Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 77

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Like game covers?

And here, I repeat what I said in the discussion for the template of non-free game screenshots: you know how Template: Non-free game cover is made so that you put this (|) then the console's name to have the image put in a specific sub-section? Maybe the same thing could be done to this template. If the screenshots were put into console-specific sub-sections, it would make navigating them much easier. I'm quite certain that you just have to add the text between the 'nowiki's: <includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{1|Video}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]] {{#if:{{{2|}}}|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{2}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]]|}} {{#if:{{{3|}}}|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{3}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]]|}} }}}</includeonly> To make it easier, maybe Category: Screenshots of video games should be moved to Category: Video game screenshots. N. Harmonik (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Planescape: Torment

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but at the risk of repeating myself I'd like to get Planescape: Torment up as TFA for Dec 12, which has now become available as a date for the request page. I can see it being 2 points for the 10th anniversary in 12/12, although any recent video game articles on TFA will drag it down in a hurry. Still, no reason not to try. :) I'll work on writing the blurb, and hopefully as soon as a spot is available on the request page, I can give it a shot. BOZ (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone feel like writing some alt text for the three images in this article before someone complains? :) BOZ (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text? I've seen it recently, but I don't really get it. Only one text appears, so what's the alt text for? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ALT. Basically, for certain browsers (text-based, text-to-speech for blind readers, and by choice) if images don't display, they are replaced (the image, not the caption) with alternate text that should describe the image. Of late, we are encouraging alt text on images, and required for FAs. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Added really rough alt text. There's prolly a bit more that could be added to the lead image's alt text; something about the title in blue. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Raul just scheduled 2 of the articles in the request page (Nov 22 and Nov 24), meaning that there are 2 openings if you want to jump on them. --PresN 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I was ready to pounce. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Inactive task forces

There are many task forces that have very little to no activity. Should we try cleaning these up by deleting or redirecting them, or just let them stay and collect dust? I updated the inactive projects table with the dates of the last edits on all of the task forces' project and talk pages to make it easier to see what has been inactive the longest. Quite a few have not had any talk page edits since 2008. Thoughts? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Save for task forces that probably shouldn't have been created in the first place (eg a task force to cover a single game that was made in haste), idle task forces don't hurt the project and may attract attention later if new editors come along. It was one thing to have inactive Wikiprojects that should have been VG task forces, but task forces themselves are ok. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You could start by removing the Destroy All Humans! tf which has little scope and no activity. Not to mention only 3 members. Didnt realise there were so many different task forces. Salavat (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there are many task forces that have a limited number of members (who are not even always active anymore), have a limited scope, and have no edits in months. But the point of this thread is to see if there is resistance, because there is nothing worse than doing all that work just to have it undone again. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried deleting my own taskforce a short time ago due to inactivity and was roundly slapped around the face for it. :P The consensus was to keep it and that task forces do not get deleted ever, but rather marked as historical. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because you took it to MfD. >_> --Izno (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the deletion request, I had no idea if it was in the right place anyway. Since no-one complained, I presumed it was. Where should I have put it then? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was more the fact that it is a relatively new task force, the members are still active, and there is potential for people to become interested in it. But in the case of many of the other task forces, they are old, the editors are gone, and there is not much potential for more interest. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Console exclusive / should we do away with the "Exclusive" column

Can I get some opinions of the use of the term "console exclusive" on List of Xbox 360 games and List of PlayStation 3 games? Surely, a game is either exclusive, or it isn't. It comes across, at least to me, as "exclusivity" being used as ammunition in a console war, and that certain games also being on the PC is seen as an inconvenient fact to be swept under the rug or dismissed as not really counting. Maybe that's not the intention, but I don't think we should be promoting this kind of thing... Any thoughts? Miremare 23:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think you can only call a game "exclusive" if it doesn't appear on any other platform in the same form. I can see why handheld and phone games are not considered as they are usually very different versions, but a PC game is usually similar. I can also see what a "console exclusive" is but I don't think it really needs to be in a list. If the reader feels they need to do more investigation they can always click through into the article to find out if it was a "console exclusive" or not. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a PC version then its not console exclusive.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the column "console exclusive" is just superfluous. There's point in indicating that the game is available on other platforms or not. The developer's and publisher's names? Yes. The release dates? Yes. But whether the game is available on other platforms? No. A "list of Xbox 360 games" should focus on Xbox 360 games, period. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. I agree.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Console exclusive column needs to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know "Me too"'s are irritating but, Me too. Can we keep this momentum going and sort out the "only" categories as well? - X201 (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the "only" category?--Ace Oliveira (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_4#Category:_Wii-only_games - X201 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the exclusive column from both articles. --PresN 21:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The thread started with a question about the term "console exclusive", and not the entire exclusive column. I think it's useful, and further I think the "Console exclusive" is a useful value for the column. Let's make sure we are all on the same page before we go making hasty edits. Do we want to do away with the entire column or just those entries marked "console exclusive"? I think both should stay. See the first three sections on Talk:List of Xbox 360 games for the discussion that lead to this. –xeno^talk 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While you have the right if the discussion is ongoing to revert the edit, I'd like to point out that while AirRaidPatrol was talking just about the term, Megata/Oliveira/RobJ1981/X201 and I were all talking about the column as a whole. I agree with Sanshiro (obviously) that there's no point in a list of 360 games to give that much weight to whether it's also available on other platforms. --PresN 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well since the discussion quickly morphed into something unrelated to the original query, let's give other editors some time to weigh in (I've expanded the heading). These columns have been in place for a long while and I personally find them useful, I'm sure some of our readers do as well. –xeno^talk 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Those discussions you linked are also 1.5 years old... --PresN 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Even more reason to give this discussion some room to breathe, given that this is a change to a year-and-a-half-old status quo. –xeno^talk 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, finding things "useful" isn't a good reason to keep them. Codes and cheats are useful too, but we aren't going to list them here because that's not what this encyclopedia is for. Also note: being in the articles a long time doesn't justify the column must stay either. I say if we get no strong opposition about removing the lists in a week or so, they should go. We don't need to drag this out. People visit the talk pages, so if they want to comment they can. If not, the columns should go. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? –xeno^talk 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See above. People give great reasons for why it should be removed. Keeping it because it's "useful" and "been there a while" are more like excuses because you don't have a real reason for it to stay. If many people want it gone, that's a consensus and the columns will be removed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No one gave a reason above why the column should go. It should stay because it is useful, encyclopedic, unobtrusive, and what many of our readers are looking for in such a list. –xeno^talk 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They did give reasons. Just because you choose to disagree with them (or whatever the case might be), that doesn't discount them. Readers are looking for it? I go back to my previous comment: people want codes and all that as well... but it's not going to happen. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. As for the columns: it's just trivia and not important for the list itself. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I see above is that it is believed to be "superfluous" - a highly subjective comment. Other than that, just a lot of "me too". I've requested comment from the XB and PS projects. Codes/cheats are obviously outside of encyclopedic scope and also don't fit easily into a list: this is not the case with the "Exclusive" column. –xeno^talk 18:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A list should only list core, encyclopedic (for short let's say "important") elements of a topic. For a list of video games of a particular platform, the video game title is an important element. The developer is an important element as it is the author of the work. The publisher is an important element because it is the entity that actually releases the work. The release dates are important as they set the entries in a historical context. Platform exclusivity is not important, because the article is about video games of a particular platform, not video games of a whole console generation. That a [Platform 1] game is also available on a [Platform 2] is not an essential information. Other types of non-essential information would be, for instance, putting a column indicating other famous games of the same developer, or what other games where released on that date, or the dominant color of the game's box art, etc. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing the column would necessitate two new lists "List of Xbox 360 exclusive games" and "List of PlayStation 3 exclusive games" containing redundant data to the current list. Unless we are now decreeing that providing exclusivity data for the console libraries is not encyclopedic data worthy of research? We should not operate ignorant of the fact that the console wars rage on. –xeno^talk 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy that. The idea that we NEED to cover exclusives in the lists is unfounded. A lot of information is useful, so why is this in the ranks of release dates/developers/publishers/names? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Both players and console makers alike put a lot of stock into the console's library of exclusive titles (Halo, Little Big Planet, Super Mario Bros., etc.). To deny this and remove informational content related to it seems to present a very anti-console bias. –xeno^talk 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's totally subjective and it's from a group of people who do care about that kind of info. This list is a catalog of information that's important to the game. Whether or not the game exists in any other form is trivial compared to when it was released and who made it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"That's totally subjective and it's from a group of people who do care about that kind of info" - you mean, like our readers? God forbid we cater to them =) N.B. These lists are the number one google hit for "list of (Xbox 360|PlayStation 3) exclusives" [1] [2] –xeno^talk 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That logic would suggest that we should cater to them without exception, and we just don't. Again, without a reason why exclusivity is historically important, it should not be mentioned. Also, question - what are the Google hits for "boss battle tricks"? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's historically important. Console exclusivity is a very important theatre of battle in the console wars. I still haven't seen a good reason why the column should be excluded, nor can I think of a better place to put this data. –xeno^talk 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fanboys and the console wars are not as historically important as the bare details, and a game being on one platform or many is not nearly a bare detail. The reason it should be removed is that its rationale to include is not as strong as the bare details' rationale, and as such would allow any number of things to be in that are equally historically important, yet are excluded on a case-by-case basis by consensus that never explains why it's of less importance. I think that genre is far more of a bare detail than console exclusivity, but it still shouldn't be on any list.

And while we're on the topic, I think we need to go through and remove such extraneous information from other lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear Xeno is the only one that's strongly supporting the column. I wont claim there is a consensus now, but in a week or so: I think it should be clear then. A better place for this: video game websites/wikis. Why make this a matter of "it has to go somewhere" anyway? Not everything that is removed (or on the verge of deletion) isn't just transferred somewhere else. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On reading the comments I agree that the column has no place in the main list, however I think that the Category "Xbox 360 only games" should remain. As long as all the appropriate games articles are placed in this category then the list of exclusives will remain in place to a fashion, but just not on the main list of Xbox 360 games. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd think the category should go, and the column in the list should stay. Though as Miremare says, it should probably be titled a bit differently;. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be the only site that keeps this data up-to-date and well-maintained. By all means if I am the only one supporting this column a week from now, remove it, but know that in doing so we do our readers a disservice. –xeno^talk 13:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point out that I originally headed this section simply "Console exclusive", and was intending to remove only that term from the columns, rather than the columns themselves. Thanks, Miremare 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, we can't please every reader. If we did that, there would be no policies or guidelines. Wikipedia would have extra long articles filled with any little note that people deem "notable". As for Miremare's comment: I'm not sure how the column would have any benefit being renamed though. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should please none of them. What good is the list if we pare it down to the barest essentials? I've already demonstrated that this list is being utilized to research exclusivity data; being the number one Google hit. Why do we want to now make the list less useful (almost to the point of uselessness)? Doesn't make sense to me - not at all. –xeno^talk 13:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to rename it, just to stop using the term "console exclusive" to describe games that are "exclusive" to that console, despite also being on PC. Miremare 00:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the happy compromise is to keep the "exclusive" column, but not to include "console exclusives", merely make it a yes or no column. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not much of a compromise. Removing a word doesn't change the column much. Consensus is the answer here, not just removing one word. The current consensus I see is removing the column. Perhaps it will change in the next few days, we will see. To reply to Xeno: removing one column doesn't make the list useless. If that was the case, every console list would have the column. Look at the FEATURED list of List of Nintendo 64 games. No exclusive column, even though people could argue for it because other systems were around at the time. A featured list is great proof that a console list doesn't need an exclusive column to be useful. People don't agree with you, but you still think it's alright for the column to remain because you "don't see a good reason for it to go". One person doesn't make a consensus, many do. What doesn't make sense to me is how you can just act like the list useless (or almost useless) over ONE COLUMN?! Many console lists have been just fine without them (other ones besides Nintendo 64), so you are basically overreacting in my opinion. Google hits aren't what we revolve articles around. I can bet you could look at things on the verge of deletion via AFD(original research, trivia and whatever else) and you would find Wikipedia at the top of the hits. Does that mean we close AFD as keep instantly? I don't think so. If we did that, nearly everything would be kept with some exceptions: copyright infringements, hoaxes, etc. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice straw man: multiplatform games didn't become the norm (thus making exclusives/console exclusives noteworthy) until the 6th generation. However, perhaps an alternate compromise would be to create a list of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console which could include all three consoles. –xeno^talk 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Personally I do not see a reason for removing this information, it would be beneficial to those interested in the topic of console exclusivity, and I don't think it really inconveniences anyone. I doubt any reader looking for information/research would say "That resource would be so much better if it didn't have as much information in the table!", to a reasonable extent of course... Also, whilst sure a featured list does not include the column, why does that mean no others should? Featured articles are not perfect nor complete, perhaps they could be improved upon with such information. At the end of the day I feel that having this information benefits the end-user of the Wikipedia project. Additionally, as pointed out previously by other editors in this discussion, exclusivity of titles is an important factor in comparing the consoles in some peoples eyes, and thus this column is more notable than listing say, publishers, release dates and directors etc... --Taelus (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question - do you think listing genre is beneficial and does not inconvenience anyone? The reason the argument doesn't fly is that it applies to, like, everything. Heck, genre uses the argument more strongly. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with 'genre' is that many games fall under a bunch of different genres so the column would be bloated and not benefit much from sortability. –xeno^talk 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then list the main genre. The problem with genre is that it bloats no matter if there's one genre or many. Same with exclusivity. That exclusivity is important to people is extremely POV. It panders to people who want fuel for their console wars fire, not to people using the list as a historical reference. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you crystal-balling that the console wars are not historically significant? –xeno^talk 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I am, what are you doing? How is what you're doing NOT crystal balling when you're predicting the opposite outcome? We're not here to determine that something is historically important. There are many tiers of importance, and fanboy wars are so far down that list from release dates. Why don't we also list if a game is multi-player? Or 2D/3D? Or a remake? Or its Game Rankings score? Or sales? I mean, I'm not sure why the quality of the game is not historically important if whether a game is exclusive or not is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In this discussion, Xeno basically REFUSES to understand anyone's view on the matter. Xeno, you don't own the list, nor do you control what goes on it. I see a consensus in this discussion, period. Xeno, how many more people need to disagree with you before the column can actually be removed? Sorry if this harsh, but you are being very difficult and acting like you are right and everyone is instantly wrong. Not acceptable. Articles are meant to be edited and discussed with others, not just "I'm right and everyone is wrong, so I'll just ignore them and be stubborn" type of attitude. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will always strongly oppose removing useful, encyclopedic information, however I already moved towards a compromise as noted by Miremare below. –xeno^talk 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm... Xeno, given most editors' feelings toward this subject, do you really think that creating list of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console is a good idea? Miremare 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea. Since the 'Exclusive' column is apparently so problematic in the generic List of... articles, the information should be moved elsewhere rather than lost altogether. –xeno^talk 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There really was no good reason to make that article (Xeno worried about the content being gone forever is an excuse and that's about it). There is how many video game Wikis? The content would be much better suited for one or more of those. So if I don't see notability by that article shown (and not just what Xeno has said here about google hits and readers finding it "useful"), I will be sending it to AFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am untagging the notability concerns from the article for the following reasons from WP:N

1. It has gained significant coverage. Console exclusivity has been covered by news websites and reviewers as a topic of note.
2. The topic has reliable sources for this information in terms of release data
3. There are pleanty of secondary sources that can provide evidence of both the status of exclusivity, and its effect on the importance of it. (Although, this may not be suitable for a list article, a discussion of the importance of exclusivity could be maintained elsewhere and linked to the list.)
4. I cannot find any violations of WP:NOT either.

Feel free to take it to AfD if you wish, however I think that the topic is quite notable and useful to our end users for research into the topic. --Taelus (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenogears

I'm going to try a Xenogears GAN in a little while but I'm stuck. The plot of the game is pretty intricate and one of the complaints as to why it failed the last GAN was that the plot section made no sense. But in order to have it make sense, I feel like it'll be too long. I'm planning on rewriting it to fit the length of FA plot sections like Final Fantasy XII, but I'm worried there'll still be complaints. Any suggestions? : ] ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(courtesy link: Xenogears) My completely off-the-cuff comment is that the plot would make no sense regardless of how much text you devote to it. Nifboy (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix. They might know how to help you. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember an EGM article a few years back that tried to present a simplified summary of Xenogear's plot and characters (I think it was Xenogears and not one of the Sagas). I can dig it up and email it to you. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Hmm..if you can find a couple more RS sites that do that and comment on the plot itself you could probably split the plot out as Story of Xenogears making sure to have the reception of the plot as well as a legacy section for its impact on Xenosaga. If you can't, try and clean it up as best you can. You (or someone else) already have done my first item i'd suggested: seperating characters and setting.
A good article to see for how to do it is Chrono Trigger between the time it had FAR and was kept (the current version has bad some plot creep in it).陣内_Jinnai 19:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just reading it over really quickly, it seems to use a lot of flowery language and go into unnecessary detail. The only advice I can give you is to just go through it and cut out anything that is not absolutely needed in order to understand the general plot. That will make everything a lot easier to structure, and hopefully it will cut the section down about 50%. --Torsodog^Talk 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. I think I'll try to cut it down this week and see how it comes out. ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts needed on World of Final Fantasy VIII

Resolved

The article was recently dispersed to two other articles after a short discussion with no objection and one support, mainly due to issues brought up in a GAR and the fact that a majority of the reception focused on the game's graphical presentation, rather than the world itself. As these things go...it was actually a very clean surgery.

The problem though is now User:Dream Focus is contending that a merge discussion should absolutely take place. So some opinions are needed here, given the article's quality, whether or not it should remain especially considering that the information within is now repetitive. Any thoughts one way or another?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the "information within is now repetitive" part is due to information of said article being used on the relevant game and character articles, among others, only after the initial "surgery" took place. — Blue。 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Beforehand only the history and to a lesser extent development sections were repeated in the main FF8 article. Als0o sorry if my tone is coming off as condescending, I realized it sounds that way and it isn't my intention.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After speaking with Dream Focus, the objection towards merger the article has been resolved.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Image check

I've been contacted about an image in LucasArts adventure games not displaying properly. The image in question is File:Manny and Merche.jpg, which the user says is simply displaying entirely red in both the article and file page on both IE and Firefox. I can see it fine, but is anyone else having trouble viewing this image? -- Sabre (talk)

Works for me, in the article and file namespaces. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Works for me to. Salavat (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems for me, possibly a problem with that user's browser. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It works for me in Safari, FireFox, Internet Explorer 8, and Google Chrome so it is most likely a problem with the user's browser. GameSlayerGS (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Images and infoboxes for retro games needed!

Hey there. :) In case you missed my rather enormous thread on Dragon magazine, I've been busy for a few months showing a bit of love to a few hundred odd retro game articles (and probably starting a few dozen or so of them in the process). I was frankly surprised to see just how many of them did not cite even a single source – well, now that has been rectified in each case I looked at!

Another challenge that faced many of these articles was the lack of images and/or infoboxes (in some cases, {{Infobox VG series}} is needed). If you're the sort of person who likes to add these things to articles, well here is your chance to help out! :) Now, you might look at this ridiculous list and say "No way, that's way too much," but don't look at it that way. Maybe pick three to five articles or so that make you go "No way; that one doesn't even have an infobox?" and fix them up. Maybe come back another day or two later and say "Hey, these haven't been fixed; let me get that."

Note that many of these articles do have images like screenshots, but they probably do not have box art, which I think is what an infobox is supposed to have ideally. I'm sure in some cases a proper image may not even exit, let alone be available for public consumption; if so, feel free to strikethrough it with a note explaining. Also feel free to strikethrough anything you fix or that you note has been fixed, and I'll try to keep up with anything that anyone misses. Thanks for your help and patience! :) BOZ (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox only:

• Star Trek (text game)
• Star Saga - also gave it a better picture
• Space Rogue

Image only:

• Pirate Adventure
• Strange Odyssey
• Android Nim
• Crush, Crumble and Chomp! (needs box image)
• Roadwar 2000
• World Builder
• Black Magic (video game)
• S.D.I. (video game)
• Wizardry IV: The Return of Werdna (has cropped version of cover)
• Marble Madness
• Street Sports Basketball
• Wings of Fury
• Quarterstaff: The Tomb of Setmoth
• Dragon's Lair
• Strike Fleet
• Oids
• Questron
• F/A-18 Interceptor
• Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer
• Global Commander
• PT-109 (video game)
• Dive Bomber (video game)
• Moebius: The Orb of Celestial Harmony
• Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Final Assault
• Pharaoh's Revenge
• Shufflepuck Café

• The Legend of Blacksilver
• Wonder Boy in Monster Land
• Wizardry V: Heart of the Maelstrom
• Gold Rush!
• The Magic Candle
• Populous
• Hidden Agenda (computer game)
• Thud Ridge: American Aces In 'Nam
• Strider (arcade game)
• The Kristal
• Beyond the Black Hole (video game)
• Sword of Aragon
• Mines of Titan
• David Wolf: Secret Agent
• M1 Tank Platoon
• TaskMaker
• Savage (video game)
• Tiger Road
• Future Knight
• Welltris
• Nuclear War (computer game)
• Conquests of Camelot: The Search for the Grail
• Budokan: The Martial Spirit
• Super Xevious
• Bombuzal
• Armor Alley
• Tunnels & Trolls: Crusaders of Khazan

• BattleTech: The Crescent Hawk's Revenge
• Wizardry VI: Bane of the Cosmic Forge (has cropped version of cover)
• Archipelagos (video game)
• Command HQ
• RoboSport
• Gunship 2000
• Conquests of the Longbow: The Legend of Robin Hood
• Top Gun: Danger Zone
• Spectre (video game)
• A-Train
• Legend (1992 video game)
• Super Space Invaders '91
• Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete
• Red Baron (video game)
• Mission Thunderbolt
• Warrior of Rome II
• Spellcraft: Aspects of Valor
• Cobra Mission: Panic in Cobra City
• Castles II: Siege and Conquest
• Eric the Unready
• Task Force 1942
• Rex Nebular and the Cosmic Gender Bender
• Pax Imperia
• Spaceward Ho!
• S.C.OUT

Needs Both:

• Civil War (video game)
• Dungeon of Death (video game)
• Ghost Town (video game)
• Dunzhin
• Realms of Darkness
• Tower of Myraglen
• Pinball Wizard (video game)
• The Ancient Art of War at Sea
• Classic Empire (computer game)
• The Computer Edition of Scrabble
• Championship Baseball
• World Tour Golf
• Falcon (computer game)
• Sokoban
• Skyfox II: The Cygnus Conflict
• Indoor Sports
• Monte Carlo (video game)
• Power!
• Decisive Battles of the American Civil War Volume 1: Bull Run to Chancellorsville
• TNK III
• Basketball Challenge
• Ebonstar
• Star Command (computer game)
• Wooden Ships and Iron Men (video game)

• Solitaire Royale
• Zany Golf
• Prophecy: The Fall of Trinadon
• Trust & Betrayal: The Legacy of Siboot
• Their Finest Hour (1989 video game)
• Star Fleet (game series)
• Harpoon (video game)
• The Computer Edition of Risk: The World Conquest Game
• Breach 2
• Time Bandit
• Fire King (video game)
• Iron Lord
• MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy
• Imperium (computer game)
• Starflight 2: Trade Routes of the Cloud Nebula
• If It Moves, Shoot It!
• Tangled Tales: The Misadventures of a Wizard's Apprentice
• Stellar 7
• Faces (video game)
• J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, Vol. I
• Space: 1889 (computer game)
• DarkSpyre
• Warlords (game series)

• Cybergenic Ranger: Secret of the Seventh Planet
• Martian Memorandum
• Swamp Gas Visits the United States of America
• Hyperspeed (video game)
• Nova 9: Return of Gir Draxon
• V for Victory: D-Day Utah Beach
• Buck Rogers: Matrix Cubed
• Planet's Edge
• Global Conquest
• Pacific Islands (video game)
• Siege (video game)
• Discovery: In the Steps of Columbus
• Kingdoms of England II: Vikings, Fields of Conquest
• Shadowlands (video game)
• Amazon: Guardians of Eden
• The Incredible Machine
• Star Fleet (game series)
• Carriers At War
• Conquered Kingdoms
• The Summoning (video game)
• Who Killed Sam Rupert?
• Challenge of the Five Realms

Note to anyone who wants to help: If you find a cover art image which is too small or which has an annoying Mobygames watermark, you can try searching for other versions of the image on TinEye. Sometimes there's no results because it's a beta engine but sometimes you can find good results. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow thats a really cool site, many thanks for that. Salavat (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of these can be found at Abandonia. I know I have seen Trust and Betrayal: Legacy of Siboot, Amazon: Guardians of Eden, Spellcraft: Aspects of Valor, and The Incredible Machine there. That site has infoboxes for all games and boxshots for many of them. Maybe we can use their resources, with permission of course. New User^(talk) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Level (video gaming) name clarification

The aformentioned article refers to "level", as in the area in which a certain part of the game takes place. However, Level (gaming) redirects to "experience points", e.g. "Level up". I think that the two should be separated somehow. Possibly by moving the first article to Stage (gaming)?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Level for playing could possibly be moved to Area since the terms are used interchangeably in many instances.陣内_Jinnai 03:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that statement. Otherwise, could make Level (gaming) a disambig. Sounds weird... --Izno (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Inzo on this, I have always referred to the stage or area in a video game as a "level". Perhaps the experience point base article would be better being moved to Levelling (video gaming) or somthing along those lines. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I like "Leveling" because it's a broader concept that encompasses character progression in general; that's what the current Experience point article seems to do anyway. "Character progression" might be an alternative name as well. Also, instead of using parentheses you could tack on "Video game..." or "...in video games" to the title. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You could just redirect all the ambiguous page names to Level#Entertainment. Gary King (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the best course of action to me. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea for article - "top 100 lists"

I just got my recent GameInformer that has their 100 top VGs of all time (importantly across all platforms/media). Knowing that there's a few select lists of equivalent noteworthness - Edge, IGN, and possibly a few others, I'm wondering if such a list/table would make be good here to cover these.

Mind you, the details need to be limited and what lists we include need to be very clear. Games would only be listed by name, platform ("multi" for cross platforms), publisher, and year of release. Only well-proven reliable sources would be used (see list above), and if the issue has a regular habit of doing these once a year or slighly less often, we'd only use the last two lists (instead of including them all).

Anyone see any major problems with this? --MASEM (t) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My ages old point against using gamerankings / metacritic for comparison and 'it's the #1 game' statements applies here too. These kind of lists are not comparable with each other: the different sources have radically different views on, say, how to include old games that were good in their time but not influential, and those that were influential, etc. As long as you don't go an add things up and compare these lists, but just provide the information as-is, I'm all for it. See Time 100 on a good example. User:Krator (t c) 09:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I could see storing such info as useful for the reference library perhaps...there's literally so much diversity it's all over the place, and even IGN might be a pain here as they do change their mind from year to year.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be in favour of that. Though we have seen similar things deleted in the past, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Sinclair official top 100. Is there anything relevant raised in that AfD? Miremare 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The two main issues raised in the AfD could be of concern to these articles too. The copyright issue could lead to any article like this being nominated for deletion as it would be difficult to keep the list with it's reasoning without infringing copyright. The subjectiveness and self-referencing nature of these lists will always lead to problems as well. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to describe the lists and maybe link to them, but not to reproduce them or use them to "formulate" entirely new lists that consist of OR. SharkD  Talk  01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

One-liners in TV series

Hi, I would like to know if a one-liner mentioning Crono and Marle in a TV series is notable for mentioning in the List of Chrono Trigger characters. See [3]. Thanks! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently it is not referenced, but I think it could be of note as it is a direct comparison to the game, in a way. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference is kind of small. Yes, you need to understand the game to fully get the reference, but it could have also been the Time Traveller and Weena from the The Time Machine. I'd say it depends on how much coverage it gets from a reliable source. Even then I'd condense the sentence to the bare essentials: An episode of Heroes briefly alludes to Marle and Crono's relationship. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Neverwinter Nights 2 Good Topic

Just figured I'd point this out for those who might be interested! :) BOZ (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Membership followup

Following up on two past discussion (one and two), the membership page seems to be working out well enough. There has been a fairly steady stream of new members adding themselves, and the number of active members is at almost 200.

The next step is to purge the inactive list and setup a method to gauge activity. There was talk of a getting a bot to check the last time an editor made an edit on Wikipedia. What would be needed to get the ball rolling for that? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

I want to stay on the list, but I'm not active. What do I do? :) User:Krator (t c) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Users who may or may not be active who are part of WikiProject Video games... >.> --Izno (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the membership page should be broken into three sections; active, inactive, & unknown. The inactive section should be changed to unknown, and that way members such as Krator can place themselves under inactive. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sort of for old members that have contributed alot, but they aren't active anymore, and they should still be recognized on the list? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if I do not entirely follow, but why does the inactive list need purging at all? Surely the active list can be used quite happily for statistics gathering purposes. --Taelus (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions described the list as two parts: "Active" and "Inactive". Active members are members that regularly contribute. Inactive members are members that have left Wikipedia or do not edit with any regularity.

The plan was to regularly check the activity of those listed in "Active". Those that had not edited in a predetermined length of time would be moved to the "Inactive" section. Those that remained on the "Inactive" list for a predetermined length of time would be removed to keep the list manageable.

The point of the membership page was to move away from an overly long list of members like Category:WikiProject Video games members that inaccurately portrayed our membership numbers/activity. Of course, if there's a way to do this while maintaining an unknown list like MrKIA suggests, that can work too. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

I went ahead and changed the membership page to the 3 sections, and once/if we purge the members that are under Unknown, it will return to the normal Active/Inactive lists. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Graphical projection topic

I rewrote much of 2.5D, and created {{VG Graphics}}. However, I'd like to see some more cooperation on creating an article that handles the topic in a more general way. SharkD  Talk  06:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Eye of the Monitor

Hello once again! This will be the third installment regarding the three computer columns which have been featured in Dragon magazine, the first two being "The Electric Eye" from the early 1980s and "The Role of Computers" from 1986-1993, respectively. The new column "Eye of the Monitor" began in the very next issue after "The Role of Computers" left off; reviewer Sandy Petersen wrote the column from #197-209, and after that the column was either by "Jay & Dee", Lester Smith (once), or any or all of the trio of Ken Rolston, Paul Murphy, and David "Zeb" Cook, and ran in that schizophrenic fashion sporadically from #211-223. Not sure what Dragon did after this column went kaput, but my guess is that they realized other magazines were doing a better job handling computer games, and decided just to just stick to pen and paper.

There may be a concern over how big this thread will get, especially after the last thread got quite a bit larger than I was ever expecting it to get. :) Well, for comparison, EotM ran in at the most 25 issues, whereas I count TRoC running for over 70 columns. So it might get a little bit lengthy, but it won't be a novel. If there's still a concern, I can just post quick updates from time to time as opposed to every single day that I work on it.

Beginning with a similar format to "The Role of Computers", it seems that "Eye of the Monitor" usually tackled more than one game per issue. As I did with the previous column, I will put a blurb into each article with a comment that interested parties can seek me out for more info. As I learned from previous experiences, there may be a significant percentage of games which do not already have articles, in which case I will toss up a stub as needed. BOZ (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

1993

The first column, in #197 from September 1993, deals with Wolfenstein 3-D, Commander Keen (Invasion of the Vorticons, Goodbye, Galaxy!, and Aliens Ate My Babysitter!), Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure, and Waxworks. I've got real live D&D tonight, but I am off work for a few days so expect to see a lot of me. :) BOZ (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To finish up 1993 we had: #198 - Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Zelda, Link; #199 - Final Fantasy II, Ken's Labyrinth, Betrayal at Krondor, Day of the Tentacle; and #200 - Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos, Dangerous Dave, Monster Bash I, II, and III, Soul Blazer.

Not too bad so far? Only have 1994 and 1995 left to go. Since we've been averaging 3-4 reviews per column so far (TRoC had a much higher average and lasted quite a few more issues), I think EotM will be done before long at all. Maybe even by the end of the weekend! BOZ (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

1994

Worked my way though the first five issues of 1994 today. Should finish up Petersen's run with no problem tomorrow, and probably go beyond that. Finished up 201: The 7th Saga, Might & Magic: The World of Xeen (comprising Clouds of Xeen and Dark Side of Xeen), Faceball: 2000; 202: Master of Orion, Spaceward Ho! (solo version and multiplayer version), Bram Stoker's Dracula, Biomenace; 203: Doom, Sam and Max: Hit the Road, Phantasie I, Phantasie III, and Questron II (re-releases), Mario All-Stars; 204: Companions of Xanth, BloodNet, Xargon, World of Xeen: CD-ROM, Escape from Monster Manor; and 205: Gateway II: Homeworld, The Hand of Fate, Dungeon Hack, Dark Sun: The Shattered Lands. BOZ (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said - no problem! Finished up Petersen's run, and with three issues remaining from 1994, I should be able to get those finished today as well. Finished up 206: Lufia, Isle of the Dead, Archon Ultra, Epic Puzzle Pack (Robbo, Heartlight, and Electro); 207: Fantasy Empires, Walls of Rome; 208: Secret of Mana, Ultima: The False Prophet, Al-Qadim: The Genie's Curse, Ultima VIII: Pagan, God of Thunder, Raptor; and 209: Inherit the Earth, Equinox, Castlevania IV, Serf City. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Finished up 1994 with no problem! #210 had no column. #211 was the first column by "Jay & Dee" (these are aliases), and they decided to just pick games which in some cases had been out for a while already: Civilization, Heaven & Earth, Reach for the Stars, Bandit Kings of Ancient China, Jewel Box, Pipe Dream, and Aladdin. #212 was the first column by Ken Rolston, Paul Murphy, and David "Zeb" Cook, who decided not to use the "5 stars" rating method so I actually had to dig out some quotes for the first time in a long time. :) That one featured: The Seventh Guest, Gadget, and Quantum Gate. Not sure just yet how many issues out of the 1995 run actually featured the column, but once I get through those I will be done! Won't start tonight, but should have the whole thing done within the next few days. BOZ (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1995

Finished up the Jay & Dee reviews from #213: Ultimate Domain, Genghis Khan II, Master of Magic, and Space Hulk. The entirety of #214 was a rebuttal of the negative review of Space Hulk. :) Got seven issues left: 215-221. Hope to finish them today, and if not tomorrow shouldn't be a problem. :) BOZ (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Made more progress this evening. Got Jay & Dee from #215: Inferno, Wyatt Earp's Old West, SpaceKids, Dreamweb; David Cook from #216: Doom II, X-Com; Jay & Dee again from #217: SimTower, D!Zone (well, I deferred this one for later), Heretic, Landstalker, and a couple from Paul Murphy and Dave Cook respectively from #218: Jump Raven, Cosmology of Kyoto. Three more columns to go, should have it finished by tomorrow!  :) BOZ (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Got the rest of it! As far as I can tell, the column ends with issue 221, not 223 as I previously thought. If I'm wrong, I can always go back and get anything I missed. :) Part of the reason the column may have died is that the alternating reviewers were sometimes reviewing the same game twice! Got Jay & Dee from #219: Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, 1830: Railroads & Robber Barons, Citadel of the Dead, Realms of Arkania: Star Trail; from Dave Cook and Paul Murphy we have #220: Warcraft: Orcs & Humans (again), Machiavelli, Blood Bowl; and Jay & Dee's final column is #221: Hammer of the Gods, Machiavelli the Prince (again!), Toh Shin Den, Ridge Racer, High Seas Trader. That was fun, but I'm glad it's over! I will probably do a final sweep sometime soon, using this index to catch anything I missed. Thanks for your patience and support! :) BOZ (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Kengo to Kengo (video game series)

Resolved

 – AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed this on the Talk:Kengo. The article is essentially a brief list of the Kengo games from the first through to the most recent, and would probably be better named as a game series. Thoughts? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kengo is fine as there is no other articles with that name. There is no need to disambiguate. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps there should be articles for each game individually, then there may be a need to disambiguate. As it stands then there are no problems. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering, since this has been marked as resolved for a couple of days now, shouldn't this section be removed to avoid unnecessary clutter? GameSlayerGS (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It will be automatically archived by the bot after nobody talks in the thread for seven days; see the archive at the top of the page. Nifboy (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Onimusha (series) -> Onimusha

There's nothing else called "Onimusha", and the first game in the series isn't called simply "Onimusha". So there's no need for this disambiguation. (I also proposed this in the talk page). ӣicҟin\\talk with me\\\\\\\\\\ 02:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, currently Onimusha redirects to the series page anyway. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

D!Zone, for Doom

OK, I've come to a point where I have something that I'm not sure what to do with. As I wind down my run on Dragon magazine reviews, I've come to a review for D!Zone by WizardWorks. Now, this is not an actual standalone game, but it's an expansion pack for Doom and Doom II. As far as I can tell, it's not currently mentioned anywhere. I don't really want to start a separate article, but since I have a review I'd like to at least mention it. The problem is, I'm not sure where to put it, and I don't want to mess up anything that anyone else has going on already. Anyone want to point me in the right direction? :) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly sections in the Doom and Doom II articles, and a mention in Doom (series) although the latter needs a lot of expansion anyway. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking... but where specifically? Doom (series) sounds like a good place logically, but the actual article is in bad shape. The disambiguation page for Doom is a good start, but I'd also like it to be in a real article somewhere. ;) Doom II: Hell on Earth has a clear place for expansion packs, but Doom (video game) apparently does not, and I think there should be at least a sentence in each. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If there doesn't look to be anywhere appropriate in the articles as they stand then feel free to add the information however you see fit. If it doesn't look right then be sure that it will be changed but the information will not neccesarily be removed. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sensible enough; I'll figure something out. :) BOZ (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't go on the disambiguation page though. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided not to put it there. BOZ (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Birdo gender discussion

I'd like to get some third party input on whether to call Birdo "him", "her", or "it". I really have no preference but I'd like a wide consensus on it, since him and her can both apply [I don't like "it", as Birdo's gender is one or the other or simply unstated, which means "it" can't work]. Discuss here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems the best bet though, as "he" or "she" can be taken as original research in either regard since we flat out don't know which it is for sure.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as original research goes, the scan of the Super Mario Bros. 2 manual over at replacementdocs has the names of Birdo and Ostro reversed, and says of Birdo "He thinks he is a girl and he spits eggs from his mouth." Don't know about Doki Doki Panic though, or any of the later Nintendo games in which Birdo appeared. New User^(talk) 10:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a fictional character, so I think "it" is perfectly acceptable. But any time original research pops up, sources tend to point us in the right direction. A GameDaily list, GamesRadar list, and Official Nintendo Magazine list all describe the character as a "he", though others also said "unknown" because of the Super Smash Bros. Brawl entry. Those lists along with the SMB2 manual makes me think Birdo should be generally referred to as a male in the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

I guess, as sources prove, it is a "he" pretending to be a "she" _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are also several works, including in-game references, where Birdo is called a she. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide examples? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Captain Rainbow specifically, and while it's not on the page, several manuals call Birdo a female. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Japanese name for the character was Catherine. We can't be too sure, however. We got conflincting sources here.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the gender ambiguity being addressed? Is there an article or section on Birdo specifically? Or is this dealing with bit mentions about Birdo's appearances in various games? If there's something that discusses Birdo as its own character, I would include a statement about how sources differ on its gender or that its gender has been a matter of considerable debate (it has, and that particular point is sourceable as well). For spots that just need to refer to Birdo in a non-descriptive context, I'd just use "it", which is the most commonly accepted method of referring to gender-ambiguous secondary characters. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Redacting my own comment - I just replied on Talk:Birdo with saying that while I think "it" is acceptable in a case like this, it's probably better to use the most "obvious" pronoun based on what we know, and to add a note to the WP article itself stating that Birdo is assumed to be female lacking any solid evidence to the contrary. I'd base that on the character's strongly female appearance and the lack of clarity in sources, since Nintendo itself not only hasn't cleared this issue up, but in fact has further confused it with things like the statement in SSBB. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen at times "they" used for the singular in such instances instead of "it" because the latter implies an object of neutral gender.陣内_Jinnai 17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the sources that describe Birdo as a female. Do they discuss the gender confusion like the SMB2 manual and GamesRadar's "The Top 7... 'That's a Dude!?' game characters" list? Or do they simply refer to the character as a "she"? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

To Do List

I was just thinking about lists the other day and thought that although we do have a sort of "To Do List" that we could use an easier to understand, and fewer links, to do list so, I though that we could make a list that has a link to an article and under that some bullets showing a list of tasks that need to be done on that article with a brief description of the task. It would look something like this:

• Article Link

• Task-Description
• Task-Description
• Task-Description

or this for articles that needed to be written:

• Suggested Article's Name

• Brief description of the topic (for those who aren't very familiar with it)

What do you all think? GameSlayerGS (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not create the list in the article's Talk page? SharkD  Talk  02:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well... I'd do it myself but, I don't know all of what we would put on it right away, I figured... wait a though just came to mind... are you talking about this talk page or the talk page for the specific VG article that would be worked on? If you are talking about the specific article then I suppose that would work but, not very many of us go from one article to another looking for ones that have lists on them with stuff that needs doing. In other words, I thought it should be here so we can all see it more readily.--GameSlayerGS (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally those lists are put on the talk page of the article and employ the use of {{todo}}. One option would be to use the attention=yes parameter of {{WikiProject Video games}}. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do that. GameSlayerGS (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VIII FAReview

I have nominated Final Fantasy VIII for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Blue。 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

While it's not good faith, I'm calling WP:POINT on this one, since it stems almost immediately from your dislike of World of Final Fantasy VIII being dissolved. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you think that, but that's false assumption. I've good faith Final Fantasy VIII will be improved of its coverage if I place it for a review. I've only found one or two sources so far, and my resources are limited so I ask other editors to help. — Blue。 03:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but is there some rule regarding spoilers in articles? I know that spoilers in general are allowed, because this is an encyclopedia, but I thought I had seen somewhere that they are not allowed in the introduction to an article, only later on, more specifically in the Plot section that's on most (if not all) game pages. Icefall5 (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You just missed it. Check the latest archives. However, it's a more sensible question than most. By my understanding, we try to keep spoilers in the plot section, but if they are needed outside of it (and I mean needed, say, to help describe a gameplay mechanic), then they're allowed there too. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for the clarification! Icefall5 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's my understanding of it, anyway. I may be wrong, so keep an eye out on this section. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me, but don't put too much emphasis on "needed". In the lead section, you probably won't even need to mention a spoiler unless it's basically the entire plot or a major part of the reception, and even then you can probably get by with (for example) stating that there is a twist ending without saying what the twist is. But in other sections (e.g. reception), I wouldn't spend too much effort trying to write around it if it needs to be mentioned. Anomie⚔ 16:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What about spoiling things in the table of contents? It's the kind of thing that would only appear in a "Characters of..." article, but you may have a section devoted to antagonists, and the presence of a character under that section of the TOC would be a spoiler. I suppose if you're on a character page in the first place you're asking for it, in the same way you are if you're reading about a game's plot having not finished the game. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay you guys do realize we're a freakin' encyclopedia and that to anyone, at any time, something can be a spoiler. Sephiorth skewers Aeris!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, god! I didn't know that! How could you?! /sarcasm --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See, someone was surpised to learn that we're a freakin' encyclopedia! Anomie⚔ 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the Final Fantasy reference. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I wouldn't worry about that one either, gakon5. Or a similar situation for playable characters, or a situation that reveals two characters are really the same person. Anomie⚔ 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured it wasn't a big deal. I understood it this way: Wikipedia is not spoiler-free, but be nice and try to keep your spoilers where they are [should be] most obvious. Like I said in the earlier thread, I'd rather not include spoiler warnings just to spite the people who complain about them all the time ;) --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One option is to create a "Synopsis" section in the "Plot" section where you give a brief run-down of the plot without spoilers, and then put detailed info including spoilers in the remainder. SharkD  Talk  01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I call that the "Setting" section; it just gives premise. A plot summary sans plot sounds difficult to write, because anything in a game's story is pretty much a "spoiler". The problem with games is that, for some people, the fact that there's a grass level is a spoiler. But, of course, if you don't want to know there's a grass level, don't read the dang article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 02:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think of a synopsis as lying somewhere between a teaser you would find on the back or inside cover of a book, and a full-fledged dissection. SharkD  Talk  02:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think basically the idea is not to ruin the plot for someone without reason. A good reason is that you need to give the basic plot from beginning to end as best as possible (some games have very different endings) and if the latter is the case you need to note that. However, you don't give a blow-by-blow account. 2-3 paragraphs with possible sections on characters, setting, synopsis, themes, etc. You also need a very brief (1-2 lines) for the lead (you'll be hit in GAN/FACs if its not there) about the plot. Reception often talks about the plot and you'll probably have to mention something there. Development/Production/Creation sections might also mention it. Gameplay usually doesn't unless as stated previously it is a central part of the plot that can't be gotten around.

So in the end, spoilers can be almost anywhere, but outside of sections devoted to it, the info should generally not be too specifici and inside there don't spoil anything needlessly, ie don't talk about a character's death unless its a central part of the plot except where its relevant (their own chracter section/article, reception about that character/scene if applicable, development info on the character's death, etc)陣内_Jinnai 17:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While spoiler warnings themselves may have been annoying, I think the discipline it enforced in users to separate revealing from non-revealing content was beneficial. SharkD  Talk  02:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start this debate again... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Demoted A-class VG articles

Does anyone know which VG articles were delisted from its A-class status? I have recently found a logo and hope to put it to good use. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we don't have any demoted A-class articles. But this actually brings up something that's been on my mind lately.

Currently we do not have a defined process to delist or contest A-class ratings. Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin for example, has degraded some and hasn't kept up with current quality ratings. Also Pokémon Red and Blue was recently promoted because it met the two supporter criteria, despite some outstanding issues brought up.

Such cases probably won't pop up with any regularity, but I think it would be good to have some process to handle them. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

We do have demoted articles, but I don't know how you would find them easily. One that was recently demoted is Goemon's Great Adventure. It was demoted from A-Class to C-Class. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gib, maybe someone should look for articles that were delisted as A-class. Also, I don't know if people would approve of the logo due to a possible thought of it being unnessesary. Would thinks that adding the logo to delisted A-class articles is a good idea? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Without a list to start with, I'm not even sure how to track those down. I guess we can search through the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality log history, but that's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

In regard to the icon, I don't think it's a bad idea. I just added it to the "Changes to Featured and Good content" section on the newsletter draft. Hopefully we'll caught them for the newsletter to keep some kind of track of the demotions.

Pushing the more definition to the A-class process again. Here are the suggestions.

• Do we want to change our guidelines to say that only GAs are eligible for VG project A-class? That's what it has essentially turned into anyway. And if an article loses its GA status, then it would naturally lose its A-class status for our project too.
• Can we bring A-class articles to WP:VG/A to demote them? I think a similar format to the promotion would work. One editor starts a discussion on the talk page listing the deficiencies and a second editor confirms or disagrees.
• Should we tighten the pass criteria? How about two supporters will pass the article if there are not any outstanding issues present in the discussion.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

I like most of these ideas, but their is a problem with your idea is that, 1, with GA only allowed to become A-class, since I passed Sacrifice (video game) and it was B-class. Also, we may need two professional editors to pass articles for A-class. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I was never a fan of rating an article A if it wasn't already GA. If it is good enough for A, then shouldn't it be passed as GA first? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamer- This wouldn't be retroactive. It's just something to apply for future assessments. Either way, I don't think "professional editors" need to pass articles. Anybody can read an article for poor grammar, spelling, and confusing meaning. Besides, no one on this site is a "professional", we're all just volunteers. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

Page merge request

Could an admin merge Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Requests/Pre-2008 Archive & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Requests/Undated Archives into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Requests/Archive 1 and delete those pages. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I merged them but, the old pages still exist (I don't know how to delete pages) so if someone could explain how to delete them that'd be nice, somebody else could delete them for me but, I'd still like to know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GameSlayerGS (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the reason a posted it here is because us non-admins can't do that. And the reason I didn't copy and paste my self is so that the page history could be merged. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave it as is then. GameSlayerGS (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional fields to infobox proposed

A couple of new fields have been proposed for the infobox: primarily those for game director (or creative director or whatever, there probably should be some merging of bits from one of those to the other) and game producer, which is thought to be inadequately covered by simply calling them "designers". Game programmer has also been proposed. Take a lookie over at Template talk:Infobox VG#Producer, director and leave some comments, lets see if we can't hammer out a consensus for this. -- Sabre (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bump, since no-one's left any comments at all in the last week, bar the few people already involved prior to this notice. -- Sabre (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Would adding further fields to an already long infobox not just make it unneccesarily long in some articles? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the thread I've linked to—its better to have the actual discussion there than here—I've tried to address some of these sorts of comments in advance. Short answer: no, since their use is very variable and dependent on the notability of the people concerned, chances of an article using all or even most of these fields at any one time is very low. -- Sabre (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd edits

Someone may want to take a look at Special:Contributions/190.179.23.23. Adding nonstandard abbreviations seems questionable to me. Anomie⚔ 23:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright question

I've been trying to look for suitable free-license Nintendo character image for some lists I've worked on in the past on Flickr. I guess my question is, would pictures such as this violate Nintendo's copyright? I'm really shady on copyright law so I decided to ask. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 10:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a derivative work, so, yes. As long as the image resembles the character it would fall under Nintendo's copyright.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your only chance of finding a free image of a Nintendo character would be if Nintendo themselves released the image under a free license. This has been known to happen in the case of patents lacking the necessary wording to preserve copyright, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 75#Public domain patent images. Anomie⚔ 12:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Woah, you've totally misinterpreted that Patent notice template (and I wish I had seen that archived discussion at the time!). This particular issue with patents relates to a patent that contains copyrighted content within the patent document itself. As a general rule, Patents are public domain, but if a patent contains copyrighted materials you may not be able to republish the entirety of the Patent document depending on how you wish to publish it (unless the copyright holder has indicated otherwise). For instance: If you have a Patent document that shows a photo of Mario, you can't publish the whole or partial contents of the Patent on a poster or t-shirt where the copyrighted elements are being displayed as this becomes a derivative work and subject to licensing rules from the original copyright holder. At the extreme, you could potentially publish the entire contents of the Patent in a book like "tome of all patents published form dates A to B" where it is merely a small portion of a larger collection of patents being published for informative purposes. Or, I suppose if you really wanted to stretch things, you could, say, publish a book of exclusively video game related patents where you publish all of them in their entirety. In either of these two cases I would still strongly suggest you confer with your publisher and/or legal council for best advice. BcRIPster (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note the template is currently being nominate at commons for deletion and that the nominator is stating that the images are still copyrighted even if the wording is not in place. I am do not know enough regarding this to know if the person is correct or not but I am sure someone here would have enough knowledge of the subject to know wether or not the argument is valid. Here is the link to the deletion request Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice.--76.71.213.28 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not rtc again... Anomie⚔ 05:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the link is cutting off and starting with the word deletiom. Commons: needs to be added to get to the correct page. I have no idea why there is the problem so I can't fix the link myself.--76.71.213.28 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Izno fixed it for you. The page at Commons is "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice", but you have to prefix that with "Commons:" to tell Mediawiki that it's an interwiki link to Commons. Just like if you were linking to the German Wikipedia's main page, you'd take the name of the page there ("Wikipedia:Hauptseite") and prefix it with "de:", like so: de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite. It's just more confusing with Commons because the interwiki prefix and the namespace of the target page are the same. Anomie⚔ 05:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it won't have any images for awhile then-- thanks for the clarification. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 08:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance needed at Talk:SNES

I've attempted to start a discussion of recent edits at Talk:SNES#Mortal Kombat. As that talk page isn't particularly busy, I'm posting here to ask interested editors to comment. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rebuild Sword of Aragon

Hey there! It was found recently that Sword of Aragon was mostly copyvio from the game manual - like 80% of the article - so I had to take what was left over to rework it from scratch. If anyone has any time or interest, please have a look and see if you can help rebuild this one. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jappalang (who, perhaps not uncoincidentally, discovered the copyvio in the first place) has really rebuilt this one from scratch into a respectable article - go check it out!  :) BOZ (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is http://www.squareenixmusic.com/ a reliable source? (and other sites too)

Xenogears Original Soundtrack is currently a featured article candidate and an issue that has been raised is whether the video game music site http://www.squareenixmusic.com/ is reliable or not. It has been used in featured articles before (see List of Kingdom Hearts media and List of Final Fantasy compilation albums). What are your thoughts? Thanks. Kariteh (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

...And same question for http://www.originalsoundversion.com/ (or just Jayson Napolitano), and the Japanese site http://www.noisycroak.co.jp/gmcm/jp/ . Thanks again for your input! Kariteh (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Digs for a second)- here's (roughly) what I copy-pasted in to get List of FF albums to fly at FLC- "Independent music review/news site (not affiliated with Square Enix itself) - about page says that they have "achieved critical acclaim from famous composers, eminent producers, and industry sites", a claim that is backed up by their interviews page, listing interviews they have done with notable people such as Yasunori Mitsuda, Yoko Shimomura, Hiroki Kikuta, and Thomas Boecker, producer of the Symphonic Game Music Concert series. Their submissions guidelines are here, in which they specifically say that they edit all reviews for factual accuracy (also, spelling)." Take it as you will; I've tried to use it at FAC with Music of FF7, but it's reception from the reviewers was a bit weak. You can probably build a similar casefile for original sound version, but I don't have one handy. Never read noisycroak. Hope this helps! --PresN 02:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, PresN. The submissions guidelines cover reliability for SEMO for me. I'm not sure if SEMO is high-quality for this article—I wish I saw some book or magazine references either way—but I'll let others decide that level. --an odd name 03:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Concluding the Dragon reviews

Hello one (hopefully) last time! When I began this odyssey of discovering reviews which have been featured in Dragon magazine, I began with Dragon's early column "The Electric Eye" from the early 1980s, before moving on to the long running "The Role of Computers" from 1986-1993, and just recently finished up with the "Eye of the Monitor" column. My journey was chronicled on User:BOZ/Dragon video game reviews for those interested in checking out the massive collection of reviews that I dealt with. I've said before that I'm not sure what Dragon did after that third column, but I am starting to worry that I had forgotten about a column called "Silycon Sorcery". Ah, that as they say, may well be a tale for another day. ;)

Anyway, the reason I'm here again! When working with so many reviews, it's likely that a few would be missed. So, I checked out this index and found that there were several I had gone past. Never fear, for I just finished them up now!

• 36:Trek-80
• 113: Ultima IV
• 118: OrbQuest, The Search For Seven Wards
• 145: Star Wars
• 147: SimCity Terrain Editor
• 148: Sniper!
• 164: Bloody Wolf
• 190: Plan Nine From Outer Space
• 223: Discworld
• 269: Majesty

Ah, whew!  :) Also, for those who enjoyed the previous "Infoboxes and images" thread, I was going to start another one sometime this week – not tonight though, that's too much work. ;) Got to prune out the finished ones and add the new ones I found since then, but I was pleased with the results last time so you bet I'm going to do it again. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See also: Platinum Range, (rarer) Platinum Hits in video game see also sections

Someone has linked Platinum Range in the See also section of many platinum range video game titles. Now I can see this being mentioned/linked in the prose, but it doesn't strike me as a particularly relevant link for the "See also" of a specific video game. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It got taken off the Call of Duty 4 article (I think that was it) a few days ago. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yank it, imo. Highly relevant links should be in prose and nearly as highly relevant links in see also. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done [4]. Andrea105 (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy hell... how did you do that so quickly? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

With AutoWikiBrowser :) Andrea105 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, thank you =) –xeno^talk 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love

Hello. I would like to have some tips on improving and expanding the Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love article. A user has expanded the article by using information from my sandbox (which has now been redirected to my Sandbox page due to my page being a duplicate of the article) and information from the official website as an effort to improve it as a whole and I have been trying my best to expand it and clean it up to meet article guidelines, but I am stuck on how to cleanup the gameplay section of the article. Can you please give me some ideas on fixing the gameplay section up? Thanks in advance, Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You could change the gameplay section into all prose (right now it's a bulleted list), remove the copypasta plot summary (cite from the website, don't copy), find more info for the other sections and add a gameplay screenshot.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paper Mario series characters (2nd nomination)

I would like to have some input on this article's deletion discussion, please. Any and all comments would be appreciated. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for adding dates to West-made games marketed in Japan

• When does an editor consider adding a date to a game like Modern Warfare 2 and Batman: Arkham Asylum as they are going to be sold in Japan soon? THanks. Ominae (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:VG/RELEASE, Japanese release dates for Western games should be omitted. A Japanese game, on the other hand, has the Japanese date because that is its country of origin.
    The reason is that this is the English Wikipedia and such release data is typically irrelevant. Same goes of other countries like any other Asian, African, or South American country. Europe is the exception because of the long standing prevalence of English there. An exception would be if the release is significant in some way. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
    • Thanks for the answer. I remember some editors telling me on putting a short summary on Japanese release dates on the introduction of the article since it's okay. I probably will put the CERO ratings when I get more information. Ominae (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • As a general rule, you should not include it in the intro or infobox because it is a Western game. Unless the Japanese release was noteworthy for some reason. An example would be Gears of War 2's Japanese release, which almost didn't happen and did better than any most every 360 game ever has in Japan. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
        • Got that too. Would something significant be the number of copies sold in Japan? Ominae (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Sales are important, and should be included if there's data. If the sales data is tied to the release date (for example, a western game outsells during its premiere a popular Japanese title at first release), then the date should be included too. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

MrKIA11's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, MrKIA11, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of MrKIA11's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment.

It hasn't been transcluded to the RfA page yet, unless I am missing something? --Taelus (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to get ahead of myself, but I notice MrKIA11 has down a lot of what looks like good work categorizing video game Afd discussions. I am curious if he has argued in any for or against deletion, merging, etc.? I scrolled through a bunch and primarily noticed tagging and was just curious where he stands on things? Otherwise, looking good and if this question is more appropriate for the actual RfA, please just move it there. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Help watching a page

Could someone else help me with watching Karaoke Revolution (2009 video game)? I keep reverting IP and new user borderline racist and homophobic vandalism to that page, including such absurdities as:

• "Monkies apparently work at BLITZ Games and Konami. Monkies who don't know that a Music STORE is actually supposed to be STOCKED with songs available for PURCHASE. Instead we get a nice, empty screen."
• "Reason is: Konami is too gay to be trusted."

It is happening faster than I am able to handle as I am working on some off-wiki stuff at the moment as well. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like both IP and user have been blocked in the last 30 minutes or so, not to mention the page protection put in place. Shouldn't have any further issues. -- Sabre (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to consider temporarily installing Twinkle if this ever happens again. That way, you can instantly revert to a specific version of an article, regardless of how many people made edits to it. You can do that manually, but Twinkle is one click and you're done. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, when the IP autoblock ends, the user does not take it over to List of Karaoke Revolution songs or Karaoke Revolution as well. I see the account did heavily edit the former at least. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbolt (website) - RS?

Would reviews from Thunderbolt (website) (http://www.thunderboltgames.com/about/) be considered a reliable source? It seems like it might, but I'm not sure. MuZemike 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to prove it on a per-author basis for it to fly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Alive by Pearl Jam not in Lego PSN as Rock Band DLC article suggests

I downloaded the "Alive" track and it is NOT appearing in my PS3 version of LEGO Rock Band. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Which version of Alive? The live version is apparently clean (according to www.rockband.com/music) for LRB. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The live version. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is a disconnect between the rating the song has on the website and the rating that's coded into the DLC: See forum post. Nifboy (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cricket Revolution

Would this qualify as an article that reads too much like a manual? It pretty much is a manual. Also, I'm not sure whether all these screenshots would be okay copyright wise. Thoughts? SGGH ^ping! 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there should really be all those screenshots without any critical reason. They look to be different character models which aren't really encyclopaedic. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also have concern that the only reference is to the official site of the game. The whole thing reads like an advertisement, possibly an AfD in there really. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well there is an interview: here. I cleaned it up, it could use an actual gameplay screenshot and lots of copyediting. The images were OTRS verified by the developer, but I removed most of them. The vgrequirements template should be used for System Requirements.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since this is one of the biggest WikiProjects, and that several Wikipedia-Books are VG-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WPVG people can oversee books like Guitar Hero series much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. Any other thoughts to this? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

I could update the banner if you want me to, it's pretty easy to do, but I do need to have consensus for it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Could use a few more chiming in first, imo. I think it would be a good idea, though. --Izno (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should change our template at all. Since adding Book-class is larger than this project, when it is accepted, the main {{WPBannerMeta}} will be updated, which will in-turn allow us to use class=Book. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The metabanner has already been updated to handle the book-class. But the WPVG banner still needs to be updated to enable it's use. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

How does that work? We don't have anything special to use FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, or Stub class, so why is this different? MrKIA11 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The banner use |QUALITY_SCALE=extended, which does not bundle the book-class along with the rest. It needs to be switched to |QUALITY_SCALE=subpage. Then {{WikiProject Video games/class}} needs to be created using the {{class mask}} and certain parameters. It's essentially the same steps you would need to do if you wanted to have the redirect-class. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to have it added to the bundle that goes along with |QUALITY_SCALE=extended? MrKIA11 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than pulling a miracle and convince the metabanner coders to include it, nope. You're welcomed to try though. In the meantime this is how the book-class works, which is pretty simple and doesn't break anything [I've made the extended-->subpage change several times now, it's fully backwards compatible]. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Template:WPBannerMeta/class the template that would have to be changed? JACOPLANE • 2009-12-5 23:13

Everything works on the metabanner side of things. If you wanted the "extended" part to cover the book-class you would have to change {{Class mask/extended}}, but I doubt they'll ever agree to change it. For example, extended doesn't cover redirects, and there is several hundred projects who uses them. Just gimme the go and I'll implement it. It's two edits. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding book-class to the "extended" bundle is certainly a possibility, if it turns out that many projects want to adopt this class. The problem is that you are then imposing a new class on 0 projects which may not all want it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So, want me to go ahead? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Punch it. --Izno (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright it's done. I tagged 23 books (Category:Book-Class video game articles), but I might have missed some (Category:Wikipedia Books.

If you want to write more books (I notice that FF XII has a book, but not FFVIII for example), simply start the book creator (click "Create a book", in the print/export toolbox on the left of your screen), and follow instructions. The easiest/fastest way to create a book is to go to a category, add all the pages in that category ("Add this category to your book"), and review the book ("Show book") to create chapters and whatnot. See Help:Books for details. It's pretty easy to use, just toy around with it and you'll figure it out in no time.

There's also a manual way to create books if you don't like the book-creator, but I'd still suggest using the book-creator at least for the first 2-3 books just so you get the hang of it. If something's unclear or confusing, just drop me a line and I'll help as best I can. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fictional chronology templates

What is the project's thoughts on templates such as this -->

? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Redundant with {{Kingdom Hearts series}}, IMO. I wouldn't put a nav template like that in the middle of the articles, either. Nifboy (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of these at all. The articles are usually linked to in several places such as in navboxes and in the prose, its just overdoing it with the linking. -- Sabre (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sabre... someone added them to Halo 3: ODST and the related games, but I was reverted, and didn't really feel like debating it. On the other hand, I cleaned up the template ({{Halo chronology}}) so it's less garish than the one listed above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that they can be useful in determining the order of games in an easy to read list, but I'm fairly neutral on them otherwise. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the point in having it in every single games' article. The series article, maybe, if it makes sense (Castlevania, sure. Banjo Kazooie? Not so much), but each game will already explain where it is in the chronology; no need to reproduce the whole thing every time. Nifboy (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Related templates: {{Castlevania chronology}}, {{Banjo-Kazooie chronology}}, {{Grand Theft Auto chronology}}, all of which were created recently and seem to be based on {{Metroid chronology}}. Nifboy (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a "Zelda chronology" one...XD--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A Zelda one is too risky. The timeline in that is too messed around and confusing even though we know Spirit Tracks is the latest in time. For now leave that be. Also chronology templates should only be made for series that have games that are prequels are fit between others. If there is say like 40 in the series, then a template would be too big and not needed eg Mega man. For so few games in the Kingdom Hearts series and Metroid, one would be suited. --VitasV (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The templates are kind of ugly (tiny font, super wide header), but otherwise I am indifferent. SharkD  Talk  01:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend avoiding these; while the chronology of a series can be discussed on the series page, making these templates available will cause people to try to seek the same for the more-difficult series (Zelda, Metroid, Castlevania) and we'll have endless edit wars from newbies thinking they know better. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah the timelines for Metroid and Castlevania are not difficult. It's Zelda timeline that is. --VitasV (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, I don't think there's a problem with some of the templates. But others may end up confusing more than helping and should probably be deleted. {{Castlevania chronology}} for example, has Castlevania Legends, which was retconned out, and Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, which will reboot the franchise. And what will happen with future titles after Lords of Shadows?

Others have some quirks too. {{Halo chronology}} only includes the video games and not other media, which I believe are cannon. {{Grand Theft Auto chronology}} has Grand Theft Auto: Mission packs split into to links and the GTAIV episodes bloat the template's width.

It may be best to delete the ones that are not practical, but I suspect most should be helpful additions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

As long as these aren't added as a status quo and are only done on a case by case basis, I can accept the pros for limited use for these templates despite my misgivings. Most game series don't need them at all: franchises like Half-Life, Monkey Island, StarCraft, Gears of War, etc, where the titles are released in a reasonably straight chronological order, would gain nothing from the creation of these templates, but would just be redundant to a series navbox. -- Sabre (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The books open a huge can of worms in terms of story progression. Halo: The Fall of Reach takes place from 2517-2552, the space of four other books or games, for example. Which goes first, Halo: Combat Evolved or its novelization, Halo: The Flood (since it describes events that could be before the opening cinematic?) The events of The Halo Graphic Novel likewise span months, and due to some space-distorting crystal the events of Halo: First Strike happen both before and after the events of Combat Evolved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if you add it for "simple" series (and I would contend the KH example is not simple, since 384/2 Days wraps around CoM, though it mostly takes place after it), "monkey see monkey do" and you'll be editing warring with those that want it for other series. If 1) you have a large enough series that there is a story chronology, and 2) that chronology is not straight forward, then there ought to be a section in the main series article that discusses it, and importantly, I'd include a link to it from the navbox that these articles will likely contain. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So to summarize, it looks like most of these should be avoided because most stories are too complex to simplify the chronology. Exceptions are allowed as long as the template significantly aids the description of the story. {{Metroid chronology}} sounds like a good example. The different numbered games can be confusing to the layman (Metroid Prime 3 comes before Metroid II: Return of Samus?), but the story is simple enough to list. Is this consensus? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

This should only be used when a game's developer has detailed the chronology. Zelda does not have a definite chronology, but if it did, the template would have to have 2 columns for the diverging timelines. That's pretty much out of the question. However, if one exists, it seems OK.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of restrictions we think should apply, which (if any) of the chronology templates should be sent to AfD?

• {{Assassin's Creed chronology}}
• {{Banjo-Kazooie chronology}}
• {{Castlevania chronology}}
• {{God of War chronology}}
• {{Grand Theft Auto chronology}}
• {{Halo chronology}}
• {{Kingdom Hearts chronology}}
• {{Metroid chronology}}

Also, have the creators of the templates been notified of this discussion? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

Don't want to be rude or anything, but these templates are just flat-out ugly, and really don't add anything to the articles. I think they all should be deleted, making no exceptions. The Prince (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Images and infoboxes for retro games - refresh!

Hey there. :) In case you missed my previous threads, I've been busy for a few months showing a bit of love to a few hundred odd retro game articles (and probably starting a few dozen or so of them in the process). I started another thread previously, as one challenge that faced many of these articles was the lack of images and/or infoboxes (in some cases, {{Infobox VG series}}). That thread was quite successful, but since I posted that I have accumulated a few more, while pruning out all the ones that were indeed fixed.

If you're the sort of person who likes to add these things to articles, where here is your chance to help out! :) Now, you might look at this ridiculous list and say "No way, that's way too much," but don't look at it that way. Maybe pick five articles or so that make you go "No way; that one doesn't even have an infobox?" and fix them up. Maybe come back another day or two later and say "Hey these haven't been fixed; let me get that."

Note that many of these articles do have images like screenshots, but they probably do not have box art, which I think is what an infobox is supposed to have ideally. I'm sure in some cases a proper image may not even exist, let alone be available for public consumption; if so, feel free to strikethrough it with a note explaining. Also feel free to strikethrough anything you fix or that you note has been fixed, and I'll try to keep up with anything that anyone misses. Thanks for your help and patience! :) BOZ (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Image only:

• Trek-80
• Dungeon of Death (video game)
• Android Nim
• Crush, Crumble and Chomp! (needs box image)
• World Builder
• Wizardry IV: The Return of Werdna (not the best version possible)
• Marble Madness NES port cover added; couldn't find arcade image
• The Last Ninja
• Quarterstaff: The Tomb of Setmoth
• PT-109 (video game)
• Microsoft Flight Simulator Series page; the "history" subpage has covers for every version/game
• Pharaoh's Revenge
• Wonder Boy in Monster Land
• Prophecy: The Fall of Trinadon
• Hidden Agenda (computer game)

• Thud Ridge: American Aces In 'Nam
• Strider (arcade game)
• David Wolf: Secret Agent
• Krakout
• Super Xevious
• Armor Alley
• Command HQ
• Space: 1889 (computer game)
• Top Gun: Danger Zone
• Spectre (video game)
• A-Train
• Super Space Invaders '91
• Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete
• Mission Thunderbolt
• Plan 9 from Outer Space (video game)
• Spellcraft: Aspects of Valor
• The Legend of Kyrandia

• Shadowlands (video game)
• Task Force 1942
• Pax Imperia
• S.C.OUT
• Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure
• Dangerous Dave
• Bio Menace
• Companions of Xanth
• Xargon
• Isle of the Dead (video game)
• Electro Man
• Reach for the Stars (computer game)
• Quantum Gate (video game)
• Cosmology of Kyoto
• Merchant Prince (series)
• Hammer of the Gods (well, it's teeny)
• High Seas Trader

Infobox and Image:

• Civil War (video game)
• Time Traveller (video game)
• Dragonfire II: The Dungeonmaster's Assistant
• OrbQuest, The Search For Seven Wards
• Realms of Darkness
• Pinball Wizard (video game)
• Classic Empire (computer game)
• The Computer Edition of Scrabble
• Championship Baseball
• World Tour Golf
• Falcon (computer game)
• Sokoban
• Indoor Sports
• Monte Carlo (video game)
• Power!
• Decisive Battles of the American Civil War Volume 1: Bull Run to Chancellorsville
• TNK III
• Basketball Challenge
• Ebonstar
• Star Command (computer game)
• Wooden Ships and Iron Men (video game) (has infobox, needs image)
• Solitaire Royale
• Zany Golf
• Sniper! (video game)
• Trust & Betrayal: The Legacy of Siboot (has infobox, needs image)

• Their Finest Hour (1989 video game)
• Star Fleet (game series)
• Citadel: Adventure of the Crystal Keep
• Harpoon (video game)
• The Computer Edition of Risk: The World Conquest Game
• Dr. Plummet's House of Flux
• Bomber (video game)
• Breach 2
• Time Bandit
• Fire King (video game)
• Iron Lord
• MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy
• Imperium (computer game)
• Starflight 2: Trade Routes of the Cloud Nebula
• If It Moves, Shoot It!
• Tangled Tales: The Misadventures of a Wizard's Apprentice
• Stellar 7
• Faces (video game)
• DarkSpyre
• Warlords (game series)
• Cybergenic Ranger: Secret of the Seventh Planet
• Martian Memorandum
• Swamp Gas Visits the United States of America

• Hyperspeed (video game)
• Nova 9: Return of Gir Draxon
• V for Victory: D-Day Utah Beach
• Buck Rogers: Matrix Cubed
• Global Conquest
• Pacific Islands (video game)
• Siege (video game)
• Discovery: In the Steps of Columbus
• Kingdoms of England II: Vikings, Fields of Conquest
• Amazon: Guardians of Eden
• The Incredible Machine
• M4 (video game)
• Carriers At War
• Conquered Kingdoms
• The Summoning (video game)
• Who Killed Sam Rupert?
• Heartlight (game)
• Walls of Rome (video game)
• Heaven & Earth (video game)
• Jewel Box (video game)
• Inferno (video game)
• Wyatt Earp's Old West
• SpaceKids
• Jump Raven
• Citadel of the Dead

If that's not enough to be getting on with then I suggest willing editors take a look at the following categories;

• Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art - for those articles requiring box art or other identifying images
• Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots - for those articles requiring screenshots to better illustrate the article.

There may well be articles that fall into both categories. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another category to look at Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes for willing editors. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for all the help so far. :) BOZ (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Project backlogs

Just a heads up, the project has several backlogs of tasks for those looking for something to do. I know this time of the year can be busy for everybody, but taking the time to do even a small thing will help. Ten people helping out a little can easily do the work of one. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Discussions

Several older discussions could use some input to reach a consensus. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

• #Arcade flyers
• #Fictional chronology templates
• #Purging members

Others could use some input.

• #Cricket Revolution
• #Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love - This has now been archived. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion pertaining to addition of director and producer fields to Infobox VG could still use some extra comments too, to fully hammer out some sort of result. -- Sabre (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots has more than 6,500 articles tagged.
• Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art has more than 1,500 articles tagged.

See #Images and infoboxes for retro games - refresh! for a condensed list of quick links.

Anyone interested in helping out with this should check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video game images if you haven't already. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

I've got some of the games needing screenshots. Now... umm... can someone come along to my talk page and explain (as you would to a five-year-old) step-by-step what the heck I need to do to upload them? Also, how do I take a low-resolution screenshot? Usually, I just press the Print Screen button, so I don't have any choice about the quality. So, someone help? Please? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You could resize the image using a program - just make it smaller, and it's low resolution. However, make sure you don't manually resize it or it'll be pixellated. GIMP is a free photo editing program. --_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality reviews

There are over 30 articles under some kind of review: GAN, FLC, FAC, FAR, and A-class. The bulk is at GAN, so reviewing a Good article candidate would be great, but really anything to help with this would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm embroiled with coursework at the moment, but I'll try to help with the GAN backlog when that's dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Article requests

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests is still pretty backlogged with some going back to August 2008. Some of the older requests have responses, but a second opinion is needed to confirm that the request is either valid or should be removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Is PlayStation 3 games necessary?

When I first saw this linked at the main PlayStation 3 page, I assumed it was a game list. But it's simply a trivial detailed guide to releases by year and so on. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A good deal looks like it's already in PS3 and PS3 release. Should merge what isn't already in those two places. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Izno. Merge it with the List of PlayStation 3 games page.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Formula One (1985 video game)

Hi

I'm new to wikipedia but I created an article on a videogame of 1985 that I liked very much called Formula One. It didn't exist yet. I created it in my userspace and have just moved it live, so it's pending review. Seeing that this is the wikiproject video games, I believe this would be the best place to ask an administrator to review and correct my article? :)

Here it is: Formula_One_(1985_video_game) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoGenPT (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. Still not used to it. But I also wanted to add that I may have not correctly uploaded the images because in the details they say they're orphaned?

NeoGenPT (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For a new user, that is remarkable. I'm not an admin, but I've removed the tag. That's good. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I played this game alot back in the day. So much that I can't vouch for my neutral point of view on the article. :) I created the talk page and added the "WikiProject Video games" tag as instructed in the top of this page. Still not sure what should be done to correct the images though.

NeoGenPT (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've labelled it as a stub of low-importance to be on the safe side, though I think it may be C-class. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the references will need to be cleared up in order to increase it's class. Currently there are links to scanned images of magazine reviews which breach copyright, using the {{Cite journal}} template should remove these concerns. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Any further comments should be placed at Talk:Formula One (1985 video game). AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New format for game list

A new format was suggested months ago for List of Wii games and could be implemented by early next year. Further details are here: Talk:List of Wii games#New format « ₣M₣ » 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Arcade flyers

So, according to User:Frecklefoot use of arcade flyers in infoboxes is forbidden and we should use screenshots instead. Is that the consensus here? --Mika1h (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arcade flyers? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See for example: Bubbles, Phoenix, Street Fighter II, Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection. --Mika1h (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought it might be, just wanted to make sure. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a discussion on this in the last few months? I seem to recall it coming down on the side of the flyers/posters, though I might be mistaken. -- Sabre (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before. Flyers, cabinets isolated from flyers, and screenshots are all considered copyrighted and unusable as far as I can tell. I'm acutally talking to the owner of KLOV to see about getting permission for this project to duplicate the non-copyrighted photos of cabinets he has. I also want to see about possibly starting some kind of subproject here specifically for obtaining personally taken photos of cabinets and such for use on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it any different than a movie poster though?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea, I'm just reporting previous discussions and possible solutions. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I understand. I think we had a lengthy discussion here too on the matter that should be in the archives, and I think Sabre's recalling the same one because I was sure it ended in favor of them.

It's a strange setup too when you consider that the flyers are, effectively, the box art for the games, and for console-based games there isn't any such qualm regarding using box art. So according to the sum logic of that and what was used in the AfD, a screenshot would be better than the arcade flyer but a scan of the console box, even if it's more or less the same image in some cases, is better than a screenshot? That's what the AfD and current standing seems to suggest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are two main archived discussions I could find. Here's a very early one from August 06, and the more recent one from August 09 everyone is remembering. After reading them, it doesn't really feel like a true consensus was ever reached. The discussions just kind of fizzled out despite some very valid points being brought up for and against. Shall we try to reach a definite consensus this time? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

When you have an arcade game that has had ports made to home systems then we use box art in the infobox (if I am correct), so are we only really talking about arcade games that havenever been released on home systems? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is not the case for at least two articles. Street Fighter 2 has been released on several home consoles and Tekken 5 was released on the PSP.--70.24.180.120 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Street Fighter II released over XBLM? If it was, then it has no boxart in that form. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Street Fighter II was released on consoles like the Mega Drive and SNES, for which there will be box art. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The debate seems to fizzling out again. How about if a game has only ever been released in arcades than a screenshot of the title screen gets used in the infobox? To a lot of people it may be more recognisable than an image of the cabinet or a flyer. As this would be being used for a purpose different to an in game screenshot would fair-use rationale pass for two screenshots in the article in these instances? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to jump start discussion- I think an issue to take into account is that many arcade game articles are written with the arcade version as the primary focus and home ports as derivatives. Putting in a home console box art does not sound like a good identifying image. This approach, however, would probably be suitable for an arcade game that is more well known for its home version.

Aside from that, I think arcade images should be sought after this order of importance

1. Arcade cabinet- the artwork and cabinet are easily recognizable physical objects.
2. Arcade flyer- flyers typically display one or more type of cabinet and identifying artwork for the characters or in-game objects.
3. Gameplay image- only identifiable if up close to a cabinet. But is typically desired for the article anyway. And with the internet and MAME so readily available, this is probably becoming an easily identifiable aspect.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm of the opinion that a screenshot of title screen should be used if a picture of the cabinet is not available. This should be more recognisable than a flyer to all but the most knowledgeable arcade goer, plus it will also cover arcade games that have been given conversions to home systems if box art is not suitable for these articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we use to do something like that before, but moved away from it once we tightened the application of WP:NFCC. If we can come up with a strong fair use rationale, then I guess we could go back to it. I'm still in favor of flyers over title screens though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm not too hot on the legalities of non-free fair-use rationales, so if there is somebody in the project who is then feel free to step in at this point. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I favour the use of the arcade flyer as the primary image. It's most analogous to the box art used in other video game articles, and conveys more information on the theme and setting than the alternatives. - hahnchen 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a flyer to a screenshot, as well. SharkD  Talk  05:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ill third that. Salavat (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The concensus at the moment looks like the order of preference should be;

1. Picture of cabinet
2. Flyer
3. Screenshot

I still like the idea of the title screen but appreciate that it may be difficult to pass more than one screenshot in a article under fair-use, and a gameplay screenshot should really appear somewhere in the article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I favour the flyer over a cabinet image. The problem with cabinet images, is that a lot of them look exactly the same, and is usually pictured at an angle - which at low resolutions means you can't pick out any of the details. I think cabinet images are important, especially for unique cabinets, say Prop Cycle, but in many other cases - they're not. - hahnchen 16:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the cabinet images I've seen here are decent quality and resolution. Either way, the limited availability of the cabinet images will probably amount to the more readily available flyers being used more often anyway. But it makes sense that some flyers would be better than a cabinet image. The Bubbles flyer for example shows the upright and cocktail versions, which I think is better than a single cabinet image. But something like The Simpsons flyer doesn't even show one of the game's distinguishing features. In this case, a cabinet image would be better because it would show the four player controls. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Just to throw another spanner in the works, I have just re-read the debate on this issue from August 2009 and another suggestion is to use the game's logo in the infobox. This is the logo found on the arcade cabinet itself, or more than likely on the flyer. An arguement was made that the flyer could possibly overwhelm a non-gaming reader with the amount of information they sometimes contain. I think this could possibly be a good idea, and would be a work around for the issue with cabinet images mentioned above. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Some flyers are especially loud, but I think most are mild enough not to overwhelm readers. The issue with the logo is similar to a title screen. Cabinets show the physical design of the object and display artwork. Flyers typically show the cabinet(s) and promotional artwork for the game. Basically, the more the image offers, the stronger the fair use rationale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

And to add to the mix. Arcade flyers are specifically promotional documents. They are created for distribution within the buyer/seller community at tradeshows, or to trade press via press release kits or individual notice mailings. As long as they are shown intact with no modifications, I'm hard pressed to see how they wouldn't fall under fair use within an encyclopedic presentation. But they are advertisements and many of them contain hyperbole and sensationalized content. If we were going to include Arcade flyers, I would almost have to think that we would have to include them in the base template for all Arcade games. BcRIPster (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that a lot of arcade machines are still available to purchase, most of the modern ones anyway, would inclusion of a flyer in these instances violate WP:NOTADVERTISING? I'm guessing probably not but thought I'd throw it in to garner opinion. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think using them constitutes advertising. But I don't think we should use them. I am definitely in the camp of not using flyers. I grew up in arcades of the '80s, and no flyers ever come to mind when thinking of arcade games. I can't even recognize most. My vote: screenshots of gameplay should be the infobox image. Photos of the cabinet are illustrative and can be used in the body of the article, especially if the cabinet is unique or innovative in some manner. But arcade flyers have no place in the article at all, IMHO. They just aren't part of the subject matter. Do we show ads for IBM personal computers or Bounce cling-free sheets? They're just ads. And rarely-seen ads at that. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the project banner box template, {{WikiProject Video games}}, on an article's talk page we ask for both "box art or logo" and a "screenshot" to illustrate the article. I appreciate that box art is impossible for an arcade only game, so in this instance I would be tempted to place a logo in the infobox, and a gameplay screenshot somewhere else in the article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Section break

It looks like we're still split on the issue. Here's a summary so far to push the discussion forward.

• Cabinet images
  • Pro: easily recognizable physical object
  • Con: can be very generic
• Ad flyers
  • Pro: typically include a cabinet image(s) and artwork of in-game elements
  • Con: the flyer itself is typically not discussed in the article
• Gameplay screenshot
  • Pro: recognizable picture that the article needs anyway
  • Con: is not always the best way for a layman to identify
• Logo
  • Pro: prevalent piece of artwork that found on the title screen, cabinet, and flyers
  • Con: provides the least amount of information of all the options.
• Port's box art
  • Pro: recognizable artwork that is easier to come across
  • Con: typically not the version discussed or only briefly mentioned in the article.

Sound about right? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

I think that pretty well sums up the debate so far, I think perhaps now we've identified the major options we need to discuss an order of preference for these images, and hopefully grind out a concensus. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The order of preference with reasoning for me would be thus,

• Box art of port - obviously only when there has been at least one ported version, this will be easily recognisable, with many gamers and other people perhaps not knowing that certain games originated in the arcade. This is an image that people may have seen in shops even if they have no particular interest in games. It is usually quite easy to get hold of this kind of image.
• Logo - another easily identifiable piece of artwork that is shown on both the arcade machine, on a ported version's box art (usually) and, in games post 1990 at least, in game. Again, it is quite easy to find this image.
• Flyer - can provide a lot of information e.g. cabinet art, game theme and other information, however they are not generally discussed in the article and have not been seen by many people, leading to identification problems.
• Cabinet - arcade goers may recognise the machine but not many home gamers would, especially in regions where video arcades are not prevalent. I favour an image of the cabinet in the bulk of the article if there has been some critical mention of it.
• Gameplay screenshot - only recognisable to the select few who have actually played the game, and even then many games can look very similar, especially in the case of 2D shooters and the like. Again, gameplay should be discussed in the bulk of the article so an image would be more relevent there.

AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My only input is the generic stand-up cabinet should not be preferred, because it's the most difficult to identify from the thumbnail. Unusual controls or cabinet, okay. Nifboy (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nifboy- What would you recommend instead of a generic cabinet image? Another image or leave the infobox blank? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Any of the other four options: no universal preference as to which. For instance Pac-Man is fine with a screenshot (easily the most identifiable), and Street Fighter IV is fine with its box art, etc. Nifboy (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I have with using cabinet images is that very few arcade games outside the early-to-mid 80s were released with dedicated cabinets, but as conversion kits with easily changeable marquees, bezels, control panels, and side artwork. Also, American arcade game cabinets are very different from what is sold in other regions like Europe, Asia, and Japan. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading over things, it sounds like the common ground we've reached about arcade cabinets is that they should be only be used in the infobox if it had a distinguishing feature: three to four player controls, unique shape, and uncommon control-scheme. That being said, is sounds like everyone believes arcade cabinets should not be the first choice. Sound right? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that having those things should automatically mean the image of the cabinet goes in the infobox, just that it should go in the article somewhere, possibly in a development section if it is discussed. It should only go in the infobox if an image higher up the preference scale is unobtainable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, speaking from a non-free image issue, it appears to be identified that a free picture of an arcade cabinet should be possible (albeit difficult to get - may require trolling old game warehouses), and that this is preferred over any non-free image of the cabinet, but even more so, as we are suggesting in this thread, it is also considered a replacement for a logo, screenshot, or the like (all which are non-free). As long as a picture of a cabinet is going to be considered a free image, it is going to be difficult to assert that any other infobox image is an appropriate replacement (again, strictly speaking as a NFC proponent). It should be the case that if there is no free image of the cabinet, then there should be no image otherwise in the infobox. (this is how it applies to living persons) This does not preclude the use of screenshots of the game in the article body, of course. Now, the only angle I'd change on this is that, at least with cabinets with significant side/front art, that a photo, while capturing the uncopyrightable shape of the cabinet, is also capturing the artwork which is copyrighted , and thus make the cabinet photo non-free. However, this is a question that probably needs to be brought up at commons or WP:NFC or the like. If it affirmed that cabinet pictures are inheriently non-free if they have art, then we cannot assume a free image for every cabinet game, and thus we then are free to consider the use of non-free images as infobox pictures (as we done with nearly every console game). --MASEM (t) 15:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the issue I ran into with the Marble Madness cabinet image. Most people in the discussions reasoned that a free version of arcade cabinets can exist. However, I agree with you that cabinets with artwork fall under non-free content (based on an incident I had on Commons with The Simpsons Arcade cabinet). When I brought that up, they said that precedent had been set to use a "more free" version, which is apparently when someone takes a photograph of a non-free object, but gives up there artistic copyright as the photograph—like a Wikipedia editor uploading their own photograph of a non-free object. I argued that if the cabinet is taken from a company's advertisement, then the copyright owner of the object and the photograph is the company, making it is just as "more free" as a Wikipedia editor uploading their own photograph of the cabinet.

The whole process put a rather sour taste in my mouth because when ask to support the precedent, no examples or guideline pages were given. It didn't seem worth the headache trying to keep up with the numerous discussion this would entail. However, if others can help keep track of this, then I'd be more willing to pursue the issue.

As it stands right now, there is a whole category of images on Commons we should look at. If our interpretation of copyrights is correct, which I think it is, almost all of them should be removed from Commons and moved to Wikipedia. Something like File:PongVideoGameCabinet.jpg can stay because it has no artwork and even then the content on the screen is just simple shapes that are ineligible for copyright. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC))