Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 6

Deletion list
Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know about a list of votes for deletion on articles related to games. You can find the list here: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game-related. This isn't exclusive to computer and video game-related deletions, but those make up more than 90% of the items.

Since you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of game-related topics, you might want to monitor this list.

If you find the list useful, please also help to maintain it by adding new items and archiving old ones. Thanks!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 16:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

PS New members are needed and welcome at WikiProject Deletion sorting. Hope to see you there!

Infobox float please fix
It's floating left instead of right and pushing article text off page. Please fix! -- Sitearm | Talk 18:57, 2005 August 15 (UTC)


 * Never mind, leave as is. I fixed on Children of the Nile article by putting infobox into its own section. I think I prefer this placing vs. float top right. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 19:11, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
 * The infobox should never be in its own section. If it's not displaying correctly, it's most likely due to how the code is written on that specific article. The float hasn't been changed for quite some time. Page looks fine to me right now anyway. K1Bond007 19:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * The display changed to float left, then changed back to float right about 30 minutes later. It wasn't just the article page because I saw the change on this project page as well. If I knew how to find the template I'd check the edit history. Either that or something changed temporarily higher up in the wiki. -- Sitearm | Talk 02:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
 * It was probably your cache. I had that problem when it was first changed. It appeared on the left, but after doing a shift F5 (Firefox) it corrected itself. K1Bond007 02:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gamerankings
Could we make it a Wikiproject guideline to link to the Gamerankings page of a game in its external links section? That way, instead of having to mention individual reviews or criticisms/praises of the game, we can just direct the reader to a collection of reviews for the game. I think this would be a good guideline to add although I don't know where it would fit in the Wikiproject...Amren 06:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This has already been suggested (please see /archive5#GameRankings or similar). It was concluded that reviews being inherently subjective points of view, they should be referred to in the External links section of articles and do not belong in the Gamebox template. Grumpy Troll (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC).

All right, so we should just link to it in the external links section? I'll do it to every game article I come across, thanks.Amren 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Infobox VG... 'rating'
I don't suppose this can be made optional as well? I dunno if there's any overhead with if defined call1... but as a lot of games predate this nanny state buisness, would be nice not to have a blank row if it's not absolutely nessersary. --zippedmartin 12:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contributions it seems you're having problems with games that have only been released in Japan (Treasure of the Rudras), so have no ESRB or ELSPA rating. There should be a CERO rating for that. Jacoplane 12:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * They were founded in 2002. To my knowledge, there was no rating system prior to that. And actually, the game I'd looked at just before writing that was LOOM - there are just a lot of games with no meaningful rating. If there's no reason not to make it optional, would save a N/A in a lot of cases. (Side comment, I just looked at my Dungeon Keeper box and see no guidelines, so I presume that was only rated in the US, is it worth reflecting that in some way?) --zippedmartin 13:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How about adding "Unrated" for these cases. I like making it optional in the template. -- Sitearm | Talk 15:40, 2005 August 20 (UTC)


 * I did it, nothing seemed to blow up. Shout at me on my talk page if anything goes direly wrong. --zippedmartin 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Terminology category
I'd like to request some help moving as many articles as possible out of Category:Computer and video game terminology. This category seems to work as a general dumpster for CVG topics, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and "terminology" isn't an helpful classification. I think most topics here could be moved to Category:Computer and video game culture and Category:Computer and video game gameplay (in which subcategories could be created later on). What others are needed? Fredrik | talk 13:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, many of the articles in the terminology category (such as player-run economy) should be in gameplay.Amren 16:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. K1Bond007 16:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too (I've started). Some things still ambiguous like "woot" and "avatar". Where would you put those? -- Sitearm | Talk 17:12, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
 * I have no idea to be honest. Just do the obvious ones for now and we'll have to come up with something in the future to better categorize some of these misc ones. K1Bond007 17:14, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 'kay (p.s. what about a category for netspeak or whatever the current term is?) -- Sitearm | Talk 17:18, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
 * See Category:Internet slang.Amren 17:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I already put PWN in culture, I think w00t should go in there as well.  Maybe I'm applying the category too broadly...Amren 17:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to say Category:Internet slang. We can make this a subcat of CVG. Perhaps make a subcategory of this Category:Computer and video game slang or something to that effect. (Like 3 edit conflicts right there) K1Bond007 17:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I like Internet slang because it exists but I see the issue. Maybe culture is the best place for now, then look again later. Different topic, things like "collision detection" I am putting into the existing Computer game design category. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:38, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

All the articles have been recategorized. I added a "please don't use" notice on the category page. The most common categories I moved them to were: Category:Computer and video game gameplay Category:Computer and video game culture Category:Computer and video game development Category:Computer game design -- Sitearm | Talk 21:57, 2005 August 20 (UTC)


 * Good work, thanks! - Fredrik | talk 21:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not all that fond of this idea, but I can see it is at least 4 to 1 in favor so I'll bow out. If wikipedia isn't meant to be a dictionary, I think that many of the terms on gameplay (and in MMORPG Terms and acronyms) should be transwikied to wiktionary. A wikipedia page on afk, for example, seems bound to be a stub. --Syrthiss 22:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Many of those "term" articles are actually a pretty good size.Amren 22:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video games by platform
Do we need separate subcats of CVG by platform for very similar platforms? The example I had in mind was Category:BBC Micro games and Category:Acorn Electron games, which I would propose combining. Although they were architecturally sufficiently different that most games didn't run on both unmodified, in practice almost all the same games were available for both and the exceptions (at least, the exceptions among games sufficiently notable to deserve articles) were so rare as to merit specific mention in the article to that effect. It just seems pointless having two categories that should contain exactly the same articles: the discrepancies at the moment currently reflect failure to categorize on our part rather than the games not having been produced for both machines. (And besides, if it's worth distinguishing these two it's also worth distinguishing Category:BBC Master 128 games, which would be yet another category of almost-exactly-the-same articles.) —Blotwell 08:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Article structure
Consider the following article structure:

Lead section   Summarizes the most important (of course) Gameplay       How the game itself works History        Describes development, release, and later history, as well as reviews Trivia         Notable bugs, cameos, fan activity, etc

This format naturally doesn't fit all topics, but it has worked out wonderfully in many of our best CVG articles (eg Super Mario 64, PONG, Doom, ...). I think we should recommend its use as a standard. Thoughts? - Fredrik | talk 11:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Dunno. It seems OK for some games. Need some more input. Thunderbrand 13:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to fit storyline somewhere in there.Amren (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Part of gameplay (describes the internal aspects of the game). See Doom for example. Fredrik | talk 18:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Gameplay should be separate from plot in games with very complex and involved storylines. Also, I like having an "Impact" section that explains what precedents the game set, as in Super Mario 64. Andre ( talk ) 18:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Super Mario 64 clearly uses the structure described above. Please note that I'm not talking about specific section titles; "gameplay" may cover many sections. The storyline is an aspect of the gameplay -- at least when complex and involved; in any way you shouldn't take my choice of particular titles too literally. What matters is the rough order of 1) describing the game, 2) describing its historical context, and 3) describing less important curiosities. Fredrik | talk 19:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, but all the games you mentioned don't (arguably I guess) have much of a story so in that sense, yes it's a good structure. Mario 64 - the princess is taken yet again, Doom - Marine guy goes to Mars "all hell breaks loose", and Pong. Games with more complex stories such as Half-Life 2 and to a lesser extent GoldenEye 007, need to have their gameplay and story sections seperate, IMHO. I'm not so sure recommending a standard is a good thing to do, although I don't necessarily disagree with it either. K1Bond007 19:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not talking about specific sections. Fredrik | talk 19:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh, apparently I misunderstood. You should mention that in the description for 'gameplay'. Otherwise, I can agree with this. K1Bond007 20:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, second try:

Lead section Game description  Plot and gameplay History           Development, release, impact, later history Trivia            Notable bugs, cameos, fan activity, etc

- Fredrik | talk 21:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added this stuff to the main page. Andre ( talk ) 22:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have a proposal for the headings!

pre-headings        " is a game that was initially released on the in on ." Overview            - -Plot               With start and end spoilers markers for all games. -Gameplay           How the game is played. Notable elements for that title at that time. Ports               - -Official Ports     Explanation of all ports officially released. (Some history here) -Fan Projects       Any and all notable fan-projects. Trivia              Maybe make a trivia template that can hide the answer too. See Also            Links with-in wikipedia with friendly names, like lists of other games by the genre or by the developer. External Links      Fan pages, RPGC shrines, templates,  , etc.

An example (of See Also and External Links) would be here on this game I liked when I was younger: Spellcraft: Aspects of Valor --Greyhawk0 06:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggested "Style" additions
Hi, everyone. I'm not a member of the project, but I've written quite a few video-game-related articles and edited many others. I just elaborated on the point about putting game events in present tense; I hope this wasn't out of line for a non-project member. It just seems that many people ignore this point, so I thought an explanation might help win them back to the light.

I do have a few suggested points for the style guide, but I wanted to present them here for comment before adding them. Here they are in draft form:


 * If the game is primarily a one-player game, descriptions of gameplay should use the term "the player"; i.e., "The player controls a party of five wizards." If the game contains a significant multiplayer mode, descriptions of it may be plural; i.e., "Players take turns fighting the computer-controlled boss characters."


 * Be careful to maintain the distinction between characters and players. The character or player character is the on-screen sprite that runs around, wins new weapons, fights bosses, and saves the princess. The player is the person behind the controller who gives commands to the character. Therefore, we say "Sonic must collect rings", not "The player must collect rings." However, "The player must guide Sonic to collect rings" is correct. Likewise, "Enemies may attack the characters at any time," not "Enemies may attack the player at any time."


 * When introducing the title of a game for the first time, try to include the system for which the game was released and the year of release. This is especially important in articles about characters, series, or game developers that span several games. Some examples: "Freddy Pharkas: Frontier Pharmacist, published by Sierra in 1993 for the home PC market, was the first Western-themed adventure game from that company. Or, "In Super Mario Sunshine (GameCube, 2002), Mario must wash away grime using a powerful waterhose."

Comments? BrianSmithson 17:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The stuff about using the term "the player" sounds good, because I run across a lot of articles that say "you must save the world" and all that. Thunderbrand 01:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I agree with your first two points. They're a little bit excessively pedantic. The third one is fine, though. Andre ( talk ) 01:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Point 1 came about because of articles written like this: "In Final Fantasy VII, players take the role of Terra Bradford . . ." It's misleading, since this is only a one-player game (primarily). Point two is cribbed from work I once did for Steve Jackson Games. Granted, that's paper-and-pencil RPG stuff, but they are very careful to keep a distinction between what the players do and what the characters do. I don't see why it's pedantic if we do the same. BrianSmithson 02:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That Super Mario Sunshine example is interesting. It's always bugged me that the first sentence of CVG articles is long and clunky, like "Space Shooter 2659 is a video game released for the GameCube on 28 November 2005 by Nintendo." or something to that effect. What does everyone think of making a standard of something like: "Super Mario Sunshine (Nintendo, GameCube, 26 August 2002) is a video game ... [rest of sentence that can actually be meaningful....]", with the original release being used? For non-exclusive games either "Killer 7 (Capcom, 7 July 2005) ....." or "Killer 7 (Capcom, multiple platforms, 7 July 2005) .....".
 * If we adopt a standard like this, it will get rid of a lot of filler and let us get to the actual interesting parts of the article faster. --Pagrashtak 02:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't like this idea. I understand the rationale and the intention is obviously good, but the problem with it is the multiple platforms. That needs to be spelled out with correct release dates. Not all multiple platform games have the same release and some articles go on to list their release date in other countires (Non-US) and other regions, most notably, Europe and Japan. These dates are almost always different. At this point you just have a list of information that can be better written in prose or more easily found in the infobox. Hurts even more when you add computer games and their platforms, remakes, etc. K1Bond007 02:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would propose to mention the earliest release date in the article and leave the other dates to the infobox. It's hard to mention three (or more) release dates without destroying the flow of a lead section. --Pagrashtak 02:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. Super Mario 64 lists the Japanese, European, and the North American date in its intro very nicely (in prose). In fact it is a featured article and one of our (i.e. this WikiProject's) more celebrated articles. I don't see the problem with listing them all in prose unless of course there are so many that it can be seen as confusing or too much - in this case a section on the release would probably be best. Doom sets a good example by having a good section on the releases (this idea was proposed by Fredrik earlier). Most games aren't like this though and can be easily specified in the intro without confusion or clutter. K1Bond007 03:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, as usual, with K1Bond007. Andre ( talk ) 02:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I respect both your opinions, so never mind. --Pagrashtak 03:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon. IP
Recently, an anon. IP added Mason11987 to the participants list, and also to the Final Fantasy wikiproject. I'm guessing the anon was Mason11987 and forgot to login, but I dunno. Mason11987 hasn't contributed since July of this year. On their talk page, they say they will contribute, but that was written in February. Should we do anything or not? Thunderbrand 17:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. K1Bond007 19:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I forgot to log in. sorry :), I'm gonna go add myself in again. Mason11987

Disambiguating series pages, naming conventions
As discussed previously on this talk page, a standardized method of disambiguating games from game series would be beneficial to the project. I've created Naming conventions (computer and video games) to develop this idea further, and I've started a poll on the talk page to form a consensus on which method of disambiguation would be preferable. --Poiuyt Man talk 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it may be premature to take a poll on this. I'd rather see more discussion before leaping into a poll - a discussion can also show a consensus on something. Another semi-issue I have is that this naming convention doesn't discuss what length a series should be where it would be appropriate for a disambiguated series article. For instance, it is beneficial to have a page called "The Legend of Zelda series", but perhaps not so much for "No One Lives Forever series" or "Max Payne series", the latter two having only two games (not counting expansions or spinoffs) under their belt. This is an interesting issue because in my opinion, it's ok for Max Payne to be home to information on the series thus far rather than creating another article that does the same thing. Hopefully, I'm making sense here.
 * I'm personally of the opinion that it depends on the series. In one case, Splinter Cell, is not the name of the first game, it's technically Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell (same for Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six). Considering Splinter Cell could refer to the first game, the first novel, or the future movie, it works just as well as a disambig page. K1Bond007 03:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right about the poll, as the page hasn't even been given a chance to expand beyond the text I've written. I'm willing to wait for more perspectives on the issue before resorting to an opinion poll. Would you mind adding some of the points above to the page? --Poiuyt Man talk 06:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I essentially copied the above over (minus the point on the poll). I should have added my comment there in the first place anyway. K1Bond007 06:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dragon Quest is an example how it might go. Right now I put a little tidbit on top of the series page to lead to the game page Dragon Quest (video game). This causes an odd category entry for Dragon Quest compared to later titles. Changing the game page to Dragon Quest I would help that, but that isn't the actual name of the game (so no). Maybe we can lobby to get a category feature added to change the article's name on a per-category basis. If that can be done, then the way Dragon Quest is handled could become the convention for this WikiProject. --Greyhawk0 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Cvg-stub
Can we delete that second line from Template:Cvg-stub? It makes it inconsistent with every other stub type, and each time I see it in the corner of my eye I think the template is up for deletion or something. Besides, putting it up for expansion or nominating it for COTW is usually done by somewhat experienced Wikipedians that don't need to be reminded at each stub article they come across. Coffee 23:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the second line of this template is unimportant. Stub article have to invite to expand article, not putting it to work for others users. If I can expand this article I will do that, but if I don't know nothing about article subject I won't put it in WP:GCOTW just because "I want they make it for me". I'm about deleting this line. Ho&#322;ek &#1161; 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the second line should be ditched too.  &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 20:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just up and removed it. Since the break down of the stub template into others, I don't think it makes much sense anymore on its own. It really doesn't matter to me, though. K1Bond007 21:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I did this also for Template:Cvg-corp-stub. Ho&#322;ek &#1161; 09:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Pre-ESRB ratings
In games created prior to the ESRB's establishment, what should go in the ratings row of the Infobox? Should it be blank or say something like "n/a"? KramarDanIkabu 03:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Leaving it blank is what we normally do, I think. Andre ( talk ) 03:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I usually put in "Not Rated (NR)". Thunderbrand 15:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer "n/a" over leaving it blank, since a blank spot makes it appear that we just don't know the rating, and I prefer it over "Not Rated", because "NR" can also imply that it's a game the ESRB officially chose to not rate. ADeveria 17:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Some games were given ratings of sorts by their publishers. For these I'd prefer the notation Company:Rating, with a link to an article (a new stub if necessary) on that company's rating system. Seahen 13:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

New proposal "Entertainment software"
I propose we rename this main project, main portal, main category, and main article to "Entertainment software". This is consistent with the industry (as see Entertainment Software Association) and solves the dilemma of organizing games by platform since they all use software. I realize this would be a lengthy amount of work and would of course volunteer to help work it. Would recommend we move steadily but deliberately. -- Sitearm | Talk 12:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I object to this proposal. "Computer game" and "video game" are significantly more common terms. Andre ( talk ) 13:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I object too...while that term might be fine for the industry, I think an encyclopedia reader as well as most of us would expect the word "game" in there somewhere... ADeveria 13:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I object with the same reasons as listed above. Thunderbrand 14:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object as above. Kertrats | Talk 14:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Preamble: I think the intention of both the meta-proposal and this section are great and necessary, even if I disagree on details.  Specifics: I agree that the term Entertainment Software sounds more like suits and less like gamers, but maybe there's another umbrella term to suggest, because having either "video game" or "computer game" as parent to the other feels wrong.  For much of game history many (not all) people thought of "video game" as an imperfect synonym for console games: if someone said they were playing a video game they probably meant a console game (or maybe a coin-op), but if you double-checked and asked they might be playing a computer game.  That's why we keep encountering problems here: the terms were/are not used consistently.  Declaring a consistent meaning here when society has failed to do so seems wrong.  That said, I don't have a perfect alternative.  Electronic Games sounds like handhelds alone.  Interactive Entertainment begs the question of why we'd exclude paper gaming.  Although I don't like Entertainment Software much, IMHO we should focus on better alternatives rather than just rejecting it outright. Thanks to those who are driving this issue for doing good work. Coll7 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What about "electronic games"? That blanket term could include everything from pinball and arcade machines to computer and console games. Anetode 04:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you take Frecklefoot's proposal, add one higher layer called Electronic Games, you could then subdivide into:
 * Coin-op Games (subdividied into Mechanical Coin-op Games, including Pinball among other sub-cats, and Video Coin-op Games)
 * Home Electronic Games, subdivided into Console Video Games, Home Computer Games and Handheld Games; this is a slight re-casting of what Frecklefoot recommended.
 * Whatever specific path we take, the spirit of Frecklefoot's proposal for a clear hierarchy feels very necessary to me. Coll7 18:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I still prefer using "video game" as the umbrella term, since it describes all the games: computer game, console game, handheld, etc. It excludes things like pinball games, which may use electronics and even computers, but don't use a video display as the primary form of output.


 * Yes, society uses the term "video game" inconsistently. That doesn't mean we have to.  In my proposal, it's perfectly consistent to refer to a console game or a computer game as a "video game."  Both are, but the term isn't as specific as saying "computer game" or "console game."  For example, if I were eating a hamburger and Lola asked me what I was doing, I could either say, "Eating food," or "Eating a hamburger."  Both statements are true, the second is just more specific. But the former statement would be true if I were eating a hamburger, shrimp or a tasty green salad.


 * We could help clarify things by stating in the console game article that they are often generically refered to as their umbrella term, "video game." What say ye?   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 20:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is particularly relevant, but I'm curious about the uses of the terms "video game" and "computer game" in other languages. For example, being from the Netherlands, I've mostly been used to "computer game" describing all these types of games. I'm not sure about the term's use in the British English, but to me "video game" always sounded like a particularly American term. However, by looking at the interwiki links for computer and video games it (ironically) seems that both equivalents are used almost equally in different languages. Like I said, not too relevant, but perhaps worth keeping in mind... ADeveria 22:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Just because some suits decided that this is a good marketing term they can use to make their market seem bigger than it really is doesn't mean that it will be used in everyday common use. I know I've never heard anyone talk about "Entertainment software". I think we should stick to a lexicon that is in common usage. Jacoplane 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think video game is the umbrella term under which computer game is included, and "entertainment software" is just not going to work no matter how you organize it. Amren (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please cite your sources that "Video Games" is the umbrella category.

From the consumer side: Amazon.com sells "Computer and Video Games". Amazon.ca sells "Video Games" with "PC Games" under it Amazon.co.uk sells "PC and Video Games". Amazon.de sells "PC- & Videospiele". Amazon.jp sells... well, I can't read it. Amazon.fr sells "Jeux video"

From the media side: Gamespot calls it "games" and "gamers" and refers to titles by platform or manufacturer. It does not use the word "video". Gamespy calls it "gaming" and refers to titles by platform or manufacturer. It does not use the word "video".

From the industry side: The Entertainment Software Association (aka "Suits") categorizes games and reports statistics as Video Games and Computer Games side by side. It's members include Activision, Inc., Atari, Inc., Buena Vista Games, Inc., Capcom USA, Inc., Crave Entertainment, Eidos Interactive, Electronic Arts, Her Interactive, Inc., id Software, Konami Digital Entertainment America, LucasArts, Mad Catz, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Midway Games, Inc., Namco Hometek, Inc., Nintendo of America Inc., NovaLogic, Inc., SEGA of America, Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America, Square Enix, Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., THQ, Inc., Ubisoft Entertainment, Inc., Vivendi Universal Games, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment Inc., Wild Tangent

So the current use of "computer and video games", which was the result of a previous big debate and final consensus in this group, still works. "Video game" alone is a step back. If "entertainment software" is too new a term to serve as umbrella, then leave things as they are. -- Sitearm | Talk 22:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not here when this big debate took place and if a final consensus was indeed reached, I will abide by it. It is still my opinion, however, that video game is the umbrella term and that "console game" and "computer game" are two of the branches under it.  But the only source you cited that seems to agree with my view is amazon.ca, so there seems to not be much support for my view anyways.Amren (talk)  14:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It was before my time too (only been on WP since July) but it's in the archives of this page. And just because something was agreed to before doesn't mean it can't be brought up again (I was just reading about this in the Village Pump). I'm not trying to quell the discussion (I couldn't) but I am trying to keep on track with citing sources. This WP writing thing is so different from, for example, a game forum I participate on where I can "think" and do "original research" all I want. But in WP we have to try to take a neutral broad perspective and stick to what "authoritative others" say about one of our favorite pastimes, gaming. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Video game industry footer
Not to detract from the ongoing discussion on fixing the terms for games, but I've been experimenting with a footer to link all the video game industry articles. If you like, pop on over to my sandbox to see what I've been doing. I'd appreciate any input. But please put any comments on the Talk page, don't modify the templates directly. Thanks! &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, I think I'd have to go with monotone. The rest are somewhat distracting, too big or have too much white space. I'm gonna take a crack at this later. If I get anything good, I'll link it here or add it to your sandbox. K1Bond007 18:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I like Monotone, though could the blank lines be half height somehow to make it more compact? This may be Pandora's box, but adding the History of computer and video games and Genres would be good, too.  Cool idea as part of the overall get-organized effort.  Coll7 01:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Horizontal Colorful Compact has the best layout, but I don't like the colors. I made a modified version here. I'll also add it to your page if you don't mind. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, Frecklefoot! I like the compact layout with CyberSkulls mods. Are you thinking of putting articles like Game play and Computer game genres on a different footer for "Consumers" or something? -- Sitearm | Talk 13:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback! But let's keep the discussion on the talk page&mdash;having it in two places is just too difficult! :-) See there for responses to the queries posed here.  &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, finally made it into a proper template. If you want to chime in on changes, you can visit it here. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it looks nice, but isn't that extreme? I mean if you're looking at a game, do you need all those "off-topic" links? I could see links to lists of other: game releases by the same publisher, games released the same year, and games of the same genre. Why would someone looking at Dig-Dug's article (for example) would want to know about Game Design or Hand-Held games? --Greyhawk0 07:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the footer is only meant to be placed on generalized articles, not specific game ones. Amren (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the footer is only for the articles that are listed in the footer, not every video game article. It just links the similar industry articles. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 02:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Rocketjump article
The CVG WikiProject page mentions how Rocketjump is an example of an article that's too specific to exist...however it appears to have been brought back in to re-existence. Should the article be deleted again, or have we come to the point at which it's become acceptable? I've noticed a Grenade-jumping article too, which should probably meet the same fate. -ADeveria 12:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The basic problem back then was that it was an article about rocket jumping in Quake, which is far too specific to merit a separate article. But as the article now demonstrates that rocket jumping is a feature found in many games (and provides interesting information), it is worth keeping. Grenade-jumping is simply a duplicate and should be merged with it. Fredrik | talk 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done =) ··gracefool |&#9786; 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks both for the fix and explanation, sounds good. That just leaves the project page requiring a slight alteration, or at least clarification on why the current Rocketjump is acceptable, right now it's just confusing. I know I seem lazy not doing anything there myself, just want to make sure it's done right. ADeveria 18:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Don't be afraid to be bold, if you get it a bit wrong someone else will tidy it up. ··gracefool |&#9786; 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point. And I thank you again. ADeveria 16:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Screwed up categories
I've just had someone highlight the weird category system for games: Some games are under Computer and video games>Computer and video game companies>Company name while others are under Computer and video games>Computer and video games by company>Company name games. This is strange and unnecessary - shouldn't the two be merged? I expected them all to be under Computer and video game companies - that is more like what other categories do. Computer and video games by company is redundant, since it does (or can do) exactly the same thing as Computer and video game companies. This would also replace the clumsy "Company name games" categories with "Company name" (this is especially clumsy with categories like Midway Games, which should be Midway Games games). In general, having one instead of two would make things a lot easier to manage (and easier for the reader to browse).

I suppose the only good thing about the current scheme is that "Computer and video games by company" makes it clear that you can browse games by company. However, after merging you could just use a hard redirect to Computer and video game companies, and have the best of both worlds, right?

Any objections? ··gracefool |&#9786; 03:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, merge the two categories under Computer and video game companies.  &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 13:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

n00b Contributor for Video Games
I've been contributing to a particular console game, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, without realizing that according to this group my contributions likely belong in the wikibooks and not wikipedia. First, what do I do to go about moving such things? Second, images that I create from scratch but are based on items from the game itself (runes particularly), what should their copyright be? and Third, how do I officially become part of this group?

Thanks!! ParallaxTZ 00:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Cut & Paste it into wikibooks:Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem.
 * Unaltered images should go under game-screenshot, altered is a different story.
 * Go to this section and hit the edit link.
 * Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 01:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've looked at the images. If you are the author, you should release it under a Creative Commons license and post it on the Wikimedia Commons (it would be available to all the servers here). See Copyrights for more info. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for the help (& the start on wikiwbooks ;-) ) I'll working on that book for a while.  I'll make a complete guide.  As for characters and things.  When I first arrived at the wikipedia article the 'gods' in the game each had their own page.  Also, some other video games 'rune languages' have their own pages (sometimes for each rune) on wikipedia.  What's the rule of thumb for this kind of thing?? ParallaxTZ Talk 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd consider merging them all together on a page like "List of rune stones in Eternal Darkness" or perhaps something shorter. I haven't read it, but you wanna keep the fancruft etc to a minimum. If you can add them all to Eternal Darkness, then I'd go for that. K1Bond007 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, how to delete a now deprecated page? Or can they only be flagged for deletion? ParallaxTZ Talk 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Use a redirect. K1Bond007 19:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit more research, you should upload the runes you made into the Wikimedia Commons under a creative commons license (from the pop up menu). Let us know if you have any trouble doing so. I'll help you delete the old images too. Go to Commons:Special:Upload to start posting the files (you should create an account on that server as well). Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. One more question.  For a straight up screen shot, youe'd use game-screenshot but what about an altered screen shot? Creative Commons? ParallaxTZ Talk 14:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It depends what you altered. For example if I use an emulator to take a screenshot of a boss and artificially turn off certain layers in order to isolate it on a transparent background that's still entirely the official artwork despite not being a direct screengrab. However if I were to take a screenshot of the world map and then laboriously draw on each and every one of the game's secret items I can then claim certain rights to it as a derivative work, as long as I have a "all other graphic elements are the property of XYZ Company" disclaimer. Take a look at some videogame maps on GameFAQs etc. for an example of how this is done. Oh but don't put any sort of ownership or copyright disclaimer on the image itself like GameFAQs contributors do, that information goes on the image description page instead. GarrettTalk 12:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found our Wikipedia 'templates' for what a wikipedia video game article should resemble, but I have not found anything for wikibooks. Do we have anything or is it up to the book contributors? ParallaxTZ Talk 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think this project has any clearly defined guidelines for writing a wikibook. Perhaps we should start a CVG project there? Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 22:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm for it. others? ParallaxTZ 21:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What, you want to start a Wikibooks branch of WikiProject CVG?! Count me in! Having helped in the layout of the vast b:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas guide I'm sure I could help apply what I've learned to the global guidelines. I should point out, though, that it has been suggested that all videogame guides be moved to the specialised Gameinfo wikicity, see b:Wikibooks talk:Policy/Vote for the whole saga. But regardless of the outcome of that this is a great idea that I hope to see carried out. GarrettTalk 12:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of my contributions having to be suffled from site to site. Grumble. ParallaxTZ 20:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

List of gnarly video game related templates
Do we have a list of useful templates for video game articles outside of the (really useful) stub messages and our (very cool) infbox? Two that I know of come to mind: the video game industry template (which has limited application) and the MobyGames template, which only I seem to use. Are there any more? Should they be listed on the front page as well? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 21:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * consoles and history off the top of my head. Both are limited. K1Bond007 21:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I added Template:GameFAQs. It is similar to MobyGames, but because of GameFAQs URLs, it's not as easy to use. --Greyhawk0 07:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do. See Category:Computer and video game templates. On a side note, someone put it up for cfd. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 11:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:FICT and video game characters
I've noticed a tendency for very fine granulatiy in articles about video game characters. My experience with this started with the Pokémon articles (and there's still controversy over this, in the Pokémon Wikiprojects), but, while Pokémon is particularly infamous for it, there's no shortage of overly-fine-grained video game articles.

Why do we need separate articles for characters who don't transcend their source work, especially in the case of characters that appear in only one or two games? Often, articles such as these are rife with speculation or lack context, but even when cleaned up they end up being substantive duplicates of the article on the source work. WP:FICT was created to combat this tendency, but I'm given to understand that WP:FICT is more controversial than I initially thought.

Does WP:CVG have a standing policy about when to make a separate article for a character, and when to mention it in the article of the game the character appears in? Should the standard be different for video game characters, or comparable with other forms of fiction? (I've made the John Galt/Atlas Shrugged argument - that any discussion of John Galt is by necessity a discussion of Atlas Shrugged, and belongs in the Atlas Shrugged article - to User:A Link to the Past, as it's the example Cruft uses, but he was unmoved.)

For just a handful of cases...
 * Ingrid (video game character)
 * Captain Olimar
 * Breath of Fire II and its series of character articles, beginning with Ryu (Breath of Fire 2 character) - This requires you to read eight different articles to get a plot summary of BOF2.
 * Spire (Metroid), half of which describes all of the bounty hunters from Metroid Prime: Hunters as a group
 * Buzz Buzz
 * Panther Caroso
 * General Scales
 * Kat and Ana
 * Sow Joan - A character who appears once a week or so in Animal Crossing.

I don't want to do nothing, but I don't know where the line is drawn, and even using WP:FICT has met with opposition. Can anyone offer any advice or input? - A Man In <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color:#000000;">Black (conspire | past ops) 07:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Some less clear-cut examples were King of All Cosmos and Lord Sturm (of Advance Wars) are where I initially came into conflict over this issue, although Talk:List of Johto Gym Leaders (which ended up merged as the merged list was simply rewritten to totally obsolete the stubs from which it was formed) also has some commentary from the Pokémon Wikiproject. - A Man In <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color:#000000;">Black (conspire | past ops) 08:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I find myself increasingly merciless to any character that doesn't transcend their medium. For example I heard of CATS and Chrono long before I knew anything about the games they starred in. Now in the past I've tried to find fancier words for this, but this time I'm going to say it straight: I have been an active member of videogame forums and fansites since 1996; if I haven't heard of it, it's not worthy of its own article, period. Since I heard of Chrono and CATS outside of the fan base or even the context of their source works, they have transcended their source works and are therefore worthy of mention. I can actually see Krystal in my mind's eye(!), thus she is probably worthy, but I have not heard of Panther Caroso, thus he is not. I have read a lot about the fascinating Animal Crossing but have never heard of Sow Joan, therefore from that and her lack of ingame importance she also fails. And don't even get me started on Kat and Ana; what next, an article on Golden Axe ' s Green Thief?! I don't care if this sounds bigoted. If I as a clueless outsider have heard of it it must therefore be somewhat worthy of a mention, and if when clued in on a game's content I have not heard of something it's of questionable notability. It's as simple as that, right? Right. GarrettTalk 13:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason that the keep it in the main article until it gets too unwieldy and then split it off technique won't work? After all, this is the encyclopedia for everything - it seems to me if somebody wants to go ahead and write a long, extensive biography and history of some random character they like then more power to them, as long as the quality of the article remains high.  BTW, I'm kind of a wikipedia newbie - is there a general problem of page bloat here?  If not, what is the problem of having a page on Sow Joan if the only way you might happen upon it is if you were looking for it specifically or if you were reading the Animal Crossing page, in which case you might be interested in it?  It seems like having a hundred sub-pages on characters branching off of a parent article isn't a problem as long as the parent article is organized in such a way that a casual reader can distinguish between which child articles are important to understanding the subject and which are minor fancruft.  On a side note, I don't really care about the Krystal page because I would never have accidentally stumbled on the page by accident, but because I am a fan, I am glad that, say, Soundwave (Transformers) has his own page. Kjl 15:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason that the keep it in the main article until it gets too unwieldy and then split it off technique won't work?
 * The issue seems to be more articles made for these characters that never started off as splits from the main article. Look at, for example, Lord Sturm; the bulk of it is plot summary that isn't duplicated word-for-word from the original articles, but instead is written with an eye to his involvement. It's still factual duplication, but not literal duplication.
 * Am I right to just merge these articles about non-transcendent characters into the articles for the source works, as long as it doesn't bloat the articles for the source works unnecessarily? - A Man In <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color:#000000;">Black (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You have my support, at least. That's what I've been doing with the Final Fantasy-related articles over at Final Fantasy sub-project, to a limited extent. – Seancdaug 02:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it should go something like this:
 * Characters with minor backstories, but still notable within the game, should be mentioned and briefly described in the game.
 * Characters with more significant backstories should exist in a "List of Game X characters" or similar article.
 * Transcending characters and characters appearing in many games with a long and detailed backstory may have their own article.
 * And somewhat on the subject, there's a recently created CVG fictional element stubs category, which may be helpful to clean up these kinds of articles. ADeveria 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

<Year> Computer and video_games categories
These categories are pretty ambiguous. Do they mean the first release of the game? Do they mean the first release of the game in North America? Do they mean every known release? See what I mean!

How about:

Category:Game releases by year -Category:Game releases in by year --Category: game releases in by year (Optional Genre) ---Category: game releases in

So "Category:1995 adventure game releases in Japan" would be an example. It would be a sub-category of "Category:Adventure game releases in Japan by year", which would be the sub-category of "Category:Game releases in Japan by year", which would be the sub-category of "Category:Game releases by year".

Or just kill the whole categorization by year concept. --Greyhawk0 23:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC) --


 * My understanding is a title is listed per release per platform. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 00:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They go by release in North America, all the ones I come across. I don't see why we have to recat. them and add categories for Japanese release. That would kind of be for the japanese wikipedia if they do that. Thunderbrand 02:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This has come up before. They should be categorized by first availability regardless if it's NA, Europe, or Japan. After that it may be reasonable to list per platform or whatever. Example being Final Fantasy VI. It's not that ambigous. K1Bond007 03:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a library science grad student with a strong interest in categorization, there's absolutely no reason to conflate release date with genre, and doing so kind of defeats the point of the categorization system, which is designed (in part) to allow postcombination searching (multiple, broadly conceived categories that can be made more specific by combining the results of one category with the results of another: to look for adventure games released in 1988, you'd compare the contents of Category:1988 computer and video games with the contents of Category:Adventure games, as opposed to creating a single Category:Adventure games released for MS-DOS in 1988 by Sierra comprised of six 1.44-inch floppy disks, or some such thing). As for what release year to use: use everything that's relevant. There's no real reason not to, since the article itself should clarify what the dates mean, and its best for the categories to be inclusive, so that someone more familiar with, say, the European PlayStation release of Final Fantasy VI can successfully find the game by searching Category:2002 computer and video games, as opposed to having to go by the original SNES release date (Category:1994 computer and video games, BTW). Categorization should not take the place of a well-written explanation in the article, but should allow readers to access the article from a variety of different relevant entry points. – Seancdaug 03:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's what I meant to say Seancdaug. ;) Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 04:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, so scratch my idea. From what you are saying is that every single release of every game should be categorized this way? That almost sounds like it would be better done with a list (maybe we should start one in addition to the category?), which would have three extra columns: platform, region and date. --Greyhawk0 04:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The categories are not intended to provide information for people who are already reading the article. Release dates can (and should) be properly documented in the individual article. Placing an article in Category:2000 computer and video games is not a substitute for a line that says "Dragon Quest VII was released on August 26, 2000" in the introduction. The categories provide entry points: if I'm interested in looking for information on games released in 2000, but don't know where to begin, the categories provide a means of navigating the otherwise daunting amount of information available here. It's an incredibly user-unfriendly way to present information in the way I think you're suggesting, but it's not intended to do so. – Seancdaug 07:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also (new idea, make new section if worthy), from a scholarly approach it might be interesting to have a list of games where only the initial date would be referenced (enhanced remakes would be marked special and given a second entry). This would let someone see the appearance and evolution of video games by advancing through the years without the hassles of seeing the same game being listed in 2-5 different years. --Greyhawk0 04:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this creates problems for users who don't particularly care to discriminate between initial and subsequent releases, and just want an idea of what games were release in a given year. The only way it could be done would be to subcategorize (something like Category:2000 computer and video games → Category:2000 computer and video game remakes, or Category:2000 computer and video games → Category:2000 computer and video games in Japan), and that creates a whole new host of problems (duplication of information, overly granulated categories, managing the categorization process itself) that we probably cannot (and do not want) to deal with. The simple fact of the matter is that categorization cannot easily do what you want it to do. This is really the sort of thing that needs to be handled in the articles themselves. – Seancdaug 07:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'm not entirely sure what "hassles of seeing a game listed in 2-5 different years" you are referring to: from a category-browsing perspective, you only ever see an article listed once per category. From an article-reading perspective, the article itself should provide the context to understand the categorization, and it should only do that if the reader is interested in using the category system to browse for related works. – Seancdaug 07:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!
I've made a variant of the welcome tag for use by the CVG project, cvg welcome:

Comments? Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 04:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * hmm, wouldn't it be better if we used cvg welcome and an addition to welcome ? Sort of only "As you have contributed to computer and video game article(s), you may wish to check out Wikipedia's WikiProject on Computer and Video Games." This could be also be used to invite other than newcomers. wS;✉ 13:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Silly edit war
Could someone please weigh in at Talk:List of Wario games and help determine an appropriate criteria for inclusion on List of Wario games? - A Man In <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color:#000000;">Black (conspire | past ops) 12:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Notice template?
Do we have a WikiProject Notice template?? I couldn't find it if we do. ParallaxTZ 16:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll make one at cvgproj. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 11:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Final Fantasy series and the infobox images
I have noticed that according to your standards, only box art can be used as the info box image. However the Final Fantasy series of games have their logos in the info box.

Are the logos acceptable or not? I bring this up beacause Final Fantasy VI is the only article with box art for an info box image, and it looks jarring compared to the info boxes for the other FF games.


 * My opinion is that box art should be used without exception... unless of course the game never had one, in which case official art will have to suffice (BS Zelda), or, failing that, the title screen (BS Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban). Logos should instead be used on the series page or "characters in game X" page, or, if the logo itself is of especial mention, somewhere else within the article itself. But that's just me of course. ;) GarrettTalk 16:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My opinion (which should come as a surprise to no one) is that it should be determined on a game-by-game basis. I continue to fail to see what is so vital about box art that it needs to be the standard, and I feel that there are numerous game articles that are harmed by the rule. – Seancdaug 18:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For the most part, all games should use boxart. Final Fantasy may be the only exception to the rule in my opinion. There are multiple versions of boxart out there (US v Europe v Japan v ??), and the games have been released/remade/renamed numerous times and have a number of different box covers in that respect. In my opinion, it may be more suitable to show the logo for the game, rather than an editor-chosen box cover. K1Bond007 22:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't feel really strongly about the subject, but it's worth mentioning that the Pokémon wikiprojects, despite the split boxcovers for the paired Pokémon games, have just included both images. When you've got a choice between two boxcovers, I don't see why you can't include both (see Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire for an example). - A Man In <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color:#000000;">Black (conspire | past ops) 22:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've actually tried that once or twice, but it's been shot down each time simply because it gets unwieldy. Take Final Fantasy VI, for instance: it's been released four (soon to be five) times. Trying to cram five boxcovers into the relatively small space of the infobox isn't really pretty. The benefit of the logo is that it generally encompasses most of the distinct releases, without giving a misleading impression to people who, for instance, are more familiar with one of the rerelease of a game than its original version (particularly true for the European audience, since none of the first six games were released in Europe until the PlayStation remakes). The logo identifies the game across numerous different versions, while the box art is specifically associated with one particular version. – Seancdaug 23:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is for the limited cases, where you've got two (or maybe three) images. Cramming all the different covers FFVI has had into an infobox is probably a bad idea. - A Man In <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color:#000000;">Black (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all games should use English language box art. In the case of Final Fantasy games, Japanese box art or both English and Japanese box art can be used. I do not see why a logo should be used. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk ) 22:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah. Nobody's arguing that Japanese box art should be used (save in situations where foreign-language boxart is the only boxart). But in the case of FFVI, for example, there are at least three English-language boxarts I know of, and possibly more. - A Man In <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color:#000000;">Black (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that we should use whatever image is of the highest quality. Of course I would prefer the english box up there. In the case of the Final Fantasy games here, I would lean towards the logos in this case. I am against using screenshots in the infobox. As for computer games, I don't mind using the application's icon either. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 23:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Game series list templates
Is there a perferred format for game series templates, such as those at the bottom of games from many game series? Are there specific template styles that are more worthy of emulation than others? I'm trying to build Template:Dragon Ball games and while I'm reasonably sure I have all of the games, I'm not completely happy with the presentation of the list. Any suggestions or anyone want to put on a pair of sturdy gloves and want to take a pass at it? JRP 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Some examples I know of...

('PokémonGames' template removed to prevent auto-categorisation of this talk page Z iggurat  05:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

('Mario series' template removed to prevent auto-categorisation of this talk page Z iggurat  05:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

('Katamari Damacy series' template link removed to prevent auto-categorisation of this talk page Z iggurat  05:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

There are probably more, but that's a selection to draw ideas or inspiration from. I'd offer advice, but I'm not great at making templates. - A Man In <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color:#000000;">Black (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

On a semi related note Category:Computer and video game templates is up for deletion. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 23:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

new optional fields for cvg infobox?
Since Wikimedia now allows for ommiting optional fields in templates I would like to think about adding the following optional fields to Template:Infobox VG:
 * Version
 * Date

This is mainly for computer games that receive updates, as most of infobox software applies to the computer games as well. That's just my thoughts on the matter. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 06:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is true. I wouldn't mind it, as long as it doesn't mess the code up. Thunderbrand 15:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't. With this feature optional parameters don't need to be present in the template call for it to work properly, at lest that is what my experimentation shows. Parameters not used by subtemplates must be used though. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made Template:Infobox CVG/version, but have not put a call to it in the template, if we are to do this we should decide where it goes first. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 01:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, I think below the engine. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the entry still looks a bit bare or out of place... Perhaps a date of version release (a la the Software infobox) will help it look a bit less empty? I'm also thinking it might look better lower down in the infobox, as it's not a particularly pertinent piece of information, perhaps between the System Requirements and the Media fields. – Quoth 01:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added what I think it should look like into the Hitman infobox at Hitman (computer game). I think this should be implemented using another optional 'version_date' variable that appears when it does in the Hitman infobox. Any comments? – Quoth 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not up on the new features/tech or whatever you wanna call it. Does this mean that if you add an optional line that we wouldn't have to add the line to every article? For instance, engine is optional, but is required to be listed regardless for the infobox to function properly. Is there a page at Wikimedia that explains this? K1Bond007 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Prettymuch, yeah. I dunno the wiki page for the feature, so I made an example in my Sandbox. Please take a look at the code. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 23:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added it, and the template has totally not exploded. Look at World of Warcraft to see it in use. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox border
Could we add a white border to the left of the infobox so level 2 header lines don't touch it? This may require removing the "infobox bordered" class. Fredrik | talk 15:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ?? But then you wouldn't have a border on the left side at all. It'd be invisible. Am I understanding this? K1Bond007 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You'd have two borders (using nested divs or tables): the outer "invisible" and the inner a regular border. Fredrik | talk 11:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The style element overrides the class element in a tag, so just making the adjustment there should do it. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 23:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)