Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Reminder: Next newsletter

This is a reminder to active participants to this WikiProject: please submit and comment on ideas for the second VG newsletter. We can make this as much of a success as the Wikipedia:Signpost has been if enough participants contribute. So please take a look and lend a hand! JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 23:06

Cartoon-style shooter

Is Cartoon-style shooter really necessary? It was created earlier today, but it seems to imply that TF2 and Battlefield Heroes are new genres to themselves, when that really isn't the case. Its only a graphical style after all. -- Sabre (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, it is indeed just an art direction. Those shooters are no different from shooters with realistic detailed graphics. Besides, will it ever expand much? There's not to include and seems totally unnecessary. I say get rid of it. .:Alex:. 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it could be argued that the unique Jet Set Radio, with it's cell shading graphics approach, was a similar style. While it would make a great blog article or essay, I'm not sure how to build something encyclopaedic out of it Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Same with that XIII game from a few years ago. It's all just original research anyway. Bridies (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a category tag for cel-shaded games. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing you can say about cartoon-style shooters that you can't already gather from cel-shaded games and shooter games. This is clearly just non notable cruft. A makeshift genre. Let me offer you a few more non-notable makeshift genres: historical strategy game, children's platform game, and futuristic RPG. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The prod has been contested. Take it to AfD? -- Sabre (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Contested PROD. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 09:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon-style shooter. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Concern for FAs

Kingdom Hearts and Kingdom Hearts 2 are both being constantly vandalized. Maybe we can either gets so eyes over there or get those babies on lock down, what u guys think? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think there is enough activity to justify semi protection just yet, its on my watchlist, but if more vandalism occurs, then semi protection will have to be requested.--~SRS~ 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Take to WP:RPP if you can't handle the vandalism. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it's borderline and sadly kinda normal; they go through this every couple of months. It'll die down after a while and then come back later down the road. Personally, I wouldn't worry, though I wouldn't mind the page being semi-protected. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Stubs vs skeletons

I have noticed a growing trend for stub or short articles to be laid out with a skeleton framework, with empty sections that have an expand tag in them. Take Earthworm Jim: Menace 2 the Galaxy for example. Is this actually a preferred way of drawing attention to short articles? Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just someone who might not know how to expand an article, but is trying to guide other editors to show the gaps they might be able to fill in. (Often, people don't know how to expand on just a lead text. But if you add a "history" section or a "reception" section, people might get some ideas on how to fill in the gaps.) A skeleton is still just a stub. Randomran (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do that sometimes in the hope that more knowledgeable editors will fill in the blanks if they see that there are blanks. It does look unsightly, but I think it helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

List of games question

I was going to create an article for the list of Atlus games, like List of Square Enix games and I'm just wondering if I should put the US/PAL dates in there at all. The SE lists only use the original date, so should I just follow that? Evaunit♥666♥ 02:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just follow that example, if the game has been released stateside then chances are it will have an article, which in turn will have the US release date (or should). Since Atlus have very little to do with PAL territories, it'd mostly be Japanese and American release dates anyway. Even then, there will be several Japanese only releases. Someoneanother 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well since List of Square Enix games is mentioned I'll post here instead of creating a new section: I would like some input from the project on List of Square Enix games (it's not complete yet):

• Do you think the layout is good, or is it confusing?
• Should the budget range releases be excluded (PS One Books, Ultimate Hits, Greatest Hits, etc.)?
• There's a lot of Japan-exclusive games. Should the list be split in two articles (Japan, NA/PAL), or maybe just two sections in the same article, so that readers can look for Western games more easily?
• Should mobile phone games be in their own section? There are lot of Japan-exclusive mobile games I haven't put in the list yet.
• In the cases of EverQuest II, Odin Sphere and Space Invaders Extreme, should only the versions published by Square Enix be listed, or all the versions?

That's a lot to deal with but hopefully the list can be completed and eventually sent to Featured List. Kariteh (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Kariteh (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

After a quick glance, I'd say remove the "Greatest Hist"/"Ultimate Hits" labels. The "Games published in Japan by Square" sections is a bit confusing. Something like seems like it would be better served as a note in a table or at least at the bottom of the list. For EverQuest II, Odin Sphere, and Space Invaders Extreme, I would only list versions published by SE. And this is more of a personal preference comment, but I'm not a big fan of sortable tables in lists. That's just me though.

Overall, it is shaping up nicely and has FL potential. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

List of Harvest Moon titles

Hi, i just did a major revamp on the List of Harvest Moon titles article and was wondering if anyone would like to help with the remaining citations that are needed, or have a check over it and tell me if ive stuffed up on anything (its the first time ive done anything major). The article went from this to this and it is based on the List of Castlevania titles article. Also if anyone knows anything about japanese titles can they take a look, because im clueless to it all and don't know if ive done them right. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced a majority of places where their where {{Fact}} tags, but good job on the rest of the article.--~SRS~ 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" an official title? The guidelines in the VG project are to use official titles only, no literal translations. Kariteh (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i wondered that too, but that was its title on GameSpot, it can always be changed if it doesnt apply. thanks for the sourcing Truco-X. also would someone be able to rate the importance of this article, thanks Salavat (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I rated the importance the same as List of Castlevania titles, you can always have it reassessed later. It is definitely a vast improvement and could probably pass FL after you're done. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

When you say "after you're done", do you mean finish adding all the references or am i missing something more then that? Also, in regards to the "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" being an official title, i went to the Marvelous Interactive site and translated the page for Poem of Happiness with babel fish and got "Ranch story happy poem", so im still not sure as to what title should be used. Salavat (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much that. I would add in the Japanese characters in the names "Known in Japan as..." part like in the Castlevania list, but that may or may not be necessary. And as far as games that have not been released outside Japan, I believe the romaji title is suppose to be used unless there is some kind of source that calls it by an English name. I could be wrong about this, so someone else may want to chime in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

From the project's manual of style: "Always use the original official title of the game, and prefer English titles over foreign ones. Unofficial titles (e.g. "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn") are not allowed." So basically, use only the official title even if an English literal translation is more well-known than the official title. This goes against most Wikipedia-wide guidelines, but that's the consensus for this wikiproject. Kariteh (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so theres a couple of games that have only been released in Japan. I would change "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" to "Bokujou Monogatari: Shiawase no Uta" (should i put in a note saying "Also known as Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness"). Also "Harvest Moon: Shining Sun and Friends" has only been released in Japan, but there is already an article for it, should i move the page to the japanese title and lastly should i move Rune Factory 2 to the japanese title? Thanks, Salavat (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, indicating what the Japanese name means in English is always useful. Shining Sun and Friends should be moved but not Rune Factory 2 since it's the same name in Japanese (written in katakana, but katakana is a phonetical alphabet for foreign words). Kariteh (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok so ive switched the names for Poem of Happiness and Shining Sun and Friends, can someone take a look make sure ive done what was asked of. Also the japanese name for Shining Sun and Friends already has an article for it (Bokujou Monogatari: Kira Kira Taiyou to Nakama Tachi), so that has now been merged. Also second question for the japan only games, what do i put in the notes instead of "known in japan", maybe something like, "full japanese title" or something like that?Salavat (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok ive now found sources for all the "citation needed" parts, ive added in japanese text for all the games, apart from Puzzle De Harvest Moon, which i cannot seem to find a japanese version of. Do you think its worthy of being a Featured list now? Salavat (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks real good. I would combine that first sentence into the rest of the lead. It just looks a little unbalanced, and I don't believe a paragraph can be a single sentence. I'd also recommend adding Image:Harvest Moon Logo.gif to the lead, but it really isn't the best graphic. If you could fine a better logo, then it'd help flesh out the page. Any other problems that might be there are probably minor and will be brought up at the FLC. Nice job Salavat. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Ok, ive now added a logo, and noticed that Guyinblack25 went ahead and fixed up the lead, so now it is a featured list candidate. Salavat (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Importance

Why is it that on the WikiProject Video games banner it says This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.? What the hell is Wikipedia 1.0? What does it have to do with WP:VG in particular? Why doesn't the banner say This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority within wikiproject video games.? This is the standard text for most other wikiprojects. Why are you judging the importance of each article by what a different wikiproject thinks of it? It's your projects article, therefore it is up to you what importance it warrants. --Simpsons fan 66 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia 1.0 is that it is an effort to create a more-or-less authoritative source of information on a permanent medium, such as CD/DVD. As such, the amount of content must be limited, so it's important to find the most important and notable pieces of content to include in that effort. The importance/priority rating in that template has nothing to do with VGProj in particular. I think most/all WikiProjects are making that assessment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons, you may have glossed over this part: "This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0". The way I understand it, the importance is still importance within the VG project. We're identifying the articles that we would most want to include in Wikipedia 1.0 if quality was not an issue. Pagrashtak 17:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is in fact within WP:VG, then what is with Red Alert 3 and Tiberium? These (were) of low importance! Frontlines: Fuel of War doesn't even have an importance rating. Each of these games boasts a revolutionary new gameplay mechanic, completly refining the genre, shouldn't they be of high importance, or at least medium importance? --Simpsons fan 66 02:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be pushing a point here. What is revolutionary about them? How is it so revolutionary? That notability should be asserted on the article pages, with reliable (secondary) sources to back them up; is it so? How can we be sure? A game that truly "redefined" the genre would be Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, as it is the first game to begin the use of the "worker" to gather sources; can RA3 and Tiberium measure up to that? Who says? The rating on Warcraft is indeed High, as I thought it was.

Really, for WP 1.0, I would agree with the ratings for the time being. I would probably say that Command & Conquer would be of a higher priority than either of them, as it started the series the first two are based off of. And so it is, with a rating of High. The series article is the same. Should Tiberium and RA3 be? I don't think so, based on the fact that neither are even out yet. WP 1.0 needs articles which sufficiently cover the items on which they're about, and neither of those 2 can say for the moment that they qualify. I'm sure someone could persuade me otherwise, but that seems to me how it goes. --Izno (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I'd like to point out that importance ratings are somewhat difficult to determine, since each person has a different POV on what's an important game and what's not. For the most part, the ratings on the various articles are based on the game's overall relevance to the industry and that industry's culture, as a whole. Games that have more press coverage and more reliable sources to contribute information will likely be given a higher importance rating. In any case, all ratings should be based on consensus. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As Kiefer pointed out, the importance rating is based on a scale determined by the consensus of various points of view. And while Red Alert 3 and Tiberium are highly anticipated games, can you really say they are more important to video culture and history than say Donkey Kong, Final Fantasy VII, or Super Mario 64? So just because an article has a "low" rating of importance, it doesn't mean the game has no importance at all. It simply means there are other games that have had a greater impact on society and the industry. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Also, in specific to RA3 and Tiberium, I'd say that it probably doesn't make sense to give a high level of importance to a game that hasn't been released yet. If it turns out that, once the games are released, they've had a significant cultural or technical impact on the industry, the importance rating may be increased then. See Metroid Prime 3: Corruption for what I'd consider a decent candidate for this sort of treatment (though that's my personal opinion) - a number of reviewers have said that Corruption is the first serious game to show that the Wii is "ready for primetime", and that seems significant to me at least. So if RA3 and/or Tiberium have the same sort of impact, it would be well worth considering increasing its importance rating at that time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points everyone, I conceed. Sorry for any inconveniences. --Simpsons fan 66 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, it's a valid question. This is what the project page is for. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

The end of reviews.

Dumb question? Is this over? That you don't need to put in reviews anymore? If that's the case then why? Please answer that as soon as you can. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you elaborate a bit more? By "don't need to put in reviews", do you mean not using them as sources or not including review scores? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes. What if that is becoming a trend? If that happens then it will ease a lot of editors? Will it end their stress level? I'm still not certain. What does everyone think? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We still don't know what you're talking about. Could you please specify if you're talking about whether reviews are considered reliable sources, or if we don't need to put the review scores in the articles? These are two separate issues governed by different policies, so to answer your question, we need to know which one you're talking about. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the game Medal of Honor Vanguard. I now recently saw just game facts and that's about it. It's like there's a review nazis somewhere in the system. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that the only example you have? I don't consider that the end of reviews (if that is indeed the only article that has no review that you've seen personally). Also, don't call people nazis, that's a bit rude. Were there reviews on the article that were removed, or does the article just have no reviews? Perhaps no one has added a review link yet. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A vandal deleted the Reception section and those reverting his changes missed it. I have restored the section. Jappalang (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm relived. For your sake, I wouldn't be this hypercritical. If I was asking in general about receptions, you could've say no, this is not the end of it. But if I had to be specific, I could end up wasting your time. So for the time being, let's rest it on that. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter update

FYI- Next week, the second edition of the newsletter will be going out to members that have signed up on the Membership section of the project page. Some of the details are still being ironed, like format and delivery automation. Questions, comments, and suggestions can be left on the newsletter talk page. Any input is welcome and would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

I got one today; what'supwiththat? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have one minor concern, StarCraft: Ghost was promoted to GA in April, but was omitted. I've added it to the draft, but it makes me wonder if we have missed any others. How do we keep track of GAs? They don't get quite the same coverage as FACs. There's also the issue of presentation, the GA list looks rather horrible because there are so many of them - that wasn't an issue last month. Perhaps it would look better in a bulleted list, if it doesn't make the newsletter too long vertically. -- Sabre (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On that note, Age of Empires got FA yesterday (yay! :). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Added missing SimCity. --Mika1h (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what to do getting the GAs more attention. To be honest, I think it might be good to remove the "Featured Articles, Lists, and Topics Candidates and Reviews" section because it basically repeats what's in the todo list. Maybe that will get people looking at the todo list more, which now also lists GANs.

As far as missing entries, I look at the edit history of WP:VG/GA to see what was added and removed. I did it about a week ago (4/25/08) and was going to do it again this weekend. That's why some GAs were missing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Umm... SimCity was delisted as a GA, not promoted as one... Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What's our policy on lists of developers within an article?

• Computer role-playing game has a list.

• Shoot 'em up has a list too.

• So does console role-playing game.

I want to know if this is just considered original research, trivial detail, or what. It strikes me as messy. But if people think this is just legit info that hasn't been referenced, I'm okay with that too.

Feel free to go in and clean-up / delete these lists. I will back thee. But please explain if you feel otherwise. Randomran (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Its trivia. Developers engage in all sorts of genres, although some only go for certain genres. Get rid of them. They simply are not necessary. -- Sabre (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed them. Do me a favor and check in again later, just in case this sparks an edit war. Randomran (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of developers/publishers/organisations 'of note' in articles are usually the sign of an underdeveloped article which needs wikifying. If they are of note then chances are that their games would be linked within a 'history' section of the article if it was fully developed. Besides which, they're just edit wars or bloat-lists waiting to happen. Support removal. Someoneanother 08:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Video game genres page

There's currently an edit war going on at video game genres page. Someone ('wolfpup7') keeps merging two of the sections together, despite there being sources proving they should be distict. Hopefully more sources can be added for further evidence, but they are refusing to discuss on the talk page and citing original research as the reasons for the edits. It would be nice if other users could take a look at intervene/contribute to discussion if necessary. Bridies (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to help out here too. We'd appreciate further assistance. The editor (wolfpup7) is not getting the idea after half a dozen or so reverts. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth leaving a note on the user's talk page inviting him to use the article page to generate consensus for articles that have disputed content, instead of just reverting. That way, everyone ends up working together. If it turns out that there is consensus, which one editor refuses to follow, then it's worth pursuing other options. I've stuck the article on my watch page in the meantime. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The discussion began on the talk page, but the user may not know where it is or may have their attention diverted for whatever reason. I'd appreciate you checking in now and then. Randomran (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep an eye on 3RR. You may have good intentions, but it's a good idea not to get caught out by it. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I just hit 2 reverts. I'll have to lean back for a bit. I'd appreciate it if anyone else might be able to check in if the user deletes/contradicts the referenced information. I know this is just a big misunderstanding, but this is starting to verge on vandalism. Randomran (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Randomran seems to have left a message on his user page, to which he replied that GameSpot and IGN are not 'authorative' and again cited his own knowledge of the subject (if you look back over the edit summaries as well, he keeps claiming that other editors are not 'familiar with the genre' as he is). He is aware of the discussion on the talk page has instead chosen to wilfully ignore it: if you check back over the edit history there is a summary where he actually told us to stop the discussion on the talk page... I tried leaving another message on his talk page regarding original research etc. He has changed the video game genre page again. Bridies (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I just spent a bit of time 'reverting' it manually. Bridies (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this Bridies. If he continues to remove the referenced information rather than engage in discussion, we'll take it from there. Randomran (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

200+ Good articles

Here's something I think is very note worthy. April has been a crazy month for Good article promotions, well over twenty I believe. On April 30th, our number of Good articles broke 200. The article to do so was Crackdown, and was followed shortly after by Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and Music of Final Fantasy X-2. Also, our number of Featured articles is approaching 100, currently 85.

Anyway, these are amazing signs of growth and quality, and are indicators of the hard work members pour into their articles. There are very few WikiProjects that have numbers like this, and it is something to be proud of. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Don't forget seven featured topics, with two more currently nominated. Kudos to everyone who's helped make this project so successful. Pagrashtak 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Driv3rgate

I am short on time and editing resources right now, but if anyone is interested in cleaning up a rather dismal article, please head over to Driv3r. If anyone is interested in exploring the underhanded marketing techniques employed by Atari to promote the game, please see my comment at Talk:Driv3r. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some lend a copyedit for Crackdown?

I'd like to get a quick copyedit of Crackdown prior to nominating it for FAC, if someone could be able to help. --MASEM 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As always mate, poke me after a few others have taken a look if it's changed significantly, and I'd be happy to. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ER

Check out my editor review please and thank you! King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects aren't the best place to advertise stuff like this. You certainly can ask other users to comment via their talk pages, but this talk page is solely for matters pertinent to the WikiProject. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is an Engine?

We've now come to a point in video game development where the "Game Engine" is no longer one whole piece of software handling all aspects of a game (Graphics/Physics/Sound), now game engines tend to be a main game engine that fuses together the processed outputs from other middleware (Physics, Facial Expression, Speech, etc).

The nub of the question is: Do we list them in the Engine section of the infobox? If yes, do we list all regardless of how big a part they played, or do we only list the major middleware? In fact should we have a middleware section in the infobox? I'm stuck between two camps, yes we should because it's part of the "Game Engine" but on the other hand should we list the fact that my car has got Lucas Fuses in it and Bosch Headlamps? They do the same job as middleware, they are a component part that goes to make up the whole. Opinions? - X201 (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

When I hear "game engine", I think graphics engine. That defines a heck of a lot about how the game operates, as it sets the actual coding structure of the game. Other bits, such as physics engines, are subsidary techologies tacked on to that and should not be in the infobox, although they should be mentioned in development. -- Sabre (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh. The Fallout engine isn't really a "graphics engine". Nor is SCUMM. I rather fancy that "physics engines" are more like generic software libraries than engines. It should still be possible to identify the core game engine in any given game at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, graphics engine is perhaps the wrong term to use, but the engine that defines the game's code structure and performance (which generally includes graphics capabilities), whether Source, Essence, Fallout, SCUMM or whatever, is what should be listed. -- Sabre (talk)

Indeed. I don't think we're going to run into any particular problems here. One area of contention is whether a game system counts as an engine: Neverwinter Nights uses the D20 system for its game mechanics, but it isn't the game engine so to speak. I think it's straightforward which one we'd pick though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really an issue at all. "Engine" in this context always refers to a software construct. A "rules system" is just another way of describing game mechanics, which the engine implements. But one is not the other. For example, Infinity Engine is distinct from "D&D rules". Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a good point. I don't think we can easily play this question off. If we mean graphics engine, then use the graphics engine. But if we mean more than that -- the core gameplay -- we're going to have to start listing multiple components. Randomran (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Even in the DOS days you had the Miles Sound System which appeared in many titles. Game engines have always allowed for the possibility of utilizing existing code modules. This is only new in the sense that they are even more prevalent today. None of them really qualify as "game engines" however since, by themselves, they don't produce an actual game. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So regarding the question in my initial post "Do we list middleware in the Engine section of the infobox?" Is there a consensus on yes or no?

Personally I think that it may differ on a case by case basis, at times there will be a good case for the primary engine plus secondary engines that contribute a major amount to a games style/look. While at other times only the primary engine should be listed. Either way the secondary engines can (and should) be listed in the article text. - X201 (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of just axing the Engine parameter from the infobox entirely - I see this as too much of a grey area to really enforce consistently between games. Compare middleware "engines" like Havok (for physics) and sound engines, vs. games that either have their own custom game engines or use a commercial engine, like the Unreal engine or the Quake engine. We'd really have to go through and determine which "engines" can be used to create a real game, vs. ones that just provide some essential service (like physics or sound processing). And because things like the Unreal engine have become so complex (and often utilize other service engines themselves), it's really difficult to write a real guideline for this sort of thing. If a particular game is notable for using or creating a certain engine, it can be included in the body of the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A good point. It would remove the question about what should and shouldn't go there, which nowadays is usually more than one entry and it would reduce the size of the infobox a little. I think you've persuaded me. - X201 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree. Axeing it isn't the answer, we just need to better define it. The primary engine used is often obvious, the other technologies are tacked onto that. An Unreal engine with or without other secondary engines on it is still the Unreal engine and is the base of the program. -- Sabre (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Considering Grand Theft Auto: 4) In the most neutral way, I think that the engine Euphoria is apart of the motion. Therefore it has been in my opinion that we have reached a compremise. We (or someone) already tagged the engine under the motion engine. We will keep both engines. However, as RAGE is the main engine, Euphoria has been tagged as a motion engine. Thank you, g'day. Ellomate (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Touch! Generations Featured Topic?

Well, it's not a Featured Topic of course, but I think a topic would be great. A lot of great articles exist under the Touch! Generations label, and I would like to see them featured. Anyone interested? If so, here's a list of articles that will need to be featured/GA'd:

1. Tetris DS
2. Nintendogs
3. Master of Illusion
4. Magnetica
5. Big Brain Academy
6. Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!
7. Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!
8. English Training: Have Fun Improving Your Skills!
9. Clubhouse Games
10. Flash Focus: Vision Training in Minutes a Day
11. Electroplankton
12. Elite Beat Agents
13. Planet Puzzle League
14. Sudoku Gridmaster
15. True Swing Golf
16. Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree
17. Endless Ocean
18. Wii Fit
19. Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method
20. Wii Chess
21. Wii Sports (which is already FA'd!)

Not too many games, right? Also, I excluded any Japan-only games because of the difficulty that would be presented in collecting information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of articles for a topic, but then again, there's a lot in the Simpsons season 8 FT. Wouldn't we need the Japanese games to satisfy 1(d) No obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together.

Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! is on my list of articles I'd like to get to FA, after Halo (series) is done, I'd be happy to work with someone else to improve it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

I only own Wii Sports, which is already taken, so I won't be of any use here. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

1. It is true that it's a lot, but I think it's a reasonable FTC.
2. Well, it is true that several FTs make several omissions - for instance, the Zelda FTC excludes all titles except for the primary 12 games and the series article, excluding LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series, CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series, Link's Crossbow Training, Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland, BS Zelda no Densetsu Kodai no Sekiban, The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition, and BS Zelda no Densetsu. Perhaps it could be English Touch! Generations titles?
3. Well, Ashnard, any help is welcome, even cleanup or references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's too difficult to find information for the Japan-only releases, just merge them in sections of the main article, or a "List of Japan exclusive Touch! Generations games". Kariteh (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Kariteh. Although some articles I think should stay separate - For instance, Common Sense Training is fairly notable, and could manage to be a fairly sizable article. Also, Cooking Navigator should as well, as it is coming out in English. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do, although I've kind of put a curfew on myself from contributing until I've finished my exams. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now, here's what I think the hierarchy of focus should be:

1. Nintendogs
2. Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!
3. Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!
4. Wii Fit
5. Tetris DS
6. Big Brain Academy
7. English Training: Have Fun Improving Your Skills!
8. Clubhouse Games
9. Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree
10. Planet Puzzle League
11. Elite Beat Agents
12. Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method
13. Master of Illusion
14. Endless Ocean
15. Flash Focus: Vision Training in Minutes a Day
16. Sudoku Gridmaster
17. Magnetica
18. Electroplankton
19. True Swing Golf
20. Wii Chess
21. Touch! Generations (eh, I think featuring the games should come first)

Of course, GAing everything comes before FAing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea how to expand CHG. Development section...what is there to say? A google search yields that IGN criticizes them for not fleshing out Texas hold 'em really well, so is it appropriate to say that the developers didn't do that? Or do we really need to find information from the mysterious developer known as (that has an) Agenda themselves? hbdragon88 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, CHG can only be expanded in the Gameplay and Reception. It probably won't become FA, but that we've still got many more easily FA-able games, such as Planet Puzzle League, Big Brain Academy, Electroplankton, Elite Beat Agents, Brain Age, Brain Age 2, Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Tetris DS. So, if we were to go for this, how many of the articles would have to be featured? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Development section doesn't have to be on the developers only. Information about the English localization can help expand it too. See Final Fantasy Tactics#Development for instance. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 3(a) states 20% (rounded up). So 20% of 22 articles would be 5 FAs. And even though there are several aspects of development that can be expanded, sometimes the necessary basic information just isn't out there. Like the poor little Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory which will probably remain B-class forever. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Well, it's a shame that I found a comment from an NoA translator about how they wrote the text in Clubhouse Games from scratch instead of actually translating, but it was on a fan-site. [1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, a problem presented is I have no idea who was the lead designer for Clubhouse Games, so I can't do a Google search for an interview with him on the game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound condenscending or anything (I was one of the major forces in building it to its current state), but CHG isn't the most ideal game to begin with. It's just a collection of other previously-released games. It's not going to boast the same kind of information you could on a game built from the ground up. That doesn't mean FA is impossible, but I'm wary about it. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to FA it, I just have to GA it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made a list of games. I know it's fairly unconventional how it's done, but I think it could be expanded to an FL. - A Link to the Past (talk)

Future of Task Forces

I was looking over our Task Forces and I noticed something. Sure, in these areas, we will have high coverage, but then again what about the other games that may have been produced by Capcom rather than just the Devil May Cry series. So i thought that for area like DMC Task Force, there should be a Capcom task force to give coverage on all games by Capcom. Or instead of just Warcraft all of the games produced by Warcraft's publisher.What do ya guys think King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking over this, actually. Tbh, I think the set of articles (say, for Blizzard, who published Warcraft) would be large enough for a new WikiProject. I do think, however, that Starcraft and Warcraft could probably have their task forces merged; while they are distinct genres, Blizzard has developed each by learning from the other, as well as Diablo.

In the end, I'm not real sure, however. It's an interesting path to go down if Task Forces are set up the name of the publishers, rather than the Series, as is the case atm for most task forces. --Izno (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But another thing is say there were a Kingdom hearts task force(just example). That would be great because every freakin KH article would be a FA. BVut then think of a Square Enix Task Force, then KH and Final Fantasy both will have like a thousand FA giving huge coverage of both, just a thought. Also a Blizzard project actually would be a awesome idea. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingrock may be onto something here. Taskforces are usually created to make a cleanup drive or large FA/GA push more effective, but once the project has "done its job", so to speak, and the articles under its scope are of a high quality, it can start to die out. Expanding the scope of successful taskforces to closely related categories might be a way of keeping up their long-term effectiveness. --erachima talk 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, so then what can we do to actually put this idea into form? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I described it? It would simply consist of convincing the key editors of a taskforce reaching the end of its lifecycle to transform their project into a wider or differently focused one. Nothing earth-shattering here, I'm afraid. --erachima talk 02:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Or possibly to rename the current task forces to more expanded forms, and then let the users in each decide on what to focus on? --Izno (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave to the editors in each task force to decide. Once you actually have a task force get a big chunk of the articles in its scope to GA/FA status, then you want such a group to stay together for future projects. In the context of the Devil May Cry and Kingdom Hearts task forces (which have been our most successful I would say), I think they should just be left as is. There's certainly more games coming out for each franchise, but if they want to be merged into a more inclusive task force, then it's up to them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In the case of Warcraft/Starcraft, we both have a large backlog of articles to try and push to GA and FA status. I'd suggest that once we've managed to improve the articles to high quality and stability we look at future rationalisation. Also, considering that both these taskforces have recently come down from being seperate WikiProjects, it's currently early days. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 09:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As the guy who has been pushing a lot of StarCraft articles forward and the guy who turned the SC wikiproject into a task force, merging it with Warcraft is a bad idea. The two are developed by Blizzard and techniques in making them have rubbed off to later products, but the simularities end there. We're talking about two very distinct series, and merging the two task forces could cause complications. I for one know absolutely nothing about Warcraft, and I imagine a significant proportion of Warcraft editors don't know anything about StarCraft. The development of the articles of the two series has been separate since day one to my knowledge, and so have probably taken different approaches. I'm sure Diablo editors also have taken a different direction. To merge the task forces suddenly into one simply is not efficient. I'd agree with Gazimoff here, perhaps after both task forces have completed a lot of their work and its primarily a maintenance job, a collective Blizzard task force would make sense. But until that point, its better to let editors develop the individual franchises separately and independently from the other series. -- Sabre (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting alternative to letting a task force go inactive. Though I think it could go both ways. Expanding the scope could make participation dwindle because of a less focused scope, or it could could encourage the push for more articles of greater quality. Either way, it's better than letting it sit there for a year, waiting for a single sequel to come out. Ultimately though, I think it should be left up to the major contributors of the task force. If they are unwilling to keep the effort going, it makes little difference what form the task forces is. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

To phrase my opinion on the issue in one easily quotable line: the success of a task force does not depend on the topic it deals with, but on the effort of the editors involved. User:Krator (t c) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There was something along these lines discussed here, where we planned to consider getting rid of dead task forces/projects or expand their scope ect. but we never got around to it. I suppose we could actually put the idea into practice now though. Some task forces could easily encompass more article subjects into their scope and actually become projects in their own right. What do you think? Should we go ahead with a refined "WikiProject Video games project consolidation"? --.:Alex:. 10:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Warcraft and StarCraft task forces were a result of that proposal, so it was got around to, at least to an extent. -- Sabre (talk)

I have looked over all the acomplishments of the Task Force's and all that can be added is CRUFT, so sooner or later I'm gonna kick this plan into gear. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stats update?

Back from my Wikibreak, I'm sure everyone missed me :) Anyway, I was wondering if there is interest in me updating the stats page to include April. I'll do it if people think it's worthwhile. When I first created that page it was more of a novelty thing for me, so I'm not sure if we want this to be a regular beat. Thoughts? JACOPLANE • 2008-05-4 21:27

I missed you greatly. :) Sure, update it, I'm sure some will find it useful...(that's if you have the time and patience). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've included the data for April in the table and the graphs. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-5 12:00

Wow, the project page broke 4000 and the portal broke 6000. Thanks for doing the stats update Jaco. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

It's appreciated :) Also, I just added the new Warcraft & Starcraft task-forces to the table, as well as the Newsletter page. No point in updating the graphs since there is only one data point. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-5 14:47

Ubisoft and free images on Commons

This came to my attention... apparently some guy on commons is arguing the OTRS ticket allowing us to use Ubisoft images is not actually allowing us to use Ubisoft images. Read on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed the DR (Jacoplane, where art thou?), dealing with backlash. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Weapons of Resident Evil 4

A second opinion request has been made at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Video_games suggesting that this should be a FLC rather than a GAN. Any thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly qualifies as a list of weapons. However, on a notability standpoint, what differentiates this page from a "List of Weapons in Turok", or "List of Weapons in Time Crisis 4"? Disregarding this aspect of notability, the list of weapons there contain gameguide materials; "Its initial firepower level is 13.0. When completely modified, its firepower reaches 50.", "Unlocked upon beating the Separate Ways assignment, the Chicago Typewriter has a maximum firepower level of 10.", "The rocket launcher is a one-use weapon that can be bought from the Merchant for 30,000 pesetas. ", etc, are certainly not statements for the average reader and of use only to players of the game. The Creation section is a whole chunk of quote. I do not think the article in this state qualifies as a GA or FL. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the article even warrants existance, the development, merchandise and reception information probably is better suited in the Resident Evil 4 article, while the rest is just a breach of WP:VG/GL... -- Sabre (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a hard time seeing why such an article should exist. Are the weapons of Resident Evil notable in of themselves, or is this article free-riding on the notability of the game in general? Randomran (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that that article is notable, I think that there is a likelihood of better quality by merging (removing some duplication) of the Weapons article with the main RE4 article which is in need of significant cleanup and improvements, as to reduce its size to accommodate the notable aspects of the weapons. Right now, the weapons article uses the notability as a wrapper to justify a typical gameguide weapons list, and thus feels like it is gaming the system. Take away the gameguide table, and you're left with details I'd expect to find in a development and reception section. Maybe if the RE4 development section is too large, it can be moved per summary style to a separate article (which would include the bulk of this article). --MASEM 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a list but I see it failing spectacularly at soon as it hits WP:FLC. Per above, there's no reason this article should exist, and a merge back to Resident Evil 4 would be appropriate. The table in particular is a complete breach of WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is well-referenced and presented and in no manner resembles actual game guides (I have a game guide for Resident Evil 4; the article is NOT a how-to whatsoever. The weapons are themselves notable in that a special controller was made for them, they appear highlightened in marketing for the game and even with action figures. The article definitely deserves to exist. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Being well-sourced is not a reason for an article to exist. Do any of those sources establish any disconnect whatsoever from RE4? Any need for it to exist separately from RE4? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they help support it as a sub or spinoff article with notability on its own and sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, whether it's notable is irrelevant. The issue is whether it's better presented as part of the main article, and seeing as the notability is on the fence, and there's not that much material here, merging is better. To justify splitting, you need a serious argument that WP:SIZE and other factors are present, say in Marketing for Halo 3 and Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which are far larger than this article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is of a sufficient length to stand on its own, but if some of it is also helpful for improving the main article, there's no problem in having some overlap or duplicate material, just as an article on Napoleon is going to overlap with an article on the Consulate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is a table that everyone here agrees is superfluous and unnecessary and a giant pile of quotes that are better placed in the context of the main article. There's really nothing else that can be placed in the article sans more game guide material, and without the table, there isn't much of an article left. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article contains images and quotations from reliable sources that are absolutely non-game guide in nature. If you and others think aspects of the article can also be used in Resident Evil 4, that is perfectly fine by me as well, but just because something is merged from one article to another does not automatically mean it cannot still appear and continue to develop in the original articles, too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I never referred to the quotes or images as game guide, and stop trying to not address the point. In any case, as soon as the material is merged into the main article, this article loses its reason for existence, as the table will be removed, and there's no point to keeping a redundant article. You keep additional articles to express information that cannot be adequately summarized in the main article (Marketing for Halo 3, Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion), not to exist solely for the sake of existing, even if it is notable. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not per the GFDL, i.e. Wikipedia:Merge and delete. If anything is emerged, then we must keep the contribution history public. The table should not be removed anyway. Any concerns in writing style can easily be addressed be rewording. There's plenty of value in having a redudant article when the article focuses on one particularly notable aspect of a game in a focused manner just as an article on Alexander the Great, which will have duplicate material with articles on Macedon and Darius III, focused on that particular figure. Something that is notable does indeed have justification existing on a paperless encyclopedia that combines general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not deleting the article, we're redirecting it. As for the table, there's nothing you can do concerning the game guide material save its wholesale removal, and there's overwhelming consensus here that this is the case. In any case, your examples are fallacious - you are mentioning multiple topics that are not derived from one another and are independently notable (Weapons of Resident Evil 4 is not, as if Resident Evil 4 was not notable, the former would not be as well). The issue at hand is whether summary style can adequately represent the subject in the main article, which it can, making this article unnecessary. Marketing for Halo 3 and Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion cannot be adequately represented by summary style, and as they are notable, they have articles by extension. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, just rewording it would be sufficient. There's no advantage in "wholesale removal". There's numbers here, but a democracy is different from consensus. Weapons of Resident Evil 4 is independently notable in form of action figures and a special controller that exist beyond just the games. Splinter or sub-articles are indeed valid even if they are related and complement each other. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Jappalang, the grand majority of the material in the table is game guide material. Telling how much damage something does, how much ammo it has, or how many shots it takes to kill things are definitely game guide material. Anyhow, in the context of the discussion here, it is irrelevant whether the subject is notable, we're determining whether it would be better presented in the main article as part of the development/reception sections there, and there appears to be relative consensus in that regard. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply stating facts in a larger context is definitely not game guide. Some of the material can be duplicated in the main article, but there's no reason to not also have this article separate as it works well as a stand alone article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with the many users here that once this article hits FLC, it will fail per its existence. A list of weapons is kinda trivial, and falls under list cruft, as its similar to a list of cars in a Need for Speed game, or a list of weapons/cars/glitches in a GTA game, and serves no point or notability.--~SRS~ 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cruft" is never a valid reason for anything. It is dissimilar to those examples in that these weapons appear as toys, as a special controller, and a specific focus of marketing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts in a larger context? The context is in the game entirely. The gun has so much ammo, it takes so many shots to kill this, it turns slowly and it's difficult to kill fast things with it. What about that is not in context of the game? And per above, merging is preferred. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A merge would be the way to go from here, as most of this information would be better fitted at Resident Evil 4.~SRS~ 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the merge. This information belongs with the game articles. Take away the game guide list and you're left with information about the game. Pagrashtak 03:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The table is quite diverse as it includes weapons from both playable and non-playable characters. I am not opposed to utilizing some content to beef up the main article further, but I see no detriment in not also having the separate article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That the table includes weapons from playable and non-playable character is totally irrelevant. And per above, there's nothing you can put into the article except more game guide material in the table that everyone here says should be removed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That the table includes weapons from playable and non-playable characters is totally relevant as non-playable information cannot be "how to" in nature. Additional references and quotations from sources can reasonably still be added to the article, which can not justifiably be called "game guide." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's "how-to" is irrelevant. It's telling details about the game that make zero sense to someone not familiar with the game (hence, "game guide," information only accessible to those who are knowledgeable about the game) and are simply not encyclopedic. And again, no one here ever referred to anything outside the table as game guide material. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That it's not all "how to" is relevant, because that is what the game guide guidelines caution against. Every article has something that makes zero sense to someone among our diverse community of readers, but what makes Wikipedia fun and worthwhile is that with internal links and many articles, readers will be enticed to continue reading further and familiarize themselves with what they don't already know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop jumping around the point. Go look at any of our FAs. Is there anything in Final Fantasy X telling you that you can deal more than 9,999 damage when you have the "Break Damage Limit" ability or where you can obtain the legendary weapons? Is there anything in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow telling you that it's not recommended to use an axe against fast enemies since it's slow? Why not? It's material that is only valuable to someone playing the game and serves as nothing more than "game guide" advice. The overwhelming consensus above should indicate as such to you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not numbers. The article as a whole is valuable to people interested in aspects of video games. Weapons are a major aspect of video games and especially of this particular game. Articles on different subjects by their different nature contain material that one would not find in articles other articles. For video games, this kind of material is particularly relevant and so fits in an article of this nature. As a sub or splinter article, it cannot be compared to Final Fantasy X or the Castlevania article. Resident Evil 4 could, but not Weapons of Resident Evil 4. It's apples and oranges. Weapons of Final Fantasy X (if we have such an article) could be compared. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) But it's clear you're bailing out a tide. We don't have such an article about Final Fantasy because it has very little real world notability outside of the game — merging to content is overwhelmingly a better option. What is good here is only good in the context of the game, and makes more sense in an article about the game design. The majority of the article is extremely game-guide-y because it tries to go beyond this and... can't. So you've got a really bipolar article, with good content that isn't in a proper context since it's disconnected from the game design (for instance, one section talks about the game's design but is totally isolated from any discussion of it) and lots of game-guidey content to try and hold it together. It doesn't work, and makes much more sense merged. --Haemo (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in the case of Final Fantasy as I am not as familiar with those games, but here we're are talking about a unique weapon peripheral and action figure weapons that go beyon the game. I am not incidentally opposed to expanding the article to be about weapons in the whole series. Nor am I opposed to essentially duplicating some material over both articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's only two reasons I would consider that the weapons need to be treated separately from the rest of RE4:

The weapons, as a whole, are considered notable. This is not the case

The majority of individual weapons are each notable, and thus presented along with the remaining non-notable ones. This is not the case, as only a couple really have stood out.

It is not the case this article lacks demonstration of notability, but it is a case where the topic of the article is inappropriate and not shown to be notable by that notable information. Most of what's given in sources is material for development and reception, and thus all that can be kept and merged to RE4, with the only loss being the table of game stats itself. If RE4 is too large after this, then the development section of RE4 can likely be separated to its own article, but I doubt that this will need to be done. --MASEM 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The topic is appropriate enough for an article on Wikipedia and I see no reason why not to have some of the material on both the main article and the sub-article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the giant quote, the list, and the non-content (ie references and external links making the article look bigger), the content is far more manageable. I cannot see why this article needs to be apart from RE4, when RE4 isn't very big, and this article isn't big at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect that allows for the redirect to be overturned when/if additional sources and content are found that could be added to the article. What's weird is that I actually had a dream last night about this discussion... Maybe that falls under a "You know you're" category! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, definitely does :P --Haemo (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Anyone against a merge at this point? This has become a one-sided argument - everyone here sans Le Roi - and everyone here either has problems with the notability of the article or agrees that it should be merged. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Material from this notable article can reasonably be duplicated in Resident Evil 4 without having to also closed down the weapons article. Plus, previous discussions reveal a more obvious lack of consensus: [2], [3], [4], etc., i.e. there are more editors and arguments beyond those in this particular discussion who either oppose a merge or who agree with me that both articles can coexist. The material is in fact not game guide content. Being sourced makes it acceptable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that: Weapons_of_Resident_Evil_4#Weapons is in fact, game guide content. Being sourced doesn't make it acceptable either. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support a merge/redirect. RobJ1981 is also right, though. This is game guide content. (Not in the "how to play" sense, but in the sense that it just lists stuff in the game without making any real point.) If the list of weapons isn't evidence enough in of itself, then you only need to look at the sources that are used to support the list of weapons. (e.g.: references 9 through 33.) With the exception of the research about the unique chainsaw controller, most of the research simply lifts information from Resident Evil 4 game guides. This is pretty flagrant.
  When doing a merge, I would recommend summarizing this list really quickly to make whatever point it's supposed to serve. If the point is that resident evil has a lot of weapons, say that. If the point is that resident evil made some big innovation with a few key weapons, say that. But you don't list every single weapon and describe its significance to the game. Not in wikipedia, anyway.
  If you have trouble accomplishing a merge due to one or two people reverting, feel free to post again to the WP:VG talk page. I'm sure some of us can help you out. Randomran (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Besides agreeing with a merger, I would like to point out that the large quote in creation has no relevance to the section. It's just some quote from some non-notable development blog by some random guy without any sort of credentials that would allow such a quote to be placed in any article. That's just in case someone would object or be iffy about a merger because they think it would be hard to merge that section into the main article. TTN (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support a merge of this article into the main. Yes, it is nicely written, but that alone does not mean it should stay as a standalone article. The recently removed weapons table is very much "game guide" content. It is often one of the selling points of a video game guide "complete weapons information" and every game guide I've ever seen has tables of weapons. It is part of the broad scope of "how to play" in showing you what weapons are available and what they do. With the table gone, the weapons article is much smaller and easily mergeable. The quote in the creation section is very long, and I'm concerned it may pass the WP:COPYVIO limits. I also agree with TTN that it has no clear relevance to the section. Cleaned up that section would be a nice addition the production section in the main Resident Evil 4, which has been unsourced since August 2007. The chainsaw controller is already covered in the main article, but I think the paragraph here, which is sourced, should replace what's in the main. The merchandise is not specific to the weapons, but to the game and should be moved into the main. The reception section, tweaked, would also improve the main article, which really needs some cleaning up. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• You've got my support for a merge, the game controller and reception details can easily be merged into the main article. I'd tend to agree with the views expressed on the development section, it does not display any clear relevance and may hinge on copyright violation as Collectonian stated. -- Sabre (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Picked this up off AN - why on earth it showed up there I have no idea. Anyway, upon review this absolutely should be merged back per the overwhelming consensus that has formed above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• It should be noted: only a few hours after I removed the weapons section of Weapons of Resident Evil 4, Le Grand went to it and seemingly reverted my edit. His edit summary was "fixed" and nothing else. Let's look at a few things in the weapons list. Shotgun, bowgun (to name a few): list where to find the weapon. That's telling the reader what to do, in other words: instructions/how-to-guide. Broken Butterfly, Handcannon (to name a few): list their firepower. Also game guide content that helps the reader play the game. For the various rifles: it states an additional scope can be purchased. More game guide content. It's pretty clear to everyone except for Le Grand, that the section is game guide content. The attitude of "it's sourced, so it must be kept" doesn't apply here. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If I may quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Unsuitable content: "Lists of gameplay items or concepts. The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." If this isn't a description of that section, I don't know what it is. Pagrashtak 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Other NN / WP:NOT lists...

Just a quick glance reveals Superweapons of Ace Combat and Soul series mystical weapons and a good chunk of the Category:Organizations in video games category. ... Not that I claim to know what to do with any of these one way or the other, but I wanted to put them out there for discussion. Randomran (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if we are doing this, I saw in the above discussion that a list of things in articles in game guide content, not in how-to sense, but just there not proving a point, so would that be the case in wrestling games, that list the people available to play in the game?--~SRS~ 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sports games are kind of a special case where you kind of want to know what major personality rights they've secured. It's arguably pretty notable information, as opposed to just any old list of characters or items. I don't know. It really depends. There's not a bright line test on this. Randomran (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's a split among members as to whether a list of real-life players count as game guide content. I personally see it as a list of voice actors; a full list is not necessary to convey that a game has notable voice actors. But that's just me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Well they do provide voice over, and there was always an edit war over whether to add a roster list or not, and it finally was added to the page. I always felt neutral to the addition of it, as it does seem different to a list of character and cars/weapons, but then again it may fall under game-guide (proving no point), but that's just me.~SRS~ 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like that could be potentially be solved by using a table on the series page similar to Super Smash Bros. (series)#Playable characters and Mario Kart#Playable characters. TTN (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, in wrestling games, the characters are based off of actual superstars from World Wrestling Entertainment and that company every year loses wrestlers and sign new wrestlers, and they then are taken out/put in the coming games, and WWE releases a video game every year, so if we use that table it will become a hassle.~SRS~ 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to work each section into decent prose? That would be the next best step as long as it just wouldn't be the list in a paragraph format. TTN (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That was discussed before, and people thought it looked "ugly", others thought if we are to list only 5, we should just list the whole roster. Also, in WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2008, their are platform differences, so not all characters are on the same systems.~SRS~ 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this the only form of prose that was tried or were there versions that tried to work in the entire cast? It seems like it should be possible to do something with all of them. TTN (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the best prose that other users came up with, and then it was decided that roster lists would work better since, it looked neater and was more organized. This would be the only exception of a roster list, because previous games would work better with prose because they don't have version differences, but '08 does.~SRS~ 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification article vs. list

I was the user who requested the second opinion in the first place, but I'm still fuzzy on the consensus here. I think most people can agree that this is a list rather than an article, so it should be removed from WP:GAN. If not for that reason, than it should be removed for lack of stability per this on-going conversation and the very high possibility that it will eventually be merged back into the main article. I am correct in this assumption? Nikki311 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty accurate to me. -- Sabre (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed from GAN list. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NPA attacks and intentional unsigning

There's a user on the talk page of Criticism of World of Warcraft who's arguing about the neutrality of the article. I know criticism articles are to be avoided, and the warcraft taskforce are working on that, but his response in the past has been to blank content. He's now making personal attacks and marking his discussion entries "intentionally unsigned". COuld I get a sanity check on this behaviour? Many thanks,Gazimoff ^Write_Read 08:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He may not sign his posts but his IP 63.175.18.130 is evident from the History page. If he keeps up his personal attacks, you can bring the case up to the admins. Jappalang (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the harrasment is continuing. I've now been accused of wikilawyering. The contributor is also now attacking the Warcraft taskforce as well. I'd appreciate some support in responding to this individual, as right now it's just making me want to give up all together.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gamestooge.com

I noticed that Betacommand has removed all links to Gamestooge.com as spam, or something, the edit summaries are vague. Most of these links were in the form of references supporting points in articles, so is gamestooge.com an unreliable source? There doesn't seem to have been any consensus decision on this anywhere, at least as far as I can see. Miremare 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

According to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log , "spammed by a contributor to the site, self published source being used to justify an edit war" sometime in May 08. --MASEM 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was revealed in one wikipedia mediation session that it's being used by one wikipedia editor to push their POV. Disputes originate in an article, and the "journalist" then publishes an article on gamestooge that "resolves" the dispute. As such, it has been added to the list of unreliable sources as far as I know. That makes it the definition of a self-published source, which are generally unacceptable on wikipedia. It's been blacklisted as unreliable. Randomran (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that the site was all user contributions. Thanks, Miremare 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I noticed yesterday that Betacommand was doing that, and even tried reverting (but the spamfilter prevented that). And yeah, it's unfortunate that his edit summaries are close to dishonest -- I even asked him to change and he said "no it's ok" as if it was <.<. But if it's all user-content, then I can see why it's not an RS (one of the two pages was Audiosurf and was used because there was a side mention of an X-Box Live release, of which the developer had no knowledge of. Seeing that it was a totally unofficial review gives it a bit more sense...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually following up on this with another admin at the moment - I've put forth a case that I don't believe the site should be blacklisted solely for self-publishing concerns. The user doing the self-published sourcing has been indefinitely blocked (User:JAF1970), but I believe there are other authors on the Gamestooge site, and the site itself does not appear to be harmful. Also, self-published sourcing isn't a problem if the person who wrote the article is not also the person adding that site as a source to a WP article - in other words, JAF would get in trouble for SPS if he adds his own article as a source, but if I were to add the same article, SPS is not an issue. (WP:RS and WP:POV might be other issues, but neither of those are a reason for blacklisting either.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should add that JAF was not blocked for SPS, but for gross incivility and other unacceptable behavior toward other editors, as well as POV pushing. The blocking admin was User:Nick, in case you're interested. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And now the follow-up: The site was blacklisted because all but one of its uses were self-published - JAF had added them (and often removed other reliable sources) to promote his particular viewpoint. There were almost no instances of other editors using Gamestooge.com for any purpose seen as legitimate by the reviewing admins. Quick discussion took place here: User talk:Nick#Questions re JAF1970 and Gamestooge . — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So far it's mostly been used for POV pushing. I think it's safe to keep it on the blacklist for now. There's other more reliable sources out there. While I think there's probably some good info on there that's reliable and NPOV, I wouldn't want to open the floodgates. Maybe in time the site can cultivate its reputation and get itself back in the good books. Randomran (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) Question/suggestion, should we add a list of both blacklisted sites as well as those that should never be used for reliable sources at the VG Sources guideline page? We have acceptable sites, but we should also add unacceptable sites that we know of. (For example, one should avoid using Home of the Underdogs save for talking about the site itself, or if a free(Beer) game's only home is there. --MASEM 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Though, I'm sure there may be some backlash from others that believe a particular site shouldn't be blacklisted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Gamestooge.com is absolutely not a reliable source. It is a blog run by a Usenet persona who posts under the name "Jonah Falcon" (probably the user "JAF1970" mentioned above) and his friends. To my knowledge, though I could be wrong about this, his site does not have any sort of press credentials, so it is unlike real news sites like IGN, Gamespot, etc. So as with all blogs, the site's stories are all tertiary sources (see WP:OR). In the newsgroups that he posts in, he has a reputation for carrying his own personal bias into every post he makes, and in addition his opinions are usually out-of-touch with the community and industry as a whole, as reflected by his POV-pushing in edits. Using the site as a source is against Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight and self-publishing WP:V. I wholly agree with the blacklisting of the site. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Gamespot" as a credible news source? Ha! I give that an 11 out of 10 and a big branded page design! --8bitJake (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why does GameStooge redirect to 2old2play.com? Kariteh (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Halo 3 Original Soundtrack mentions "GameStooge Awards" (with piped link to the 2old2play.com article) and it's currently an FAC, so we might need to look into that question. Kariteh (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'v removed the link, since the link was to a sister/parent site. John.n-IRL 17:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that JAF1970 couldn't get his own site on the wiki so he redirected his site name to the only other site on the internet that linked to him. Basically his way of circumventing WP:N. Same reason for the pipe, it was the only way to get the word "GameStooge" into an article. Awards from that site are void because they're picked and self-published by him. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I think you should back away a little before you go on a witch-hunt. I added the gamestooge mention, I added the gamestooge link and I piped in in the Halo 3 Original Sountrack article; I redirected it to 2old2play because I though that Gamestooge was an affiliate (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered adding in the award in the first place.) Please, let's not get carried away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's tough to continue to assume good faith when so much bad faith has occurred in the past. xenocidic (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, but we don't have to peg anyone who adds a Gamestooge link as colluding in nefarious activity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone noticed that 2old2play.com has been blacklisted too? (Try editing the article's page.) Given this fact, should the article be sent to Articles for deletion and all mentions of "GameStooge Awards" removed from other articles? Kariteh (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice 2old2play.com being blacklisted as well, but I'd support an AFD for that - it's a pretty tiny article with little to no notability at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been profiled in OXM and Xbox.com; it's got the independent sources required. It does need expansion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But you apparently didn't create the redirect unless that was a previously deleted version. JAF was the one who created the current redirect.[5] Which does leave some lingering questions as to how these sites are connected, if they are connected. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am a self publisher of a videogame blog and a Wikipedian. I don’t directly link to my articles but others have in the past. But I’ve never gotten any signifigant traffic from it. I’ve gotten a hundred times the traffic from one article on Digg or Google News than years of Wikipedia. It is a nebulous line between self publishing and so called “Real” news sites. I’ve broken some stories and am getting some treatment from Videogame PR folks but it is not as simple as that. Some independent sites do some real work and some “Pros” do nothing but regurgitate PR spin. --8bitJake (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for practical purposes the pros can get it wrong while the masses have it right. But if we argued about that every time, wikipedia would fall apart. That's why we have a strong rule against self-published sources (although it is not a hard rule). See Wikipedia:RS, and keep in mind that the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't truth... it's verifiability. So yeah, maybe we might end up getting it wrong by ignoring some self-published sources and preferring the pros. But we prevent much more damage than if we opened the floodgates. Randomran (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right that is why I don't ever link to my own stuff and treat it as equally as a others sites. There is no universal "press pass" and I have gotten some "Press Credidentials" to some events. the real world is not as cut and dry Clark Kent with his big old press badge.--8bitJake (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good, and that's how we should all behave. But I was trying to raise the point that it makes only a marginal difference if someone else links to your site because they happen to agree with what you say. If you're a reliable source, you're a reliable source. If not, no single editor can give it credibility. Maybe we lose some good information by treating some sites as unreliable, but it also protects us from bad information. Randomran (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How can the 2old article be expanded, no one can edit it while it contains a link to that site. No one wanted to make a witch hunt. however it may be a good idea to put it forward for deletion to seek consensus and opinion concerning notoriety. Site seems notably enough, however page needs alot of expansion. John.n-IRL 00:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2old2play

If I'm understanding the discussion above correctly, 2old2play.com was mistakenly associated with GameStooge. If that is the case, let's head over to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals and get it taken back off. Even if the article is deleted for other reasons, the URL should not remain blacklisted from Wikipedia. And let's get the GameStooge redirect deleted since it shouldn't be pointing anywhere. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Striking previous comments because this interview[6] gives first-party confirmation that the sites are run by the same people. So that puts us in a pretty weird place since 2old2play is blacklisted and yet appears notable enough to have an article which can't be edited because it is blacklisted. My head is going to asplode. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's questionable whether it's notable enough to have an article. It's claim to notability is one interview on xbox.com. WP:N says 'multiple sources are generally prefered' but doesn't definitively say what should be done in the event of one source (it does suggest merging with a broader article; though I can't really see how that can be done in this case). Bridies (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and sent it to AfD, since it fails WP:WEB. Of course, with it being blacklisted, I can't even add the AfD header to the article. *doh* AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

GamePlasma.com linkspam

While looking over Patapon I noticed that one of the reviews was from a GamePlasma.com. A site I had never heard of before. Upon finding out that an IP editor added in this review (along with that fact that it was the IPs only edit and the IP came from Virginia, where the website is supposedly based in [7]. I reverted the edit.

Then I did a quick Google search for the domain on wikipedia and found these IPs whose only edits have been to include GamePlasma.com links: 24.125.147.183, 128.172.209.96 culminating in this user GPJCollins who has been adding reviews of GamePlasma in mass who in his bio [8] (before he blanked it) admits to working at GamePlasma.com and attempted to create a article about GamePlasma before it was subsequently deleted.

I just wanted to let other VG editors know to be on the lookout for links from this website. I will be removing these links that have been added (since they are not appropriate for the EL section anyways).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongsauce (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If he continues adding, give the appropriate escalating warnings so he can be blocked. Seems to just be here to promote his own site. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You may want to request it be blocked as link spam here. John.n-IRL 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FAR

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is under FAR. Buc (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quake Army Knife article

After reading this WikiProject's guidelines and looking at some related articles (mainly other level editor articles), I realise the Quake Army Knife article doesn't fall under this project's scope. So I guess it should be removed from the VG-project (but NOT deleted from WikiPedia!). Since I'm not a member of this project, I didn't think it was appropriate if I did this myself. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue it does fall into it, if not also falling into other projects as well. the VG project not only includes video games, but the hardware for them, the people that develop and design them, and, by nature of extent, the software used to create them, particularly if tailored towards video games. --MASEM 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But in that case, all those other articles (GtkRadiant, Warcraft III World Editor, etc.) should also be included. That's fine with me, though. :) --DanielPharos (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, all those examples directly pertain to video games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Then I'll go and add all those pages too. What code should I use for that? videogame-software-stub? And should all Infobox Software's be upgraded to Infobox VG? --DanielPharos (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Their current setup is fine. All they really need is the Project banner {{WikiProject Video games}} on the talk page, which is already on there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Ah, I see, it's on the TALK-page (D'oh! I should have known that!). I'll add it when I see one that doesn't have it. And what about the Infoboxes? Should they be changed? --DanielPharos (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since they are software for developing and editing video games rather than video games, {{Infobox Software}} is the best infobox. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

SmackBot just removed the videogame-software-stub from the article. Why? Did anybody trigger this? Or does a Primarysources or Importance tag trigger this? --DanielPharos (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question that I have no answer for. :-p The stub tag can always be added back in, but to be honest the article looks like it has enough to be Start-class. Maybe it's time to get it assessed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

About the assessment: That's what I've been working towards (see the article history). I'd rather add one more source before doing that, but I'm getting really close now. --DanielPharos (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the sudden flood of questions, but I want to get this all right before I ask for a re-assessment. The redirect page QuArK originally was the main page. However, it still contains the history (and discussion). What's the best way of transfering it from that redirect-page to the 'new' main article-page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QuArK&redirect=no --DanielPharos (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that may not be possible now. Normally, to do that you'd have to move the page. That will rename it, carry over any edit history, and turn the old page into a redirect. But the new page already has edits made to it, so the two edit histories can't really be combined, as far as I'm aware of. It's fine the way it is though. You may want to leave an "FYI" as the first discussion on the talk page mentioning the edit history of the previous page and provide a link. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

OK, I'll do that. Thanks for your help! --DanielPharos (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You can put in a request for a history merge. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is very cool. Learn something new every day. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Oh sweet! I've added the request to the page. Thanks! --DanielPharos (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

GameFAQs template

What do you guys think of Template:GameFAQs with respect to the fact that this is something that could go on just about every game article? Unlike the Moby template, where one could exercise judgment about whether a given Moby page offers useful information, a GameFAQs link seems more black-and-white: either you think game articles should have a link to a game guide, or not. Do we consider game guide links to be useful external links? A possible advantage to including these links will be as a tool to cut down on gamecruft in articles. You can just point to the link and say "go there if you want that info". The disadvantage, of course, is that it may induce spam from game guide sites or individuals that want to advertise themselves on Wikipedia. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of its usage, I think, depends on the person writing the article (if they're for or against GameFAQs). Despite having contributed to the site, I don't think I've ever used the template...I just don't find it that useful (odd, I guess). And of course, not every game is covered equally well by GameFAQs. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the number of pages that won't offer additional info is much bigger than those that would. GameFAQs is normally the first site I go to if I'm stuck in a game, but the guides aren't that user friendly. The only thing I can think would be a useful is if the GameFAQs page had a game script or some in-depth bestiary. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

I don't know, if every article has links to GameFAQs and StrategyWiki, then we soon end up with a lot of clutter. I guess it's mainly up to the editors of the article, but I would definitely be against mass-spamming all VG-related articles with GameFAQs templates. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-6 21:49

Absolutely; I would suggest GameFAQs links only used where the article's editors have agreed that the GameFAQs coverage of the game is exceptional. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumble Pak article

This article needs to be completely changed; as it stands, I don't see any article about the rumble technology, while this article focuses exclusively on only two Rumble Paks, ignoring any rumble on any other system, including the Wii. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're proposing changing Rumble Pak into something like "Rumble technology"? Currently, the closest thing I could find was Force feedback, which redirects to "Haptic#Games", so we technically don't have an article on the subject. Honestly, though I think it may be kinda hard to flesh out and is a daunting idea. It'd need sections on technology and history, which can be hard to do for gaming technology that started over a decade ago. If you can do though, go for it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

The name "Rumble Pak" is a specific product name, and as such, is not the generic term for force feedback or vibration-enabled controllers. Thus, the article on "Rumble Pak" should not focus on things which aren't actually referred to using this name. It certainly can and should link to an article on such technology in general, though. --Slordak (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Because one piece of rumble technology does not a separate article make? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? This is like saying that a popular cell phone can't have its own separate article because cell phones can generically be covered in a single article. I think there's a valid reason to have both, i.e., specific articles about a certain implementation of the technology, and an article about the technology in general. --Slordak (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One may as well say that info on rumble outside of external rumble packs is nigh nonexistent. And no, an article this short doesn't need to be separate by DEFAULT. One barely different type of rumble =/= different. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Filefront spammers

I've noticed a lot of brand new editors (quite possibly the same person with different usernames) who do nothing but add Filefront links to the "External links" section of articles recently. If you look at their "contributions" you can tell it's clearly spam. First there was Lerhinkim. Exactly one week after came Smeunum (account was also only used for one week). Two new "editors" popped up today, Quastbel and Struenang.

An administrator or someone else might want to look into/report this stuff. I caught on to this because I created many of the pages that are being spammed. Who knows how many other accounts they've got. SeanMooney (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You want to report this over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. They may be able to help you out there. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted all the changes these accounts have done and raised it at AN/I. Probably going too far, but we'll see.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Another account registered today, dedicated to filefront spamming: Naltorqua - spamming some of the same articles. The additions have been reverted but hopefully something else can be done about this. SeanMooney (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Some character articles

I can't redirect articles myself, but hopefully I'm able to just leave the following list here. The following articles should be redirected, but it's up to the people here to do so if they want. They are: Captain Olimar, Toad (Nintendo), Charmander, Pac-Man (Character), Dry Bones (character), Shy Guy, Piranha Plant, Chain Chomp, Bullet Bill, Blooper (Mario), and Starman (EarthBound).

Olimar was nicely merged to Pikmin (series)#Characters for a while. Toad was merged with List of Mario series characters#Toad; it has never shown any sort of improvement. Charmander was merged close to a year ago and only brought back last month. The Pac-Man one is just a badly formatted stub. The six Mario enemies were merged per a long discussion a while ago. Starman is just a minor enemy. TTN (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the Captain Olimar and Charmander re-creations as their cases were obvious. The Mario enemies have been reverted too for the same reasons. The remaining articles do need a proper discussion though: Toad (Nintendo), Pac-Man (Character), and Starman (EarthBound). Kariteh (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, Toad was part of this discussion. It doesn't really show much, but the article lasted as a redirect from July 07 until March (with two reverts in September and January). TTN (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I redirected Pac-Man to Pac-Man. The coverage of the character in the game article was better than that of the character article, so I didn't see much of an argument for it. Pagrashtak 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anyone feels like dealing with them, Jigglypuff and Meowth should also be merged with the rest of the Pokémon. It was always assumed that they would be merged, but they were brought back for some reason. They have no chance of asserting notability. TTN (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you on those two easily. Both articles can be improved and referenced, Meowth at least is recognizable and notable via the anime counterpart, and Jigglypuff gains notability due to similar anime appearances (it was one of the show's running gags), Smash Bros. (appeared in every friggin game), and some design mention. Slap a tag to get the articles improved? Yes. Nuke them for some perceived notion they can't have notability though? Eh...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that notability is not defined by personal opinions. Show how those help the articles gain substantial creation and reception that cannot fit on the lists, and I'll then agree with you. Until then, anime appearances can be covered on the anime character list that is slowly forming, and the rest can be covered within the list entries. TTN (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see your utter dependance on reception points given that it's nigh impossible to reference such factors due to wikipedia's own standards for any non-protagonist character. Does that make it unimportant? No. Also I fail to see the reasoning that what makes up a character's design history and appearances should be split into game and anime factors as that effectively negates the point of having any character article (should Link (Legend of Zelda) have all non-game appearances shoved on some list for example?). Long story short you're arguing notability knowing it'll get articles removed, but failing to understand that not only is notability the only factor, but it isn't as narrow as you make it to be. If it was there would be little reason for anyone to attemp any articles unless it was a primary protagonist or antagonist character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By the sentiment of your first sentence, you're pursuing policies aginst Wikipedia's, and limitations defined by yourself. By this alone, there can't be any credibility in what you're saying unless you put them in accordance with Wikipedia: Notability. I feel that you'd be better off finding/identifying those sources that do express notability, per the above policy. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the very fact reception is not made mention of in the notability guidelines? Take a look, it isn't listed as a must-have point. Notability factors are one thing, but stating that an article must have reception when there may not always be enough (Wikipedia) citable material to cover such a subsection is asking a bit much all around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reception and development information are not requirements for being notable, only for comprehensiveness. However, they are excellent ways to establish notability. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

It's technically the only way a character can assert notability. Everything can be lumped into those two categories (i.e. popular culture and controversy fit into reception depending on the format). They don't actually have to be called development and reception, but they have to be in that line of information. TTN (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting way to see that then, though it brings up a few questions regarding some of your actions, but I won't go into that here. Regardless a search in blogs and other subjects bring up stuff that can count towards it with just simple searching, like for example this on gamefaqs which may count to Jigglypuff's behalf, or Adam Sessler on X-Play making several comments towards the little runt on the show's "Top 10 video game monsters" segment, and that's just barely digging. Meowth you can say the same: dig through official sites and you'll find information to cover reception of that sort. What's really troubling through is your whole argument that they "can't" be notable period and should be merged, even though discussio hasn't really taken place in full.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not reliable sources (you're not going to find anything decent relating to reception on them, for sure) and things written by single users of GameFaqs are not reliable sources, so those are out of the picture. If you can build the sections out of reliable sources, do it. Don't just say that it can be done. Just do it. I cannot put more emphasis on the bold statement. TTN (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Gamefaqs can be such a pain in the butt to be a reliable source it seems...anyway, regarding your second point, I'm a bit too busy with Alleyway and Poison (Final Fight) to really sit and start hammering on other articles yet. The point of this discussion is opposing your merge statement and statement that they "can't be notable" (after all if you've made up your mind anyway, little point to modify it as you'll just push this again. So let's square this away first, hm?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my point of view is that they currently do not assert notability, and it is unlikely that they will. I'm always open to be proven wrong. If that happens, then we just have more strong fiction articles. The problem is that people don't try to prove me wrong; they just try to work around it. If you can prove me wrong, please do so, but do not talk about how there is a definite possibility that the information exists without providing it. TTN (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Under what circumstances would a fictional characters ever be given "significant coverage" from multiple, independent sources, with none of them linking to "reception" or being subjective in tone? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's more a case that Wikipedia's own guidelines about online resources can effectively be difficult to work with. Despite sites like Kotaku, Joystik and insertcredit all interviewing corporate leaders in the game industry and being referenced and interviewed themselves (Kotaku immediately comes to mind there with a recent appearance by one of their editors on Attack of the Show), I've had people argue how they do not count as valid references because they're "online blogs". In other words as far as notability goes what is and isn't valid isn't fully worked out on the reference front when it comes to things online.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of them cases in particular, but I know that both Joystiq and Kotaku are listed as reliable sources on this wikiproject. But again, without knowing of these cases, this shouldn't be a problem as the article shouldn't be reliant on a single source if it was notable. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) Just to play devil's advocate. Wouldn't a description of a character from a reliable source fall under the definition of "worthy of note"?

Also TTN, I think there may be a slight discrepancy in our definitions of terms. For instance, I personally look at out-of-universe information as one of three types: Development, the process in which it was created; Reception, how the commercially and critically successful it was; and Impact, the ripple effects (normally a direct result of the reception, but different from it in my mind). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

I wouldn't think so. You're just talking about if some news article describes the personality of, say, a Grand Theft Auto character, to provide context to the readers, right? If it is only a overall description based on the in-game character with no outside views, no it wouldn't. It would have to show some kind of impact, as you describe it. I'm the same as you, but I view impact (In popular culture, ect) as reception unless it takes up a lot of weight. TTN (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I do think reception, impact, and development info are the best ways to establish notability, WP:Notability states "Notability is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity', although these may positively correlate with it." I think a plain description would fall within that statement, as fame, importance, and popularity all relate to reception and impact. At least my interpretation of it anyway. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

The problem is that guidelines don't take into account that many VG characters don't have significant coverage mostly because they don't take video game characters seriously, save for the absolutely most significant ones, and even then, a lot don't care. The lack of sources to substantiate notability should not be indicative of low notability, but rather, low interest among non-gaming publications. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then they can be put in a 'list of'. But the sources determine notability either way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This "list of" rubbish is a bad idea in it's own, because then you basically have a massive page of character info that drops a lot of the more relevant and encyclopedic information (sometimes reducing the article to 6-8 lines) to try and keep the list from getting too large. I'm really not sure ever how removing information in that form that is encyclopedic is ever a good idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally going with the logic that "list of" articles are meant to be the dumping grounds for character information that fails "notability", why did TTN mark List of Samurai Shodown Characters as one that needed notability proven? How can something that's a mass of character info that failed in notability other than the whole is notable supposed to prove it is indeed notable? Basically the thinking fails under scrutiny.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists allow for nice, concise writing (when well managed). While you find plot information to be encyclopedic, it has no place here without notability establishing information to back it up. No matter how large the summary, it can always be condensed and covered elsewhere. If you find the details lacking, you can add them to another wiki. As for Samurai Shodown, it is just a list full of trivial and pointless characters that have trivial and pointless details written about them. As it stands, it should be transwikied and the character information should be split throughout the games. It's not like a character list for a series that actually needs the characters summed up on a list for better organization. TTN (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I mean nobody in their right mind is going to come to wikipedia to ever look up information on SamSho characters, especially since SNK doesn't use them anymore, right? ...yeah, "trivial". You're infusing your own personal opinion into this mess. Additionally I was referencing items such as design and appearances material and reception that tends to get lost when someone goes and reduces a whole article to a few sentences. Really to be blunt, arguing something is unnotable because you don't feel it is without anything concise to back it up is poor judgement (you might as well argue against something on the grounds that "you never heard of it"), and I don't see the reason to resort to transwikiing when the information can be made perfectly fine here. The material has every right to remain here in a cited form.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to doubt that many people are going to come here to look up the specific characters. I'm talking about you average non-fan, mind you. Now, someone may want to look up the series in general, and view how the characters relate to the single games. In this case, there is no need for someone to jump between the games and a character list. All of the important base information can be placed within the series article, and the specific plot information can be summed up within each game. Now, maybe in this case, the ten most important characters can be placed on a list, but the average character should be fine. This is different for say, the Mario series, where someone would want to jump to a list because it would be fairly hard to describe the characters over and over again for each game. TTN (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if important, sourced development and reception is lost, that is just bad merging. I've seen plenty of design and reception information for these characters, but there isn't one source to back it. TTN (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Going along with all this further, tidied up the Jigglypuff article somewhat, though it still has a long ways to go. However, I'm really curious: how does something that got voted second most popular, a running gag in the related anime, plastered on the nose of a Boeing 747, mention by name in an article in the New York Times on an article related to pokemon (I haven't worked that ref in yet), and had a guy friggin sing its song, *with voice*, during an American Idol audition, fail notability?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely ignoring notability and relevance for a minute, all of that can easily fit within the list entry. After trimming that whole article down, it would be no longer than the list entry, minus the lead and anything else that needs to be merged over. Now, looking at those specifics: Being second most popular in one single poll (that doesn't even include all of them)isn't really anything to specifically note. It could fit after a sentence stating that it is popular, but it doesn't really scream "I'm notable."

The anime appearance warrants mention, but it has nothing to do with notability. Unless you have a quote talking about how they chose Jigglypuff specifically because its popular, there are also various others featured on thejets. It doesn't show notability for any of them. Unless it's a specific and in-depth overview of the specific Pokemon, I fail to see how a brief mention shows any notability. That last bit is just pure and pointless trivia that has no place anywhere (especially when it was less than five seconds). It would be no different were someone to sing something related to an internet meme. TTN (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

*sighs* Why did I think reasoning with you would work out especially after the "they can't be notable" comment? You made up your mind before I started, and bloating a list with an entry with all that would as a result make someone trim it down to make room. In all honesty you seem more ravenously content that if a video game character does not have a damn bible written about it, it should go on a list or be deleted. We're done talking, and I'll stick to improving the articles as possible. You or your cronies attempt merging, I'll be more than happy to object as far as it takes. But your attitude is a negative factor to this project in my very honest opinion. Do what you will from here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between scant, arguably trivial coverage (and the article on the boeing just mentions pokemon in general, nothing about jigglypuff) and not having 'a damn bible written about it'. Bridies (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A search of IGN and Gamespot reveals one article: Pok¿mon of the Day (nothing on Gamespot). Bridies (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Said it still needed work. But what point is there to bother looking up any information when you can run and shout "this should be merged because it isn't notable!" I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but effectively every pokemon character has been merged onto a list save for those two and Pikachu. Kirby's a similar case: everyone BUT Kirby is on a list at this point, even the series antagonist. We might as well wonder what makes the games themselves notable in the end. Of course we start doing that, and we're going to land up with a very limited list of articles to work with with such a narrowminded handling regarding "notability".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, are you serious? If there is significant coverage in secondary sources that kind of proves it's notable, so it makes sense to look them up. If no coverage is demonstrated, it leads other editors to believe there is no coverage. The reason the game itself is notable, is because there are tonnes of reviews written about them, not so with the characters themselves (except maybe pikachu). It's not a narrowminded handling at all, it's according to the guideline on notability: WP:N. Bridies (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Let's get back to business, people! I merged Starman into Earthbound's main series article. Anymore I can do here? ZeroGiga (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 2 games

This needs a lot of formatting, sourcing and cleanup. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2

I'm having some trouble over at the Team Fortress 2 article. An anomalous IP (which has previous for vandalism), keeps removing the rewrite of the class section, reverting it to an earlier version that is excessively detailed and falls foul of WP:GAMETRIVIA. The article has only just passed GA status on the back of a partial rewrite, but the reverts reduce the article to a quality that is less than GA, and therefore at risk of GA delisting. Can I have some help dealing with this please? I'm in danger of hitting the three RV rule. -- Sabre (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to bring it up on the talk page. Now either he'll do it, or he'll revert for the fourth time, or he'll stop caring. Kariteh (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So far it looks like you guys have been able to deal with him. But I'll keep an eye on it. Randomran (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reported him for reverting a 4th time. Kariteh (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist now as well. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 4

The Devil May Cry topic needs to have this game added to it as a GA since it has been over three months since the game came out. If not, it may be nominated for removal at any time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown! (video game series)

I revamped the whole article and I plan to nominate it for FLC soon, but before I can do that, may the community tell me what you think of it, and if you have any comments please feel free to tell me here, thanks =)--~SRS~ 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Video game series are articles, so should go to GAN/FAC. That article is not ready yet; take a look at Age of Empires for a recently featured VG series article. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But I based it off of List of Harvest Moon titles, a FLC.--~SRS~ 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not really what a series article should be like. As H2O pointed out, see Age of Empires, Crazy Taxi (series), Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts (series), and Mana (series) for examples.

However, it would make a very good list. In fact, you should copy the content over to "List of WWE SmackDown! video games", as it could make FL with a little tweaking. For starters, the game covers will have to be removed, we ran into a similar thing for List of Kingdom Hearts media. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Okay, I will work on it later. And Present it again here, but one question, if I make the move, what do I do with the series page?~SRS~ 00:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A series article should mimic a regular video game article to an extent. The prominent and common elements are highlighted in an overview section. This can include common gameplay, recurring characters, any story, etc. The games should be mentioned in a separate section. A development section is needed to show the series' history and how it has evolved since it began. A reception section is needed to show how the series has been been received; this should also be the last section. Other sections can include audio, merchandise, and impact. But those can vary by the series.

A few more suggestions to get it ready for FL. I would move the release dates back under the title, and I would move the content in the "Features" section up top to expand the lead. But all that can be taken care of after the move. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Citing Video Games and their Manuals

How does one correctly add a reference/footnote/citation for a video game or a video game manual? I'd like to use both such materials as a source in an article but not sure how to correctly do so. Thank you. --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you know how to add a citation but want clarity on the specific type of citation you mentioned. Manuals can be cited with Template:Cite_manual and games themselves by using Template:Cite video game. If you need help with how to add a citation to an article just ask and someone will help. - X201 (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To cite a manual, you can just write it manually if there isn't a good template for it. GAME TITLE. GAME PUBLISHER, YEAR. Game manual; p. ### should do it, I think. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this was what you asking about specifically, but for citing video game dialog, we have an example in the upcoming writing guide. See User:Guyinblack25/Sandbox#Proper citations.

For instruction manuals, I normally use either {{Cite book}} or {{Citation}}. They both have parameters that work well enough with an instruction manual. For example, {{cite book|year=200X|title= Game Name instruction manual|publisher= |page= |chapter= }}.(Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

That's great help. Thanks. The next question I have (and it should have occurred to me in the first place!) is...Is it appropriate in the article of a video game to cite the very game the article is about? --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer (I think) is "It depends." If you're quoting something from design notes included in the game (e.g. why something was done in a way it was, for example) I think that's fine. If you're starting to use these citations for actual gameplay, it's likely not going to be okay (e.g. "press this sequence of buttons to make your character hop on one foot" or similar things). If you're (briefly) describing the plot or story of the game, and this is described in the game manual, it's probably okay too (but keep it brief). --Craw-daddy | T | 13:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the only thing we use the video game for when citing itself, is dialog for the plot. Though technically, an information screen or extras section with special information can be used too. I remember God of War had some great making of extras. But we generally try to get that information from articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Bloody Roar

Hi. If any of you guys are interested, I proposed a merger of ALL Bloody Roar fighters. Feel free to discuss this here if you want. Thank you for your time. ZeroGiga (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)