Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:40, 7 August 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25
26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45
46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55
56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65
66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75
76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85
86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95
96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105
106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115
116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125
126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135
136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145
146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155
156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165
166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175
176

Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
An archive topic index is available here.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

List of Paper Mario series characters

This article was originally deleted as the information was held on it somewhere else. To cut a long story short, the redirect was deleted, and now the article has been restored as a result of an RfD because the information is no longer elsewhere. (See the talk page for a history of AfD and RfDs for it.)

Anyway, since the page hasn't been around for some time, it could use a little clean-up as some of the images it used no longer exist. Just though I would bring this to the projects attention as I believe there was a discussion on it before way back in 2007. --Taelus (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks pretty unencyclopedic, containing a bunch of minor characters. I think that, since the *prominent* Paper Mario series characters are described elsewhere, such as in the Mario article, then the semi-prominent ones can be moved to the actual game's page, and the article can be deleted.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur'd. Too much information on minor characters, the rest can feature in full parent articles. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and all that. Also it's totally unsourced and not maintainable. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nintendo games of this type always carry a glut of oneshot characters, the likes of which are so insignificant they don't belong anywhere. Combining them from three games into one article doesn't suddenly improve that situation. Even the pixls from Super Paper Mario are there, all but one of which are just 'powers' personified. Someone another 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the information is merged somewhere else so that it still exists, or the whole article is simply deleted, then this is fine in my eyes. We just need to avoid what happened last time, a redirect pointing to non-existant information. --Taelus (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. well the first two games are GAs, so they're covered, and looking at Super Paper Mario all the relevant characters seem to be there too, in the plot section. The four main characters all (rightly) have their own articles. So, anything not already in the game and character articles (there's even the enemy list which a lot of the followers are linked to in the game articles) is extremely likely to be undue weight, in terms of excessive minor plot details or sub-minor characters. Would redirecting it to the first game be acceptable? Someone another 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue in the first place that lead to this article being restored is that there is absolutely nowhere to redirect it without it being a misleading redirect. It was nominated for deletion, but apparently it is not allowed to be deleted due to copyright reasons as it has a ton of edits on it. If the only reason it exists is legal, what stops it being moved to a wikiproject subpage? --Taelus (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was restored because the deletion discussion said to redirect it somewhere, but I think nothing prevents you from nominating it for deletion again to officially delete it for good. It all depends on the result of the latest deletion discussion. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting this wrapped around my neck somehow.. if it can't be deleted for copyright reasons, does that mean it contains material that was merged? If that's so, but that information has been removed from the article it was merged to, then I'm not seeing how it's any different than if it wasn't merged in the first place. All that said, it is better to redirect than delete outright, and there is a sensible redirect location: Mario role-playing games, the parent article, where the discussion on the talk page seems to be about this information, or alternatively List of the Mario series characters, which contains all the major characters featured in these games. Or am I missing something? Someone another 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get what makes the content of the article so special. It's the same one-shot characters you can find anywhere. Just because more information exists doesn't mean it has to be shoveled into Wikipedia.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is the fact that it cannot be deleted due to GDFL technicalities. However, it cannot be made into a redirect, as there is no place to redirect it to without it becoming a misleading redirect. In fairness, this only got restored as an article because it was decided that moving the page to preserve history would be messy at RfD... --Taelus (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the GDFL issue if the article is deleted with no merge? If the information isn't used elsewhere, how is there a legal issue? Is there a way to search edit summaries to see if anyone noted pasting information about this article? If this has to remain as a redirect, I think List of the Mario series characters is the optimal location; it does not narrow the article down to the specific, but it is relatively accurate as some of the characters are in the Paper Mario series. —Ost (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must be honest and say that I do not know what the GDFL issues are. All that I know is that they stopped this being deleted at RfD as was originally proposed, and now we are here. I don't really mind whether the article is kept or deleted, I just don't like the idea of having a misleading redirect that exists only because of technicalities. Personally I think that by WP:IAR this should be moved to project space to comply with legal requirements, avoiding the issue of a blank mainspace page or poor redirect. I will probably go change my stance at the AfD to reflect this. --Taelus (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal of the character list

Pending that the current AFD is being snowed on to keep, I would like to propose that the character lists be split into the three game articles, after which the page would be redirected to Paper Mario (series), which would be recreated as a series article for the three pages. Thoughts? MuZemike 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this seems a sensible solution. Have the current page redirect to a series article, from which users can easily navigate to the relevant page they were looking for. --Taelus (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the best solution, seeing as the AFD is stuck at no consensus.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NES vs Famicom

A discussion has been taking place at Talk:Final Fantasy#NES vs. Famicom. The discussion has yet to yield any real consensus, and since it has rather broad implications, a broader forum makes sense.

At the heart of the matter is a difference of opinion between myself and another editor. User:WraithTDK believes that using the term "Nintendo Entertainment System" when describing the release of Final Fantasy II and Final Fantasy III is inaccurate and misleading. I believe that using the NES and Famicom without sufficient explanation will lead to confusion for general readers unfamiliar with video games.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Knowing the Final Fantasy series myself, I think it would be more accurate to say "Famicom" if to disambiguate from the North American/European counterparts, as they are both Japan-only releases. At least that is my practice when mentioning release information. After all, games have released only for the Famicom and not intended to be released for the NES (knowing very well that adapters exist to allow Famicom games to be played on an NES and I think vice-versa). MuZemike 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly concede that the NES and Famicom have their differences, I've always felt the similarities overshadow them. My main concern, however, is making the prose accessible to non-gamers.

The first paragraph of Final Fantasy#Main series starts with "Three Final Fantasy installments were released on the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)" as the main idea. Since only one of the games had a Western release, what should that first sentence be? It's the same thing for second paragraph about the SNES.
Also, Final Fantasy#Graphics and technology uses the "NES" and "SNES" abbreviations introduced in the games section. If two system names are used in the earlier section, how should the consoles be designated when discussing the technical aspects that applied to both the Japanese and Western versions of the games?

This is what I mean by leading to confusion. Switching back and forth between two terms that are relatively synonymous would require further explanation that is not really needed in this particular article. I've always felt the generalization made the whole article easier to understand the topic at hand. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't understand why you would ask that, after reading (and repeatedly undoing) my re-write of that paragraph. The whole paragraph could be more accurate. It's really quite simple. Since the first game was released in Japan three years before it was released here, it's not like it was just a cross-platform release, so more accurate version of that paragraph would be:

The first three games were released in Japan on Nintendo's Famicom in 1987, 1988 and 1990, respectively. The first game was ported the Nintendo Entertainment System three years after its initial release in 1990. The second game would not see a North American release until the 2003 remake compilation of the first two games, entitled "Final Fantasy Origins" for the Playstation. A remake of the third game was released for the Nintendo DS in 2007. Easy. Simple. Accurate.(WraithTDK) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The prose itself is misleading as written. Reading that you are saying they all were released on the NES/SNES which implies a NA release (less so a European release). The (super) famicom is used by other reliable sources when commenting on Japanese titles. Furthermore it could even be argued that all should be listed as (super) famicom and were (certain ones) were brought over to the (S)NES.陣内 _Jinnai 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm convinced either way yet, but the NES article tends to make me side with GiB. It seems to discuss the NES and Famicon as the same system and calling it "the best selling game console of all time" (singular noun), which includes both models. Jinnai's argument to inherently use Famicon instead of NES may dispel confusion at the expense of using the lesser known name (in English). —Ost (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the NES/Western vs Famicom/Japanese release, I agree the argument has merit. However, I started shying away from it a long time ago when I tried looking at it from a non-gamer perspective. If one never heard of the Famicom, the different names don't have the same context as they would to a gamer. Also, the paragraphs state the regions they were originally released in. So the specific names designating the region are redundant.

Just throwing this out there. I know I'm in favor of keeping the prose as it was before this discussion, but if someone comes up with a better way, I'll gladly go with it. The only thing that comes mind is having a notes section to explain the difference, but I still believe a generalization better serves our purposes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Looking at another Japanese release of similar calibur, Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Reverie lists it as Super Famicom, not Super Nintendo Entertainment System.陣内 _Jinnai 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that comparison is that Dragon Quest VI was not released outside of Japan (until they did a DS remake), while Final Fantasy was. Anomie ⚔ 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not discussing Final Fantasy. We're discussing Final Fantasy II and III, which, like Dragon Quest VI, was NOT released outside of Japan untill they did a remake. That's teh whole issue. So it is a very valid comparison. WraithTDK —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Also, DQVI was promoted to GA in 2007, while Final Fantasy went through a FAR a few months ago. Besides, I think comparing other articles will lead us to a dead end because I'm sure there are a lot different examples across the board. Seems to me it's mainly been dependent on editor writing style.

I guess one issue I have with using different names as different systems/regions is consistency. What if a game was released in both Japan and the West? Would you say the game was released for the Famicom and the NES or just the NES? And if you say just the NES, wouldn't that imply that the game was released only the West and not the East? But if you say both it seems redundant to me.

That's part of the reason I stopped using the different terms. One system one term just makes more sense to me. And NES is the common term in English speaking regions. That's what how I see it anyway. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Given that Famicom redirects to Nintendo Entertainment System, I think using one term to refer to both is sufficient. Nifboy (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anomie ⚔ - so too were FF2 an FF3 similarly delayed therefore the comparison is warranted. Furthermore, DQ1-4 were brought out in the US. Your point is ludicrus.
:Guyinblack25 - if all of the games were released, I'd say the NES. If some were and some weren't I'd say some were released on the Famicom and some were released on the NES. I would also say a game released on in Japan for the PS2 would state that it was released for the PS2 in Japan or Japanese version of the PS2.
Nifboy - maybe, but that article does also list the name Famicom. I personally would say we should go by what reliable sources say first. If nothing else, we should with what is least likely to confuse the general audiance.陣内 _Jinnai 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the part where we are directly talking about FF1 here in addition to FF2 and FF3, but we are not talking about DQ1-4 in your example. But I'm not about to waste any more time trying to convince you, if you want to remain deluded then feel free. Anomie ⚔ 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that the parallel is very similar. I'm saying that if we compare a group of games together where some were released outside their country and some aren't on different versions of systems it should be clearly stated as such.陣内 _Jinnai 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this has other implications as well. Do we call the Mega Drive the Sega ~~Saturn~~ Genesis in places where it was first released in North America? Or do we label Star Fox 64 as Lylat Wars when talking about the game in a European context? The short answer is: no. We should use one name across all releases so as to not confuse those who aren't familiar with the gaming industry. These systems are essentially the same, with only minor differences, so although name changes in different regions should be prominent parts of console and game articles, it should be an issue when we're linking from other sources. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna be a know-it-all, but we don't call the Mega Drive the Sega Saturn. We call it the Genesis. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... yeah, my bad... either way, I think I got my point across, but I changed it because that's kind of a bad oversight. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do we call them in articles that deal only with the Japanese release? If we call them by their English name, then I will concede my argument. If we do not, I will inist that we still must distinguish titles released in Japan (and other nations( from those that aren't released in English if the systems are not the same. Just because 1 title in a group was does not trump the rest.陣内 _Jinnai 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, do you mean what do we call the "game titles" in articles that deal only with the Japanese release or what do we call the "systems" in articles that deal only with the Japanese release? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So where are we with this? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, it seems that consensus is leaning towards using just one name (NES) over Famicom, but I think the judge is still somewhat out. I know that's what I support, but I'd like to address Jinnai's concerns before we start to implement it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Quest V box art attack

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride#Box art on whether the US box art should be used in the article. The arguments for keeping the current box art is backed up by WP:VGIMAGES, which states "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." The arguments for changing the current box art don't seem backed up by an official guideline or policy as far as I know, but the IP is really bent on edit-warring and even went to nominate the current box art for speedy deletion and files for deletion, rather than continue to discuss and talk normally. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one thing I think could be in favor of the US box art in THIS case is the fact that the "V" is there. Very often people say "the box art is needed to help identify the game" and as this is is the only page about DQV, I think having it actually SAY DQV on the boxart makes a lot of sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added my opinion (which concurs with yours, in favor of using the US box art).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline needs to be changed. It's saying to go right when you go left. It does this by saying to use the first region adapted unless another is uploaded first thereby saying the first part doesn't matter, it's just whoever is quickest to the draw. It doesn't have flexibility, in this case FE, checking to see how what boxes the other series use, nor does it account for "most recognizable" version when is different for different regions.陣内 _Jinnai 22:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does have flexibility. Its called WP:COMMON. The first part of the rule actually exists to stop people being quick on the draw. It provides a rational reason for changing the first uploaded version. The second part is merely to stop willy-nilly abuse of the first part. As for changing the rule, there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water over one image. Everyone involved should come to an agreement that's right for that article. And if that consensus works for that article, but bends the rules a bit (WP:IAR), then that will be OK by 99% of the people in the CVG project. - X201 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the perfect reason to update the rule. It is contradictory and self-defeating giving power to those who are quick to the draw. WP:COMMON isn't a policy or guideline and it will be ingored often as such. We should have our guidelines reflect common practice that doesn't garble things up and say 2 contradictory things that empowers e-lawyering.陣内 _Jinnai 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving power to those who are quick to the draw is exactly the point. It stems from Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Controversial_names which essentially says, "unless there is a very good reason, don't go dicking about changing stuff". Most of the instructions at WP:VGIMAGES are unneeded, all that's needed is a recognisable English language cover. I do not buy into the region developed or date of release arguments. - hahnch e n 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, when you post a box art on the page, it really should be the most recognized for the first location it had an English version. Some games, it really is not that big of a deal, but in this case, the Dragon Quest V logo for North America has a V on it, like the original box art from Japan. In Europe, do to a naming change, the cover art for Dragon Quest V does not have the V. The one thing this rule creates right now is people rushing to fight for first rights to post. I think what should also be looked at is how the rest of the series looks to make all pages consistent for a series. Look at the Dragon Quest Series as a whole, every other game that has a North American release uses the North American game box art, except for Dragon Quest V. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the people involved in uploading the new box art. I felt that consistency with all of the other pages, as well as a better quality picture would really make the page look better. I saw the rule, but did not just replace the JPG, but instead made a new png box art named DQ5BoxArt.png. The original was Dq5.jpg, which is not as clear of a name, and actually was a replace over the Japanese version. I looked the the rule, and see the First English one as the important part, not this first one uploaded. Just makes it a race to see who can upload a picture first. The only time I see that the European one should be uploaded is if it was the first English release, or the only English release. Thoughts? Sara 00 zero (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the different game titles be a valid FUR for having one box art in the infobox and another in the article prose, pointing out the name change etc? - X201 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hahnchen - First off, that link doesn't apply here. No one is disputing the name. Second, the problem is right now the guideline basically is inflexible. It does not allow for "good reason". It says whatever version was placed first, if it's an English version, must remain, no ifs, ands or buts. It doesn't allow for "without a good reason," or "if it violates and policy/guideline", etc. It just says that and gives no room for flexibility.
Personally I think basing it on date is bad, but series imo should be based all the same (unless there is a good reason for an exception) and what box is shown should be the most recognizable, which often, but not always, is the first English version.
X201: No. That would likely fail our fair use policy which trumps the guideline. My suggestion is to base series all the same and not empowever those who are quick at finding images with hard and fast rules.陣内 _Jinnai 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you propose a different principle in dealing with the name than to the identifying artwork? I'm repeating, but the whole point is "don't change stuff unless you have a damn good reason". In this case, concerning the V, there might be - but any guideline we have should discourage pointless back and forths where people argue the shit over sales figures, chart recognition and whether the fact that it was released three weeks earlier in region A make any sort of difference. (hint:It doesn't) If it's a legitimate English language cover, then generally - that's fine, most of the other non-binding guidelines are unnecessary. - hahnch e n 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VGIMAGES contradicts itself, one part favours the European image because it was uploaded first, another part favours the American image because, as the box art used in the largest English-language market, it is probably the most recognizable English-language box art. I've brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Cover art. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that Jinnai had already pointed out the contradiction. Anyway, I think the box art issue should be resolved on the guideline talk page to prevent the contradiction from causing problems in the future. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Empire"s

Damn uninventive video game designers! Anyone who chooses a single, common word as the title of their game is bound to cause confusion at some stage when another equally uninventive author calls their game the same, and in the case of Empire this has happened quite a number of times by now (and, who knows, may happen again).

As Empire (disambiguation) shows, Wikipedia has its fair share of these games, which leaves us with the problem of giving each a good and unique, unambiguous article name. As they're all so similarly named, it seems a good idea to consider them together rather than think on each one separately.

Here's a list of the games under their current article titles, some of which may not need renaming, while others (most notably to me Classic Empire (computer game) and Empire Classic (computer game)) really do.

Games

Note that many of the articles on games called Empire are in fact about more than a single game, though in the era that a lot of these games were written (most are quite old) the distinction between separate games in a distinct series, and modified versions of the same one / re-writings and portings to different systems (which sometimes altered games significantly in the process) and so on was often blurry. The definition of a single game isn't as clear either when the rules they're based on or their compatibility to work with other versions may be the same, unlike many modern games which are clearly packaged and released as separate with new titles in an equally clear series and so on. Anyhow, here are the games (not including those with Empire as only one of the main words in the title, like Empire of the Ants et al.):

Empire Classic (computer game)

One of the two that most need to be renamed, and are hardest to disambiguate precisely. For a start (video game) should be used instead of (computer game), and not brackets not used at all if the rest of the title is clear. Secondly, a note should be taken that while the game was based on a board game called Empire (see the strategy game section below), the computer version was originally called Civilisation.

All subsequent versions include Empire in the title, though rarely as the only word; these include: Xerox Development Environment (XDE) Empire, BSD Empire, PSL Empire, PC Empire, Amiga Empire, Wolfpack Empire, Empire Classic, HP Classic Empire & HP Empire Classic.

Since it looks like it has been called Classic Empire as well as Empire Classic, this current form of disambiguation (which seems to go against the guidelines in any case) is a flawed one.

As it has been ported to so many different computer systems, wasn't designed by a single person, at a single time or commonly called by one single term this is hard to disambiguate from the others. One way would be to rename this Empire to Empire (classic video game), and drop the Classic tag from Classic Empire (computer game)'s disambiguation, though it's hardly a perfect solution.

Should be renamed to Empire (HP2000 video game). The "Classic" part shouldn't be there. SharkD (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Empire (computer game)

This second of two Empire games needing to be renamed badly also has (computer game) instead of (video game) or being omitted altogether. Originally designed by Walter Bright, early versions were given the subtitle "Wargame of the Century", the game developed into a clear commercial series (though some non-commercial versions were illegally produced) with "Empire Deluxe", and subsequently the series itself was sometime referred to as "Empire Deluxe" (including in the announced upcoming new game by Graffiti Entertainment), while at other times (as in the Enhanced Edition manual foreword and introduction) as the "Empire Series".

To make things worse though, this game has actually been sold (by White Wolf, the company that made Empire Deluxe) under the name Empire Classic, so it seems that neither of these two Empire games has been called exclusively (or even distinctively in the mainstream) either Classic Empire or Empire Classic.

Again this has been on many different computer systems, and made at a roughly similar time to the other one, over a number of years, but Walter Bright, "Wargame of the Century", the "Deluxe" tag (though as these two only apply to some of these games, just Empire: Wargame of the Century or Empire Deluxe won't cut it) or the "Empire Series" could all be used in a better disambiguation for it (Walter Bright's website being at www.classicempire.com does also leave "Classic" as another option though, despite him not referring to it as that at any point in the site itself).

I don't think "Classic Empire" is a good name, because it is unofficial and was given to it by fans "posthumously". Maybe Empire (PDP-10 video game) would be better. SharkD (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire (PLATO)

The article lists a number of different versions, named Empire I, Empire II, Empire III and Empire IV respectively, though the distinction between version numbering and naming them as distinct games in a series is blurry. There are also a number of games listed as clones, ports or inspired by this Empire, though none of these listed are also called Empire.

As all those called Empire seem to be on the PLATO system, using PLATO in the disambiguator in line with other PLATO games and topics seems appropriate. It could be renamed to reflect that it may be a series of games rather than a single one though.

It could be called (PLATO game series) or just (computer game series) since there aren't any other games simply named "Empire".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Empire (PLATO video game series). SharkD (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire!

The exclamation mark at the end of the title seems to provide a good disambiguation within guidelines, and also as a single game apparently not in a series, this one probably doesn't need to be renamed.

Empire: Alpha Complex

A newer game, thankfully with a subtitle to disambiguate it. The talk page has a suggestion to merge this with Shadow Complex though, but as I can't answer the question there I won't put my opinion in - if anyone better qualified knows the situation of this game then this could be a good time to merge.

I merged it, it's the same game. Shadow Complex is based off of Empire, the novel.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's one down! --xensyria^T 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire: Total War

Another new game, again having a subtitle (this time the series name) - it looks like designers may be learning a little bit about ambiguous names after all! Doesn't need to be renamed, but again adds to the confusion that we're presenting here.

Empires (video game)

The s in Empires does mean this isn't strictly an Empire game, but with Empires redirecting to Empire (disambiguation) this similarly named game (which doesn't help with the confusion) doesn't have a simpler unambiguous article name to call its own. As a mod of Half Life it looks to be correctly disambiguated from the others by that s at the end and the "(video game)" tag. Possibly a hatnote should be put in the article with a note about Empires: Dawn of the Modern World.

I doubt that the "S" could disambiguate it, since Empires is too much of a common term. People will expect an article about empires in real life.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are mods disambiguated as (video game)? Shouldn't they be disambiguated as (mod)?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I don't know for sure - I'd imagine it's for non gamers who wouldn't really understand what a "mod" was - at a guess. --xensyria^T 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the subtitle (video game modification)? The problem being that a mod is not a stand-alone video game, therefore it shouldn't be marked as such.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Empires (video game modification) would be fine. SharkD (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

This one has an s and a subtitle! Again listed to help the overview of the situation here, probably doesn't need a name change.

Empire (strategy game)

A board game, and while not strictly in the remit of this project (sorry!) it is unclearly disambiguated - most if not all of the games called Empire are strategy games (which again doesn't help the confusion!) - a bad choice of article name. Interestingly this is a source for Empire Classic (computer game). As a board game, it looks like it could be renamed Empire (board game) without trouble, or even possibly merged into the Empire Classic (computer game) article (though how that would add to the confusion in that game's naming I dread to think).

You could always leave the name the same and merge Empire Classic into the page; since they're both strategy games, it should work, I think. Otherwise your suggestion seems OK.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that merge is probably better, especially as it seems I was wrong - there are loads and loads of board games named Empire after all. Doesn't make it much easier though! --xensyria^T 15:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should merge it with the video game article. Maybe Empire (1960s board game) would be better. SharkD (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire (miniatures game)

Another non video / computer game. Clearly disambiguated this time and so doesn't need to be moved.

Notes

Of course, the current Empire is the primary topic for the term "Empire", and note that Empire series has already been taken by a book series (only as a redirect though...). While you could argue that this isn't obviously the most famous series called Empire, there have been so many others (TV and car were a few mentioned on the page) that none of our games' series could clearly take the name (or Empire (series)) either.

The disambiguation of course doesn't end with the choice of better article names for these, to quote Akb4 on Empire's disambiguation talk page:

I very much doubt someone looking for the game they played ten years ago called empire will have any idea if they played empire classic or classic empire, but they might recognize psl empire or "that game that was renamed to conquest". the confusion over the plato renaming has propagated to gaming history texts all over the net.

I've also seen a number of sources getting muddled between Empires, even linking to the wrong one from Wikipedia articles!

I found myself having to read quite extensively to find out exactly what Wikipedia policy on such matters is: from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (and its Trademarks subpage), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (and its subpages Common Names and Precision) with its Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming counterpart, to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Requested moves not to mention those articles that they relate to, and the individual game articles listed above - I hope I haven't missed any, but please forgive me if this still seems to be baffling me: I have tried so please be constructive!

I've also mentioned this on the relevant talk pages to let anyone interested in the individual games know about the proposed renaming. It's also worth noting that Classic Empire has been discussed for renaming here once before, though the discussion that it was part of seemed to move away from Empire at the time, to the extent that it was only mentioned once in the ensuing argument (conditionally supporting the renaming, similarly to the only answer at the same time on the Classic Empire Talk Page), then appeared forgotten and finally wasn't renamed.

Sadly most of these games have a less than perfect article (and some of them were very influential games!) - something which I hope to help with once we've sorted this naming crisis out - but in the meantime I'd welcome ideas that anyone has on any / all of these games. Once it's seen which ones look like they should be moved and a consensus is reached about what name they should be moved to then I think it would be best to put the appropriate ones up for Wikipedia:Requested moves. --xensyria^T 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As I've listed above, I think that Empire Classic (computer game) should be renamed, probably to Empire (classic video game), Classic Empire (computer game) should also be renamed, possibly to Empire (Wargame of the Century) or (better) Empire (video game series) / Empire series (video games) as it has the clearest progression of a series despite having some variants outside this, but I await other people's thoughts to see if a better name could be decided on for these as neither seem totally satisfactory. The rest (apart from Empire (strategy game), which could do with a move to Empire (board game) until another board game is called that too) don't really need renaming, but the articles Empire (game), Empire (video game) and Empire (computer game) should either be deleted, used as disambiguation pages in their own right or used to redirect to the correct section in Empire (disambiguation), not just left as they are or treated separately. --xensyria^T 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is compounded by the fact that the year they were made is ambiguous. Maybe they could be disambiguated by system instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, years aren't possible here, I guess system might be possible, but both were originally made on mini computers (in the days before PCs). Walter Bright's Empire (Classic Empire) was ported to a host of the 8 bit consoles (Amiga, Apple II, Atari & C64), and both for PCs on DOS (I believe Empire Classic was...), Linux and Windows. --xensyria^T 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about Ubisoft screenshots

There was a recent small discussion about whether Ubisoft-published games fell under their free-license, and the discussion seemed to lean towards the fact that they did. I was looking through Ubisoft games to see if there were any that lacked screenshots, and No More Heroes came up. However, the game was only published in North America by Ubisoft; would the screenshots still be free-license, or would they have to be uploaded with a FUR? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Ubisoft have the rights to release free use images of all games they distribute. EA distribute Valve titles, but Valve retain all the rights to their properties. Do Ubisoft really have permission to release No More Heroes screenshots for free? It'd be worthwhile to try and contact Grasshopper Manufacture. - hahnch e n 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attribution-Ubisoft was created because Ubisoft gave us the permission to upload screenshots from Lock On: Modern Air Combat. That is, the whole Ubisoft permission stuff originally stems from that one game. And that game was neither developed by Ubisoft nor published by Ubisoft in its country of origin (Russia). Ubisoft only published the European version of it. Since Ubisoft gave us the permission, we can safely assume that they had the rights to give us that permission and that they were not infringing on the original developer and publisher's rights. Therefore, I think all screenshots from a particular game can be used as long as they come from the version published by Ubisoft. See also commons:User talk:Bayo#Star Ocean. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the assumption that all Ubisoft distribution deals mirror that of Lock On: Modern Air Combat is fairly flimsy. - hahnch e n 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone (I'm assuming they would have to speak German to discuss with the original email sender) tried checking on the validity of the license and its practical bounds? I'm uncomfortable with it being blanketed on everything without an explicit mandate. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few things I've noticed: the English translation of the e-mails, and an English language discussion with the email sender on his talk page. From what I can see, it was the Head of PR for Ubisoft in Germany. Although that does alleviate my concerns that it was a random employee releasing the screenshots without permission from the company, it still doesn't explain the practical bounds of the license. Maybe someone should contact Avatar (the original sender of the e-mail) to see about the practical bounds of the license? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a not on commons. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not, you can try contacting their legal department. They'd be able to say for certain. I know the issue came up wityh reference to some Disney related games.陣内 _Jinnai 05:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a little less than a week now, and Avatar hasn't yet responded to David's note on Commons. It might be worth sending our own letter to the Ubisoft legal department per Jinnai's advice, or contacting Avatar at his German Wiki Userpage. I think there should be clear consensus for the letter to the Ubisoft legal department before the letter gets sent though. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameinformer question

Does anyone own Gameinformer? they made a feature about Thief: The Dark Project in an issue a couuple months ago. I've seem to misplace mine. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! It's a two-page "Classic GI" feature in last December's issue. I'll be happy to provide you with scans if you don't mind waiting until sometime tomorrow. -sesuPRIME 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please. And thanks. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)~~ Nevermind. I just found it. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MMO Questions

Just some quick questions regarding MMOs. I'm currently working on Ragnarok Online, which is developed and run by Gravity (company) in Korea, and has a dozen regional versions that are licensed and run by local companies. Similar to MapleStory and Cabal Online. The problem is, how should I present this information? MapleStory does it with a table (that uses flag icons. Inappropriate use?) while Cabal Online lists it in the infobox. Is "publisher" even an accurate term in this case? Also, would press releases from the local company's site be appropriate references for release dates? Thanks in advance. Oh, and if you can contribute to the article, that would be great! BlazerKnight (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To tackle these roughly in order: I think Cabal Online has the right idea, tucking it into the infobox (since release dates are already there), but I'm not sold on the label of "publisher". No, don't use flag icons. Yes, press releases are appropriate references bar some unusual circumstances. Nifboy (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went to remove the flag icons in MapleStory, and discovered that it's actually a transclusion of Template:MapleStory Versions. I will update RO's infobox, but should I also add something similar to MapleStory's table? It does provide more comprehensive information, such as language and countries encompassed by a regional release, but is debatably bloated (even more so for Template:MapleStory Versions content). Also seeking suggestions on what term to use instead of "publisher". Any recommendations? BlazerKnight (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would call them "operators", similar to companies like The9, who run localized game services. With the infobox as-is, it might be more appropriate to label them as distributors rather than publishers. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese titles in intro

Hello everyone. Our guideline concerning non-English games states the Japanese title should only be used in the intro if

the game is "of Japanese origin", and
the "official English name differs significantly from its Japanese name".

Unless I'm completely missing something, that means a lot of articles are contradicting the guideline. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy X, and Ōkami are just a few FA examples where the English titles don't differ at all from the Japanese titles, much less significantly, yet they all have the Japanese titles in the first sentence. Is this an archaic guideline in need of a rewrite? -sesuPRIME 12:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I put more weight on the first than the second, because it has helped in researching an item to know what its name is in its native text, even if that name ends up being pretty much the same as the english localization.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes more sense to me. After all, including the Japanese name isn't hurting anything. But how relevant is the release order? The original reason I brought this up is that Metroid II, Super Metroid, and Metroid Fusion exclude the Japanese title presumably because they were released in NA before Japan (even though they were developed in Japan). -sesuPRIME 13:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are still "of Japanese origin". Even Final Fantasy Mystic Quest would count as "Japanese origin", even though it wasn't originally planned for Japanese release, and only released there after a year. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never seen the point to some, like SM64, Wii Sports, and Kingdom Hearts. It just seemed like that was the way to do it. However, I have used the Japanese text in articles to do google searches for Japanese sources. So I do find that useful, but I wouldn't lose sleep if they were gone. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In "Kingdom Hearts (キングダムハーツ, Kingudamu Hātsu?)" (for instance), I can see the point of including "キングダムハーツ", but I don't see why we also include "Kingudamu Hātsu". It's not like we English people are supposed to be pronouncing the title with a Japanese accent. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that always nagged away at me is, who verifies that the Japanese spelling is correct? - X201 (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of members have some basic knowledge of Japanese. If anybody is not sure about the spelling in an article they can post here and I'm sure someone will check it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You can also normally check with newer games by putting the Japanese name into Google, finding the official website for the game, and comparing the results (it especially works well for Nintendo titles because most of the Nintendo games are hosted at the Japanese Nintendo website). It's not a hundred percent accurate though, so it's best if other editors can look it over. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So as long as a game was developed in Japan, regardless of release order, we should include the Japanese title?

And Megata Sanshiro, I don't think the average visitor of the English Wikipedia knows what キングダムハーツ means, so that's why the rōmaji is important. -sesuPRIME 02:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should use common sense. If the Japanese title is so long that it breaks the readability of the text, it should be axed. An opening line of an article that says "The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (ゼルダの伝説夢をみる島 Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima?, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island" is not that helpful, and I've seen way longer.

In that last case, it's a legitimate reason for the Japanese title as the subtitle differs significantly from the English.陣内 _Jinnai 05:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That example is wrong by the way. The Dreaming Island is not a translation of Link's Awakening; the template shouldn't be used that way IMO. It should be "The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, known in Japan as Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima", with the kana and translation in parentheses or in a footnotes.

Sesu Prime, if we say "Kingdom Hearts (キングダムハーツ)" then キングダムハーツ means Kingdom Hearts, it's very straightforward. If キングダムハーツ meant something else then we would say "Kingdom Hearts, known in Japan as Something Else (キングダムハーツ)". The romaji is useless in both cases. IMO romaji is only useful when it tells us the pronounciation of a Japanese phrase (as in Yume o Miru Shima). It's of little use for English phrases, since it's by definition an approximation of the real pronounciation, and since it's never used in sources, unlike the kana or kanji. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A long Japanese title with its complete pronunciation and translation is somewhat deterring at times, as seen in the Final Fantasy IV: The After Years article (why include the Japanese pronunciation just for approximations of English words?). I think we should definitely keep the Japanese titles for Japanese-developed games, but drop the pronunciation in most cases and use footnotes where it makes sense, as seen in the Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages article. Prime Blue (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we move it to a footnote, that's fine, but a pronuciation and a literal translation (when it significantly differs) should be offered as most English speakers do not read/speak Japanese.陣内 _Jinnai 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like something that would work well as a footnote. I've been using them in other articles when a lot of detailed content will break the flow of a sentence or paragraph. See Organization XIII#Notes, Q*bert#Notes, and Robotron: 2084#Notes.

And dropping the Romanization of English words sounds like a good idea as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I agree that the Romanization has to go...it's pretty useless. The proposal by Megata seems fine to me.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up List of games based on the Star Wars prequel trilogy, comments on a "failed experiment"

I've just unmerged a whole bunch of articles (around 20) which had been collated into one big 60kb unfathomable super article at List of games based on the Star Wars prequel trilogy [1]. The merge was ridiculous, undiscussed, of no benefit, and self described by the editor responsible as a "failed experiment". I cannot see how putting all those articles together, held together by their Star Wars universe link, could in any way aid navigation, or promote the improvement of those articles. In fact, I'm fairly certain they would have had the opposite effect.

Anyway, what do people want to do about List of games based on the Star Wars prequel trilogy now I've gutted it? And can someone check to see if there's anything I missed on the revert? (I know there's some double redirects, but we have bots to sort those out now) - hahnch e n 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could've given me a ring; I'd have done the splitting for you.

Anyway, I think a lot of the merged articles should be deleted or merged; the Star Wars Episode I article, for example, I doubt it could ever muster up enough content/reliability to warrant its own article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought from your talk page, you weren't going to do anything about it. I was mistaken. - hahnch e n 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could separate it into Games based on Star Wars: Episode 1, etcetera.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing I considered, but I wasn't sure. I was thinking that we'd have to make a list for each Episode, but then again, not every list must exist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to see these articles merged. You may be able to merge some specific cases, but the vast majority of these articles are notable games in their own right. The articles may be poor, but with some Googling you can easily fill them out - they are Star Wars games after all - so they're bound to generate critique. If you're wary of navigational issues, make a template. - hahnch e n 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hahnchen here, the majority of these games are notable and have more than enough coverage out there to warrant separate articles; Republic Commando sticks out to me as the one that makes the least sense to merge. As we all should know, current quality shouldn't be a factor. As Hahnchen said, mere Googling reveals sources for the majority of these, and Metacritic and GameRankings certainly covered the ones I checked up with sufficient reviews. Star Wars games, by the mere virtue of being Star Wars games, tend to rack in press coverage. -- Sabre (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree as well. As someone that is currently working on one of these article to get an FA (Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo), I know that there is enough info on most, if not all, of these games to at least write up some worth-while "plot" and "reception" sections. --Torsodog^Talk 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think development is worth much more than a good plot section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are logos really needed in History of video game consoles (fourth generation)?

Am I mistaken in thinking this is against the NFCC? I've done enough reverting there. Anomie ⚔ 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not mistaken. If you think about it, the logos are an overkill. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Character (arts)#Gathering material on character into one article

Other thoughts are needed on this matter. I fully expect some to disagree with me on this matter and am not simply looking for people to agree, but also consensus. Two editors by themselves going back and forth on this -- whether the article is best titled Fictional character or Character (arts), or whether we should have articles with both of these titles -- is not going to solve anything. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cover for The King of Fighters XII

The Xbox 360 and PS3 versions from KOF XII were already released in North America but there is a problem with them. Both games covers are different and I know what is the one that should be used in the infobox. Check the images here. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the arcade flyer? --Mika1h (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is it okay to use the flyer?Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's an arcade game after all. Someone another 23:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming and organization of Street Fighter articles

I just went to the Street Fighter Alpha expecting to find an article referring to the SFA series (ie, SFA: Warriors' Dreams, SFA 2 and SFA 3), but I there found the article for the first game in the series, being there no article with information in common to the three of them. Shouldn't the Street Fighter Alpha article be changed into an article on the series, with a notice at the top saying something along the lines of "This article is about the third sub-series in the Street Fighter series of videogames. For the first game in the series see Street Fighter Alpha: Warriors' Dreams"? Then the article would list the games in the sub-series, and present any information regarding them all as a whole. If this was the case, the same would apply to the Street Fighter II series (which includes at least five games), Street Fighter III (three games), and Street Fighter EX (three games also). --uKER (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would organize it like this: Street Fighter Alpha (series), Street Fighter II (series), Street Fighter III (series). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it would be better to move the article to Street Fighter Alpha (video game) instead, unless the first game is more famous than the series.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying the sources don't exist to create sub articles, but why can't the sub-series be explained in Street Fighter? It's my understanding that fighting games have very little in the way of actual plot. Also, given the amount of overlap between the development and reception content a series normally has, I'd say a separate article is needed. But I don't know the series that well, so I could be wrong. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, most Street Fighter games don't have too much story. I think the best would working the main Street Fighter article and only create new articles if there are weight issues or enough content for a new article.Tintor2 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer game icons

Just wondering, is it appropriate to use these icons on there related game pages, or would it be seen as excessive use of non-free images, or maybe just pointless? Any thoughts. Salavat (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive and pointless. Most of those images should be fragged. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i might go through and remove then from the articles and nominate the category for deletion if it is no longer needed. Salavat (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it might be useful on commons, but it's not here, so I'd support deletion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok becuase of my lack of knowledge with images of the public domain, what do i do with an orphaned public domain image, namely File:3 in Three.png. Salavat (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted if it stays orphaned. Also, looking at them, i'd say move all them to commons delete them if there is potential copyright or trademark violations.陣内 _Jinnai 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i made it a candidate to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Salavat (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, should a commons image be tagged with Computer game icons category? Salavat (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need outside opinions for Blastoise

User:Zappernapper has been insistent on having an article on Blastoise, despite clear shouts from all around this article fails notability (it's propped on the single point that it is stated to be "well known" and just that). So there was a merge proposal, which closed with 4 editors stating to merge it, Zappernapper being the only vote to keep, and one voting neutral. So the article got merged.

...and that wasn't the end of it. Despite seeking advice and being told the article failed notability by an editor outside of the discussion, he kept reverting, arguing that "a consensus can't be voted on" and that "by citing majority you don't understand what consensus means". Feh. And now another editor, User:Colonel_Warden, entered the fray stating that the character lists do not represent the characters by their most common names and Blastoise asserts some form of innate notability.

Could I get some of you folks to take a look at the matter and give your input?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you have a lot on your plate. The article lots O.K, but since its Pokémon, maybe it should be merged. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good decision to change the original subject for this discussion from "Backup might be needed", that did sound bad. neways, again i ask you to refrain from linking to my discussion with gavin, which was going on cocurrently with the merge proposal, i knew he would disagree with me, so it's silly to be using that as fuel for your fire, you're just so bad at making your point that i was trying to get a better perspective. to be transparent, my actual words were, "votes don't determine consensus, discussion does....", and "votes are not consensus....". you are also misrepresenting Colonol Warden's argument and it makes me think you just didn't understand it. oh and let's point out the AFD discussion which clearly closed with no consensus and garnered far more participants.

to be clear this article is propped up on the sourced claim that Blastoise is one of the most well-known Pokemon, due to it's appearance on the cover of one of the first pokemon games (also sourced). I am not making bald OR assertions. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro, even though the article looks fine to you, you suppport a merge because it's a pokemon? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zapper, what I mean is, you shouldn't make an article for every Pokémon. The article just in't doesn't have enough to be an article. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am not trying to say every pokemon should have an article... but now i'm confused b/c at first you said the article looked ok, but now you're saying it doesn't? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he means is, the article has good structure, but there isn't enough for a full article on the subject. And he's right, it's very lacking.

Zapper, the statement "well known" has pretty much been applied to all 151 of the original Pokemon at one time or another, and countless others. If that was good enough to base articles on with a thorough real-world perspective on the subject we'd have all 151 back out, but we don't.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so it's lacking now... wikipedia isn't done.

... the statement "well known" has pretty much been applied to all 151 of the original Pokemon...

you've made this claim before and have yet to actually prove it, it's ineffective to base your argument on false assumptions. The truth is that a relatively small number of pokemon can be be sourced as being called "of of the most well known" (and stop downplaying the "most" part). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kung Fu Man's account of the matter seems not to be neutral and so is contrary to WP:CANVASS. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm... while i don't think this is the right venue for Kung Fu Man to seek guidance in understanding our policy on consensus, i think calling it canvassing might be a bit much. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read WP:CANVAS Mr. Warden? Bringing a dispute to a central discussion board is not canvassing. Artichoker^[talk] 21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly the place to bring it. That's what the VG Project is FOR. It's the opposite of canvassing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Blastoise fails is the article doesn't show any significant real-world impact or critical reception nor any significant creative commentary. Multiple appearances isn't enough.陣内 _Jinnai 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought up creative comentary from non-trivial sources in the AFD, you had never responded, specifically it was commentary on Blastoise's video game role. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Just for being one of the most known pokemon, it does not add anything of notability. If not, that would mean that each of the first 150 pokemon should have an article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Man tried making this same arguement, but I can not find any reliable 3rd party sources that say Kabuto, for example, is also one of the most well known - there is a threshold here. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above posters are correct, unless you can find some real world information (For example, like in the Mewtwo#Cultural impact section), the article should remain merged. That's all there is to it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way; lack of notability. I also feel that Kung Fu Man understands consensus very well and that the personal attacks against him are unwarranted. Vantine84 (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Man has used phrases like "majority of consensus" and others in the past which demonstrate his misunderstanding of the term, and in the recent merge "discussion" explicitly requested editors not respond to others comments, essentially making a vote. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the web sources in the article, one doesn't even mention Blastoise, two only mention it in passing[2][3]. The other sources look like purely informational about appearances in other media. Very little out-of-universe content is presented, specifically in development and reception. Sorry, but in its present state, I agree with the others that the article should redirect to List of Pokémon. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I also agree with the above statements. Merging seems like the best idea. The leftorium 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pile on, but I also agree with the above statements. I tried to do a google search for Blastoise, Pokemon Blue, Pokemon Red, Pokemon Blue Review, Pokemon Red Review, Starter Pokemon, and I looked through the first five pages for each search. None of them came up with enough cultural impact for me to feel that it should be removed from the normal Pokemon list. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-redirected the article, I think (hope) this came to a conclusion after all the posts. Thanks for your time folks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, this is getting too much. Either find something more to add to the article, or stop fighting the merge. There is basicly the same amount of information. --_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes especially considering most editors here are basing their opinions on online sources which this article is not basing it's notability on. ghits are not the end all of assessing notability, this is not my opinion but standard wikipedia guidance. if anyone here read through the AFD discussion they would have seen which sources are supporting the threshold for inclusion, "non-trivial coverage in third-party sources". --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it doesn't have any real world cultural impact section like other Pokémon do. It's great that you have book sources, but none of them talk about what effect Blastoise has had on the real world. If this would be enough to have an article, there would an article on every Pokémon right now, but consensus has established that Pokémon articles need real cultural impact to have their own articles (notice the cultural impact section in other Pokémon articles: Pikachu, Mew, Mewtwo, Jigglypuff). I just don't think it deserves its own article because it doesn't meet the standards laid out by the other existing articles. If you can dig up enough for a cultural impact section, I'd be happy to support the creation of an article, but for now I have to side firmly with Kung Fu Man. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we work on the lists? I'd really love to see the 1-20 list made into a GL. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my thought exactly. Instead of working on what the articles used to be, focus on what they are NOW. They are really short entries that could be alot bigger and better. I havent been working on them lately cause I have had alot on my plate, but I really want to see those be complete as well. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Pokémon species articles need so they can be kept is notable critical reception and commentary. It seems that because of the whole issue about them all having their own articles, which they haven't in two years, Pokémon species require a whole new level of notability. It's really unfortunate, especially because many not-as-notable characters from Final Fantasy and Digimon have their own articles, and no one really cares. By the way, New Age Retro Hippie, there's no such thing as a GL, though I don't really see why not... Tezkag72 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it exist elsewhere is no excuse. If you feel those character articles need to be reigned in, feel free to propose such. Likely they do. However, there are only a limited number of people.陣内 _Jinnai 04:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have a Highbeam/LexisNexis account?

I'm working on a collaboration to bring Thief: The Dark Project up to quality status. It's progressing smoothly so far, but several articles that contain necessary information are only available through a Highbeam account or equivalent. If anyone could give me a hand with these articles ([4], [5], [6]), it'd be great. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found [7] and [8] on NewsBank. Can I send them to you in an email? The leftorium 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game external link templates

There are a bunch of templates here with spotty/inconsistent usage and I wanted to get some community consensus about what we should do with them. I guess a thing to keep in mind is that external links on Wikipedia (and carried forward, websites that we bless with external link templates) should provide a significant amount of information that the ideal conception of the article does NOT contain (such as screenshot galleries, alternate boxart, extended release info, related news-type articles, etc.), per WP:EL. Here are some of the ones I have some small issue with (others may have problems too).

Template:GameFAQs - dunno if this is necessary, most people know GFAQs and don't need Wikipedia to point them there
Template:Moby developer - could be combined with Template:MobyGames in the same way as Template:AMG
Template:Nintendo.com news - only used once, Nintendo.com seems to have a history of removing old stories from their archives, suggest making the archive-link template the main Nintendo.com template
Template:Playstation.com - only a handful of uses, doesn't provide too much more than MobyGames does
Template:RPGC shrine - no uses, redlink'd to deleted article
Template:StrategyWiki - same as GFAQs, is Wikipedia in the business of providing these links?
Template:Ttg - only one use, same as Playstation.com
Template:WoS pub - same as Moby developer
Template:Wos title - how is this different from Template:WoS game?
Template:Xbox achievements - only one use, same as GFAQs
Template:Xbox.com - only two uses, same as Playstation.com

Thoughts, anyone? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think delete everything but Template:Moby developer. That one should be merged. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{GameFAQs}} should be kept. Although most gamers know GameFAQs, most average people don't and usually the profile provides a lot more detailed information that Wiki doesn't supply. BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't Gamefaqs un-reliable? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have been thinking about that. They are a user-contributed site, but GameSpot uses it for release dates, etc. I think if we consider GameFAQs unreliable, we need to question the reliability of GameSpot. But either way, external links don't have the same qualifications as reliable sources. IMDb is used on every single film article as an external links and is not allowed as a reference. BOVINEBOY2008 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought this in the past about the reliability of the GameFAQS-Gamespot crossover, but they are still a lot more reliable than almost any other source when it comes to games. Govvy (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs uses GameSpot's database of release dates.[9]. That's why GameFAQs is allowed to be used for release dates. All other content, specifically user generated, is deemed unreliable.

I'm not completely against the GameFAQs and Strategy Wiki links because a number of readers to come here expecting game guide info. Those links generally provide them with that. However, I wouldn't really miss them if they were gone. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Second that. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I would favor deleting everything. I don't find Moby that useful, many times our articles provide more information than Moby ones, especially in very old and very new games. StrategyWiki is fine from what I remember, since we cut information from here and export it there. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we had a world of spectrum template. As a regular viewer of the site I'd have to say it is a valuable resource to link to. It contains numerous magazine scans (not just reviews but features and adverts), inlay scans (always useful), screenshots, misc data about the game, and offers games as downloads (only if they obtain permission to distribute the games). They also link to wikipedia when we have an article on a spectrum game, bonus. Someone another 03:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, you mean the duplicate. I'd just get rid of that, WoS game is the one being used. Would also get rid of any hardly in use. Someone another 03:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Talk:Knuckles the Echidna to clarify "recurring elements"

The general gist of the argument going on at Talk:Knuckles the Echidna is that an element appears in one game and can appear in other games by "Locking-On" the game in which the element appears with the another game, so does this make it a recurring element in the series or is it game guide material? CIGraphix (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you're saying.陣内 _Jinnai 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more triviality than gameguide. Basically Sonic 2 and Sonic 3 can be interfaced with Sonic & Knuckles which allows Knuckles to be used in the earlier games and some small tweaks. Well worth mentioning in the Sonic & Knuckles article (whether it warrants the level of detail currently present is another matter), but mentioning these relatively obscure differences in Knuckles' character article is another matter, they're just gimmicks to catch the kids' eyes, like all those nearly identical Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles figures they were churning out back in the day. If these er.. transformations haven't been present in the numerous other appearances of the character in misc. media then it's applying undue weight. Someone another 01:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it counts as a "legitimate" appearance...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was just too vague, I was trying to keep it general and guide everyone to the discussion itself. The the main question is, is the element of Knuckles super transformation into 'Super Knuckles' a recurring element based on its ability to appear in multiple games in which it didn't originally appear (Sonic 2 and Sonic 3) by using the Sonic and Knuckles game's Lock-On ability? A second question is does a mention in Sonic Chronicles (but not an actual appearance) make it recurring, or would it be considered more like the collectible cards in Sonic Rivals? CIGraphix (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would be more like retconning, and IMO would be recurring. If you're talking about the same thing in Sonic Chronicles, then I would guess that it's part of the plot and therefore legitimately recurring.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to work on "Racism in video games"?

If so, please discuss! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more exact than that? That's kinda a helluva broad subject that's potentially going to be as much a mess as the homosexuality one without care. o_O--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What homosexuality one? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT characters in video games. I ran across it awhile back when working on Poison's article...it's a doozy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general article covering racism in games. Won't discuss in-universe racism, at least for the most part, mostly real-life accusations of racism (ie RE5, White PSP ad). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I feel that it would be better to use that more in the related articles than a grouped one, especially since, unlike the homosexuality example, most accusations of racism are the reactions of one group to a game or element of a game. Maybe "Accusations of racism in video games" would be better, but even then it's probably better off handled in the individual articles than a grouped one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this article is made, I demand that it should be at least semi-protected. I don't wanna hear any racist jokes. It could hurt people. :( GamerPro64 (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An "Accusations of racism" page doesn't sound like a good idea. If a game is clearly racist, it wouldn't fit on the page, and if it's not clearly racist, listing accusations of such would constitute WP:UNDUE weight. A page about racism in general doesn't seem like it would make a good encyclopedia article, since if a game is racist and notable enough for Wikipedia it will probably have a section describing the controversy and be listed on List of controversial video games as well.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an ambitious project. Certainly doable, but very difficult. I'd say something like this would require very strong sourcing. And not just our normal IGN, GameSpot type sources, I'm talking about print articles from gaming and non-gaming publications (magazines and newspapers), in addition to whatever academic sources are available. That's the only way I can see that avoiding a giant $h!tstorm of negative bickering (not just between us, but among IPs and non-video game editors). Reliable sourcing generally stops most of that, so thorough research would need to be done well before any editing.

Personally, I believe that higher level articles that cover broad topics are best done after the related lower level articles are done. Like working on the individual subjects first (RE5, White PSP ad, etc.), then using those sources to build a more generalized article. I'm taking that approach to Pac-Man, which has probably one of the most diverse legacies I've encountered in an article yet. I'm working on Pac-Man (Atari 2600) and Ms. Pac-Man first, to make the legacy section more manageable.

Good luck with if you decide to start it. Feel free to hit me up for a copy edit if you need it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid that, since racism in commercial games is rare, the article would end up being a list anyway. Unlike Portrayal of women in video games (a lot of video games have women), there would be a handful of games examined on the page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm is right. It would basicaly be a weak article. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bounties -> TODO list proposal, A-class assessments still backlogged

Recently we've gotten the bounties for three articles related to this project at the top of the page...and I have to admit they're a bit of an eyesore being up there. Could we possibly add a slot to the TODO page so they'll still be at the top but less in-your-face? A boon about doing it this way too would be having it show on every vg article as well for anyone that checks since TODO is copied to all of them.

Other than that...Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests is still backlogged with 6 A-class requests, three of which that need another vote to go one way or the other. If someone could take a gander and review, it'd help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we shouldn't– wouldn't it be best if the bounties would reach the maximum number of people? I'll go through the A-class requests in a bit and vote. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's all five A-class canidates (minus Mega Man 2, now an A-class article). GamerPro64 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Kung Fu. I made an edit to /todo, but if someone wants to tweak that, feel free. --Izno (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read Music of the Final Fantasy series last week, but got backed up with other things. I'll try to post some comments this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Content dispute at Third person shooter

Anyone care to cast their eye over this: Talk:Third-person_shooter#Tomb_Raider_is_not_a_TPS. bridies (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some input

Can I get some input on the following merge discussions:

TTN (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center table

Anyone that's good with the mechanics of Wikipedia, is it possible to place a table (in this case Template:Video game multiple console reviews in Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy) in the horizontal center of the page? I only know how to do that with text. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centering a table that does not take up the majority of the width of the page generally looks bad; the only reason that it couldn't run on the side right now is the box is crazy wide. I replaced the stars with numbers, which makes the box not overpower the text so much on my monitor, but you may want to consider breaking it up into two boxes above each other. --Pres N 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does take up the majority of the page width; that's why I chose to use Template:- to not let the text wrap around the left side. But you're right, that would somewhat overpower the text, and that could very well come up in the FAC. So, I've kept it how you made it. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just leave it like it is? It looks fine...

You could put the template inside this Wikitable though.

--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but it just makes the text big. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table really shouldn't be centered. The focus of the section should be in prose, the table is only there to aid the prose, not to overpower it. BOVINEBOY2008 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be made collapsable if it's detracting that much from the prose.陣内 _Jinnai 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing the template does not resolve issues with regard to width—only height. SharkD (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the fact that I think it's fine is because I have a 1680 width monitor =P On my screen it looks better left to the side.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's Island DS

An IP claims that Yoshi's Island DS is a remake of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. [10][11] Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its wrong. Its a squel. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I havent played the DS game, but judging from what the article says, I would say it is a remake. Sounds like it is the same story and gameplay with added characters and such. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've played it to completion. It uses entirely new levels, a brand new plot, new bosses, new gameplay mechanics, etc. Ocarina is more a remake of ALttP than Yoshi's Island DS is of YI. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I've also played through both games. It is a sequel—made to play similar to the original game—and not a remake. I'm blocked at work from viewing the source in the lede; what does it say to justify "DS is an enhanced remake of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island"? —Ost (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the IP is mistaken. I left them a message earlier. – Steel 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots needed for Pool of Radiance

After discussing with JimmyBlackwing, I think we need a couple of new screenshots to really set it off for GA and better. I have a combat scene from the NES version, but I'm not so sure it's the best; anyone got a better shot of the overhead view?

Also, I need a good first-person perspective shot. I think these are best accomplished as part of the exploration mode - walking around the city or wilderness or whatever, so you see what your character sees. This could possibly also be accomplished with a portrait shot of a player character, or non-combat encounter with a creature or NPC, or whatever you can find.

Jimmy recommends a "robust" FUR for each, and no watermarks. Anyone got anything to help out? :) BOZ (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless their is something notable in with the NPCs, or a particular screenshot is notable in someway for gaining infamy, it's one is usually enough. It shows the level of graphics detail, the basic setup for the game, etc. See Final Fantasy IV which boasts 1 screenshot and one concept artwork even though their are multiple types of possible iteractions.

Don't let me discourage you as I think it can be benifical to have more than one screenshot, but be prepared to defend multiple screenshots. Also a portrait of the hero to show what he looks like is better suited for character articles, if at all.陣内 _Jinnai 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The player creates the portrait for the PCs, so that might be a good reason to have such a screenshot? BOZ (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the gameplay description there are three main types fo screens talked about (maybe 4), one of which is already covered: character creation, combat, exploration and possibly menus (wasn't sure on the last). As I see it, unless character creation is a major part of the game, such as in Darklands (video game), I'd say it can be skipped as its not something that's generally reoccuring or has signifigant impact (Darklands is because you have to create multiple characters multiple times and its fairly complex and involved and has at time signifigant impact on gameplay and starting location). Even then it's still debatable. Exploration, however, is something that is integral to the game. Also since the perspective differs from battle that helps.陣内 _Jinnai 06:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the exploration screen is probably what I'd need most. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flyers more notable than gameplay?

Senthryl has been going around replacing images of gameplay in video game info boxes (usually arcade games) with images of promotional flyers for the games (such as here). He then removes the cover request from the talk page.

I contest these changes since:

Promotional flyers often do not contain representation of gameplay
Are not notable, because many players have never seen any of the flyers in question
Do not constitute a "cover" as that is normally reserved for boxes for home versions of games.

Everytime this has been discussed before on the project, the consensus has been that arcade game flyers are not notable and don't belong in an article. I just want to see if my understanding is still sound. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem if he's putting the flyer up as an infobox cover and moving the screenshot to the article? Both images are still in the article that way. --Torsodog^Talk 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted this is for arcade cabinet games in which there is no official cover art. But I agree with Frecklefoot - the promotion image is being added in addition to the gameplay image but without adding anything new to to justify non-free use. The only possible replacement would be of the game's logo alongside a screenshot, but getting a clean version of the logo can prove difficult. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped doing this as soon as I discovered that this was a point of debate (I thought it was a non-issue). I've asked this question previously at the images department, which seemed to have evoked no response. Before starting to upload these flyers, I looked to see if this was resolved previously. I found another unanswered question in the image department archives, and after this conversation found a debate in the wikiproject archives, which seemed to me to suggest that flyers were preferable. I'd very much like to see what the current consensus is, since the images guidelines don't seem to definitively state how to treat arcade articles. — Senthryl ^(talk) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the last debate, and it was pretty inconclusive. But it did point out that flyers are essentially advertisements, and that therefore their value is pretty negligible, which I agree with. But I'm interested to see what others have to say. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Flyers would better to have in an infobox then gameplay. Gameplay belongs in the body of the article, not the infobox. As long as its getting moved and not replaced, it shouldnt really matter._Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion they are no more or less an advertisement then the game covers and they prove to be a better replacement for the random gameplay screenshots in the infobox. Ultimatly im sure a free arcade cabinet image would be preferrable for the infobox. Also the point that they dont contain representation of gameplay isnt limited to flyers, its also very common for box art. My opinion is they are more or less equivalent. Salavat (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a flyer is similar to having boxart for home games. Having a single representative game play shot in the body of the article should satisfy fair use as well. It looks to me like Senthry was doing the best thing...but that's just my thoughts. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I support the use of posters and flyers to identify arcade games in the infobox. Screenshots never belong in the infobox in the first place in my opinion.--Remurmur (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the flyers are the closest thing to box art that arcade games have.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord British

Does anybody know if Lord British can be improved upon at all? I'm not really familiar with Ultima, but it seems like it's a fairly iconic series, so it may have some sort of potential. TTN (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does he really need an article of his own? Sure, lots of people know him, but again does he really need hiis own article? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on any possible development and reception information available. I know nothing of the character, which is why I'm asking here to see if anyone does have some sort of idea. TTN (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much of the character myself, other than gut feeling is it would possibly be better combined with Richard Garriott.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it should be merged into List of Ultima characters as an Ultima character. Avatar (Ultima) might also need to be merged.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've attracted an inclusionist to this set of articles, so if I could get some more comments stating that no current Ultima character needs an article, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon magazine's "The Role of Computers" column - this time I mean business! :)

OK, in a previous thread, I dealt with Dragon's early-80s "The Electric Eye" column, which ran in most issues from Dragon #33-63 and profiled aspects of computers including some video games. I managed to add tidbits to several VG articles (and created stubs for some of them), including early text-based games Civil War and Star Trek, Scott Adams's "Adventure" series (Adventureland, Pirate Adventure, Strange Odyssey, and Ghost Town), as well as other early games Dungeon of Death, Android Nim, and Time Traveller. The column ended abruptly, and I found only two more reviews in the early 1980s, one of which covered Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord, Akalabeth: World of Doom, and Crush, Crumble and Chomp!, and another which covered Dunzhin.

Oh, but no, I'm not hardly done yet! :) Dragon's "The Role of Computers" was the second of three computer related columns that I'm aware of, so I'm hitting that next. It started in 1986 in issue #110 and was quite a bit more in-depth than "The Electric Eye" on computer games and ran for much longer. As I had stated previously I was going to add a mention of the column to the article of every game that had been reviewed. The column ran in most issues up through 1993 in issue #196 with "The Lessers" as reviewers. The new column "Eye of the Monitor" began in the following issue; reviewer Sandy Petersen wrote the column from #197-209, and after that the column was either by "Jay & Dee", Lester Smith (once), or any or all of the trio of Ken Ralston, Paul Murphy, and David "Zeb" Cook, and ran in that schizophrenic fashion sporadically from #211-223. I'll take care of "Eye of the Monitor" if I make it through "The Role of Computers" in the first place; not sure what Dragon did after that third column went kaput, but my guess is that they realized other magazines were doing a better job handling computer games, and decided just to just stick to pen and paper.

"The Role of Computers" usually tackled more than one game per issue; since it ran for some 70-80 issues, I'd say that safely puts us into the realm of over a hundred games from 1986-1993! As I've stated earlier, I don't intend to do more than put a blurb into each article with a comment that interested parties can seek me out for more info. Hopefully there is a higher percentage here of games which already have articles, because needing to toss up a stub more than occasionally will definitely slow me down! Issue #110 starts the column off with a review of the MacIntosh version of Wizardry, which I will get to shortly! BOZ (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 526: / Line 526: @@
 :::I don't know much of the character myself, other than gut feeling is it would possibly be better combined with [[Richard Garriott]].--[[User:Kung Fu Man|Kung Fu Man]] ([[User talk:Kung Fu Man|talk]]) 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 ::::It looks like it should be merged into [[List of Ultima characters]] as an Ultima character. [[Avatar (Ultima)]] might also need to be merged.--<sub><small>[[User:Zxcvbnm|ZXCVBNM]] ([[User Talk:Zxcvbnm|TALK]])</small></sub> 23:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
+I've attracted an inclusionist to this set of articles, so if I could get some more comments stating that no current Ultima character needs an article, that would be appreciated. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 == ''[[Dragon (magazine)|Dragon]]'' magazine's "The Role of Computers" column - this time I mean business! :) ==