Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Does anyone here have access to issue 13 of the UK edition of PSU3 magazine because I need some info from of it for a citation. - X201 08:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet is to visit the PSU3 forum. All Imagine Publishing magazines seem to have their own dedicated forum, I'm sure the guys there can help you, especially for a recent issue. You might even be able to attract the attention of one of the magazine staff, I know at GamesTM they take the feedback and forum sections very seriously. - hahnchen 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I've just read that due to disappointing sales of the PS3 and thus PS3 magazines, that PSU3 is to merge with Play (magazine). - hahnchen 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I, and many others, had been using Template:Vgrationale to add fair use rationale to images, and now it appears to be broken. It no longer shows on the image page what article the rationale applies to. It only says "Non-free / fair use media rationale - NEEDS ARTICLE NAME" and "Article {{{Article}}}"

Some users have taken advantage of this to flag a lot of images for WP:NFCC#10c. This is causing a lot of headaches. When we inserted this template, the article name was there. Now the images are nothing more than easy brownie points for bots and others.

I have no idea how templates work. Can someone PLEASE fix this? If it can be broken so easily, it should be able to be FIXED easily. Unfortunately, now we have hundreds of false deletion notices to dealt with manually. Thank you. SashaNein 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, couple things:

There is nothing "broken" per se. Fair-use rationale (FUR) for non-free images, as you not, require specifically that one FUR be written for each article that the image is used in, and furthermore, it must include that article name (implicit WP renaming rules are applied, and page redirects are ok, but should be direct) as per 10c. This is just a requirement. Note that if you use an image in two places, you need two FURs

BetaCommandBot , which is likely the culprit for deletion tagging, is being charged with tagging every image in WP that lacks FUR, or, as best as machine-readable as possible, an incomplete FUR (including lack of article name). This is charged from above by WP's board, that by April 2008, all non-free content is either tagged as such or is removed from WP. The bot's been running since June if not earlier, so you can tell that this is going to take a while. Many people hit all the other required FUR points, but generally forget the article name, or use some abbreviated version that, from a machine-readible standpoint, is going to fail.

To adapt to this, the main FUR template Template:Non-free use rationale has recently added a new field "article" which allows the user to specifically state the article for FUR, making it very easy to avoid the failures that machine-logic may have in trying to figure it out.

Vgrationale is a substitution template; when you use it, you'll end up with the Non-free use rationale template in your image. Because it is a substitution, all applications of vgrationale are technically "broken" prior to this change because they don't include the article field. The problem does NOT lie with VGRationale, but with the resulting non-free template, effectively. It is possible to add the article field through the vgtemplate call , I don't know how just yet (I know it can be done by field, I'm seeing if there's a simpler way),I've fixed vgrationale such that any new applications of this template will include the article field, however, this won't fix what's already broken.

Now, the solution is easy: in any such marked FUR for images, look for the "Non-free use rationale" template which should be at the top of the page. Add in the following:

|Article=(article name)

on a new line somewhere within the template call whats bounded by {{ }}, replacing the "article name" (and parens) with the exact article name the image is used on in WP. Once you've done that, you have satisfied the deletion criteria (if it's only a #10c) and you may delete the CSD warning.

Unfortunately, this needs to be done manually, but it should take but a few minutes to complete.

Hope this helps. --Masem 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It'll take hours, since there are hundreds that need to be updated. Thanks for updating the template.

The next question is, since it's fixed now, what's to stop it the template from being deemed out of line in two or so months when another change could come along that cripples it, leaving all images using the template open to another bot assault? SashaNein 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not really a change. #10c has been there for a long time. It's the urgency of the April 08 requirement that is making these bots very active. Having watched the bot's owner's talk page, it was very clear that the bulk of the images that it was tagging were ones that had a FUR save for the exact article name, and the bot tagged it. This, of course (as I expect you feel) ticked off a lot of people as they didn't understand it was coming from #10c. With some reworking of the bot, and with the FUR template given the specific article field so that people knew exactly what was missing. This cut down the bot complaint traffic a LOT. I would not expect any other such change; every other aspect of a FUR template is not machine readable and likely a bot will not be tagging such for any other reason.

Ideally, if betacommandbot is tagging, the warning should be on three places: the image, the user that uploaded the image, and the pages where the images are being used on. (The bot can see those, but the author has to supply FUR to each specific page). I don't know if you can point us to a page that lists out the warnings (if they're all on your talk page, we could start there), but others could help that way. But I don't see any automation that could be done to help it. --Masem 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, can you provide an example of a bot-tagged image this way? If it IS Betacommandbot, it's missing the page name in the header, and that's a bug. Won't fix what's tagged but will fix future problems. --Masem 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bump: I checked with BetaCommand, and according to him (presumably) the old way Vgrationale was used would not be tagged by the bot since the article name was being used still on the page outside of the "pages that use this image" link.

If anyone has an example image where the fair-use rationale was put in using the old VGrationale, but has recently been labeled as a #10c violation by some user (bot or otherwise), can they please provide an example (including hist/diff when the CSD warning was put onto the image?) I want to try to chase this down a bit more to make sure its not some bad faith editors doing it. --Masem 09:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at this set of articles, there is rampant problems with fair use, gamecruft, WP:IINFO, In-universe tone...

The main article looks fine, though it has a little bit overdetailed/in-universe plot-summary, and possibly more images than needed (and I'm generally for keeping images, too!). Also, the character sections seem to be more wordy than necessary, seeing as the same info is retold on the char pages, verbatim - if that's the case, then only a short sentence is necessary on the links part of the main anime page. Also, it seems to me that the pages are set up to preserve the spoiler of who the servants are - that seems like it should be mentioned at the top of the character pages, and as part of the blurb on the main page.

Thanks for your help. I've only seen a few episodes of this anime, so I won't actually be able to do anything besides comment, though.KrytenKoro 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Zoo Tycoon task force was recently created without any discussion. I don't think that this topic has enough scope to justify a task force. Delete? JACOPLANE • 2007-10-1 21:32

Agreed. Too small a series to warrant a task force. --Masem 21:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I noticed that Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals really goes over board with non-free material. 14 images, a music file and a video file.--SeizureDog 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I killed the gallery. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

...and I was reverted by someone who seems a bit confused and uncivil. Anyone wanna give this a go and fix this/educate? I can't find the specific rule against galleries of non-free images. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't find a gallery specific one but WP:FU#Policy_2 sections 3 & 8 would apply. - X201 12:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow them a week for more than three members, otherwise remove the Task Force (after some discussion). Sounds sensible? Initiative is good, after all. User:Krator (t c) 00:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to allow them time to gather members, Zoo Tycoon is simply not big enough to have a need for a task force. Anything that needs to be done to the Zoo Tycoon articles could easily be done by the members of WikiProject Video games without the need for a separate task force. Delete. Xtreme racer 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note through I have removed the theme music and video from Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals as there is no real need for this in the article. Both seem to have been uploaded by the creator of this task force. Xtreme racer 01:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've taken it to mfd: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Zoo Tycoon. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-3 16:02

Check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Devil May Cry#I guess we're kind of "official" now. Apparently the DevilMayCry.com website has copied the synopsis from Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 2, and Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening. Even though it's probably a violation of the GFDL it's pretty awesome :) JACOPLANE • 2007-10-1 22:22

That's pretty awesome. Maybe leave a note about it in the DMC pages so that future editors don't think it was the other way around? --PresN 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please check the talk page of the list of best-selling video games and tell us whether you want the article divided or not. Yesterday we had an edit war between two people splitting it and two others reverting. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 00:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A user keeps adding to the Mega Drive article that the processor in the machine is 32-bit rather than the generally accepted 16-bit (certainly accepted by Sega themselves). From the Motorola 68000 article: "it is an implementation of a 32-bit architecture on a 16-bit CPU", indicating, to the best of my understanding, that it is a 16-bit processor. The user in question has also modified Motorola 68000, Amiga and Atari ST with this apparent POV/interpretation. Despite my protestations that this is a matter to be sorted out on Talk:Motorola 68000, or at the very least consensus should be gained for the change on each page (I and at least one other editor have reverted this change on the Mega Drive article), the user quotes WP:BOLD on the Mega Drive talk page as a reason to do as he likes, and removed my post on his talk page requesting he stop changing all these articles. So, any ideas how to deal with this? Miremare 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Master Chief (Halo) is up for FAC, just a heads up. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone here familiar with the technical aspects of the Wii's Virtual Console? An anonymous user and I are currently in a content dispute (see the discussion) over what the definition of the feature is. I'm trying my best to keep it from escalating, but I could use a third opinion and/or some outside verification - I currently do not have time to locate sources on this.

The IP user I'm arguing with asserts that VC is *only* the specialized portion of the Wii Shop channel, and that all of the emulation software is built in to each download. While this may be true, no source has been provided that verifies this. My own assertion (based on what little research I've had time to do, as well as my conclusions based on discussions I've had with people familiar with the product) is that Virtual Console is a feature of the Wii, and that the emulation software is provided as part of the Wii System Software, thus making the individual games just packages containing the ROM image and metadata. I also do not have a source to back this up, so technically both assertions are WP:OR right now.

If anyone can help with the discussion, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know. --Kizor 02:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Link is here. Looking at the list, there's some perfectly valid deletion nominations in there, cruft-galore, although nomination en-masse of various articles like this pretty poor show. --Oscarthecat 06:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so now that it's closed, is there going to be some proper nominations/discussions on what to do about the articles?--SeizureDog 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to help things along, I nominated List of Warcraft items for deletion.--SeizureDog 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please weigh in on the main picture choice for the video game article on Talk:Video game. There was a Pac-Man image being used, but I don't think it's necessary. There's plenty of free games that can be used as the main picture. I picked SuperTux since it's easily identifiable as a Super Mario Bros. clone. --Jtalledo (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think for a generic concept like Video Game, it'd be important to make sure that the image is easily recognizable. Pac-Man is instantly recognizable by almost everyone - it's the most popular video game of all time, so it easily identifies the genre and industry. It's a perfect excuse to use an image under Fair Use. Free games, and especially clones of commercial games, may not identify the genre as easily, or may mislead the reader by making them think the clone is the original game. (Note, operative word is "may" - I'm not saying it necessarily will - just something to be aware of.) If there's a way to generically represent a video game without using a commercial game as an example, then great - just be sure that it's something virtually everyone will recognize as a video game, and not a computer science experiment or something. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, or is this WP:NOT#IINFO? hbdragon88 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Femcruft. User:Krator (t c) 08:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And hideous use of flags - X201 08:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad. Kill it.--SeizureDog 08:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Very bad, put it in AFD. RobJ1981 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to explain why this is any worse than any of the multitude of female-based lists out there? None of those above reasons comments would hold up in an AFD. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An attempt at argumentation is as follows. There are (roughly) two reasons why a list based on gender would be appropriate. One, navigation when appropriate, and two, a list of notable pioneers. Neither applies to List of video games with female protagonists, and therefore it is inappropriate.

The first is the justification of lists like List of female tennis players, where a male/female division of tennis players is a common way to categorise players. In fact, is is probably the first categorisation people make when categorising tennis players. In video games, there is no such tendency. When ordering protagonists for navigational purposes, something that should indeed be done, ordering by game genre or even year would be more appropriate.

Secondly, it is nothing out of the ordinary for a video protagonist to be female. List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates exists for that reason, and so does List of female chess players. Many video game heroes of the first era were female, for example Tomb Raider.

User:Krator (t c) 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact you cite Tomb Raider, which isn't even CLOSE to the 'first era' pretty proves that it IS something notable. How many were there in the pre-NES era (I can't think of any)? In the late 80s...well Samus, but it was a secret. Maybe a couple francaise-based games. That Princess Tomato one. Beyond that...it was really rare up until Tomb Raider. I don't see it as any different than List of female composers or a number of others. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

However, this article isn't about "first-era" female video game protagonists—it covers them all. If this list were expanded to its full intent, it would be so large it would not be useful. Pagrashtak 18:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So...will anybody be bold and AFD this? Krator, can I copy your argument for the AFD? hbdragon88 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not verbatim copy me, but you can use my argumentation. User:Krator (t c) 11:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the List of weapons in the Counter-Strike article be removed? --Silver Edge 09:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DAMN. Looks like alot of shit needs to be removed from that. I'm too tired right now. I'l help tommorow. DurinsBane87 09:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Clear violation of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:VG/GL. I have removed the list of weapons due to it being an indiscriminate list of information. The rest of the weapons sections needs to either be removed completely, or sources need to be provided so substantiate WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. --Scottie_theNerd 10:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, why is there a step-by-step scintallating page on the exact changes from beta to beta? Again WP:NOT#IINFO, at least in my opinion. hbdragon88 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that the weapons articles for Worms Armageddon, Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Half-Life 2 have been removed, I would really just speedy any standalone articles I saw on sight. At least this is still in its parent article... David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinions. Unlike the female protagonists, this is more clearly and easily defined, and probably is a bigger deal. Is just cleanup in order, or are there serious problems with the existence of the article itself? hbdragon88 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I've never seen any press on a Christian video game movement (of course, I have seen churches playing Halo 3. Go figure). I would be iffy on its creation. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Games like Left Behind: Eternal Forces have seen a great deal of press coverage, though. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-9 00:08

The above game is the only one I can remotely recall belonging to such a genre. There's a lot of redlinks in that article. Cleanup seems suitable at the moment however. Should a wall be reached then we can take further action from there. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Super Noah's Ark 3D, Sunday Funday, Bible Buffet, Bible Adventures - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There we go. Cheers. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any independent references that discuss this as a genre? Or is this just an article on "Games with a Christian theme"? (In which case, why not "Games with a Dinosaur theme", etc) Marasmusine 09:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's at least one Christian gaming website out there, which would probably have some archive material. Someone another 11:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out the ELs linked from Wisdom Tree. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently the page looks and reads more like a list rather than an article. I understand that new pages are often sparse on information, but with most of the information already covered in List of Christian video games by release and List of Christian video games by genre, it at the moment doesn't really offer much new content. Basically, if it isn't further expanded and sourced, then it may get deleted. One suggestion that comes to mind is to combine all three into one comprehensive list. Another alternative could be to create a category. My rambling of two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of Christian being a genre of video games. Video game genres concern the gameplay and not the theme of a game. (Please correct me if wrong.) Even so, I don't think that's a reason not to have an article on the subject. The fact that there is a Christian Game Developers Foundation and an Association Of Christian Entertainment makes this seem a little more notable. I doubt there is a convention working to promote dinosaur-themed video games. Additionally, I believe the public reception section of a Christian video games article would be a bit more interesting to read than the public reception section of a Games with a Dinosaur theme article. This article needs to explain in the first or second sentence what a Christian video game is. For example, in Blizzard's Diablo (video game) you go into the basement of a church building and slay demons. Would this be a Christian video game? What about a game that involves prodding animals onto an ark? Is this a Christian video game? Furthermore, this article could benefit from a public reception section highlight how a few of these games were received by the public - both positive and negative reception. Anyway, It seems like a legitimate topic to me. Jecowa 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the topic itself seems legit, but listing it as a genre is undesirable. Someone another 01:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chikyuu Boueigun 2 article is currently listed as a rename, but is now in the 'old' requests with no comments. It's Earth Defense Force 2, if the Japanese name doesn't ring a bell. All the sources I could find about the game are now cited in the article to help with any decision. I'd be grateful if any project members would give an opinion one way or the other on the requested moves page. Also, there's a couple of other game articles there too. Thanks. Someone another 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about games that have just been announced, like Fire Emblem DS. Do I create the article now, or wait until there is more info? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether there's enough confirmed info. As it's part of a notable series and from a notable publisher, and you can cite the announcement or other sources, I don't see why you shouldn't create the article now. Miremare 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. First article created; yes!!! Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to the post above about the 26-article nomination of WoW-related articles and the subsequent (likely sucessful) AfD for List of Warcraft items, I had a look through the WoW pages, and there is a quite incredible amount of stuff that should be trimmed that hasn't been mentioned yet. I've grouped these together based on whether they should be kept or deleted (with a few unsures) along with basic reasoning. Due to the list being so long, I've put it on a seperate page here: User:Miremare/Wow. Comments welcome, especially on whether I've got any wrong, or on how to group these for AfD... Miremare 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how you've done it this way -- interested parties can go and nominate whatever articles individually... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫

I'm getting into a revert cycle at the Warhawk article with a user whose sole aim on Wikipedia seems to be to push PlayStation products, User:Playstationdude. Warhawk started off as a disambiguation page, and I feel it should stay that way. Playstationdude seems to think that it should be a redirect to Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game). This is an egregious example of recentism, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, users are just as likely to be searching for the other articles related to that name such as the Curtiss P-40 or War Hawk. In edit summaries, I've told him to get to the talk page about it, but it hasn't happened. This could do with some extra input. - hahnchen 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RPP is where you want to go to force discussion. User:Krator (t c) 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finally putting the link on it. I didn't know where you wanted to talk. It is not that I always push PlayStation products, I actually work on a wide spread of topics. The reason I keep putting that redirect there is that Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) is a very popular game and I added the disambiguation part on it. Maybe we can work something out. How about on the see disambiguation part I put a more detailed part saying something like "...if you are looking for the Curtiss P-40 article or...". I really did not realize until I looked at the history page lately how many times we have changed it back and forth.--Playstationdude 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you'd say that, right now, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) is probably going to be the most searched for of the Warhawks. But this is an encyclopedia, we look beyond the zeitgeist. By redirecting Warhawk to the most recent game, you're claiming that it has precedence over all the other Warhawk's combined, I don't think it is. You also did a cut+paste page move, this breaks the article history, if you use the move button (next to the history button), you can preserve this. If you think that Warhawk should go directly to the PS3 game, then you should goto WP:RM and request a move from Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) -> Warhawk, this will give a forum for discussion and allow you to bypass a needless redirect. - hahnchen 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding and the advice. I will go to wp:rm. I want to thank you for not getting so angry about this.--Playstationdude 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've insisted on keeping the Nintendo DS version based on the fact that it is not the same game, and in fact is a different plot, different gameplay engine, different genre, different graphics engine, different development history, different reception, different soundtrack, different composers, different critical reception, different commercial reception, and different awards (it won "Best Game no one Played for DS, 2006", while no other version has won a single award from a major news outlet). It is clearly a different game, and would be completely cluttered up if merged or simply undeveloped. If merged, it would require no less than two gameplay sections, two plot sections, two development sections, two presentation sections, and two reception sections, which, as far as I know, no one does, and I don't think anyone has advocated for such a thing.

A discussion is taking place here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Sesshomaru has decided to remove the argument when he failed to present his own argument, I'm moving my list of reasonings to this page.

"Different developers, different composers. 100% of the staff is unique to this game. It's developed with a different engine, uses a completely different concept (an adventure game with swapping characters, which IGN compared to Tomb Raider, and others to Lost Vikings). It sold excellently, one of the best-selling Over the Hedge games ever made by far. It consisted of more than 50% of the combined versions' sales regularly in PAL regions. It sold more than 300k in the United States. It has different development history. It won an award from IGN. It's the only version that did. "In Over the Hedge DS players are drawn into an all-new storyline" from Vicarious Visions' web site. GameSpot refers to it as taking place after the movie. The console games are about the movie, thusly, this is a sequel if anything. GDC also featured a keynote about the graphics engine and its implementation in Over the Hedge for the DS. The visuals also received great reception. So in the end, if they were merged, there would need to be:

1. Two separate sections for plot, since they have unique plots.
2. Two separate sections for gameplay, since they have unique gameplay mechanics and genre.
3. Two separate sections for development, since they have different development and different people involved.
4. Two separate paragraphs for reception, both critical and commercial.

If these conditions AREN'T met, then the subject is not adequately covered. If you do one section for the gameplay and one section for the plot, then only the console games are covered. Just because it's called Over the Hedge and shares the same title as the console versions doesn't mean that they are in any way similar outside of the license. In all intents and purposes, they're as different as night and day. What matters is if there's a need to be separate, and the fact that license is the only similarity proves that there is a need. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"

Would anyone want to explain how much similarity an article on the console versions and an article on the handheld version would have? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Link wanted the discussion to take place on my talk page. He never even asked me if an open one can take place there. Of course, I don't agree to this. The real reason why I had removed his comments was because I got tired of bantering, as well his incivility. I reported his senseless edit warring at WP:AN3 anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to this claim of the games being different? Salavat 06:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do, "It should be noted that Over the Hedge on the Nintendo DS is completely separate from the console versions hitting at the same time. Instead of the fur-flying action that's been put in the Nintendo GameCube, PS2, and Xbox versions of the Dreamworks CG film, Vicarious Visions has instead constructed a completely original adventure that utilizes the Nintendo DS system's strengths for a unique experience." - IGN --SeizureDog 07:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is quite different, it can easily be summed up in Over the Hedge (video game). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging similar games is good and all, but seriously, if it's as different as ALTTP says, then it should have two seperate pages (I'm reminded somehow of this vs this...though what I find ironic is that ALTTP, IIRC, is the one who merged Tetris Attack and Panel de Pon, which looks like it'll get split back.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, is any port version of the game really notable on its own? Sure, maybe the DS won a "best game no one played" award, but that's really not something you really want to blab about. The fact that it's a movie tie-in game (meaning that parts of the plot and setting are taken care of by referring to the movie page, furthermore, as this is a comic-strip-gone-movie, there's yet another redirect) doesn't help. Looking at the current version of the page, it definitely does not have enough for complete notability to warrant a special page for the DS. (This is not to say there shouldn't be a page at all on the game, the collection of all the console releases for the game are notable).

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have both the DS game and the other system versions on the same page, as long as it was very clear that the DS version is significantly different. I would fear that having a separate DS page would encourage newer editors to create a page for the game for each system it was on despite the obviousness that the other ports are equivalent outside of some small details. --MASEM 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you all the way, and I think ALTTP should read WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR so we could from now on use talk pages to reach a conclusion instead of war over such a trivial case. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Masem: The point that's being made is that the DS version is not a port, but a entirely different game with the same name.--SeizureDog 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - it is not a port. However I still stand that even on its own, the DS game barely has notability (specifically info on development and reception) much less the entire collection of games called "Over the Hedge" that tied in with the movie, beyond the fact they were released. There should be a page about these games, and the DS game should be included on that page, treated as a section within the body to point out differences. --MASEM 12:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Split the articles - The DS game was not a port, and should stand on its own. Another way which would work, is to list the games separately one on page, such as you see with some game series articles. Whoever merged the articles did a fucking horrible job, for example, the Reception section refers to the DS game only but does not mention this. I've reverted the DS article, if you want this merged then start a discussion, and then do it properly. - hahnchen 12:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've begun a merge discussion at Talk:Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS)#Requested merge and everyone is invited to participate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm in a quandary. As Melodia mentioned above, Tetris Attack and Panel de Pon are currently both in the same article. I started to split them apart again, but then I realized part of why they were merged in the first place. I need some help, and/or would appreciate it if someone else is willing to do the work to split these articles or find another solution that works.

The problem is that these two games are essentially the same - their presentation details are significantly different, but their gameplay mechanics are nearly identical and they share a lot in common in terms of reception and following releases. Part of the rationale behind merging them was to reduce that redundancy and show how similar the games are, but there is ENOUGH different material between the two that we have a very messy TA article with separate distributed sections for each game.

I've argued before that having PdP as part of the TA article puts undue weight on TA, but now I can't seem to figure out how to split these apart again without repeating a huge amount of information between the two. Need some more opinions on this. Please help. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the list of characters? It seems to be the only thing keeping the article from being a coherent whole (as one article), yet I don't see why it's there. Nifboy 23:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see as how the list of characters is all that important in either game, honestly. Despite fans becoming attached to particular characters (as can happen with any game), the only significant characters that really deserve mention are Lip and Corderia (PdP), and Yoshi and Bowser (TA), both because they are the main player character and final boss in each game, respectively. The remaining characters are just incidental and can be summarized. It's also not necessary in my opinion to show the mapping of PdP characters to TA characters.

Here's a question, though: How do you combine the two games into a single article without giving undue weight to one or the other? I'm not sure it makes sense to have the titles of both games in the article title. And I already suggested that we combine ALL of the Puzzle-League series games into Puzzle League (series), but the consensus at the time seemed to be that that was too draconian a measure. So, what do we do now? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the need for the characters is questionable, and if that were removed or reduced to a paragraph for each game, there's no reason the games could co-exist on the same page.

As for how to indicate it, presuming one redirects to the other, then a hatnote could be used to say "this page covers both X and Y; differences between the games are identified below" with an appropriate link to the right section. --MASEM 01:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

i can sense nationalistic wars brewing again. This could be epic. Of course, nothing beats the Mega Drive war, though Brain Age was a bit contentious with Another Code being a small little skirmish. hbdragon88 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Code is back at Trace Memory though -_- --SeizureDog 23:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note that Half-Life 2: Episode One is up for FA. Thankyou. Qjuad 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So, how do you source those sections? Obviously, the game itself is a source for them, but that isn't good enough (apparently), so I've cited the game manual for the entire gameplay section, which, again, doesn't appear to be good enough, so I'm now stumped (I'm mostly talking about the Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns article here - not citing the gameplay section is why it failed the GA process, but the questions stand for other articles too). Ideas? How do you source those sections? --VPeric 10:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Use game reviews and other secondary sources to boost those sections. However, specifically in this case, the GA review cited examples where the gameplay used near-boasting, peacock terms which can be taken as being biased. eg "KIS has a distinctive economy, featuring six resources." When written like this, secondary sources are absolutely necessary to support those statements as to making it sound what others said about the game and not the WP editors themselves. Also, you need to use inlines throughout these sections. One reference at the end is not sufficient, and even if you're using the same manual reference, it should be repeated (using named references) as appropriate. --MASEM 12:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Game reviews and other secondary sources are not necessary for a gameplay section, if the section is only describing what is explicitly stated in the game itself (e.g. a in a help function), in the manual, or in other primary sources. Of course, any peacock terms or reference to the development or reception would need such secondary sourcing. In general though, development and reception information are placed in separate sections where they can be described in more detail.

Maybe I'm missing the other GA review, because the one on the talk page just calls out two sentences in the lead. The rest just states that two sections "need sourcing", which may simply require reusing the same named ref to make it clear that all the information comes from the same source. Anomie 12:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1) I was told by someone that one reference at the end of a section is enough if the whole section uses that single reference (manual in this case). If this is not the case, then how should I proceed? Mention the manual at the end of each paragraph?

2) Indeed, that is the only GA review; at the time it was made, the gameplay section was sourced the same way it is now (which I feel is sufficient, but didn't want to argue then), and I could do the same thing for the settings section, or, alternatively, find some interview (from before the game was released) that explains the story and link to that? --VPeric 13:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inline citations has been changed relatively recently (as about 2 months ago, see here for a discussion about inlines); the general agreement there is that regardless of material, a single inline cannot cover multiple paragraphs adequately. To fix that, first, one of the inline questions is that any statement that poses a possible challenge of opinion should be cited. A gameplay section really shouldn't have these but if it does, those need to be taken care of. Otherwise, try to organize the gameplay into a logical progression and cite the manual (and exact pages if you can) for the major elements of gameplay, and then you can leave the followup parts without citations as they would follow logically from this citation. Not every sentence needs one, of course. --MASEM 14:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that a lot of articles have very similar tables to show review scores, agrigate scores and awards but there's no standard among them so most of them end up being completely different to each other. To me, it seems particularly messy and that's what templated are here for. So after a bit of experimentation and a lot of investigating, I made a template for it. This is my first template so it may not entirely be correct but I think I've got a good base down which people can add to.

I haven't copied this over to the templates section yet though just in case if it's just not going to be used so I would like a bit of feedback.

Template:Scores CVG

Crimsonfox 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Example of its use can be seen on Crimson's user page, User:Crimsonfox. --Oscarthecat 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew I forgot something. Thanks. Crimsonfox 16:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking, but "Compilations of Multiple Reviews" should be in lower case: "Compilations of multiple reviews". --Mika1h 17:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed. Nitpicking it always good. Crimsonfox 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it makes sense to explicitly include a reference parameter for each review source. Sure, one can add it after the review score in the same parameter value, but people may get lazy in adding. Unfortunately, there's issues with dealing with named vs unnamed parameters. you could add a parameter that would include the whole ref tag instead of just the citation template, that'll deal with it. Thinking about it a bit more, if you DO add this and then check that any review that has a score but otherwise empty reference tag should flag some error. It would help with making sure people cite their sources. Same with awards as well. But, dunno...it's a possible idea. --MASEM 17:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the ideam and I completely understand where you are coming from ,but I wouldn't know how to do the latter. Some people are lazy at adding references anyway so I'm not sure if this would further discourage people to add references. Crimsonfox 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You would have to have the entire reference tag included in the parameter, since <ref>s within templates don't work right. So unless there's a good reason to have separate parameters (like your auto-{{fact}} suggestion), it doesn't get you anything. Anomie 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the only thing I think it would be good for, but unlike other uses where missing a parameter or a similar aspect needs to red-flag (such as the fair use rationale) I think we should assume editors are smart enough to know references are needed. However, in the template documentation, make sure to include that a reference should be added for each review score. --MASEM 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A few nitpicks: Why require redundant parameters like both 1UP=yes and score1UP=…, instead of just coding it as {{#if:{{{score1UP|}}}|<tr><td>[[1UP.com]]</td><td>{{{score1UP|}}}</td></tr>}}? You could similarly eliminate the awards=yes by requiring that award1 be used for the first award. You could also do {{#if:{{{MC|}}}{{{GR|}}}|…}} instead of using a compilations parameter, but if many more compilators get added that might not scale so well. Also, I would consider changing the whole thing to use HTML rather than wikitable syntax. Anomie 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll say this now, if you can make the template more efficient, please do so, because I'm new to this whole template thing. A lot of it is new and scary to me. I understand what you mean with that Anomie, so I'll get on that right away. Also I'll add a note in the documentation per Masem's comment. Crimsonfox 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Made good on your first comment Anomie, got rid of most of the "yes" bits. Going to leave compilations for now as more may be added in the future. Wouldn't know about changing it all to HTML though. Crimsonfox 19:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Updated the template with a number of new reviewers found in various FA's. Crimsonfox 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say that this is a very good idea. It will help standardize the appearance and layout of the review tables. A quick question though; more of a clarification really. I've seen regular font and italics used in such VG review tables? I believe the rationale is that per WP:MOS-T, magazine (periodicals) titles should be italicized. What this first led to was a mix of italicized publication titles, and for consistency editors would either italicize everything or nothing. I guess what I'm asking is this something that should be taken into consideration for this template? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, WP:MOS-T does mention that magazine titles should be italicized so unless there's any specific argument against this I'll go ahead and change it after class. Feel free to do it in the mean time, I'll be a few hours. Crimsonfox 07:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, italicized everything that needed it. Crimsonfox 17:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any major issues with this template or shall I go ahead and add it to the templates section and start implementing it? Crimsonfox 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to move it to Template:Scores VG per the recent change in name of the project before the template gets added anywhere else. Crimsonfox 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't implement it just yet. I'd suggest VG Reviews for the template name rather than Scores VG. I'd also change all the parameters from scoreABC to ABC. Pagrashtak 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make a lot of sense wouldn't it...I'll do that now. Thanks for the feedback. Crimsonfox 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So...... is it ready for use? :-D Also, do you guys plan on actively implementing this on all game articles that currently have a review table? If so, need some help? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Unless there is anything else that people want to mention, apart from changing the name to "VG Reviews" (Which I will do soon) I feel it is ready to be put in. And yes, some help would be nice when we get around to it. Crimsonfox 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest using it on newer games first (either those that lack a review table, or that have a minimal table) and make sure it covers anything; you want to find and figure out if there may be special cases that could be able to correct for (I think, for example Guitar Hero II would prove to be a challenge.) --MASEM 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would split that table in GHII into two tables to begin with and make then a lot thinner. That thing takes up way too much space. Crimsonfox 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to an addition to the documentation? Please copy the whole template and do not delete unused fields - X201 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. There's no sense leaving twelve empty award parameters for a game that didn't win any awards, and we don't need empty revx and revxscore parameters cluttering up the page. Pagrashtak 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also object. Same reason as Pagrashtak Crimsonfox 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it going to be used? Making people go to the template's page so that they can copy a single field to make sure they get the syntax correct isn't going to be very friendly. It needs a certain amount of fields awaiting data to make life easier or else people will just revert back to tables and Crimson's efforts deserve better than that. What about pasting a set number of the predefined fields on a newly released game with a note about extra fields being available?. - X201 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Then how about — Please copy the whole template and delete any unwanted/unused fields — Or something along those lines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Is there any guideline for how to cite review scores (references) when using this template? Specifically, where should editors stick the "ref" tag and associated content so that the reference doesn't negatively impact the appearance of the table? --Slordak 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say after reporting the review score but in that score field. The first column of review sources is the "generic" part with links already to appropriate WP pages, while the second column is the game specific and thus the appropriate place for references. --MASEM 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Next question... I'm having trouble with the way this table sits with the text, i.e. there's a massive amount of whitespace above the table. For an example, see my recent edit to Mario Party 8 where I attempted to use this template. --Slordak 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I tried applying it to the Kingdom Hearts article and in the preview it had a very large blank space. One other detail on spacing is that there is very little space between the paragraph text and the table itself. Perhaps it's a issue with how the table floats/aligns. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

I know what it is, but don't have time to edit it. Each of the template if statements leaves behind a br-whitespace. The fix is to end each line and start the next with the HTML comment bits (that is <!-- on the end of the first line and --> at the start of the next. --MASEM 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You're absolutely right; I took a stab at fixing the template in the manner in which you described and it seems to have worked. --Slordak 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's really starting to shape up nicely now. Is there a way to provide more horizontal padding to the outside edges of the table? A minor detail, but I think it would help the overall appearance of the table in fitting into articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

I was browsing the HL2 mod list when I noticed a request for an Empires (mod) article on the Talk:List of Half-Life 2 mods page. The problem is that the mod in question already had an article, but it was deleted after a pretty messy and, in my opinion, biased afd (look for Empires in the deletion log). I'm wondering if any work I put forth toward this article will just be in vain as die hards would just argue the mod still isn't notable/meritable enough and the previous deletion is only grounds for another one. What the mod does have going for it though is a couple of magazine articles, features and a few awards. Think the article has a chance to live now, or will it just be shot down by guys like User:GestaltG? --L3TUC3 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You could always work on the article on the Half-Life Wikia, and once you've managed to get a decent article that establishes notability through reliable sources, reintroduce it to Wikipedia. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-15 23:33

I'm usually up for a good and controversial deletion debate. Once you've done what Jacoplane wrote above, drop me a message when it will inevitably be up for deletion. User:Krator (t c) 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Donkey Kong, we now have a precedent for using copyrighted images for featured video game articles. DK survived the entire day with an image of the Game & Watch handheld (with game graphics clearly displayed, even). So, next time your pet VG FA comes to the main page, you'll have some ammunition for using a box image. Zeality 02:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. For reference, the version of the article featured (which includes the video game image) can be found here. --Oscarthecat 06:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the image is tagged as public domain, you'll notice. Pagrashtak 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So we can't always use such images on the Main Page ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cool. So, I'll just take a picture of a Chrono Trigger cartridge and release it into the public domain like that guy. Zeality 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, when I checked Video game genres, I found that the article, its template and Category:Video game genres classify games differently. Is there any standard for this issue.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article and the template are often edited independently (as are the games in the category). This leads to the disparity. FWIW, there is an ongoing dispute as to what constitutes a genre and what does not AND what genres certain games belong to. So this disparity is not all the surprising. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

These stuck out in my mind, particularly:

• • • Video game expansion packs
    • Video games with expansion packs
    • Advergaming
    • Educational video games
    • Propaganda videogames
    • Technology demos
    • Video games with textual graphics
    • Tile-based video games
    • Isometric video games
    • Video game clones

I'm kind of torn on Category:Multiplayer computer games and Category:Online games, so I'll leave them for now. The rest should all be moved elsewhere, maybe to Category:Video games. I could create a new category Category:Video game types for Advergaming, Propaganda, Educational. What do you think? SharkD 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. SharkD 02:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Video games with textual graphics, Tile-based video games, Isometric video games could all go under a special category under Category:Video games, but I can't think of how to title the category. SharkD 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Just noticed there already is one: Category:Video game visual styles. SharkD 01:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Category:Cockpit games should be deleted. SharkD 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Virtual toys - this one confuses me. It's not even a video game. SharkD 01:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Episodic games - not sure this is a genre either. SharkD 02:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Genre hybrid games - this one I don't really have a problem with. It's just that it's nearly empty. SharkD 02:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Voted deletion on cockpit games, we really don't need more obscure gaming terminology. 'Virtual toys' envelops desktop toys (which I'd label as software, not gaming) and virtual pets which are a separate entity anyway. I'd delete that category and reassign the sub-cats. Episodic games surely describes the delivery method of games. The new Sam and Max titles are episodic, but they're still adventure games - it's a good candidate for your new video game types category. Hybrid games strikes me as a waste of time - at what point do differing gameplay styles converge to make a hybrid game? A very loose and (IMO) disagreement-baiting term with limited usage and even more limited search potential. Why would someone specifically look for 'hybrid' games? If a game is genuinely split between two genres then the infobox can contain both, problem solved.Someone another 13:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think it has been long enough, so let's try this again (see the original discussion here). This time, we know that unless real world information is provided, there is none. There have been enough attempts to prove that already. The point of this discussion should be to prove that the information exists; otherwise, these need to be redirected to fit WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF.

For those new to the discussion, Goomba and Koopa Troopa are pretty much the top two enemies of the Mario series. One would think that information would be available, but there have been at least a dozen attempts that I know of, and probably many more. Unless that information is shown, the is no longer any reasonable doubt. Please remember that in the discussion. TTN 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Any comments on this? I know for certain "Redirect per the unanswered discussion" won't work in this case. TTN 22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I say merge until someone comes up with out-of-universe sources. I'm sure these exist somewhere for these notable characters, but if nobody is willing to make the effort to dig them up, they can hardly blame you. And this is coming from an inclusionist. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-28 22:30

Yes, redirect them. No sources, no argument. Failing that take them to AfD. Miremare 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge. If out-of-universe sources are found, then the articles can be restored. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to axe Chocobo while you're at it.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We would want to give the Final Fantasy project a little time to research before doing that (notify them and redirect after a little while if you want). While their current states are the same, there doesn't seem to have been any extended effort to bring it up to standards. TTN 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll try redirect attempt number one. TTN 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - With regard to the Chocobo article, lets not delete it, but instead convert it to the chocobo series article, since there a growing number of chocobo games. Judgesurreal777 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that most Tekken character articles and The House of the Dead video game articles have a list at the end of all the possible endings. Is this fine, or do you think this makes for an excessively detailed plot, perhaps too in-universe? I'd like some support before I rampage through the article, or a reprimand if I am actually damaging the articles. hbdragon88 03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's two or three endings, I think it's fair (see, for example, BioShock); if its more than that, it should be stated that there are multiple endings, and if there is a designated "good" ending, the plot should be resolved per that ending; mind you, if there's no such confirmed ending, it should be left vague (instad of allowing fan speculation to take over to decide what is the best ending.) --MASEM 03:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, take Nina Williams for instance. She's been in six Tekken games, and they list the final ending for each one of them. hbdragon88 03:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's too many myself. But it would have to be a consensus. --Crash Underride 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys...Age of Mythology was recently featured (woot!), and I'd like to see it on the Main Page at some stage. Anybody have any tips or advice on ways to make this happen? Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests - X201 08:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. But I'm sure you've noticed that not every article lists there makes it onto the Main Page - not every request is successful. Are there any suggestions on giving the request a greater chance? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading their advice gives you an angle of attack. "Generally speaking, preference will be given to ... requests that are particularly relevant to a given date (especially major anniversaries).". It's the fifth anniversary of A0M's release this year which is one angle to campaign with. Being civil and not putting insults (however mild) in edit summaries will also help. - X201 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering how important of a game this is, it's really quite shameful that it's stayed a stub for as long as it has. I've built up a "Gameplay" section for the article, and plan to get it up to GA status (which really shouldn't be too hard). Any help would be appreciated, especially if anyone has any information on its development or can help build a reception section.--SeizureDog 11:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Media reception" section ahouldn't be too difficult; all the relating information can found at its page at Gamerankings. One screenshot needs a fair-use ratonale, while one already has one, but needs a proper one. You'll probably need to provide some context to its soundtrack; a solitary list is pretty pointless as a section. The lead needs expanding too, but this should come as the article itself expands. What about its legacy too—has it spawned any sequels or heavily influenced other games? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also got a couple of mentions on the Magazines Project so might be worth contacting the appropriate person for review quotes. - X201 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do hope that question about the legacy is rhetorical. It spawned 10 sequels and basically created the extreme sports video game genre. It's one of the most important games of all time. It would boggle my mind if you hadn't heard of the series beforehand. But of course, yes this is a section that will need to be developed as well.--SeizureDog 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a rhetorical question. If this not being noticed is so "mind-boggling", then what must be equally "mind-boggling" is that you haven't made a section on it yet. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which would be because I've just started working on the article today. Though on this note, it seems like the tone of our conversation is getting pretty caustic.--SeizureDog 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've started the daunting task of re-listing this article by year of publication, so that it's doing something other than duplicating Category:ZX Spectrum games. I've chosen by-publication year over by-genre as it's more objective. It's a big list though, so any help will be appreciated. Cheers, Marasmusine 17:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good candidate for a sortable table. - X201 11:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has helped out with this. I've not done a sortable table before; will look into it. Marasmusine 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

...is one of my favorite PC games. I know it isn't very well known. In fact the biggest community of that game is so deserted that it's like there are few people there.

But the article reads like a story. I don't know how to trim a story, so help would be appreciated. Thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I trashed it, because it says that it's copied from the instruction manual, and we can't accept that. I also trimmed out the essay-like bits, such as "multiplayer is fun" and this bit about there being a lot of fan links. I'll go through the story later and try to write a compact version that isn't a copyright vio. hbdragon88 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_CVG#Move_to_Template:Infobox_VG. We should probably change this follow the new name of this Wikiproject. Axem Titanium 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for Template:Cvgproj to Template:Vgproj. Axem Titanium 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moving both. The name of this project (as well as the broader issue of CVG vs. VG) has been stable for many months. — TKD::Talk 12:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with moving as well.User:Krator (t c) 13:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I take the rest of the project's widespread silence as non-opposition? Axem Titanium 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Make it so. User:Krator (t c) 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OBJECTION! 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbdragon88 (talk • contribs)

Why? I don't see any problem with moving it. It's been known as WikiProject Video games for some time now. --Optichan 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a bot lined up first to convert? I don't want my watchlist being flooded by some user taking ten hours out of his day changing these all over. Pagrashtak 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) As Pagrashtak put it, someone will go and change all the template transclusions for no reason other than to avoid a redirect, whcih has no purpose whatsoever because it's the same thing regardless of whether it is titled CVG or VG. hbdragon88 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support move of both templates. There is no reason not being consistant on this. --MrStalker ^talk 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did a major overhaul on the Mega Drive article but it's considerably lacking in the technical specifications. I've gathered as much info as I can understand but without someone who understands it a bit more than I can, it's not going to get improved any further. I left the tables on the left for information purposes until the info boxes on the right are fully fleshed out. Also, it would be good if someone with technical skills can write short summaries of each section with in the "Technical Specification" as well, something similar to the SNES article.

Not sure where else to take this, so I figured this would be the best place to try. Thanks. Crimsonfox 23:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: If anyone has any old copies of Viz Magazine with those rude Sega adverts in, give me a shout, I'd rather reference those than a website. Thanks. Crimsonfox 11:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the page which was settled in favour of the article being at We Love Katamari, but the article's recently been moved back to the heart symbol. I'm under the impression there should have been a discussion but I'm no expert on article names - could someone clarify? Someone another 13:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The user that moved it, User:Photouploaded did the move with only the edit summary of "name of the game". Given that was one of the arguments of the discussion previously and thus rejected, citing accessibility rules over trade names, this was probably done without consulting that discussion and should be moved back. --MASEM 14:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I need to read through the naming conventions. Someone another 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I created a new template, Template:Title MoS, to address this situation. The MoS dictates that our titles should contain English words even if the trademark dictates otherwise. So I added a note to We Love Katamari at the top indicating what its correct title is and that the title is listed differently due to the MoS. (Usually, these notes indicate technical limitations, but this isn't a limitation so much as a rule.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And I nominated the template for deletion. User:Krator (t c) 10:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[1]

I found that earlier and it's incredibly extensive on the Mega Drive but I'm not sure if it could be used as a source or not. Could someone help me out? Thanks Crimsonfox 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Borderline. I'd say use it, but not to establish notability - only for verification. User:Krator (t c) 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The author (Sam Pettus) is AFAICT reliable on the subject of console emulation (one of the few!), and the long list of sources at the end of the article is encouraging. I say go for it, especially since establishing notability should not be a problem at all. Anomie 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Project Exile has been announced to be published in 2008 by Graffiti Entertainment. Should the article be recreated? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to source? User:Krator (t c) 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[2] - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? Project Exile is about something else, and Graffiti Entertainment was never deleted. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-21 18:03

...What? I'm talking about the game, Project Exile. I was never talking about Graffiti Entertainment. Project Exile (game) WAS deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no deletion log on that page if it was deleted? --Mika1h 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the links et cetera. I'd say go for it. User:Krator (t c) 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV first. hbdragon88 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why DRV? The AfD close was correct - just re-create. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it actually notable? You'll need more than a press release to prove its notability. Optichan 17:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a product that's being sold nation-wide, and has been covered by a major media source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not been covered by a major media source, just nintendo blogs and the such, the Yahoo link you posted above is just a company press release. - hahnchen 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It being published is notable enough to appear on Yahoo. Also, just tell me - if Nintendo was publishing this, would it get an article? Project Exile is going to be released, it's being published. The fact that a publisher is picking this game up in the first place is an indication that there is something to this game, and it's not just homebrewed vaporware. Upon its release, it will be covered by major media outlets, including IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, GamePro, Nintendo Power, etc. You may argue that a game won't necessarily be covered, but that simply isn't true. They're in the business of covering games, and it's not exactly being released during a major game buying season, which means less competition for it to deal with. The only reason it was deleted was because nothing made it notable, but now, it's being published, which means that it's not vaporware, which means that there's reason enough to believe that it will be released. What did we have for Chibi-Robo!: Park Patrol when we first heard about it? A trailer, a publisher, a press release, and a developer. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It will be covered, I'm sure. It hasn't yet. It's not "notable" enough to appear on Yahoo, Yahoo prints press releases ad verbatim. If any news sources actually pick this release up and cite it as news, then go ahead. But the article has just recently been deleted, I'd wait for a preview or something before recreating it. - hahnchen 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure a stub could be created based on what's been announced so far, so that when a full announcement is made we'll be ready for it, with some information there. And there's no reason not to, notability is asserted (in my eyes). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm running Populous: The Beginning through WP:FAC again. If you can, look over the article and respond on the candidates page. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a minor request at the FAC, but supported. Good luck, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm really curious as to why this article has not been created yet. Kotaku and Joystiq both have entries. I know this sounds like whining, I'm just curious as to what the general consensus is behind not having a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.204.236 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's explained over here. Basically, the blog doesn't have enough third-party coverage/references to meet notability guidelines for web content. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is officially fixed! Third party sources and all. :D ClockworkCompanionCube 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Destructoid teaming up with Hudson Soft and being mentioned on Microsoft's XBOX site is definitely enough to keep the article on wikipedia, but do not be surprised if subjective deletionists attempt to get it removed yet again. 216.37.86.10 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this need to exist? It seems like a cruft article to me. It's on gamer wiki already, so why have it here? Compiling information, and just jamming it into a list with many sections... doesn't seem that helpful overall. I recall seeing this before, and it had less sections. Now people just seem to be adding more and more. Even cutting some sections, still makes it seem like a fancruft article to me. Resolution and aspect sections make the article only useful to those that want to know the information. In a way, this is a game guide on what features are in each game. Wikipedia isn't a game guide, so shouldn't this be deleted? RobJ1981 04:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we create an assessment table for a Wikiproject? WP:FF lacks an assessment table that would make it easier to find out about article assessment statuses. — Blue。 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to add quality and importance ratings to the WP:FF template, and create the corresponding categories. Then talk to WP:1.0, they run the bot that actually creates/updates the tables for all the wikiprojects. You might want to talk to Kariteh about it, I'm pretty sure he was the one who did it for WP:SE. --PresN 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Kariteh's been quiet for some time, but I guess I could take from examples. Thanks! — Blue。 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone has proposed that the GTA task force be split off into a separate WikiProject. Discussion is here. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-25 12:05

Guys, after looking and not seeing an Atari related project, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Atari. I basically copied over and quickly edited the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nintendo page for a quick template. So that means it still needs lots and lots of work to get it going as an actual functioning page. If anyone with experience in setting up project pages could help out (and of course join the project) that would be great! --Marty Goldberg 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems rather unnecessary to me. Perhaps a task force for this WikiProject would be applicable. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-25 19:56

Why do you feel its unnecessary? Major (multiple) corporate entities, of historical and current importance, 35 years of related software/hardware, etc., and a large amount of related entries here in both general games, consoles, computers, arcade, and current software publication, etc.. --Marty Goldberg 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it a different way. What benefit do you see with having a WikiProject (with all the extra bureaucracy that entails) rather than having a task force. It is my impression that we're talking about tens, not hundreds of articles that would fall under the scope of this project. I should admit that I personally feel that the Nintendo/Square Enix/Final Fantasy WikiProjects should all be turned into task forces for this WikiProject. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-25 20:35

There's probably a good number that'd fall under the scope, almost surely more than Final Fantasy. The bigger question is, is there enough /interest/ in Atari as a whole that enough people will keep the project active. That matters more than the number of pages, really. Task Force is probably a better way, in this case. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes counting, and stopped after I reached 250 Atari related entries. Was maybe about 1/4 of the way through my 5000 search results. As far as number of people interested, that's why I was putting the project out there (i.e. in discussion here) - so people are aware. People can't express interest in something they're not aware of. A lot of the related entries see regular contributions, and I'm also very active in the Atari related community outside Wikipedia and will mention about it there as well. Personally, I'm not entirely opposed to a task force if the majority think that's the way to go. I just feel some sort of organization/focal point is needed for all these Atari related entries. --Marty Goldberg 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead with creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Atari? Create something that other users can sign on to. Having an abstract discussion without really knowing what we're talking about seems rather pointless. Although I respect Pagrashtak greatly, I implore you to avoid the so-called "WikiProject Council". They're nothing but a bunch of bureaucratic meta-wankers IMO. WP:BOLD. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-25 21:23

Done. Can you go ahead and delete the Project page then? Can't do that on my end. Also to anyone interested, I'm compiling a list of all Atari related entries here at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Atari/List_of_Atari_entries. Nowhere near finished, and quite a bit more than the 10's. ;) However, it is the first official task of the task force. --Marty Goldberg 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-26 01:41

Why don't you try Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals first to see if there is support and see if other users agree the task force would be beneficial? Pagrashtak 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would feel that a task force is better in this case, but that decision should be driven by interest, if not scope. You don't need hundreds of articles for a wikiproject, but you have to have stuff to improve and add and lots of people willing to do it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm questioning the use of Images on character specific articles. Some articles, such as King Dedede, feature a picture of them from outside their franchise in the Infobox. In all honesty, I don't really like that. This leads me to believe that said Cameo/appearance is an official portrayal of the character, when, in all reality, it's not. For example, in the article I mentioned, They are now using the image of King Dedede from Super Smash Bros. Brawl. The Brawl Dedede is an entirely different Dedede, and his design, and appearance in Brawl is not canon to the Kirby Franchise, for if it was, then Link/Sonic/Snake/ect would be cannon to the Kirby series.

In short, I don't think Cameos/Special appearances should be displayed on the infobox, when the article is about the cannon character. But this gets me into alot of edit wars, so I was hoping to hear the projects opinion on this. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason the cameo picture is used in King Dedede is because it's clean and modern. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be that if it's an active franchise, the latest canon incarnation of the character should be used. If not an active franchise, the most recognisable incarnation should be used. Miremare 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to really search for what is considered the "proper image" around here awhile ago since I had not found it in any of the VG guidelines. Usually, when a new character is revealed there is always a rush by mostly the new users to quickly change that character's image. No, they should not be used, what you said here (number 2) is pretty much the reason why almost no article use images from games other than where that character originated from (assuming its still an active franchise). « FMF » 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A note on dedede though, his creator was the one who created the brawl image (more than likely). Just something to think about. I know what your getting at, but Dedede might not have been the best example, given the circumstance. Balladofwindfishes 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[3] - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is not yet a VG guideline for it, it should read:

"The most recognisable image of a character is to be used."

Time of publication is irrelevant to this, IMHO. User:Krator (t c) 00:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Or canonicity for that matter. I can accept the Brawl image there for Dedede because really, how many people recognized characters of the Kirby universe outside of Kirby himself until Brawl? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that canonicity does not matter, but I was actually drawing the opposite conclusion, because his appearance in the Kirby series is recognised much better. However, I had never heard of the character before this discussion, nor played any of the games. User:Krator (t c) 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The quality of the entire set of articles on the Legacy of Kain series is of really poor quality, and I was wondering if anyone wanted to help me do a major clean-up of the articles, especially the series page and the Defiance article. I just joined, so I'm still not sure how everything works around here. I look forward to making the Wiki articles I know and love even better! ClockworkCompanionCube 04:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 for example. It's cluttered with lists: some useful, some not. I think things such as: match types and championship belts/titles need to be in prose form and not a list. Yes, knowing which titles are in the game is useful: however it's simply game guide content in my view. If people want to know this information, they should be visiting a gaming or wrestling site that specializes in it. I've looked at other fighting game articles as wrestling games are basically fighters as well, and I don't see all these massive lists there. Fighting games don't feature titles much that I know of, but they certainly have many modes and types of battles.) I've mentioned this on the pro wrestling project as well, since some work on the video game articles as well. RobJ1981 05:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Overcited lists, at that. Do we really have a citation in the opening sentence and the infobox to prove that the name of the video game is, in fact, WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008? Pagrashtak 05:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Diff Happier? User:Krator (t c) 08:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thumperward/infobox CVG

Chrono Trigger
Chrono Trigger's North American cover art
Developer(s)	Square
Publisher(s)	Square Square Electronic Arts
Designer(s)	Kazuhiko Aoki (producer) Takashi Tokita (director)
Series	Chrono series
Engine	Chrono Trigger engine
Platform(s)	Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Release	22 August 1995
Genre(s)	Console role-playing game
Mode(s)	Single player

Proposing a new layout of Template: Infobox CVG. Quite a bit of markup cleanup, title is taken from article name if not specified, and much closer in appearance to templates like Template: Infobox software. Code is at user:thumperward/infobox CVG for now. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 10:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I prefer the background coloring in the header cells of the old version, but that may just be my aversion to change. I'll have to think about it more. Anomie 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the existing one to make comparing them easier. - X201 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

... Sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud, but I find the old version a lot easier to read (with the dividing lines) and a lot more pleasing to the eye. Could you explain (in layman's terms) how the technical side is improved by this new infobox?Someone another 13:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the old one better too. Easier to read. Don't see the benefits of making ours more like the software infobox. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add a +1 to the above opinions. I find the software infobox ugly and difficult to read. However I like the slightly larger title text, and I guess any code improvements should be implemented. -- DatRoot 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer these comments:

1. I'm not going to argue aesthetics. I vastly prefer the cleaner layout, but I can live without it if the code improvements are adopted.
2. Internally the code is much more straightforward, has less useless appendages and allows for any or all of the fields to be omitted without causing template breakage. Even if the colouring isn't adopted, this should be a no-brainer, and would be if the infobox hadn't been premptively locked. The only difference to potential users is that all attributes (even the name) are optional.
3. The advantage of looking like the software infobox (and the game infobox, and the OS infobox, and the computer infobox) is cross-wiki consistency. Infoboxen are there to provide information, not to stand out, and they should be as generic as possible.

Chris Cunningham 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the code I agree that it should be changed to yours (with the cell colours inserted), though there isn't that much difference really - it looks like the old template has just suffered from having many contributors: there's a mixture of html and wiki syntax, html comments that aren't necessary, and for some reason some fields don't have the if statements to make them optional (though the title field is already optional in the old template).

One note though, in your template the caption field is required if an image is provided. I don't know if this is intended? The old template checks for the caption field and only adds it (complete with extra line break) if present. -- DatRoot 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Argh. Erm, yeah, that's unintentional. Must have gotten this code off of an old fork of what should be a shared codebase for the game/computer/OS/software templates. TO be honest I don't see that this needs protected; it seems to have been an overly-cautious move following a low-level edit war a few months ago, and none of the other infoboxen I'm interested in seem to suffer too badly without fullprot. Chris Cunningham 15:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit to preferring the look of the old one, simply for ease of reading, but if the code can be cleaned up then of course it should be. One point about the new one though; the title should be italicised. Miremare 16:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Miremare. Clean up the code, but preserve (more or less) the look of the old one. And, of course, the title should be italicized. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading through some of the archives I just have to bring something up. It seems that having some fields required was by design, to make sure they get filled in, and I can see the point in that. Also, there are a few things mentioned on Template talk:Infobox CVG that are in the current code but not in Chris's code. I'm not sure what they do, but I guess they shouldn't be overlooked. -- DatRoot 18:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Manadatory fields are just a bad idea, full stop. If people can't contribute to articles piecemeal then they may not contribute at all. As for the minor edits, cool, yeah, this is just a first pass. I'm an early-and-often kinda guy. Chris Cunningham 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DatRoot makes a good point - certain fields being mandatory would go some way to ensuring that the most important info is included from the off, and if it's not, the blank cells highlight to subsequent editors that there is something important missing. It seems that "developer", "release date", "genre", "modes", "platforms" and "input" are currently mandatory, which I would agree with except for "input" - I don't really see why that one's necessary. Miremare 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Check again—input's not required. I agree that the current required fields should stay required. Pagrashtak 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, I could have sworn that input stayed as mandatory before, but you're right, it doesn't. Well, good! Miremare 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't really have a strong opinion either way, though I thought it should be brought up.

But while we're on the subject of change, I realise I'm completely new here but I just thought I would throw this into the mix as this is something that has irked me whilst I've been looking at a few articles. The infobox has a field for release dates, where many different release dates for different platforms are often seen, and then another field that lists the separate platforms again, and then another field that lists the media the game came on, sometimes with the corresponding platform beside it, sometimes not (see Sonic Spinball, GTA III etc.)

So I'd like all that infomation to be consolidated into one field in the infobox, looking something like one of these (info taken from Sonic Spinball:

Release(s) Nov 23, 1993 Genesis 8Mbit Cartridge Nov 1993 Genesis 8Mbit Cartridge Dec 10, 1993 Genesis 8Mbit Cartridge Sep 1994 Game Gear 4Mbit Cartridge Oct 1994 Game Gear 4Mbit Cartridge 1994 Master System 4Mbit Cartridge GameCube Mar 12 2007 Virtual Console Apr 5 2007 Virtual Console

Release(s) Genesis, 8-Megabit Cartridge November 23, 1993 November 1993 December 10, 1993 Game Gear, 4-Megabit Cartridge September 1994 October 1994 Master System, 4-Megabit Cartridge 1994 GameCube Virtual Console March 12 2007 April 5 2007

Obviously, even though the infobox would be coded to allow both old and new formats, it's still a pretty big change, and I accept it's likely to be rejected, but any thoughts?

Infoboxen are meant to be at-a-glance summaries, not comprehensive blocks of statistics. Chris Cunningham 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The point was really that I was just trying put the data that already exists in the info box into a better structure and reduce repetition -- DatRoot 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should optimise for the most common case, which is games available on a small number of similar platforms. Personally I think half of the stuff in the template is mindlessly trivial anyway, and better left off except in cases of deviance from platform norms or indeed ever ("media", which is self-evident for most any console). But let's burn that bridge when we get to it. Chris Cunningham 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And no flags. The decision was reached that flags were a no no, but we never got around to a suggested text only layout due to the number of permutations that were available. - X201 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Media seems like a waste of time since the console's own page (already linked within the box) discusses the individual media. For modern PCs, the format can be made obvious in the requirements column - CD or DVD drive. I get the feeling that some may have used the media field for the PS2 as much as anything - some builds of PS2 (apparently) have difficulty reading games on CD ROMs as opposed to DVDs. Even then, it's a problem from the past and lists of games on CD ROM are available online for that very purpose. I'd support removal of the field altogether.Someone another 08:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

But many old games were released for the same platform on a range of different media. Remember the ZX Spectrum used cassettes, floppy disks, microdrives and roms for games. "Media" may not be a useful field every time, but it's useful sometimes. Miremare 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah, my recentism is showing, how dumb of me to forget the 8-bit home micros and their fun and games with different media.Someone another 13:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One problem with the above, the most recent consensus here is that {{vgrelease}} should be used rather than {{flagicon}}. As for remakes, I like the approach taken at Final Fantasy (video game): original version info in the infobox, with a wikilink to the section with all the information on the excessive number of remakes. Anomie 20:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, so there is already a template then. I'll look in to that. I wasn't pushing use of the flags, I just used them because they were in the article I got the information from. -- DatRoot 22:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Media field seems mostly to be used for PC games, where, as you say, it could go in the system requirements column, and the size of cartrige games, although I'm not sure how useful that info is. I guess all I'm proposing really is the merging of the 'releases' and 'platforms' fields, to avoid the repetition between them. -- DatRoot 16:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the releases field is reserved for the original release date. With games like Battlezone it would look horrible if you would list all release dates for all platforms (Look at for example Resident Evil). --Mika1h 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, I don't know what the official position is, and I don't really have an opinion on that. As Anomie pointed out above, in extreme cases like Resident Evil, a link can be placed instead to a section on all the later versions. The only thing that annoys me is that in cases like Resident Evil, or even not-so-extreme cases, the platforms are all listed in the 'release dates' section and then listed again in the 'platforms' section. Of course if the infobox should only list the initial release date as you say, then that annoyance would go away. -- DatRoot 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham, I think it is safe to assume there is a consensus for changing the code of the infobox, but the technical improvements only for now. I believe style should be discussed separately and extensively. As it is a protected template you want to edit, I went ahead with this assessment of consensus, for the sake of speedy and bold editing. User:Krator (t c) 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The template is entirely too wide. Check out the page for Call of Duty. The template forces a huge white space between the introductory article and the first individual article. Reducing the size of the graphic inside doesn't help. You can actually see the result at the top of THIS page. It makes it look very messy and unprofessional.Tomwhite56 15:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Anomie 01:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said the top of this page, I meant to say the top of this section. The width of the template forces white space from the headline to the bottom of the template before any text appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwhite56 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I still can't see the problem. Any chance of an annotated screenshot? -- DatRoot 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is very slow edit war going on on SNES and NES over whether the article should say each "is" or "was" a video game console. No one seems to have much of a problem with the verb tense of rest of the article, just with this opening sentence. A few editors have repeatedly edited the above articles to use "was", while a few other editors have changed it back to "is".

The current situation is that most of the articles in {{Dedicated video game consoles}} that use the above wording use "is", except for the two mentioned above and Vectrex. Arguments seem to be: Feel free to add additional arguments to this section.

• Was: The console is no longer being made.
  Is: The console never stops being a video game console.
• Was: We don't know for how much longer it will continue to exist.
  Is: The console is not a unique object, and so cannot unambiguously be said to no longer exist (at least not any time soon).
• Was: Car articles tend to use "was".
  Is: Car articles may well use "was" because automobile manufacturer marketing departments want people to buy new cars rather than used.
• Was: Other random articles use "was".
  Is: Other random articles may have reasons for "was" that don't apply here, and choosing extreme examples doesn't help.
• Is: The guidelines for books and such hold that they exist in a "perpetual present tense".
  Was: The guidelines for works of art (such as books) don't apply to consoles.
• Was: We refer to the production and marketing of past consoles in the past tense, so we should use "was" for uniformity.
  Is: Referring to past events in the past tense doesn't mean we have to refer to the console itself in the past tense.
• Was: Previous dicussion at Talk:SNES#Verb tense.
  Is: That discussion reached no consensus.
• Either: I like it.
  Other: I don't like it.

I lean towards "is a video game console" rather than "was", but if we can come up with good arguments for "was" I can accept it. I just want a real consensus rather than 4 people reaching no conclusion. I'm tempted to rewrite the lead of NES and SNES to completely remove the copula and settle it that way. Anomie 12:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"is", no contest. Charles Dickens was a scientist. I can still go out and buy a SNES. There's a big difference between obsolescence and death. We've had this out on ZX Spectrum before. Chris Cunningham 12:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous MOS discussion on tenses (and specific to computer games to boot) - unless the game or object is nearly impossible to acquire, it's present tense. --MASEM 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of that Masem except for the "unless the game or object is nearly impossible to acquire" bit. Even if it is impossible to acquire it still exists, there are priceless books, artefacts etc that are impossible to acquire but that doesn't stop them from still existing. - X201 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I misconstrued that. I think you could almost say that no consumer object will ever take past tense since as long as it exists, it's "is a". The only time I think "was" can be applied is to one specific, singular instance of an object/person/thing ("Clover was a game studio...") that, of course, no longer exists, or when it is absolutely for sure that the general class of object no long exists ("Brontasauruses were a type of dinasaur..."). Basically, for any hardware or software for computer gaming, it should be "is", since copies still exist. --MASEM 13:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'Is', if they're no longer game consoles then what are they, toasters? All the NES and SNES owners must be wondering what monstrous forms their former consoles have taken - "Aiieee, it's got me in a headlock".Someone another 13:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the SNES exists it should be "is". "The SNES is a console that was manufactured by Nintendo", or something similar, would probably clear up any tense arguments. Miremare 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank Anomie for bringing this discussion to this page. As one who has edited Wikipedia for about two years, I should probably know about these "behind the scenes" pages, but I never know how to find them when they would be appropriate. And clearly, this is appropriate, since this issue affects so many articles.

With all respect, I think that the obviously sincere and well-balanced debating points above do not fully capture the essence of the arguments on this issue (as is sometimes the case with an attempt to boil down an issue to bulleted points). So I want to add below some points previously made elsewhere, then see what kind of response results. My position is that the use of "is" with SNES and several other game systems, while obviously popular amongst many video game afficianados (as evidenced by previous discussions) is atypical usage amongst most native-English speakers. I support in most cases employing "was" for older game systems. I recognize that there is an inherent element of subjectivity in any such rule, but what I think is not recognized is that the insistence upon use of "is" will result either in similar subjectivity, or even worse, an appearance of ridiculousness. Again, some previous points, with my own comments slightly edited for what I hope to be increased clarity:

From Unschool: Before we all start jumping up and down saying, "But the Super NES still exists, I still love playing with mine!", let us consider a few things. There are still people (like me) who also continue to take beautiful pictures with their AE-1s, and even some people (like my mother) having their Ramblers washed and waxed regularly. These products have been out of production for quite a while, however, and several generations of replacement models have come and gone. That is why, in those articles, the past tense is used. I was struck by the awkwardness of [the SNES] article's opening when it came up on FA, and feel that it simply reads more sensibly in the past tense, as we are now several generations past this system.

From User:KieferSkunk: " . . . most articles that refer to things that still exist (whether they're being produced or not) use present-tense. For instance, The Red Green Show is a Canadian comedy show - even though it's no longer in production, the show is still around. But Gilbert and Sullivan were play writers - they no longer exist, and thus cannot be referred to in present tense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unschool:Thank you for your well-considered comments, Kiefer. Allow me to respond (and this may not be smooth—I'm still thinking this out). Your assertion, Kiefer, that "most" articles referring to things that still exist use present-tense, would, I suspect, be a difficult thing to support factually—not because it's necessarily wrong, but because no one has time to pull up the plethora of articles that would need to be examined. Be that as it may, I would further assert that there is likely a difference in the way most editors treat physical commercial goods from the way they treat works of art. Works of art, be they paintings or sculptures or stage plays or books, are unique items. Automobiles and video games and cameras and washing machines are mass-produced. I'm not saying I know why we treat these two categories of items differently, it is just my observation that we do. When I read this article using the present tense, it simply struck me as wrong, or at least very odd. I'm still formulating in my mind why, but when I read it, I immediately looked up a few other items (as cited in my original talk page entry) and found that they also used the past tense, despite the clear continued existence of the items concerned. I think that the Super NES is closer to the AE-1 than it is to The Red Green Show. That is merely my opinion, of course. But it is the opinion of a great many editors that the past tense is more appropriate for many of these items which are no longer in production. Unschool 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

From Loodog Solution: SNES was a game system sold by Nintendo. SNES is is a game console formerly sold by Nintendo. Then again, if you look at old cars, you wouldn't say the Chevrolet Nova is a car formerly made by Chevrolet.--Loodog 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk: In response to Unschool: I think what you're saying is that we need to distinguish between the model (the design and manufacture of the SNES) vs. physical units. You're saying that because the SNES is no longer being made, it makes sense to refer to the SNES model in past tense, even though SNES units are still around and in use today. Comparing the SNES to the Chevy Nova (as Loodog did) makes for a good argument in that light. In my opinion, though, it makes just as much sense to refer to the Chevy Nova as a car that still exists, but is no longer being made - just like the SNES. It exists, people still use it, etc., but you'd still refer to its manufacture, advertising, etc. in past-tense since it's not in production anymore. Mixing tense can be tricky, but I think it makes more sense to refer to the SNES itself in present-tense and anything relating to its commercial period in past-tense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unschool: Hmmm. I remain uncertain. As I indicated, most of the articles that I looked at made statements such as this one from the AMC Pacer: "Designed to appear futuristic, the shape was highly rounded with a huge glass area, and very unusual for its time. The Pacer was unusually wide for a small car". [Emphasis added by me, of course.] This style of writing appears ubiquitous to me, that is, when looking at mass produced items that are no longer made, writers use the past tense, despite the fact that there are clearly some Pacers (and Gremlins and Ramblers and Novas) still out there. The only time I would consider it natural to talk in the present tense about the AMC Pacer would be if I owned one today and was talking about my particular car. I'm not absolutely committed to this position, but it's what sounds right to me. I'd like to hear some more opinions, and see some more examples. Unschool 23:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From Anomie: I agree with KieferSkunk, in that statements of fact about the SNES should use the present tense, while statements about events in the past should use past tense. This does seem to be the general case with console articles: for example, NES, Mega Drive, and Nintendo 64 all use "is" in the first sentence of the lead. Anomie 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unschool:That it is true of other consoles is not a fact to be ignored, but neither is it conclusive. Let me ask some questions, which I think must be answered if we decide to use the present tense:

1. If we continue to use the present tense, for how long do we use it? Until the last console stops working?

2. If, twenty-five years from now, it is confirmed that there are only 28 of these consoles, and only one is in operating condition, will we still use the present tense?

• What if none of them are working?
• What if they've all been thrown away?

3. What is it that will define the "end" of the present tense?

• That the game is no longer being used?
• That copies of it no longer exist?
• That it's no longer remembered?

4. If all we need is to say that a physical copy of it remains in existence, then should we change the verb tense in this game's article to the present tense?

It just seems to me that, since the game is no longer being produced, no longer being marketed by its manufacturer, no longer being retailed by first-run stores, no longer receiving technical support for its owners, that the time has come for the past tense, as with most other mass-produced consumer goods. And if the decision of the editors is to be that these articles will use the present tense until the last person who ever played each game has assumed room temperature, I ask how will we know when that occurs?Unschool 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Added by Unschool 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Still can't agree with using "was". If I were to buy a SNES and introduce somebody to it with the sentence "this was a SNES", I would undoubtedly get a question along the lines of "what is it at the moment then?" This is an issue for English rather than policy, or guidelines, or precedent in other articles (many of which are evidently wrong), and the present is the correct tense here, as the the SNES still "is" a console. No one would say the Mona Lisa "was" a painting, because it still is a painting - production of it having ended in the 16th century has no effect on that. If you're talking about the production of the SNES, rather than the SNES itself, then use the past tense for that but don't mix the two - saying the "SNES was a console" implies that there are no extant examples of it, which is misleading, and we shouldn't be misleading people in articles. Again, I'd suggest using something like "The SNES is a console that was manufactured by Nintendo", or "the SNES is a console that was released in 1990" or whatever. Miremare 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with is. I don't know that I could say too much about that hasn't already been said, so I'll leave it at that. Pagrashtak 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with is, simply because if this argument applies to consoles, it also applies to games, and I would more strongly disagree with saying that The Legend of Zelda was a video game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also,cars are not a similar medium to video games, but movies are a bit closer. And looking at several featured articles on films as old as 1927, and they use is. So I use better precedence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct about specific movies being referred to using the present tense. As I have indicated elsewhere, they fall into the realm of art. It is entirely proper to refer to a unique movie such as Gone With the Wind or Birth of a Nation in the present tense, because that is conventional in everyday speech. (See my comments on the Mona Lisa below).

And no, it does not necessarily follow that the rule for consoles would automatically be followed for the videogames themselves. I have no settled feelings on this, but I totally agree with you that the games themselves are more akin to movies than to cars. That is, I think, an important point. The argument can be made that the games are like movies or books; that is, they are works of art, and whereas some art is displayed on canvas, and some on film, and some on stage, and some on pages between covers, that there is also art displayed on videogame consoles. Unschool 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Miremare is obviously locked into his feelings, but has not answered the questions posed above. I'm concerned that my comments below are going to come off as snide, condescending, or rude. I really, really, don't want to sound this way. I approach this with a spirit of friendly discussion, and hope that this won't be lost in my arguments.

Miremare's argument comes down to three things, as far as I can tell:

1. People reading Wikipedia articles about videogames are too stupid to recognize that an article using the past tense about an older model of a videogame system does not actually mean that there are no more copies of the system in existence, though readers of articles about cars, computers, and other mass-produced items are sufficiently discerning to not be so deceived.
2. I [Miremare] don't like using the past tense for videogames.
3. Any article demonstrating a verb usage that appears to negate the arguments for present tense use in videogames is simply wrong, because I [Miremare] say so.

You are entitled to your feelings, but please don't insult Wikipedia readers. Do you actually think that an article about a car model that ceased production in 1995 that says "The 968 was an automobile" [emphasis added] somehow "misleads" people into thinking that that line no longer has any extant cars left? I don't mind opposing arguments, but if we're going to create a rule unique to videogame consoles, could somebody please tell me why videogame consoles need a unique rule?

I also addressed the specific case regarding works of art. But let me further explain: The Mona Lisa is because it is unique. Everyone is aware of its existence as a unique creation. And if it ever ceases to exist, such will be news, and we will all switch to the past tense. But when will the past tense become appropriate for the SNES? Will there be a news story profiling the loss of the last SNES? And if not, are we expected to use "is" a thousand years from now, lacking definite proof of the non-existence of any SNESs? Again, my questions above are left unanswered, except by the sentiment, "I don't like using the past tense".

As to the case, "If I were to buy a SNES and introduce somebody to it with the sentence 'this was a SNES'", well, yes, that would be silly. I don't remember if I addressed the point here or not, but I have previously noted that, even where it is conventional to use the past tense for a mass-produced object from the past, that an individual owning one will of course use the present tense for their personal item. Though Wikipedia and other sources may refer to Nash Ramblers and Apple IIs in the past tense, anyone who is still holding on to one of these will of course use the present tense for their own copy. That's only natural, and there's no reason not to follow this practice with videogames as well.

Now the sentiment expressed above about this being a matter for English may be an important thing to consider. When I first ran across these articles (and it was only because I read a FA one day), I was jolted by the use of the present tense in the opening sentence. Why? It's been hard to put into words, though everyone with whom I've shared this debate outside of the Wikipedia community (and outside of the videogame world as well, I must confess) thinks that this is a slam-dunk. It simply reads awkwardly, especially since, after the opening, nearly every other mention of anything is in the past. Yes, yes, I know the arguments, "It was produced, and it was marketed, but it is a console". But the same thing is true of other products and yet most people do not write in this way that most contributors to this page expect. Why? Well, for one thing, it simply is jarring and inconsistent to not match verb tenses. I would certainly (before engaging in this discussion) have never accepted such grammar from one of my students, and the other teachers I have spoken with feel the same. But this may be something that I have to research further; sometimes language does evolve.

I guess I'm most bothered by the fact that several people's arguments have consisted of "this is simply not a point of debate". But I have posed questions above which, if considered honestly, should at least give other editors pause. I'm not saying that my questions close the argument. But a refusal to recognize that I have raised some worthy points comes across as indicating that there is no cogent response to my points. Well, I'm not arrogant enough to believe that; nor do I wish to learn that there are no arguments to be raised on the other side. But I do expect a fair and rational discussion. And I hope that I'm addressing any arguments being made for the present tense (and if I am missing something, please point it out). I simply ask for the same courtesy. Unschool 03:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While I was writing the above paragraph, A Link to the Past was making his post on comparing videogames to movies. While I am not yet persuaded, that is what I mean by a thoughtful argument. Thanks, Link. Unschool 04:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I point out that this has been discussed before on WP:MOS, with the agreement that regardless of age, these are spoken of in the present tense.

Here's another way to look at it that makes sense. When we talk about some topic that is non-specific to an absolute single instance - a console, a video game, the tense is always present despite if the topic is no longer made, supported, or the like. (this applies in general, see "Sarcophagus" for example. When you talk about a absolute singular instance of something (in this case, a specific person, a specific game manufacture, a specific game designer), the tense to introduce it is present if the specific instance still exists, and past tense if it doesn't, because that specific instance will never ever be available ever again. --MASEM 04:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My take on this is that physical objects that are still in existence should be referred to as such, but that details about their design, production, advertising, usage, etc., should be placed in past tense (unless, of course, the item is still being produced, used, etc. - this should be addressed on a case-by-case basis as appropriate for that item). As I pointed out in the SNES talk, just because many people refer to items in the past tense does not necessarily mean it's correct for them to do so - if you consult an MLA handbook, for instance, there's a good chance that this issue would be addressed as "Is" rather than "Was", as a standard of English writing. Vernacular phrasing may include past-tense phrasing for objects still in existence, but proper English may dictate otherwise. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an apparent contradiction between Masem's theory and the common use in automobile discussion, but perhaps the phrase "The 968 was an automobile" is referring to the production line rather than the actual cars? Anomie 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the issues with split infinitives, preposition stranding, and the whole mess regarding third person singular pronouns, I'm not sure I'd rely on teachers (or even linguists) to determine the "correct" answer here. The reduction to absurdity ("will we still use 'is' in 1000 years?") strikes me as irrelevant, as does the comparison to unique objects (which leads into the Sorites paradox if physical instances of the console are considered, or Theseus' paradox if emulation and the Virtual Console are considered).

My problem with the whole issue is that there are at least three different possible underlying meanings. If the meaning is "The NES belongs to the class 'Video game consoles'; Nintendo released it in 1985" or "The NES belongs to the class 'Video game consoles released by Nintendo in 1985'" then "The NES is a video game console released by Nintendo in 1985" is correct. However, if the meaning is "The NES belonged to the class 'Video game consoles being released by Nintendo' in 1985'" then "The NES was a video game console released by Nintendo in 1985" is correct. Which one of the three is the "correct" meaning? Anomie 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"The NES is a video game console developed by Nintendo, and was released in 1985." Sometimes brevity can get in the way of clarity. --MASEM 13:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote for "is" as well, and that seems to be the consensus here. I really see this as a non-issue, or one that's pretty self-evident. If you're talking about marketing, events, etc., you use past tense (that would include an automobile line). If you're talking about an object you use present tense. I.e. "a leaf is an above-ground plant organ specialized for photosynthesis." You don't use "A leaf was..." unless you're identifying a specific instance of a leaf that also is no more. Such as "I had a maple tree leaf that had a unique split. Unfortunately I didn't preserve properly and it disintegrated. The leaf was unique." An NES *is* an 8-bit video game console that *was* released by Nintendo. It *was* released in 1985, it *was* part of Nintendo's lineup, it *was* well received, it *is* a console that launched some legendary game characters, Zelda *is* a game that *was* released for the NES, etc. etc. I'm thinking since we have consensus for "is" vs. "was" that we should put this in to the guidelines. --Marty Goldberg 07:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Unschool, no offence taken, I've heard worse. :) A few points though: I wasn't saying "everyone who reads Wikipedia is stupid" (though it would be foolish to assume that no one who reads Wikipedia is stupid), as that doesn't matter. If someone who knows absolutely nothing about the SNES, or game consoles in general, were to read that first line, it would be quite reasonable for them to assume the SNES to be something that no longer exists. It's misleading whether you're stupid or you've got a Ph.d in being smart. Your argument for the past tense seems to be because "it's what people say". While this is probably true it doesn't make it right. People say things we wouldn't write in an encyclopedia - they use slang, contractions, grunting noises, single word sentences, say "of" instead of "have", and all manner of other terrible affronts to the English language! Just because people writing articles about cars or movies or whatever want to use the wrong tense, that's no reason to follow their lead. As for your third point, I don't specifically dislike using the past tense for video games, I dislike using it wherever it's not appropriate - if something exists it's present, if it existed it's past. As far as I see it that's an axiomatic truth. Finally, I wasn't trying to say "I'm right because I say I'm right", I was trying to say "these are the reasons that present tense should be used". Other than that I'm not really sure what I should have said... Miremare 19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to Miremare, what he's talking about is pretty well covered under Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles. Specifically the main paragraph of Provide context for the reader and State the obvious, where coincidentally an example using a Ford Thunderbird appears where it explains how to rewrite the sentence. And low and behold, what tense is being promoted? --Marty Goldberg 19:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I want to offer my sincere thanks to everyone who took the time here to present some very thoughtful arguments. I would still be interested in anyone else's thoughts, but I see now that there is not only consensus, but that it is well-reasoned consensus. I do not actually agree with the consensus yet, but I must confess that I now realize that most of my argument is probably rooted in my personal perception of proper usage. That's a very hard thing to admit, but as I wrote my response to someone explaining how the past tense made sense for video game consoles but not to videogames themselves (because the latter qualified as art), I began to realize that I was working part-time as a contortionist without getting paid for the work. My gut still tells me I'm right, but I'm logician enough to recognize that my gut is insufficient evidence to build a case.

There are a number of points of reply that I originally intended to make, in response to the arguments raised on this page. But since I'm conceding the issue, any such points would be moot. Besides, I really am sincerely appreciative of the time you took to assemble your points here. Such civil debate does not seem to be the rule on most talk pages I frequent. Cheers to you all. Unschool 23:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unschool: You're right, I did ignore one of the questions (twice!) but that wasn't intentional, just chalk it up to idiocy on my part. The question of when do we start using "was" is, I believe, when there are no SNES's left. Whether we'll know for sure when the time comes, I don't know, but I expect they'll be the museum exibits of the future, so we probably will. If not, someone would have to make a decision. If animals can be pronounced extinct without definitive proof I guess electronics can too. As for games, I believe it's unlikely that the past tense will ever be applicable to any but a tiny, tiny minority - if every physical release copy of, say, Sonic the Hedgehog, were to disappear overnight, there would still be untold millions of copies of it on people's PC hard drives and consoles around the world. With sites such as the virtuous World of Spectrum, the slightly-less-virtuous Home of the Underdogs, and all those downright nefarious emulation sites, old games are in a healthy position. And surely any game that's allowed to become truly extinct isn't noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article anyway, so we don't have to worry about it! Miremare 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this is settled now, I'm going to suggest again we put something regarding this in the guidelines, because it seems to be an important point (thanks again Unschool for starting the discussion here). I'll start a topic on the talk page there to get the ball rolling on discussing the actual wording. --Marty Goldberg 16:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

History of computer role-playing games, Cultural differences in role-playing video games and Console RPG are all embarrassingly bad. Maybe someone could go over them and provide some feedback. Computer role-playing game is passable. I couldn't find an RPG task-force. SharkD 03:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The way in which genres are labeled, used in infoboxes and arranged on WP is chaotic, with RPGs being one of the many areas which needs patching up. Despite all the different RPG articles, there is not one which currently deals with the RPG genre of videogames on the whole. Splitting up the different RPG genres by grouping them under computer and console games is now obsolete - The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Two Worlds happily rub shoulders with Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata on the 360 for instance. Nor are Japanese RPGs solely limited to consoles any more, some are available on PC, some are even made using RPG creation software in the West solely for the PC - Aveyond for instance.

There's some small-scales discussions on Talk:Video game genres about rearranging the list of genres and working from there to improve genre articles - any discussions welcome.Someone another 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there's some cross-over titles; but, I wouldn't go as far as to say it was obsolete. Anyway, that's beyond the scope of this discussion. SharkD 23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I rescind my disapproval of the Console RPG article. It's not well sourced, but it is well composed. SharkD 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a task force of people who, once a week, check all of the changes made to a particular featured article, to make sure vandalism, false statements, unnecessary content, or unsourced material be either fixed or removed? And in the cases of non FAs, people can request that it be monitored. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I would suggest the following:

1. Copy the list of all WP:VG FAs.
2. Make an (useful) edit to each of them, and include a request to remove it from the list in the edit summary, if the reader is actively watching the article.
3. Wait a week.
4. Assign people who are willing to watch an extra article to the articles remaining on the list.

User:Krator (t c) 15:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just ask on the article's talk page, and mention it here when you start to catch people who watch the discussion here as well. I suggest more than one watcher per article if possible, in case someone goes on vacation or something. Anomie 12:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just recently found this obscure article about an obscure game that's related to a not at all obscure creator of a pretty famous game. From the looks of it, it's only a few short steps from being GA status, but it lacks a bit of things. With a little work it could be ready for a proper GA review in no time. -InsaneZeroG 05:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has no references. Pagrashtak 05:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work before GA status. Not only are there no references, there's no reception information, the gameplay overview is too short, among other things. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so "a few short steps" may not be the best phrase then... -InsaneZeroG 07:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Obscure? Maybe I just got the net too early...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Characters" section needs modifying—you can't just give their names and voice actors alone. Also, try to have a paragraph that encapsulates the style and personality of characters as a whole; obviously, try to find a source for this stuff. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an idea I've been mulling over for some time, but only decided to propose now. I noticed it says on the main page of WP:STARWARS that it's effectively a collaboration of numerous projects including this one, but I thought one task force specifically focusing on one aspect of Star Wars (and one which doesn't actually have so many high-quality articles) would be pretty useful. It's fairly self-explanatory, so check out the proposal. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Una Laguna^Talk 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Why don't you create the proposal @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Star Wars? JACOPLANE • 2007-10-28 20:28

I was thinking that the Star Wars WikiProject could cover it just fine, but if a task force is necessary, I have no objections to it. hbdragon88 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll create it when I get the chance... I'm a little too busy for creating it at present. Una Laguna^Talk 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

List of video games: A-C, List of video games: D-H and so on. Anyone want to format these better? As of now, they seem to be "catchalls" for every game ever. All of these lists are important, but need a lot of work. I personally feel the catchall attitude isn't the way to go, unless the lists get a better format. Some sort of sourcing wouldn't hurt either. Going by the fact that most on the lists have articles isn't completely helpful, as people could be adding hoax articles to the lists that go unnoticed. RobJ1981 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What sort of format should they be in? -- DatRoot 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, have just picked this up from the Wikification project and have done what I can with it but this is not my area of expertise so if someone wants to take a look at it I'd be grateful. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a gaming article that mentions nothing of gameplay. That's starnge. It also needs sections on "Reception" and "Development" if possible. The "Story" section needs shortening too. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)