Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 52

Naming conventions - publisher's official title vs. retailer
This question was brought up by me at Talk:Guitar Hero III Mobile, however, I believe that asking the community involved in the video games project could better answer this. So here goes:

Does the publisher's "official title" of a video game take precedence over what a retail store would call the same product? For example, publisher Hands-On Mobile (handson.com) calls the mobile phone version Guitar Hero III Mobile while Rogers (an online retail store) just calls it Guitar Hero III. This conflicts with the console/computer version published by Activision (PS2, PS3, Wii, Xbox 360, PC, and Mac) called Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, which is also known as Guitar Hero III or sometimes Guitar Hero 3 for short (both redirect to the full title). There is a hatnote at the top of Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock which provides a link to the mobile phone game, so I don't see why there should be a problem. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does the title screen of the game itself say? What do major gaming sites call it?  Jappalang (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignore retailers. As Jappalang said, go with The game's own cover, gaming sites and the publishers name of it. - X201 (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Retailers often get it wrong anyway. Go for the official name, and you can't get much more official than the horse's mouth itself. -- .: Alex  :.  11:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Review boxes
What should be done with the review box in the case of Resident Evil 4? Should all four versions have reviews listed in the same box or should just one be chosen for it? Also, the article could still use quite a bit of help at this point if anyone feels like it. TTN (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO two options
 * First option is to select 4-5 review sources along with MC/GR and include all four scores for each, with BR tags between each. This would limit the table to 24 "scores", thus keeping it short.
 * Second option (and the one I think I prefer) is to focus on the first release only in the table (thus allowing more scores); subsequent ports should include the MC/GR in prose and the reviewers comparison of the original to the port.
 * A third possible option, in the way RE4 is defined, is a separate review table for each for each section - the text is already long enough to support this, but I think this starts to get table-happy. --MASEM 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Albion (Fable)
I'm thinking of deleted Albion (Fable) per notability, in world, and lack of cites, what do you guys think? Gears  of War 2 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, much of the content (locations, etc) could definitely go. As to the overall issue of notability, I'd say prolly nuke it. But before I'd nom it I'd chack for sources on development and creation. I doubt it'll have enough to stay (and considering the time gap between Fable 1 and 2 is prolly better covered in the setting articles.)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wait for the copy-and-paste "keep" comments to come along and filibuster up the works. You're probably better off redirecting it and saving yourself the trouble. -- Sabre (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done I have redirected the page. Gears  of War 2 19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gears of War/Video Game Cabal
I hate to be a convassar but can we use User:Gears of War/Video Game Cabal as our offcial cabal, I think you guys will like the project aim. Gears  of War 2 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We had that idea once.  Pagra shtak  21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter, mines will be a sucess. Gears  of War 2 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pixologist rewritten
Hi, I've rewritten pixologist and encourage you to visit Articles for deletion/Pixologist to see if concerns have been addressed. Please note that a name change to pixel artist is almost assured if the article is kept. Banje boi 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Warcraft software and technical articles

 * JASS
 * MPQ
 * .BLP
 * Glider (bot)
 * Thottbot
 * Warden (software)
 * Wowhead

This assortment of articles has been taken to AFD with no consensus, but it still needs much improvement to keep it around, so I think perhaps we could merge them into a Blizzard software article, and merge the fan created software to either the World of Warcraft article or making a Software of World of Warcraft article. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, in terms of Thottbot, Wowhead and even Allakhazam I think we should possibly look at a merge and redirect to List of MMORPG directories or similar. They're all stub articles and would probably benefit from a list article detailing their common history. Glider (bot) I'm guessing can be fleshed out somewhat going from earlier discussions here about the article. Warden (software) should be able to gain more references from World of Warcraft, particularly around the controversy it caused (cutting down the latter article even more), plus it's now being used for other Blizzard games as well. JASS, MPQ and .BLP I'm just not sure on, and could probably sway between merge and outright delete. They shouldn't be merged to World of Warcraft as they're used in other Blizzard games, but I don't think they should be standalone articles or contain a lot of the howto information they currently have.  Gazi moff  08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

GA and FA Taskforce
Okay I just made a cabal that was created to focus on one article at a time and then the entire cabal would have helped to get that article to at least GA status(or even FA). So I then requested the cabal to be deleted after a long talk about it and so i then had a conversation with Keeper 76 and xeno about the cabal after the deletion. Afterwords, xeno suggested a GA FA taskforce in WP:VG that would do the same thing my cabal would have done. So now i come before the grand court known as WP:VG to suggest a GA FA taskforce. My taskforce will pick one article at a time to build, move to another and and build that one. This would give WP:VG many more GA and FA. Consider my proposal. Gears <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2.3" color="#7D0008"> of War 2 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm always endlessly sceptic about this kind of project, so please don't take this personally. I do not think such a taskforce can be successful, because it will still depend on cooperation by a limited number of editors, just like most FA projects. A much better route to get articles to FA is to seek out editors with interests similar to yours, and discuss on user talk pages. Taskforces like these never get big, and because they don't, just add extra overhead. Remember that a taskforce is nothing but a "Wikipedia:" page, and that the prime concern before creating one should be "is such a Wikipedia namespace talk page handy?" User:Krator (t c) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion, Gears, is that you hook up with whoever was talking about heading up the Collaboration of the (Fortnight?) and see about combining your proposal with that. I'm of the mind as Krator that it's best to consolidate and avoid extra overhead. Perhaps by bringing back the collaboration (and focusing not only on bad article improvement but also GA/FA promotion) we can meet your aims. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the Collaboration of the possibly Fortnight, does anyone know if there's been any more progress on the idea?<b style="color:#fd8af6;">Evaunit</b> ♥666♥ 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well once I have permission, I'll create a taskforce with the help of xeno, so just give me feedback guys.<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2.0" color="#7D0008"> Gears <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2.3" color="#7D0008"> of War 2 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, a piece of serious feedback first, then: try to edit a few articles you like up to FA standards first. User:Krator (t c) 22:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I advised him to come here for further input, to be honest I don't really have the time nor focus to help with such a thing. GoW, I'd suggest you take Krator's advice on board and also consider the suggestion from David, and failing that, revive the workshop that is linked higher up in this thread. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was supposed to get the collaboration back up and running. But clearly, I haven't got round to doing it yet. Gears, you might want to contact me before starting anything. If we do start a new project-wide collaboration, we want to make sure we've got a lot of participation, like we used to have on WP:GCOTW in the good old days. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-08-6 22:55
 * Okay Jaco, once I get my first FA, I'll see you.<font face="Lightning" size="2.0" color="#7D0008"> Gears <font face="Lightning" size="2.3" color="#7D0008"> of War 2 01:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work or not
I thought this was derivative work but I have been told different so I just want to make sure, is this derivative work or not? left|40px Unknown The Hedgehog Everyone??, cool image is it not. <font face="Palatino linotype" size="3"> Gao gier  Chat! 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a variation of Shadow the hedgehog to me, so it is a derivative work (and therefore non-free and shouldn't be linked in talk pages). --M<font size="-3">ASEM 03:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its fan art isn't it? Isn't there usually some tolerance on this sort of stuff from most developers? -- 10:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can bring up the image at WP:PUI. Admins taking up the issue of images patrol there more than over here.  Jappalang (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User-created content = derivative work?
I'm just wondering, but in games that allow user-created content, could that be considered a derivative work? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... can you clarify? A derivative work in this sense, or something else? —Giggy 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Legally speaking, I believe that mods and user-created content are derivative works. I think that's how they're referred to in the end user license agreements, but usually when they are referred to they are allowed by the developers on the condition that no profit is made and no passwords/access rights are required to access them. At least, that's what I remember from when I read Doom 3's EULA recently. -- Sabre (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, could a screenshot of user-created content, such as a Spore monster, be uploaded to Commons, since it wouldn't be for profit or wouldn't have limited access to it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not. On the Commons side, Commons:Commons:Licensing has all the gory details, and "Commercial use of the work must be allowed" is one of 'em. Speaking specifically about Spore, EA claims rights on user content, and while I don't know if it holds up under close scrutiny, it doesn't strike me as a free-as-in-what-the-Foundation-wants kind of free. Nifboy (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Screenshots in general are always derivative because they feature copyrighted artwork, even if the assembly of that art (in the form of custom creatures) is user-defined. Perhaps easier to digest if you consider photographic mosaics. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nifboy and Ham are correct. Anything based on a video game screenshot would be a derivative work, where copyright is owned by the game's designer, not you. —Giggy 10:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in the Ace Attorney series‎
Okay, I'm bringing it here because I seriously need more eyes on it. People keep adding crap about personal details that surely violate WP:NOT and completely disregard WP:WAF, and any attempts to prune it simply result in it coming back, again and again. I'm very tired of this. Can I get some people to watchlist and soemone (like TTN) to sweep through and prune the article? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given the article a swipe to clear out extraneous details. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Stickers/trophies in Super Smash Bros. Brawl
For characters that are unlockable stickers and trophies for Brawl, is it really necessary to list it in the character article? I strongly feel it's trivial content and not that notable. See the history of Rouge the Bat for one example. I've been trying to remove it, but others just keep re-adding it back. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I told you, each cameo is notable. I mean, you've even gone to te point of "Movies are more important than games, notability wise". Which is wrong. They're equally important. <font color="#800080">Skeletal  <font color="#FFA500">S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  01:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop following me around Skeletal. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. You've done it to me.
 * 2. I'm watching this page.
 * 3. I work on the Sonic articles. I'm not following you.
 * 4. I can post on any article I want.

You're acting a bit paranoid. Let's calm done for a few minutes. <font color="#800080">Skeletal  <font color="#FFA500">S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I made my point perfectly clear here: Talk:List_of_characters_from_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_%28games%29, if people want to see the full discussion on the matter. Which involved Skeletal just fighting with me, to stir up trouble again. I'm asking for other opinions on the matter (seeing as how you do NOT own the Rouge article, nor do you determine notability for video game articles), so let others post before you fight with me again. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rob, I am NOT trying to fight you. I am reverting wrongful edits that you made. I'm not acting like I on the article. I am improving it. You are over-reacting. Just calm down, man. Relax. <font color="#800080">Skeletal  <font color="#FFA500">S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrongful edits? That's nonsense. You disagree with me, so you revert. Leave the article alone until OTHERS discuss the matter. You need to just leave me alone, and stop following me around, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let the others decide? I was just about to say that. lol. The wrongful edits are you're trying to decide which appearances are notable, and aren't. You've even stated that movie cameos are more important than game cameos. So what if 100's of people cameod in Brawl? They're all notable. And I am NOT following you. I am trying to improve the articles that I work on. Just chilax, Rob. Chilax... <font color="#800080">Skeletal  <font color="#FFA500">S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down both of you. Rob, ever consider that maybe Skeletal is trying to make a legitimate point? Skeletal, ever consider that maybe you're pushing on Rob a little hard? Just forget your past conflicts and talk about the issue. <font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix <font color="#FFA500">flame of life...<font color="#FFFF00">protector of all... 01:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Leave your personal conflict to your talk pages if you're going to continue.  Pagra shtak  01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying Phoenix, I'm trying... <font color="#800080">Skeletal  <font color="#FFA500">S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean a list of all characters that are just trophies or stickers, then listing them gives a disproportionate amount of weight to something extremely minor. Readers need to get the general idea behind them, that idea does not need bludgeoning into their skulls with a blunt, indiscriminate list fit for a fansite. Someoneanother 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't need it on Brawl's article, but each characters article, we should state that they appeared as a sticker/trophy. This is what the edit-war is. Wheather Rouge the Bat's article shuld have a sentence telling the reader about her cameo. <font color="#800080">Skeletal  <font color="#FFA500">S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  01:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of individual characters, we have to weigh exactly how significant the sticker/trophy appearance is in comparison to their other appearances. In Rouge's case, she is a character in umpteen games, an ongoing character within the Sonic series, a character in Sonic X and quite possibly in comics too. The appearance of this character as a sticker pales into insignificance compared to pretty much any other of her appearances and is of no significance within Smash Brothers. Someoneanother 02:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That tends to be my gut reaction, especially since there's, what, 700 stickers?  Pagra shtak  02:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no substantial reason that a cameo in any form makes a character (video games, comics, movies) more notable (or a notable feature of the character). Notability of a subject should primarily be satisfied on its own.  "Borrowing" another subject's notability to build up one's resume bespeaks of a lowly nature of the original subject instead.  Moreover, I believe cameos are only worth mentioning if they are notable events in the medium that features the cameos.  Having a short appearance as a character in the background or offering a few words is simply banal, having a character actually playable for a stage or changing the gameplay in some form is significant.  Writing that the developers negotiated to use each other's copyrighted characters is nice, simply stating "oh, this character is here as well" is insignificant to the point where it is better to leave it out.  Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stickers and trophies are only applicable if there's a very notable trophy or covered trophy (like Helmetless Samus, Mario & Yoshi, or Tamagon), or on video game articles - it's notable because it's an example of SSBM/B taking assets from those games. It shouldn't be mentioned the names of the trophies, but that there are trophies and/or stickers taken from the game is worth mentioning (particularly because it can be said in one sentence). - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor cameos are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of what can be said about the character. It doesn't exactly break any rules to include it, but I don't think it's worth trying to fit it into the existing prose: I've yet to see cameos written any way other than " appears in as ", which reads like a trivia bullet point and, unless you have a number of cameos, makes for very short paragraphs and/or sections. Nifboy (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty hard-core trivial silliness; it's bad in the Link article where there's actually something to say, and it's horrible everywhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many articles mention stickers? I think this should be a task for us to work on: cleaning it from the articles. There is numerous sticker lists online, so we just use them to determine what articles might have them listed. The same goes for trophies for Brawl, as well as the other two Smash games.RobJ1981 (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what's so bad about having one sentence saying "So and so appeared in SSBB as a sticker/trophy" ,and cite it? I mean, what's the big deal? But, just a fair warning, on each article that you remove it from, they'll always be a user who continues to add it. <font color="#800080">Skeletal  <font color="#FFA500">S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  05:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That same logic could mean we'd have to keep any unencyclopedic material anyone was willing to edit war tirelessly to keep. I'm not much moved by it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, in the end, there won't be just one sentence. If you look through some of the more popular character article histories, you'll see stuff like "so and so has a fireball attack in SSB" / "(Such and such is actually this and that)" being added every day. The only reason minutiae like this doesn't reliably pile up is due to the efforts of dedicated editors. You've really got to be firm about it, because when people see little bits of trivia all over an article, they tend to want to add their own little bits of trivia to it. <font color="gold" size="2px">地炎風水闇陽 ( Talk ) 05:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with he triva so long as it's sourced? It just seems like some editors, just don't want to see people knowing about cameos, and minor appearances. <font color="#800080">Skeletal  <font color="#FFA500">S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  05:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't the internet, hence cant and shouldnt have every detail about everything. If you belive this kind of stuff needs recording go to the wikia site and record it there or something like that. Salavat (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with including trivia, no matter if its sourced, is that doing so violates WP:TRIVIA... Can't get much more straightforward than that... -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 06:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Fin©™ 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Detailed game-specific trivia like this belongs on a gaming wiki, not on wikipedia. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pocket Monsters Platinum
Hi! I believe Pokémon Platinum must be moved to Pocket Monsters Platinum due to the project's naming conventions. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no. This is the English language Wikipedia, so Pokémon is known as Pokémon. Plain and simple. Would you care to give any evidence supporting your claim? <b style="color:green; font-family:Verdana;">TheChrisD</b> Rants • Edits 10:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This should follow the normal Requested moves procedure, and the discussion should be on the talk page. ~ <font color="#206080">JohnnyMrNinja  10:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pokémon is known as Pokémon, but this game is known as Pocket Monsters Platinum. It has no English language name considering it has yet to be announced outside of Japan. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This should follow the normal Requested moves procedure, and the discussion should be on the talk page. Please do not discuss it here. ~ <font color="#206080">JohnnyMrNinja  10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam and Max Hit the Road development information
Right, I hope I can gauge the source-finders amongst you to help me out again with some sourcing. I'm currently rewriting Sam & Max Hit the Road, the old 1993 classic Lucasarts adventure game (and the first video game I ever played. Well, that and Doom. Ah the memories). However, I'm a little stuck for development sources. I've got a little bit of information on the designers, the engine and the music, as well as a brief bit of history of how it ended up as a video game, but beyond that I'm struggling. I figure I've probably got enough there as a bare minimum (once I reference it properly), but I'd really like to get my hands on some more. However, as its been 14 years, such information is hard to come by.

I'd also appreciate some help with reviews: most of them are in print sources, not online. I've got four working online reviews in addition to Allgame on Game Rankings, but only one (Adventure Gamers) I think is a confirmed reliable source. Are the others suitable for usage? If not, anyone got any other reviews I can use? Most of today's sources are too young to cover this. -- Sabre (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam & Max is one of my favorite games ever, so I'm glad the article is getting some attention. I re-checked some of the sites I used to find older game reviews but found next to nothing on this one.  For a game as "critically acclaimed" as this one, you'd think there'd be a few stray reviews lying around.  But I did stumble on a few interesting things:
 * Sam & Max was nominated for an Annie Award in 1994 for Best Animated CD-Rom. It lost, but considering it's the biggest award in animation it deserves some mention.
 * LucasArts Museum has a list of every Sam & Max release, both as a single game and compilations. If anything it could be used to pad out the development section. Also, there's a pre-release flier in the gallery (Back cover) that says the game was featured on a 1993 episode of Good Morning America.
 * Someone wrote up the entire game script in narrative form if you need story refreshers or quotes.
 * And If I find some reviews I'll let you know. Nall (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some great finds there Nall, well done! The script is particularly useful, saves me having to go through the game again to pick out quotes to reference the story section. I'm afraid I don't know how significant Good Morning America is though, being a Brit and all. Is it a notable enough programme to mention Sam & Max appearing on?


 * Good Morning America is one of the most well-known morning shows in the US, so I'd say yes, if you can elaborate on the significance of the appearance. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sabre, message User:Miremare. According to WikiProject Video games/Magazines/games TM, he has a copy of a Games TM Retro Compilation, it could be a "making of" feature but I can't be sure. - hahnch e n 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoot me an email too. I've got a "Making of" article from Issue 22 of Retro Gamer. - hahnch e n 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lego Batman List of Character
I'm having a dispute over at Lego Batman about whether to include a list of the characters - I feel the list shouldn't be included, due to WP:NOT (wikipedia's not a list of information) and perhaps WP:GAMETRIVIA item 6. Also, none of the other Lego games contains lists, though their characters could be considered equally notable (at least in Star Wars' case). Just wondering what the overall view is, if the guidelines and other articles contain enough precedent enough to not include the list of characters, and if not, why not. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the other LEGO games have lists of characters for good reason; there's no point, as they are all lego represenations of established characters with their own articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. And that Levels section in the Indiana Jones article should go the way of the Dodo as well. - X201 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, get rid of the actual list, but you can summarise in prose which characters appear, although you won't be able to do that and include all of them. -- Sabre (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks all! Fin©™ 08:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

People want to know all the characters that they can play as in the game so why not show all the characters in the article. Ice (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They should pick up the game guide, then. Wikipedia isn't a game guide.  ~<font size="3" face="Calibri">QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why pay more money to know the characters plus showing the confirmed characters doesnt mean wikipedia is a game guide. Ice (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The past few days (at least), there has been edit warring about the character list. Discuss things instead of edit warring nonstop about it. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't exactly have to buy a guide, you know. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * GameFAQs is free! Fin©™ 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Icealien seems to have a problem with this, he's continuously reverted, despite being asked repeatedly to read policies and engage discussion. Fin©™ 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My point about picking up a game guide (paid or the free ones you can find online) is that among the things that Wikipedia is not is a game guide. Wikipedia is not intended to include every minute detail, like every character that can be unlocked in a game. Wikipedia is here to consolidate notable information about a subject. If the game were to include a completely unforeseen character, such as Seth Green, then that would be considered notable, as most game sites would probably have an story confirming their confusion. However, since the minor characters are most likely expected, it's not notable and shouldn't be arbitrarily added. ~<font size="3" face="Calibri">QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 03:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry everyone for constantly adding the characters back. Ice (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could an administrator move "Dragon Warrior Monsters (video game)"?
To "Dragon Warrior Monsters" - I proposed it on the DQM series page, and no one seemed to object (and one person supported it). Besides, first game should get preference over the series, just like Dragon Warrior has.
 * Same to you as above: Follow Requested moves procedure. --Mika1h (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For a non-controversial move? The only reason I need an admin to do it is because the redirect needs to be deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then list it under "Uncontroversial proposals". --Mika1h (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And like I said, it doesn't need listing. It's something that's already been discussed, and I don't see the need to harass editors for posting headers on requiring assistance in moving an article title here. And besides that, comparing this to a controversial move that will require plenty of discussion for it to ever happen is absurd. But I think we both have better things to do than argue over semantics on moving an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who has compared it to a controversial move? Requested moves is for both uncontroversial and controversial moves. Instead of crafting that long answer, you could've placed that article under uncontroversial moves like I said and it most likely would've been moved already. --Mika1h (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't matter, there's no need to patrol the talk page for every single thing you don't think should be on here. This discussion is appropriate for this talk page, period. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy, Link. It's not necessary to attack other users like that. The Prince (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * db-move is I believe what you are looking for. ~ <font color="#206080">JohnnyMrNinja  04:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has been dealt with.  Gazi moff  22:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kyo Kusanagi
Hi, I have been cleaning the article of Kyo Kusanagi and now I was thinking of nominating it to GA. Do you think its okay? Im a bit worried about the grammar since English is not my first language, so could anybody pay look there? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interactive movies, status as a genre and merge proposal
A bit of opinion gathering.

Interactive movies are currently listed on Video game genres as a subgenre of adventure games. This seems inappropriate because the only element common to interactive movies is the constant presence of full-motion video. An adventure game is not an adventure game unless it involves strong elements of both plot and puzzles. The term "interactive movie" more appropriately relates to a presentation style to my mind, and shouldn't be treated as a genre any more than 3D games are. So I think the "genre" should go from the page.

In looking at the Interactive movie page, I also noticed an old proposal to merge Interactive movie with Full motion video based game. To me, the two pages seem to describe the same thing. The only difference I can think of is that an "interactive movie" suggests aspirations to emulate film, where "FMV-based game" is a dryer term. There have been a couple of comments supporting the merge since the initial proposal was withdrawn, so I thought I'd renew it.

Comments welcome both here and on the talk page for the merge proposal. Cheers. Playclever (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Characters of x" vs. "List of x characters"
I've noticed that the "characters" articles on Wikipedia seem to be titled in two different ways: "characters of x" and "list of x characters". "List of x characters" end up being lists, while "characters of x" articles are just, well, articles. For example, why is list of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow a list, while characters of Kingdom Hearts not a list? They both appear to be lists. Can someone clarify this for me? Xnux  the   Echidna  03:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people like "list of" in their article titles, some don't. It's not really worth going through and trying to make it consistent. Nifboy (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This distinction only really matters if you want an article to be featured, i.e. WP:Featured articles versus WP:Featured lists. There are no clear lines, but as a rule of thumb, if you remove the list and still have a decent article, you have an article, otherwise it's a list and should be named as such. – sgeureka t•c 08:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a huge debate that's been going on for awhile now, but has never been resolved. All previous discussions went stale. We really need to solve this once and for all. -- .: Alex  :.  10:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see consistency, and have them all titled in the "List of x characters" format. If they're lists, then they should be titled as such. <b style="color:green; font-family:Verdana;">TheChrisD</b> Rants • Edits 11:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But what if they're not lists? Why should they be "List of" then?  I think the rule should be 1) Is it a list?  Then title it "list of blah".  2) Is it an article instead of a list?  I.E., is there a lot of writing, not so much tables?  Then don't call it "List of".  3) Is it a gray area?  Call it what you want, but you should probably try to make it more of one or the other. --PresN (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Characters of Halo was originally List of Halo characters, aka List of Halo series characters aka Characters in the Halo series aka List of Halo characters again before its present naming. The consensus when we've brought this up at FAC previously is that if it is a list, it should be noted as such 'List of'- otherwise if it is more like an article, it should drop the 'List' nomenclature. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Valid Sources
Hi, I was searching through this page's archives and found some comments regarding a "list of valid sources" for referencing video game related articles. Is there such a list and if so where can I find it? I've made a cursory search of the project and department pages in hoped of locating it but haven't had any luck thus far. S. Luke 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's sources, under the manual of style heading on the navigation bar to the upper-right of this page. Someoneanother 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that incredibly quick respone.
 * S. Luke 03:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I should point out, however, that it should not be and is not trying to be a list of every reliable source for video games; some are only to be used in special occasions, and the list is incomplete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Wii game fighting again.
We need to form a consensus on whether to remove extraneous release dates on this list, the discussion is here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got Edge issue 5?
Just curious, as Edge issue 5 has allegedly got a review of Sam & Max Hit the Road in it. Someone had added it as a reference before I started working on the article, and due to the lack of contempory reviews of the game online, getting hold of some printed reviews seems to be becoming a necessity. -- Sabre (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:X201 does. - hahnch e n 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just been digging it out. Sabre send me your email address and I'll send you the .jpgs of the review. - X201 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I suggest cleaning up the Magazines subsection of this project, as many of the users listed (Thumper, for example) are inactive and it's giving a false leadin of what actual content users are going to be able to get. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that emailing them still works (sometimes); I got a good print preview for Midtown Madness by emailing a long inactive user. —Giggy 01:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

M.U.G.E.N
Does anyone see any real potential in M.U.G.E.N? Pretty much everything is junk and it really doesn't seem to establish any real notability. TTN (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Reception shows reliable, second party sources acknowledging its existence, giving it air time. Appearing on a TV show seems pretty notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I really see that equaling out to a section of a magazine detailing either fan games or impressive games created at universities. They exist, but they're not notable in any way. The television show is slightly more impressive, but it's still just simply acknowledging the program's existence for two minutes (which really isn't very extensive). That much could be summed up in some sort of related topic. 18:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is the engine, while regarded a lot, is generally not touched by more common sources like IGN due to the copyright hell the content tends to cause. In the end you end up with a subject that a great number of people know about and compare things to (Capcom Fighting Evolution in particular) due to how jumbled things can be, but no real major third party analysis. Last one that game to mind was the article in Hardcore Gamer, but that article actually had countless bits wrong.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And wow you really overdid the trimming of the article...really if that actually informed anyone of the target subject at this point, it'd be a miracle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think whatever online sources can be found have basically been tapped out. Nifboy (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN deleted the Kotaku reference. I guess if you want an article deleted, a good first step is to throw 70% of it, including several reliable sources, out the window. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except the entire text of the Kotaku reference is "From the inestimable Destructoid comes this video of some crazy mashup game called MUGEN. Godzilla is not taking any shit from 1-1; can I get an amen?"; The only thing that can possibly be pulled from that is the phrase "Some crazy mashup game", which is what I did. Nifboy (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this article. There's enough sources to support what's there, and with these sources it'll pass. There's also good hope on finding more. User:Krator (t c) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, what are the sources? The article as of this version has only 5 primary sources (Elecbyte's page and documentation).  The heftiest version (3 July 2008) uses 25 sources:
 * of which 12 are again primary sources (Elecbyte or documentation),
 * 7 from fan- or "unofficial" sites,
 * 4 unverifiable footnotes (simply claims without source),
 * 1 from Kotaku which is dependant on proving the author's reliability (so who is Eliza Gauger?) and has been effectively summarized by Nifboy above,
 * 1 that is an official Capcom general statement that answers to "I would like to create a CAPCOM fan site." instead of anything to MUGEN,
 * and lastly 1 that is a Capcom forum administrator's 8-word comment that may not even be about the game but about Street Fighter Online.
 * Google search for Mugen yields many hits as used in automobiles, names, and games. Most of the hits that pertain to the game are download sites, and the others are not reliable sources, so I would not think that would be a good hope on finding more.  Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The most reliable thing I could find online was this: . This is pretty non-notable, although it definitely has a few hardcore fans. Randomran (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The GameSpot union are forum pages. They would not qualify as reliable source, and we would have to ascertain the posters' background and criteria if we would like to use them as "acknowledged experts".  Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Basil W. Duke now open
The peer review for Basil W. Duke, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for VGtitle template
An FLC reviewer has stated that the format of the template does not exemplify "Wikipedia's best work" in the video game titles featured list and he proposes we add more information that can be found in the infoboxes in individual games, what does the project think about it?-- S R X   01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess this is the FLC in question? Featured list candidates/List of Need for Speed titles Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah forgot to mention it, but you are correct.-- S R X   01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This would likely need to follow the format used for Episode Lists in providing unassigned "AUX" columns that are created per game. I could do it, but not anytime soon. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what would you add? I see nothing that can be added that wouldn't be the same for all games in a series. User:Krator (t c) 07:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the FLC reviewer suggested adding ratings, game engines, multiplayer mode, etc.-- S R X   13:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd propose adding sales figures, though those might be hard to find in many cases. Lumaga (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Metacritic and Game Ranking ratings, game engine and sales figures would all be excellent additions in my opinion, although they would need to be made optional as they aren't always available. -- Sabre (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the FLC editor's suggestion. I don't believe lists are not meant to that exhaustive. I see the VGtitle as a way to convey the lead of an article in a table format. It should hit all the major, interesting points and move on to the next one. It shouldn't emulate the infobox though.
 * This also kind of reminds me of the various "list of x system games" discussion we've had. Adding in too much information can be overwhelming to a reader and can clutter a list's organization. If a reader wants to know information like the game engine, reception, or other such details, they can check the article in question.
 * Something else of note, such information can be added in the "Notes" section. I've added interesting tidbits to that section before that helped add "more oomph" to the overall list. So technically, we already have that optional section. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Angry video game nerd spam
This is no longer productive. Unless and until someone can present some evidence that this show hosted on Gametrailers is subject to editorial process, there's nothing more to discuss.

I will cheerfully block anyone who reopens (or opens a new discussion) to comment on other Wikipedia editors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't a place for general discussion, but this needs to be done. I don't want to be an Angry Video Game Nerd fan anymore. I used to like him, but he's done and said too much stuff that I didn't appreciate (He even made fun of my birthyear 1988). Plus I cannot stand his hordes upon hordes of mindless suck-ups who defend every bad thing he does. Since you people don't like him either, I need you to do me a favor. I need you to officially undeclare me an AVGN fan. That will ease a lot of stress in my mind, and I can finally move on... 24.247.134.174 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC) <div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is there anything we can do about this nonsense? Or is the next step moving to filing for a blacklist? Over the past few months there's been a rash of people trying to throw this rubbish in to articles. First as its own literal section - usually masked under the title of "Reception" when this modern reviewer was clearly not around when these games were released - as if being reviewed by him is notable itself in relation to the main content. Then when that's removed they try as a reference link to same said review. Then when that's removed they move to trying to put it in the external links. Now about 80 some articles have been spammed with a tag for the already previously deleted "video games reviewed by the angry video game nerd" category. I just went through and manually removed them all, but something has to be done about this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, "usually masked under the title of "Reception" when this modern reviewer was clearly not around when these games were released" is not a valid reason to remove reception. Plenty of magazines and websites engage in "retro reviews" that take place well after a game has been out of print, so whether or not someone was reviewing the content was new or not shouldn't be an issue for removal, though shouldn't be treated as primary reception either (instead more of a retrospective...if the review at least can be proven to be valid).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also for the record, I agree with you in some of those respects. I was not suggesting some modern reviews have no place in some articles as a minor source on "reception" - providing they also hold up to notability, editorial oversight, etc. that we hold all references to.  However, in this case I was referring specifically to the shenanigans going on with this particular reviewer and his reviews on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The tone of his review doesn't make his review less legitimate. They are, indeed, real opinions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply having an opinion does not satisfy notability and make it more legitimate either however. There are a million and one opinion blogs, editorial, review, etc. sites out there, which is why we have clear policies on these matters.  Also, I don't recall saying anything about his tone - in fact I stated about the need to follow notability, editorial oversight, etc. that we hold all references to.  And regardless, arbitrarily throwing in to an article "The angry video game nerd reviewed this game" or multiple "fans" taking the steps originally outlined above are some of the key issues here. I'm not questioning whether he himself is notable as a character and review style, i.e. notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia.  Rather, it's the need of various editors to find different ways to spam articles with the simple fact that he's reviewed a game, which on its own is not notable.  In fact, it approaches simple promotion.  Take, for example, the section at Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em that simply states "This game was reviewed by the Angry Video Game Nerd in his Atari Porn review." which I've left in for now for the sake of this discussion.  Its par for the course of the types of non-notable spamming that's gone on.  If there were a section discussing on how hard it was to play something for example, and the AVGN was cited as one of several reviewers concurring this, that's much more plausible.  But simply stating he reviewed it, or even expanding it with more of what he said in the review is not relevant in this context. Its just not notable or relevant as a fact on its own, and smacks of promotion.  And the fact that they follow the steps mentioned, just to make sure his name is included somewhere on the page, also betrays that fact. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We see specific reviewers being cited constantly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Being included in that "we", I can also say that doesn't mean a lot in the matter, i.e. WP:OSE. If the specific citations/content in relation to other reviewers are also failing in the same respects, they should be removed as well. Again, the issue is not about specific reviewers being cited constantly, rather the spamming/inclusion of non relevant material for the sake of the material, as already well explained above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just had to clean this nonsense out of Rolling Rock, of all places.

The difference between Bob's Game Blog and Gamespot is that the former is an opinion piece, and the latter is editorial content. A Gamespot review is one person's opinion, the grand majority of the time, but there is an editorial process, and it's one person speaking on behalf of a publication. AVGN trends very heavily towards the Bob's Game Blog end of things, largely because its goal is to amuse rather than inform and also because it's a three-man-band from people who are not in any sense noted experts on anything.

I don't see any reason we should be citing AVGN's opinion on anything outside of the AVGN article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly some of my thoughts as well. I don't see any real editorial oversight; and the problem also is (even by the information given on his own entry here) the overall slant of his reviews is towards the negative so he can go in to his notable "shtick".   Entertaining?  Sure.  Noteworthy as editorial content?  I just don't see it either, and I even stated I'm willing to consider it on very specific context situations I already mentioned. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it help to blacklist the source? It's clearly unreliable, despite its popularity. If this comes across as too harsh, it's something we could add to WP:VG/RS -- there are a few sources that are commonly used that are simply not reliable, and it couldn't hurt to have a little list of these. Randomran (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blacklisting the source hurts its ability to be used to confirm facts about some of the games he reviews. Regardless, I don't like the discrepancy between AVGN and Seanbaby - Seanbaby writes as a character for laughs, but his reviews are considered reliable sources for judging game quality. If AVGN were in written form in a magazine, he'd be considered reliable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with ALttP: that's actually what came to mind, right down to the Seanbaby bit. His reviews are actually right in terms of the features of the game he's discussing (it's not like Kotaku reporting a game will be 2D when it's always shown as 3D), so it's a bit far to say he's unreliable. Limiting the context may be good, but outright blacklist or just calling him unreliable would be a poor move.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure an outright blacklist is the answer either, only because then it blocks him being a reference on his own page. Listing as an unreliable source is probably the best move here, unless the spamming gets really bad then the fans who are doing it will wind up blacklisting it on their own (as what happened with Digital Press).  However, I completely disagree with the Seanbaby issue for the very reasons A Man In Black brought up already - Seanbaby, as a writer for EGM and several other magazines and publications, has editorial oversight in his articles located in said formats.  The articles are there by the express desire of the magazine staff, to provide a review (that's what gaming magazines tend to do) - they just happen to be done in a personal/entertaining format (which is something else game magazines do to help sell magazines), not to promote Seanbaby himself.  They're still governed and reviewed by same said staff as is any other article contained therein.  Yes ALttP, if AFGN were in a format where there was an editorial process over him, he'd be considered more reliable.  That's the whole point though - he doesn't, and he's not.  There is no discrepancy between the two people. "Bob's game blog" done for the express purpose of "Bob's game blog", done in manner that simply seeks to make "bob's game blog" popular rather than provide a quality review, is still "Bob's game blog".  It implies no inherent reliability, oversight or game review process.  The fact "Bob's game blog" may include some correct descriptions of some of the games "reviewed" does not change the fact that its still "Bob's game blog".  If he even, in some little way, had built up a reputation for factual based reviews and well researched content (as some "Bob's game blog" sites occasionally do), it might be a slim chance.  However, AVGN's notability (as is also explained on his Wikipedia page) is for the manner in which he delivers his "reviews", not for the quality of the reviews themselves or the actual factual reviewed content. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone would say that they read Seanbaby because of his thoughtful opinions on gaming. More like "he's offensive and funny". If AVGN can't be used because his notability is for swearing and bein' funny, than Seanbaby can't, either. And again, you think GT doesn't check his reviews? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am upset that I had to watch one of these terrible videos to understand what these people are talking about. I would like to point out that Seanbaby is actually funny, intelligent, not on MySpace, and his work isn't produced in his mom's bathroom on one of these. Saying "fucking" awkwardly every five seconds doesn't make you "edgey". ~ <font color="#206080">JohnnyMrNinja  22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly? So now your point is that because he says fuck is what your argument is? I suggest you put your opinions of the quality of his reviews to the side. He doesn't fabricate opinions, every opinion he provides as his character is 100% accurate to what the person's opinion is. The quality of his videos in your opinion doesn't matter, and "not on MySpace?" Let's say AVGN is on MySpace, does that mean being on SpikeTV.com and GameTrailers.com is not notable? What happens when someone says "I had to read one of those terrible articles to understand what these people are talking about." about Seanbaby? Are you going to say he or she is wrong, or acknowledge his or her opinion and remove Seanbaby from Wikipedia as a source? AVGN's opinions are real, they're popular, and the fact that he swears does not make his opinions illegitimate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my point's have been made abundantly clear already by the several lengthy paragraphs I wrote. "Exactly" was once again referring to previous worries about the quality of the content and its design in regards to clear cut policies to such matters on Wikipedia.  No need for you to read things in to them or continue to rehash "He's popular and has real opinions, so is a valid reference" and "Well if he can't, then Seanbaby can't either", when the issue being discussed here is the spamming of his material (already well described above) by other fans.  Seanbaby is not, and is not part of the issue here.  I prefer at this point to let others have their say, as it appears 3 other editors besides myself have the same viewpoint, and I'm sure there are more. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seanbaby is relevant because he does similar work. If it were the problem, you wouldn't be trying to get it blacklisted as a reliable review source. Blacklisting is for one thing and one thing only, a site that SHOULDN'T be listed. Your opinion of the quality of his reviews doesn't change the fact that he works for two reliable web sites who both have editorial oversight. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're just rehashing your opinions just to rehash, making further claims about me that just make no sense. I very specifically said above "I'm not sure an outright blacklist is the answer either".  For clarity sake for you, I said very explicitly that I'm not sure a blacklist is correct either - i.e. I am not calling for a direct blacklist of his site links at this time.  Please actually read my comments before you respond.  And you're continuing to claim reliability and oversight where there hasn't been any demonstrated, when several other members of this project have also expressed their concern on the same matter and material.  And once again, none of which addresses the purpose of this whole thread, its just sidetracking again - boy this is getting like a broken record.  Seanbaby has nothing to do with the issues concerning the AGVN being discussed here, you're welcome to start another thread discussing spamming of non-relevant Seanbaby material in Wikipedia articles if that occurs.  Once again, I suggest we both step aside and let more people have their say about this and voice their opinion.  If you want to keep on the same thing over and over for the sake of arguing, that speaks more about you then it does about anyone else, and you're not likely to win over opinions doing that. Once again, we've both said what we've had to - let other people speak. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying it doesn't have anything to do with this discussion doesn't negate reality and fact. You're actively defending Seanbaby, if you thought it REALLY was not relevant, why didn't you say so in the first place? Comes off to me as "I'm banning conversation of this subject because it hurts my argument". You've provided no reason to assume that there is no oversight on an established video game web site, so at what point should we assume as such? With Serebii.net, people knew that there was no editorial oversight, but AVGN WORKS for GT. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Link, take this elsewhere. Fact is, I can grab up the whole of FAC source-checkers who will shoot down AVGN in a heartbeat as non-reliable. That is for all intents and purposes the end of the argument. Popularity and entertainment do not make a reliable source. All you are doing now is creating a horrible screeching noise; semantic arguments should be taken of WT:VG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes AVGN unreliable again? "He swears" is not a good reason. And to say that I, who am actually making an argument, is making screeching noise is insulting, and you declaring that this argument is over "because I said so" is even more insulting. No one gave any reason that doesn't apply to notable EGM writer Seanbaby, but of course, they're right because they declared it so. GameTrailers has editorial oversight, so I'm lost as to where anyone finds reason to assume lack thereof. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you can compare AVGN to a shock jock, which articles have readily cited before (Howard Stern comes to mind). And AVGN does have high ups he has to answer to. It's the subject and related material that people should be citing, not what he says prohibiting it because you have a bug up your butt about him saying "fuck" a lot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * GameTrailers has no editorial oversight which meets RS criteria. They host the videos. Until you can prove that if there was an error in AVGN's video and GameTrailers retroactively edited it, or that they fact-checked the piece before posting, it cannot be considered reliable. Just because he has a boss doesn't meet the criteria have been met. WP:RS in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Furthermore, the point is not to give every opinionated person on the web space in a wikipedia article: I'm not throwing Zero Punctuation's review of Fable into the article, why? Because better, all-around reliable sources exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? If there was no editorial oversight, Rolfe would have complete control over everything he puts on GameTrailers. And again, they have professional reviewers who work exclusively for them, saying that they "just host the videos" would be like saying "IGN just hosts these reviews". And I have to prove that a reliable source does a practice that all reliable sources do? And AVGN is *drum roll* NOT some "random reviewer", and you adding in all these sides things shows a motive of trying to reduce AVGN on Wikipedia because you don't like his videos. Why don't you have to prove that GT just "hosts the videos"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess what, you *personal attack here*, I've never watched the twat's videos. I don't care what the content is, that's not what's being discussed here. What is being discussed is the use of AVGN as a reliable source. Any source, when challenged, must be demonstrated as meeting WP:RS. If you can't up my challenge to AVGN's reliability by proving that he has a reputation for fact-checking, that GameTrailers screens his videos for accuracy before posting, and that he is able to make revisions if necessary to correct such inaccuracies, he fails the test for reliability. End. of. story. Stop ranting, now please, no one is out to get AVGN, you're being a tad paranoid. We're not out to get your precious nerd. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia would go straight to hell in a handbasket if we assumed every source was reliable, until proven otherwise. We have a list of reliable sources for a reason. If there's no editorial oversight, and no fact-checking, we don't use it as a reliable third party source. That's straight out of WP:RS. Randomran (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't really anything that would suggest no fact checking exists. If there's no good reason for a source to have been challenged, I shouldn't have to go out of my way to provide proof that it's legitimate. GameTrailers is a legitimate video game web site that has editorial oversight on the many videos they make, so I'm just curious where the argument for "no fact checking exists" in this one case. The reason to believe that no fact checking exists is nonexistent, so it's not a legitimate challenge of a source, and as such, requires no rebuttal. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We're done with this. I think consensus is pretty clear. I'm going to be going through Whatlinkshere for Angry Video Game Nerd, as well as an external link search, and cleaning out what isn't appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there anything else that needs to be done for posterity's sake to point to this for anyone that needs to know the consensus in the future? My main concern, as stated, has been the continual spamming of material, references, content, categories, etc. in unrelated articles.  And I don't see it stopping immediately. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, besides the fact that it's not resolved...
 * The content is NOT unrelated. If he reviews it and someone references the review, it's very much related to the article. Regardless, if you can't actually prove a lack of editorial oversight, getting four people out of six to oppose AVGN being used as a source for reception in video game articles after a half of a day of discussion based on assumed lack of editorial oversight, profanity, or the games being old, isn't a "completed discussion". - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because not even half of a day of discussion is a good time frame for a discussion. Not a "full discussion", and certainly not paying attention to the fact that the side with the consensus is missing one thing called "a reason to assume that AVGN is not reliable". The only arguments provided are "tone" and "assumed lack of editorial oversight". All of his opinions are completely real and not altered in any way for any purpose, and if there isn't any reason to assume lack of editorial oversight, then there's nothing for me to counter. It's not a legitimate complaint, and people would tell you the same thing if you made that challenge for every single source listed on Wikipedia. If there's no reason to assume lack of editorial oversight, how can you even claim it's a problem?
 * And on that note, I don't think someone who participated in the discussion and gave an opinion on the matter has the ability or right to close the discussion, especially in his favor. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Link, your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines disturbs me. Read WP:BURDEN, that should answer your question as to we we don't assume reliability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on me when you have a single iota of reasoning behind your claims. My claim of "EGM's editors are actually algae disguised as people" has as much evidence behind it as any single claim you've made. Why should I prove that this site which has editorial overview in its reviews has editorial overview for this ONE reviewer when you've given me no reason to believe that there isn't? Tell you what, prove to me that EGM isn't written by algae and I'll prove that there's editorial overview. If you refuse, well, I guess I'll have to remove EGM as a source, because you couldn't prove my baseless claims wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuck it, then. Your refusal to read and recognize Wikipedia policy that the burden is on you to produce evidence of reliability is beyond retarded. Now I can see why all your FAs have been demoted... I'm not going to bother talking to a brick wall anymore. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Curious, but do you have a bit of a temper? Don't worry, friend, it happens - I mean, when you're demanding someone prove your statement which has no basis in reality wrong or concede the discussion, and someone rightfully points out how laughable your demand is, I can see why you might become a bit cranky. But just a question, how does the reliability of GameTrailers not apply to AVGN? I don't see people showing reliability for every single person who reviews for GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, 1UP, Game Informer, etc. Unless, of course, you are trying to imply that GT is not reliable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we please let this drop? The "reviews" are "humorous" game-guide garbage anyways, that have little-to-no bearing on the topic. He is not a reliable source. So let's everybody just dance, and everything will cooool down ~ <font color="#206080">JohnnyMrNinja 
 * Besides the fact that the video covers the game's quality? It doesn't matter if it's "game-guide", as long as the game guide content isn't mentioned, and it doesn't matter if you think it's "garbage", some people call Seanbaby garbage, but he's still a significant game reviewer. And on top of this all, I wish I had the power to declare a source unreliable and have it be so, and I bet you do too. Do you have any reason to say he's unreliable? No. Whether or not he's successfully "edgy" doesn't matter, he's on a reliable web site, and he's not just a guy who gets his videos hosted there, he regularly interacts with other reviewers from GameTrailers - he's a member of the site just like Matt Cassamassina(sp?) is a member of IGN, and needs not a citation to establish that he is reliable, because IGN, a reliable source, considers him to be, and similarly, GameTrailers wouldn't host his videos if he was just trying to be funny. Being on GameTrailers should be enough, just as being on IGN should be enough. There's editorial oversight on GT, so why should we assume there is none in this case? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, ALTTP is standing alone, and has presented no argument or evidence that this is a reliable source with an editorial process (as opposed to a game humor show). He has failed to convince anyone, and the burden of proof remains on someone who wants to use a work as a referenced source that that work meets Wikipedia's standards. Filibustering further on the subject is unhelpful.

I don't think anything beyond this discussion in archive is necessary to preserve this for prosperity; once the links are cleaned out, we just keep an eye out for a while and revert. If the promotion spam persists, we escalate the response. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm standing alone. I guess Kung Fu Man is just a figment of my imagination. But just curious, you're asking me to provide evidence to counter what? The whopping load of nothing you have provided for removal? Why do I have to prove editorial oversight exists on a web site with editorial oversight? I have to establish that this web site, for some reason, doesn't pay attention to this one series of articles. If you gave me even one thing that suggests that there is no editorial oversight on this one series of GT videos, I would prove that there is - but you haven't! You've done nothing, you're basically sitting there, doing nothing but demand everyone who opposes you do everything. You haven't even provided a reason for me to look for this information you demand, and yet expect me to do it all the same.
 * And you definitely do not have any right to participate in a discussion, close it in your favor, and declare it closes based on a half day of discussion amongst six people on one discussion page. Regardless of your statements, why don't you explain to me why being on GT isn't enough? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to understand that the burden lies on you per wikipedia policy, and that yes, we can sit here and do nothing but challenge your claims as stated in WP:BURDEN, is bordering on disruption. Link, this has gone on too long, keep it up and I'm putting you up at ANI. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have no reason AT ALL, it's just bad faith to say "here, these are some baseless statements that we pulled out of our pockets, prove them wrong or we win". If you can't give me a reason to believe that there's no editorial oversight for AVGN on a site which has editorial oversight, then I'm not going to waste my time looking for evidence. That's like asking me to look for evidence that the President isn't really Saddam Hussein. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We haven't asked you to "prove a negative". If you want to add AVGN, find out what the editorial policy is on his videos. Does GT do any fact checking? Every last one of our reliable sources has been checked and approved by a consensus of editors. Why should we make an exception because you want to completely reverse WP:BURDEN? Randomran (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What valuable information would be lost, anyways? It's game-guide garbage. ~ <font color="#206080">JohnnyMrNinja  01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll list AVGN on Sources when an IGN editor is listed. AVGN is NOT a web site, he's a person who makes videos for GameTrailers. Regardless of it all, GameTrailers is owned by Viacom. It has editorial oversight just like any legitimate web site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And Johnny, will you STOP citing your own personal opinion in this? If someone's opinion had weight on the quality of a source, there would not be such a thing as a good source anywhere. And there is no "game guide garbage" in the opinion held by AVGN for the same reason that an IGN editor's opinion is not "game guide garbage". - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mario educational games
Articles like the Early Years series and really short, and some like Mario Teaches Typing 2 could be added in the prequel article without it's own article, since it's not that long. So I am thinking, should some of the educational games be merged. I mean, the Early Years series could be fit in one article, just like with the Zelda CD-I games. Magiciandude (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're a little lacking. Links, in case useful :-
 * Mario's Early Years: Preschool Fun
 * Mario Teaches Typing
 * Mario Teaches Typing 2
 * CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series
 * --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments wanted re: disputed link for the Unreal article
Please see the fracas at Talk:Unreal and the follow-on blacklisting request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. This appears to be a dispute between an established editor, Ham Pastrami, and multiple anonymous IPs and single purpose accounts. If you look at the blacklisting request, you'll see stuff about off-Wikipedia canvassing and some name-calling directed at Ham Pastrami.

We should get a consensus of established Wikipedia editors on the suitability of this link before deciding what to do with the blacklisting request. Please make comments at Talk:Unreal. Thanks, --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Beatmania articles
Has anyone noticed the plethora of small Beatmania articles we have? Take a look at Beatmania IIDX (video game), Beatmania IIDX 2nd Style, Beatmania IIDX 3rd Style, all the way up to Beatmania IIDX 10th Style. Is there actually enough information to make full articles out of these, or are they going to stay stubs forever?  Pagra shtak  19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are definitely extremely short and don't have much promise for expanding any further. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's all they got a Beatmania series article might be able to better sort them into a good shape. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Like the Dance Dance Revolution series, there's enough unique information regarding each game in the series to merit an article and as they are every single article that exists is a valid stub. ViperSnake has been the only one I've seen working on those articles faithfully and I pitch in whenever I can (I was responsible for splitting off the individual game information from the main IIDX page into each stub per the request of another editor. It's something that would have been done eventually. Right now I'm heading work on the DDR article which are in a similar state but improving. The moral is don't knock down the house before it's built, obviously, and if you can help out it would be very much appreciated. æron phone home  19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll call your Beatmania games and raise you Dance Dance Revolution. To be fair to them there are some good ones in there but there are some that are nothing but a glorified track-list and some that just restate the same as five other articles - X201 (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the last year and a half I've been the lone editor working on the DDR articles. Not every game has an article, but the ones that do have the potential for decent expansion. You're just going to have to put up with very slow progress. See Dance Dance Revolution X and Dance Dance Revolution Hottest Party 2 for examples of how well these articles can be written. And neither of those games have even been released yet. æron phone home  19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject Video games participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Destroy All Humans! task force
Just curious, was WikiProject Video games/Destroy All Humans! discussed on this page before being created? Usually we need to establish some consensus here before setting up a new task force. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2008-08-5 20:33 20:33, 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing television advertisements
I have a question regarding commercials and other TV ads. On occasion they're vital to cite for promotion purposes or other subjects related to a subject. But how do you go about doing it in cases where the best source is a Youtube recording or similar, as AFAIK there isn't an archive of some sort that keeps track of commercials and can be cited...is there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no blanket ban on Youtube videos, you just have to use good judgment. And you have to watch the link like a hawk since YouTube videos of copyright and even quasi-copyright content tends to disappear without warning. I'm guessing that if you're using the video as a reference then the Website cite should be fine, otherwise there is a YouTube template. æron phone home  14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you checked here yet, but IGN, GameSpot, and other gaming sites sometime have videos of video game related commercials. I used one here Wii Sports before. You just have dig a little to find them. I wouldn't expect to find too many though. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Although there is no blanket ban on linking to Youtube videos, as long as it is a copyright violation, it shall be removed. It is safe to link to Youtube videos when it is conclusive that the uploader is the copyright holder, (instances such as the Funimation channel, and the Queen's address) or when the video is in the public domain so as to speak.  Thus, the onus is to the linker to prove that there is no copyright violation in linking to the video.  Jappalang (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As for an archive that can be cited, try Internet Archive: Moving Images. Although I am hesitant over its Speed Demo section...  Jappalang (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest, blocking videos of commercials on the grounds that they violate a copyright seems a bit odd. Advertising is designed to be mass produced and spread to promote a subject, and blocking it would be on par with blocking any website that showed screenshots of a subject. Looking over the Moving Images link you posted, what's to stop me from downloading the commercial from youtube and uploading it there myself to cite? I'd end up with the same result but with more work, wouldn't I?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time of the actual running of the advertisement, certainly the goal is to promote their product. But before, during, and afterwords, the commercials are still the copyrighted and protected creative works of the manufacturer.  I.E. Nintendo is still very big on the protection of the use of its IP for Donkey Kong, Mario, etc. as Namco is with Pac-Man, and advertisements that contain these characters or related IP's still fall under that protection, regardless of their intended use.  Permission must still be granted by them for any use in fact. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR
Katamari Damacy has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject Video games participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fable 2 Pub Games
Hi, I'm new here, So do tell me if I'm posting in the wrong place or whatever, but I've come to point out a mistake. In the Fable II Pub Games article, it states; "Any money earned from these games will be turned into experience points in Fable II, at a rate of one gold per XP for the linked character; however, part of the risk is that debt incurred has negative consequences on the character.[4][5] Each tournament allows the player to win one of 15 unique items that instantly becomes available to a chosen character in Fable II.[5]"

I'm following the Fable 2 development reasonably closely, and have the Pub Games myself, and the gold won in the games isn't converted to XP for the character, it's just given to the linked player in cold, hard cash. Nothing XP related is handled by the Pub Games.

The pub games are a way to give some players a head-start with filling their wallets, as you can no longer earn gold from completing any of the main quests, only through collecting fallen enemies spoils, doing 'jobs', or gambling.

--KoKroach (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Just noticed this too, under the Fortunes Tower rules; "The player may opt once per game to overturn the top card, the "Gate" card, to replace a losing card."

The Gate card is overturned automatically in the event of a misfortune.

Small point, but hey, while I'm posting.

(I'd change it myself, that one probably goes under 'minor edit', but I know what some of the mods can be like for resetting any changes, so I though I'd tell you first.)

--KoKroach (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FA help
Several VG FAs are languishing at WP:FAC: The World Ends with You and 4X. I encourage experienced editors to contribute (and maybe to non-VG articles too, but we should take care of our own first :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would put a word of caution, in the case of TWEWY particularly: we should not really solicit VG project members to provide comment on VG FACs and related when there is significant lack of comment from other sources, or at least without providing more than just "support"; otherwise it looks like we're cabaling, a problem previously cited somewhere between GA/FA within the last few months. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Left-aligning VG Reviews?
Is there any way to left-align the VG Reviews box? On Bionic Commando Rearmed, there are three right-aligned boxes in a fairly short page and the layout is quite messy on high resolution monitors. It's only minor but if anyone can think of a way to improve the layout it would be good. <font color="#dc5f02" >ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 22:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The layout is bad because of a lack of content, which should be expanded. Furthermore, a shot of the soundtrack art is against WP:NFCC as it doesn't significantly aid understanding. Try collapsing the computer requirements and release dates (using a scheme similar to that employed in Riven for the release dates) and it should help with the layout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

GCOTW (again)
Er, I said a while ago that I would revive the WP:GCOTW. Obviously I haven't got round to getting that done yet. Reading over the discussion again, I did not exactly get the feeling that there was a great deal of enthusiasm for a weekly/bi-weekly collaboration, so I thought I would raise the issue again. This project will only work if there are at least a few contributors committed to working on it regularly. The old GCOTW died out because not enough people were participating (well, also because I stopped updating the nomination process, Thunderbrand was a lot more consistant than I was). So, what do we do? JACO PLANE  &bull; 2008-08-14 11:46
 * Personally, I like the idea of only working on Stub/Start-class Essential articles on a bi-weekly basis and aim for GA-class. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-08-14 11:48
 * Another idea might be to have the collaboration work towards a topic, preferably one with a few articles on the essential list. We could either open up all articles in the topic at once, or pick a different article in the topic every fortnight. Getting an entire topic up to GA standard will lay a lot of the groundwork for getting it featured.  Pagra shtak  14:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or we could just say 'screw the time limit' and just pick a collab and work on it until GA or better. (If we're doing essential articles, my pick for something that would be fairly easy to improve yet sucks now would be First-person shooter.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd work better with a set period. I'm afraid that if we get stuck on one article for a long time that editors will lose interest, especially if they aren't interested in the particular article to begin with.  Pagra shtak  15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we'll get a lot more done if we turn it into GCOTM (of the Moment) and allocate an indefinite amount of time. That way people don't have to be highly active from week to week. I'm into it if we work on essential articles. You can count on me. It might also help to simplify the nomination system. I get the feeling the old nomination system was kind of bureaucratic and tedious. Randomran (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Short time limts go against the grain of this being a volunteer hobby rather than a career, if editors lose interest or hit the wall with one particlar article we can always agree on the talk page to pick up the next article. You could always put essential articles in a 'collaboration of the month' slot so that they progressively improve, as well as a separate section where a start or stub class article is tethered for us to boost to GA or as close as it will go (no time limit). That way there's a collaborative project to chip away at as and when, as well as an ongoing improvement drive for the precious, er, high importance articles. Someoneanother 18:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A way to maintain interest is to maybe juggle two, even three different articles simultaneously for our GCOTMoment. This will offer a range of subjects, just in case some of the editors just aren't interested/knowledgeable in one subject. Also, different stages of the article call for different skills, and some people may be more useful at the start-class stage than the B-class stage. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, when one is sufficiently promoted or editors have hit the wall with it then it could be replaced with the next. If combined in that way it would be easy to ensure that high priority articles are always active but also leave room for one article just to be brought up to scratch because the sources exist to do so, I like it. BTW will someone look at the history of the clean-up page, there's some recent vandalism and there may be more in the history. I can't help but wonder if that project is too ambitious which is why it has failed to attract participants and ground to a halt. Someoneanother 18:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think having some deadline will help prod the article and project along. A month sounds like a reasonable time for a group of editors to research a topic, write the article, and get it through GAN and FAC. And as Randomran points out, it all depends on the number of collaborators.
 * In regard to the Clean up department, it was too large of project to be taken on by the number of editors involved. We pretty much had to fight against everyone else that wanted to keep certain articles the way they were, which by Wikipedia's standards would be Start and C-class level. Plus some of the articles that were cleaned up, were "dirtied up" (for lack of a better word) again in a couple months. It should probably be tagged inactive/historical. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
 * No wonder everyone got demotivated. Maybe this collaboration can look at some of those tasks and we can weigh in on them. Someoneanother 19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really picky on the time limit; I'm not very active anyways but I'd try to pitc in wherever I could. —Giggy 09:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinions needed for RTS
An anon editor is insisting on this change to the real-time strategy article, giving Starcraft its own sub-section (the only game to receive such a treatment). Starcraft was already mentioned as a highlight previously, and since the article is about the genre as a whole, singling out this game for a separate discussion seems like undue weight and POV. Of course Starcraft is a big title, but this change seems more like exposition for the game than information about the genre. We've already gone back and forth several times with reverts, and the anon has yet to explain his reasoning. (After the first revert, he also saw fit to vandalize my user page.) I'd appreciate if other editors could assist in reaching a decision or compromise. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, I've requested the page to be semi-protected. Lumaga (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should be following the lead of 4X and only mention games in passing as they relate, not as dedicated subsections. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 04:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The RTS article needs to be updated atleast to Good article. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 4X is probably just a support !vote or two away from being a featured article, but safe to say that this will set the model for genre articles. We don't need to center out any single game for a genre, because you can usually sum up the innovation and reception and move on quite quickly. RTS is near the top of my list of what to work on after 4X reaches FA-status, if only because I have a few ideas of where to get some good research about the genre to source a GA-quality article. Randomran (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I like StarCraft, have worked on it here and acknowledge that it is of major influence to the RTS article and should be mentioned, it does not need to be singled out like that. Merge the section back into the section it came from. -- Sabre (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sabre is correct. —Giggy 13:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening a can of worms: Merging the GTA location articles
I have not yet approached these specific articles on this, but in light of what I'm seeing for Stilwater (the Saints row location, which I have suggested for AFD to be merged to Saints Row) I think we need to cut these articles down (specifically Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto)) into a single "List of locations in the Grand Theft Auto series". Basically, the way these articles are written make the work fall between a fictional travel guide and a game guide. I have not seen anything about how the cities were designed, created, or so forth, and even if there are interviews to say "yes, Liberty City is supposed to be NYC", that's not enough to justify a full length article on that point describing what fictional restaurant chains there are in it. Is this going to be barking up the wrong tree ? --M<font size="-3">ASEM 04:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * San Andreas can simply be merged to the single game it appears in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes, we shouldn't have information like "Xoomer locations: Easter Basin: 22 Sibley Street, San Fierro, SA 94117, Juniper Hill/Juniper Hollow: 99 Airport Boulevard, San Fierro, 94123, Come-A-Lot: 25 Come-A-Lot Road, Las Venturas, SA 89119, Spiny Bed: 2 East North Brown Streak Ave, Las Venturas, SA 89106, The Emerald Isle: 513 Main St, Las Venturas, SA 89104, Redsands West, Julius Thruway South, Shady Creek services, El Quebrados and Octane Springs." These articles definitely need cutting down.  Pagra shtak  20:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with AMiB that the single-appearance cities should not be outside their parent vg articles to begin with. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, this is why we have "Setting" sections. Merge them. -- Sabre (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I support a merge of the individual locations into their respective game articles. Makes you wonder why they were split in the first place. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another concurrer with AMIB here. —Giggy 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, merge away, perhaps a coherant article can be made when they are merged. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason the content forked to begin with was because there was too much information. Yes, they need cutting down but I don't think mass removal is the answer. Tag for cleanup. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Merging of articles is a bit harsh, They seem perfectly fine the way they are. However, there is room for improvement. If anything, they should be cleaned up and MAYBE paraphrased, but Redirecting the cities to the game is not the answer (It would be different if GTA wasn't such a popular game). Sk5893 (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even GTA does not have enough real-world information on development and creation of the fictional world, and the response to it, to merit such an article which delves into game guide material. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A question about PAL conversion issues column on 2 Virtual Console lists
See: List of Virtual Console games (Australia) and List of Virtual Console games (Europe) to see the column. Is this column needed? Just because they had issues with converting it to a PAL version doesn't justify it needs to be on those lists. I'm not sure if this would fall under game guide content or not? I'm sure some people find it "useful" when looking for games to get, however I don't see it suitable for Wikipedia. If the issues are major (and actually notable): list them on the game article instead. This is somewhat similar to lists of glitch lists I see on game articles sometimes: it's useful to some people, but it simply isn't important content (unless it's a major glitch that actually has reliable sources and/or media coverage) for this site. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Id say get rid of it, its a list of games, not a list of games and game issues, like you said better of on the articles page if significant. Also wasnt the Wii points meant to be removed? Salavat (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * People seem to think the Wii points are fine, as long as it's listed how they are. It violates policies, but people seem fine with that, so whatever. Anyway, I've removed the column from the Europe list. I'm going to work on the Australia list later. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

More CE help needed on TWEWY FAC
Ok, I know I've asked for help before but I need really critical eyes here for The World Ends with You's FAC. I've had about 4 different experienced editors ce and it's still getting comments that its hard to follow. Particularly if you have not played this game, I encourage you to go there and, even if not CE'ing, give the article (talk or to me) feedback as to what you find confusing. A word of warning: 90% of the problem is that this is a "game within a game" that uses terms that we'd normally used to describe a live player interacting with a game, to describe how the characters interact with the game-within-a-game. I need to make sure any such points are ID'd so that the text can be corrected around them. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Masem, I have left comments and suggestions regarding this at Talk:The World Ends with You. Jappalang (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Hughie Edwards now open
The peer review for Hughie Edwards, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bringing back up "List of Super Smash Bros. Brawl songs".
User:A Link to the Past/List of songs in Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Not going to be proposing anything at the moment, just want to see if anyone'd be interested in filling the Development and Reception sections. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me for such a list you would need information both on the development of the original song, and how it was selected/rearranged/tweaked for the SSBB game itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the music is not the most important aspect of the game like it is with rhythm games, it is true that there needs to be extra notability and development information on the music. But I'm not sure, are you saying we need to have development information for each song? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be unwieldy, but perhaps for each series represented? (Also, since it's a list, bullet points for each song are fine...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll work on Development and Reception first, and then I'll look further to see if there's any information on each individual series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Spore (2008 video game) needs some help
Once again JAF is claiming ownership. See Talk:Spore_(2008_video_game) as the recent example. He has a serious attitude problem anytime something gets removed from the article, and I'm sick of dealing with it. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The way to help is to stop obsessing about what everyone else is doing at all times. Of course people are going to complain when editors like you come through and do drive by deletions without discussion. God forbid someone who is working hard on an article have a problem with that. Stop your whining. Meanwhile, care to explain why you are stalking him?

      — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.44.129 (talk • contribs) — 71.178.44.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Ignoring the anon IP attack, I think JAF was wrong to bring it up on the talk page in such an aggressive manner, but there isn't anything wrong with the content itself (I've tweaked it slightly). Fin©™ 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * JAF certainly needs to learn better Wikiquette - you don't open an admin notice over something so minor. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given up trying to reason with him, he's bordering incivility and consistently reverts edits, regardless of their sourcing and wording (note "most", not "all"). Fin©™ 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Madden NFL 2010
I recently prod'd Madden NFL 2010 per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact it's based around a single "source" that admits it hasn't been officially confirmed. The prod was contested, I'm just wondering what the next step is - is it AfD? Thanks! Fin©™ 00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. It's my first AfD, so apologies if I've messed something up =S Fin©™ 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: old engine names vs id Tech in Quake series
Old topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_31#id_tech_.28x.29_names_or_old_names.3F

In that discussion I see no clear consensus yet a user is changing the Q2 and Q3 pages to 'Quake 3 Engine' etc as if this is policy. I disagree with this change, there is no useful information inherent in 'Quake 3 Engine', it's redundant, using 'id Tech 3' places it as a part of a series of engines, is less confusing when discussing other games using the engines and matches future games from id. The alternative of retaining old names in addition to using the newer names for new games with id engines makes no sense, there is no inherent value nor nostalgia in the old names and in information terms the new ones are superior. When a taxonomy changes the old one is only of historical interest, the new one should be used for identification. Ix-ir (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustration vs. Illustration
This is more going to be a quick question, but if an older illustration of a character shows a character in better detail and design than a newer one, even if the newer one is a different outfit and appearance, can the older artwork be used without stepping on a policy of some sort?

I'm asking about cases like Balrog (Street Fighter), where it utilizes artwork from Street Fighter IV but ends up extremely difficult to cite and the character's design has not changed much at all since previous installments. On the other end of that spectrum you have artwork for Tira (Soulcalibur) as opposed to the  for the previous game that represents the character in a better move visible fashion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a familiar problem from the comics WikiProject - it is important to avoid a tendency towards presentism. I, for instance, do not think there is any justification to use artwork from a yet unreleased game for Balrog when the more iconic and in-game artwork of Street Fighter 2 exists. In general, however, I do not understand why our coverage of video games tends so heavily towards box art and illustration over screenshots. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet unreleased? SFIV's been out in Japanese arcades for about a month now. That being said, I do agree with your sentiment here; like with article titles and naming, you want to go with a shot that most readers will recognize, which may not necessarily be the most recent artwork. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did it come out in Japan now? Regardless - it cannot be said to have any iconic status yet, and the concept art from it is, to my mind, quite devoid of identifying merit. A gameplay shot from what remains the iconic and most popular version of the series, Street Fighter II, would be preferable in all regards. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Like most fair-use issues, it mostly depends on how strongly you feel about having the image(s) there, and if other editors agree with your assessment. I think Sonic was once the subject of a fairly long and drawn out discussion over which and how many images to use. Nifboy (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe in using the SFIV images. They're the most recent depictions, and wholly official ones. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus the point of this: most recent sometimes isn't best. Those images have that stupid ink effect all over them and haven't even changed the design from previous installments. They're *less* visible now in terms of describing the subject, which is the whole blasted point of even having them, not "oh this is the most recent representation."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryu, Chun Li and Alex have more recent depictions with Tatsunoko vs. Capcom. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre- to post-release source transition
Hi. Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (video game) has several chunks phrased in terms of, "The game will have X." When the game comes out, and if it still has X, is it appropriate to retain the citation to the pre-release, future-tense-using source -- or is it imperative to track down a follow-up that uses the present tense to confirm its actual inclusion? I'll work to do this just 'cause, but I'm curious as to whether this is the trend/practice with other articles. Many thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally it's best to get a new source, but it's not too hard; just cite the reviews.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgent image cleanup work needed
I've been informed that a large number of VG related screenshots and other images are problematic, mainly because they're not clear about how the images are sourced or they have an incomplete fair use rationale. These days, we're fairly good about being clear where images are from and why we want to use them, as well as having information on where they're from and who the copyright holder is. Back when a lot of these images were uploaded, the criteria weren't as firm and templates to support this were yet to be evolved.

You can find a list of tagged images from this history of recent contributions. The tagging goes back about 2 weeks. I'd appreciate it if some editors familiar with the image sourcing requirements could go through these, updating the rationales, improving the sourcing information and so on. This user has done the right thing by tagging these images as problematic and it's now up to us to meet that challenge and resolve these issues. Yes, it's housekeeping work, but it needs to be done if we want to continue including these images in VG articles. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh. We, um, probably can't salvage a lot of these where the person who took the screenshot is unknown. Which is infuriating. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious most of them are self-made using a screenshot program and an emulator... what's more important is the license and rationales. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find that obvious - I usually grab screenshots from mobygames when I upload them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably don't understand this fair use stuff as much as some of the long-time contributors... but can someone explain to me why Image:Street Fighter.png is up for speedy deletion, when it has a proper fair use rationale, and explains the source as the street fighter game? What's missing? Randomran (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's missing the source- whether 'self made screenshot' or a URL to the image, preferably to where the image is being used so it can be verified. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've supposedly fixed it, by adding "self-made" before "screenshot of ..." ... does that makes sense? Randomran (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a fairly new requirement? How come some bot didn't inform the users that the fair use notice was incomplete when they first uploaded them? Sorry, I don't know much about this sort of thing. <font color="#dc5f02" >ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 15:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I'm not sure how the bots get around to notifying users either. Plus, it's a lot harder to spot missing sources, but easier to see templates and rationales. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationales have been a requirement since around March 2007 (and more strict of March 2008). Unfortunately, a bot can only check certain things; most of the rest of the information currently can only be evaluated by a human. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A number of them seem to be self-made screenshots, but still need information relating to either the rights holder (Sega, Namco, etc). You can usually identify this by looking at the file history section of the page. Also, if the original uploader has since retired from WP, the alerts wouldn't be acknowledged. As there are so many of them, I thought it would be better to post about it here to get more eyeballs on it. Hope this helps,  Gazi moff  16:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Who cares who took the screenshot? A screenshot of Super Mario Bros. is copyrighted by Nintendo, whether the screenshot was taken by me, you, or GameSpot. "A screenshot from Super Mario Bros." should be sufficient sourcing in that case.  Pagra shtak  16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's true. Bridgeman v. Corel establishes that this is true for public domain works. I'm not sure if any ruling establishes it to be the case for works under copyright... Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can tell you right now that there's a larger scrutiny of such non-free images - not that they can't be used, but we need to fill in as many details as possible to justify them.  All these images need to have, if missing a source, need to state who has/had the copyrights on the work, and where the screenshot came from, even if it was self-created via an emulator.  If the shot was taken off a website, it needs the URL to where that shot was grabbed from. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that does make more sense. What I am also sensing at is that others question the usage of the substed vgrationale template. We may need to modify that template with close collaboration with WikiProject fair use or equivalent to make sure we're easily including everything that needs to be there. MuZemike (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, Pagrashtak is correct - why would this need source information as to who took the screenshot? User:Krator (t c) 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. If an image has no watermark or signing, whoever took the screenshot has no more right to it than anyone else.  --Slordak (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The source of the image is the game (eg. "Screenshot of Super Smash Bros."), not the person who took the screenshot. Pagrashtak is correct. It's always frustrating to have people tag for deletion and issue that could be resolved quicker than the tagging. —Giggy 23:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and others may find User:Giggy/FURs useful. —Giggy 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, where's the BetaCommandBot when we need him? MuZemike (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 3 games
Are the columns for first released, exclusive and trophies needed? As of now: the table just looks bloated with all these columns and needs cleaning in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On the subject of game lists: see List of Nintendo DS games. Way too much column clutter. Genre needs to go, exclusive probably should go as well. These lists don't need trivial sections in them. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh for the DS list definatly get rid of genre and trophies for ps3 (wat the hell are trophies anyways), although my opinion of exclusive is undecided. Also wasnt the release dates meant to change from first released column and a regions released column? Salavat (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Codename: Gordon
Did anyone here play Codename: Gordon? If so, could someone tell me what it is you're supposed to do in thta Bonus Game you unlock when finishing the game? It's called Crow Chase, but you can't catch, or hit the crows with the crowbar. diego_pmc (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

also, are reviews like these two reliable? diego_pmc (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, we avoid user submitted reviews as there is no real editorial oversight. I would look for something done by a staff member of some gaming network or magazine. I think Edge or gamesTM occasionally do reviews on popular flash games. Something like PC Gamer may do the same, not sure though. I hope that helps some.
 * Also, we don't really discussion "how to play" games on the talk pages. We try to keep things focused on how to improve the articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 08:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

The reason i ask is because I'm currently trying to improve Codename: Gordon (I've found quite a few useful links) and I want to add this info on the Bonus game in the Gameplay section. However I don't know what you're supposed to do in the Bonus Game, the text that (I think) should give you instructions is bugged, and says only "UNDEFINED". diego_pmc (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazon, Play.com, etc for release dates?
Could someone please tell me if online stores such as these are considered reliable sources for release dates? I believe the consensus is that they should be avoided because they often use estimates but I can't find it in the policy. Can someone please point me in the right direction? <font color="#dc5f02" >ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 19:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The guidelines at WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines seem to be ok with folk using IGN / amazon etc supplied release dates. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for unreleased games. Once a game is out, then vendor sites are ok. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. It's just that Amazon have a release date for Mafia II. No one else does and someone was aking on the talk page if it was okay to use as a source. Is this in the guidelines anywhere? <font color="#dc5f02" >ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea if there is a guideline, but sites such as those you mention frequently guess at release dates prior to an official announcement, and are frequently wrong, so I don't believe they are a valid source (until the game is released and the guesswork is gone). Playclever (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the rule is regarding amazon, but from personal experience, I know the amazon release dates are just estimates and not final release dates, so I would not use that in an article. guitarhero777777 (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on how the project's guidelines ought to look then, instead of saying "Many commercial gaming sites, such as GameSpot, IGN, and 1UP.com, supply accurate dates, as well as vendor sites such as Amazon.com or GameStop." ? --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read two paragraphs down from where you are: For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources since their date is likely based on their best estimate of when the game is to be out;  --M<font size="-3">ASEM 13:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of console role-playing games
I've been slowly filling in missing info for each game (I'm currently up to 1993, as well as scattered ports/remakes in different years). This list is getting pretty huge, and I was wondering if it would be better to split it into an individual article for each decade. If this is to be done, is there an article of similar scope whose organization/naming scheme I can be copy? SharkD (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So the article itself is Chronology of computer role-playing games and it's 68kb. There's plenty of other lists in the WP:VG project that are a lot bigger than that, e.g. List of Xbox 360 games at 120kb, and the idea of splitting that was recently rejected as it would effect the usability of column sorting. So I'd say press on with a single article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The article is Chronology of console role-playing games and it is 133kb and growing (I estimate it will end up around 175kb). SharkD (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to have underestimated the final size. The article is already at 150kb and I haven't even started on 1996 yet. SharkD (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do decide to split, try taking a look at the WP:FILM approach at List of science fiction films: 1980s. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll do that. SharkD (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GCOTW / video game genres
Less than an hour ago 4X was promoted to featured article status. It was damn hard work researching this, but it was satisfying to pull it off. I'm confident that we can promote may other video game genre articles to GA status, but it will take a group effort. I see the GCOTW project as a real opportunity to make this happen. But if that's going to take another little while, I can point to a few articles that I'm ready to tackle with even a couple other eager editors. I think real-time strategy (or even strategy video games in general) would be a great candidate, since I've managed to dig up quite a bit of research on the topic. But if not that, we should focus on a genre that's alive and well so it has a lot of up-to-date research, without being so broad as to be a nightmare. Just thinking out loud, and getting a feel for what people would be interested in working on. Randomran (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If not RTS, I would say FPS is the other natural candidate as there is plenty on the influences and landmark games of the genre, not to mention a veritable boatload of info related to the allegations of violence-causing content and use as "murder sims". I've hit some ennui editing so now's the perfect time for me to jump on something. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got some good research for FPS too, and I'm confident we can find a lot of little nuggets tucked in some reviews/previews for individual FPS games. That's how 4X got written: a bunch of one-line statements saying "(reviewed game) is typical of 4X games in that it has a huge tech tree". Either RTS or FPS would be great candidates, IMO. Randomran (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's really just which one we want to tackle first... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be up for RTS or strategy video game if others want to join in. —Giggy 07:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from first-person shooter and real-time strategy, there are a few others in decent shape. There's fighting game, turn-based strategy, shoot 'em up, and survival horror that have all reached B-class. But FPS and RTS have the most reliable research lying around on the web, as far as I can tell. Randomran (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to get 5 editors on one of these articles. (Is 5 a good number?) Feel free to put your name down for both, if you feel good enough about both topics. You don't need to be an expert. You just have to know how to write a GA-class Wikipedia article, and know a lot about a few games in either genre. Randomran (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) real-time strategy
 * 2) * Randomran (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) * Sabre (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) * —Giggy 03:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) * (add name here)
 * 7) first-person shooter
 * 8) * Randomran (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) * Sabre (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) * (add name here)


 * Ah what the hell. Sign me up. I know stuff about the two genres, but I'm really unsure about how well I could effectively help with an effort, I'm not that great when it comes to genre stuff. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try, at the least I can help in discussion and finding sources, although I'll try my best with the prose side of things. -- Sabre (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not knowledgeable about either genre, but am willing to copy edit or review at PR. Just drop me a note. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Anyone who's seen me play CoD4 would know why I haven't put my name down for FPS. —Giggy 03:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I haven't beaten any RTS game without cheating (weak willed me), but you don't see me complaining... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out the further reading section of the real time strategy article. I added these academic sources a while ago, but they are unused. User:Krator (t c) 23:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Randomran, four is probably enough to get started on real-time strategy. Especially those four, everyone has some good experience in writing GAs and FAs. With the refs currently there and the ones Krator added, the research shouldn't be too time consuming. And my offer to copy edit is still open when you need it. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC))