Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tales of

Is anyone interested in joining this Wikipedia:WikiProject Tales of? Otherwise, I think it might need an MfD. JohnnyMrNinja 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Come join the party at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. I'll add that to the list if it isn't on the said list. --Izno (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Big Mess (Sonic)

note - the disruptive beginnings of this thread were archived. Twice. JohnnyMrNinja 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) See my comments here on why discussions like this are going to eventually cause Wikipedia to collapse in on itself and turn it into a useless blob of "whatever goes". It is largely because of this one-month-long discussion on something that SHOULD be a trivial matter that I'm seriously considering just hanging up my hat and going elsewhere, where there is some real genuine good being done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Everybody, stop it!

Look, guys we're getting nowhere. This is what got the last discussion archived. I would advise for FFF and SLJCOAAATR to relax, reread the policies, and comment on their respective talk pages. And KieferSkunk, keep your chin up. Pessimism is not what we need if we're going to get this done, which is why I'm putting my foot down with this, so we can stop arguing and get everybody back to work. FFF and SLJCOAAATR, may I remind you that even it such info is stripped now and is later deemed to be good, it can be restored? There's no need to get into these fights while we're discussing what should go where and how to fix this problem that many call cruft and I don't care what we call it as long as it gets fixed! Now, I volunteered to moderate this thread so it would not be archived again, but the more I keep reading, the more I'm being driven insane. All of you are just pissing me off with this endless dribble because we can't seem to work out a problem which should be a simple fix from a few skilled editors that, should it not work, can be reverted and restored. Can I get you guys to at least agree to let us try to solve this now and if it does not work to revert it? Fix the problem, and then endlessly argue about it! Otherwise, help to fix the problem! I don't know how I can make myself any more clear than that. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, RedPhoenix, we've already "put our feet down" on this and similar issues many times, and yet the argument continues unabated. The problem is, no single one of us, nor apparently any group of us, can make a final decision and make it stick, because we're bound (and in this case, hamstrung) by consensus policy, and nobody can seem to arrive at a consensus. I've become pessimistic because, like you, it's driving me nuts to see this keep on going and going and going. It's become a "He who shouts loudest wins" situation, and it's gotten to the point where frankly it's just not worth my time anymore.
Between this Sonic Cruft discussion and Le Grand Roi's persistent arguing about including video game weapons against an already established consensus, I've had enough of it. Until we get some real leadership that can actually make binding decisions and provide guidance that people are expected to follow, this crap is just going to keep going and going, and those of us who have better things to do are just going to go off and do them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not hamstrung by consensus policy. There is a consensus. FFF et. al are simply standing outside it. Sometimes, a consensus must exclude the inflexible opposition. Just keep cleaning up the articles; it's what we all agree needs to be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a consensus, why are we all still arguing about this, then? And what steps are being taken to enforce the consensus? If we have an established consensus, undoing and reverting consensus edits should be resulting in warnings or blocks. Instead, the discussion is just continuing as though nothing happened.
The reason I say we're hamstrung by consensus policy is that, to my knowledge, it is against our rules to block people because they disagree with consensus. I understand that FFF and SLC are going against consensus, but they're also making a reasonably good-faith effort to discuss it here and see if they can change consensus, which means they're following policies as well. And my point is that we're hamstrung because the current policies (including the blocking policy) prevent admins such as myself from setting anything in stone. That's what's so frustrating about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But there is a point at which they can be blocked for being disruptive, or for reverting edits. Although it wouldn't likely go through, it would likely scare them into realizing the severity of the issue. I think there is certainly consensus to give them warnings at this point, it's just that every single new person thought they could talk some sense into them. I am going to archive the above discussion, so as to not tempt any other Mobians. JohnnyMrNinja 04:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A consensus is not unanimity. A consensus discards opinions that are not based on logic or policy. And a consensus means that sometimes a few people are unhappy, but it has been made clear why things are being done the way they've been going. I'm sorry I haven't been particularly active in this discussion since it started. But add my voice to Red Phoenix in that we have to clean this stuff up, no matter how we do it, no matter what we call it... and yes, we can actually do it. What's next? Randomran (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, if I'm off-base about my comments on this, I'm sorry. I just think this discussion is a symptom of a much bigger problem. In any event, I'll leave you guys to it for now. (bonked) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a totally valid observation, just talk of your hat-hanging is scary. I would hate to see such a valuable editor forced out by E-123 Omega. JohnnyMrNinja 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps this shall help things out. AMIB, and everyone else, you guys do what you want to the articles. Triple F, me, and anyone else try to gather up what we believe is good info for the article. Then, we all decide what goes, and stays here? Sound good to everyone?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting a thoughtful compromise. Just make sure that any info fits into the consensus established here, and choose your battles. Can we tie this thread up now? JohnnyMrNinja 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why i just thought of it. I really think that my idea could prove useful, if we all agree to work like that. And thanks for the archive! ;) Much neater now!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  04:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But in the future, let's have the conversation on the talk pages of the articles. If you want more editors to give their opinion, just mention the debate here with a link to the talk page. This sort of drawn-out, overly specific topic is one we'd like to avoid on WT:VG. This page should be more for general project discussion. JohnnyMrNinja 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

K. I'll do so after you guys complete your work.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to see what stage we're at right now. What are the main articles that look to be in rough shape, and need to either be improved or cleaned up with a chainsaw? If someone could make a list, it would be easier to focus this discussion. Randomran (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), we should go through all the articles listed as suggested merges into that article (as well as the list itself). They need to be gone through: get merged, or just cleaned up. Some might just need to go. I know people don't always want to admit it: but Wikipedia simply isn't the place for every character from a notable series. Wikipedia isn't a "catchall" guide for every minor character. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But they are not minor! Blaze the Cat has had a lot of etc., etc. Be careful! Please lets not go there again. JohnnyMrNinja 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will rephrase it: secondary and lesser characters. Is the "scrapped characters" section really necessary? It has two people in it, no sources. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to avoid any more wackiness, I have copied the discussion to Talk:List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)#Mergers - Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft. I see no point in continuing it here. Please respond there. JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Before merging, we should suggest it here, and decide on it together. See what we can do for the articles.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Only big discussions should be done here. A merge should be handled on List of characters.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the scrapped section, i shall get sources. There's few others too.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A reminder when redirecting...

Please check the talk pages of articles you redirect, and remove/comment out the {{vgproj}} and other templates you may find. I'm doing an AWB-assisted sweep of our articles and finding a number of redirects having been assessed as stubs, particularly where masses of character articles are recompiled into lists. Nifboy (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a manual sweep of articles that need cover art and have come across the same problem a number of times. - X201 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got a partial list of talk pages that need fixin'. Nifboy (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I wondered why the Images that need cover art category was shrinking in big chunks :) . - X201 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
And when the 1.0 bot next updates our article count it's going to drop by about a thousand articles: I've updated the list, which should be complete as of the 4th. Nifboy (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing instruction cards, bezels and pamphlets.

This may seem like a dumb question, but what is the "proper" format to use when citing an arcade game's sales flyer, instruction card or bezel, if I want to mention the specific gameplay features of an arcade game? On a related note, which template do I use if want to cite a specific page in an instruction manual or a strategy guide? Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend {{cite book}} for instruction manual and strategy guide; for the others, that's probably also acceptable, too. I would recommend {{citation}} also because it's very flexible, but mixing it with {{cite web}} is generally discouraged because they format references differently. Gary King (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I end up, particularly in the Gameplay sections of game articles, referencing to the game's Instruction Manual frequently. I use short Harvard-style citations for each reference I make (i.e. Instruction Manual, pp. 4-5. as my footnote). At the bottom of the section in which you have your {{reflist}} placed, below that in the same section, place the full book-style citation (using {{cite book}}) for the manual. For example, look at Super Mario Bros. or Zanac for examples of how to do it this way.
Sometimes, you cannot find a copy of the manual except for online, so I instead use the header for that specific section of the manual. For example, I had to do this for Ninja Gaiden (NES). In either case, always include the full citation for the manual. Other articles also simply do the full citation every time the manual is referenced, as well. I personally don't do that because it makes the References section that much harder to read and pinpoint where the information is coming from, especially when I am referencing to the manual many times. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What kind of statement are you trying to source? Promotional materials and primary sources in general are not reliable except to verify a quotation, i.e. to represent claims of the publisher, not to verify that the claims are true. Those kinds of materials should only be used if the information is objective in nature and non-controversial. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this may not be the proper place to ask this question, but I was wondering what the policy is for adding links to NES game pages? I ask this because I added a lot of external links to my site (neshq.com) from NES game pages on Wikipedia once before and they got removed. I feel like [most of] these links should be here since in many cases the NES HQ page is the single most comprehensive (or one of the most comprehensive) information center for a particular game. I noticed that MobyGames has a link on every NES game page I've visited and these pages usually don't actually contain much info on the games. Hopefully this is the right place to ask this question, but if not, can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks! (Neshq (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

MobyGames was brought to question awhile back. As for your site though...I can't see a real necessity include in articles. The organization isn't very good, and the information feels sorely lacking. Even the features feel very bare bones. Long story short, it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia in any sense currently.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There is also the issue of conflict of interest in you adding your site. It is best to let others to evaluate and add your site if it is appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
For reference, there don't appear to be any article links to neshq at present. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oscar, yes, the links were removed some time ago. Jappalang, I do have to agree about your noting CoI in regards to this subject. That being said, I'm not proposing putting a link to NES HQ on every NES game page, only ones where NES HQ pages would provide further information. Adding this link on games like Conflict or Lee Trevino's Fighting Golf, for example, would be beneficial as the NES HQ pages for these games supply a good deal of additional information not found on the Wikipedia pages. I would also note that under the guidelines Kung Fu Man mentions above the links to MobyGames should definitely be removed. These pages offer little, if any, additional information. You might use games pages off of NintendoAge (nintendoage.com) as they provide much more info. Just a thought...

(Neshq (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Unreliable reference sites

Do we have a page, or can we make one, of common sites like ModDB that we do not consider valid reference sources for video game articles? JohnnyMrNinja 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a page.... but I think it would be counter-intuitive to make one. After all, it's basically the other 99% of the internet, and we can't really list all those sites. It's easy to shoot down a site as not meeting WP:RS. It's harder to prove it does meet the criteria, ergo the list in progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Or that. I didn't realize there was a list in progress. JohnnyMrNinja 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
We do have WP:VG/S#List, is that what you were talking about? Although it's possible to create a list of sites that are reliable, the list of sites that are not reliable is likely to approach infinity in length.JACOPLANE • 2008-07-9 16:45
I had no idea that existed! That is perhaps a sad testament to how much information I actually add to WP... JohnnyMrNinja 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

The WPVG Newsletter is currently trying to decide what to add to the 5th edition. All users are welcome to give advice. King Rock (Gears of War) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ubidays part two

If your reading this and your willing to help please help with these problems:

  1. I really want have a history section explaining the creation of Ubidays, and to explain who started it.
  2. Maybe some games announced from past years.
  3. Find alot more refs.

Thanks. King Rock (Gears of War) 00:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very useful to leave a link to the article (Ubidays) when leaving a message about it. Pagrashtak 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a GAC look

Resolved

Sorry to be a bother to anyone, but I put Poison (Final Fight) up as a GAC a few days ago, and could really use someone neutral to the subject to take a look and see if it's GA worthy and if not discuss what needs to be altered so it can pass the GA. I wouldn't normally ask outright but it seems the best bet to get it over and done with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer's Abriveation

When writing in the reception section, there is ofthen a box that shows the publisher and what score they gave the game. But when listing the publisher, instead(for example)of putting Game Informer, people GI and then in the box it says Game Informer. Now, what is the abriviation for X-Play? King Rock (Gears of War) 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See the template documentation at {{VG Reviews}}. Pagrashtak 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. King Rock (Gears of War) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts(working title)

Okay. When I first came the wikipedia, the first project I started on was a Kingdom Hearts 3 article. Though it did site refs, it came from a speculated site and was deleted. So, I have simply started a page to gather info and to slowly add on and to shape into a article. Please help out. King Rock (Gears of War) 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heroes of Might and Magic VI

Have I missed something or when was this game announced? Or is this a prank? --Mika1h (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any sources. Marked as possible hoax and prodded. Pagrashtak 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering the article mention a release date less then 2 months away it seem highly improbable. --76.69.168.245 (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed... prod was appropriate. Gary King (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else disagree with this revertion? I changed the colors so it would be clear which page was currently selected. I attempted to pick a dark gray for aesthetic reasons. Thanks for taking a look, JACOPLANE • 2008-07-10 21:49

Noticed the lack of replies here, so I thought I'd mention that it works for me. Great stuff. Gazimoff WriteRead 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The grey wasn't the greatest, but I agree that it would be better to stay away from the black to avoid visual confusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Donald Duck: Goin' Quackers

I'm trying to make this article a GA, but I'm having some problem with the reception section. Since the game was released for numerous consoles, review sites, like IGN, have done a review for all of these games. Should I include reception information from all the different reviews, should I cherry pick some, or should I just choose one of them. Also, for the review scores template: should I add all the different scores, or just one. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmph, that article needs work and sense you helped me out over at Blue Dragon, I'll help you with reception and a few other fixes. Gears of War Go 'Skins! 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not the prettiest thing in the world, but I think the way it's done at The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess#Reception is effective enough. This version, which I reviewed at FAC (anyone wanna give that article another push through, btw.?), was also OK (though a bit short)... in both cases they clearly review both platforms separately at times, but also talk about common good/bad stuff. —Giggy 15:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the comment. I'll use this format once I get started with the article. The Prince (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

People putting their userpages in the category system

This is very common, I have tried to strip out userpages from the categories of Bionicle, Ace Combat, which you will see still has lots of users pages marked as part of the category, and even after I removed the category label, it still says part of the category since their pages have the games navigational template on them. I think we should have a policy about not putting any of your userpages in the category system. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, user pages shouldn't be there, Category:Bionicle or Category:Ace Combat. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it more, I see the problem is that the Template:Ace Combat series template is in the Ace Combat category. This is wrong, see Template:Harry Potter for an example, that template isn't in a Harry Potter category. So in the case of Ace Combat, any user pages which pull down the series template automatically become members of the category, bad idea. So I'll go fix it now. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If you ever come across any of my sub-pages in categories, please do remove them from it... I have a tendency to overlook categories in my sandbox sometimes...-- Sabre (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Myst, Sonic, Blizzard, Valve also fixed. --Oscarthecat (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a guideline, not a policy, but Wikipedia:User page gives "Categories and templates intended for other usage, in particular those for articles and guidelines" in a list of inappropriate user page content. Pagrashtak 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do Genres need Infoboxes?

It struck me while browsing around the videogame genre pages that there is very little consistency between them. I wonder if it might be useful to develop an infobox to inform the visitor of things such as:

  • First title + year
  • Biggest selling title + year
  • Distinguishing features
  • Key innovations
  • Representative image
  • Sub-genres and super-genres
  • Related genres
  • Current popularity (something like % of the market if this info is available..?)

What do people think? Playclever (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I say no.(nuf said). King Rock (Gears of War) 19:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough :) Why do you think no?
I also say no- the information that would be presented is too complex for an infobox, and should stay in the prose. --PresN (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
To me: notability. First, if you look at the things that you wanted to add to the infobox, it's simply not notable enough. The genres are notable, but all that other info is not. My oppose is mainly because of the things you want to add to it. Think of other things to add, the current ideas just dont sit right with me. King Rock (Gears of War) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Another no. There are several problems here. It's hard enough to place games neatly into genre as is. Most games these days have bits and pieces of each. For every person dead-set on calling Legend of Zelda games RPGs, you'll find another dead-set against it. This automatically makes fields like "first title" and "biggest selling title" extremely problematic. "Key innovations" cannot be adequately covered in a field. Finding a "representative image" is asking for a conflict that I don't want to start. And "current popularity"? Never mind that we avoid terms like "current" that become automatically dated—I don't see any way to get this information, let alone properly sourced information. There are too many minefields here to make it worth the effort. Pagrashtak 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Genre infoboxes would only lead to even more original research and unsourced stuff than there already is in these kinds of articles. Kariteh (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't really like my list either :D they were just the first things that popped into my mind. I acknowledge in particular that "key innovations" just wouldn't work and "popularity" would require the specification of an official source that would have to be used (much like census data). There is a chance what we really need is just better written articles. Playclever (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else has noticed the video game genres articles. They're in rough shape. The problem isn't content. The problem is REFERENCES. Nobody has actually backed this stuff up with research, so in all but a few cases you have a lot of people adding their gut instincts about what is or is not a genre. I don't think we can even think about infoboxes until we can say for certain that the genres information is verifiable. Not only do we want the content for the infoboxes to be accurate, but we don't actually know what the genre research out there will yield us on a consistent basis (e.g.: does every genre have a "first title"?) Randomran (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually find your idea intriguing. It comes across as being somewhat sensational, but it might give structure to the different genre articles by tying them together stylistically. It would also provide quick, basic introductory information to prepare new readers who may not be familiar with the different video game genres. I would say, if you can find the sources, go for it! The format you suggest wouldn't take up too much space or interfere with the articles' content too much, IMO. SharkD (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Warwick Castle now open

The peer review for Warwick Castle, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm how is this related to video games? Gary King (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
As Kirill says, "The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews". An attempt to get non-VG editors involved to improve our article quality. Pagrashtak 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Gary - it's a partnership, if you'd like to give feedback or discuss it, see Wikipedia talk:MILHIST#Feedback on partner peer reviews --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Erm, okay. I would have thought that advertising to a more related WikiProject would bring in more interested people who also have more knowledge about the topic. Gary King (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually the point is that the lack of knowledge helps keep a neutral bent on reviewing the articles for things that a more 'fannish' person might not see. This is combined with the fact that the two projects are two of the most active. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Gary, you remember the concern raised at FAC about the rush of video game articles that were worked on by only VG editors, passed GA by a VG editor, nominated to FAC and quickly supported by several VG editors? This idea was formed shortly after that as a way to try to get some non-VG input in the article. Pagrashtak 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at {{Command & Conquer series}}, (oldid link to version at start of discussion) particularly the Playable factions section. It's broken into three groups: Tiberium, Red Alert, and Generals. The links under Tiberium link to their respective articles as expected—no problem there. The Red Alert links, however, do not link to video game articles at all. "Alliance of Democratic Nations" links to Allies, an article about the generic term, Soviet Union links to the real-world entity (USSR), and "Empire of the Rising Sun" links to Empire of Japan, again a real-world entity. I believe such a mixture of in-universe and real-world links does a disservice to the reader. There is no indication of which links go to C&C information and which do not. A reader clicking on "Alliance of Democratic Nations" wants to learn about the fictional entity, not the real-world concept of "Allies". My attempts to change the template were met with very heavy resistance on the template talk page, so I am bringing the matter here for wider discussion. Pagrashtak 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Command & Conquer about this discussion. Not sure how active that task force is, though. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-9 17:10
It seems that this discussion has yet to gain any true momentum. As one of the more active editors of the C&C task force, and as an editor who is in part responsible for the C&C template's current revision, I already will throw in my two cents however.
Our rationale for including these types of links into the template is based on the notion that Wikipedia -by the very nature of its mission as an online encyclopedia- is meant to provide a free flow of readily available information to readers and editors alike. We believe that the template's current revision directly reflects the nature of that mission, as it links to subjects and articles which are adjunct with the main subjects which the template covers. For instance, the template at its core covers a video game franchise. A user who is reading such articles may well be interested, either directly or by proxy, to look up more general information on video games within the 'video game' article itself, as well. The template offers this possibility in a straightforward and user-friendly manner, which is something we consider to be a distinct advantage.
Most of the criticism to this approach that we have seen thus far appears to have been based on presumptions of what "the users" allegedly "would expect" or "would want to see" in a template such as this one. I think the best method to actually quantify what "users" would "want or expect to see" is by reviewing the reception which the template's current revision has been receiving. Thus far, we have witnessed a very positive reception from numerous users, and opposition from a vocal minority of others editors. That leads me to tentatively conclude that this new approach to video game franchise navboxes, which we more or less are pioneering, is in fact an improvement and thus a benefit to Wikipedia, and something which might even want to be considered for broader implementation for video game navboxes across the board in Wikipedia. Kalamrir (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... So, what you're basically saying is, in response to Pagrashtak's concern that three of the links in the template go to articles that do not mention and are not about C&C, is to talk about the "positive reception" it's receiving, by which you mean the three people that have commented positively on the template as a whole, one of which was you. How is that a response to what he said? --PresN (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you carefully read the second paragraph of my previous post? At any rate, I'm going to put this discussion on hold from my part, until the other editors who assisted in creating the template current revision step in as well. I'm sure you'll agree that it's not favorable for the discussion to propagate the perception that I am the only individual who is in favor of this revision. Kalamrir (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you're not going to bother explaining why the template needs a dozen links that have nothing to do with C&C, but simply say, "My position is popular, see all the people who agree with me?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(Edit Conflicted) Pardon in advance if this seems grumpy, I'm getting tired of people not reading what other editors write.
Pagrashtak says: These three links don't go to the articles he would expect them to link to, is that right? You say: Wikipedia is about free flow of information, and we feel that the template should link to all sorts of things that might spring to the users mind when they're reading the article. (Second Para) Furthermore, we feel this is what the users want, because some people have said that they like the template. This navbox is a pioneer in the field of navboxes, and rather than criticize, you should use it as an example. Me: How is that answering his concern about those three specific links? You: Did you read the second paragraph?
Answer: Yes I did read the second paragraph. --PresN (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't link the C&C navbox to articles that don't mention C&C at all. That's...pretty simple. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A sampler of some of the links in the infobox version that Kalamrir is reverting to:

It's a grab bag of vaguely video-game-related stuff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also don't like these links, but for a different reason. The links I originally brought up are bad (I feel) because they are confusing and create a mismash of links to real-world and in-universe content with no indication of which is which. The reader has to follow the link to find out. (A violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Intuitiveness.) Links such as video game in the template are contrary to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and dilute the useful links. If we want to discuss both types, that's fine with me, but I'd like to make the former higher priority, as it's the more problematic of the two, as I see it. In fact, there's a third type of link with which I have problems, but I'll save that until after this is resolved (unless someone happens to breach it first). Pagrashtak 22:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What's up with the "WORDS"? --PresN (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, wondering that myself. Made me think of Hamlet. Pagrashtak 22:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing the third problem is the subsection linking?
Not sure what's up with WORDS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, because navboxes are for navigating between (not within) articles, and are not for creating comprehensive lists. I guess it's all out there, then. Pagrashtak 22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pagrashtak and A Man In Black on this. Real world articles should not be put into templates like this. Its messy, and lacks clarity and context for users. Any links should relate to articles or sections that deal with the fictionalised C&C versions of these nations, and from those articles/sections should links be provided to the real USSR or Imperial Japan. The Allies link is simply ridiculous, it talks about the generic term rather than any nation, let alone anything C&C related. There's already a global consensus for the several guidelines involving overlinking, the template should adhere to them. These templates are meant for navigation within their topic, they shouldn't branch out on a tangent to vaguely related articles (especially fiction to non-fiction) simply because something in the fiction is based on a real-world concept. -- Sabre (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm in favour of it as it stands, mostly. While I agree that terms like "Company" don't need to be linked to, I see no problem with the links to real world organisations where no articles exist for their virtual equivalents. Anybody reading the only article in which the Empire of the Rising Sun is mentioned, Red Alert 3 for example will see it clearly stated that it is based on the Empire of Japan (a sourced, official statement by the developer). Obviously, the Empire of the Rising Sun is not notable enough for its own article, however those looking to learn more about it, who would go to such an article if it existed, may gain benefit from reading up on the historical basis for the faction's existence. Certainly I have. I believe this applies also to the Allies and the USSR. Being inclusionist in nature, I'll be looking at possibly justifying an article on the Allies and USSR in Red Alert when RA3 is released, though of course for now that is not realistic. I do however believe that there is just cause for a link to the real world equivalent. Incidentally, I have changed the links for Allies to Allies in World War II as this is sufficiently specific - it is an alternate WWII, therefore that is the correct historical equivalent.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, why not link World War II, since it's an alternate WW2? And why not link Earth, since it's an alternate Earth? And why not link tank, since it has tanks in it? And why not link person, since it has people in in it?
Just because a link is tangentially related, that doesn't mean that having it is useful for navigation. Gotcha links to unrelated articles in navigation templates with no context don't aid navigation. The RA3 article links to Empire of Japan because it is specifically mentioning the Empire of Japan, the real one, in context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "I see no problem with the links to real world organisations where no articles exist for their virtual equivalents.", if there are no articles for virtual objects, then the term should not be linked. Doing so is just misleading the readers ala WP:EGG. Navboxes are to help navigate the articles of the series, not to navigate through sections of articles; they also should not send readers to articles that are not related to the concepts in the series except by name or trivia. Jappalang (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a note—Kalamrir (talk) has been inappropriately canvassing users who, according to the messages he leaves, are "proponent[s] of the template's current revision". Pagrashtak 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • By "inappropriately canvassing" you actually mean "contacting users involved in the formatting of the template as it stands (it was in a horrendous state before, and required much discussion to improve it to the way it currently is). What on earth is wrong with contacting editors who have been involved in such discussions when they come up again? I mean, the message on my talk page that was left before that of Kalamnir was exactly the same thing for another article, but it wasn't canvassing and neithe was Kalamnir's postCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • No, by inappropriately canvasing, he means just that. Kalamnir didn't ask people who had interest in the template to join, he asked "Since you're a proponent of the template's current revision", ie, since you agree with him. That's the definition of canvasing- turning it into an us v. them argument and recruiting for your "side". --PresN (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • This practice is called "votestacking" (even though this isn't a vote). You can read about it at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking, which you'll notice is under the header "Inappropriate canvassing", hence my use of the phrase. I have no problem with someone notifying interested editors, such as Jacoplane's message at the C&C task force, which was neutrally worded and targeted all C&C task force members. I do have a problem when specific editors are targeted with a message that basically says, "since you agree with my position, I thought you'll like to help me out here". I might not have thought too much of it, but Kalamrir commonly puts forth the argument of "look at how many people agree with me". Kalamrir responded to me on the template talk page four times before I started this thread—every time he brings up the argument that I stand alone, or am facing a sea of opposition. ("the template's current revision has been receiving a positive reception in the recent past from numerous editors" [1], "current revision is the result of...multiple editors" [2], "these concerns you are raising appear to be unique to you" [3], "The response to our template's current revision has been so positive -with the sole exception of yourself" [4]) Now that he finds himself in a different position, it appears to me that he is attempting to bolster the number of editors who agree with him for the sake of gaining numbers. Pagrashtak 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes are not a medium for playing Six degrees of Kevin Bacon. They should only link articles that are directly related to each other, to assist in navigation of a topic, not to dig up every possible subject that could ever be associated with it. (The logical conclusion of which, ultimately, is the entire encyclopedia.) Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I've delinked all of A Man in Black's suggestions, as consensus is clear - and backed with policy - that they are inappropriate. I'm leaving the Allies link however per continued discussion of my suggestion and whatever follows from that.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hmm, having thought over this I'm definitely in agreement that something should be done about this. The question is what, since I still like the idea of the Red Alert factions linking to something. I notice with C&C Generals the links go to a sub section of the main Generals article - would such a link be appropriate for Red Alert? I looked at the Red Alert series article and saw no section for gameplay, and thus no automatic best choice for location of such a link, but would it be appropriate to create one? Within the series the factions are notable, meaning that they justify a brief commentary (perhaps discussing - sourced of course - information on how each side plays relative to the others) althougn not of course entire articles. If a gameplay section were to be created, those links could be made and the real world ones removed.

I do however see the possibility of duplication with the other C&C articles gameplay, so perhaps a seperate article Gameplay of the Command and Conquer Series could be created? I don't know if that's the best solution, but as the series covers several dimensions (the Generals gameplay is similar but different for example) maybe such an article could eliminate duplicate information and help clean up the series articles (which are all, to a one, abysmal). But as I say, it might not be appropriate. At present though some way of creating a sub section within an article (suggestions gratefully received) seems to me the best way of getting around the problem of these links.

The ones like Company etc I think are overlinking, and should just be de-linked immediately.

Thoughts?Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking at this backward. We make navboxes to suit articles, not the other way around. Instead of "here's the link, where should it go?", try "here are the articles we have, now how should we link them?". In short, if we have no article on a faction, it doesn't need to be in the navbox. As for delinking Company and other, please be my guest. Pagrashtak 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I realise this, it's just that it doesn't quite look right when the RA faction links go nowhere when those for the other factions do. Basically I'm implicitly questioning two things here, both of which admittedly go beyond the scope of this discussion - is it valid that the C&C Tiberium series factions (forever tagged with things like notability, OR and verifiability) have their own articles, and are the C&C Generals links appropriate? If the answer to the latter is yes then perhaps the idea of creating a "Gameplay in the RA Series" section in the RA Series article is a decent one.
Basically what I don't think is necessarily in question is the layout of the template itself (this is just about where the links go, if to anywhere, right?). I think that might explain part of Kalamnir's concern, as much of the earlier editwarring and discussion regarding the template was to do with how it was organised (it was originally by series, and the consensus which Kalamnir speaks of was that to settle on the current organisation rather than the validity of the direction of the internal links). I'd ideally like to see some sort of consistency with the links, as this is much neater rather than each sub-universe going to a different type of place, which is why I bring up the Tiberian and Generals series. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I consider each and every one of the C&C articles a total carcrash anyway, and in the imaginary scenario in which they are of GA/FA quality they would be radically different (you say we modify the template to suit the articles we have, but when the articles we have are of poor quality this argument doesn't really work - it only holds when the articles are as they should be). Therefore I don't see any problem with modifying the articles to suit the template as a stepping stone on the way to completely overhauling the articles (something I do intend to help with, if I can ever overcome my WikiSloth tendencies ;) Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't care about presentation by series or otherwise. My edit that started the conversation on the template talk page didn't attempt to change that, I just removed links. To answer your question, I see that Scrin doesn't have any references whatsoever. That means (among other things) that it doesn't assert real-world notability. That isn't to say that none can be found (I haven't looked), just that the article currently doesn't show why it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability. If independent third-party sources can be found to demonstrate notability, they should be added. If not, the article will need to be deleted or merged. Perhaps a good first step would be to merge Brotherhood of Nod, Global Defense Initiative, and Scrin into Factions of the Command & Conquer: Tiberian series, or something along that line. Those articles are in rough shape, with a large focus of in-universe material, plot repetition, and large quote boxes. Condensing and merging them will provide for a much stronger article. Pagrashtak 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what I'm thinking - there's next to no decent references for all three articles and there never have been. I'll certainly look when I get a chance, but your suggestion of something like a general factions page (whether one per series or one overall is preferable would depend on the information available and a discussion on that basis I assume) is definitely a strong option. That's really the point I'm raising with this suggestion - I think that the Red Alert faction links problem highlights a much greater one, and I'm not sure that with the articles as they are the best solution is currently available, although by sorting out what would be an ideal scenario (with the articles in good shape, that is) then we can start revitalising the articles/creating the required sections as suggested. First thing that I'm going to do to that end is sort out the GDI Nod and Scrin articles, with view to an AFD/merge within, say, a week if I can't find sources - I think enough patience has been exhausted with regard time to find sources and remove cruft.
What do you think would be better, incidentally, as a way of making those links go to something useful - a sub section of a faction article or something about the gameplay of the series (in one article or another, assuming in either cases that appropriate sources can be found and that whatever is produced is of good quality)? I'm not currently sure which idea I prefer, myself. We currently have a bad quality example of each in the Tiberian series and General series faction articles respectively, and of course consistency would make far more sense here. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The navbox should link to articles, not sections, so if your best option for a link is a section, you'd probably be better off removing it from the template. Pagrashtak 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that that is universally the case. What of the James Bond template for example, which has a great many links to sections (characters pages link to the section within each "characters by film" page that is relevant. I don't see why it should be a problem here. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Ehhh, not really sure on that, I mean if a section is relevant then why not link to it? I definitely think the navbox should link to something about the factions, even if it turns out that the factions do not deserve an invidual article Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to do that, then why not go further and create a "Plot" line with links to the plot sections of the articles? Or "Soundtracks" or "Gameplay"? Surely these are relevant also, are they not? Pagrashtak 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
A question arises - what is the standard for VG templates. Is there accepted consensus on what goes in them? If there is it is relevant here, if there is not then I suggest a new discussion to arrive at one. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
We used to have this-> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/Navboxes, which came from these discussions- Navboxes, Navboxes Yet Again, and Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes, but those were a long time ago and the style guide is apparently marked historical. --PresN (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That's...inconvenient. Some sort of basis by which to go would be very useful right now! Anyway, I've said all I can right now, so I guess we need some more suggestions on how to proceed/comments on mine. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
See my section about guidelines below. Pagrashtak 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I worked a lot on this template I just wanted to say that I agree with the original post, but I still support the current revision although I'm unsure if it's appropiete to include links real-world subjects such as Allies and Soviet. Right now, however, I doesn't care that much since I'm busy with the C&C3 GDI campaign. Tata. --MrStalker (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody asked me to chime in here, and I think the current compromise that's been reached is fairly appropriate. Kudos. –xenocidic (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for navbox guidelines

It might be good if this project developed some navbox guidelines out of this discussion. Here are some of my personal takes:

  • The purpose of navboxes is to navigate between existing articles. To that end, navboxes should link to articles, not sections or redirects.
  • Further, navboxes should not contain unlinked lists (terms without articles). Navboxes are not intended to be comprehensive lists unless every member of the list satisfies Wikipedia's requirements to have an article. (For example, {{FFVII}} only lists six characters. Barret Wallace has no article, so is not listed.)
  • The articles in a navbox should have a clearly defined relationship. Articles not related to the main topic of the navbox should generally be avoided.
  • Navboxes should be of an appropriate size. A small number of articles may not require a navbox (One game and its sequel), and a franchise with many articles may be better served with more than one navbox (Separate navbox for a large subseries, or extensive character lists).

Pagrashtak 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Point 1 I don't necessarily agree with - if the information is valuable and sourced, why shouldn't it link to a section in certain instances? The factions for these games are a case in point. Points 2 and 3 I agree with, along with point 4 although the size issue is mitigated by the option to hide the boxes - see the half dozen huge boxes at the bottom of James Bond for examples. Relevancy is I'd say more important than size in determining whether more than 1 navbox is needed. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got an issue with point 1 as well, with much the same case as Caissa's DeathAngel. On {{StarCraft series}}, Insurrection and Retribution both got merged into the series articles, but I kept their template links. Removing them breaks the comprehensiveness of the template, where the purpose is to link to all relevant topics, and these two video games, while not notable enough for their own articles, are relevant. Of course, this can easily be dealt with with the "common sense and occasional exception" clauses of guidelines. -- Sabre (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates aren't comprehensive lists; they're navigation tools. Breaking comprehensiveness is part of the point.

Making the boxes hideable does not mitigate the issues with huge ugly kitchen sink templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

From a reader's perspective, I think a reader would want a link to information on the factions themselves, I strongly believe that such information is relevant to an encyclopedic discussion of C&C games. What I am currently questioning is whether such information belongs in a Gsmeplay section of an article or in its own, and I'm wondering whether AFDing the Tiberian series articles (there's certainly grounds for it) might yield consensus (such an act would not be in violation of WP:POINT as I'd be trying to see whether the community thinks the article should stay - I don't know). Thought on this would be appreciated because it's something that we need to know, and as I've said we have a low quality example of each already - once we know what is the better option we can apply it consistently to all three series. I don't think we are really questioning whether the factions belong in the template at all (are we?); if we are not, then they should surely link to something (no point in having them if they don't link to anything, and I'm very strongly against a total delinking here). Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
A point of friendly advice—do not send an article to AFD unless you actively seek deletion as a result and have an argument to back it up. If you AFD an article to "test the waters", it will not go over well at all. And yes—I am questioning the factions in the template. For example, we have no articles for the Generals faction, so I argue that they should not be listed in the template. You say the factions are "relevant to an encyclopedic discussion of C&C games". This is true, but that is an argument for inclusion in an article, not a navbox. The plot of a C&C game is also relevant to an encyclopedic discussion of the games, but we're not going to have a "Plot of such-and-such game" entry in the template that links to the Plot section of an article. Pagrashtak 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible rename of the "Music of Final Fantasy #" articles

The following discussion has been copied from Talk:Music of the Final Fantasy series for more opinions.

See Wikipedia:Requested moves for July 11th, copied here for discussion:

Note that this page requires some work, but the structure is such that it does discuss the music, and I am not proposing moving these pages.

I do not agree with retaining many of these as Good Articles when their coverage is incomplete. The VIII and IX articles are more thorough and I have less concern there, but the group should be kept together. The articles, while well written and well structured, are really about the soundtracks, not about the bleeps and boops encountered in the actual games. SDY (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point actually. Looking through some of the articles the music's discussed entirely in terms of CD releases, for example in the reception section of the FFIV article the soundtrack is described as a "great CD". I know this is just one example, but in general the music is discussed almost entirely in terms of the CD releases rather than just as music or in the context of the game. Wasn't this part of the reason there was the whole 'discography' kerfuffle and the cover art was removed? EvilRedEye (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the article titles are consistent, I don't care. They can be "Soundtracks of FF#", "FF# Discography", whatever. I think Discography is more accurate, but hey. --PresN (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Discography is also very reasonable. SDY (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Discography is better because Music of Final Fantasy X-2 and Music of Final Fantasy XII (for instance) include singles in addition to albums. Kariteh (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Discography of Final Fantasy IV or Final Fantasy IV Discography? Not sure what the correct form is. SDY (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the current names are best, because there is definitely some general music talk, and I think this could possibly be expanded - rst20xx (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My !vote is that it should stay as it is, and if consensus is against that, it should be "Discography of FF#". However, since most people don't have the FF music pages watchlisted, I'm going to bring it up on the Wp:VG talk page. Kariteh tried a week ago, but I'll copy this discussion in for others to have a jumping off place. --PresN (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

All pages moved to "Discography of FF#" --PresN (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indie Game Developers

I have proposed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Indie Game Developers, a WikiProject with only one member (who is also inactive) be deleted. If you would like to express an opinion, please read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Indie Game Developers. All (six? eight?) pages that were "supported" by this proposed WikiProject are already tagged and assessed by this group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. We overlooked that one. You may want to help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. --.:Alex:. 09:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I found it through this list of <200 WikiProjects, which is a snapshots of WikiProjects that aren't properly listed in the directory. You might want to scan through the list and make sure there aren't any others in your area. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Hero: Aerosmith

Could someone with FA experience please give Guitar Hero: Aerosmith a third person copyediting. The article was recently premoted to GA status and now I am working to get it to FA status and I need a thrid person copyedit. Next, keep and eye out for sales numbers for the game. If you find any, please leave me a link on my talkpage. Thank you and happy editing. King Rock (Gears of War) 22:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The game's only been released for a few weeks. It got to GA pretty quickly :) Gary King (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol, yeah. King Rock (Gears of War) 22:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's too early to be featured. It just came out, so more information will be added, and regularly. That's, by definition, unstable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, unstable per WP:FA? (how did it pass GA?) —Giggy 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What, are you saying it should be reassed? King Rock (Gears of War) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's that unstable. It's averaging less than five (anonymous) edits a day, meaning that less unestablished editors are editing it (meaning excluding KingRock, for example.) Gary King (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
As one of the majority editors behind the article to GA, I know we kept up to date about development and other aspects and thus basically, pending releaese (with it being near world-wide simultaneous), the only things missing were reception and sales. On release the former quickly rolled in and clearly showed this to be an average game that there would not be much post-release additions. The only data missing is sales, and given what I've seen, it's not going to have readily available numbers (without resorting to VGChartz, for example). That, plus the fact one image can be replaced by a free one, is the primary limitations, to me, for FA - not the fact that it's unstable. (And I think the argument that people are looking for above is completeness - both in FA and GA requirements - which would suggest that an article about a newly released game will likely be missing information.) --MASEM 07:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that the image is no longer a problem because I removed it to save the trouble of searching for a fair use image. King Rock (Gears of War) 12:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for United States Air Force Research Laboratory now open

The peer review for United States Air Force Research Laboratory, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! MuZemike (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Wii games split discussion taking place.

There's a "vote" on splitting the list of Wii games based on region here. Does anyone want to give input? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with Gears of War 2 boxart

The article currently has unoffcial boxart and the offcial has been shown here. The problem is, the image is small as hell. Can someone either expand the image and add it to the page or find a bigger version and add it? Thanks. King Rock (Gears of War) 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure can. I went ahead and replaced the promo box with an official one from Amazon. They also have a big pic of the Limited Edition box if you want to upload that later (be sure to edit out the white space on either side of the box before uploading). Nall (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Wii games region split discussion

There is currently a desire to reach consensus on whether or not to re-split the List of Wii games by major region due to the article's current size on the Talk page. Members of WikiProject Video games are requested to visit and give their input on the matter. This is not a vote, rather an attempt to reach consensus and your opinion on the matter would be greatly valued. Thank you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

General discussion for merger proposal between USF and PSF

Nintendo Ultra 64 Sound Format could be merged into Portable Sound Format, given the discussion at the AfD and DRV. The primary reliable source provided (ieee) notes USF only in passing with regard to PSF. Please leave comments at Talk:Portable_Sound_Format#Merger_proposal. I'm listing this here because both USF and PSF seem to be pretty low traffic articles. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Game Mod Cruft

There's a huge number of game mods that are of questionable notability. A great deal of this might be cruft. We won't know until we probe further, but I wanted to get some feedback.

Quake Series:

Command and Conquer:

Battlefield:

Doom:

  • Chex Quest - Notable!
  • Chex Quest 2 - boldly merged into the first Chex Quest, which was mainly notable for being an advergame.

Unreal Series

Enemy Territory:

Total War series:

Other:

There's also Category:Half-Life 2 mods and Category:Half-Life mods, but needless to say this is already a lot of potential cruft to deal with.

I found a hand full of mods that were clearly notable, and I kept those off this list. But the remainder (e.g: most of them) are non-notable, or of questionable notability. This isn't going to be an easy task to deal with. Does anyone have the stomach to even tackle one part of this? Randomran (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can go through some of them when I have the time. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a huge amount of problems with notability with game mods, but for this stuff, you really can't trust online sources alone for notability. Games magazines often run sections on mods, and those printed sources often produce more notability than what you get online. Your best online source to start with would be ModDB though. That said, a heck of a lot of the mods don't have any notability whatsoever, many won't ever be released and a very high majority are extremely poorly written articles anyway. I've cleaned up PVKII to show borderline notability to prove it is possible (PVK 1 wasn't notable so I prodded that), and Defense of the Ancients is an FA, but its going to be a lot of hard work to cleanup the rest of the thousands of mods out there. One last thing: Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 is not a mod. Its a fully-fledged retail product that was developed from the mod, much like Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat. As such, notability for that's a darn sight easier to prove: [5] [6] [7] -- Sabre (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot guys. I hope you can continue to look at it. I already added the references that Sabre found for Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 (which is not technically a mod). I hope we can continue to find references. A very important question to ask before we proceed: is ModDB considered a reliable source? If so, then a LOT of these articles can be saved. The site has an executive editor, but it's unclear what kinds of checks they have on verifying the information. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Avoid List of Battlefield 1942 mods like the plague. That will never get deleted because editors crawl out of the woodwork to vote any deletion down. As for ModDB... I'm not so sure. Their own about us page suggests no editorial fact-checking, and their scope suggests they cannot be used for notability qualifications, as their stated goal is "Every game, every mod. One site. Go figure".Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Definitely NOT reliable. Besides no third party mentions popping up currently from a quick search, they operate as a directory and thus there are no criteria for a mod to be listed. (Mod DB awards? Different matter, but as I said, no assertion of how they meet RS criteria as of yet.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so ModDB doesn't help us. But we should continue to chip away at this list, trying to show notability for some of them on the list. If after a certain point no reliable secondary sources can be found, then we'll start taking the non-notable articles to AFDs. Even if editors seem hellbent on ignoring guidelines and policy. Randomran (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If nothing pops up for online sources give me a ping and I'll run a ProQuest search to see if print sources might save the article; if nothing, I think it's a safe bet to prod or AfD it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll try to chip away at it over the next week. Hopefully a few other people can help me out. Randomran (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside for further reading, "Talk:Freelancer (video game)#Mods and Freelancer" and "Talk: Freelancer (video game)#Section on how to connect to Internet game servers, since Microsoft shut down its global server" are illustrations of the opposition you are going to face when trying to get mod-related stuff compliant with policies and guidelines. As per the reasons stated in those threads, I, too, find ModDB to be unreliable as a source. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I found some time and I'm going to start going through this list in detail tonight. I'll make notes as I go along, so others can track my progress, and help out with anything I don't get to right away. Thanks guys. Randomran (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Still chipping away. A lot of these just aren't notable. There's a few that are more in the gray area, though. Randomran (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon, GA?

Hey, me and Prince of Darkness have been workin our butts off over at Blue Dragon, is it ready for a GAN? King Rock (Gears of War) 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A few things coming to mind, is it possible to reference the gameplay section further? I would kinda swap around the Exploration and Shadow sections, remove the Sequel subheader (merging it directly with development) and pull the anime portion into the dev as it feels kinda odd after reception. It does look very very solid from here however, and really shouldn't have trouble with a GAN. The primary thing it needs is just more references.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feed back. King Rock (Gears of War) 02:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay the article is offcially a nom. King Rock (Gears of War) 03:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If the reviews box is going over into the refs section, you know you need more reception information added. —Giggy 04:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, the reception section has been expanded. King Rock (Gears of War) 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it starts with a one sentence paragraph; not the best form. :-) (All this is improving the article, right!) —Giggy 10:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
While the article is improved, there seem to be some issues with conflicting approaches between editors. Corrections are sometimes reverted, while new pieces of text are added to sections for which they don't seem a good fit. As of this moment, the article again contains several spelling problems ("apluaded", "critisced", etc.) as well as generally incomprehensible phrases ("Blue Dragon was sold in a game fashion," -- What?). --Slordak (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for help at List of Sega Mega Drive games

Hey. I would appreciate some project help over at List of Sega Mega Drive games. User:JeremeK has been fairly uncivil by moving the page off of what consensus on the talk page says it should be, and is extrememly convinced that his way (involving two lists and saying they're two different consoles) is the correct way. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While he is being a bit of a jerk about it, he did bring up an interesting point: do some of the cartridges require an adapter to work on a Genesis console?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of, no. There's regional lockout on most games, but that's about it. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. I supported the renaming but I have frankly given up now considering JeremeK's uncivility. Kariteh (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

JeremeK appears to have given up, but I still need some help setting this up. To fix the Mega Drive/Genesis issue, region codes have to be added. I appreciate all the help I can get with this. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Red, just to check something: you did just say above the games are region locked, meaning a Mega Drive game will more often than not work on a Genesis? If so, separate lists the rename may very well be valid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Er, almost every console is region-locked. Are you suggesting we should separate lists for PAL versions of PlayStation games and NTSC versions? JACOPLANE • 2008-07-11 20:09
Actually recalled that after I posted, thus the strike through. What would be right for this article though would be to call it "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" games since in all honesty it is a more appropriate title considering the region lock (other consoles didn't usually have a name change that I'm aware of).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
To some extent, it has already been done with the NES/Famicom lists. MuZemike (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus resulted in the title we have right now. Read Talk:List of Sega Mega Drive games#Requested move. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 00:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not really a consensus when you read it: two guys opposed, two were for, one was opposed but felt it was a lost cause so just voiced his opinion as a comment, and one guy wanted to be a jerk it seems. One of the Strong Supports didn't really give a very strong reason, just forced his opinion that the Genesis title shouldn't count which really isn't a valid reason.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you're reading the old one. Look at the newer one, the one that I linked. There's four supports there. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Genesis vs. Mega Drive redux

I see it now. But really not completely wild about it, and I haven't been since the whole Genesis/Mega Drive debate started with the original article. Sega is still clearly using Genesis in their US material for their re-releases from it, and as far as an english speaking population of wikipedia goes, no offense to any British people on the forum (myself born there), there's a lot more Americans than the UK in terms of english speakers calling it Genesis over Mega Drive, and given this is the english speaking wikipedia, people using this end of Wikipedia are going to be more likely to look up Genesis. Using a more common "worldwide" name in a case like this...doesn't make sense. Far more copies of The Final Fantasy Legend sold under its Japanese name SaGa in Japan than the US, but we still call it under its US name. And that's really just one example that could be pointed out. Save the "most common global names" for the individual alternate language wikis. This is English wikipedia, we should stick to what name the people using it will most commonly look up a game as.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm just trying to abide by consensus. Several times, this debate came up at Sega Mega Drive, an article I have worked with, though I've never been a part of it. And every time, consensus has resulted in the Mega Drive name being kept. For continuity, I proposed the list be renamed. I think if you want to go change it, start at the original article and make a big deal of it here. I'll follow whatever the consensus does: I'm American and always called it the Genesis, but I've grown to use both terms interchangeably and whatever consensus decides, I'll abide by either name as long as it's continuous over all the articles of the same subject. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand that. I think there's a fundamental flaw in how the renaming of that article took place from what I've read through the pages:
  • First there was the merge of the two separate articles under a joint name.
  • Joint name produced problems and just looked bad. Only option presented and used for discussion was Mega Drive. This was handled very poorly, and relied too heavily on facts not related to the most common name used in predominantly English speaking countries. (If you notice, Japan was tossed around in there, which is along the lines of the earlier point of FFL vs. SaGa)
  • Google searches were apparently invoked pretty badly too as evidence. It's reminiscent of the anti-Chuck Norris Facts site that had a google comparison between Chuck Norris kicks ass and Chuck Norris getting his ass kicked, the latter being far greater. The reason being when you type something like that into google it looks for each individual word. Quotation marks in this case would have prevented this. So expanding on that:
"Sega Mega Drive". 1,880,000
"Sega Megadrive". 980,000
"Sega Genesis". 4,050,000
So as you can see, searching for the exact phrase for the name presents a significantly greater search result number. According to Google, the phrase is the most common.
In the long run, this whole thing was handled pretty badly, and I do feel now is the time to fix it. I've made this a subsection of the original, and propose moving Sega Mega Drive back to Sega Genesis.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I was about to chew you out for reintroducing the discussion that has been reintroduced a billion times, but I think that putting it as Sega Genesis is the proper thing to do. I think Brain Ages should be at Brain Training, Trace Memory should be at Another Code, etc. But games like Dark Chronicle should be at Dark Cloud 2 (only reason it's where it is is "it was called that in Japan") and that Sega Mega Drive should go to Sega Genesis because, while it was INTENDED to be called Sega Mega Drive, it was indeed called Sega Genesis in North America. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Should this go through, List of Sega Mega Drive games needs to be renamed as well. I am neutral to this and am willing to go with either name, but I'm just bringing up this point. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 05:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A Google search for "Mega Drive" gives 4,040,000 results. Kariteh (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

ChallengeThe absolute best way to solve the "it should be called this" problem would be to come up with some sort of compromise that both sides of the debate are happy with, that everyone can get behind - the redirects could then take care of the rest.
Is anyone up for trying to find an alternative route out of this? Rather than the push me pull you of renaming that has constantly been a part of this article. We need something out of the ordinary, like two versions of the page or both names redirecting to a third location, something a bit abnormal that everyone can agree with. So go to WP:IGNORE read it and then come back here with ideas, regardless of how stupid or out of the ordinary they are, we can find a way to solve this and make everyone satisfied with the result. - X201 (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean something like what airplane and aeroplane redirect to? That won't work in this case because there are only two choices. Look, I think the big difference between the Genesis/Megadrive and something like FFL or Japan is simple -- the official name of the product is also its original name in a large part of the English speaking world. I believe that's why Megadrive is the correct term under the guidelines. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hahnchen's right in my view. This isn't American Wikipedia, its an international Wikipedia. The Japanese creators intended to call the thing Mega Drive, its known as Mega Drive everywhere they could secure the rights to Mega Drive, so we should call it the Mega Drive. According to the article, the only reason its not called Mega Drive in North America is because they could not secure the legal rights for it. Consequently, the article should remain at Sega Mega Drive, and the regional naming differences for the Genesis are made clear in the introduction anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you have completely misunderstood the spirit of WP:IAR. A compromise is impossible. Having two versions of the same page is not allowed, nor is using a slash ("Genesis/Mega Drive") or "and" ("Genesis and Mega Drive") to connect or divide alternate names in a page title. This page can be named either "Sega Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis"; feel free to debate which name to use (remember, consensus can change), but those two are the only choices available. GarrettTalk 11:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I know what is allowed. I was having a light headed moment and vainly believing that there might be some other way around this, again. - X201 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm American, and I still have the Sega Genesis console from my childhood. Nonetheless, I believe that we should use the "Mega Drive" name (because it clearly takes precedence on an international level and is sufficiently common within the English-speaking world). —David Levy 12:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This will complicate the discussion, but we should keep in mind that "Sega" may not be part of the console's name... The article could be "Mega Drive" instead of "Sega Mega Drive" or other names. I believe several products for the console show the name as only Mega Drive, and this PAL model Image:SegaMegadrive.jpg even has "Mega Drive Sega" written on it ("Sega" seems like it isn't meant to be pronounced in the same phrase as "Mega Drive", at least in this image). Kariteh (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to prove it through verifiability first. Like with the Wii. It was explicitly stated by Nintendo this is just "Wii", so the article is at "Wii". We'll have to look for any evidence before this can be suggested. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the people arguing "it's so and so on an international level", may I kindly point your attention to articles on Japanese wikipedia for example, which use exclusively the Japanese name of a game, despite what the rest of the world calls something (Pocket Monsters vs. Pokemon, various Street Fighter characters, etc. What the english speaking nations call something different to them is irrelevant. Go through other languages, find the same: Jigglypuff is probably the most common name for a particular pink critter, but he'll still be called by his native name in a different language. What an international level does is irrelevant: it's the most common english speaking name, supported by both google's tally and the fact that Sega is still using it in merchandising and on their own website.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying anyone who uses the English Language Wikipedia and is of a nationality where English is not the native language should be ignored? I only ask because I'm trying to understand what you meant by "What an international level does is irrelevant:" - X201 (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
In terms of article naming, if the majority of English speakers call it one thing, for the purposes of English Wikipedia it should go by that name. That's consistency. To augment to this, WP:NAME, states "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Now interestingly enough a search of the phrase "Sega Genesis" will turn up Sega.com's homepage. The Mega Drive turns up blog and forum posts. That should be a pretty big indication, no? Where's the definitive proof outside of opinion that the Mega Drive is the name an English speaker will know the console primarily by?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with the compromise "slash" or "and" that Master Thief Garrett talked about? Is there a policy that says that keeping prettier article names takes precedence over a compromise that could preserve the good will of the community? Cigraphix (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That compromise apparently utilizes a slash ("/") which causes glitches in Wikipedia's hierarchy, and pretty much would set everything back at the beginning when the Mega Drive rename first happened.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If we go down the compromise route how about something along the lines of Sega Mega Drive & Genesis consoles ? Its not just a compromise name for the sake of it, because the article itself does treat both consoles as different entities as regards advertising, sales and lifespan. - X201 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That opens a few problems actually. What do you call titles like Sega Genesis Collection to be consistent?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I used the words "fucking retarded", groupthink and "stupid compromise" to describe the slash article name during the 2006 move request.[8] My thoughts have not changed on this issue. Slashes no longer cause problems in the article space, as subpages have been disabled there. - hahnchen 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't work like that at all. Of course its irrelevant to the Japanese Wikipedia what the english name is, because there's only one name in the Japanese language. If you're searching for something on the Japanese Wikipedia, you'd use the Japanese name, the only correct name in Japanese. This is not the case with the Mega Drive, there are two correct names, one use in North America, one used everywhere else in the world. Someone from Europe is going to search for the correct English name for the console, and that would be the Mega Drive. - hahnchen 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yay for the Europe arugument...but it has a flaw too. How many European countries use English as their national language? Case in point, a Spaniard is going to look up an article on the thing on the spanish WP, not the English speaking one, no? Additionally, where's the definitive proof the Mega Drive name is the primary most common, because so far I've got at least two saying nay but nothing really counteracting it but opinion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
They don't use English as their native language. But I mentioned above that this isn't just the Wikipedia for native english speakers only. - hahnchen 15:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There's still no proof in the long term though that the Mega Drive name is the most common for English speakers. Can you present any at all?
What does "in the long term" mean? I don't have any concrete metrics measuring sales or brand recognition. I'm assuming that english speakers from Europe, Asia and South America would use the English name of the console as released in their country. - hahnchen 15:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Further to that, the onus is on the parties initiating the move to "prove" their argument. - hahnchen 15:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No I believe the onus to counter the points is on the Mega Drive front: we have the primary Sega website using Genesis in its meta tags, the fact the company still uses the title for re-releases of its games from the console, google searches for the exact names as phrases which turns up a far greater amount for "Sega Genesis". There's really nothing definitive saying to an english speaking public that Mega Drive is a far more common name.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
10,000 more results is not "a far greater amount". Kariteh (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless my math is wrong I actually got 1190000 more results here using the data I posted above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to my reply to your post, with 4,040,000 in bold. Kariteh (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The main problem there is that's like looking up just Genesis: Mega Drive by itself was used by other items not pertaining to Sega as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not a "main problem". If you make a search for Genesis, there are indeed tons of items not pertaining to the console, but if you make a search for "Mega Drive", the items not pertaining to the console are very, very, scarce. Just look at the result pages. Kariteh (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"fucking retarded", groupthink and "stupid compromise" - sounds like your opinion rather than policy - I believe WP does tend to lean for compromise as long as other rules are not violated. Cigraphix (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd go for Mega Drive myself, given :-
  • It was called Mega Drive on launch.
  • In most regions/countries/territories it's called the Mega Drive.
  • In one region alone it was called the Genesis.
Given this, got to wonder what all the fuss about. --Oscarthecat (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Launch name is usually not the best guide. Look at quite a few Japanese games for example.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why is this arguement continuing to argue that it must be one or another instead of hammering a compromise? Most of these arguements are POV on what facts are more important than others. How about the compromise "Sega Mega Drive & Genesis"? I don't remember hearing anything wrong with "&", its less combersome than "and" or "or", and it doesn't confuse hiearchy like "/". Cigraphix (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It fails WP:COMMON and assigns rather undue weight to one particular region's branding. The current solution is a compromise, one which took a long time to hammer out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this would fail common sense reasoning - common sense says there could be and probably are ignorant people who would see the page name and think they're on the wrong page. And how does it give undue weight to one particular region's branding as it acknowledges both almost equally (the one in front probably gets a little more weight)? Cigraphix (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Argh, my bad. My shortcut-fu failed. I mean WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody calls it a "Mega Drive & Genesis". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That's cool, but this case is exceptional as both names are common names. Cigraphix (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, even if Sega of America uses "Genesis" absolutely and utterly 100% of the time it's still the minority term for the console from a worldwide perspective. This isn't a case of wanting to move Giant Panda to 大熊貓 because that's the term that 900 million people in China use; it's a case of a language-neutral brand name which is used worldwide except in North America. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My only concern with a compromise is it leaves a question open what to do with articles such as the Sega Genesis Collection: we can't simply renamed it "Sega Mega Drive & Genesis Collection" because the title didn't go by that. And calling it one or the other is inconsistent to boot. See what I mean?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Here WP:COMMON certainly applies. It's the name of a product. Pick one or the other and redirect. And a "compromise" other than the current solution isn't on the cards, because most people seem to agree that using "Mega Drive" consistently is working out pretty well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
See now there you go. There's enough evidence to prove that even though it's just one region (Which btw includes Canada I might point out which really does make it a much larger scope), so at the very least a compromised name *is* a necessity. Saying it isn't relevant is disregarding facts for opinion, because there is nothing yet posted showing with definitive proof that "Mega Drive" is an absolute and more common name for the English speaking world, just a lot of opinion and half-facts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No. You're yet again asserting that the issue is "for the English speaking world", but this is a case where the predominant term in the English-speaking world is a distinct minority globally. While a majority of English speakers use "Genesis", all of them are in North America. As for the inclusion of Canada making it "a much larger scope", Canada's population is comparable to that of Australia, where "Mega Drive" is used. In this case, overriding the North American term for the sake of avoiding US geocentricity has been a success thus far, and you ahven't presented a compelling reason to overturn it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"For the sake of avoiding US geocentricity"? That's not the damn point here and there's no guideline on wikipedia that states avoiding geocentricity is a requirement. The point is that there isn't evidence outside of opinion (and a lot of it) that Mega Drive is far more common. If anything even with the example Kariteh posted it still shows "Sega Genesis" appears more. The article should be name by the most common name that can be cited as being the most common. As it stands either a compromise is necessary using an "&" instead of the previous "/" or the name's switched. Just looking at the talk page and issues with related pages should be enough to see quite clearly "Mega Drive" by itself is not a solution and in turn confuses anyone unfamiliar with the the console named as such. If anything sounds more like the article is being used to make a point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that an attempted comprimse was already tried at Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis. Simply put is did not work and I don't see why it would work now. The last request move also demostrates this. Talk:Sega Mega Drive/Archive 3#Proposed move --76.69.167.73 (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Just like to throw my hat into the ring at this late stage and say I'm all for having it at List of Sega Mega Drive games, just because it was released as Genesis in the US doesn't mean that should be the name of the article! Fin©™ 11:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, might be interesting to note that Sega Genesis redirects to Sega Mega Drive. Fin©™ 11:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you look at that discussion, you'll note some of the replies are revolving around a "glitch" caused by the page name, and "Mega Drive" was the only option given as an alternative. That's hardly decisive when you're told you can either have both or just a certain one of the two.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Bottom line

So. Regional language dispute. Is there a pressing reason (meaning, an argument so good it gets a consensus to support it) to change the status quo?

If yes, change it!

If no, don't!

Since there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus for anything, we get the status quo. And since it's not absolutely insane as it is, there's no reason it can't stay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with A Man in Black on this one. He's got an excellent point. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We just end up with some users confused why they were sent to such a page (see the talk pages), and inconsistent related articles (see Sega Genesis Collection). The status quo as it is flawed, and just doesn't have any policy or even definitive proof beyond "it was this everywhere but the US and Canada (and Mexico? Dunno)" backing it up, which isn't a solid ground for WP:COMMONNAME if the other name can be verified as being equally or more common. Even consensus can be wrong in the face of facts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. So in one region it's one way, and in another it's another. Arguing about which region is right or more important or has more people or WHATEVER is a road to madness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah but I'm not to an extent. I am saying a compromised title would be the best move (something like "Sega Mega Drive & Genesis") and with all thing standing a required one, the only complication is name specific articles like that one game, so a little thinking would be necessary to avoid complications.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As I've explained above, a compromised title is forbidden by naming conventions. Breaking the rules just to keep a few people happy is not a good long-term solution. It also means this article will automatically fail if it ever gets a good or featured article nomination. There are only two choices for the page name; the console's U.S. name or its non-U.S. one. GarrettTalk 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nearly the first thing on WP:NAME is "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Now, it seems to me that there are more sources calling it the Genesis. From what I can tell on WP:Naming conflict, those methods have been tried, and Genesis has been found to have more support for the article's name.

Redirects are cheap, so I see little reason to have a conglomerate name in this case, especially considering that there are subarticles named after the main article, which partially seems the issue here as well. WP:CCC, also. To summarize, I lend my support for Sega Genesis. --Izno (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A difference of 10,000 hits is hardly significant enough to assert that "there are more sources calling it the Genesis". Kariteh (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
How about this versus this? I'd say 500k hits is a significant difference. Putting quotations around the entirety of "Sega Genesis", while similarly enshrining "Sega Mega Drive", the difference widens to 1.5 million hits: "Sega Mega Drive" -wikipedia vs "Sega Genesis" -wikipedia. If that isn't a sizable difference, I'd like to know what is. :) --Izno (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Further supporting the case for Genesis is the fact that, in just the front page on Google, when there is a "mega drive" hit, Genesis is in or near the context. --Izno (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yay for biased Google searches... Your first search was "Mega Drive" -wikipedia sega while your second one was sega genesis -wikipedia; why did you discretly switch the place of the word sega? A search for sega "Mega Drive" -wikipedia gives 3,140,000 results and a search for sega genesis -wikipedia gives 3,170,000. Only 30,000 hits of difference. Kariteh (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked, the order matters not (however, it seems that was an incorrect assumption). In any case, see the second search. --Izno (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Google isn't the be-all and end-all here. Again, every source referring to the console as the Genesis is in North America. As aMiB said, where there isn't a pressing need to change (i.e. obvious violation of policy, as opposed to a mere disagreement) then we need consensus to override the status quo and we haven't got it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Google is a pretty good indication though, especially when Sega Genesis turns up more hits than even just "Mega Drive" (not by a hell of a lot in that case, but still 10,000 isn't something to sneeze at). Adding into this the "status quo" was hardly a fair consensus, given people involved were only given the options of "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" or "Sega Mega Drive", which is hardly fair, and we've got here that there isn't a solid consensus for one or the other either (there has to date been *nothing* showing Mega Drive as a more common English name in this whole discussion). It's really not a simple matter, even news sites call the consoles both, GameFAQs/GameSpot on the other hand does blatantly use the Genesis name...it'd be interesting to see what other sites use as a guide in this, because that one isn't something to sneeze at.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
To add something, MobyGames uses Genesis too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Google isn't a fair tool to use when comparing worldwide usage. By its nature it's US-centric, and there are various non-US locales where it isn't the most used search engine for such reasons. Anecdotal evidence of "game sites" (which are, shockeroonie, also largely based in the US) is likewise non-compelling. You're the one arguing for change, so it's your job to build consensus for it. You can't simply say that previous discussions didn't include your option and then use this to short-circuit the requirement to actually have the discussion which indicates the change in consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oy vey. First off let me point out North America includes Canada, so this is not a "US centric" matter. Secondly let me point out that you're still not presenting any facts showing the name is more common: consensus by itself can still be overridden if facts presented show it to be wrong, policy gives that much. Third your tone is pretty well coming across as biased ("US egocentricity" being dragged in here for example when the point is to work out the most common English name). So now you're going to argue that the name used by GameFAQs, GameSpot, MobyGames, and god knows what other site just because they may happen to be US owned should be ignored? Like I said, present some good facts that Mega Drive is a more common name. Present citations, tangible statements from Sega, and so on. Show something in here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Guess I should add to this GameRankings and well guess you can count all of CNet in there too. Should point out that we do use these sites a lot for references too for articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
And for a bit of a coup de grace, Excite.UK lists 242,600 results for "Sega Genesis"...and 105,400 for "Mega Drive". Now can you argue they're US centric too?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Jeez. "US-centric" was being used as shorthand for "North America-centric". I haven't used Excite since the 20th century, like everyone else, and yes "GameFAQs, GameSpot, MobyGames, and god knows what other site" are skewed towards North America. Again, the point of this reply was to highlight that it is not enough to disagree with consensus; you have to generate consensus to overturn. You haven't and likely won't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You're still not countering anything here worth a damn. Instead we get *your* opinion vs. facts tossed at you. It also matters very little if Google, GameFAQs, etc are "skewed towards North America." Sorry but they're going to be where people go for information beyond here, and they aren't seeing Mega Drive there. May I direct you to Wikipedia:Search engine test which agrees that they are not the "be all to end all" but do assert they can be used as a guideline, as noted by WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Divided usage is another to look at. The issue at hand is, there aren't any major, citable, third party sites being presented for this here at the very least to show that the Mega Drive title is more common. There hasn't been a search engine test that shows such either. The only reason given is "it was only this in the US so it has to be wrong", which is invalid, and flying in the face of fact without anything to counter it is far from neutral, which is a key point in the naming conventions of Wikipedia. Thus unless proof can be offered up the Mega Drive name is indeed more common for the console for English speakers, I move to change the article to Sega Genesis and be done with the whole lot, madness or no, since a compromise is stated to be impossible.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
So take it to WP:RM. But you haven't echieved consensus here, so I don't think you'd acheive consensus there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


For those who haven't got Mega drive watchlisted, you might like to know - Wikipedia:RM#15_July_2008 .Might be a good idea if we all ceased debate here and moved to the Mega Drive page. - X201 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

E3

One of gamings biggest events is on Monday and that means: speculation. Every VG freak, addictict and dork will be watching E3 and that means our articles will be picking up a load of speculation. Every fan who knows about Wikipedia will come rushing from their living rooms to add speculation to some of our articles about those games. How will we prepare for that? King Rock (Gears of War) 03:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Some how semi-protect everything?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  03:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We will wait for the spec to start, then we go to WP:RPP (for IP/new user edits), if it continues, we are just going to have to revert and revert, carefully not violating WP:3RR.--SRX 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, Monday is gonna be a long day. King Rock (Gears of War) 03:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure will be. Too bad i won't be here...Good luck to everyone in Wiki!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  04:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing pre-emptive has to be done. Just watch the appropriate pages and of course, bookmark WP:RPP :) Gary King (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but there are going to be alot of Request. I have already added Gears of War 2, DiabloIII, and other such articles to my watchlist. King Rock (Gears of War) 05:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think there will be lots of constructive edits during E3, in addition to some vandalism. Gary King (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What Gary said but, we'll have to remove it all untill we learn everything that was unveiled at E3. I'll try to help out articles that i use, while i'm on to help out. Good luck to you guys!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  05:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also try to tell everyone that you can to watch E3 at 7pm on G4. King Rock (Gears of War) 05:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have G4, though, what will I do? :) Gary King (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol, maybe you can catch some info on Youtube.(you need to get Comcast). King Rock (Gears of War) 05:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You can also try IGN. :)  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That too.:P King Rock (Gears of War) 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And i'm sure Gamespy, Gametrailers, etc. have the same thing too.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  04:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some articles, it seems that the speculation has begun before the event. There's not much anyone can do, except remain viligilant and keep an eye on articles that are high-profile at E3 (for example, we know that Animal Crossing Wii and possibly Grand Theft Auto IV for example are going to have some sort of high profile announcements made at E3). Also keep an eye on WP:AfD as there will likely be many articles that are created that fail Wikipedia's policies and we need to transclude them on WP:VG/D. Make sure your hammers are at the ready: We're going have a lot of crystal balls to shatter. --.:Alex:. 12:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Figures. I've watchlsited alot of high profile pages and AIV, RPP, etc. to prepare for this day. Note:Though the event offcially starts at 7pm(Eastern Time), exclusive coverage begins at 1pm(Eastern Times). King Rock (Gears of War) 13:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We do have {{Current game}} that we can slap on articles. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-14 13:21

Good idea. I start right away. King Rock (Gears of War) 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Nintendo's announced Wii MotionPlus ahead of their E3 press conference. I'd keep an eye on Wii and Zelda articles... --.:Alex:. 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To help out, i'm gonna go work on articles that i normally don't touch but, only for this ocassion. Let's keep Wiki a better place!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So far, so good. I'm yet to notice any spam/spectulation/vandalation on the articles that i'm watching.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Release dates in lead

I would like to propose the following: for game articles, presuming that the infobox release date field is correct, I would like to see games that have more than one release date (anywhere in the world, and including ports) to summarize the release dates in the lead instead of attempting to iterate every date/platform release date. This includes:

  • Dropping the day of the month of the release, and the month if possible (years should always be there)
  • If two releases are close to each other (within the same month or year) group them appropriately. Similarly, if two ports are close together, group them as well.
  • Even if every port and region gets the game at the same time, the date within the lead should be summarized.
  • Only if the date is significantly notable (I'm guessing Halo 3's launch date, for example) should full day, month, year be given, but this should be discouraged if there's not strong notability for that day.

For example, the style I used at The World Ends with You simply gives month and year, allowing the US and PAL released to be stated in one shot. That's clean, gives a sufficiently good impress of the distance between Japan and Western releases, and so forth. The Infobox still is exacting to this. Compare this to, say, Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords (yes, I probably helped there, but...) which is bogged down in release date details.

This basically helps to make leads easier to read, still gives the general reader a perspective relative to other date events, and details are still available in the infobox for exacting answers. --MASEM 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need to know the exact release date for every single platform. A general release date by month, even by quarter, is enough. Again, the exact day is not useful to anyone but the most diehard fan. We just need enough of a date to provide context. Only in a few exceptional cases (e.g.: a game failed because it was overshadowed by another release a week later, or where they tried to release it on a special day like Halloween) we should include the exact date. Randomran (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Perhaps even just the year in the lead, exact date is over in the infobox anyway, for the diehards. Otherwise just gets plain ugly like the Crysis lead. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe at the very least the first released date should be full-dated, since we do the same thing with books and movies.--十八 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think grouping releases together would be best (in Crysis it would be November 2007), with grouping by month, then quarter. If one (notable) release is significantly later (> a month quarter or so), if should also be noted. Fin©™ 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good compromise. Someone should propose a soft guideline that we can add to the video game guidelines. Something clear and simple, that offers a little flexibility to add more detail if there's a good reason. Randomran (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

List class

So, we apparently have 73 current list-class pages, despite my honest belief that the previous discussion, at the very least, did not achieve consensus. I think list-class is a really bad idea and will lead to a decrease in the quality of lists in this project. That's why I'm appalled that without clear consensus, some decided to implement this on 73 pages, and now it's on the assessment page again too (diff).

No bad feelings to those who did this in good faith and thought that a consensus existed, or to those who are just excited by a new 'class' in general. So, can we find a consensus here? In order to summarise the previous discussion (probably biased to my POV):

  • The main argument in favour seems to be that it allows further classification of things, which some believe to be an inherently awesome thing. I beg to differ, and think that you should only classify things if there's a good reason to.
  • A smaller argument in favour is that it allows people to see earlier whether this or that page would be "FA" or "FL". I differ here too, because we currently have (just) 13 featured lists, and I think that any controversy surrounding which featured status a page should attain is best solved on a case-by-case basis, if it happens more than once in a year at all.
  • My main argument against is that people writing lists now have no way to fit into the assessment system, which is mainly about feedback, criticism, and achieving goals, because their article will always stay list-class.
  • A middle way argument offered by Masem was to allow Lists to be 'upgraded' to one of the article classes. Though this would work, I don't see the need for it at all, as it would negate any benefit List-class would have (see the first two points), and would be reason for confusion ("My list just because start class! Is this an improvement or not?").

Flame away. User:Krator (t c) 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to use the list class effectively we have to differentiate between navigational lists (eg List of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis games) and sub-articles which deal with specific elements of a game or series (eg Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which a lot of 'character lists' actually resemble). Navigational lists do not require re-assessment using the full breadth of article classes - they're either complete and adequately cited (FL class) or not (list class). Discussion on what data they should contain and how it should be organized would take place on the talk page or be brought up here for wider consensus. 'Lists' which contain substantial prose are articles, and would benefit from access to the full assessment scale and article assessments. If one of these should be considered for FL rather than FA status at the final hurdle, the assessment scale has already been used to its full affect.
So in short, why don't we call pure navigational lists 'list class' and use the full assessment scale in all other cases? Someoneanother 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could do a separate List classing? "Incomplete list", "Starting list", "C list", "B list", "Good list", "A list", and "Featured list"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If we're talking about a list which is really an article, then adding a 'list' qualifier creates another layer of classes which perform the same function as the existing ones. If you mean navigational lists, there's a real danger of it becoming a spin-the-bottle rating. Once the parameters are worked out, they're either comprehensively filled or not. Having someone claw through a list just to say "well there's some Domark games not listed, so it's a B" isn't time well spent on their part. If you see what I mean. Someoneanother 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this kind of ghettoizes the lists, and prevents people from really know what to work on and how far to improve. I think the most useful and elegant solution is to make the list class into a list "tag", which can be put on any article of any class. Randomran (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Part of forming a list is identifying what fields are needed, what needs citing and how large the population is of the list. Once that's done there's a clear goal and it's either achieved or it isn't. If guidance is needed on prose, depth of information etc. then the list isn't really a list in the strictest sense and should be classified as an article. Someoneanother 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. I think the list class is really meant for stand alone lists that are either good or not good, and can't really be subjected to the same assessment scheme as prosaic articles. I'm talking about lists such as this or this. They're either comprehensive and informative/encyclopedic, or they aren't. Ones that would always be rated either Start or FL, in which case Start is possibly misleading. --.:Alex:. 20:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Someone another. List of Sega Mega Drive games = list, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII = not list. I don't think we should complicate things further. Articles which look like Characters of FFVIII but are named "List of..." something should simply be renamed to not have "list" in their titles. Kariteh (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember suggesting that somewhere, something to do with them being prosiac articles detailing the characters rather than being a simple listing of characters. I agree though, I too think that these prosaic "lists" should have list removed from the title as they really aren't lists at all. --.:Alex:. 09:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
There were numerous discussions at WT:FAC that were focused on whether FAs such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts were really lists or not, with no real consensus reached on the issue. However, List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow (then Characters of Castlevania: Sorrow series) actually had its FAC failed and was sent to FLC since the discussion had resolved that it was a list and not an article. Now it's a FL and we now have two character FLs (List of Metal Gear Solid characters, the Castlevania characters list) and two character FAs (the Final Fantasy VIII and Kingdom Hearts ones). Personally, I believe that at their core, they're lists regardless of the amount of prose they have, as it's listing the characters with a repetitive structure, even if it is in prose (List of works by William Monahan has a ton of prose, and it's was classified as a list) and the only reason conception and reception sections are present are to ensure the topic is comprehensive (and so it could pass WP:FAC/WP:FLC). That said, it would be nice to figure out a solution to the lack of consistency we have. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly; List of works by William Monahan is further evidence that there's no clear guideline on this issue. I think we need to reach a consensus for our video game wikiproject. (The film wikiproject should also try to reach a consensus for their lists, but that's not relevant to the discussion here unless a Wikipedia-wide discussion occurs somewhere.) Kariteh (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, this isn't a WikiProject-level discussion - it's a community one. Either the FLs will go to FAs (which would mean going through WP:FAC, as Sandy, Raul, and the FAC regulars would want to see that) or the FAs will go to FLs (which would go without a hitch). You can't demote a FA/FL simply because there is WikiProject-level consensus for it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why are we discussing here? We should move to WP:FL or WP:FA. I didn't have any demotion in mind though; in my opinion, any FL could become an FA if it's not a problem of quality but just a matter of defining "list" or "article" (i.e. List of Castlevania: Sorrow characters could easily be "converted" to an FA, it's of featured quality either way). Kariteh (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's have some examples here that are currently asssessed List-class. The top of the list below has relatively uncontroversial lists that IMHO should never be List-class, the bottom has some more controversial examples. I wouldn't rate any of these List-class.

Discuss. User:Krator (t c) 10:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that there are inconsistencies with FA/FL, until that is conclusively resolved (chances are it won't be), using the list class to classify list articles which would not benefit from the article assessment seems a valid use. From the list, I'd use the article rating system on Characters of Chrono Cross, Characters of Chrono Trigger, List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series and List of characters in Manhunt 2. They're lists of fictional characters which presents additional challenges in terms of real-world vs in-universe, notability and scope. Whether they would be FAs or FLs on promotion is not something we work out here so in terms of classifying them as articles or lists the only thing I'm looking at is whether or not the full assessment scale would be useful or not. Wipeout teams is a tough one but is AFD bait. List of Final Fantasy compilation albums does not contain a reception section like the individual 'music of (FF game)' articles, but contains a large lead instead. It's prose, it's not a navigational list and it would benefit from the full assessment scale. List of Final Fantasy media, List of best-selling video game franchises and Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility are lists, the article assessment scale is redundant in cases like these. Someoneanother 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

More examples of articles inconsistently labeled as "List" class:

List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games -- Noted as "List" Class

This is a full list of all SNES games including producer, developer, and release information. This had been previously graded as a "B" with a suggestion to nominate for GA, but my machines were not working correctly with the GA nomination process, so I couldn't proceed down that track.

List of Super Famicom games -- Noted as "B" Class

This list is complete with all released games, but much of the producer developer and release information is missing. With so much information missing, I question even grading it as high as a "B".

List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games by genre -- Noted as "Start" Class

Just this week, this list became complete. So, I'd say its beyond "Start" class -- probably "C" at this point (but then I'm the main author, my opinion doesn't count). At this point, a lot of work needs to review of the game classifications. And realignment with the constantly shifting Video game genres article.

Either all three should be "List", or all should be graded, IMHO. Dawynn (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bump so the discussion doesn't get archived. Kariteh (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, discussion closed with no consensus. Pages can continue to be variously assessed as articles or lists depending on individual judgement. Kariteh (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Break for attention

File:Hb-animation2.gif
List class (colorful moving pictures help get attention)

Alright, so {{List-Class}} exists and is already in use within our Project. We need to come to a consensus as to whether or not to use it, and how. I propose (roughly) this for List class -

List class - A collection of WikiLinks, with the possibility of more-or-less standard annotations (developer, platform, year, ratings, etc.). Prose is limited to the introduction or the beginnings of sections, and only exists to qualify which articles should be included. If content on a List Class article at any point evolves past this, to prose content that can be evaluated by quality, it should then be given a rating on the standard Assessment scale (Stub-FL).

How is this? JohnnyMrNinja 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There is no way to 'assess' a list which resembles a spreadsheet containing data, or a navigational list of internal links. That would involve checking for completeness, which is the list builders' job, then saying "OK so it's 75% complete, ergo it's a B". What is the point? The only question outside of the featured list process that needs asking is "have you completed the task you have set yourself?" Yes > read the FL criteria and have one final breeze through then nominate. No > go and finish it then. Anything beyond these lists, which can only be described as lists, should be put on the article assessment scale because the assessment scale can actually benefit them. If they're re-routed to FL instead of FA at that stage of development, that's not something we control at the project. Someoneanother 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the above; since lists are sorted into quality, it's a rather messy basket we should prolly not use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I support this new class. However, some lists have "Notes" sections next to each item with a short description or list of notable facts. I don't think it makes a difference, I just noticed you didn't mention them. SharkD (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about it. I think it's a bit confusing, and doesn't have the explanatory power that Stub/Start/C/B have. I also think it risks segregating lists out so they might not get as much help from editors looking for low quality articles to improve. So I'd lean against it, unless someone shows me a better way forward. Randomran (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording is rough, I just threw it out there. First, as far as editors seeking to improve lists, I have created Category:Incomplete video game lists, and {{inc-vg}} to populate it. As far as rating lists, how would you rate List of Square Enix games? It is an excellently formatted and compiled list, but it is still, in essence, a collection of wikilinks. How should it be graded, on how complete it is? It's a dynamic list, so it might never be complete. Also, editors assessing can't scour the internet and verify that every game is in there (or, rather, they shouldn't). On style? That's a matter of opinion and and not a valid verifiable criteria. How does is compare to Ninja Baseball Bat Man? It is more attractive, more complete, and far better-referenced, but it doesn't compare. It is not the same sort of article at all, and attempting to grade it on the same scale would be unfair, and (let's face it) arbitrary. JohnnyMrNinja 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I have brought this to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Question re: list class, where someone else was talking about list class. Join in! JohnnyMrNinja 17:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The only way this could get really confusing is if anything other than 'just lists' gets rated as list - if it's a list then call it so, if there's any doubt rate it. There's some examples above of articles which should be rated rather than added to the lists, so going through what's currently in the list class and reclassifying anything like that would nip it in the bud. The incomplete list category is a good idea, but it's not shown amongst the categories of its population. Bringing it online and filling it would cover that angle. Filing away lists appropriately also means that the 'unassessed video game articles' category can be kept empty. The discussion on the other page shows that all this doesn't take any effort once it's established. Someoneanother 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_49&oldid=1142518365"