanese title and nihongo template in a section separate from the references using {{note|JAP}}:

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages^JAP are two action-adventure games [...]

Notes:

^ Oracle of Seasons was released in Japan as Zelda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Ki no Mi ~Daichi no Shō~ (ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎの木の実 ～大地の章～, Zeruda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Ki no Mi ~Daichi no Shō~, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Mysterious Fruits ~Chapter of Earth~") and Oracle of Ages was released in Japan as Zelda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Ki no Mi ~Jikū no Shō~ (ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎの木の実 ～時空の章～, Zelda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Ki no Mi ~Jikū no Shō~, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Mysterious Fruits ~Chapter of Spacetime~").

References:

[...]

Note

Similar guidelines like those described above apply to games of other foreign origin, such as Korean RPGs.

Comments

Though the first point is likely to change soon given how romanization of foreign-language words is being discussed again at the moment, I think the other proposals will help standardize the video game articles. Questions, comments, other proposals? Prime Blue (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What about game series articles like .hack (video game series)? That standard could add a lot of excess wordiness to the lead.陣内_Jinnai 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean if all of the individual game titles there would include nihongo templates? Prime Blue (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I picked that article in particular because it is a merged article and so none of those games have their own indivisual one to link to. They are all indivusally released titles as well and the main subject of the article (something we usually use the templates for in the lead).陣内_Jinnai 02:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I wasn't sure if that is what you meant. If someone felt like adding the Japanese titles in that article, it would be a typical case of putting them in a common footnote. So, applying the guideline, I would put the footnote with fully-utilized nihongo templates after the sentence "The four games are titled [...]". It preserves the readability of the lead while at the same time providing the Japanese titles with their phonetic transcription and their translation. Prime Blue (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that while not exactly restrictied, that goes against the spirit of WP:LEAD as nothing there is contriversial nature. In this case I'll admit though there may not be an easy solution given the titles are in kanji, not katakana of English words.陣内_Jinnai 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you elaborate? I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you talking about controversial subjects as mentioned in WP:LEADCITE in particular? Prime Blue (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, particulary the part about not putting citations in the lead unless they are for contriversial info because of transclusion issues. notations have the same transclusion issues.陣内_Jinnai 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:LEADCITE does not talk about footnotes as proposed above but instead about redundant citations and references for material that is not challenged or not likely to be challenged: It means that sources for non-controversial information in the lead (e.g. the name of a game and its genre) are not absolutely mandatory.

Also, the alternative names section of WP:LEAD even addresses the readability issue caused by foreign names:

• "When the subject is best known by an English title, its alternative names may be included; however, the editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability."

It seems only logical to use footnotes, as it maximizes the information available while still preserving the readability of the lead. I see no good reason against their usage. Prime Blue (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Or it could be added in the body or the article the first time the titles are used.陣内_Jinnai 02:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are at cross-purposes a bit. It is a given that the foreign titles will appear only once anyway. The thing is that there are games with such long fully-utilized nihongo templates for their Japanese title, it clutters up the lead section beyond readability. That is when a footnote should be used (see example five), otherwise the Japanese title can appear regularly in the lead (see examples one to four). Prime Blue (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If we decide on using different conventions for official and unofficial translations, it would be helpful to modify the template to have these parameters so that we don't have to look up the conventions. Beyond that, I find the translation of the Japanese title to be more informative than the romanization. I've stayed out of the debate because I not very informed on the subject and don't understand why Wikipedia has to inform readers how to handle specific non-English text, but what the title means in English seems more important. —Ost (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that translations will be more informative for the majority of Wikipedia readers, as not everyone has knowledge of Japanese. Maybe the nihongo title template should be updated to get rid of the bolded title, and to include a flag producing a different introduction to a translation (e.g. "lit." or "officially translated" etc.) depending on their official/unofficial status? Prime Blue (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:BOLDTITLE, all translations should be italicized:

"Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology. Foreign names (including transcriptions) that use the Roman alphabet should be italicized if they are not bolded; those written in other alphabets (such as Cyrillic) should not."

Also, I don't think it's very efficient to open this discussion when there's a related discussion ongoing at WP:MOSJA. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BOLDTITLE is talking just about foreign names and their romanized transcriptions there (e.g. Chernivets’ka oblast’), not necessarily about translations from one language to another. At least I'd find it very strange for a new game to be announced and a fan-translated title to appear in italics immediately after. There is a certain kind of definitiveness resonating with text in italics. I wouldn't mind too much if unofficial translations used italics as well (though I find it to be the wrong way to go), but I do think they should be clearly distinguishable from official ones.

About your other comment: I mentioned above that the first point will change as soon as there is a clear consensus on the romanization matter. However, judging from the previous discussion, it might take a whole while until that happens. Wikipedia guidelines, just like articles, are changing permanently. Prime Blue (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a better example than Castlevania as I don't see where "Devil's Castle Dracula" is used in the reference. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Dracula part is not disputed, but Wander and the Colossus would probably fit better. Any objections to that one? Prime Blue (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't understand why it's Wander to Kyozō (ワンダと巨像, Wanda to Kyozō, officially translated Wander and the Colossus) instead of simply Wander and the Colossus (ワンダと巨像, Wanda to Kyozō). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is debatable. I think it should follow the proposal above since the work itself is known/was released as Wanda to Kyozō in Japan, and was officially translated in supplemental material later. For The World Ends With You, I think it is fine to use "known as/released as It's a Wonderful World (すばらしきこのせかい, Subarashiki Kono Sekai, lit. "This Wonderful World") in Japan" instead since the official English title in Japan is provided on the box (though that might not be the best example as it is not identical to the literal translation). Are there other games where the near-literal English translation of the Japanese title is given on the box or – to a lesser degree maybe – somewhere in the game itself? Symphony of the Night comes to mind (the Japanese staff credits begin with "Dracula X: Nocturne in the Moonlight"), though that one omits the Akumajō part. Prime Blue (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm just thinking now: It might be better always to word this as "released as ... in Japan" to avoid judgments about whether a game is "known" by its English title in Japan. Prime Blue (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I still say that it doesn't need to be placed in the lead if its too long (ie affects readability) and can be moved to the first instance in the article. We do these for a lot of secondary works already and it works just fine so I see no reason if that is the issue it cannot be moved from the lead to the body especially as it can cause transclusion issues.陣内_Jinnai 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Prime Blue (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

School Rumble and Popotan.陣内_Jinnai 16:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But these are two very short titles, and they are both in the lead. Could you explain? ...Sorry, I guess I'm having a slow week here. :/ Prime Blue (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Read later on and you'll notice that there are several other titles mentioned in the lead. None of them have the nihongo template though as they are mentioned later on. I'm saying the same could be applied to long-titled items like The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages.陣内_Jinnai 17:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not familiar with these series. But it seems the titles in the articles you mentioned above are materials based on the series and individual season titles, so this example is hard to apply to video games titles (which typically are the article's subject). Though either way, I think that there are several problems with moving long Japanese titles down:

1. WP:LEAD places foreign language names of the article's subject in the lead.

2. Where else in the article should they be included/how should we mention them?

3. Having short Japanese titles in the lead section and long Japanese titles further down may confuse readers and editors alike.

4. By mentioning the long titles later in the article, we are not preventing readability issues, we are merely moving them. At least I find the other related media section for School Rumble a pretty good example of how multiple nihongo templates can hurt the flow of an article.

Prime Blue (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Any other comments or suggestions? Prime Blue (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically the point is legibility and flow of the lead is given special emphasis within Wikipedia (thus why we have something like WP:LEADCITE in LEAD and thus transfering readability issues to other sections of the article while it may still present an issue there that may need to be dealt with, falls in line with the spirit of trying to make the lead as clean and citation/footnote-free and legible as possible.陣内_Jinnai 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving the titles out of the lead still leaves the issues I mentioned above. And I also explained that WP:LEADCITE does not talk about footnotes as they are used in the proposal. Prime Blue (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not see reference to #1 being a requirement for leads, just not to boldface them. For #2, that depends. For video game articles, the best place to put it is in the gameplay section, the first time it is mentioned. Other articles that might be secondarily under this project could be under its relevant media section, like School Rumble, if its not already elsewhere. #3, I don't see any problem with as we will only be used one title, just the English title in the lead and #4 was taken care of. I believe leadcite would also qualify for footnotes liek those mentioned, but I'm willing to to go there if you are for excruciation.陣内_Jinnai 20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. That is okay then.

2. I don't see how foreign titles could be mentioned in the gameplay section without coming completely out of the blue. Could you word an example using the Oracle article's gameplay section?

3. I should have elaborated on that more: I was talking about how articles with a short Japanese title have it in the lead, while articles with long Japanese titles would have it in another section further down. That seems much more confusing to me than just using footnotes for the long titles.

4. Again, there is a difference between informative footnotes and citations and references. And WP:LEADCITE does in no way prohibit the usage of footnotes or citations and references in the lead section either, it merely states that citations and references for unchallenged or not likely to be challenged material do not have to be used there. If you need confirmation on this by other users, the talk page would probably be the best place to ask.

5. Let me add this fifth point by asking why footnotes should not be used to address this issue (other than that interpretation of WP:LEADCITE above).

And, nah, it's not excruciating (at least we're still far from it). :-) It's the normal process of reaching consensus. Prime Blue (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

2 For the example you requested, it would have to be remodeled to fit the more common format for VG articles with gameplay coming first. If you did that, then you could have something like:

Both The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages{{r|group=Note|Nihongo}} have similar gameplay elements to each other.

Without that it is more difficult, but it is still possible. I would have to restructure it by removing the #Lined endings section and moving that to the front and adding the sentance:

In both The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages{{r|group=Note|Nihongo}} the stories begin as the Triforce calling out to Link whereupon he in transported to a different world depending on the game—Holodrum in Seasons and Labrynna in Ages—in order to save it from a calamitous disruption caused shortly after his arrival. Each game has its own ending and if [continue with the moved #linked ending section here].

3 I would say the full title should aways be mentioned first, or rather full English title and optionally other languages.

4 I would say that applies equally to footnotes. No one is likely to challenge the English title of a Zelda game not having its Japanese title in the lead if its mentioned later on.

5 It's not essential to understanding the work in most cases. How would not knowing the Japanese title harm the overall informative nature of the lead if its mentioned later on? IMO it wouldn't. It would help to summarize the main points to an English readership.陣内_Jinnai 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Okay, now you confused me completely with your example (more and more, I think I might not be having a slow week but a Slowpoke week). I thought you were against using footnotes and wanted to include the fully utilized nihongo templates in a section below, but now you're using footnotes ({{r|group=Note|Nihongo}}) in your example. I'll have to pose this question to avoid even further misunderstandings: Are you, in general, for or against the usage of footnotes for long Japanese titles (disregarding for the moment if these footnotes would be placed in the lead section or in another section further down)?

3. I feel the original name from the country of origin should always be included in the article (disregarding what consensus will be reached on using footnotes and on where to put the foreign titles).

4. I still think you are misinterpreting WP:LEADCITE. To prevent this discussion from moving in circles, I asked SlimVirgin to come over and to confirm which of our two interpretations is valid. He/she (?) was one of the last administrators to make an edit to it.

5. You are misunderstanding me: I asked why footnotes (no matter where they go) were not appropriate to solve this issue, not if Japanese titles should be mentioned in the lead or not. Prime Blue (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea of footnotes improve readability, but again much of this information is all but irrelevant to me. As an alternative, would it be possible to use {{tooltip}} to present the information without having to use a footnote? I'm unsure how the template is received stylistically, but this would trim the prose and present the information by hovering even for users that don't use popups. —Ost (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That would have seemed like a feasible alternative, but it works only with plain text, rendering nihongo templates unusable. Example:

"The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons are two action-adventure games [...]"

Prime Blue (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I edited some subsections with intros into the proposal, as well as a shortcut to the guidelines. Also, I wikified the term rōmaji in the template usage explanation, and I removed the sentence about the recommended inclusion of romanizations for kanji as those are a given anyway (at least I think everyone agrees on their inclusion). Lastly, I added explanations for when the nihongo title template should be used. Prime Blue (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm reading this again, I think that it is not a good idea to put an official translation as one of the "extra" parameters in {{nihongo}}. If we know that "Castlevania" is "Devil's Castle Dracula" in Japan, it should be written as

Castlevania, originally released as Devil's Castle Dracula (悪魔城ドラキュラ, Akumajō Dorakyura, ) in Japan...

in the article. The issue still stands as to what to do with games that have different names for which we can only give a literal translation. That could be what {{nihongo3}} is for, as I have modified The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages currently. Rather than giving two romaji names, with just modifying "Zelda" and "Zeruda", you can save space and just have it once and use "Zeruda no Densetsu..." (kanji, literally translated as "The Legend of Zelda..."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the issue I, Jinnai, and Joren mentioned (though the comments were hardly findable in the huge mess the MOS:JP talk page turned into ^_^): We only know that the game/series is officially translated as Devil's Castle Dracula, but it was never "released as" (or even worse, "known as") Devil's Castle Dracula in Japan as that English title did not appear on a box. It gives the average reader the impression that this is the actual release name in Japan, that's why I and the others oppose that wording. On the contrary, the wording "released in Japan as It's a Wonderful World" is completely fine, as that actually is the release title (whereas using "known as It's a Wonderful World in Japan" might still be problematic as the Japanese will probably best know the game as Subarashiki Kono Sekai). Prime Blue (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of rōmaji for English words rendered in katakana

Should be brought up because it came up, but what about terms that use english words transformed into katakana? This takes 2 forms:

• Terms with use a japanese word in the tile + an english word such as "bishōjo game" the first word, a japanese word, is already in romaji form and the second is a loan word, ゲーム. Repeating here serves no real purpose as far as i can see.
• second one is with words that use the original Japanese, but without the special characters "ō" and "û". but are otherwise the same.陣内_Jinnai 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As Megata Sanshiro mentioned above, there is still an ongoing discussion about this particular issue on MOS-JP. I've rekindled a bit since our last discussion and am kind of indifferent on this issue now (which is why I didn't propose any guideline regarding this anymore and think it should be updated once there is a clear consensus on it). I think it is much more important to preserve the readability of the lead and to use footnotes to achieve this. Prime Blue (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding geemu is not going to harm anything or clutter up the lead at all. Shunting things off to footnotes, which is where they don't belong at all as it should be for references and sources, is not a suitable alternative.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of harm is not a reason to do anything else this project would allow character articles that fail the GNG. They don't do any harm as Wikipedia isn't made out of paper.陣内_Jinnai 02:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then it provides a disservice to the reader to exclude all possible information on the title of an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes are not the same as references, it's just that footnotes are included in the reference sections in most articles as the distinction as rarely made by editors. Ryulong, keep in mind that the footnote usage only applies to long titles (or articles with several Japanese titles, like the .hack example above) where the readability of the lead section is hurt. Footnotes are not used otherwise (see all examples in the proposal except for the Oracle games one), and the rōmaji issue is separate from this guideline. I created a new section for you guys to discuss this. Prime Blue (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As announced above. Also see the previous discussion for reference. Prime Blue (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed ad nauseum at WT:MOS-JA right now. Why bother linking to an old dead convo when a live one is going on right now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai and you continued to discuss this issue here even though I linked to the discussion at the MOS-JP talk page and said the guidelines here would be updated with the consensus reached there. In case you two were going to discuss it here further on, I was creating this new section and linked to the old discussion from August 2009 to prevent contributors from making the same points over and over. I just tried to help. Prime Blue (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

External Link to a Game Guide

At Talk:Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#External_Links, we have been discussing adding a second external link :

* Jenson, Chris; Radcliffe, Doug; Chin, Elliot; O'Brien, Ethan (Design) (1999-02-17). "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Game Guide". Gamespot. San Francisco, CA, USA 94105: CBS Interactive Inc. Retrieved 2010-08-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link) - 335 page game guide, covering units, combat, terraforming, bases, facilities, secret projects, technology, factions, social engineering, multiplayer and modifications.

There is a sentence in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links that counsels against this:

Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game.

This seems contrary to WP:ELYES, point 3 that encourages linking to

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

This is the diff that inserted the language into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links. In the archived talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines/Archive_1#two_suggested_changes are the following comments:

I propose we modify the current section "Links to remakes" to expand into more about what links are generally acceptable or not acceptable for VG articles; while some of this repeats WP:EL, citing specific examples related to VGs can't hurt. My thought is that acceptable links (for games themselves) include an official game site, links to the developer/publisher barring official game sites, and then possibly a Moby Games-type link; non-acceptable include fan-made remakes, GameFAQS's guides for the game, or other game guide information (360 achievement point lists), PlanetINSERTGAMEHERE-type sites, and similar fan sites. Mind you, there's exceptions on both sides, but the examples should help prevent the EL linkfarm creepage that can be seen in some articles. --MASEM 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think those are good suggestions. Though I think the nature of VG release dates will always lend itself to inaccuracies. Another suggestion I'd like to bring up is the addition of more Organization guidelines in the Article guidelines#Organization section. Currently there are only recommendations for games. I think it would be helpful for new and current editors to have recommendations for series, character, setting, system, and music articles. I think it will help standardize some of the lower rated articles and improve their overall quality. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

I had created the links to remakes section specifically to deal with the plethora of online or downloadble clone games that kept getting added. These of course violate the copyrights of the game. If you want to expand to a section covering linking policies in general for video game articles, I'd suggest having a main section on links and having this as one of the sub-sections under it. I think its a good idea all around, the more specific we can be (i.e. the more we spell things out so there is no question), the better. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've been WP:BOLD and expanded the section to talk about EL's in general for VG articles and included a breakout of examples for appropriate, inappropriate, and unacceptable links. The existing case of remakes falls under inappropriate (not unacceptable) because some of these may be notable but in general to be avoided. --MASEM 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I think the new changes adequately explains the limitations on external links but still gives editors room to make exceptions as needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

In looking at the statement

Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game.

the link is to WP:NOT#GUIDE, which states that WikiPedia articles should not read like a "how-to" style game guide. WP:NOT#GUIDE does not cover external links (which is covered by WP:EL). I believe that the subject statement took a WP policy about what an article should not be and erroneously applied it to external links contrary to WP policy on external links. While there are editors that disfavor external links and WP policy cautions against link farms, I think the subject statement goes too far. After all, WP:CONLIMITED explicitly states

participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links also states

Appropriate external links - These links should be present if possible in a video game article

...

• If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, a video game's page at MobyGames, Allgame or the Internet Movie Database may be added on a case by case basis.

I find it odd that these three sources should be recommended on a case by case basis while a game guide would be categorically dismissed (subject to exception and common sense) without any consideration about whether it is neutral, accurate, substantial and relevant. For a video game article, isn't gameplay as important to the general reader interested in researching the subject further as a review or cast?

My primary interest in bringing this matter up is to prevent editors from using a statement that seems to derive its authority from a WP policy on articles from being used to disqualify an external link encouraged by the WP policy on external links. My secondary interest is that the subject statement may discourage an external link that the official WP policy on external links encourages.

Thank you for reading this long comment. Vyeh (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:GAMEGUIDE applies only to the article itself. Linking to an official one (if its free) is fine.陣内_Jinnai 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reception sections for articles on unreleased games

How should reception sections be handled for unreleased games? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're not released, how could they possibly be received?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It really depends. If there are expo awards that it wins before release (like E3 Best of Show, etc. ) those definitely should be documented. There's also some pre-release promotion stuff that can be included if this is significant. Some games gain initial impressions from pre-release info and that could be included, but if its the type of information that would be superseded by a post-release reception section, it's probably not appropriate to include. For example, Scribblenauts did gain a lot of pre-release reception that was about the pre-release hype, so that's reasonable to include. On the other hand, I know every gaming magazine is anxious for Portal 2, but there's very little to add right now that wouldn't be part of a fleshed out reception section after it's out, so I won't include it. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The press has been commenting on Duke Nukem Forever for over a decade. Currently, the essential content section of the guideline lists a reception secton as one of the five essential elements of a video game article. If exceptions are going to be made for unreleased games, the essential content section should be rewritten to mention those exceptions. Perhaps the requirement for a reception section should be replaced with the requirement of a section about reception or press coverage. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bringing up Duke Nukem Forever is interesting, as I've been grappling how to deal with that as I've rewritten much of the rest of the article. I agree with Masem that in general, pre-release stuff really gets superceded by release reception and that it's not worth including aside from any notable mentions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrestling rosters

There is a discussion going on at WT:PW about whether or not including the list of characters constitutes a "game guide" or if it is essential information. Opinions from this project would be helpful in establishing a consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Verb tense for MMOs that have closed

A small difference of opinion regarding tenses has arisen on the APB article between an IP users and myself. The guidelines state "When describing a video game or console itself in the abstract, use present tense unless a reliable source proves that no instances of the product exist or the product was never released." How does this relate to MMOs etc that have closed? Personally I think they should still be described with the present tense "is" rather than "was". I can understand people writing "was" as the problem arises from the fact that the servers were switched off rendering the game unplayable. But the game code still exists. Its like the problem the BBC hit a while back. They have programme footage recorded with experimental video recorders. The programme doesn't stop existing just because they don't have a machine to play it back on. Opinions? - X201 (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I generally tend to disagree especially with defunct MMOs. For a normal piece of software which does not require huge server side investment or software which could reasonable expect to be emulated in the future, the present tense is probably acceptable. For an MMO like APB or diku-mud you are describing a persistent world created by software, players and developers which will never again be reunited. We can certainly describe features of the software in present tense (or goings on in a video, e.g. "In video XYV players are doing ABC"), but anything that describes interaction between code and developers (like server load limits), code and players (specific kinds of economies or forms of play), or players and developers (events and the like) should be described in the past tense. The question really comes down to "what exists in the present tense" and for MMOs which have closed down the space of play can't be faithfully described in the present tense. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not unlikely that certain MMOs continue via private servers. WoW has plenty of private servers that will certainly continue long after Blizzard officially closes the game. I'd say that literary present still applies for plot and gameplay ("Players may do x"), but I agree that specific player-developer interactions should be rendered in the past tense ("Developers made item x available for Christmas" or "Developers released a patch to address bug x"). Axem Titanium (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Game drain

WP's coverage of games is weakened to the point of uselessness, leading game experts to not expand WP articles, leading back to deletion in a vicious circle.

For example, game coverage has at least one glaringly obvious double standard. There are scores, perhaps hundreds, of articles on Chess openings, and individual articles for each of the five Chess pieces, and even the chessboard itself, but computer game mechanics are not allowed in any computer game article. Video game mechanics are more complex and thus require more explanation than the moves of individual chess pieces. Chess is elegant in its simplicity, but it is simple, and therefore can be covered in a few sentences. Without anything to say, the articles are flabby and repetitious, padded with illustrations and filled with hypothetical recommendations of the same kind as the strategy guides which are forbidden on WP. Meanwhile other game articles are bled dry of essential content.

Similarly, while Voice acting in Japan is given as much or more credit as/than film actors, WP rules forbid the listing of voice actors in game articles altogether. There is a again, an obvious double standard here: animation articles, whether shorts or feature length, have no such restriction on the listing of their voice actors, and this is reflected in the fact that there is no note paid in the Japanese voice acting culture to a distinction that has been created wholesale from the WP culture. Voice actors in Anime, animated features and games are all Seiyu to the Japanese.
Anarchangel (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a game that is centuries old - and thus has a lot more presence in sources, analysis, and critical thought - than a game that is a few years old. Some video game mechanics have gotten detailed coverage but certainly to no degree like chess.

Similarly, VG voice actors are not glamorized as much as other voice work, and likely moreso in Japan than in the West. Sure, you'll hear about Nolan North all the time, but most VAs in video games are unknowns due to lack of press coverage, and that's something we can't make up for WP. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully your answer is confined to verifiability when discussing game mechanics, although it later brings back in notability to discuss voice actors. PoV, and even the PoV of groups is all that distinguishes Notability from verifiability. Whereas Verifiability ensures the quality of content on WP, Notability is the devil's bargain that WP made with PoV to limit the number of bytes included; it relies entirely on the quality of good sense that editors may or may not possess to implement fairly. That it became a Pillar astounds me; its injustices are therefore so much more insidious. Numerous times every day, editors claim number of Google hits as establishing or not establishing notability, with the numbers varying every time. But even these attempts at quantifiability are no more than Verifiability multiplied by X.

Chess is older I grant you, truism though it may be; more documented, I seriously doubt; better documented, never. See below. All of which ignores the existing verification.

Comparing chess moves to game mechanics (root, snare, stun, dps, AC, evade, pet, charm, mez, debuff, attributes, derived attributes, skills, ad infinitum) is like comparing the interactions of Root vs Melee with the number of potential moves in chess. Chess relies on a large set of potentials, computer games on a long menu of possible commands and a set of constants and variables so long that only a computer can keep track of them.

Chess pieces can move in straight lines or along diagonals or two up and one over. The million words written about chess elsewhere and on WP are LISTS of the positions of the pieces after each conceivable move, and hypothetical analysis of the strength of each. The musings of bean counters pales next to the allure of the living game, but then again, there would be nothing to write about on WP. Nothing in a computer game, by contrast, is hypothetical, or it could not be coded. Every single CD of every computer game is its own documentation.

The fact that voice actors appear in games is verifiable; WP's 'white man's burden' of having to appease the unwashed who want notability when there is none is a false representation; there is nothing to "make up". The cast lists that await re-inclusion are by definition easily documented. The only thing stopping it is the insistence that it is not notable; whether one opinion or a thousand made that up does not make it a fact. The fact that the voice acting in video games is indistinguishable from that in animation remains unaddressed. Anarchangel (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Those chess moves have been discussed and debated. Most of those VAs have not had that level of critisicsm. Blame society, media or whoever you want, but it doesn't change that fact. Japanese VAs have had more discussion about them than American ones for a number of reasons related to their society, although the article you point to is in need of more referencing (as many articles in Wikipedia are). However, even for those Japanese VAs, they aren't listed and only commented on specifically if there is reason to note them.陣内_Jinnai 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (video games) — It would be ideal to rename the various guidelines written up by our various wikiprojects under the same naming style so it will be easier to find. I also suggest inclusion at {{style}}.Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that supposes too much weight to WikiProject guidelines—they may and sometimes do contradict the MoS, and so affording them similar status seems unwise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This one also does a little more than an MOS does, FE determining when a remake can and can't be spun out.陣内_Jinnai 21:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point—this isn't just a style guideline but a framework for article inclusion and structure beyond formatting and styling. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If this is moved, we'll haveto clean it up and move stuff like that to another page.陣内_Jinnai 16:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we rename to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article framework? Or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article plan?Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is fine where it is. It does not need to be called a manual of style or anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page is fine where it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

updating our guideline with better structure

As the LttP+FS discussion has shown, people seem are having issues with what goes where because we commonly combine sections when there isn't enough detail - a wiki-wide practice - and it has come to be assumed that because its usually there, they are the same things.

I was considering going with a more formalized structure like WP:MOS-AM, but geared toward the concerns that video games have. This would include combining current practices, elements from content and style, and info from WP:LAYOUT and rework the content and style sections.

I'll be doing this in a sandbox version so it won't interfere with the current version as it would be a major restructuring, but feel free to voice and comments or concerns beforehand.陣内_Jinnai 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that it means more rules and regs or text to digest for editors, when the problems are not major enough to warrant the legislating, as it were. I think the LttP+FS discussion is a notable anomaly, but it's reflective more of wiki-wide practices than VG guidelines. (In other words, if it's a problem that needs addressing, we aren't the place for it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, I think its particularly strong here. The other wikiprojects I work with, WP:Anime, WP:SE and on occasion WP:MILHIST and WP:DND don't seem to have nearly the same issues with confusing one thing for another because it was merged into 1 section because 1 or both were too short.陣内_Jinnai 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You can check out progress at User:Jinnai/VGGL. As I mentioned, I'm using WP:MOS-AM as a basic template for the structure, with wording and detail taken from this guideline as much as possible (although I'm doing some copyediting along the way).陣内_Jinnai 05:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Distinction between "remake" and "fan remake"

An editor is making a case at Diaspora (computer game) to try and provide an external list of some homebrew remakes. Confusion has arisen, I think, because of a lack of clarification between what the guidelines call a "remake" (which I take to be "officially licensed") and a "fan remake" (not officially licensed - perhaps my interpretation is wrong.) His argument also intersects with WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY but first I think we should explicitly define the terminology. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the romaji version of Japanese videogame names be included in Wikipedia articles?

• To clarify, the topic of discussion is actually "Should the romaji version of Japanese videogame names be mandatory in Wikipedia articles?" -Thibbs (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In pop culture

Looking at the pages it links to for support it appears there is no longer any guideline that supports this section. In fact WP:TRIVIA actively discourages such sections under any name saying they should be integrated elsewhere or removed.

In addition, I do not see many such sections in existance. The closest would be In other media which are not lists, but prose that follow standard requirements for inclusion and limited to character articles. I think we should remove this, but as I'm doing the overhaul, its something that can wait.陣内_Jinnai 04:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this. WP:TRIVIA actively discourages *lists* of pop culture trivia. The in popular culture section, is certainly not in violation of this, in fact it discourages lists. It was in crafted via active consensus at the project page (i.e. a group effort) to make sure trivial information is not included. Space Invaders is an an example of a FA that shows an In Popular Culture section constructed (and passed peer review) with these guidelines, and the exact type of section the guidelines were crafted to promote. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

More recent consensus when I was discussing the general overhaul with my proposal shows that section had no support. Being that SI is 2008 its not a good example of recent consensus, specifically because it does promote trivial mentions, such as a one-time appearance in an episode.陣内_Jinnai 23:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the more recent consensus? All I see is the above "Updating structure" thread with no discussion on this pop culture guideline. In contrast, there are several lengthy consensus generating discussions archived at the WikiProject Video games talk page which this guideline was originally proposed. Likewise, as per what had been decided by the group, a one time appearance in an episode is certainly not trivial. What makes it trivial is how integral it is or is not to the appearance. I.E. a game being played in the background or as an inconsequential prop is trivial, one that is actually an integral part of the scene (dialog, etc.) is not trivial. The guidelines specifically make that difference. Likewise you are mistaken, SI was a main page article just this past year (April 24, 2010.) All I see here is you claiming your opinion trumps a previous consensus because the later is older. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd like to see where the "more recent consensus" was formed. I haven't seen any discussion in WP:VG stating that we should remove every instance of any pop-culture references regardless of how notable, sourced or important they may be. There's a big difference between mindless trivia (X game appeared in the background of a scene in a movie) and stuff that's important to the article (Galaga was prominently featured both in the movie War Games and its promotional materials). Yet both would appear in sections related to pop-culture, whether those are dedicated sections or lumped in with Reception or Legacy.

That said, pop-culture references do still tend to be a problem from time to time, though not nearly as much as they used to be (at least in the articles I've been tracking). But I've personally been pretty happy with the current guidelines, which have been in place for several years and haven't seemed to cause anyone any real trouble. If it ain't broke, why fix it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• [4]

Whether or not there is consensus, its clear that it does have problems as noted by PresN there by directly conflicting with a higher-level guideline.陣内_Jinnai 18:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

All I see is PresN stating in the conversation you provided how he cringed when he saw the section, other than that the rest of his commentary is in regards to how he disagrees with your interpretations on the guidelines and how he feels you're being overly rigid in some things. Nothing there by him stating it's supposedly conflicting with a higher level guideline. That appears to be your interpretation, as previously stated, and it's not one that's agreed with even when looking at the main higher level pop culture guideline (which actively discourages trivial *lists* of pop culture items) as already pointed out. Nobody here is trying to promote trivia, lists of trivia, etc., etc., that was the reason for the consensus for the creation of the guideline in the first place. And once again, if it was indeed a conflict it certainly would have been an issue during the many GA, FA or MA reviews and postings it's been used in since it's inception because, the higher-level guideline was around all that time as well. I see no evidence of problems with the guidelines. What I have seen however are plenty of articles with pop culture sections that have not had our pop culture guidelines applied to them, i.e. they are simply non-prose trivial lists of pop culture references. However that's certainly not a statement on the reliability and accuracy of the guidelines, that simply means as with most VG related articles on Wikipedia they simply need work to bring them up to our guideline standards. And on that note, I agree with Kiefer. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I only saw PresN mention the pop culture twice: 1) cringing 2) that is is wrong. But he didn't go into details. Maybe invite him to give his two cents.

Also, WP:TRIVIA doesn't call for the outright removal of such content, just that it shouldn't be portrayed as trivia. I'm obviously biased, but I'd say Space Invaders#In popular culture does a good job about presenting the info as legacy and impact info. A good chunk of which is cited by third-party sources.

Trivia sections use to run rampant on Wikipedia, but I think the current pop culture guideline has helped keep them under control. I'm sure some revising is called for, but not removal. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

My 2 cents- I think I was thinking at the time that it violated WP:TRIVIA. Looking at it now, however, it doesn't. TRIVIA says not to have lists of fluff trivia, and our guideline says the same- have it as prose, make sure that each mention is notable, and consider integrating it into another section (Reception, perhaps). The section seems a bit long-winded, but that's a common problem with the guideline as a whole- we err on the side of being exhaustive rather than short. I would also say that the Space Invaders article does a good job of presenting the information, 2008 FA or not. I'd prefer to call the section Legacy, rather than In popular culture, but that's a personal quirk. I'd agree with Guyinblack et. al. - the guideline section might need tightening up, but doesn't seem to need outright removal. --PresN 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "In popular culture". Heck, we even have "in pop culture" articles that are GAs now. It's just that there shouldn't be non-notable stuff (e.g. that one brief appearance Luke Skywalker had on Family Guy). Notable "in popular culture" helps demonstrate a characters cultural impact, and the whole idea of notability is heavily reliant on cultural impact and the like. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The main reason not to call that section "Legacy" is that Legacy is intended to be where we put information about sequels, spinoffs, re-releases, and other directly-related media. In Popular Culture is intended to outline notable "third-party" material that is peripherally related. As an example, in the Pac-Man article, Legacy is (IMO) the best place to talk about all the various systems Pac-Man was released on, its various sequels (both official and unofficial), and to mention the TV show that was spun off from the game. In Popular Culture, by contrast, is a good place to mention Pac-Man Fever, Pac-Man the character's notable appearance in various TV shows, any notable mentions of the game appearing in movies and such, etc.

I think in some cases, though, it would be appropriate to combine the two sections, particularly when there's not a whole lot of notable information in either section, or one would only add a little bit of information to the other and yet does warrant mention. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Trying to kick start the discussion again, one area I see that could be consolidated is music bullet point. It could tag along with the film and TV bullet point with a few examples given. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

• The shorter the better, I'd say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

@KieferSkunk - That's a narrow definition of legacy. Most Wikipedian articles use the legacy term in the broader sense and impact on popular culture is a facet of something's legacy.

As for the items, I think having a whole section (especially bulletpointed, but even prose) named "in popular culture" or the like is a magnet for OR and univerified claims, especially for topics already a part of the popular culture, ie video games. Integrating the info into other sections, including wrapping this into legacy, is probably fine. However, the whole section needs to be trimmed down also. It's not the most bloated section, but its one of them.陣内_Jinnai 20:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the opposite, the guidelines were created because of the constant appearance of OR and unverified claims, to provide some sort of guidance for a legitimate section and recognition of material. The articles were and are a magnet for that trivial material you're talking about regardless. I'm with the general consensus, the section and related guidelines belong there and just need to be tweaked.

@Guyinblack - As far as condensing the guideline, I think the opening section is good, and the bullet points (including examples in them) should be condensed to just three: Worth Mention, Consensus Needed, Not worth mention. Any examples and all the extra bullets should be condensed in to just those three, i.e. "In media (music, film and television) an appearance is worth mention...." The last two points in the section (multiple appearances and documentation required) should actually be merged in to the opening section really. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting things. It's not really shorter, but I think it is more simple. Any thoughts?

Fan remakes/hacks

I think we need to better distinguish what is allowed for fan remakes or hacks. Somari is up for deletion, and Mushroom Kingdom Fusion was just nominated. Both have a decent amount of coverage, but not as much as some people would like. This guideline says:

• _{It is usually inappropriate to mention or list homebrews and fan remakes of games. However, certain specific homebrew games, such as Grid Wars and Armagetron Advanced, have achieved notability because of their far-reaching impact on the game(s) they are based on.}

Both examples given here don't have barely any sources, and don't seem to be notable. Why are these listed as examples? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if sources can't attribute them as being instrumental, then its original research that they were.陣内_Jinnai 17:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So, why are Grid Wars and Armagetron Advanced used as examples of this? Grid Wars got a Cease and Desist letter, and Armagetron Advanced doesn't seem to have anything in the article stating its notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how most fan remakes and hacks are notable; even if they receive some coverage in reliable sources, it's usually just "X, Y, and Z remade Super Game III." If the amount of sourced commentary doesn't exceed a stub then I don't see why it's worth giving it its own article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Several fan remakes have become somewhat talked about, such as the Maniac Mansion remakes and to a lesser extent Chrono Trigger remakes; whether they are notable in the sense that they deserve a seperate article is another story. Anyway, this is one of the reasons I'm trying to get WP:Notability (video games) promoted to a guideline.陣内_Jinnai 23:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone could, I would like to see some opinions on both of the deletion arguments if possible. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to bring something up here while not trying to toot my own horn, but why not swap the examples for such articles for Chrono Resurrection and Final Fantasy VII (Famicom)? Both have much more significant coverage than the current examples, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And Pixel Force: Left 4 Dead! Aha, I kid. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Most fan remakes are not notable and can't be sourced. There are certainly exceptions, when they can be appropriately sourced with reliable non-trivial coverage, and cease and desist letters are often broadly covered in the media. I agree those two examples are inappropriate. Although Grid Wars might be notable, Armagetron does not seem to be. Andrevan@ 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we need specific guidelines for fan games. It doesn't matter whether a video game is made by fans or professionals. The same guidelines should apply to all video games. If a professional game is notable enough for an article, it should have one. If a fan game is notable enough for an article, it should have one. I don't see what else there is to say. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-English external links

Asian MMORPG articles often have a slew of external links: For example covering Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, etc. I've seen admins remove such links per WP:NONENGEL, so I started doing it, too. Now I've met resistance to this on the Counter-Strike_Online article, and now I'm wondering - Did I, or the people I observed doing this, get this all wrong? What is the policy on non-English external links? The way I've been doing it is removing non-English official links, and, if no official English link exists, go for one link, that being the one for the country that the developers are based in. Eik Corell (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a respective guideline here at "external links": When available, list the company and game website(s) if the company website is separate from the game's website. If it was published in a non-English country first, list the original country's website; in addition, list all relevant websites for English publications. If it's a non-English site, the language should be marked with a template, though, for example {{ja-icon}}, putting (in Japanese) behind the link. Prime Blue (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What about multiple non-English websites, though? Again, assuming for example there's a site for North America, Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Singapore, should they all be listed, with the original site first, followed by the official English-language site? Sorry if it sounds like I'm asking the same question again, scenarios just help me understand it better. Eik Corell (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think we have exact guidelines on what site should come first, but English links are usually put above non-English ones. For the Counter-Strike Online example, only the South Korean link should be given as that's where the game originates from (at least that's where it was developed if the lead is correct). Adding a repository of foreign-language links as an Internet directory is a pretty good example of what Wikipedia is not. Hope this helps. Prime Blue (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Two games merged to one article. Should they have more than one cover art?

Despite coverage, the decision was made to merge Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire with Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Originally the infoboxes of both games were shown, but it was then decided since much of the information was the same, to just add in an extra few lines to the first infobox. The cover image remained in the section for the expansion pack, since they had different covers. Despite one requiring the other one to play, they were still sold as separate games. Should each not have its own cover? The guideline seems to be written to prevent the same game, released on multiple platforms, from having a cover picture for each platform it was released on. WP:VGBOX currently reads: generally, only one cover should be present, regardless of platform or regional differences. Anyone object to me adding a bit about expansion packs? If an expansion pack is listed in the game article, and has no article of its own, then it is acceptable to have its cover in that article. Dream Focus 08:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Still don't think this would comply with the non-free content criteria 3a and 8. A second cover, especially one that has no educational value, would just be there to look pretty. Prime Blue (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think since the covers look similar, a second cover is not needed. If there was a vast difference, then it might be acceptable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use images that are neither screenshots or covers

The examples only covers the most common kind of video game images, while there are a number of video game-related fair use images that need to be covered here in more detail. For example, setting images can often be art that doesn't fall under these guidelines and as such editors have no good reference points as to when such an image is acceptable for use. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

They are less common, but still bound by WP:NFCC. I don't really think we need to add more content on promotional content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The only one that might be covered here would be for character articles. For those we can state that screenshots, cover images or promotional media (such as official posters) with the largest character casts should be used to limit the number of fair use images. I say that is needed because I've heard arguments that since video games aren't like TV/movies they don't usally have images depicting the entire (major) cast members and therefore more individual images are justified. That argument should basically be shut down before it gains momentum.陣内_Jinnai 15:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Stronghold Kingdoms

Hello, I found a request for box art or logo for the game titled above on the talk page. I have the logo but am nervous about just placing it in case it causes the article to be deleted while it is still new and being added too. Any help or advice or someone checking the logo file I have, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.VoltairSHK (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Svg image

Can someone convert to svg and upload to Commons the Wii U's logo? Here's the source: [5] User Name: E32011 Password: nintendo « ₣M₣ » 21:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here is the png logo in case someone wants to convert directly. Protonk (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whose screenshots are preferable?

I'm working on the article Spiral Knights. I want to add some new screenshots. I've read the fair use guidelines, but they don't address one detail: Should I take my own screenshots from within the game, or should I use the canned screenshots from the company's web site? Two possible considerations: The company's screenshots seem slightly doctored (no heads-up display) and they are not easy to cut-and-paste (perhaps indicating that the company doesn't want them cut-and-pasted?). Mgnbar (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Also: The company's screenshots are probably more diverse and more visually appealing than the ones I would take. Mgnbar (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the non-free content policy cuts either way. The core issue is usefulness of the file to the article (NFCC 1 and 8). If there is a particular part of the game which has received specific coverage (some bug or a design decision or whatever) where a text description won't cut it then either your image or a company image will work fine. Other specifics (doctored images which caused a stir when the game was released with graphics which did not live up to preview images) may benefit from an in-game screenshot and a company screenshot. Protonk (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I should point out that the lack of a HUD usually just means they are using game cameras rather than player cams, although the possibility they've been touched up always exists. I often end up using self-taken shots for older games because I can actually take them and focus on coverage from the article, rather than trying to find images that do as much per NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Knowing the case for Spiral Knights, the game is presented near-top-down, the same as the non-HUD shots. For an artistic standpoint, the graphics are the same, but the HUD does have some details (like health, Heat, etc.) that could be useful in describing the game alongside sources. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I didn't mean to imply any scandal about the HUD. And just to clarify: The shots I have in mind (five at most) are intended to describe the graphic style, rules, and overall experience of playing the game. This an appropriate, encyclopedic use of screenshots, right? They don't have to address "specific [media] coverage (some bug or a design decision or whatever)" (quoting Protonk), do they? I base this on a cursory reading of a few other recent video game articles. Mgnbar (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeppers, you just need to justify them per WP:NFCC. Given that at least cursory time is spent talking about gameplay in most reviews, you should be fine, but I usually look at critic views to see what elements they liked most/hated to spruce up the rationales. Check out our more recent VG FAs and you should find some good examples. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have uploaded my first two screen shots. If anyone is willing to verify that I have followed best practices, or tell me where I went wrong, then I'd appreciate it. In particular, I kept one screenshot at full resolution (but aggressively cropped), because reducing resolution damaged legibility of text, and the text was crucial to the purpose of the image. Any further discussion should be at Talk:Spiral Knights I guess. Mgnbar (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Character classes

What exactly is meant by "weight classes"? This seems like a bizarrely over-specific idea, applicable mostly to Mario Kart and fighting games. Is this supposed to refer to character classes (such as mage, summoner, warrior, etc, which I think are overly specific minutia) or only classes categorized by weight? Some guy (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That would seem to be relevant mostly to driving and fighting games, to compare characters. Salvidrim! 00:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've rephrased my question as a statement. Some guy (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is exactly. A "weight class system" is an arbitrary (but generally consensus-defined) tiered distribution of characters (fighters or drivers/vehicles) on a lightest-to-heaviest basis (relative to the game's own gravity/physics system). Salvidrim! 03:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the concept, but not why it is singled out. I guess to be more clear, why would we discriminate on that but not on character classes? Some guy (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about. When you say "it is singled out", what are you referring to? Salvidrim! 07:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oi. Let me start over (and undent). I came here trying to determine if a list of character classes offered in a game (e.g. "mage, summoner, warrior, healer, knight, paladin") would fall under Inappropriate Content. With that question in mind, I saw "character weight classes", and thought this was indicating that an article shouldn't list the weight classes that are offered in a game (for example say "featherlight, light, medium, heavy"), which I thought was a bizarrely overspecific thing to say not to have in an article when you could just say "character classes". Looking at it again, since it follows "character moves", maybe it means "listing what weight class each character is" (for example saying "Yoshi is light, Mario is medium, Bowser is heavy", etc).

My feeling, and the possibly mistaken impression I'd gotten from browsing articles, is that a list of the character classes offered in a game is overly detailed (gamecruft) and shouldn't be listed in an article if there are more than say, four classes. Is that the case? Would it depend on context, formatting, etc? Some guy (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

When a character is notable enough to be covered in a game's article, mentioning his in-game "character class" is perfectly fine.

As for an actual list of classes, unless their number is very limited, I would recommend mentioning a class system and giving examples, but not listing them all. Salvidrim! 08:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that last bit is what I was asking/thinking. Thank you, and I apologize for the overly confusing conversation >_< . Some guy (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up because Star Wars: The Old Republic lists twenty four classes by name, consisting of 8 main classes and two subclasses for each of the main classes. I don't think there's a huge problem with listing the eight main classes, although it's unnecessary, but I feel listing them all again and then listing the 16 subclasses is a perfect example of minutia that shouldn't be in the article. There is a discussion going here, and a few of the editors there think we should list all of the classes, with one of them asking for consensus here and claiming there are "many, many" articles that will need to be revised. So what would we need to establish a consensus here, if this discussion isn't enough? Any more feedback here or there from more editors would be great. Some guy (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cast lists

Now that actors are lending not only their voice, but also their likenesses and motion captured performances to video games, I think our cast list guideline needs a tweak. I've seen a couple of articles where cast lists have been added, at one point the L.A. Noire article listed almost every bit-part character in the game, the motivation seemed to be the fact that the character happened to be played by that bloke from Heroes or The Sopranos.

I've listed the current and proposed versions below. The main reason for the change is to clearly indicate that, in general, cast lists are not notable, and to clarify in what circumstance they are, and to urge editors to not got over the top with the length of the list if one is needed.

The current guideline:

10 Cast lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters is not appropriate. Exceptions to the rule would be games where the voice cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a movie, as in the case of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast, with minor adaptations for the game's article. However, if characters are listed in a table, cast should not be listed separately. If actors/actresses must be added to the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section.

Proposed version:

10 Cast lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices, likenesses or motion capture acting performances for video game characters is not appropriate. If mention of the actors is an important factor of the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section (Good examples are: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Portal 2, and Bioshock Infinite.
Exceptions to the rule would be games where the video game cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a film. In this case the video game cast follows the general standard for listing a film cast, but should only list the major characters in the plot, and as a rule should be no longer than 10 actors.

- X201 (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Edit: Added suggested examples. - X201 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree though I would add examples of Batman: Arkham Asylum, Portal 2, and Bioshock Infinite (sorry, a bit of a bias here...) as examples of where actors are discussed in the article prose as part of the game's development, and not just casting. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support change on condition that Masem's thought's be added. Typically we merge notable cast as part of the prose. --Teancum (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a good reason that actors should "generally" be covered under development as opposed to a characters section? If all you want to do is put the names of voice actors next to the names of notable characters, the characters section seems the most natural choice. There's obviously a lot more room for discussion in a development section, but how many games have a cast worth discussing? Enough to make that generalization?

Other than that, the changes look good to me. The article links should always be to specific page revisions though. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Revision links. I would have, but the quote template I'm using here for clarity, throws a wobbler with them. They will be diff links on the actual guidelines page. - X201 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sister/Companion games

I think the cover art section needs an exception to it where certain games are concerned. For Eg. Pokémon Crystal and Pokémon Emerald have no main article to themselves in fact they redirect to Pokémon Gold and Silver and Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. I personally do not see the sections on the sister/companion versions as part of the main article myself. I see them as a separate article, so to speak, and think that because of this the Cover art section needs to make exceptions in these rare cases. Now I am not saying go and take a GBA game and put it with a PS2 remake like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, which was a GBA game first then a PS2 game later though their cover arts are significantly different I can agree with the cover art rule as if I have read correctly there is no significant differences within the games themselves. But in the case of the sister/companion version to Pokémon there needs to be exception when no main article is available as both Crystal and Emerald have significant differences to their predecessors but no main article to themselves. Swifty*^talk 17:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Character notability guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to make a proposal: the inclusion of notability guidelines for character articles and character lists. There were issues about merging characters in the talk page for the Metal Gear character list, which resulted in this discussion. In the same discussion, Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) proposed that we should develop a guideline based on the notability of the characters. As such, I have opened a discussion here to seek opinions on whether to include it in the guidelines or not. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

At minimum, a separate character is warranted if there is sufficient discussion about the reception of the character - and this is more than just being named in a random top 10 list. There has to be critical commentary about the character as a fictional character, not as a playable entity. (eg: "Pikachu is the best fighter in SSBB" would not be sufficient here). More than likely this will come from the games the character's appeared in, but may come from other sources to.

To back this up, if there's some reception but not a great deal, but there is detail on specific facets of how the character was developed (what influences went into the character, etc. - and again, from the fiction aspect, not gameplay), then that would help to assert notability. If all one has is development of a character and no reception otherwise, a standalone article will look like navel gazing.

So to summarize, either a strong reception section, or a weak reception section balanced by a decent development section, are sufficient requirements for a character article. IAR always applies, of course, if a character is notable for something completely different (eg perhaps Missing No.), but most of the time we're talking major protagonists and antagonists. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've started a proposal here. Please propose your ideas there. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I would probably reword that to put greater emphasis on the character. As it's worded now you can effectively make an article that talks a great deal about gameplay critique, have one or two throwaway statements on the character itself, and argue it should stay. Probably something covering aspects of the character too...things like critiquing a dlc outfit that's not normally part of the character's design (as seen on Sheva Alomar's page, though it's more subtly mentioned now) really don't belong in an article about the character itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Kung Fu. Character articles can tend to attract minutae, like critics on aspects of the character that don't necessarily show the importance of the character itself. My proposed rewording:

In order to establish a page for a stand-alone video game character, the article should feature reception of the character; critical commentary about the character from a fiction standpoint, not as a playable entity. If there is detail about the history and development of the character in question in addition to some reception of the character, the character may also have a stand-alone article.

Still a bit clunky sounding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. Changed wording to reflect that. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I would change 'as a playable entity' to 'primarily as an element of a video game (such as how the character plays)'. There are a few cases in which this does contribute to the character's notability (like how players would actively develop strategies against Mewtwo in the original RBY pokemon games, for example) and we should leave a degree of leeway for it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am doing some revision work on the proposal, using WP:MOS-ANIME as a model for the character list and stand-alone articles. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the direction that Sjones's proposal is going so far. I think some parts could be trimmed down. For instance, the parts regarding "preferred referencing" seems like it would either be considered un-enforcable, (per things like WP:REFB, editors are free to reference how they chose.) or conversely, could be seen as applicable to any article in Wikipedia, not especially VG characters.

The other thing would probably be to come to a consensus on how we feel on using "Top X Lists" as sources that go towards establishing a character's notability. I know there's a lot of disagreements on this. My personal stance is, it's useable if it says something of substance, but but unusuable if it's just "Chun Li is hot!" or "Master Chief is the favorite character of website X! He is awesome." type stuff. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be *really* careful on using gameplay style as a factor here; otherwise, you've basically now assured any character in any fighting game with a reliable third-party strategy guide becomes notable. In fact, gameplay aspects of a video game character should remain distant from the character article unless they are tied closely with the character's fiction. (eg Big Daddies from BioShock will not attack unless provoked by the player in order to protect their Little Sister). The focus needs to be on the character as a fictional element, not a gameplay element. If the character has little fiction associated with it but otherwise has notable gameplay elements, that can go in the article about the game itself, baring the exceptional cases like Missing No.
On the lists, I would agree that the lists needs to be something of substance and not just trivial metrics. It could be possible there is a "good" "Top 10 female game characters" where each one listed gets a good paragraph or so of why they selected that character, and that's fine. But at the same time there's more than enough "Top 10 hottest video game females" which is trivial coverage. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we maybe gear the wording more towards the wording at WP:INUNIVERSE? Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the guidelines for writing about fiction, you must have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability. -- I really like this part. In fact, in my opinion, this could almost be included in the introduction of the whole thing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely appropriate to include; we can't stop people from creating articles without it, but at least it might stem the tide. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a comment about the use of "Top X lists" in video games below. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that RfC really shows just how everyone is not on the same page about this. I'm not sure how I feel about this anymore. Either side of the argument seems too extreme to me. I don't know if we're ever going to find a consensus on this. It's starting to remind me of the great debate regarding video game generations that never leads anywhere... Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the Video Games WikiProject and the Square Enix WikiProject, as well as the appropriate village pump about the matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that this RfC is being closed, Sergecross73 and I have begun work on the proposal that I am doing. Feel free to give out suggestions and ideas on the talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Top X lists in video games

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we use "Top X Lists" (i.e. Top 10 lists) to determine notability for a video game character if it has significant coverage from a reliable source? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It really really depends on the source of the list, the nature of the list, and how the list is presented.

We would never exclude GameInformers Top 30 Characters that shaped a decade; it is a reliable source, the classification is specifically an element of notability and importance, and they go into a bit of detail of why each character was picked.

We would exclude this random site's top 10 hottest video game girls as the site doesn't appear reliable, being "hot" or "attractive" isn't necessary an element of being notable, and the reasoning given is just a one line sentence. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - If it's significant coverage from a reliable source, I'm not sure we have any grounds to challenge it on a format level. If it's not significant coverage, then it would just be rejected on those grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it's notable then it will have more significant coverage than just a mention on a list. According to WP:GNG trivial mentions are not notable, even if the source is reliable. So, in Masem's example of GameInformer's top 30 characters that shaped the decade, the fact that it appears on the list doesn't make it notable--the list is actually based on the fact that the character is already notable based on similar standards to Wikipedia. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 20:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily on the GI list. For example, it includes Wander from Shadow of the Colossus, Tim from Braid, and The King of All Cosmos from Katamari Damacy. None of those have an individual dedicated article, nor am I suggesting they should for just being on this list. But, should one or two more deep coverage of these characters appear, arguably the GI article would definitely be affirming the notability to build on. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I like saying "the site doesn't appear reliable" about the website of the several hundred thousand / month circulation U.S. young adult men style magazine with many millions of monthly hits. It's totally like someone's Wordpress blog, or maybe not reliable because not. Also it's Game Informer, not "GameInformer" as you both keep saying. --Niemti (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily make them reliable about video games, but its less the reliability of the source and more the nature of the list. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The vidya is one of the main subjects of Complex, and you can also note how these lists are the most popular articles there ("MOST POPULAR IN VIDEO GAMES" table).[6] Not reviews, news, interviews (that are also there). Also Jmajeremy, you have some peculiar understanding of "trivial mention". A place on the list is not a "trivial mention", it's the core subject of this article. A "trivial mention" would be an offhand remark like a comparision to someone else, or being qualified but rejected. Or like this particular list of "less revered platforming heroes",[7] which is pretty useless for the obvious reasons (obvious reasons: it's just a lazy/random gallery, with no explaination comments on the selection, and nothing regarding notability of any kind - more like anti-notability, actually). --Niemti (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

GNG requires "significant coverage". The Complex article I cite has a one sentence for each entry that basically says "she's hot". That's not significant coverage. I'm looking through some of their other lists (not as to necessarily victimize Complex, but to identify what type of coverage they have), and starting with their most popular "25 worst games" [8], none of the coverage they give on that is significant. They say it belongs there but they don't expound on why. Contrast to this [9] which actually gets into the history of the games on it and the whys of why it was bad. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. While Complex would be a reliable source in general, this particular source doesn't help satisfy the GNG because it's such a trivial mention. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also rejecting the notability of characters as being acclaimed for their attractiveness would be like purging most real-life models from Wikipedia (their whole notability is "she's hot" and nothing else). --Niemti (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is more about the fact that the comment is vague and short, not that it's especially about being attractive or not. The same concept would apply to an article listing the "Top 5 Smartest Characters", with their commentary being "Number 3 is Dr. Robotnik, because he was totes smart in Sonic Generations..." The problem isn't the topic of intelligence, it's that the coverage short, vague, and without much rationale given. (Or maybe you're not talking to me? It's hard to tell since you don't indent your comments at all...) Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And so that's just a proof of notability (an official recognition for something by someone), but nothing really to quote as a source to write the rest of the article. Nothing more, nothing else. --Niemti (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

But see, using that argument, if one was okay, then 4 or 5 would be equally okay, and a person would be warranted in writing an article that essentially reads: "IGN said that Robotnik is smart. Gamespot disagreed, calling him dumb. Siliconera ranked him 5th in their list of smart villians. Eurogamer said he was an 8 out of 10. Etc. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Eggman (Robotnik) actually is like that anyway. Nothing there is "deep, man" of "the vidya is ART and look at THAT" kind or whatever in the Reception section, it's basically just "he's so evil and a villain that he's the Xth best evil villain, and also one of top most evil villains ever" (sometimes replace "villain" by "mastermind"), but I don't think that changes anything regarding it proving the fact of him being an independently notable character ("cultural impact" section aside). --Niemti (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of that articles current status, your argument does not align with the WP:GNG nor would it hold up at AFD discussion if that's all an article had going for it. Brief mentions, like a sentence or two in a list, in general, don't count as significant coverage. We do need to make sure that the viewpoints for our "video game character notability standards" align with the GNG, or all of this will be pointless - either WP:VG will never come to consensus on how to define it, or it would be tossed aside in any discussions that go beyond typical WP:VG members (like AFD, RfC, etc), rendering it largely irrelevent. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And quite obviously, female characters are usually regarded "hot" because of the T&A type factors. Do you really need this to be elaborated on in several paragraphs about each of them every time? Which is just like in the case of most many of gravure idols, for example. And totally unlike the case of Anita Sarkeesian, who is instead highly notable for her troll-baiting and her epic fight for pixels' rights (and whose opinions I'm going to cite in the various articles anyway). --Niemti (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is why if all that's secondary about a female character (in this case) is that they appeared on top X lists of hottest girls, we're not going to be able to write a good article around that. Lara Croft, obviously one that tops those types of lists repeated, has much more detail of other aspects - how the character's been seen as a role model of strong female personalities, her evolution over the course of the game series, etc. Now, on the other hand, and I've checked through all the references on this, but Chun-Li is an example where nearly all of the sources are from top X lists and specifically about her sex appeal. Mind you, my gut says there are other reasons why Chun-Li is notable and should have an article, but that the article's present state is terrible for that. Seriously, the third paragraph under Promotion and Reception is really weak; arguably in balance, one should say that Chun-Li is also often found on top lists involving "hot" female characters, but we don't need the breakdown list by list. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Lara Croft has gotten lots of negative reception for being vastly overrated and, initially, just plain ugly (both the in-game model with the infamous pyramid tits and these horrible pre-rendered still images until the early 2000s). I think it's not in the article, which I found too boring to read. And yes, we "need the breakdown list by list" but Chun-Li also appears in lots of different lists (in addition to lots of more lists just like that, too). However, for Morrigan Aensland, being sexy-and-dangerous is her whole shtick (she's a succubus after all) and the only reason that she's so popular, and so notable. But that's a perfectly good reason. And Mai Shiranui is like that without even being a succubus. The truth is that a fighting vidya female character who is either ugly or average-looking won't be popular, and won't be so notable. That's unlike male fighters, and besides some special cases such as Mileena (but she is still super hot when masked). --Niemti (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The subject of Complex's list of girls is girls in video games. It isn't Princess Farah from Prince of Persia. Being part of a list is not "significant coverage". If I applied the "list OK" criteria to other facets of video games, you'd have articles on Shrink Ray (Duke Nukem) and Cerebral Bore (Turok) (reliable source). Steelix, IGN readers' 80th favourite Pokemon? Elena (Street Fighter), Top 50 Street Fighter Character? No.

What do we usually require from video game articles? Multiple reliable sources. These are previews, reviews and interviews which are generally dedicated to the subject. This is "significant coverage".

Our guidelines should stress that significant coverage is needed, and that a mention in a list is not significant. It's useful supplementary material, but they do not establish notability. - hahnchen 01:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hahnchen, you're painting this a little too black and white. Being listed briefly is one thing. Being discussed significantly in multiple reliable sources is another.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Support, but within reason: The problem isn't the lists themselves but how they're being used. We can't simply use one be all to end all blanket to say "no x lists for notability" because some do genuinely go into depth as to why they feel the character is significant and why they're notable outside of their original source material. I think it's better we emphasize substance and what's actually being said over reference count. There's a big difference between "We added this character because she has nice tits" like Complex did, and something like this from Tom's Games which discusses the subject in detail. Ruling lists out entirely will only result in excluding opinions that do demonstrate notability, and can be too easily warped to cover a broader range.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I for one welcome our nice tits overlords, and see no reason of disregarding when multiple different sources acclaim this or that character for their notable (among the thousands and thousands of others) looks. That's notability, very literally speaking: 1. Worthy of note or notice; remarkable: notable beauty --Niemti (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, notability is about significant coverage. A top 10 list inclusion of a character that is summed up as "nice tits" is not significant coverage. It has to go into more detail than just that; arguing that Lara Croft is a top female character because young gamers have been fascinated by her rather larger chest size is significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lara Croft's was indeed oh-so-very (no sarcasm) notable for her looks but only due to mass media in the late 1990s deciding they want a female video game character as a "virtual idol", they want her now, and they want her in 3D(PD). I don't think her hilarious in-game pyramid tits really turned on people that much en masse, and these pre-rendered images like that or that were also laughable and not sexy at all (and there were no normally drawn images being published anywhere, only this badly rendered crap, as seen on the covers of magazines, posters, everyhwere). I don't count Lara's glorified booth babes, of course, (starting with Rhona Mitra), that actually "fascinated young gamers" like me and my pals, but you didn't even mention them. --Niemti (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not our place as WP editors to question why the media picked one specific character as a sex idol for video games - unless, of course, there are sources that do that questioning for us. We cannot ignore the fact that the press did see Lara Croft as a hot/sexy video game character in talking about the character, but you'll notice that our coverage of Lara goes beyond just the juvenile assessment as a sex idol. In fact, her modern design is based on actually trying to ween themselves away from that image. Now, if a character is only known for her appearance, and that only through being in short, content-lacking top X lists, even if those number high, that's a questionable factor if they are truly notable. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, Lara herself, while obviously very notable, was not a case of "notable beauty" from this definition of "notable", it was a case of good marketing and mass media wanting some "virtual reality" (sic and lol) idol and not caring to be embarrassed while pushing this dime-a-dozen few-polygonal model (many popular fighting game characters from the same era had more polygons, and also often big tits too, and much higher-quality images to look at too, not to mention 2D characters, yet they were just being all overlooked at the same time by mass media) into a pedestal like some kind of a wonder of digital era, and then the rest was a history. But it happened only to Lara, and probably won't happen again (which is maybe for the better). Now, where can I get a dictionary definition of the phrase "truly notable"? --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is none for WP. That's why we're trying to define a metric here about just appearing in top ten lists. We want articles on video game characters to be insightful and more than just what happens in the video game. Almost every good VG character article has two constant sections: one on the concept and creation of the character, and another on how the critical audience took the character as a fictional character and not necessarily as a playable entity or the like. Top X lists based on some qualifying element, that have only one-sentence reasons for inclusion do not represent a "critical audience", regardless of what the qualifying element is, are not good sources here. Again, this is why I point to the GI top 30 characters of the decade list. Each, in the print version at least, has 1 or more full paragraphs that set the reasoning for inclusion due to their character within the fiction of the game, and not just "oh, he has the best stats". --MASEM (t) 15:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you know talking about this new concept of "truly notable"? As opposed to the concept being simply "notable" in both the dictionary and common sense? And also notability as it is understood on Wikipedia, where it is a need of the subject having "reliable third-party sources" to source the content ("generally excepted" to be "multiple"), and which may be positively "enhanced" by "things like fame, importance, or popularity". And also what makes "full paragraphs" full, anyway? --Niemti (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm being kind of asshole now. The point is being widely (multiple sources, not just an isolated opinion) regarded as having "notable beauty" is obviously notability. --Niemti (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability here is a measure of how likely it makes sense that we can have a sourced article on a topic due to the type of coverage it gets. For the general notability guidelines that apply to all topics (including everything VG related) that is measured by "significant coverage in independent secondary sources." A listing in a top X list that simply comments "she's hot" without any further insight is not significant coverage. While fame and importance are appropriate to document, they don't relate directly to notability. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I can readily agree that any list being just a gallery with no comments is worthless (and lazy and pointless and very possibly completely random). But if you mean that some are also not elaborating enough, could you show a sample hot list (IT WAS A JOKE) that would actually satisfy your needs? And, which is so much more important, just what about these over 9,000 (or is it rather 90,000) non-video game characters existing with no reception sections whatsoever (and, to my knowledge, at least, nobody ever being troubled by that)? --Niemti (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of this, I myself redirected a hilariously large number of James Bond characters that had not only no reception sections (because these stayed) but just no references. At all. But my mere proposals for merging some other articles such as Le Chiffre, Hugo Drax or Tracy Bond were shot down, as they were deemed totally notable anyway. Comments? --Niemti (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument to start. That said, yes, characters with no notable should be merged or deleted. But with the video game arena, we can at least set basic metrics with the understanding that we have notability as a fictional character (Which we want to highlight) and notability as a video game entity (which we want to downplay save in certain scenarios). --MASEM (t) 20:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

More like ELEPHANTINTHEROOM, and what are you (all) going to do about this real and so much more burning problem? (Nothing. It was a rhetorical question. Any "guideline based on the notability of the characters" decided here will be just another double standard set for the vidya only, while everyone else, maybe except the otakus, will keep making and keeping their, usually very poor, articles on some completely arbitrary and veeery loose basis.) --Niemti (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

They will be fixed in time. The problem is that I don't see where your merge proposals for these others were "show down" at (at least, looking at Le Chiffre. I see your merge tag, but the discussion had no section connected to it; it was silently removed otherwise. That doesn't suggest it was shot down. I can tell you that, if that was visible to a large audience, most would agree it is a non-notable character, as currently written. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Or won't be fixed ever. It was discussed elsewhere and nobody supported my proposal (I think I proposed it first, before even placing these tags) while several people were removing these tags, until I realized that I don't even care all that much (and now I just bring it as an example). Oh, and here you can even see a little edit war regarding a supposed notability of Charles Robinson (James Bond) (I gave up too). And how many comic book character even have a reception section? (I did some rudimentary reception sections for some of them, like when I was rewriting Psylocke. And yes, Psylocke is actually a notable chartacter alright, but so many others are just not.) How many stubbish, unreferenced literary characters? Here, Broodmother was a silly aberration that didn't survive a month (originally). Meanhwile, in most of Wikipedia, this article would be nothing special, because there are uncounted more like that, and they stay unmolested for years on while more and more are being created still. --Niemti (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How is one paragraph out of 50 in the Tom's Games "top 50" article you listed above even remotely qualify as "significant coverage"? That source does not "address the subject directly in detail". Some top list articles may address the subject directly in detail, but that would be covered under WP:GNG anyway, so we wouldn't need any additional criteria welcoming toplists. When I can pull out entire reviews dedicated to a mere DLC release, or swathes of material covering every single TF2 update, it's fair to say that character articles should be held up to similar requirements significant coverage. - hahnchen 13:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It does "address the subject directly in detail". --Niemti (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of detail is incredibly lax. - hahnchen 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and for example this essay disagrees. Also, "so no original research is needed to extract the content" is the key part of this, which is usually overlooked. --Niemti (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to be bold and say that expecting full length reviews and articles on a video game character (or any fictional character for that matter) in the same vein as a video game itself is an unreasonable standard. Those people whose opinions we're citing in the video game articles are not giving it out of the goodness of their heart most of the time, but are doing so because they've been given a copy of a game to review and paid for said opinion. And by those standards, you're going to still find articles that rely on "one paragraph out of 50" to give that significant coverage because the game in question is indie, flew under the radar, or was just too old for people to care about. So please be a bit more reasonable where you set that bar.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that people are paid to review games is why said games are notable. If "people don't care about" it, that's pretty much the definition of non-notable. There is plenty of critical and academic coverage on fictional characters, that there isn't for fictional video game characters means that they're not notable. I doubt any change in our laissez faire "everything goes" for characters status quo is going to come from the video games project, it's going to have to come from outside, like the original Pokemon cull where someone is going to apply the standards for the rest of the encyclopedia on some of our internal fiefdoms. (Note, the last external smack down of collected trivia came in at Justin Bieber on Twitter which was fairly devasting) - hahnchen 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your edits at Cervantes de Leon, and you've smacked down that article even though it had toplist references. So I think we agree that top lists don't automatically qualify as "significant coverage", I think our difference is where that line is drawn. - hahnchen 18:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just earlier today I've moved his reception section into the list while reverting semi-automatically what appears to be a return of the "rv v" guy (a long story short: a possible troll dynamic IP pushing a large number of various badly written and just totally unnotable characters until they're locked as redirects, never doing anything else, and he used to always write "rv v" while doing that). I also actually though of rewriting and expanding this whole article, but then realized I never cared for Cervantes, so no. But someone else can do it, why not. --Niemti (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also it's apparently not the "rv v" dude after all. --Niemti (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason Cervantes bit the dust is while it has reception, it's not enough in terms of substantial statements. There's reception, but it's skeletal at best. That doesn't mean "we agree"; it means I don't feel enough was there in this instance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As Masem pointed out, the OP's wording makes this question totally useless. Broadly agree with what the oppose votes have said though. bridies (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Question refactored per Masem and Bridies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So is it "top X" lists or "top 10" lists? bridies (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's technically any "Top N list of X" where N is any number, and X is any qualifying standard ("best games", "hottest video game characters", etc.). But again, it's not just the concept of what the list is. There could very well be a valid "Top 10 hottest babes of video games" that goes into critical detail about the characters' looks, making it notable, compared to the same type of list where a simple one sentence statement is made about the character having big boobs. --MASEM (t) 11:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It's the most important thing after the official awards/nominations, or stuff like something being named after them. But that's besides some special individual cases (also of course), like when the list is being obviously pointless/random or is even actually indicating non-notability (like "platform heroes that failed back than and remain forgotten", which I just made up to illustrate the point). --Niemti (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any blanket statement of "mentioned in list of X = notable" or vice-versa. Should remain based (in theory anyway) on the depth and breadth of coverage. bridies (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That was not a "blanket statement". --Niemti (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You could have fooled me. You've said to me earlier in the discussion that any mention in a list from a reliable source should go towards the GNG, a sentiment no one else here has shared. I mean, we technically are both in favor of supporting this idea, but there's no way I can support your extrememely low requirement for what you think should be "significant coverage". Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So let me repeat myself: But that's besides some special individual cases (also of course), like when the list is being obviously pointless/random or is even actually indicating non-notability (like "platform heroes that failed back than and remain forgotten", which I just made up to illustrate the point). As of "significant coverage", all of you just misunderstand it, so let me repeat myself again (I aslo quoted it here already), regarding what is (and is not) considered "trivial", by bolding out the KEY part that is usually just ignored as if it was non-existant: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. WP:N is closely linked to WP:V and WP:RS, and there are usually other sources "to extract the content" for the other parts of articles, while I've never had a problem with "extracting content" from any non-gallery-only type feature article for the reception section, because in that case they always address the subject directly and in just enough detail for no need of original research. --Niemti (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You should have bolded that "address the subject directly in detail" part. bridies (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So let me repeat myself AGAIN: because in that case they always address the subject directly and in just enough detail for no need of original research. --Niemti (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're just repeating an erroneous statement based on something you haven't grasped. The statement regarding not requiring OR is subordinate to "directly and in detail" and not being a "trivial mention", the definitions of which you seem to hold a pretty unusual opinion on. bridies (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

But speaking of this, some people manage to DO engage in original research. Not the bext example (I don't have them on hand), but on the recent (yesterday) Good Article Yuna (Final Fantasy), there is the following phrase (as re-rewritten by me, here quoted unwikified):

• That same year, she was ranked as the tenth on top Final Fantasy character by IGN, commenting that while her original appearance made her made her "fine eye-candy" and her sending scene was one of the best works by the CG studio Square Visual Works, it was the sequel that gave her more confidence and attitude, as well as "a gratuitously exploitative costume that ranks among the series' finest bits of fanboy-baiting."[51]

And it was originally it was written as following:

• In 2008, she ranked tenth on the list of top Final Fantasy characters by IGN, with a comment that while she was good eye candy and her sending scene was "one of the best in Square Visual Works history", she did not stand out until she got her own leading role, adding that it gave her an appealing development in her personality.[39]

Which was kinda OR-ish to change the overall message by skipping over how they "address the subject directly" by pointing out how a "fine eye-candy" then became "gratuitously exploitative" (and which was still being "fine[est]" for them), like if to make the whole thing more acceptable for Anita Sarkeesian's stamp of approval. But this was also completely needless to do.

Another example (not a list, but a pretty good example of something stupid and/or pointless). There used to be a following:

• Game Chronicles editor Jason Porter praised her realistic appearance, commenting that "you could walk down a street in Tokyo and see her looking in shop windows".[11]

OK, what? I just thought "wow, it was retarded" and removed it. So, that's it. --Niemti (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to jump in here and say I think you've managed to miss the point entirely. The point isn't do other articles need improvement or does your editing prowess measure up. It's "should a mention on a list alone count for notability". And no, you're not citing enough of the text in a lot of cases. Sniper Wolf was a very good indication of that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"The other articles" need more being merged or just redirected, not "improvement", because usually they can't and won't be improved for the simple reason of lack of any readily available reliable third-party sources of any kind, and also usually lack of enough interest. All of [insert any estimate] thousand of them (comics, literature, film, non-video games, and other such). I'd say that at least 9 out of every 10 character articles on Wikipedia have no "Reception" section whatsoever, and more - very, very often they have even literally no references at all (literary characters are the most extreme offenders of that kind). You can compare my Sniper Wolf, or (as discussed both above and below, and largely untouched by me) Doctor Eggman with something that I chose completely randomly, Hadschi Halef Omar (which is an article from 2004), then stop and think again what are you really talk about. Omar is hardly anything like Clawdia Chauchat (another character from "Characters in German novels of the 20th century", which staying as one-liner article since 2005), and sounds somewhat notable, but it's still all original research galore with no references, and (of course) has no Reception section, too. Thes were just 2 completely randomly chosen examples, so browse around and check yourself. --Niemti (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of indiscriminately appearing in "Top X lists" as a criterium for notability, however I support the use of "Top X lists" as long as they contain "significant coverage, more than a trivial mention" as WP:GNG puts it. Gameinformer's "decade-shaping characters" being an example of significant, and Complex's one-liners in "top 10 hottest girls", of trivial. Now as to whether a four line coverage like the "top X best weapons" we saw above counts as significant, WP:WHYN can be of use (and also for this silly debate on "no OR needed tops detailed coverage"): "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." It's clear to me that lists which just repeat "badass" or "hot" over 4 lines are not significant and won't allow us to write a comprehensive paragraph. And looking at Doctor_Eggman#Reception, that 10 (!!!) sources only equate to an eight-line paragraph is preposterous.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - I don't see why this can't be used to indicate notability. I've seen arguments that they don't offer "significant coverage". Well, if there's a good amount of them in the article, then I don't see any good reason why it couldn't be considered "significant coverage". Top lists are one of the easiest ways to get reception on video game characters. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And how many lists will you need to "write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" ? A hundred ? Take a look at Doctor_Eggman#Reception, it is sourced to 10 lists, yet this section is just a crappy 8 line paragraph. I don't think your views agree with WP:GNG, which stresses the individual quality of sources rather than the mere quantity of text that could be obtained by adding up 100 one-liners from 100 crappy lists. Yes, you would have 100 sentences, but would it magically become good ? I wouldn't regard a 3 paragraph section entirely based on repetitions of "X appeared in Best character from Y. X also appeared as best character in Z. And also best character in A" and on and on and on, to be of highly encyclopedic interest. If think we need more substance than that, more to say. Three paragraphs of "named best X in A, best Y in B, best Z in C..." boils down to "It's popular". But beyond that, what does it actually tell us about the character ? Almost nothing.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

After taking a look at that article. I don't see anything wrong with it and it passes WP:GNG. It doesn't have to be that great. The reception does at least say more than simply "He is a great evil character" or something like that. Besides, you are told about the character in other parts of the article, not just the reception. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I believe only one user in this discussion, Niemti, actually finds Dr. Eggman to be a good example. A number of the "Support" people, like myself, actually sound quite similar to what you said in your original comment, where a list should only be used if the list provides significant coverage on the topic. Again, I believe only Niemti seems to have the belief that any old listing from a reliable source is useable towards the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really read what I write? You've pulled out Eggman (Robotnik) as a theoretical example, so I pointed out how it's (almost) all how indeed it's about his so-evil villain and such a mastermind, nothing deep there, but actually that's okay (not perfect, and not "good", just okay). And recently, I used it again because it just keeps being linked, to show you difference between having "even" such a reception and a statistically practically any other character articles on Wikipedia (how so-very few of non-video game character articles have any kind of Reception sections, and all the other things that I already wrote and won't repeat again). How it's, yes, just okay, to have one-liner reception sources (just multiple) for the Reception section, as to compare with one-liner ARTICLES that stay for years and yet nobody cares (and no, I wasn't even looking for anything like this Clawdia Chauchat, it was just found by selecting any literary character sub-category, turned out to be German novels of 20th century, and then two random articles in it), and it's definitely not-okay. Which is the clue. That ELEPHANTINTHEROOM I was talking about. --Niemti (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't follow a lot of what you've said here, your responses are usually long, rambling, condescending, and constantly being changed and revised. I apologize if I've misunderstood your stance, feel free to (concisely) correct me in what your stance is exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case just re-read what I've wrote while talking to you, plus search for "ELEPHANTINTHEROOM" part because I was talking to someone else. --Niemti (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another one of things that makes your wall-of-text responses hard to read. Why do you keep on writing things like "elephant in the room" in all caps and as one word? It's not a policy or guideline, as far as I can tell. People might be able to follow you better if you calm down with some of that stuff. (Sorry that this is getting off topic, I'm just trying to make it so this discussion doesn't get so convoluted that no one bothers to chime in anymore.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

boils down to "It's popular". But beyond that, what does it actually tell us about the character ? - Reception is only one section of the article, all the other sections "actually tell" everything else about the character (which shouldn't be redunant with what's already said in the game articles, of course). --Niemti (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Eggman article isn't going anywhere as it has a concept/creation section, and not all the stuff in reception is necessarily a bad "Top X List". But that article is far from a pinnacle of a good character article, in part because the reception section is basically nearly all "appeared on Top X List from Y". (the Appearances section is really the killer, but let's not worry about that now). Knowing the character, I would expect a more direct approach here.

And maybe this is what the metric is. Saying "Character Z appeared on the Top X list from Y", isn't useful information. On the other hand, "Y ranked Z in their top X list, stating that Z was..." or "Y stated that Z was ..., as part of a top X list." We need to highlight and focus on the reason the character's on that list as opposed to simple outright inclusion on a list. If you can't provide the reason (namely because one isn't given by the source), then probably including that list inclusion is neither helpful towards notability nor to the article. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "it has a concept/creation section", as well as other sections as well. That's what I'm talking about. And we're not talking now about some super duper GA criteria now, are we? Or I thought so, because now you suddenly talk about it being "far from a pinnacle of a good character article". Don't. --Niemti (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Support? Oppose? to me, there's nothing wrong with referencing a top 10 list. The problem is it's not enough. You need more than a trivial mention, and a lot of those top 10 lists are throwaway articles akin to Cosmo's "top 10 ways to please him" and "43 hot celebrities". It's sort of the problem of distinguishing between a news blip and real long term significance. Also, voting is evil. The real question isn't support or oppose. The real question is how we should use the top 10 lists in combination with other sources to establish notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal

Now, having said so much, my opinion regarding the minimum criteria: a character (any character, and not just video game-related) SHOULD have Reception section, containing references to multiple (several different) reliable sources (with some very obvious exceptions to them, as I've discussed them twice here), for a start. The content of this section should accurately reflect the opinions as stated by the original authors, with no OR regarding them, or cherry-picking or censorship (as it was in case of Yuna's "exploitation"), but only the relatively valuable/relevant opinions should be actually cited in quite a detail on Wikipedia, as opposed to just mentioning them. Examples (sample and about roughly the same): this Complex list is fine to be quoted in part, but this IGN list (which was about the characters in all media, that's why 50) should be just mentioned, because it's rambling and pretty stupid. That's all. --Niemti (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following how your proposal is answering the question posed in the RfC, and I don't know on what grounds you think you're going to make a proposal that would find consensus when I don't see a single person so far who is following your line of logic. I think we just need to wait for some new people to comment, because it doesn't seem either side is getting through to the other with the current commentary... Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I only did it because you wanted me to get to the point, and stop discussing for arguing sake. --Niemti (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Complex article example is terrible for secondary sourcing. The only secondary piece of information in that blurb for Sniper Wolf is "one of the more noble villains in the game" and even that's a weak claim. The rest of it is third-party recapping, great for sourcing plots or character appearances but not for notability. This is a common problem with such lists is they fail to explain the "why", often leaving that answer to the reader on the presumption they've played the games given. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not "only", the clue of this (being eight "most evil") was "Sniper-Wolf makes emotional connections with her targets before eventually assassinating them. She may have behaved nobly but that is still some next-level psycho behavior." And the part on being "one of the more noble villains in the game" was well explained by the circumstances of her biographical background and motivations, which was quite elaborated on in the article, making her a character that the editor could and did sympathise with, as opposed to the game's truly evil villains, like Psycho Mantis or Liquid Snake, and Ocelot being a double-agent bastard (not to mention the U.S. President). OK? --Niemti (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, arguably that's usable, but that's really borderline. When you put it next to your IGN example and call it "rambling and stupid", the Complex one doesn't look all that much different, though yes, there's a few better things in it. But I would expect a lot more sourcing to be required to support notability; that Complex one is far from supporting it on its own. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I wrote containing references to multiple (several different) reliable sources, and not just one. That being just for a start. --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that IGN reference shouldn't be used at all. Sure she placed but they're not saying anything. It really is rambling and silly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I say a "reliable source" that talks about "villainess Big Boss" is just not to be elaborated on, not quoted at all, and surely not used to (incorrectly) source the content in the rest of the article, and that's about it. But speaking of "reliable sources" stupidity, I still quoted the (non-list) article of a guy at GamesRadar mentioning "Kazumi" when trying to be a dude-feminist and defend the pixels' rights or something, but noted how it's "sic" (read: "lol"), because I wanted also some negative coverage too even if it's stupid (which it is). --Niemti (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but ten or more of those of the same quality as the Complex one, with no other secondary sources, isn't really helping for notability. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Complex is pretty good okay, it's not to be just only one in any case, and I'm talking about the stub type articles, that are also not duplicating the content of the game articles in their other sections (or there would be no need for a standalone article). And also I'd like this to be set for all the video game-unrelated character articles as well, because I don't want to set any kind of double standards for no good reason (as in: every single character article on Wikipedia has to have this Reception section with multiple reliable sources discussing the character directly). And discussing in more than a trivial way, by which I mean, for example, more than just some small mentions in the reviews of their source material (games/films/books/comics/etc), because it's excepted for such reviews to also contain the various opinions on the characters as integral part of the works in questions, which has nothing to do with the characters' notability in separation of these works (and which can be compared to the character ranking list type articles, which are all about their separate notability). Am I clear now? --Niemti (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also regarding such stubs: when not developed into at least a Start-class article more for some time, they can be tagged for notability, then (if there's still no improvement) merged and redirected to the lists/source content articles (but in a way that would not loose too much of the RS sourced content). Or maybe a Start-class article should also be easily mergeable, like in a case of any article that for a considerable time would contain only some plot-related content in addition to the still basic (non-substantial) Reception section? This would have to be all defined. --Niemti (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I'm not saying that any source from Complex is bad. I'm saying that if we are trying show notability of a character where we have 10, 20, etc. that have that same equivalent lack of depth of discussion about the character, the character probably really isn't notable. Even if the character consistently topped a common top X from numerous sources, but no one ever discussed "why" that character was picked there, we couldn't assume that character was notable.

Second, if we know a character isn't notable, we shouldn't be creating stubs or start class articles for that. Technically, this should apply across the board for non-VG characters, but we have two problems here: 1) many of these other character articles that you've complained about are pre-existing, and so its not easy to simply redirect those without some resistance and 2) checking for sources for VG characters is going to be much easier than for any other character simply because most of our media is based on works available on the Internet, so its alot easier to exhaust sources than it is for film or comic characters. Normally, in notability aspects, we allow articles to be created on simple criteria when that's assured that more sources likely exist but will take time to collect them (see things like WP:BIO). You could argue that having a VG character appear in such a top 10 list should be a possible sign, but realistically checking for more sources is trivial for us because 90% of that is coming from Google. So it would be very hard to convince consensus to allow stub/start articles on VG characters due to the ease that sources should be located, compared to other fictional works. There is an inherent systematic bias we cannot avoid here. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything today is available on the Internet, and I see no real reason for one kind of characters (or works of fiction in general, for that matter) to be treated in any special way other than all the others; we shouldn't treat video games, and their fans, differently just because it's arguably the most popular form of entertainment of today. There are literary character articles that are literally (ha) one-liners, and for many many years, but then there are others, that are relatively good and probably could stay if my proposal would to be enforced. An example could be Sauron, even as it's mostly plot, and it's not quite as well sourced as it looks like at first glance (most of this is just direct references back to the novels themselves, while "Concept and creation" has 1 ref, "Adaptations" has 2 refs, and "Allusions in other works" is completely unreferenced) - but I guess some kind of Reception section for Sauron might be be compiled without much problem, like in case of the related character Gandalf, who is even having one already. --Niemti (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And further on the other kinds of media. As I said earlier, I already massacred scores of completely unreferenced James Bond characters (most of them, there used to be really so very many), but then the guys there did not allow me even to propose to merge/redirect the ones like Charles Robinson (James Bond) that had some rererences of any kind. See[10] for some pretty weird arguments, and you can compare it to the James Bond character article that is all my work, Wai Lin, and that to Tiffany Case (where at least my merge tag was allowed to stay). --Niemti (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's still irrelevant to the discussion going on here. We know there are junk articles, we know they've been around for awhile. That's not the point. The matter is simply put whether or not simply being on a list would count for notability, and if not just how much reception has to be taken from that source to significantly add to notability. I think we can all agree that simply tossing a list entry up adds nothing to the article: if no statement on the character itself can be gleamed from it, it shouldn't be used for notability. That's not to say it shouldn't be used, just that it doesn't add anything to a discussion whether or not the subject complies with notability standards. We can all agree on that for the most part, yes?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction to the last part: the merge tag was allowed to stay, but notability tag was removed. And yes, that's the point. "Elephant in the room", you know - I want this standard for video games characters, and for all the others too, because the latter is so much more burning problem. My proposal was to have a need of several different reliable sources discussing directly (no reviews) for a start, and also how the overall content in such an article must be different than in the source article or otherwise there is no sense in doing that (like James Bond (character) content is different than just James Bond (especially after I removed wrong categories from the latter), and now to just add some Reception and voila). --Niemti (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get what that has to do with the discussion on the whole. If you have an issue with fictional characters across wikipedia you would be better off taking it up with the particular wikiproject for that. We're trying to set ground rules for video game based characters in response to what material is available online to discuss them, and you're...kinda being incoherent at best?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with setting a written standard for video game characters now, and then to work and expand this standard for all the other characters so there will be no discriminatory double standards (and which I except you would support). --Niemti (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kung Fu Man, again Niemti, your responses are rambling hard to follow. I think you need to focus less on endlessly listing off other stuff that is out there currently, and more about a standard we're trying to come up with, so we can in fact standardize it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"This guidance essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance." And most simply speaking, I want a Reception section-based policy here for now, that will later become an universal policy for all the fictional character articles. --Niemti (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically we do have a WP-wide standard for character articles (after numerous attempts at creating WP:FICT), and that is the GNG. It's just very hard to get projects deeply invested in fictional works to recognize this. At WP:VG since we have to straddle the edge between the fiction of the game and the mechanics of the game, we tend to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic about what can actually be done.

Here, we're specifically focusing on Top X lists. To some extent, this is a phenomena that I've found to be mostly born out of VG journalism. It's not that top X lists don't exist for comics, films, etc., but more in the case of VGs, these tend to try to rank characters in a number of different manners. I think we have recognize that we're looking at specialized advice that specifically only applies to VG characters when it comes to these lists. I will say as others have suggested that if we can set good rules for our project, then its possible we can later try to get them into WP-wide policy/guideline, but that's not the goal here nor should we be worried about meeting that now. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm aware of this, and I have no intentions on taking on anything more that Top X Lists so that we can design a VG character notability standard. (I don't even work on VG character articles much. I just want a standard to judge them against, for when people have Merger or AFD discussions on them, or if I do decide to write one in the future.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really "mostly born out of VG journalism". For example, look how many lists can be rather easily found for a Bond girl: Wai Lin (again). But that's if one actually looked for them, while film people instead just remove the tags and that's it. Because in film community, "notable" = having any references, that's all (and official guides are treated as "reliable third party sources", with supposedly no need for any other references whatsoever). In comic book community, it's basically the same. In literature, there are just no standards and anything (ANYTHING) goes. Manga & anime is partially okay, but hardly anywhere as strict like the current vg standards (at least they work on it). --Niemti (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that really what your stance is? Other people aren't following notability standards, so we shouldn't have to for VG characters either? Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We aren't trying to create a notability standard here; we're simply trying to assertain if Top X lists are appropriate to use for notability of a fictional character via the GNG, and the answer right now is "it depends". Arguably our advice we develop for VGs should hopefully be morphed for use elsewhere. We're not disagreeing that other fields likely have character articles that have very dubious notability, but without a larger RFC to deal with that, we really can't change that. Instead, it makes sense to come up with language that works for our project (where such Top X lists are very common), and then offer it as a global addition to policy/guidelines. Let's leave out any non-VG character for the time being though. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's rather "Other people aren't our following notability standards, so they should." That was my proposal, you can disagree for whatever or no reason. And after thinking on it for a while, maybe a major character in multiple (let's say, minimum three) kinds of media (as in, for example: in comics, cartoon(s), film(s), book(s) and game(s), and with some merch to the boot) should be given a notability pass just for that, if it's also otherwise sourced enough (mostly or entirely, with reliable sources), and not a stub. --Niemti (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just giving my opinion. I don't find mentioning Top X lists in articles useful but what kind of commentary they provide. I think the reader would be tired of reading four consecutive sentences of that say "He was one of the best heroes in gaming, he was listed second best hero, etc." Sometimes previews offer more critical commentary on a certain character.Tintor2 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what they're saying. If it's some inane nonsense like "you could walk down a street in Tokyo and see her looking in shop windows" (as cited in Yuna's article) than it's really just as un-quotable as anything from this stupid IGN list from above. Also style resulting in "the reader would be tired of reading" is an entirely different problem. Most of Wikipedia articles are written badly/awkardly but that's nothing to do with notability issues. --Niemti (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been keeping tabs on this discussion, and I think it's mostly settled, but I'll add my view in brief: being on a "Top X Somethingest People" list in and of itself isn't a guarantee of meeting WP:GNG. I don't see that we need to make a separate standard for those types of articles. If the list contains so-called significant coverage, in other words more than just a sentence or two, a couple such sources would be enough to establish notability. As Masem has said, just saying "she is hot" or "he is the worst villain ever" isn't enough. We need some Why. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion break

So since the above discussion has seemed to ground down and we're all on the same page hopefully. Let's take a look at a merge discussion I started, Julia Chang. Now looking at this version of the article's reception, we can discern the following from the references:

• Ref 12: List, doesn't state why this particular character was selected. Clicking the link brings up their bio; no actual reception here.
• Ref 13: List, doesn't give reception and instead covers Tekken female characters as a whole.
• Ref 14: Hey, a tiny bit of reception. Extremely weak but there you go.
• Ref 15: List, that again uses her bio.
• Ref 16: Weak reception, and not really sure it can count as reception or taken as a humor article instead given what follows after that first sentence.
• Ref 17: Does Dorkly count as a reliable source, or are the journalists at least reliable? Not to mention it's a list that doesn't say anything, just notes they exist in a messed up setting.
• Ref 18: This is gameplay and has nothing to do with Julia as a character.
• Ref 19: While worth noting, it's not an independent third party covering it. It should be said but isn't adding to notability.

Out of everything there's probably two references that actually discuss the character in any context (14, and 16). This coincides with the standards discussed above, and the subject does not appear to satisfy notability in any context. And before it gets pointed out, yes we have quite a few articles too that follow this same pattern. Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, refs 14 and 16 have weak reception and actually discuss the character. However, refs 12 and 15 are lists which uses her bio and ref 13 covers Tekken female characters as a whole. As what Masem and Torchiest pointed out in the discussion above, we need to ask why a video game character, such as Julia, is popular by using significant coverage from reliable sources. Not to mention that it has no creation/development section either. Since the subject in question does not appear to satisfy notability and the general notability guideline as a whole, I also agree with Kung Fu Man's rationale that the article should be merged. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Julia's article, despite being new (only little over 1 month old), is already written better than most of character articles on Wikipedia (and there are many completely ridiculous articles like Clawdia Chauchat, which is 7 years old and made of literally 2 sentences and 3 tags also for years, and yet you don't care about it at all even after I've showed you it and then reminded you about it repeatedly). KFM just accused me of a "double standard" on my talk page, but actually that is the real double standard. --Niemti (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So your whole argument is "it's fine to stay if it's new, because older worse stuff exists"? Under that logic we may as well not try to fix anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

None of you also did nothing in relation regarding Charles Robinson (James Bond) neither (which I've showed you twice, and probably also nothing regarding any other James Bond series articles like that). I did try to merge-redirect Robinson, and yet you didn't support me in any way. But several people have quickly jumped in to attack Julia's article on her talk page, despite it being so much better sourced (Robinson has 1 source) and actually having a reception section with some content in it already, and even despite this discussion being still ongoing. What about "double standard" now? --Niemti (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're still arguing the same point. Not every non-notable character on wikipedia needs to be targeted en mass, or ignored simply because there's older and worse subjects. Otherwise we'd have one royal mess of merges and a lot of discussions to keep track of at once. I'd much rather clean up one category at a time before moving to the next thank you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And why not to start with some clear cases? And why to not support me when I try, and inform you about how they didn't let me do it, and then I remind you and see if you are going to continue ignore it. And you do, while accusing me of "logic" according to which "we may as well not try to fix anything". Robinson (allegedly "Notable character") has to wait, some more years (it was created in 2005‎, staying continously without a redirect), of forever. But Julia's article, so new after being restored in a complete rewrite (here, old version for a comparison), still being actively expanded by a number of people, is to go, and now. Not a "double standard"? Really? --Niemti (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm really tired with this discussion, especially as evidently (a latest example: "this is the first time I've even heard of this article", even as I've linked it here TWICE) nobody even really reads what I write. --Niemti (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're the VG project, we're looking at VG characters. As we've suggested several times, let's figure out the bar for VG characters that can then be presented to the community as a bar for all characters, but right now, if its not a VG character, it doesn't enter into this discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline". And I really wish for people to stop linking to these worthless essays instead of actually discussing using arguments relevant to the situation. You know what is an offical policy? I'll tell you: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules ("The fifth pillar of Wikipedia's five pillars: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules."). --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that IAR - you're looking for rules to apply across all of WP, but that's nearly impossible. The best we can do is create a set of guidelines that work for our project, and then offer that as advice for any fictional character on WP. The reason we keep saying OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not because it's not policy or guideline, but that it offers the right advice - just because X exists elsewhere need it mean it is a good example to follow. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You shouldn't be surprised by this, as you've been told by numerous editors that your responses are long, rambling and hard to follow. Also, you seem to operate under the premise that people need to challenge and immediately act on every and all merger candidates at all time. Keep in mind that this is a volunteer project, and that there is no deadline. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Numerous" being "two", and I'm so tired of this discussion and repeating myself without end with so little effect. You know my stance, if you don't know you can read it. --Niemti (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Every time I've tried to paraphrase your stance, you've told me I'm wrong, and I just told you your comments are long and incoherent, so I find that above response rather puzzling... Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground as well and is not about winning any dispute. It's an encyclopedia where everyone can edit collaboratively and work together so we can establish a consensus that is within our policies and guidelines. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion break, part II

Since the above discussion break is seriously getting us nowhere fast, I have requested input from an uninvolved administrator to weigh in on the matter here. I would like to ask any uninvolved user or administrator who intends to comment on this topic, before they do, to read the discussions we had with the other people involved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Merge discussion, User talk:Sergecross73#RfC question, as well as the above discussions, so that they know exactly what has happened. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I read through both Julia Chang & Sniper Wolf reception sections and the top lists may reinforce comments that the character is sexy but don't tell the reader anything about it? If the lists were about their position as actual video game characters, maybe it would come off as a better paragraph. For example, the Julia character is a player character in a fighting game, the reception should probably feature something about the playstyle? Both the receptions are just several sentences saying the same thing; Sniper Wolf is a hot villian, and Juila is a stereotypical native girl (and also hot). As sources, I think they're too qualitative to actually be of use, they come off as being very fancrufty. --DarkCrow^Caw 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all discussed, or should be discussed, in the rest of the article. For your example, all of info regarding Julia's "playstyle" goes to Julia Chang#Gameplay (the target is to make something like Taki (Soulcalibur)#Gameplay, and this can be done). As of SW she is not just regarded as a hot villain (which she is), she is also often regarded as one of the best characters in the acclaimed series - and even as one of the best antagonist / boss characters in video game history, period. --Niemti (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

By who? Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What "By who?"? --Niemti (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

she is also often regarded as one of the best characters in the acclaimed series - and even as one of the best antagonist / boss characters in video game history, period - Who is making this claim, beyond you? The reception section doesn't reflect that sentiment. The closest thing it says is that she was in 20th place for characters requested for a Tekken game, which falls pretty short of your lofty claims. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article, among others (and SW is not even in Tekken). Second paragraph in the Reception section. --Niemti (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, misread that, I thought you were referring to Julia Chang with those statements. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, so in comparing Sniper Wolf#Reception to say, Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)#Reception, and Taki (Soulcalibur)#Reception to Link (The Legend of Zelda)#Reception, there is a problem with regards to Wikipedia:UNDUE#Describing_aesthetic_opinions. These characters are not real people, they are "works of art" as they were created and designed, and as thus, the top ten lists ranking their appearence are problematic in the sense that "Aesthetic opinions are diverse". Notice, that on the Link and Sephiroth receptions they integrate the top 10 lists in a manner which adds context to the ranking (or lists why they were ranked, by voting or otherwise) and describes more then just physical attributes. Therefore, the top 10 lists are useful, if they don't start referring to aesthetics. --DarkCrow^Caw 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If there was a top X list that went into detail on appearance of why a character was hot (I have no idea if such exists, but imagine that it basically gave two decent, non-juvenile descriptions of these characters as to why their physical attributes are so great), that would be fine because that can be integrated in the same way. However, most top X lists that involve appearance generally involve how sexy they look or how evil they look, and provide no further qualification, making them inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning that a character is known for being beautiful. But if that's all someone is known for, I don't think that's sufficient to demonstrate notability. No matter how many quotes and synonyms for hot you can find on the interwebs. We don't have a Wikipedia article for every model that's been listed in Maxim or Playboy. Or Playgirl, for that matter. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I also don't believe that there's nothing wrong with mentioning a character's beauty. Then, I also support Masem's opinion: most Top X lists usually involve the character's aesthetics, and they provide no further qualification. If there is a top X list that went into detail on a character's attributes, it would be included in the character's article or list itself. Some of the reception sections look like part of the definition of our describing aesthetic opinions on our NPOV policy to me: "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public." Since video game characters are not real people and are works of art, the top X list ranking their appearance can become problematic in the sense of "Aestethic opinions are diverse" and can indicate a tendency to become effusive in some cases. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, oh boy. Sephiroth's (basically a quintissential video game villain of all time) reception is actually quite a mess (mostly undated while some having unncessary months in dates that are there, plenty of incirrectly-written stuff like "twenty-fifth" instead of 25th, bossess mixed with FF characters in one huge paragraph, and more) and needs to be rewritten. But hey, let's analyse:

The part "many websites have commented on how difficult it is to defeat Sephiroth in the games in which he appears" from the lead is quite odd and I don't think it's really based on the article's actual content (or maybe "many" being only IGN and some defunct website called AnimeFringe). That's not counting USER COMMENTS in a poll, as supposedly "Most of the comments noted the difficulty of the final fight with Sephiroth, as well as its distinctive elements when compared to other games." which was given an entire separate sentence there just for these user comments, and I think some original research by someone counting them (the article itelf said about these comments, only that: "Leave us your rant in the Comments section", but now WPVG believes these users' "rants" are being essential, while the editors' opinions are "effusive").

And do you really think that the citations in the style "battle against Sephiroth is top-notch" are being oh-so informative? Is this really "a manner which adds context to the ranking"? (And no, I don't think it's being wrong. I just point out stuff.) And just how informative ("describes more then just physical attributes") is the super-weird following statement: "GamesRadar simply called him "the biggest cock blocker in the gaming world," as writer Shane Patterson found Aerith's character to be appealing, and due to the fact Sephiroth killed her, players were unable to use her anymore"? Because I think that's like a PARODY now. Like, "the biggest cock blocker" is someone who kills the character that Shane Patterson finds "to be appealing" and then "players" are unable to "use" her "anymore"? WHAT?

I also find it interesting to note how the reception mentions him being compared to Liquid Snake, another extremely notable video game villain / modern pop culture icon. Who, however, has no Wikipedia article of his own (being unnotable according to WPVG, apparently). As for Link, his reception section is just poor. Barely ever updated for years. I've about doubled it in side when rewriting the article, but that's barely enough.

And you know what? That's all. I already said everything, it's going nowhere, and people usually don't even read what I write (even when I write it to them specifically), I feel like I'm wasting my time on around here (having no effect, just hearing complaints that "I'm ranting" and the comments that basically say "tl;dr"), and so I'm out. --Niemti (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the members of WPVG are trying to establish guidelines through discussion. Right now, there are video game characters who are notable who don't have their own articles, and characters who are not notable who do - its all about establishing criteria to determine when that is the case. I did not link the two articles to say they were shining examples of what reception sections would look like. They just had different methods (since they are not female) of integrating the Top X lists and have cited reception. As well, I was trying to reinforce that female video games characters are not real people and therefore are created works of art which requires the reception sections to take into account that "Aestethic opinions are diverse". Top X lists have to include a decent description of the character and not violate NPOV. --DarkCrow^Caw 15:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, we are trying to establish a consensus through this discussion. When writing a video game character article (whether it's male of female), Top X lists must include at least a decent description of the character and not violate NPOV. As such, we must be cautious about using these lists. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as Sjones says, we want to find a consensus. This RfC originally stems from me wanting some objective standardization in what is needed for determining notability for video game character articles, as merger/deletion discussion kept on arising, and it was hard to tell which side would be right without something a little more concrete to judge articles against. Unfortunately, it seems this "Top X List" issue really divides people, and no offense, but Niemti's long, confusing, hard-to-follow responses seem to only complicate the lines of communication... Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I think the division only comes from just how *much* needs to be said when it comes to material from top X lists, quantity over quality. For the most part we do all agree that the lists do need to say something of substance and something that at least gives a reason as to why the character should be regarded as significant. Refining that might be the best route.

For example, going back to Julia Chang, Nitemi argued that one list source should count as valid because while the entry itself was just a bio, the list overall was prefaced by a general description as to why the characters were select. In my case I worry this puts some undue weight on such a statement to use as reception, and would be no better than to argue than saying "GamesSoAndSo called SoandSo one of gaming's most beautiful women" simply because the list is called "Gaming's 11 Most Beautiful Women". My stance is that if we're going to use that to prove notability, it needs to address the character more directly, and I'm curious what the stances of others is here in that regard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My stance is that the Top X lists need to address the character more directly in order to prove its notability. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My stance is similar to, but probably a little looser than, Sjones's standard. The List needs to be from a reliable source. And it needs to be more than just "Character X is number 8 because she kicks high and was hot in Game Y". If it goes into detail as to why it was chosen, then I'm typically okay with it. Like "Character X was hot when she was fighting evil Character Y. The game climaxed with her an intense battle that kept me on the edge of my seat, and showed that she dressed that way to fool character Z. It showed just how cunning she was, and it was representative of women in situation Z". Something like that, where there's more explanation to why the article writer chose the character other than having long legs or whatever. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My semi-outsider opinion is we don't want to rely too much on throwaway top 10 lists. There's a difference between "our editorial board's official top 10 games of 2008" versus "top 10 reasons I decided to fetishize cartoon characters this week". I don't think it's terrible to state that a character is known for its aesthetic design and reference that to a reliable source. You can even reference that one statement of design excellence to multiple reliable sources if you want. But there's really nothing encyclopedic about a multi-paragraph reception section that's a just a series of quotes about how hot a CGI character is, with no other context. (And it's also really creepy.) Shooterwalker (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well at the very least it would seem we do have enough consensus here to show that a list needs to actually address the subject and say something of substance in order to count towards notability. I move that we bring this discussion to a close on this particular aspect then and work the results into the proposed guideline accordingly. At least before this gets all derailed again...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, from my vantage point, it looks like there's a consensus in principle to be cautious in how Wikipedia uses Top 10 lists (as well as quotefarms about aesthetics). I think you can close on this broad principle, and then worry about phrasing and implementing it after. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Close this RfC?

Looks like there is a consensus to be cautions in how we use Top 10 lists and quotefarms about aesthetics. May we close this? Votes below.

• • Support - Time to move on and phrase and implement the guideline. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I had hoped that there would be a little tighter of an agreement, but I suppose people are right, at least there seems to be consensus that one should cautious in how they are used. I imagine little disputes may pop up in individual cases on articles and references, but it can't be any worse than the mass of arguing above... Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support' - seems like a reasonable, if vague, reading of the consensus. Onto the next step, whatever it is. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - At this point moving forward would be a good idea so we stop beating the same ground over and over. Putting this into application shall be difficult enough as is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.