Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

Chotto Brain Training

Look at the title of where this article was moved to. Should this be moved back? I mean, there should be accuracy in maintaining original naming convention, but this is ridiculous. Who in their right mind is going to type all that in as a title? MuZemike 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Completely. Yeah, there's the naming convention, but that's just going too far... --.:Alex:. 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There are articles with very long titles, but we have redirects for a reason. People may not type it in, but that's irrelevant - IIRC, Brain Age 2 used the crazy-long Japanese titles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
And as for RS, I looked for a source that explicitly calls Virus/Germ Buster "based on Dr. Mario", but to no avail, besides that review. If you could check around, that'd be cool. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
And as related to this article, I've hit a big ol' road block - I really have no idea what the three new titles in this link are (the new titles are the top three) - the screenshots aren't self-explanatory, and a machine translation makes it make less sense than when it was in Japanese. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I know there's the redirect, but you need to consider that in terms of usability it makes little sense to have a redirect that everyone will pretty much always use, that goes to a page with a title that will virtually never be used. Perhaps a compromise can be made somewhere (even just shortening the Japanese title would suffice). There is such a thing as being too precise with naming conventions, and this appears to be but one instance. --.:Alex:. 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The title isn't inconvenient, and there are several articles that use full titles in spite of having very long titles. I don't believe people will be affected by it, so I believe it should stay this way. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I believe it's standard practice to use the most common, and in cases of extremely long names, short form as possible. An article's name on Wikipedia is not merely it's entry in an encyclopedia, it's also a means of identifying and accessing that article too, and that simply isn't possible here. "XY Brain Training", or whatever, is recognisable to English-language readers and easy for them to search. Tōhoku Daigaku Karei Igaku Kenkyūjo Kawashima Ryuta Kyōju Kanshū Chotto Nō wo Kitaeru Otona no DSi Training is not. I'd even go as far as to say the name would intimidate some people from actually trying to access it. Like I said above, a short form of the name in Japanese would be fine, much like how English names are shortened except in very rare cases (and even then I've certainly never come across one as long as that). This absurdly long name is inconvinient in more ways than is obvious. People on RC patrol, for instance, would certainly find that name confusing and inconvenient. People with small resolutions are going to have this title taking up loads of room. As I said, usability is key. Precision can always be focused on within the article itself. --.:Alex:. 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Gah, that's dreadful. WP:NC, under section "Use the most easily recognized name": "Article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." This is clearly not what the greatest number of English speakers would recognise, trying to link to this sort of name is anything but second nature, and its certainly ambigious. I realise that the title is not currently released outside of Japan, but if there is a usable English name or translation, use that! While a good faith and well intentioned move, it really doesn't serve the article very well when most of its readers can't pronounce the page name. -- Sabre (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The translations are inconsistent, and there would be dispute over which one is best. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there isn't a usable English name or translation, since they're in dispute. I don't see it as much of a problem, since redirect pages exist for a reason. So if someone searches for "Chotto Brain Training" they will be redirected to the article. EDIT: Beaten by Hippie above. But that's my opinion as well.--ZXCVBNM 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just name it "Brain Age: Humanities/Sciences" as it appears on IGN ([1])? If a major publication lists it as such, shouldn't we be able to use it instead of the ghastly Japanese title? -- Nomader (Talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
At first, I thought this was the solution, but when you type that in Google with quotes, only ONE other hit comes up. That is hardly common enough to make it the name of the article. --TorsodogTalk 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is in fact a bit better than the title we currently have up right now, which a google search only links to the Wikipedia page and the Wikipedia Brain Age category... I know that this is the translation of the Japanese title, but this is kind of ridiculous. What other English language alternatives are there? -- Nomader (Talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
At most, it should be merely "Chotto Brain Training", due to differences in the names of the versions. However, the Nintendo Conference site is where I got Literature from. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I think this should definitely be moved to Chotto Brain Training. The naming conventions are pretty clear about it:

Subtitles and pre-titles are allowed if deemed appropriate but are not necessary.

Considering all the points mentioned above, the pre-title definitely appears not to be "appropriate" here (it's too long, no English speaker would find it helpful, the short title is more commonly used, etc.). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews and assessments

FYI- Requests for assessment and peer reviews are starting to become backlogged/stagnant. Any volunteers willing to help out would be appreciated.

Peer reviews don't need to long and exhaustive, but giving an article a quick sweep for grammar, spelling, reliable sources, or image is helpful as well. A handful of people focusing on separate, but smaller parts can be just as helpful as a single person focusing on everything. Assessments are like shorter peer reviews, and are meant to maintain quality across the board, as well provide guidance to editors. Plus with the quality and importance scales having gone through tweaking, the guidelines for assessment have become more clear.

If you've been curious about the project and would like to become more involved, these two departments are great ways to help out. Remember, a lot of this stuff is no big deal so feel free to Be Bold and give it shot. No one expects you to be perfect at the job; making mistakes and learning as you go is part of the learning curve with these things. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I can do a couple right now. MuZemike 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I'm looking at a couple peer reviews to dive into like Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith, and LittleBigPlanet—ChimpanzeeUK had to restart this one because it went a month without any comments. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
I got quite a bit of stuff going (off-wiki, that is) this weekend, so it would be slow-going. However, I did get at least one good PR in. MuZemike 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
No rush. Just as long as we can put a dent in the backlog. Thanks again for helping out. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Darkfall vandalism on the rise

This article always seems to get a fair bit of attention, but it's getting slightly worse now that the release date has been pushed back. May be worth one or two people adding it to their watch lists for a week or so.

Speaking of which, is there a way to add one user's contribs to your own watchlist? I didn't think it was worth an ARV, but there's one IP from a college campus that has nothing but vandalism edits which I wanted to keep an eye on. Cheers, Basie (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you add their user or talk page to your watch list, it will provide the links for their user page, talk page, and contributions under the "User" section of Special:Watchlist/edit. However, this won't display it in your normal watch list. I don't know of any special way to easily watch contributions aside from just going to Special:Contributions.
If that one IP address has done nothing but vandalism for a long time, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
Thanks. Basie (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of two cover arts

The use of two cover arts in the article The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages is being discussed here. I would appreciate it if anyone could come and voice their opinion on this discussion. Artichoker[talk] 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge games

I suggest merging Overlord (1990 video game) and Overlord (1993 video game). One is the port of the other, and therefore they should be merged into a single article. SharkD (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about this game. But it looks you're right about it being just a port... so a merge makes a lot of sense. Randomran (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should be merged, even though the port's article is longer than the article about the original...another caveat, it isn't wikilinked and violates WP:Not a game guide I'm sure, so you might want to clean that up.--ZXCVBNM 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I completed the merge, cutting a lot of the gameguide cruft in the process. Maybe someone should take a look over it and double-check whether it was done properly. I also noticed (after the merge was completed) that a user had opposed a merge suggestion previously in one of the Talk pages. SharkD (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Score

I have been thinking...would score (video games) be better moved to score (gaming) or merged into score (game)? Take into account that high score should probably be merged into the article as well.--ZXCVBNM 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All of those could be merged into one article Scoring in games.じんない 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the best title when you look at it from a different angle Jinnai.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think video game scores should be merged with sports scores, though merging high score would probably be a good idea. SharkD (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
But Scoring in video games might work. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Score (game) refers to scores in all kinds of games, including sports and video games. The reason I thought it might be a good idea to merge everything there is because it's a very small article anyway. In fact high score has the most info of the three articles, though it barely has any references and could be trimmed, I'm sure. I think I'll just move everything to score (gaming) per the format used for other gameplay articles and place a "main article" link at score (game).--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 20:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
A side note: I've noticed that the articles titled something like 1994 in video games have been redirected to 1994 in video gaming. But scoring in video gaming sounds awkward, so I'm inclined to use the simplest disambig title, score (gaming).--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the current title is fine as it is, unless you specifically want to add information regarding stuff like board games. SharkD (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense as well. Otherwise, we would need another article called score (board games)...--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Advices needed for this list of characters

I tried to reorganize List of characters in The King of Fighters series based on the fact that the characters come in teams to avoid the article being too long. The problem is that in other games like XII there are no teams, or some of them change to other teams. Especially since there are too many characters that come from Fatal Fury, so there are redirects to the Fatal Fury list. Any advice will appreciated. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

Moved to current collaboration article's talk page: Talk:Video game genres#Collaboration -- .:Alex:. 18:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I need some backup on List of characters in the Soul series

User:Devilsaur2 has added a fair use image and infobox for every character on the list, as well as adding "reworded" copy and paste biographies from the game for entries with articles already. Talking isn't doing anything, he sees the edits as "massive improvements", which is actually impeding the edits to clean up the list I'm trying to do. The last edits I did were here. I need someone to back me up on this so I can clean that up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Lee-Enfield now open

The peer review for Lee-Enfield, 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 04:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flair Games and Classicard

These articles were created today. I haven't worked much with video games on Wikipedia so I'm not really familiar with notability criteria and finding sources, so I won't take this to AFD myself, but I suspect there might be problems. Googling very briefly, I have found a few sources (such as IGN) saying that the game exists but not really more than that. Also, I've seen some favorable user comments, but no professional reviews (I haven't searched much, mind you!). Finally, we seem to have a WP:COI situation: the articles were created by User:Unarmed1000, while the developer of the game is, according to IGN, Unarmed. Note, I haven't played the game myself (I don't have an Xbox) and I have no reason to doubt it's a nice game, so don't take me wrong in my concerns. -- Jao (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they both might fail WP:Notability unless reliable sources are found. If it was XBLA, maybe, but Xbox Community Marketplace isn't notable enough for a game's article, AFAIK; the same thing goes with the publisher of a single game.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 00:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's tag them first before we start approaching the deletion route, at least. MuZemike 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care too much, but this just seems like a game developer being a little too hasty to establish themselves on Wikipedia. Maybe being listed on Xbox.com is a reliable source in itself, in which case the article is notable after all. I have my doubts about the developer page anyway.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll do a AfD to get some concensus on this. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Both articles deleted upon request of their creator. MuZemike 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding removal of gameguide material

There's a discussion on my Talk page regarding possible removal of gameguide material from Archon: The Light and the Dark. Some input would be appreciated. SharkD (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved here. SharkD (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother 3

Hi, I just started working on Mother 3 yesterday, and it's gotten much bigger. Would anyone like to help improve it? I'm hoping to improve it to the point where I can make a Mother 3 featured topic, by increasing its size to the point where it would be recommended to split it into three articles, preferably Characters in Mother 3 and Development history of Mother 3. Copyediting, source finding, etc. would be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there would be enough info for both a development section and a development history page, though a characters article may be feasible. There's certainly enough info translated for Mother 3 to be a Featured Article. I suggest that you work on making the EarthBound (series) into a featured topic instead of just Mother 3.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
While an EB featured topic is far more feasible, I would feel more satisfied by a Mother 3 FT - that is, it's not like it's terribly common to be able to do a featured topic on a single game. Though, the development section is still not truly finished - I'm sure there's more EB64 development information to be found (I've only been editing this article regularly for a couple days about). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well yeah, that's because it's also not terribly common to have so much information on a single game that it MERITS a featured topic. You ought to focus on finding gameplay references for the actual Mother 3 article before trying to split it off. If you absolutely have to, the "plot" and "characters" sections seem a little redundant, so you could split the "characters" into the Characters in Mother 3 article and maybe merge that section into "plot". I mean, not even FF7 has a separate development section and that says something about the availability of specific video game references.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 00:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't try to split it off until the whole article was of featured quality. And I would like to wait until I find development and reception for some characters before I split it off. Also, while FFVII doesn't have a separate article on its development, Mother 3 has a longer development history - it went from the Super Famicom to the Nintendo 64DD to the N64 to the Game Boy Advance, and if Brownie Brown gets their wishes, to the Nintendo DS. FFVII's development section is about one development cycle on one system. On top of all of that, Itoi is very open in that regard. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's inflated and much-improved, but before you split things consider how you can instead solve the problem by improving the main article. Minor characters could be rolled into the plot and the main character section could lose its subheaders (one-para sections are a Bad Idea).

Also, be careful about how much you rely on fansites. I just had to cut a whole section on unlicensed fan works, sourced only to Starmen.net. Let's not see another Bulbasaur debacle, eh? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but just think of this as a work-in-progress. I reverted you not out of disagreement, but so that I can improve it more easily, as I think that it can be relevant information. In the case of other Starmen.net links, I believe most of them should be used, as in most cases, they are citing other news sites, and in other cases, it's for the translation of the game which was determined notable. And do not worry, splitting is not going to happen until late in the article's work. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Cite the other news sites whenever possible. Starmen.net lacks both authority and objectivity. It's a bad source for pretty much everything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where that comes from. For one, I doubt that other sites make reference to these interviews. Just because serebii.net has no editorial oversight doesn't mean Starmen.net lacks it. The translator of the interview works on translation professionally, and the unused content found is only citable from Starmen.net, as no other reliable source would have hacked the game. To say that it's a bad source is different from saying a better source should be used, and I think only the latter is true. If I can find the issues and page numbers for those interviews, I'll replace them, and if I find better sources that I can replace Starmen.net with, I will. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It's an enthusiast's site maintained by a small group of pseudonymous authors. If a factual claim can only be sourced to this fansite, that tends to imply that the factual claim is insufficiently sourceable, not that this mut be a reliable source. I'm not going to be linting the M3 article really heavily right now for this stuff, but it will come up at FAC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it means that the information is not commonplace. CURRENT Famitsu interviews are hard to find, Famitsu interviews from years ago are far more difficult to find. As Mother 3 is Japan-only, these interviews are not commonplace. I haven't seen any real assertion that Starmen.net is not a reliable source besides it being a fan site. The owner of the site is clearly not unprofessional, as he has worked in the industry on significant video games. The only thing I saw in your comparison as establishing serebii.net is that it lacked editorial oversight, and I think your arguments against Starmen.net are more assumed than anything. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You're probably not going to get anyone to prove that Starmen.net isn't a reliable source, because the burden falls on you to show that it is. Citing Starmen.net as a reliable source on a fan-made translation when the translator of that project is one of the site's two staff members...that's probably not going to fly at FAC. Their authority is questionable, their objectivity completely absent.
Be careful how hard you fight advice. You may suddenly find it dries up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The only fighting I've done was just because this information is not easily found, and if I concurred, almost everything I added would have to be removed, possibly permanently, as it would be almost impossible to find an interview from a ten year old issue of a Japanese magazine. I'm not citing for the notability of the fan translation, there was already consensus that it was notable based off of coverage at sources secondary from Starmen.net. Starmen.net is only being used as a source for information on the development of the game. If anything, sourcing starmen.net on that would be like sourcing Itoi's web site. And I understand the burden falls on me, which is why I'm getting in contact with the owners of the site. However, I still think that the nature of the web site and past discussions on similar kinds of web sites is the basis to assume that it fails to be a reliable source, not any condition with the web site itself. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Starmen, though it may not be "reliable" per se, is the most prominent EarthBound site by far, is probably the largest source of Earthbound info on the web (at least in English), and has the only English translations and whatnot.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 01:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I left a message on the talk page, and according to one of the moderators, information added to the site is reviewed by moderators, etc. So barring any reason to assume unreliability, I think it should be considered an acceptable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you do, you've been using it as such for a while. I don't think you understand why a site with pseudonymous authors reporting on their own work isn't a reliable source, and me repeating myself isn't going to change that, ALTTP.
A source doesn't suddenly become reliable because all the other reliable sources didn't see fit to comment on something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The interviews are one matter, because they could be replaced with a direct source to the magazine, assuming the information is accurate and someone can track down and verify the contents of the magazine. On the other hand, pages like [2] need to be removed completely, and [3] is not a suitable source for claims like "[Flint's] name comes from a gun called a 'Flintlock.'" It's unfortunate that over half the article (judging from the refs) is sourced to a fan site, this will be a giant red flag at FAC. Pagrashtak 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
At what point is "it's a fan site" an acceptable reasoning that a source is not reliable? With Serebii.net, all I heard is "it's a fan site with no editorial oversight". If being a fan site was good enough to make a site unreliable, that would have been it. Starmen.net HAS editorial oversight, so I don't see why the suggestion that Flint comes from the word Flintlock is not acceptable on its face - we'd have to assume that there actually ISN'T editorial oversight, which we would be assuming on no basis whatsoever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And like I said, why would we have to? If IGN posted a translated Famitsu scan, we'd source IGN. But now, this site, which no one has asserted at any given point is unreliable or lacks editorial oversight, we now need to assume that it is just a fan site and lacks those qualities. I'm really tired of Serebii.net taking down everything around it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And quite frankly, AMIB, you need to back off. I have not used Starmen.net as a citation for the translation except for facts about the translation. I'm at a loss for what the complaint is - I use Starmen.net's coverage of the translation for nothing more than citing facts, NOT opinions or anything of the sort. Every single argument has one thing in common - none of them are legitimate and are based on snap judgments of "fan sites aren't reliable". No one is arguing that Starmen.net is reliable by the lack of coverage from more reliable sources, the argument is that they are. I mean, you've basically said nothing to assert unreliability after I established editorial oversight, the number one reason why Serebii.net was determined to be unreliable, but now you don't plan to tell me what makes them unreliable? And I don't need any hyperbole terms like "pseudonymous authors". I assume you're speaking of the individual pages that don't cite any one author for them - the fact that editorial oversight is established should be enough to make your argument trivial at best, as it would require an assumption that the editorial oversight is not great enough or not existent period to make this a problem. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, not sure how to jump in here. You're correct that "[source] is a fan site, therefore [source] is unreliable" is not a true statement. What is true is "[source] exists, therefore [source] should be assumed to be unreliable until proven otherwise". So far I have not been convinced of reliability. If a random Wikipedia editor added "[Flint's] name comes from a gun called a 'Flintlock.'" to the article it would be reverted as original research. If that same editor puts it on a web page it's not much better. Nothing on this page convinces me that the author didn't think that up himself or herself. Pagrashtak 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And excuse my constant replies, but to also add information, EGM cited Starmen.net as information for the series in thee different issues - #124, #135, #158, and #203; Itoi responded to several comments from members of Starmen.net; and other mentions of the web site. The fact of the matter is that in the face of many reasons it should be usable, you assert "it's a fan site, and thusly not notable". Starmen.net and Serebii.net are completely different scenarios entirely. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion moved to here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That EGM does cite it and has answered users, does improve your argument, but just because they cite it isn't a free chart. If they cited VGChartz that doesn't mean VGChartZ is suddenly a okay to cite.じんない 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So now, we're comparing one web site that has no assertion by those opposing it as a source that it's unreliable to one that is universally, on Wikipedia, considered an unreliable source? Thank you for proving my point that the lack of reliability of every other unreliable site is the sole argument against Starmen.net. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me further explain to you, since you don't seem to actually understand VGChartz at all - VGChartz is one person making his own estimates on an unproven formula. Starmen.net is multiple people reviewing included content. At what point are these two sites similar by any definition that ever existed? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Relax Link, Jinnai is entitled to his opinion. I, however, believe Starmen.net should be okay if no other reliable sources exist. Have you tried to search for sources that could replace them? If not then I suggest you do so so that we can avoid this problem. PresN and I have had the same problem with RPGFan which ultimately got removed from WP:VG/S. For every single Final Fantasy discography article RPGFan is one of few sources (all of which are considered "unreliable") for critical reception. Also, when I was writing Masashi Hamauzu, a video game composer, RPGFan was one of the most prominent sources of information on the person. If it hadn't been for RPGFan, that article would remain a stub forever. But now I'm getting off the track; my point is that if Starmen.net is the only available source for the content you have cited, I think it should be alright to include it. I've never been a big fan of the "no unreliable sources whatsoever please!" thing. The Prince (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Starmen is pretty unreplaceable. It's the website that made the entire English translation (and a good one, at that), and it's that website that translated all the interviews, the Mother 3 website, etcetera. It has never falsified information, so there's no reason to believe that it's innacurate other than a typo. I think the rules on "unreliable" sources should be relaxed for all niche articles, or at least reviewed on a case-by-case basis, since there aren't many journals, books, etc. on individual games, and gaming news sites tend to be short on content compared to regular news sites.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason non-English sources can't be cited. You cite the Japanese source, note that you used the Starmen.net translation, and leave it at that. This is not a free pass to use anything on Starmen.net as a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that you are also arguing against the usage of it as a reliable source. Serebii.net's problem was editorial oversight (or lack thereof), but that is not a problem here in any capacity. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The same people who write the articles also post them. That's not how editorial oversight works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And your point? IGN's articles are written and posted by the same person. I'm lost, are you suggesting the false assertion that articles are not reviewed by other editors and administrators? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
IGN's articles are written by their contributing writers, edited by their editors, then posted. Starmen.net's articles are written by the site's two contributors, then posted by the site's two contributors. That's the difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Huh, I guess I missed the memo that was sent to say that only two people participate in the posting and reviewing of articles. Even though editors from Starmen.net already flat-out stated that you're wrong, you obviously know more than they do about their editorial process. So, can you stop attacking sources solely for being fansites? You have literally nothing but baseless assumptions of its editorial process that are contrary to evidence provided, which your assumptions come with a bonus "no reason to assume in the first place". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Where did they "flat out say that I'm wrong"? Browsing through the site, I find most of the content is written by the same people credited as the site's pseudonymous editors here. You've confused your assertions with evidence. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already contacted one of the moderators who confirms that all articles are reviewed by the moderators and editors of the site. Is there some kind of problem in that? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
They are also written by the moderators and editors of the site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh my God, I must have forgotten that articles written by people who work on the site are not appropriate. What is the contention you're proposing? That because moderators and editors write these articles, OTHER moderators and editors reviewing and editing the articles is not editorial oversight? Huh, I didn't realize that reality as we knew it had ceased to exist all of a sudden! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You realize that if you shout at me until you're hoarse, it doesn't suddenly make this issue go away? If you're shooting for GA or FA, you're going to run into the problem that the bulk of the page is based on a fansite with pseudonymous authors and little if any editorial oversight. Sarcasm and exclamation points don't solve this problem, they only antagonize people who are trying to help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the thing of it is is that it's not actually an issue. Fan sites being reliable is not an issue. The only truth I can say is that the nature of the web site is the ONLY thing asserted that makes Starmen.net an unreliable site. You constantly assert that there is not enough editorial oversight, not based on any fact that would suggest this (in fact, in opposition to evidence of the contrary), but because of the stigma left behind by Serebii.net. The only reason Serebii.net was removed as a reliable source was because there is no editorial oversight. You may assert this for Starmen.net, but the difference between the situations is that in this case, you don't have any evidence, and I DO have evidence that there is editorial oversight. Just explain to me why any single thing EVER establishes "little to no editorial oversight"? What, is "every single article being reviewed by moderators and editors" not sufficient evidence? Well, I guess IGN doesn't have editorial oversight. How do we know they have editorial oversight? If Starmen.net's editors saying that they have editorial oversight isn't enough, then this method, the only method of establishing editorial oversight, can't be used by any site, so all sites are unreliable. The fact of the matter is if Serebii.net never happened, this whole problem with editorial oversight would never be a problem. But it's one thing to hold it against a site for lacking editorial oversight. But when you are saying that in spite of evidence to the contrary, you sound more spiteful than anything. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) The difference between fan sites and professional publications such as IGN is one of accountability. IGN staffers are salaried employees, they're accountable to their employers and their shareholders as well. With an amateur site, writers can come and go, it's a hobby, not a job. Even if they get things wrong, there are no fatal consequences. I have no idea what Edge's editorial policy is - what I do know, is that they have an editor, real world contact information, actual names, registered offices, and that their publisher - Future Publishing is legitimate.
A lot of information referenced from Starmen right now are translations from Japanese magazines such as Famitsu. If you're in contact with the guys at Starmen, why not ask for scans and then cite those magazines directly. And then also link to the Starmen translation? - hahnchen 13:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm only in contact with A guy from Starmen.net, with whom anyone can private message. Regardless, the assumption that the editors do not take their job seriously is silly. Tomato, for example, worked on the translation mostly by himself, basically a full-time job, while he does his own full-time job as a translator. Tomato is, as it turns out, a professional member of the industry, so why shouldn't we trust him? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Link- I think you may have missed Hahnchen's intended message there. No one is saying these guys don't take their jobs seriously. I think what he was saying is that the staff of Starmen.net do not really have a boss to answer to, and though they strive for quality work, they do not have the same editorial process that other gaming websites and magazines do. That's just the difference between a business organization and a group working on their own.
Hahnchen and Jinnai's suggestion to find the original sources is another good one. If you can cite the original source material, like the magazines, then that would not be an issue at FAC.
I think A Man in Black's intended message was lost as well. The FAC reviewers have tightened quality controls up and as a result many conventions we were accustomed to about 6–8 months ago do not measure up anymore. Because this is a wiki, no one can "really" stop you from nominating the article with Starmen.net as a source. But there's no guarantee that it will pass with the sourced used.
You asked for help with the article regarding the prose, sources, etc. and editors have provided you with information that they feel will give the article the best chance of accomplishing your intended goal. Some very good points have been brought up that should be taken into account, as I believe this discussion will ultimately improve the article's quality. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

This looks like a debate I don't want any part of, but... I did a quick search and found some sources that cite or reference Starmen.net.

I'm not making a judgment one way or another, but I do know I've had a hard time convincing FAC reviewers of reliability with limited references to a questionable source. I hope this doesn't increase the divide among the editors debating this point, and instead brings a new point to take into account. At the very least, it provides three more reliable sources to use in the article.

PS- WP:DISENGAGE is always a good idea to keep in mind. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

For the interviews or other items that are translated, if they come from a news site, or primary source for uncontriverisal statements about the game (such as release dates or who worked on it, specific enemies powers, etc) that news site should be used because even if Starmen.net is considered reliable, it's not the same level of reliability and therefore WP:NONENG does not apply. You can still use Starmen to make general notes, but don't quote them.じんない 08:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware that Starmen.net should be replaced if possible, but not that it must be replaced. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going through a similar dilemma with Pong. I could probably provide a good rationale showing the reliability of a couple websites, but I'm using the ones I'm certain are reliable first and seeing if I even need the questionable ones at all. At the very least, I'm including them as external links. FAC has gotten more difficult lately, and I think it's best to play it safe with sourcing to ensure a successful nomination. In short, the reliable sources should determine the content, the needed content can't determine a source reliable. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
My premiere argument is that Starmen.net's editorial staff acts as responsible as a professional website, and Tomato is in fact worried about his reputation, just like anyone who works in the industry for a living would. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
No one is saying these guys are slouches. I think the intended message is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to question sources like them, and rightfully so; for everyone good source there's plenty more bad ones. It's up to us to scrutinize them to ensure quality content for our audience.
Do you have links that outline their editorial process so others can verify it? I'm sure those could go a long way in settling things. For instance, we use GameSpot as a reliable source because as a subsidiary CNET Networks, which is in turn a subsidiary of CBS Corporation, GameSpot falls under their editorial oversight which can be found here. Their reliability is furthered by the fact GameSpot has been referenced/sourced by other publications, and some of their content is mirrored on Yahoo! Games. Rationales like this are what will convince FAC reviewers of reliability. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
Well, Starmen.net has been cited by Electronic Gaming Monthly multiple times across several years as a reliable source of information for EarthBound-related media. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Given the nature of the site (fan owned and operated), it will probably have to jump through more hoops than something like Killer List of Videogames and Kotaku. Mainly because they are owned by a business entity, and provide information regarding some editorial oversight: [4](KLOV) [5][6](Kotaku).
The article and book links above along with the EGM citations are a good base, but they may not be enough to convince most FAC reviewers. I suggest finding as much as you can to strengthen your argument of reliability. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Notability for emulators

I am noticing edits recently where some articles are being tagged stating they do not show notability. From experience, proposed or nominated deletion of said articles usually follows soon after. It may be worth editors who have knowledge and time to add sources to prove notability to all of the articles in this and the sub categories. --tgheretford (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to some specific articles? Thanks. SharkD (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Quite a lot of emulators have been covered by the games press. I know that Retro Gamer has featured articles on these, and PC Zone used to run a regular emulator zone feature. - hahnchen 11:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
To SharkD: well, as far as notability templates go: GiriGiri, Potemkin (emulator) and Gens (emulator) were what I found during my look around the articles. Aside from Virtual Console, virtually every article doesn't contain the required citations needed to meet verifiability and notability policies and guidelines. --tgheretford (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Do ALL these emulators need an encyclopedia article? I would think that a link in the List of video game console emulators would be enough to suffice for most of the emulators, save for the most notable ones. Lots of these stub articles just have programmers and features, not nearly enough info for an article.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
How about making the list article into a table article, with more information about each individual emulator, but merging the emulator articles into the list? That would eliminate all the emulator categories and notability concerns, while having an equal amount of information for each emulator.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There may still be worthy of separate article though. Bleem!, for example had a lawsuit case brought against it in court and won. Including the case itself, there are undoubntably other news sites/magazines mentioning it.じんない 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but the point is that most of them don't. Also, the article should be moved to Table of video game console emulators if it becomes a table.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made the first part of the article into a table and added some, but not all of the info. Is there anything else I should add/subtract from the table?--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the merge to the list article, but disagree with the renaming. "List of..." is perfectly fine for tables. SharkD (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Top-importance

Hi, I propose that these individual video games be added to the "top-importance" category. They may all be added, they may not all be added, or none of them may be added.

And others:

Anyone agree or disagree with any of these, please put responses here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezkag72 (talk • contribs)

None of those should be in the same importance category as fire or Europe or cheese. Top importance is for umbrella topics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Top importance category is only for articles relevant to all of video gaming, such as the history of video games. So as Man in Black said, these single games and systems aren't as important.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe Pokémon should be included. Not only is it a media franchise that expands itself out of video games more so than any other video game series ever, it has its own company (The Pokémon Company). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Mario franchise is still larger than Pokemon. Pokemon, while it is important, is not so important as games like Dragon Quest which started console RPGs which Pokemon is based or ET which became the reason we now have beta testing or those on the First video game page.じんない 03:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Having worked on three of the articles on that list, one that does come to mind is Pong. However, any argument I have is weakened by the fact that its importance would be covered in numerous other top-important articles. Admittedly, I wouldn't argue against Pong being top, but I have to admit it's hard to argue in favor. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
DQ may be more influential, but it's the second most successful video game series, one of the most popular animes in the US, one of the most popular TCGs amongst children in recent times, etc. Top importance is bigger than one fact about a series' notability. DQ's notability can be covered effortlessly in Square Enix, but Pokémon can't adequately be covered in any umbrella article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could argue that Pokemon was extremely influential in regards to the future of handheld consoles, the Game Boy in particular, but that point is not even moot because Game Boy is not Top. MuZemike 04:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Importance is for use with Wikipedia Editorial Team for inclusion in print or DVD fashion. This means subject more noted for scholarly work or broad nature are of higher importance. Popularity does denote some level of importance, but it's not enough for a top-level article. Broadness and importance to industry or society are far more important as such older titles would almost certainly be more worthy of this inclusion first at top level and if those aren't included any newer titles should be viewed with skepticism.
Pokemon Red and Blue is certainly worthy of a high importance, but if older titles more influential to RPGs as a whole or other genres aren't top, Pokemon shouldn't be.じんない 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
While I agree a single article better covers notability and importance, I have to disagree that Pokemon can't be adequately covered over Role-playing game (video games), Nintendo, and Game Boy. Everything else—the anime, the card game, the toys—are not essential to understanding video games. Regardless, if a topic like Pong has a hard time getting ok'ed for top, I doubt Pokemon will fair much better. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
Indeed, Pong, is unlikely to get top rated either since while it was popular other games that did basically the same thing had already been developed and while it was popular, it did not set the fundimentals of any particular genre either. Pokemon does cover more than just the video games and even more than just one genere, but so does Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Halo, Warcraft. I could go on and on...じんない 04:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well I was just asking. This project really has come a long way. It wasn't too long ago that Link from The Legend of Zelda series was in top-importance. Tezkag72 14:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I always thought "Top Importance" meant games that are of top importance within our project. I didn't realize it referred to Wikipedia as a whole. I guess it makes more sense not to include them, then. SharkD (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd also have to say "no" to Super Mario 64. Games like Doom had a much greater influence on later 3D games than it did. SharkD (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Technically, I believe "top" can mean what ever we want it to be in relation to the project. The discussion about the recent overhaul of our importance scale ended up with the project deciding that top meant essential to understanding video games as a topic. It was determined that no individual video game furthered that knowledge better than definition and overview articles like the core concept, genre, history, biography, and company articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

New category

I was thinking of creating a new category, Category:Video games featuring space colonization. I wanted to run it by you guys first. SharkD (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know, does Category:Science fiction video games not already adequately cover that? Just out of curiosity, how many games are we looking at here? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
It seems a bit too specific for a category. Then we'd have to make one for "video games featuring earth colonization" and that would be everything else.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 19:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There's lots of games, such as the Galactic Civilizations series, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Outpost (video game). It's no biggie though. Someone could instead create a list, which might be better. SharkD (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anywhere that this topic is discussed, on-wiki or off? It seems like a non-topic, smacking of "Games featuring people in red overalls" to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just here. :) SharkD (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed another category, Category:Video games with time travel, that was similar, so I thought I'd suggest it, though I did think it might be excessive. SharkD (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Off topic- That's weird, there's a Category:Time travel video games and Category:Video games with time travel. Based on the difference being that one is a plot device and the other is a gameplay device, that seems like over categorization to me. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, the second has already been proposed for deletion in the (unrelated) CfD I started for the category. I'll propose that the other one be axed as well. SharkD (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, nevermind. I didn't see that one was about gameplay elements and the other wasn't. SharkD (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
There also seems to be a broader Category:Time travel in fiction category, but nothing comparable that deals specifically with space colonization. SharkD (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Serious OR issues at Comparison of racing simulators

Someone put a lot of work into this article... but unfortunately it has serious problems with WP:No original research. I would hate to have to nominate the article for deletion, so please fix it. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's really intricately detailed. I don't think all of those can be referenced though, even if all that info did exist on "reliable" sites it would probably be a complete pain to add citations. I think the best course of action is to copy it to a gaming wiki if it's unsuitable for Wikipedia due to its "game-guide-ness".--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow is right. Amidst all the cruft we sort through, you occasionally see something that looks pretty well thought out. I remember seeing something of similar detail done for the PS2's clock system. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of work that goes it something like the racing comparison, but it is unfortunately original research.
Copying to a game wiki sounds like the best option, as a lot of work into this and I'm sure others would find it useful, regardless if we can verify it or not. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
Agree. I think that it's inherently too POV for Wikipedia and out of our scope. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I would advise contacting the major editors (possibly not the IPs, except for the more recent) and inviting them here, if they are active. One of them may have a preferential wiki to move it to, as I don't know of any Wikia that would be receptive to it, so that leaves us to move it to StrategyWiki, possibly. I'm sure there's another... --Izno (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it could be moved to GamingWiki under the same title, since it's a general wiki about gaming.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The article's creator and early major contributor looks to be BMF81, but they haven't edited on Wikipedia in year and a half. Another major contributor is Stenyak, who hasn't edited since September. Some of the other user names have maybe 10-25 edits for the article. So I'm not sure if contacting the major contributors will work.
A discussion was started on the article's talk page, and the article was tagged for OR and copy to gaming wiki. If they don't know about it by now, they probably aren't active. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Machinima

I was wondering that does machinima related articles belong under the VG project or not? The main machinima article is tagged but many sub articles are not, like Red vs. Blue and The Strangerhood. --Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes because they all use video game models to create them. But I don't see them being rated above low-importance. Others may disagree though. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
I concur...machinima is an offshoot of video games, so they belong in the Video Game Wikiproject. I've added RvB to the Low-importance tier.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 17:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe they weren't in the project because Wikiproject Machinima is an offshoot of video games as well? Perhaps I should remove the templates since they sort of overlap each other.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That shouldn't matter much since WP:MACH doesn't seem to be very active looking at their talk page. --Mika1h (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we ought to combine Wikiproject machinima with Wikiproject Videogames, and replace all their machinima boilerplates with ours. It doesn't seem like a very big project at any rate, and it's intrinsically linked with this one.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 20:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I added it to our Project clean up page, and started a discussion on the Project's talk page. Let's see if any of the members are still around. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
Well, I founded the project a long time ago, and just came back from a year-long wikibreak. It turns out that we had a lot of difficulty maintaining sustained interest in the project as a whole, even though there are/were a number people interested in specific productions. The little twist is that, technically speaking, machinima requires merely a real-time 3-D engine, not necessarily that of a video game. However, the vast majority of notable productions have been made through video games, and in any event the technology of all contemporary real-time 3-D engine will be closely related. So although the concept is technically not a proper subset of video gaming, and although there may a machinima-related article eventually that technically doesn't mention an actual video game in any way, shape, or form, it's splitting hairs to some extent.
By the way, as a suggestion, given that popular machinima series create their own fictional universes, feel free to help us with keeping the in-universe stuff in check if you happen to see problems, even if the production technicalities go over your head. Fiction is fiction. Popular fiction tends to have in-universe bloating problems now and then. :) — TKD::Talk 09:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pac-Man Series pages

Not a regular wikiproject contributer, but I thought I'd stop by and mention that many of the Pac-Man game pages seem to be a straight up copy of the pages at [7]. Of course, such copy and paste work doesn't fly on wikipedia, so these pages obviously need attention.oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually, the opposite is true. Superpacman.com is using the Wikipedia articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. It's obvious from the article histories that the articles have grown and evolved over time instead of simply being copied and pasted from an outside source. SharkD (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not the first time I've seen other sites copy and paste a version of a Wikipedia article to result in people claiming that we're violating their copyrights. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That's right. The official Devil May Cry website copied the plot descriptions from Wikipedia too. That was a big day for those editors. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
You know, if only they'd released the game as open source everything would have been OK. But no... SharkD (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think all they would have to do in most cases like that is note that it comes from Wikipedia. Kinda sad that something so trivial could stop a whole bunch of those copyright disputes.じんない 05:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually quite glad to find I got it backwards. I agree with Jinnail. I too wish sites that "borrowed" from Wikipedia would be more vigilant in crediting it (us, really). oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tachyon: The Fringe

Not a member, but is currently rewritting Tachyon: The Fringe, is rewritting outside of Wikipedia so nothing can be seen in the articel, have mostly so far moved allready written parts to under diffrent more fitting headlines and writting down the story better, it is becoming pretty big, wonder if someone could check the current articel and see if something should be removed or so, isnt familiar with your guide lines regarding a articel. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 03:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the article needs a major wikification. Secondly, there's a huge amount of in universe information that needs to be trimmed down immensely, so per WP:NOT I would suggest to stop rewriting the article here and move all the info to an external guide like Gaming Wiki, start your own Wikia wiki, or maybe write an FAQ on the game or something. Wikipedia is not a game guide, it focuses on real world events first and foremost. And, not to be mean or anything, but it's spelled article.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell

I completely missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Campbell (journalist), as it wasn't listed under the video game deletions. It's a bit of a surprise to me, as I had always thought that he was one of the more famous video game journalists. To me, the discussion seems more of a "no concensus", and one of the main deletion reasons was "because Campbell wants it deleted", which is surely irrelevant. Just wondered what the thoughts of this project were. Marasmusine (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a marginally notable figure was deleted per his request, which I am generally fine with. The article was, it should be noted, fairly poor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Does bring up an interesting question though: can we be forbidden from covering a subject?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, the exact opposite would be frowned upon, so why can an article be deleted upon the subject matter's request? SharkD (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well consider subjects that get bad press, but other subjects readily mention or discuss it. The holder of the copyrights or the individual or whatever steps forward and says "This is mine/me, remove it." Yes as it stands it was just a journalist in this case, but you can readily see where it can be a much larger subject instead in this sort of situation, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It was specifically because he was minor that it was allowed.じんない 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we do not delete articles on request, but in the case of people who pass WP:N but are still not hugely important, we take their requests seriously and ask "do we really need an article on this?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your comments. Marasmusine (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A few problematic articles

I went through a good part of the new video game articles in the first half of December, and I found the following articles that may not establish any notability (as noted by the tags on the articles), but I want to get some other informal opinions on these before I consider going the deletion route on them (also, knowing me, I may have missed something):

MuZemike 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Persona 4...there is some developer commentary from the collector edition artbook about them at least. I can add it in a bit. Too busy to look up which pages and what ATM.
EDIT: Also, there is undoubtably merchadise for all for the protagonists.じんない 01:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
here is a pre-order plushie of one of them, here is some commentary on the game and specifically in 2 paragraph about the character's presentation, though it may not meett WP:RS. [This one does, but the commentary on characters isn't as much, but still there. This site goes into more detail, even referencing characters breifly from Persona 3 to compare and contrast giving a level of analysis. Other ones from this list probably also have info.じんない 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Pedro has potential. On the WoS link there's a few reviews in publications that could be used to build a decent article with gameplay, reception details. --Bill (talk|contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see it there, now. I'll remove the {{notability}} tag there. MuZemike 01:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
MobyGames lists one review for Chicago Syndicate. SharkD (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It's also mentioned in an old GameSpot article. SharkD (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Another mention here. SharkD (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
As for Takahiro Izutani, there seem to be quite a few hits when searching for Japanese articles. SharkD (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Filament Games:
An academic work that mentions them: [8] SharkD (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the developers speaking at a games conference: [9] SharkD (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Some topics having to do with mixing education and electronic entertainment: [10][11][12][13] SharkD (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The Forgotten Realms Deluxe Edition can probably be redirected to/mentioned in each game's own article, though I'm sure MobyGames at least has its own entry for it. SharkD (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
STCC - The Game
Over a dozen articles are linked to from here (see the "Aggregate news" section). I haven't taken a look at each of them individually, though. SharkD (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Goddamn SharkD, use the preview button. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've merged STCC - The Game with Race 07 (which I have taken the liberty of moving because there's no title confusion), so that clears that up. Expansion packs don't get their own article unless they're pretty large.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've merged Deluxe Edition too. Nobody cares about a compilation.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Extreme Pinball has a description of the gameplay on IGN,[14] and a review on CVG.[15] Not much yet, but it's an indicator that there's some coverage. --Bill (talk|contribs) 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
My guess would be that other coverage would be from print (magazine) sources, like an old GamePro or similar. MuZemike 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your help; it's very appreciated. MuZemike 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New stats page

I created an article (forgive me if such an article already exists and I missed it) to easily track and compare changes over time:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics

What other patterns can you see in these statistics? SharkD (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say something to the effect that the number of VG articles is now dropping, but I see that this has occurred previously. SharkD (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
My god... you mean that we've been cleaning up crap? It's a revelation! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
One thing I noticed is that the number of deletions tend to peak around the same time as the number of unassessed articles. SharkD (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Please also read this. SharkD (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be stating the obvious, but because I'm a bit of a numbers nerd here's what I got from the numbers.

  • Our assessing process has changed over time. I personally think we've tightened our standards, but that may be subject to debate.
    • Last winter in 2007, the number of B-class articles dropped significantly, while the number of Start-class increased suggesting a mass reassessment of articles.
    • Last Summer in 2008, the number B-class articles dropped again. This was when the C and List-classes were implemented.
    • The number of total articles has greatly increased, and, as expected, the number of stubs has increased more than any other quality class.
    • The number of articles unassessed by quality and importance have dropped dramatically.
    • This all tells me that the project's assessment efforts have created a better representation of our article quality. I say this on the assumption that most articles are not in the shape they should be for whatever reason: sourcing, prose, balance, etc. I see this as a positive this because accurately knowing where articles are on the quality scale is one of the first steps to improving things.
  • Our output of quality articles has been steadily increasing over the past two years.
    • The number of FAs increases by an average of 3.45/month. (The number represent the net of promotions minus removals)
    • The number of GAs increased by an average of 7.77/month. (Ditto)
    • FLs and A-class, especially A-class, have been more erratic, but have increased overall.
  • Our deletion habits have increased.
    • The number of AfDs increased dramatically starting December 2007
    • The pattern of AfDs kept generally matched the total number of AfDs. However, the gap between the total and keeps is gradually increasing. In short, we're starting to keep fewer articles that are going to AfD.

Basically, David summed it up much shorter than I just did; we've been cleaning things up. While some of this may seem trivial, I believe the assessment and deletion trends lay the ground work for more quality articles in the future. It also tells me that our efforts aren't going to waste, and it looks like we're making some real progress (which is always a pleasant thought). My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

The stubs were created by Wikipedians. They evolved. They rebelled. And they have a plan...--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 05:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll copy your timeline into the article so that readers aren't confused as to why there are sudden spikes in the numbers. SharkD (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's what me and my copy of Calc noticed: the relative number of FA articles has been increasing steadily, from 0.0023% in March '07, up to up to 0.0052% in Jan '09, compared to Wikipedia's total rate of 0.0009 (as seen on WP:FA). The same applies to GA articles, which went from 0.0060% to 0.0123$, compared to 0.0022. This all translates to us being about five times better than the Wikipedia average, which I think is a pretty good result. Of course, it could mean our standards are lax (or are getting lower), but I doubt it. --VPeric (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that's probably explanable by the fact its relatively easy to find solid sources for this subject as opposed to other areas. We can just go online to places such as IGN or GameSpot, occassionally picking up a print magazine or scholary source when one turns up. Other articles require more research: something like cat, Kingdom of Great Britain, and even other fictional elements such as Klingons are topics grounded in scholary research, which needs to be properly looked up rather than just using Google to find "[game title] review". -- Sabre (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Reliable information on old games can be pretty hard to find since the relevant publications haven't made their way online yet. SharkD (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like the point out that dip in total articles in July '08 was caused by me going through and removing {{vgproj}} from over a thousand talk pages whose articles had been redirected (see [16] and [17]). Ever since I've been cleaning up the list on a monthly basis. Nifboy (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added a fourth set of stats (page views) as well as your comments in a new section. The next thing I will be doing is overhauling the other page views list and requesting that a bot be created to update the list as well as the image. SharkD (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created a test version, here. I've made it so that the text in the first row is rotated 90 degrees. However,this only works in Internet Explorer. I was wondering if the formatting were satisfactory for you Mozilla users despite the text not being rotated. I know of an alternate solution using SVG images that I can always fall back upon if it's too ugly. SharkD (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick suggestion- Maybe split the one table into two. Like have all the project pages in one and the task forces in another. I think that will make it easier to view for everybody, and easier to compare the subpages since the project and task force pages serve different purposes. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
Yup, that's a good idea. I'll do that. SharkD (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I created some charts using the data. I added the charts to the main project page as well as to each article. There's an 8 month backlog on some of the data. Hopefully it will get filled in by the bot that I requested be made. SharkD (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Free image icons in navboxes

Just a thought I was having after asking David for an icon for a future FT. We have all these lovely icons sitting over at FT, but they really don't get much viewing over there: its hardly the first stop for a regular Wikipedia viewer. Is there anything really stopping us from adding free icons to navboxes if such icons are available, such as {{Law}}? Similar things are in place on some of the other language Wkipedias. I've applied this to {{StarCraft series}} and {{Sam & Max}}, and it looks fine to me, just a little something that helps colour the end of an article in some circumstances. The size of the file at such a small size is negligable in loading. -- Sabre (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I should note that some templates replace the header with logotype such as {{House}}. The chances of game's type being general enough that it would qualify for free use are slim, though. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a reason we can include images. :). All of the United States related templates (like, all of them) have an image included, such as {{Oregon}} and {{US Presidents}}, so I'd say, go for it! --Izno (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Please link to FT so that we can all know what you are talking about. SharkD (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:FT. Some have appropriate icons, others do not. This isn't limited to the navboxes for articles that are in FT's, I mean generally, if a descriptive, appropriate and free icon is available. -- Sabre (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Any of the icons that are good should be added to this category. SharkD (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I am whoring myself out to Sabre to provide his pet images, but if anyone else needs one (that can be made so it's not a blatant derivative of the original, natch) I'd be happy to make it. I've got a few of the images I made in its own category at commons, here, so if anyone wants to add more cats to them by all means do so (they were pretty much all uncategorized until a day or two ago.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
"Whoring" is a bit of a strong word, but don't worry, I won't take up any more of your time. I'm sorted for the two FT's I'll be pursuing over the next year or so. I can't ask any more of you now, to do so at this point would be rude of me in my view. -- Sabre (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping someone might redo this image. I like the general idea behind the image, but the dice are of the wrong type (d8 or d20 might be better), and the swords are ugly. SharkD (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To-do-list reviews

Should we list FLC/FLRCs separately from FAR/FARC? Especially the reviews gives the impression that they are articles reviews, not list reviews.じんない 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"(FLC)" is usually placed next to FLCs. Gary King (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration report

I just wish to announce the completion of the first successful collaboration of the week since we have revived the process. Video game genres was the focus, and has arguably been improved significantly by the 35 revisions made during the week. Participation was mixed, with some users such as editing more than others. Special mention goes to Zxcvbnm, who made 20 of the 35 revisions to the article. It was a tough article to overhaul, but I am personally pleased at the effect the collaboration has had on the quality of that article and am looking forward to seeing the effect it has on article quality in future. A reduced focus on bureaucracy appears to have successfully increased motivation for the collaboration, as well as minimising backlog work in the process. Some further changes still need to be made for the collaboration process; specifically to the {{WikiProject Video games}} template.

This week the selected article is History of video game consoles (fourth generation). This is an article that is in serious need of improvement, requiring additional citations, expansion and general cleanup. We hope to see you all there, and hope to successfully improve another article. --.:Alex:. 16:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats to all who participated. I probably won't be as aside from RL and other articles i am trying to get passed for GA/FL, i am doing backlogs here for our unassesed importance articles.じんない 20:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it improved a lot in terms of organization, though not much new content was added. Since I'm a WikiGnome I tend to make a million minor edits.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

MGS4 resolution dispute

User:Falcon9x5 is pushing the information that MGS4 "native" resolution is 1024x768 (4:3) based on fanmade PS3 website review PSXExtreme

According to him the 720p at the back of box "is not realiable source" as their PSX3Extreme link that not clarify why and how that resolution was measured.

He engaged in revertwar on MGS4 article and claims a "consensus" was achieved, with at last 4 opinions oppposing him.

  • Is PSXExtreme a reliable source?
  • Is MGS4 box a unreliable source?
  • The Falcon9x5 consensus exists?

What to do? I ask for community help to clarify this. Thanks. --PS3 Addict (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally the box should be good enough, however sometimes companies fudge information for profit motives, especially with reguard to 1080. Companies would list items claiming they were 1080p, when they were really only 1080i/720p. Sometimes they'd just like 1080 and sometimes they'd list 1080p native, even though it was enhanced upscaling. So if there is a dispute like that, i would say that a neutral-third party source is best if their is a dispute about the back of the box. As for the link, judging by what i saw here, on the website and on the MGS4 page i'd say it's not a reliable source.じんない 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok is not reliable source but I need some support to resolve this. I don't want to enter on crazy revert war with him. He is full of himself about the realiability and consensus suposely achieved. --PS3 Addict (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
First off, as i said, do not use the box as the source, except to cite that the box says it is. That is a perfectly reasonable claim. The issue is disputed beyond the boundaries of Wikipedia as well, so questioning of the statement on the box is a reasonable objection in this case. In this case their are claims of "upscaling" by a number members on other fourms and boards (not really WP:V material, but it's okay to look her to make certain Falcon9x5 is not simply trying to disrupt Wikipedia.じんない 10:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this may be the source of the controversy as it does not describe what "compressed" means. I still have not found any reliable source dealing with the issue.じんない 10:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What is better to do? erase information or retain sustained by unreliable source? --PS3 Addict (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
If a piece of information is disputed, WP:V should be used: a citation from an independent, reliable source. The game box is not independent , fansites/forums/blogs are not reliable. I propose leaving that section blank until a reference can be found. Marasmusine (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sums it up and seems the best course of action. With an inline note explaining that it should be left blank until a reliable source is found. - X201 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I wasn't informed about this discussion and only just found it now.
The arguments over the resolution of Metal Gear 4 stretch back a long way - originally it was whether the game was 720p or 1080p (PAL box says 720, NTSC says 1080), now it's whether the resolution is 720p or 1024x768 (Metal Gear Online runs at 1024x768, the Beyond3D forums - which are of questionable reliability, so I haven't used them as a source - also state so). Reliable sources are incredibly hard to come by on this issue - the PSXExtreme source was the best I could do (I don't really see why it should be considered unreliable, it seems respectable enough). I've reiterated multiple times that the back of the box (or any Sony website or a picture of the game running at 1080p) cannot be considered reliable, as Jin says above (as the upscaled resolution is put on the box, not the original, native, resolution), but this seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I'm also not sure why the gamesarefun link is relevant - it references the size of the game, but not the resolution. I claimed consensus as User:Ffgamera agreed that PSXExtreme was a reliable source - at the time, he was one of two other parties involved. Finally, I reject the idea that I'm disrupting wikipedia - this issue had been dormant at 1024x768 (save for an interjection or two by the third party I mentioned) for the past three weeks. Much thanks! Fin©™ 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't have to "do as best as we can"; if there's not a reliable source for a fact, the fact shouldn't be in the article. Unless there's some sort of reliable source from the likes of 1UP.com, GameSpot, IGN or the like, it's no dice (a developer comment would also help; for example, just because these guys speculated on Halo 3's resolution[18] wouldn't mean beans, except that Bungie actually clarified that it does in fact run at 640p[19] -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough so! Thanks! Fin©™ 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noted another PSXExtreme source is pushing Killzone 2 resolution. Falcon, how many PSXExtreme sources you used on articles? --PS3 Addict (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have used one source on one article (MGS4). I did not add either use of PSXExtreme on Killzone 2 - as an aside, the second diff there shows it was added by User: Cliché Online, who later claimed it was not reliable on the Metal Gear talk page. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Best chart type

I need some help determining which chart type is best in this article. I like the second one better, but am worried people will confuse it for a regular line graph. SharkD (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I missed something here...

Chrono Trigger is put up for FAR. User:Jappalang points out that Chrono Compendium, a source the article relies upon, isn't all that great a source. Discussion drawn out there. Gets brought here. Inclination seems to be in agreement that it's not the best source to use.

Totally regardless of the mega discussion, two people show up and vote Keep. No counterargument to the discussion at hand there, just a big stand alone keep vote, followed by a smaller one. Article stays at FA as a result.

Now I'm no rocket scientist but how do two left field keep votes totally negate the rest of the discussion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should bring that up with the FAR/C director; I myself did not notice the FAR at all save the source discussion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought he cleaned up the article and sorted out the sources. Also, there's something to be said for the reputability of sources when there are barely any others available.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 05:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The reputability of CC hadn't been totally quashed as a lexicon of information that could be directly attributed to the game itself. At worst it would be a qualified reliable source. Beyond that it depends upon how peer overview is interpreted, in this case it may have been taken too liberally.
I have brought this to the attention of the director at FARC.じんない 05:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think there are still issues with the article. Is there an ongoing discussion about CC? Pagrashtak 20:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't recieved any comment since inquiring, although I do dispute that CC is a completely unreliable source.じんない 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we have a category for Physics-based puzzle games?

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but I didn't see a category for this already, so I wanted to float the idea here. Since Category:Puzzle video games is such a broad category and the sub-genre of puzzle games relying heavily on physics simulators is growing rapidly, I think we might want to create a new subcategory for "Physics-based puzzle video games". This would group together games like:

etc.

Although I'm failing to come up with all that many examples right now, there has definitely been a big trend toward using physics as the primary means for presenting puzzle challenges, as opposed to more "classic" non-physics games like Tetris and its ilk. Whatcha think?

I think the category threatens to be indiscriminate, moreso than most categories. You can't say that Tetris doesn't have physics (gravity), or that Puzzle Bobble / Bust-a-Move doesn't have physics (deflection). Where does Lemmings fit in? You're right that there are more than 400 puzzle games and the category is getting a little bloated, but we should get a little more research from reliable sources and improve the puzzle video game article before figuring out how to re-organize these. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You can, I think, usefully define physics based games (the upcoming Gravity for the DS, and the existing Boom Blox also probably qualify). The term gets multiple Google hits, at the very least. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion (mind you, not an officially researched one), "physics-based puzzle game" means as its name implies: A game that is based on physics. By extension, it's a game that uses a physics engine as its primary form of presentation and/or gameplay. There's a distinction here: Games in the "falling block" category probably wouldn't qualify because, even if the blocks speed up as they approach the "floor" (Columns comes to mind), the effect of gravity is quite secondary to the concept of arranging blocks, and the blocks are usually directly controlled in one way or another.
Lemmings strikes me as kind of a middle ground: Physics plays a very minor role in that game, and really only comes into play because the lemmings can only fall so far before they die (and they can fall into traps, etc.). But objects placed in the level are not affected in any way by physics. I wouldn't readily classify that game in particular as a "physics-based" game.
Games like Crayon Physics, World of Goo, etc., are very clearly based on physics engines, and the simulation is essentially the core of the game in each case. In the former, puzzles are solved through drawing objects that behave in physically accurate ways, including transfer of momentum and kinetic energy, etc. In World of Goo, emphasis is placed on engineering concepts (including statics and dynamics). Switchball has a strong physical element that's reminiscent of Marble Madness (which itself might qualify, but as Randomran said, there is some grey area there).
I'd say that we should at least mention the growing trend in physics-based games and highlight some of the earlier games that clearly used this concept. My opinion is that a game is only "physics-based" if the application of physics accounts for the primary gameplay, as opposed to being an extra option (like having gravity in Space Wars) or a minor effect. (Note also that I'd consider Super Mario Galaxy to qualify as both a platform game and a physics-based puzzle game because of its unusual application of selective gravity.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I know categorization is not as much subject to WP:OR as article content, but I would be careful here, and make sure that if the category is created, its bounds are clearly defined - that using laws of physics is a primary means of solving puzzles. We don't want every game that uses the Havok engine to be in this. It may be useful to create a small hierarchy of categories here - I wouldn't call Half-Life 2 a physics-based puzzle machine, but it does have strong emphasis on physics in the game. --MASEM 19:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Having had experience with these kinds of categories and lists, it doesn't take very long before the list starts including virtually any game. First it starts with a few games that can be supported by actual research. But then people start going on gut reactions and the list degrades into opinion. Eventually it goes from "games that are based on X" to "games that include X". Next thing you know, you *will* have any game with a physics engine. I don't think it's a good way of categorizing puzzle games, especially since people are already talking about games that aren't even puzzle games -- just action games that have a lot of environmental puzzles (which is an action-adventure game by definition). Randomran (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't think "physics-based" has the same unifying theme that, say, Category:Falling block puzzle games does, because even the five games listed above are all very different games. Nifboy (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) (nod) And to be fair, I think it's pretty much just a natural step forward in gaming in general to have more accurate physics playing roles in games as technology and programming techniques evolve. Probably so much so that in general, it would be useful to note for historical purposes but not so much for categorization. Anything that tries to simulate the natural world in any way is going to have some element of physics to it. I'm just saying that I think there is a class of games for which application of physics really stands out because it IS the game, not just an environmental part of it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I think that there are a lot of games that are deeply rooted in the whole concept of physics. Just make sure it doesn't go overboard with people saying Tetris qualifies because it uses gravity. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems the consensus is leaning against doing this, and I can see the point. Application of physics is too broad to categorize games - perhaps just better to note physics as primary gameplay within each article, and to mention it in a general sense in the puzzle-game article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Kiefer. Any mention of "physics-based puzzle elements" or any similar term in an article would need proper sourcing. A category such as Physics-based puzzle games leaves too much to interpretation and could result in editors edit warring to add and remove the category from articles.
Perhaps the gaming industry, press, and/or community will further expand and label such a genre down the road. We didn't always have platformers, shoot'em ups, or 4X games, they popped up and people came up with a fitting name later. But until then, it's better to err on the side of caution. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
Yeah I think that's fair. If someone else finds a distinct grouping of puzzle games, though, it could help us with organization. I know someone recently created a stub article on hidden object games. Randomran (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I can envisage exactly what you mean by this term - Bridge Builder immediately sprang to mind. However, as always, we should use WP:Verifiability for both the term and game classification, in order to avoid WP:NEO and WP:OR. Marasmusine (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the existence of the category. However, the above caveats are important to consider. SharkD (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Art Style titles - with or without the "Art Style" in their name?

I'm not sure what should be done. I split off two articles from Art Style - Orbient and PiCOPiCT - and I'm wondering if they should retain the Art Style in their names - they are often called "Art Style: ORBIENT" and "Art Style: PiCOPiCT", but in the games, they're called simply "ORBIENT" and "PiCOPiCT". Comments? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I think they should stay as they are. Simpler is better, and the game doesn't refer to ITSELF as "art style: PiCOPiCT", just PiCOPiCT.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 01:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Several of the references use the "Art Style". How is it in regards to the official Nintendo sources? SharkD (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean Picopict instead of PiCOPiCT, yes? (Interestingly enough, those go to different targets...) Pagrashtak 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
...Yeah, you should probably move the page to Picopict due to Wikipedia guidelines. I'll put a G6 speedy deletion on it so you can move it.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 21:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Guinness 2008 Gamer Edition

Does anyone have a copy of this book? I'm not sure where my copy is right now; I'm thinking it's boxed up somewhere. I'm looking to add a citation for some content in Super Mario Bros. 3 that I've tagged with {{fact}}. I pulled the info from this webpage, but would like to cite the book in the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Guinness + archive search = :-) - X201 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have the UK edition, that information is on page 110. Tell me exactly what you need for the cite. Someoneanother 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first reception paragraph talks about it being the best-selling, unbundled game with sales more than 17.2 million copies. I just need the content currently in the article verified and sourced from the book. I really appreciate it. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
That's the exact wording "over 17.2 million copies", and it was never bundled with a console. I tried citing it myself but I've given up, here are the details: {{Cite book | authorlink= | coauthors= Oli Welsh| title=Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2008 (Guinness World Records) | date= | publisher=Guinness World Records Limited | location= | isbn=978-1-904994-20-6 | pages=110}} . Oli Welsh is the expert for that section of the book. Hope that's what you need. The 2009 edition is due out very soon if anyone's interested in that. Someoneanother 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I picked up the 2009 edition here in the US. It's alright, but looks more like a supplemental update to the 2008 edition. It offers some good stuff, but not like the previous version did. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
You think you two could list the world records found within? :D - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty long list to post (also copyvio too I believe). How about you ask about a specific game and one of us can check the book to see what we find.
On a similar note, I made a subpage a while back ago of some of printed resources I have that could be of some help in sourcing. I'll be happy to respond to requests. Just keep in mind, I'm not always that timely in responding as I have a backlog of real life and wiki things to do. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC))
Any character mentions for the 2009 supplement?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Character mentions are pretty sparse, even Mario only gets a few passing mentions. I checked for Necrid and Reptile, but didn't find anything. Any other characters? (Guyinblack25 talk 01:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Accusation of WP:POINT in article edit

Kirihari has reverted my edits in List of space flight simulation games to re-sort the list as an chronological one and accused me as violating WP:POINT in the process. I think this accusation is unfair, as I was merely being WP:BOLD. I don't think I was "disrupting" Wikipedia in any way. Further, he has shown considerable leanings in terms of WP:OWN with comments such as, "This list was put together with painstaking effort by all of us over the past couple of months. I understand what you are saying however I think what you should do is build a new list my friend." Lastly, he's obviously a new user and therefore probably in need of some direction, as he has totally refactored the talk page such that the comments/discussions are no longer in chronological order, but are instead in some arbitrary order that he sees fit. I think he's a one-time author who's come to Wikipedia from some discussion forum or another just to create this article. SharkD (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed he posted a comment on the Talk page (also in an unlikely, unordered place). I find, ""Making heavy life changing modification to a page that someone has contributed so little to deserves little attention" rather insulting. SharkD (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL! What a genius. You DO know that you can organize them by BOTH using the little >< button on top of the list? An edit war over a nonexistent issue?--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Try and remain constructive, OK? As for sorting the lists, sorting only works with one table at a time. The titles are spread across multiple tables. SharkD (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
So you're going to make all the lists chronological, right? You might want to check out Wikipedia:List#Organization for details. In this case, I think that a chronological order is better since it includes a list of dates. Since the author is obviously WP:OWNing the page, I'm sure the arbitrator he contacted will correctly inform him.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, see the history of the revision I linked to. SharkD (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Another thing: he stated he contacted a Wikipedia arbiter, but I find no evidence on his contribs page that he has in fact done so. Are these pages hidden by default or something? SharkD (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge; that's why our contributions are public. Either he/she was lying to lead you off, or he/she used an arbiter's email to contact them, though why they'd do that is anyone's guess, unless they didn't want the content of the message to be public.--十八 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm has the best idea. While the problem of ownning needs to be taken care of, there is no reason you both can't have what you want here.じんない 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just a minor misunderstanding. Hopefully you can refocus the discussion on the merits of the edits, rather than each other. But it never hurts to get a third opinion. Randomran (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you're correct here. It's the chronologicalization of the list that he reverted. SharkD (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It's possible to make the list sortable by different methods.じんない 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
As I already said, the titles were split into a four tables, with one of them being non-genre-related, so it was not possible to sort them along with the others. Also, the list originally featured a mix of alphabetical sorting and sorting by series, which was not reproducable simply by clicking on the sorting tabs. SharkD (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see the necessity of making this list a "chronology of". The years the games were made are not that important to the genre. This list should simply stay a list of the game that can be sorted by year if the reader wants. --TorsodogTalk 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the chronological ordering is especially important in the case of genre articles, because it shows which games influenced the others, and adds some encyclopedic information regarding the history of the games. I always make a point to link to the chronologies from the article's History sections. SharkD (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the chronology part is especially important genre, especially when I read the lead. It was never explained once how some games have influenced other games. For a list with SO MANY games on it, I really think there is no reason to make the list so year-centric. For example, there were 15 of these games made in 1998. That hardly makes for an interesting time line. You should be satisfied with having the ability to sort by year, IMO. --TorsodogTalk 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, OK, so can I actually have some help with the WP:OWN stuff? He's still spewing stuff like "I have been working on this article for years and my feelings are hurt", etc. SharkD (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I.e., he's still basing his presumptions upon the fact that he's the primary, and therefore "important", author, and that other peoples's edits aren't important. SharkD (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, in the discussion A Man in Black says, "You don't have right of first refusal on any edits made to this page", yet Randomran responds with, "That's entirely okay, because Wikipedia encourages people to be WP:BOLD. That said, you're entirely within your right to revert it. The cycle is bold, revert, discuss." It would be helpful if this seeming contradiction were clarified. SharkD (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Things have not all turned out so well... The admin has taken a liking to him.[20][21]. SharkD (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Three articles waiting for A-class assessment votes on the video game project's assessment page

Just a shoutout for passing editors, but bringing these up as the month draws to the close, since these require two editors to vote in favor of them to be promoted to A-class. All three are currently GA-class.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any experience getting non-free images made free on Flickr?

I'm after a new image for Steve Purcell, mainly because his current one is rather naff and as it was made in 1992 it is rather out of date. Unfortunately, I can't find any recent images that are freely licensed on Flickr. I did, however, think that with some cropping, this would make a perfect profile picture, and look better in use in Sam & Max in place of the other image as well, but its marked as "all rights reserved". I've no experience getting such images off of Flickr; I can't find an email address to contact the copyright holder at all. Can someone who does have such experience perhaps give me a helping hand here? -- Sabre (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally I've been able to get responses from people by registering a Flickr account (if you've got a yahoo account you can tie that one to Flickr instead) and sending them Flickrmail, asking for a response via email. If they respond in the affirmative, you just get them to reply with the blanket "I am copyright holder/I relicense the image as/I understand what this means" legalese and forward that to OTRS, or else they can just change the license on Flickr and you can upload with Flinfo. That's how I got the licenses to File:Hiro narita.jpg, File:Jolene blalock-comiccon 2008.jpg and File:Ledonne.jpg. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've done that, I just hope I get a response; there aren't really any other decent images on Flickr. -- Sabre (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It's really up to chance; I think people responding to my mails is slightly less than 50%; on the other hand, those who reply are almost always amenable to putting them out, so go figure. You can always troll the internets for the user's email too :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Character merges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User:Akari Kanzaki has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:Fragments of Jade (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239). Now go drama-monger edit somewhere else. MuZemike 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Akari Kanzaki (talk · contribs · count) has been undoing character merges for Xenosaga characters, which results in multiple articles with in-universe and notability problems. I'm getting tired of this—every time progress is made with merging non-notable articles, all it takes is one dissenter to undo everything and force us to start from scratch. I don't feel comfortable protecting such articles, as it gives off the appearance that I'm abusing admin powers. If someone else would like to re-merge/start a discussion/start a new VG page where we can agree to these and lock the redirects/whatever, please do so. I'm not edit warring over this. Pagrashtak 18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)la

Have you alerted the user of the notability guidelines? Just so that they do not think that it's "just your opinion". Perhaps we could ask him to talk to us here about it? --.:Alex:. 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you post a message on his talk page? If he still doesn't stop after alerting him to the guidelines, then you could maybe request a temporary block or something.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(Off topic, but it's amusing how you both call that user a 'him' even with a female name.) Back on topic, I don't think it forces anything -- if there's a clear and obvious merge reason, then simply bring up notability guidelines, consensus, and if necessary, DO use the admin tools you have for a reason. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you alerted the user of the long running disputes over the notability guidelines? --Pixelface (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Dispute resolution. Before going to editor assistance, invite the user to explain her (that is a her, right?) actions here. MuZemike 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the initial unmerge citing notability and in one case, an actual AFD. When all that got re-reverted, I didn't do anything, I haven't even talked to Akari about it beyond my edit summaries. I'm aware of what I'm supposed to do—start a discussion, inform the editor of notability, etc. The point is I'm too tired of all this. The longer I edit here, the more merged pages I have on my watchlist and the more I see this kind of thing happen. I can talk with Akari—maybe I can convince her, maybe I can't and we have to go through dispute resolution. I suspect we'd end up with the merged version in the end, but how long is that going to stick before I have to go through the same thing with someone else? I'm weary of pushing this boulder. Pagrashtak 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
At least post once. It may be she is truly unaware. After that if she argues, well then i think at that time it may be more appropriate to ask for help.じんない 23:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I left a message using Friendly, so let's see what happens. BTW, nobody is FORCING you to be the article police, you are free to go AFK, there are millions of people to take your place.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fine and dandy to say Zxcvbnm, but more often than not there isn't that many people to step in there. There are readily more people willing to undo a merge because "OMG MY FAVORITE CHARACTER IS GONE" than to readily remerge it becuase it lacks encyclopedic content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The regulars of this project have, for the most part, a pretty good grip on Wikipedia basics like notability, verifiability, and out-of-universe perspective. Quite a few of us know how to write featured articles. However, we are far outnumbered by Wikipedia readers who do not understand these concepts as we have come to define them. Many of them assume "major character" implies "article-worthy" and balk at our supposed destruction of hours of volunteer work. Trying to deal with this on a case-by-case basis is proving untenable. Pagrashtak 03:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The "regulars" are pretty good at impressing new editors with their recitation of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. If you're outnumbered by readers who think a major character is notable, you may want to consider that you're the one who's wrong. I'm sure many do balk at the destruction of hours of volunteer work. So until mere commoners can view deleted pages, you may want to stop pushing that boulder, and stop and think what you're actually accomplishing, and for whom. --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Then maybe it shouldn't be remerged. --Pixelface (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is nice. People talking about me behind my back like I'm some kind of troublemaker. I've read the merged article, and it's not right. Xenosaga, sadly, is a series that never got enough attention. What I mean by that, is, there were three games never released in the US, along with several guides explaining things in the game that were never released in the US. Those character pages are for characters featured in six games, a manga, an anime, and several drama CDs-some even make appearances in other games. They are the characters the story centers around. Fans put years of work into those articles, and even more work into translating those games, CDs, and guides, to ensure they had the most information possible. The articles thus contain a lot of information, most of which is not easily available to us fans living in the US. Merging the articles results in this information being lost, and the hard work people put into those articles is chopped down into uninformative little paragraphs. It was bad enough someone deleted the article for the minor characters, but now the main characters are getting the same treatment. There is no reason to delete six or so articles on characters with this much information. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an admirable goal. It is not compatible with an encyclopedia whose aim is to be based on independent sources with a reputation for reliability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That said, if you could even get the articles written from a out-of-universe perspective, and offer some information about development, reception, or commentary on the characters, it would go a long way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes - we're not here to make less articles, we're here to make less "bad" articles (that is, less articles that don't cite sources or assert notability). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well A Man In Black, you can always head over to Britannica 2.0, and see if your views on what's "encyclopedic" are compatible with a real encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. First of all, there will never be an article that doesn't have uncited things. Even a game summary can't really be cited properly, due to the fact that there are no official sites that list that information. I'm not familiar with citing and how to do it, but I can provide links to the pages with the information. There is still no reason to merge the articles. Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia, right? Yet it frequently allows incorrect information to be added and removes valuable and rare information, just for the sake of having less articles. I've read the articles in question, and they are not bad. They contain information that is not easily available to US fans of the series. There is no need for them to be merged. Six games, manga, drama CDs, an anime...that's more than enough to support notability. Heck, even Sailor Moon has her own Wikipedia page, and what makes her anymore notable than these characters? Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say "Just because other stuff exists doesn't allow similar content to be on Wikipedia", but you picked a terrible example, since there's a lengthy development section, and it's full of out of universe information, while there are six games, a manga, drama CDs, and an anime because Namco Bandai commissioned six games, a manga, drama CDs, and an anime. The number of appearances a character makes is not how we determine if he or she warrants an article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about Sailer Moon, so comparing this to that isn't helpful at all. Every article needs to estabilish notability, and things aren't instantly notable by association. Everything related to Xenosaga isn't a suitable article just because Xenosaga is. Who said this was "for the sake of having less articles" ? Now you seem to just be making things up. Akari, I suggest you actually read policies, before assuming everything is notable. The editors in this discussion know what they are talking about. You seem to be ignoring most of what people have said, which isn't productive at all. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Every article needs to "establish" notability? Wrong. I suggest you learn the difference between a policy and a guideline before you start enforcing guidelines. You have no clue what you're talking about. --Pixelface (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're still failing to make a valid point. So, what, an article on a character is fine as long as you have stuff like development information? That somehow makes it more important? You have yet to provide any good reason for destroying those articles. The info in the merged article is second rate and leaves out a lot. We're not talking about a million articles for every little thing related to Xenosaga. We're talking about six or so articles for the main characters that the series centers around. Fans have worked hard, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick of having Wikipedia claim one thing and then do another. You can't claim to want to be some master encyclopedia, then use whatever excuse you can find to delete articles and remove massive amounts of information. These characters are important enough to warrant their own articles, and to remove said articles is to give those who read about the characters less than enough information. Also, please quit redirecting the articles until this discussion is done. It's tiresome. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is a valid point by the fact that a quality article must have out of universe information. Your only argument thus far is that Namco paid to have several Xenosaga properties. A master encyclopedia is certainly not an encyclopedia that lets any article exist "just because". And yes, concept, creation, reception, history, merchandise, etc. IS important for an article. Why do we need these articles? Why are they important in any regard in the real world? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're still not making a valid point. It makes no sense to have a merchandise and such sections for characters. That kind of stuff belongs only on the article for the series itself. The articles do not exist "just because". They contain information not easily available to the fans. That is what's important-to give out information. And whay do you mean, in regards to the real world? Why is the PS3 important to the real world? Why is Sailor Moon important to the real world? They're really not. That's not the point. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon is important in the real world as one of the first successful mainstream localizations of a Japanese series for a North American audience, and, crucially, there are dozens of independent reliable sources that saw fit to comment on it. All of these things are important in the real world because independent reliable sources saw fit to comment on them, whereas the same is largely not true of secondary characters in Xenosaga. The fact that it wasn't popular enough to localize much of what you decry as "not easily available to the fans" is especially damning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Specific merchandise is more important to the character than the game. And just because you don't like Wikipedia quality guidelines does not mean that my point is not valid. And to answer your question, the PlayStation 3 is important to the real world because it is a product released in the real world and is very well known, having been covered by most major news outlets all over the world. Sailor Moon has importance in the real world because it has real world information - it actually discusses the process of her creation rather than just talking about her powers and crap like that. I don't think you understand. When an entity is not directly available in the real world - ie, Xenosaga has importance in the real world because it exists in it, while MOMO does not because she exists in something that exists in the real world. MOMO's article must assert notability that isn't the result of Xenosaga. Mario has a wax statue in a Hollywood museum, his creator was knighted by the Queen of France, he was shown to be bigger than Mickey Mouse through a poll, etc. Anything that would suggest MOMO to be important would be great. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the point is not to further the Xenosaga series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DARN IT!!!! I was writing up the (lengthy) WP:AN3 report when the user got blocked! MuZemike 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well. What can you do? *Goes back to Mother 3 article* - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, for the record, I completed the AN3 report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Akari Kanzaki reported by MuZemike (Result: ). MuZemike 07:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
See, this was resolved rather quickly—if it had been just me on Akari's talk page it would have lasted at least a week, during which time the article would have sat there because Akari thought she was on the other side of WP:BRD. I don't want to have to come running to the VG project every time this happens, but I get the feeling that I would have eventually needed to come here to resolve this. We need a better system for this kind of situation because I only anticipate more of these in the future.
Akari—if you read this, please know this wasn't an attempt to talk about you behind your back. I was hoping to raise a general issue here, and I hope we still can. Pagrashtak 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe a few of these characters could *perhaps* warrant standalone articles. There might be some precious development information in the Xenosaga Ultimanias (they're not called "Ultimanias" but you get the idea). Look at Rinoa Heartilly; its development and reception sections are really short but the article still managed to pass GA. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we all wish it wouldn't have been resolved like this, though; and I have a hunch that this isn't over, and it's going to get worse before it gets better (at least judging from the uncivil response made to me here, which still indicates a lack of understanding). At least I think it was the right thing to come to here and try to talk some sense. MuZemike 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
KOS-MOS already has one and should keep it. Shion Uzaki might. Chaos could if there were independent reliable sources on a comparison with Fei Fong Wong and Jesus Christ. Momo, I believe though, aside from KOS-MOS, probably has the best chance because I know there was a contriversy her Xenosaga I version caused and the need to radically alter her model for Xenosaga II. I know that reviwers commented on that as well. I think undoing the merge for Momo should be fine. If you want, I will look for the sources to back it up.
There are also a few antagonists that should be listed there and the whole page is listed as in-universe divisions.じんない 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
MuZemike, unless you're A Man In Black, that response by Akari Kanzaki was to A Man In Black, not you (speaking of a lack of understanding). --Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I rarely wear black ;) MuZemike 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Pagrashtak, it wasn't "resolved" rather quickly. You canvassed for backup and a bunch of editors bullied a newer editor, which resulted in that editor being blocked. How was anything resolved? BRD is an ESSAY. DON'T come running to the VG project every time this happens. If you only anticipate "more of these in the future", stop and look at what you're doing, and why. You're an admin. Act like one. --Pixelface (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't blame me for the actions of other editors. I'm not in the mood for a proper response right now, but your comment is completely out of line. Pagrashtak 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed Pixelface. Coming here for assistance is hardly the wrong measure, and as a project this is what we're supposed to do: work together to think and try and resolve issues that come up. As an admin this was the responsible measure to take. The event was far from "bullying", especially when the individual came here and claimed they were being "talked about behind their backs" and showed little desire for a smooth resolution to the issue. So cool your jets Pixelface.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You came here asking for backup, Pagrashtak. What did you think was going to happen? A newer editor was tagteamed into violating 3RR and blocked, because you started this thread — instead of doing what you should have done — taken it to the article talk page or explaining to Akari on their talk page what you were doing.
My comment was not out of line. You're an administrator. Have you even looked at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? Look at User talk:Akari Kanzaki. It's disgusting. And you think the matter was "resolved" rather quickly? --Pixelface (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers—please show me where I "bit" Akari. I've read Akari's talk page—I didn't post there, nor did I block her. Please show me the policy that requires me to start a discussion on the article talk page every time I notice an edit with which I disagree. If we're going to start throwing behavioral guidelines like BITE around, why don't we try a little Wikipedia:Assume good faith for good measure? Pagrashtak 15:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a quick sandbox version of a possible Shion Uzuki article. I've never played any Xenosaga game at all! so the descriptive Designs section is quite lacking, but with about 6 different titles I think there are rooms for expanding this section (see Poison (Final Fight)#Designs for how it could look like if completed). In any case, the Conception and Reception sections are larger than in Rinoa Heartilly so I think this could be a standalone article, though the plot summary obviously has to be shortened. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a well rounded plan and a solid start. Nicely done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface is right, and this is something that often happens on Wiki. If the user had a problem, they could have said something on my talk page to try and work it out. Instead, they come here and report me, and I'm falsely accused of vandalism. Then, a bunch of people gang up on me and continue to make accusations. While this bullying discussion is going on, users continue to mess with the articles in question, prompting me to politely ask them to refrain from doing this until the discussion is finished. It was a move meant to antagonize me, in hopes that I would get banned. Then, I was further antagonized on my talk page, where I was treated like a psychopath and a child. I was nothing but polite and trying to have a civilized discussion, but I was told that I would get unbanned if I "chilled out", and other such insulting things. I further argue the Xenosaga issue below, not that there's much hope in this one-sided battle. When I made arguments about keeping the character articles, I'm insulted and brushed aside regardless of what I say. But when someone else comes here and just says a character is deserving of their own article, everyone agrees readily. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also working on a sandbox version of Momo as well due to the fact, as mentioned, I know there was commentary on her as well. Actually Jr. has a lot as well. I posted all the stuff from 1UP i found on the characters in general on the list page.じんない 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Protecting redirects of merged articles

I'd like to propose that we adopt the procedure of having an unrelated admin protect possibly-contentious merged articles. Clearly the tendency here is towards inclusion of minor characters, and there aren't as many people doing cleanup as there are writing minutia on Sonic and Pokemon. We could have a simple page where a protection request could be left, if the material has properly merged and a consensus is clear and if policy is clearly in support of the merge, the redirect is protected. That way if someone wants to undo a successful and appropriate merge, they must talk about it first. If the merge and redirection is the result of consensus, then the recreated page could fall under CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. If this is such a problem that it is causing responsible editors to want to leave (I;ve seen several editors contemplate leaving over this sort of thing). We would need to leave a templated message on the redirect's talk page to explain why it was protected, so that an unrelated passing admin doesn't just unprotect, and so that editors know they can change it if they talk about it first.

It is also very hard to catch this sort of thing. Although we have people patrolling new pages, this sort of page creation is listed as a normal edit (right?). This sort of protection is very different from normal article protection, which is aimed at content protection. This is along the lines of requiring editors to sign in before they make a new page. As it is less noticeable than making a new page (and harder to undo), and far easier (any IP can do it, and all you need do is hit UNDO), it makes sense that it be a little more complicated to do. Thoughts? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO It should be done case-by-case. I am wary against protecting redirects for the sake of restricting editors access, especially if only one or two are doing all the reverting (blocks serve better purposes for that). In my practice, I'll watchlist something I redirected for about a couple of weeks before unwatching it. Of course, with FlaggedRevisions seemingly around the corner, a lot of how protections are currently being handled are going to change drastically. I wouldn't readily support it, but enact flagged protection—if it goes through—over the redirect if problems come up. MuZemike 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
How about implementing flagged protection for ALL redirects, as well as protected, semi protected, and other maintenance type pages? Since the general public is probably not interested in maintenance of redirects, etc. except to delete them, new users should only be allowed to edit regular pages. While we're at it, how about making new pages flagged as well, so that people can check and see if they're notable?--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we're missing the point. The last thing that should be done is to implement any type of protection. If one single editor is going to contest the merge by reverting it, then it falls upon that editor to follow WP:BRD and not devolve into outright edit-warring and/or 3RR, which we saw both happen. Honestly, sporadic reverts done here and there by a single edit warrior (in a theoretical sense) does not and should not result in page protection, not when other venues (such as blocking) can accomplish the same thing. MuZemike 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Consensus can change JohnnyMrNinja. So redirects shouldn't be protected. Unless of course there was consensus to redirect and "salt" at AFD. Even better would be for people to stop performing contentious mergers. --Pixelface (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The only status quo that cannot be overturned by one loud voice is the status quo of having a million articles about every game someone likes, describing every person, place, and thing in explicit detail.
These merges weren't at the time contentious, and Akari's only argument is that the fans demand having articles on all their favorite characters. Akari points to the fact that years have gone into these articles; I see that years have gone by and nobody's yet produced anything like any sort of independent reliable sources. List of characters in the Xenosaga series doesn't have any reliable sources. Until it does, talking about splitting it up is highly premature. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well they obviously were contentious. I'm sorry, could you point me to the merge discussion at Talk:List of characters in the Xenosaga series? Oh right. There isn't one. And that wasn't Akari's only argument either. Do you see where Akari mentioned a main character that appears in multiple games? Is Xenosaga a notable videogame series? Videogames are reliable sources for things that appear in the game. --Pixelface (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
One doesn't always need a discussion, but what are we having now if not a discussion, which is considering the potential of some of the articles? As for use of the video games, articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Primary sources are good for stuff after an article has already been built on third-party sources, they are not sufficient alone for an article. -- Sabre (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I realize one doesn't always need a discussion S@bre. But when Akari reverted, there should have been a discussion on an article talk page — not an admin asking for backup at WikiProject Video games. I know that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But that's a vague generalization meant to cover all of Wikipedia's 2.7 million+ articles. Who has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy when it comes to Day of Defeat: Source? What is a reliable, third-party source going to go to? The primary source — the video game. Editors are allowed to summarize sources. Take Mappy for example. A third-party is going to check their facts by going to the video game. --Pixelface (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Gamespot, Gamespy, (to some extent) IGN, Electronic Games Monthly, Computer Games Magazine, Edge, and Play Magazine are all sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that would have made comment on DOD:Source. Mappy is a horribly sourced article that can trivially be improved; Kent's video game history text (whose name completely escapes me) talks about it in the context of Namco's and Bally-Midway's histories with each other, and I'm sure there are other good sources.
You can write a LOT about a video game character based only on the game. The problem is that it's all plot summary and personal interpretation, often inextricably mixed. Taking User:Megata Sanshiro/Shion Uzuki for example, the article is about 60% plot summary by weight, mixed in with some game-guide detail or trivia with very tentative sourcing (the entire "Conception" section), and a reception section that's all single lines cherry-picked out of reviews that are about the games the character appears in.
This is bad writing, and it cannot get any better because there are few if any reliable sources that ever covered this subject in detail, and with so few sources we're better off covering fictional things as aspects of the fictional works and not subjects on their own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
So where exactly do Gamespot, Gamespy, IGN, EGM, CGM, Edge, and Play go to check their facts about Day of Defeat: Source? The game. If an editor can summarize Gamespot, they can summarize the game. The video game Mappy is an acceptable source for the article about Mappy. Wikipedia already has a policy about personal interpretation, WP:NOR. If someone wants to know who a video game character is, you're going to have to give a plot summary. If a critic mentions a character in their review of the game, that's analysis that can be added to the character article. If a reader wants to know who a video game character is, we're better off telling them who the character is — not making them hunt for the information in some other article. --Pixelface (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We can cite their research. Researching the subject ourselves is not part of this project. This is the difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've discussed this before, on your side of the argument, so I think I know what I'm talking about. There's a difference between research and original research. Editors are allowed to summarize sources. Editors are allowed to summarize primary sources. Editors are allowed to summarize third-party sources. If Gamespot writes someting, we're allowed to summarize it. If the game says something, we're allowed to summarize it. Whether playing a video game actually constitutes "research" is a-whole-nother topic. --Pixelface (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You've lost focus on the main point. Of course you can use primary sources, for simple factual claims which are not in dispute. Nobody's saying you can't. However, primary sources don't establish importance, and articles composed entirely of plot summary and personal speculation/conjecture/interpretation are not part of this project. These articles are all plot summary and cherry-picked statements. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have an importance policy. And this "project" has plenty of articles that are just plot summary. If an article has personal interpretation, remove it. --Pixelface (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Notability, importance, whatever. I know you don't like WP:PLOT. In the meantime, the fact that there are many articles that still need to be cleaned up because they are all plot summary does not justify the creation of new articles which are all plot summary, or the stymying of efforts to deal with articles which are all plot summary. The fact that the other three stalls are a mess doesn't mean you can pee on the floor where I just mopped. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, my only problem in this whole discussion is not that there are articles out there that are all plot summary, but that some of these are Good Articles. I mentioned Rinoa Heartilly above. I'm very inclined to nominating that article for a merge, following the logic in this discussion. However, the fact that it managed to pass GA is surprising. I know using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in a discussion is generally not useful, but here it's hard not to use it when these GAs are supposed to be good models to follow. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That article makes me grind my teeth, and looking at talk it barely passed GA. Suffice it to say I would kick that to WP:GAR if I could be arsed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That said, protecting redirects is nonsense and I would freely and cheerfully undo such protections. We don't protect pages to keep them the way we like them, we protect them to prevent otherwise unpreventable vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism, ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion I was referring to. It IS a discussion, and it is about the merging of the articles, so I fail to see the problem. Because of these redirects, a lot of important information is lost. You may not find Xenosaga notable, but in that case, why should it have an article at all, if that's your logic? This is not a small game. It spans six titles, a manga, an anime, and drama CDs. Some of this and a lot of guide material was never released in the US. The only way to get this information was from the character articles on Wikipedia. This game is like an encyclopedia in it's own right, and it deserves more than those half-baked, tiny character summaries on a merged page. It may not be notable to YOU, but it is notable to other people. The same is true for the character pages, which those people worked hard on for years. If someone takes the time to write and article for a character who plays an important role in that many things, then there's no good reason to get rid of it. Sure, by doing so, Wikipedia converts six or so articles to one, but at the same time, they are cutting out precious information. Heck, why don't we just merge all games you think aren't notable onto one page?-.- Akari Kanzaki (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009

It's not that the games aren't notable (they clearly are) but just because a topic is notable, that doesn't mean every detail about it is. Notable isn't really a subjective standard either on Wikipedia (I suggest you brush up on WP:N). And nowadays, there's a number of places one can put the info so it doesn't become 'lost'. Yes it won't be on WP, but the WP has its own goals, which having articles on every character from game series X isn't one. Make no mistake, I think so people are overly hasty in what they get rid of, but you still have to work within the guidlines of what is and isn't what Wikipedia wants to have, as it were. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Melodia, notability is subjective. If Akari would like articles for main characters in the Xenosaga series, who are you to say otherwise? Those guidelines were written by people like you, and me, and Akari. There's nothing special about them. --Pixelface (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Pixel, if you want to fight about WP:N having general support, WT:N is that way. In the meantime, it's a reasonable and widely-accepted explanation of how we actually go about enforcing WP:V's instruction that we not have articles we can't properly source without writing original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually think there may be more notability to some of the non-character elements merged some time ago, specifically I am finding critical analysis on Realians, this with only the most basic search. I think there was an over-reaction to the amount of articles to consolidate them at the time instead of editors assuming good faith they wanted to remove stuff without first checking the notability of anything.じんない 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that merging of articles with some notability into a larger article is also an acceptable editorial decision if the larger article would end up being more effective at describing the topic than the individual articles alone. Obviously this is never required, but long-term quality should be a consideration here. --MASEM 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
True, but I do not believe from the logs it was preserved.じんない 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But the larger articles aren't effective and leave out quite a lot. You'd probably get more information reading the game manual... Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I normally would not do this, because of neutrality of the polling, but this is clearly a contentious case as we do seem to have members on both sides here. So I want to note that it is in the process of a final poll being finalized is being put up (but with remark about Wikipeida not being a democracy) and may directly impact some of the articles that were recently merged here, most notably those who were primary protagonists of one of the 3 games: Shion, KOS-MOS, Jr.. KOS-MOS already has enough to qualify for WP:V and WP:GNG, but the others like Ziggy have a lot less on them, but still some minor remarks to show real-world perspective, plus I believe they all have merchandise associated with them as well.じんない 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also coming back to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface; we are making a complete turn onto ourselves in this dispute. MuZemike 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What Pagrashtak did (and what Pagrashtak didn't do but should have done) has nothing to do with my user RFC. --Pixelface (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ziggy has his own game, so I fail to see how that's possible. And the translated guidebooks contain even more for these characters, including development stuff and personality explanations based on some kind of chart. At the very least, all of the main characters should have enough.Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough what? Recreating Namco-Bandai's licensed guides isn't part of this project, so where are the other sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Being a participant in the afore mentioned discussion for some time, you should be aware that such arguments are often enough, as long as they can be sourced, to pass an AfD.じんない 05:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What other sources? You have to realize, all information online comes from something like a game or a guide or just someone talking. You can't prove anything is true on the internet, usually, save for very basic things. Even things on official game websites can be incorrect. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ziggy might just squeak by...however just because he could, does not trump the editorial descion as a whole...if it is believed his content could make the more main article (in this case the character list) better and his own article just barely claims note, it may be best to merge him in. Not because we are biased against Ziggy or any other fictional character, but its the best way to shore an article that can be shown to be one that an GA or a FA article.
Even if FICT passes, developer info is not enough; real-world commenatary or impact is still needed, however the amount would be far lower and information from those books would be helpful. In all, I think so far a case could be made that every one of the protagonists has note, except Chaos, since I've seen very little on him as a character. Jin is on the borderline, I've seen some, but I'd want to see more if I were the one making the call.
Remember this is information from Wikipedia quality verifiable and reliable sources, which fansites, forum discussion and blogs (except developer comments) don't matter.じんない 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem. These articles are collated from games, licensed guides, and speculation/conjecture/interpretation from non-experts. None of these things are good sources for establishing importance to justify a stand-alone article. You're saying we must use these sources even though they don't meet our standards because they're all we have; I'm saying we shouldn't have an article because we lack sources that meet our standards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem! All sources are technically against Wiki standards, aside from offical sites, which contain minimal information and are often wrong. For example, each of the Xenosaga game pages has a complete story summary, but where was this gotten from? The official sites only have a basic plot summary, with no spoilers. These summaries are generally typed up by fans, with no sources other than having beaten the game. If you look around for some official source with the game plot, you'd never find one, most likely, and have to delete it, along with many other plot summaries. Also, if you can say that about chaos, you REALLY need to replay the series. He is right up there with KOS-MOS and Wilhelm in terms of importance, and there are a lot of connections between him and ancient biblical stuff. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The game's plot we can use straight from the game, as long as it's a brief summary and uncontroversial. When you start slicing the pie into pieces (the plot from, say, Jr.'s POV or KOS-MOS's or whatever), we start having problems with personal interpretation.
Remember, when I talk about importance, I'm talking about the quality of having been covered in reliable sources. The most important character to the series may not be important enough by this standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, he's right up there with KOS-MOS in terms of stuff, so if she's got enough stuff for an article, he does too. Someone else mentioned that as well, I believe. And the game is not an acceptable source, yet you suddenly say it's fine to use for just that? And most game articles have a complete plot summary-that's how you get complete information. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the stuff something other than a work of fiction, a Namco-Bandai licensed work, or a fansite? The game is fine for a brief summary on itself. Multiple articles slicing the plot into different pieces is not brief. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that. There are biblical connections. You can't give a "brief" summary of a game like Xenosaga. To avoid going insane on the game pages, character articles are also useful. Within the game, those center characters all kind of have their own seperate stories going on. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can. You summarize the main thread of the story, and omit lesser details. The Biblical connections aren't relevant until you can properly source the claim that they exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Even then you don't need to make a point-by-point reference (and to be clear, there have been claims of other religious references than just Christianity). If you get enough commentary from enough sources, especially academic ones, then a whole new article might be best.じんない 06:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And for example, I was able to trim the plot of Chrono Trigger down to about 7 paragraphs (which included a setting). Yes, a lot of game details are omitted, but the point is to provide the flavor of what's going on, not to replace playing the game. --MASEM 06:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You've all been going on about how there needs to be non-fictional character stuff, but the connections between chaos and religion mean nothing? It's the same as with KOS-MOS and her connections to the Mary Magdalene. And there is also significance in his name as well, just like hers. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Who claimed that these connections exist? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was about to bring over leftover information from individual redirected articles to the main list, but it has occured to me such a task requires a deeper understanding of the series than I currently possess.

If you feel that the coverage of the characters in the list is insufficient, you should try fixing up their respective entries. I would start with recovering material from [[22]] and filling up [[23]] then bring the rest of the characters in line one by one. DDDtriple3 (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so, according to AMIB the sandbox version of Shion Uzuki is not notable enough to be a standalone article? Other users seem to have a different opinion, but this is slightly confusing since we're also discussing all the other Xenosaga characters in general. So can should Shion be unmerged or not? Should I open a specific discussion somewhere? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox version is on the edge of passing WP:N, but lacks any referenced information that justifies a standalone article. It's all minor points from reviews of the games, or plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote for her getting her own article. Many people note these connections? KOS-MOS' past self was named Mary Magdalene, and she was the partner of chaos, who was named Yeshua. I'm not a master in all things religion, but both of them and the games as a whole have multiple ties to religion. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Being tied to things in the real world isn't the requirement. Having references in sources that are not themselves fictional works is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I still have no idea what the heck you're talking about. You guys are the ones saying a character worthy of their own page needs to have sections for stuff like development, so a section about her connections to a real-life figure and religion should be acceptable. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to be based chiefly upon things people wrote about the character in reliable sources. This means non-fiction. This means publications which have an editorial process (so not fansites or self-published sites). This means works which aren't promotional and aren't published by Namco-Bandai. It doesn't have to be as overblown as comparing Xenosaga to the Holy Bible, but merely noting that the games name-check the Holy Bible isn't what we're looking for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you're telling me we can't get information from an OFFICIAL guide similiar to an encyclopedia, solely because it's officially published? That makes no sense. You're not gonna find a more accurate source on the net. As I mentioned already, official sites are prone to mistakes, and they generally contain little information. Also, in a sense, these sites are also arguably promotional. What kind of source do you expect to find? Most sites that note this kind of stuff are not official, and most of the stuff written in articles is from fans who have played the games and read the guides. Wikipedia itself is something created by "fans", so it itself is not a considerable source. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. We don't allow the use of Wikis or ourselves as sources because we aren't meant to be publishers of original thought, just synthesis. While I partly understand your issue, the question of "what is truth" didn't pop along with the internet; where do newspapers get their facts, magazines? Especially with video games, mainstream media journalists often mess up facts, but either way that's not our issue. WP:RS is in place as a safeguard against the bulk of possible/probable junk; beyond that, we strive for verifiability, not truth. You're barking up the wrong tree in this respect. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
As for official guides, yes and no, and it has to do with why. An officially published whatever has authority: we can trust its claims in the absence of reasons not to. (You called this quality accuracy.) What it lacks is objectivity: we cannot rely on it as an indicator of general importance, because it's a work made specifically for the gratification of fans. So, can we use it as a source in an article? Sure, it has the authority. Can we use it as a source to establish importance? Not really, as it lacks objectivity.
As for fansites, they lack both authority and objectivity. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. This paradox is why we must rely on reliable sources: the conjecture of anonymous or pseuodnymous authors is nearly worthless.
If this sounds confusing, it's because it is. Understanding how to use sources well is a difficult task, and Wikipedia has hooked its general standards of inclusion and exclusion to this already-complicated task of evaluating sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I should interject that to my knowledge there are a few fan sites that could meets WP:RS, such as Halo.Bungie.Org, but that still doesn't mean everything on the site can meet criteria (or should be included). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Chrono Compendium also meets at least a qualified source as a lexicon for stuff from the game itself, not commentary, unless it's cited.
Also whether it's official or not, developer info from offical databooks is, in practice, allowed as long as it's not the only source. Policy and Guideliens follow community practice, not the other way around. The fact is, it may just be finally be getting around to catching up.じんない 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But isn't that a contradiction? You say the guides aren't enough to establish character notability, yet above, it was also stated that character notability was decided by stuff like development info-the very kind of thing that is contained in these guides. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No no, it's simple enough. The guides are fine to support facts (WP:V). The guides are /not/ fine as an indicator of notability (WP:N).So if you're writing an article and need to cite a statement, you can use the guide -- but you can't say that because a guide exists, the article is jusitified. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What we're saying is that you can use those guides to fill in details about in-universe stuff, like Shion's weapon, but only so long as it doesn't bloat the article and still has other reliable sources backing up that Shion Uzaki is notable in the real-world.
My statement, since I believe that is what you are refering to, is that developer info is generally enough to warrant time. That if an editor has that info that good faith should be extended to that editor and others that there is probably some info out there. That is not a license to leave something around forever, and certainly not without citing sources (none of those articles merged cited where they got their info from).じんない 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_63&oldid=1202760033"