Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 75

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

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

→

Is this picture fair use?

File:LaraCroftTombRaiderEvoWUnderw.jpg is used in the Tomb Raider article, but consists of a crap-load of screenshots, one from every Tomb Raider game. I'm doubtful this qualifies under fair use since it's a "gallery" of sorts.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. I had to get rid of it from the Lara Croft article too months back.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for a replacement, I stumbled across one or two similar images in magazines, that I believe we could claim fair use on. I'm assuming that we can claim fair use on legitimately published montage images, correct?

Kung Fu Man- I'm almost done looking through all my print sources. Turns out I have a lot more than I thought. :-p Didn't find anything on Ivy good, except a few mentions here and there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Even if its a single picture from a magazine, it would still be multiple pieces of non-free copyrighted to whomever the TR properties are assigned to; the magazine's use of the images are either through fair use or content license agreements, but they don't own those images. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this picture and I think this should be deleted. Anyone agree? GamerPro64 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's a cheap way around fair use, trying to sneak several fair use images as one. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's up for deletion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be faster to remove it and make sure it stays removed, the deletion discussion process can take forever in light of other processes on wikipedia.

@Guyinblack25: Few mentions might be useful regardless at least, depending on what's being said in them and what context.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, is there a guideline on use of montages such as this? Though its clear that this particular case really pushes the line too far, should two or more images be put together in one file and given one overall rationale, or should they be uploaded separately, given separate rationales and put together using the {{Imageframe}} function in the article body (as seen here and here)? -- Sabre (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's generally the case that if you create a montage, it counts as X non-free images for the purposes of trying to determine if WP:NFCC#3a is met. Each image must have its source and other details identified in the montage's rationale if that is the case. This presumes that the montage was prepared by a group other than the actual copyright owner; if Sega for example published a Sonic timeline with many different versions of Sonic, that would then be a single image from Sega. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pokémon/ReceptionArchive

Kinda self explanatory, the idea is that the Pokémon franchise has such a large volume of characters that doing this will enable us to get a better idea of what may or may not work as an article, and steadily build upon each section and add those as needed for subjects without articles so that once one hits sufficient size, we can full develop a subject and give it proper treatment. I realize this won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a lot better to make this work as an organized effort.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If nothing helps to split these ones out, at least such information will help improve the list articles. Mind if I add this information to the lists? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't see why not, some of it is already there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I just noticed that. :p - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yknow, I think we should work on cleaning up the list of Pokémon 1-20. The only problem is that the connection between the 20 is weak, and any commentary would have to be separate from each other. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS now open

The peer review for List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Final Fantasy VII

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Final Fantasy VII#File:FFVIIsephirothkillsaeris.jpg regarding the edition of an image of a scene in the story. The discussion has become quite long and it would be good if somebody experienced in these things could join the discussion. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WonderSwan line merge

I purpose a merge of the WonderSwan, WonderSwan Color, and SwanCrystal articles under the name WonderSwan line in the hope of pooling together enough information on these short lived consoles to further improve the articles as a whole. An example of my proposition can be seen under My Sandbox at MystifiableUnknown(Please note that this is nothing more than a copying over from the original WonderSwan articles I have not yet been able to properly edit it).

MystifiableUnknown (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think WonderSwan line would be a more appropriate title. Either way, "family"/"line" should be lowercase. -sesuPRIME 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

An article like Game Boy line could be created.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.陣内 _Jinnai 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "line" could also go in parentheses. SharkD (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles should not be merged. Each is a clearly notable system, and some found success in Japan. It may be worth creating an analogue to Game Boy line, with parent and child articles, but each system can stand alone and should be allowed room to grow. - hahnch e n 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There aren't as many consoles as in the Game Boy line, though, so it may be OK to keep them separate.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After doing further research on the subject I am now convinced that my proposal is unnecessary. I had thought when I posted it that there was not enough information on the three separate game systems to make three complete articles I now believe I was wrong, that there is in fact more than enough.

MystifiableUnknown (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Atari video game burial

Is Atari video game burial something that needs to exist on its own? If the information currently present cannot be improved upon, it could probably be used to strengthen the video game crash article or the E.T. article. TTN (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge; three of its 5 paragraphs are duplicated in ET, and what's added is perfectly fine there. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge to what Masem. I would think the E.t one since they "buried" only E.T copies. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd merge to the video game crash article, since according to the article, it's not completely known whether all the cartridges are E.T.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge in both articles and copyedit for context. The subject is relevant to both articles. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right Megata. It should be merged. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of the E.T. merger. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Most of the info is already summarized at E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)#Impact and legacy. I only added a brief pop culture reference to the game article. I'd say the bulk of it can go to North American video game crash of 1983. That's were it should redirected to as well. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

That and a brief mention under History of video games in the relevant section.陣内 _Jinnai 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

GCOTW High importance??

The current GCOTW is an article about a Maxis programmer, who appears to have some notability (though no refs), but I wouldn't say he was high-importance. On the talk page, a user claimed it was a vanity page, but as I said before, he doesn't seem non-notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I downgraded it, in this instance that article is just downright silly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone looking to research an article?

I have recently noticed that the Online print archive, which was designed to be a review index, is also extremely useful as a tool for finding print previews, interviews, features and the like. However, while locating and indexing reviews is difficult, doing the same for other kinds of material would be nearly impossible. Therefore, I thought I would ask if anyone was looking for Mid-Late '90s or Early '00s research material. Even though the Internet Archived pages are there for anyone to access, some of them can be tricky to maneuver; I can help with this, since I learned their workings while digging up reviews. So, if anyone is looking for such information, hit me up on my talk page and I'll see what I can do.

As a warning, though, the archives are extremely random, and some important game articles were never archived. Like I said, I'll see what I can do, but depending on the game, it might not be much. Or I might get lucky and find a treasure trove. Guess you'll just have to ask and find out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Pearl Corkhill now open

The peer review for Pearl Corkhill, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Revival of sorts

In the article Lego Batman: The Video Game, a list of characters has been added. There have been discussions about whether or not this should be included here and here. Anybody know what to do. Well, I would have thought remove it, but I thought I should bring it up here first, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of characters separate article should definitely be deleted. I'm not sure about the one in the article itself, but the game is more like a "roster" so it may be acceptable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nonlinear gameplay#Redirect concerns

Hello, would like some help @ header link. It's a mid-importance article with many pages linking to it. BlazerKnight (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Super Street Fighter IV as a separate article?

Anyone care to give your opinion here? Thanks. --uKER (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Inner German border now open

The peer review for Inner German border, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

List of members

This is a revival of the recently archived discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 73#Largest wikiproject? Where are we on moving our members list out of Category:WikiProject Video games members and into Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members? -sesuPRIME 02:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we got distracted with other things. I'll try to get it going again this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Getting the ball rolling, I created a membership page from the data here. Any member that had not edited after May was not added to the list. Anyone reading this should go to the page now and update your status. I guess the next step is to notify the editors on the inactive list of their pending removal.

On a similar note, some general guidelines and methods to maintain the list wouldn't hurt either. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Surely we have more than 5 active members.

*nudge nudge* *cough cough* *wink wink* (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Is there anywhere more noticable we could mention this? Such as in a banner on the main page and this talk page, or even in that new-fangled edit notice when you edit this page? I'd suggest the newsletter, but as past exhibitions have shown, that's not too good at drawing people to particular tasks like this. -- Sabre (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the to do list. I'm going to see if Xeno or another bot can notify the inactive members. Just thought some people would prefer to avoid the automated response. I'm going to add a news item about the page in the newsletter, but it won't go out until October. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

By "activity", you mean editing video game article, or being active in the Project's page/talk page as well? ӣicҟin\\talk with me\\\\\\\\\\ 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ideally both. But if you edit video game articles and align yourself with the project, then that's enough in my book. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

There's a discussion here about whether or not the list should be alphabetical. -sesuPRIME 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

The membership list is intended to replace the membership category, right? So shouldn't the category be posted at WP:CfD? -sesuPRIME 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. The category has been rather misleading for our purposes, but such a category is fairly common on Wikipedia. Let's see what others have to say. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

This discussion is going nowhere. What would be the reason to keep the category? I can't think of what purpose it would serve. -sesuPRIME 07:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess once the member list is past its first stage, then nominate the category and see if it gets deleted. Just be sure to post the WP:CFD link here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

I personally prefer the category, and I think that something like modifying the userboxen which add the category to take a parameter "active" (with binary options 'no' and 'yes') which will remove the category would be a good thing to implement. --Izno (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Do you think it should be inactive by default to avoid over-population? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

No, as the users who add it after we implement the change would be unlikely to include the |active=yes parameter which would opt them into the category. Default to inclusion. We can trim the ranks of the project every year or two as we've done just now. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow up- To the coders here, would the following code added to {{User WPVG}} accomplish the intended effect described above?

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{active|}}}|<!-- nothing -->|[[Category:WikiProject Video games members|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{active|}}}|no||[[Category:WikiProject Video games members|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly> --Izno (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

CE help preparing for FAC

I've been trying to recruit some people to look over Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo before I submit it for FAC. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Thanks! --Torsodog^Talk 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You should get a better image for the article. Showing the distance fog comparison is not that important, or useful. Instead, you should have an image in the Gameplay section, given you talk about the HUD and aircraft. And get a good screenshot, one showing the some action, enemies, and a firefight. - hahnch e n 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried adding a gameplay shot in Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, but everyone at FAC jumped on me for having too many free images, so I just removed it and didn't worry about one here. I guess I can add it though and see what they say at FAC. --Torsodog^Talk 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating free use gameplay demonstrations?

For the foreign language video game editors, that is. I was inspired by the presence of a "gameplay" image in an article I wrote, Pong Toss: Frat Party Games, that I think explains the article subject well and allowing me to avoid using any fair use images. For example, no one "owns" the "notes going down the board" engine, so someone could make a simple monochrome image of this engine. This way, foreign language Wikis can get an image to actually demonstrate the gameplay, and it doesn't clash with their rules on fair use images. Anyone interested in this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a decent selection of free use screenshots at commons:Category:Screenshots_by_video_games which you could use. But the issue is that you have to make it clear that the screenshot isn't actually of the subject, so it could be misleading. You also have to be wary of falling into the derivative work trap. But the biggest issue is getting involvement from members of foreign Wikipedia projects. I've uploaded images to commons before, and most of them never even find their way onto foreign Wikipedias (because Commons is overwhelmingly English - a problem that Wikimedia need to address) - hahnch e n 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I imagine that we just have to make sure the gameplay demonstration is for a certain genre, rather than a specific game. And it should be easy to find various people to communicate with the foreign Wikis. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think images like File:Portal physics-2.svg and File:Circlestrafing.svg are some of our cooler video game images on Wikipedia. I've only messed with Inkscape a bit, but it looks like you can manipulate vector shapes pretty easily. I'd be willing to give some images a shot. What did you have in mind? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

Need a second opinion

Looking at ZSNES, bsnes, and Snes9x, someone's placed a features section in each article, that lists mostly the same things for each emu, and most of it isn't "notable features", as is claimed. "Windowed and fullscreen display modes"? I was just going to take it out, but maybe someone who knows the standard for stuff like this better than I could give a second opinion? Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 07:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Software features need contextual coverage, like a review. Laundry lists tell us nothing about if or how well the program actually does the things it claims to do, and crosses into advertising and OR. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I took those out of there. I also noticed that you proposed FinalBurn Alpha for deletion not too long ago and an IP removed the prod. I think it should be brought to AFD, 'cause it's not really notable at all. If not that, it would need to be rewritten entirely, to remove sentences like this,

"However, the frantic speed of CPS2 Shock releases contrasted with Dave's more laid back approach, and Dave soon got tired of the pressure of releasing new versions of his emulator every time a new XOR was produced."

I could very well be wrong, but that sentence just reads really, really poorly to me. Anywho, since I can't look up refs or anything from work, I'll see if I can do it later, and if it's not doable I'll put it up at AFD in about... 20 hours. Sound good? Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 08:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother AFDing all of them, just merge them to the list of emulators instead. That way the emulator devs won't get pissed and people will still be able to get the relevant information.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. AFD is only if you want things to be outright deleted because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia or because there is an argument that could only be solved through AFD. Merge them into one easy to use list, sort of like this. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

List of video game console emulators is the list in question.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, please do not "merge" non-notable emulators into the list, because there's really no content that can effectively be merged: the list is a standalone list that only serves for navigation and rudimentary comparisons. It is not a content-based list, which means any redirect topic will be removed from the list as well, since there is no article to navigate to. Preserving information about emulators would be better served by redirecting them to the most relevant console page (if there's no Emulation section, make one). Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But the console's article certainly doesn't need information on every "non-notable" emulator; at least the appropriate list article is intended to be a list. Anomie ⚔ 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's intended to be a list that meets encyclopedic standards, not a list of all the cruft that was deemed unsuitable for prose. That approach, unfortunately, has already been tried[1]. If the emulator is not worth mentioning, that applies across the board. In that case, don't merge, just delete it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

VG project academy?

Has anyone else seen the Military history WikiProject's online training school? Personally, I think it's awesome and think we should emulate it or something as close as possible. What do you guys think about the academy? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

Now isn't that elaborate. We don't need anything that extensive; in some cases it seems there's information here that exists elsewhere, and doesn't pertain to writing Milhist articles. It does however, put all that stuff in one place. Having more guidelines written in a WP:VG context would be great. We could certainly stand to have more that what exists on WP:VG/GL, for sure. Also, it needs a goofy video game-ish name. --gakon5 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines page was written to be more of a quick overview. Stuff like writing guides are meant to provide more depth for editors looking to navigate more subtle nuances to writing video game guides. Of course, I don't think we need anything quite as extensive that MilHist has, but I think some in-depth guides tailored to video game articles would help our members. Any ideas for names? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

It would be too hard to maintain IMO. The guidelines page itself is already hard to maintain. Sentences are added and edits are generally made without regards to the prose's flow or context, and this has resulted in several contradictory lines before: [2], [3], [4]. I believe these problems - which are really about wording rather than the guidelines themselves - arise because the edits are made without rereading the whole thing to make sure the added content is coherent with the existing content. This is understandable, since the page and some sections are very long and wordy. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some how-to guides could give more detail in a separate page. That way, the guidelines could be trimmed down to more concise and manageable descriptions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

TFA heads up

Super Smash Bros. Brawl will "Today's Featured article" on October 13th. Apparently Raul is mad at Masem or something. :-p

Anyway, some watchers to catch vandalism and the normal main page shenanigans would be helpful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

Heh, though that's 3 VGs in less than 2 months. I'm waiting for the torches and pitchforks rallying behind "too many video game articles". --MASEM (t) 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Strider-related articles.

Some other user decided to split the content of Strider into the following articles.

Strider Hiryu (character), it used to be just Strider Hiryu, but I decided to use that as a disambiguation.
Strider Hiryu (series), which serves as an overview to the original arcade and NES games, as well as their sequels.

I see no point for either articles. The former is just in-universe fancruft and the latter is nothing but an overview of four games that could be covered (and were) in a single sub-section in Strider (arcade game). Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and merge the articles already. There was really not much to be merged anyway. Jonny2x4 (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TFA request

Hi there! Maybe you don't know what to get me for my 35th birthday, but I have an idea; how about Planescape: Torment on the main page for 12/12/09? ;) Not only would that be a nice present for me, but it is the 10th anniversary of the game's release so that should go a long way to help get it some support. I'll be trying to pay attention for when the availability opens up, if one of you doesn't beat me to it. :) BOZ (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I like how the article uses WebCite abundantly. That will certainly make things less aggravating in the long run. « ₣M₣ » 04:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden Sigma and Sigma 2

I decided I ought to get further comment from the project on these. The first article hasn't improved much and has failed to show a need to be separate, and the second, while not being out for much time yet, doesn't really demonstrate any significant differences. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a definite "merge" IMHO. Once you remove the gameguide cruft there's not much left.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I support. What's the point of having two articles for the same game, when there's not much to write about? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

CotW problem, again

This week's CotW is Cheating in video games. Its importance is high. Should it really be that important? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying... that it didn't get that ranking legitimately?--Pres N 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase. Does an article about video game cheating really need to have an High-importance? To me, it doesn't seem that important to the WikiProject. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was too subtle, adding italics. Anyways, I agree that it doesn't seem like it should be high-class. --Pres N 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - I think it should be high importance, considering it has so many "child" articles such as Cheating in online games and all the different types of cheats, though they might not be notable themselves.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, you'll have to check it up with the guideline page. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fortress (video game) and Fortress (Square Enix)

New Age Retro Hippie recently moved Fortress (video game) to Fortress (Square Enix) to make the first article be about a 2001 GBA game. I have three questions concerning this:

Shouldn't it have a disambiguation link to Fortress (Square Enix) above the lead?
Is "Fortress (Square Enix)" a good article title or should it be renamed to something else. The guideline says use (YEAR video game) but the game doesn't have a release date yet and the game's title is most probably non-final.
Is the GBA game notable in the first place?

Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few sources such as ign and gamespot for the Game Boy Advance title, so there should be enough to support an article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Fortress was pretty well-covered when it was released; I've read several reviews and articles about it.

And on the subject of disambig, I chose Square Enix because both the release date and title are not final, and it's multi-platform. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They should ultimately both be classified by release date (e.g. 2001 video game). Fortress (video game) should redirect to the disambig page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when we get an idea of what Fortress will become, but as it stands, I think the name Fortress for the SE game is only known by people who would do the research, and as such, I don't think it's necessary to make Fortress (video game) redirect to the disambig. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

When (if) Fortress is ever announced, we can revisit it - but I think the current titles are the best available. I find it highly unlikely that SE would ever release a Final Fantasy title without emblazoning Final Fantasy somewhere in the name, so I really doubt that Fortress is anything more than a temporary codename. I've place a dab link on Fortress (video game) to cover things. - hahnch e n 12:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good name only if there arent any other games with the name. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 07:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Ryan (Bioshock)

Anyone who can help expand this, please do so. I was kind of foolish and ended up spoiling a lot of content for the game for myself, so I'm pretty much done, though I'll be playing Bioshock so I can join in with the editing. Thanks! Here are some links that may help (spoilers!): [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]- The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts in the talk page, so I'll paste the same comment here. There's no need for giving Andrew Ryan his own article. Its not a matter whether the character is "notable enough" to warrant his own article, but whether that notability is independent of the works he's in. Even if he's very popular, his notability is too dependent on Bioshock to justify a separate article. Also, why just Andrew Ryan? Doesn't the game have other characters too? Why not just create a characters section for the article and go from there? Its ironic that you mentioned Citizen Kane and Atlas Shrugged. The former doesn't even have a separate article for the title character, while the latter has a separate article covering the characters in the novel (instead of individual articles covering each one). Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite agree with that logic. Big Daddy itself has its own article, and when it became "good", it was still a one appearance character. There are many different character articles about someone with only one appearance, and they exist because the article can't sustain such content; the BioShock article is simply too big. And your argument ventures too far into "Other stuff doesn't exist". The reason I picked Andrew Ryan was because Jack, Atlas, Fontaine, etc. are all less covered by reliable secondary sources, and made a much smaller impact to the title. Not to say it's a usable source, but Something Awful's photoshop week, where they made fake Time's "Person of the Year" covers featured Andrew Ryan, not any of the above mentioned characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, you can pull off an article about any specific character or facet of a best selling game, under the current interpretation of WP:RS and WP:N. Unless some precedents are set at AFD, and the guidelines re-examined, this is not going to change. As long as you can pull out snippets from reviews and lists, then Andrew Ryan (Bioshock), Talim and Doctor Wily are going to stay. - hahnch e n 12:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As a different route, it may be better to have a combined article about Rapture and Ryan, as both go hand in hand with all the "Atlus Shrugged" illusions and the like - that is, I would think it very hard to talk about one without a full discussion of the other. And in that sense, the Rapture/Ryan topic is certainly notable outside direct context of the game. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also chime in that developer statements should probably go into the development section, even if they're comparisons or statements that they considered it a favorite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If your aiming for higher levels on the assessment tier in the future, it might be worth converting the references to cite web now, to avoid alot of extra work in the future. Just my comment. --Taelus (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I plan on fixing the refs. I've just decided to do it all at once from now on, as a force of habit - I rarely make articles in the mainspace of this type, preferring to make them in userspace first. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Family Computer Disk System vs. Famicom Disk System

I having a minor edit war against a couple of other users regarding the Super Mario Bros.. They insist on using the informal name of the "Famicom Disk System" over its official name, "Family Computer Disk System" (or just the "Disk System"), since the former is more commonly used in English writing. From my understanding, the platform's official name is always used first (i.e. Nintendo Entertainment System, PlayStation 2), followed by whatever abbreviated name they're most commonly known by (NES, PS2). Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Famicom is such a widely used abbreviation, it doesn't matter. It's like replacing "ATM" with "Automated Teller Machine".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

True. But its more formal to use the full name either way. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic's criteria for inclusion

Does anyone know if a source is listed on a aggregate site like Metacritic[10] makes a source reliable? « ₣M₣ » 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While I think it should, apparently consensus is that it does not make it a reliable source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Meta site says they reevaluate their publication lists. Any idea what criteria must be met to get on there? « ₣M₣ » 00:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Go to [11] and then scroll past the big list of publications. From a piece of the FAQ: For games and music, we attempted to identify publications that (1) were well-regarded in the industry and were known for quality reviews; (2) actually seemed to produce quality reviews (or, if not, were so influential in the industry that they had to be included); and (3) had a good quantity of reviews. We also tended to prefer publications which provided reviews online, so that our users would be able to read the complete reviews on the Internet. So that's their reasoning, at least for games. --gakon5 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is "No." The long answer is, if you want to make a case for a source then its use on Metacritic et al might be considered as partial evidence. Nifboy (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I'm having an argument with Kizor about including a picture of a female character's ass in Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. It is debates like these that make me weep for the future of this encyclopedia project. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What's ironic is that the character actually received criticism for that thong (amongst other aspects of her)...left my two bits anyway, pointing out it was silly and OR and all that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion spree

I'd like to post this note to inform vgproj contributors that User:Andrevan has been on a deletion spree for the past few days. He has been prodding and nominating articles for deletion left and right. I have nothing against this administrator and nothing against deleting non-notable articles, but I do believe this rate of nominations is too rapid and not being handled with enough care. For example, less than two minutes elapsed between Andrevan's prodding of The Adventures of Fatman and Nelly Cootalot: Spoonbeaks Ahoy!, which suggests that he might not have read the second article and all its sources quite thoroughly. In addition, his nomination of Aveyond series has been met with a massive consensus of Keep votes. Furthermore, the 'previous nominations' links (on that page) lead to nominations for Amaranth Games instead of Aveyond series, which apparently goes to show that something was copy-pasted too quickly without proof-checking. Again, please understand that this is not a 'pitch and fork' comment from an anti-Wikipedian or angry person. I would just like to point out what appears to be a case of 'haste makes waste'. Thanks! Pauca sed bona (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty irresponsible, especially since the articles are fully sourced.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The nominator points out in the intro to the Aveyond series AfD that the article was renamed from Amaranth Games, so the previous AfDs under the old title should have been listed, given that the article's scope remained pretty much unchanged. Regarding the speed with which articles have been prodded, it's quite possible that he read through the articles and sources before applying the prod tags. Did you ask him? Miremare 23:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This would better be directed to the user himself. Good luck with approaching him. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 07:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as per Ffgamera and Miremare, I would hope you had taken these issues to me first, this is in bad faith. I'm not sure what you are trying to gain here anyway. I've been an admin for over 5 years and my deletions are good faith attempts to keep non-notable content out of the encyclopedia. Andre (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not in bad faith. He is looking to get some opinions on the deletion of video game articles on the video game project's talk page. Seems pretty reasonable to me... --Torsodog^Talk 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. He was addressing my behavior, not the articles' merits. This isn't the first time I've stepped on feet when deleting articles. For example, in 2005 I tried to delete Ben Croshaw and his fans were all flaming me on his forum. I signed up for an account to counter their "arguments" and in the end a number of them backed down and agreed with me. People get attached to their articles and try things like this. For example, this user is the creator and sole editor of Nelly Cootalot: Spoonbeaks Ahoy!, which IMO isn't notable and should be deleted. Andre (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lo and behold: [12]. Proof of bad faith. The AGS community is just highly protective of anyone who doesn't think their content meets notability requirements. Andre (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the link you've just posted - it's not bad faith, they're not advocating vandalising Wikipedia - they have an opinion and have expressed it. I think notability requirements in the VG space have gotten a lot freer or late - we're now OK with blog mentions - a few years ago, I doubt Cunt (video game) or Gang Garrison 2 would have made the cut had they existed. Questions of notability crop up every now and then, just above is a good example, and sometimes this page is a better place to discuss them than in disparate AFDs. - hahnch e n 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Wikipedia's overall policies override the video game project, and perhaps I have been out of touch with it for a little while. But this kind of fast and loose notability using self-published blogs is not allowed under WP:RS. Andre (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe - to some extent I agree with you. Blogs form a massive part of the VG media landscape though, these blogs we're talking about could be Kotaku or Rock, Paper, Shotgun and are written by subject matter experts. Many would deem these blogs to be reliable, and I'd agree with them. On the other hand, I also recognise that a blog post is fairly trivial in comparison to a feature article on a traditional website or publication - this is a distinction that some do not recognise. But my main point, was that his forum post was not in bad faith. - hahnch e n 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On the notability, it sounds like we have some common ground. I think significant, repeated coverage in blogs is about at the level of a feature article in a print publication or affiliated website. But a lot of fan-made video games seek self-promotion in Wikipedia using a few blog posts and a review or two. This in my opinion is negative for the encyclopedia's scope and attributive verifiability. As far as the forum post, if you read up on it you can see it's mostly bashing me for having my opinion, not advocating a general notability that meets our guidelines. Andre (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression "a few blog posts and a review or two" was all we were really looking for. Maybe I've just been hanging out at WT:N too much where they'll scream if you suggest upping the bar to two significant sources, minimum. Nifboy (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't hang out there, but I think that IS the bar. Multiple reliable published non-trivial sources? That is at least 2. Andre (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean explicitly "two good sources", up from "a few not-bad sources", with the sources under discussion falling somewhere in between "not bad" and "good". Nifboy (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Gang Garrison 2 wasn't just mentioned in blogs, but in publications and by Valve themselves, so it would have still made the cut. But if an indie game is only "notable" for being mentioned in a publication and not a blog with editorial control, when you're undercutting the influence of blogs. Often blogs pick up stories that aren't "important" enough to be in a professional publication.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Only all those sources appeared only after the article was upped and front paged. You suggest on the AFD that a single blog post on Kotaku is enough, that we should lower the criteria for inclusion for indie games (as you have also done just now). Blogs mention absolutely everything, they're news, they're ephemeral and fleeting. That is something we should recognise. - hahnch e n 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between blogs with editorial control, and ones written by random people. Gaming blogs are probably at the bottom when it comes to journalism, but ones that are recognized by the gaming community and game devs themselves are clearly reliable sources.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI FAR

I have nominated Final Fantasy VI for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Prince (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth release dates

Can anyone help me hunt down the various release dates for ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth? The sources I've looked at just list the NA date of Oct 2002. Judging by review dates the EU and Australia versions were released in March 2003 but none of them gives an explicit release date (someone else has added an EU release of 7 March 2003 to the article but not provided a source). I think GameSpot has all the dates (although their NA date was a day out at 23 Oct 2002 IIRC) but I can't get their site to load (I'm guessing my crappy connection), so it would nice if someone could check. bridies (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GameFAQs is usually reliable for release dates, check the data page at data page AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Got the EU release date from GameFAQS. Any idea about Australia and perhaps Japan? bridies (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was released in AUS. The OFLC website doesn't have a rating for it. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Play Asia doesn't have it listed, so there's the posibility that it wasn't released in Japan either. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Player's guides and reception

Several older player's guides made by third party publications actually have reception on characters, such as Versus Books' guide for Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow. Now while I can understand some are already taking a defensive stance hear me out: if the guide gives reception, can be proven to be third party, and can be shown to not be giving reception for all existing characters in a game (many guides in fact will not), can it be used for reception and/or augmenting existing sources used for notability?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would work. It wouldn't be enough to stand up an article, but it would help build it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it should be given proper context like any other reception. Make sure to include the author(s) if possible and probably the book name too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Also make sure the ISBN is in the reference for it. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit please

I have done a lot of work on Space Gun (video game) and could do with a fresh pair of eyes to do some grammar and spelling checks to hopefully increase it's quality rating. If someone has some time feel free to check it and make the relevant changes. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Master System cover art's resolution is too high. --193.210.88.251 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a sucker for classic game articles, especially arcades. I'll see if I can give it a quick sweep sometime this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

There is somebody from Project Science-fiction having a look at it as well, but as many different eyes as possible would benefit the article. Thanks for helping. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor at Project Science-fiction has removed a lot of the content that was there, when doing copy edit please also refer back to the last revision performed by myself on 13/10/2009. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Game Informer

It looks like they changed up their format, many old URLs no longer work. You might go through old articles you've used them for citations and try to hit up Wayback Machine for any you need to restore/fix.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone ought to complain. They're making our lives hard. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with a significant platform-differences issue when not discussed at all by reliable sources

This isn't something like 360 doing 1080p and PS3 only 971p or something minor, but instead the omission of major features of a game. Specifically, Guitar Hero 5 had a usual release across the 360, ps3, wii and (yes still) the ps2. The features of the the 360 and PS3 versions are well documented, and the additions on the Wii side are also well described by sources. But there is no source that would even begin to be considered reliable that touches on the PS2 version and the fact it is missing much of the new features of the game (based on what I've read from user reviewers and from editors that want to include this information). Normal website reviews that have the game are using a generic, platform neutral version that doesn't touch at all on the PS2 side. Now again, if it was something like graphics quality or the like, I would dismiss it, but this is objectively clear omissions likely due to the PS2 hardware limitations, and if sources were available, I'd immediately include it. Manuals won't help as it could be argued that saying that manual for version X doesn't describe a feature in manual Y to imply that feature is not present in X is synthesis.

The only available source otherwise would be forum posts, and I'm worried about that path. Any suggestions how to go about this? --MASEM (t) 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this is as good a time as any to ask. Why is the PS2 the only last-gen console (that I know of) that is still getting stuff made for it?

As for the actual topic at hand, I'd suggest that forum posts from developers would be acceptable and, treading carefully for good ones, forum posts from random people discussing the differences. If the differences are really major, then yes, I say we should include it. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the PS2, at least up through this year, was still outselling the PS3 in consoles and you can still go to Best Buy or similar box store and buy a PS2 console. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No surprise given the cost of the PS3. Still, I'd have thought that the logical thing would be to save up for a PS3 where you get better graphics (not hard) and more features. Oh, well, logic is obviously not for this world. I go now, to seek my fortune on Vulcan. Maybe they shall appreciate my gift to see things through logically.

Had something else to say about the topic at hand, but I got distracted. Hopefully it'll come back to me. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do a sweep of some recent magazines to see if the PS2 version is mentioned. Generally, we've tried sourcing everything to appease opposition to video game articles at quality reviews. But really, citations should be added when the content is challenged or likely to be challenged. Differences between console versions doesn't seem like contentious material to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

Didn't find any mention of the PS2 version. I don't see any reason why the content can't be added, but if reliable sources can't be found then it should be given proper weight in the article. Maybe combine the Wii and PS2 differences into a single subsection titled "Console differences". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

If you've done reasonably comprehensive research and can't find anything, I would omit the information from the article come what may. If no reliably verifiable information exists on a particular topic we are not obliged to include and indeed policy states we should not. bridies (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

GameFAQs template

I originally removed a GameFAQs EL here because for this game it didn't seem to be a useful resource - but as Lorson pointed out, neither was the MobyGames EL, although the latter is mentioned at WP:VG/EL as possibly appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

But on at VG/EL, I also noted that GameSpot is "inappropriate" due to it's commercial nature. By extension, I assume that the GameSpot-affliated GameFAQs[13] is also inappropriate? I ask because of extensive use of the GameFAQs template by Lorson [14]. Your thoughts?

We should not link to game guides - we would not include game guide content so thus we shouldn't link to it. The reason we don't link to GameSpot, or IGN, or 1UP, or any general gaming news' site is that picking one over any other can be perceived as commercial bias, so we avoid it by not linking to them. Moby Games, on the other hand, is the equivalent of IMDB for video games, and thus is generally ok to include since it's not news or guide-like coverage of a game, but just facts and details of its production. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well GameFAQs also has the release information and development team names. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively you could use allgame just like movies and music use allmovie and allmusic respectively. Salavat (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

mobygames is commercial. what about all the links to the shopping sites for every game and the big advert on the right of every page? and mobygames only covers english released games when gamefaqs covers games that are only released in Japan. and gamefaqs gives game covers without two large watermarks on every single one.--Lorson (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Those sites are only used for minor info like release dates and other data. The FAQs, etc. are not used. Game covers can be found in a lot of places so it doesn't matter where you get them, as long as they're high quality and not watermarked.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

EVERY box shot on mobygames has two annoying watermarks. Look at the pictures on Atlantis: The Lost Tales, and Atlantis Evolution and every other image that is from mobygames. these images should be banned--Lorson (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that images with watermarks are allowed. You could put them up for deletion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If the only reasonable source for an image that is necessary in an article is a version with watermarks, we're ok with that. We prefer and should always seek out non-marked ones, but sometimes this is just impossible. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since ELs are supposed to be kept to a minumum (WP:EL), is it not redundant to list multiple directory sites with similar information anyway? In the case of the Alchemist article I mentioned above, both MobyGames and GameFaqs are not as comprehensive as the World of Spectrum link, for example. Marasmusine (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco Rush

We have article on San Francisco Rush and then we have San Francisco Rush: Extreme Racing. What a mess. The one withouth subtitle seems to be the older one. I guess redirect the older to the newer or does it require an admin to merge the edit histories? --Mika1h (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just redirect the older one to the newer. Then put a "San Francisco Rush redirects here" dablink on top.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier

People are complaining on the talk page about the cover art being wrong. Can someone upload the new one? Thanks. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Did it earlier today. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, now someone went and reverted it saying this: rv per vgimage guidelines (also see http://www.gamespot.com/psp/adventure/jakanddaxteryuthelostfrontier/similar.html?mode=versions )

I am confused. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what they are saying now. If I go to Amazon.co.uk and search, I get a different version. According to release dates, the UK version is out first and thus one would consider the UK cover to be the proper one. Technically, that user is right. I'll note this on the page. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The previous one was the official European cover. It is not fake. I see the same cover at Amazon.co.uk. But whatever, the game is developed in North America so the article should use the North American cover (as it is right now). --Mika1h (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should it use the North American cover? Does it really matter as long as its an English version? Anyway, Europe has a higher population, so shouldn't it be the first considered in these situations, especially since Australia too generally uses the European cover? This is the English Wikipedia not he North American one.--Lightlowemon (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Population is completely irrelevant, or one side would always win. In cases where a game is developed in an English speaking country, the cover for that country is used. In cases where it's not, I believe the general consensus is that whichever is uploaded first is what's used unless the other is clearly better for other reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What reasons would those be? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

One might be if the name was different in Europe but the same in the NA -- for instance, one brought up a couple months ago was Dragon Quest V, where the European DS version doesn't have the "V" so the NA box was used (though in this case it was a matter of which was uploaded first that caused the issue rather than released first). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. Going back to what you said above:

In cases where a game is developed in an English speaking country, the cover for that country is used. In cases where it's not, I believe the general consensus is that whichever is uploaded first is what's used unless the other is clearly better for other reasons.

what happens if it was never released in an English speaking country but, somehow, there's an article on the English Wikipedia? As far as I know, this is simply hypothetical right now, but it might be nice to know in case it happens one day. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical? Took me two seconds to find one- Mother 3. Use the box art from the country it was developed in, if there's no English cover. --Pres N 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fine, whatever. As I said "as far as I know" it was hypothetical. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

← Use the US version. Consensus everywhere else that I know of has been to use the cover released in the country where it was developed; in this case, the US. Another example of a similar US/UK difference: Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time. We use the US name (which contains "Future") because it was developed in the US, and we use the US cover because (in addition to matching the article title) it was developed in the US. LittleBigPlanet uses the UK cover because it was developed in the UK. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper sourcing

I have a lot of issues with the sourcing in the intro paragraph of this article. I've discussed those sources here. The main contributor then reverted my edits. I'd appreciate a second look from the people here. SharkD (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

After a quick glance, I'd say most don't look to satisfy WP:RS. Also, the copyright status of File:Spaceflightsimulators.jpg needs to be updated. Even though the editor has been around for a while, most of their contributions are to that list page. If I had to guess, it looks like the editor is not fully aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Can't really blame them given how many rules there are to follow. Any editor that joins the discussion should probably keep WP:DONTBITE in mind. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

I'd prefer it if someone else were to make the edits, as I feel hesitant to make any further edits to the page. SharkD (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Franchise?

Okay, I don't get it. Why are video game series sometimes referred to here as "franchises"? A franchise is a business license, not the characters, locations, and gameplay elements that bring several video games together. We should at least pick one and make it consistent; I actually saw the Call of Duty series referred to as a "series franchise" on its main article. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Mario (series) is considered a franchise and that makes sense. And besides, a CoD movie might be in the works, so it should also be called a franchise. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that one or the other needs to stop being used. They just refer to different types of series.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Media franchise is the definition of "franchise" that we're using here. See List of video game franchises. Nifboy (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a fairly useless term then? If a media franchise is "an intellectual property involving the characters, setting and trademarks of an original work of media", then pretty much every video game is a franchise. Miremare 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an umbrella term. It's shorter to say than "Video game series and Anime/TV series and Manga/Comic series and Movie series and Collectible Card Game with Assorted Merchandise" (i.e. Pokemon). And even Call of Duty has an associated comic series, so simply calling it a "video game series" is insufficient. Nifboy (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why is Mario (series) not located at Mario (franchise). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason there couldn't be a Mario (franchise) article, with the series article covering just games, but I would say that it's very hard to describe the franchise and its success as a whole (you can talk about the games as a whole, but not all media outlets), and thus would not be a good article. Containing the extra media aspects in the series is a reasonable replacement. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above comments. My understanding is that a video game series is all within the video game medium, but a video game franchise is one that branches out from video games into other media like cartoons, comics, film, etc. As a side note, I think this strengthens the argument for most video game series to be the main page over their first game like The Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

At the very least, then, I think all instances of "video game franchise" should be changed to "video game series", if the franchise also covers anime, TV, books, and other media. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone point out a definition of "media franchise"? Other than the Wikipedia article and mirrors, I can't find one. Miremare 14:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

- I don't believe there is a clear definition. I believe it is a logical extension of the word franchise with a descriptor tag; thus probably the article Media franchise should be merged with Franchise.陣内 _Jinnai 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look as if there's a clear logical extension from any of the other definitions of "franchise" to me either. It doesn't bear any resemblance to anything in Franchising anyway. Miremare 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The term was first applied to films i.e. "movie franchise" instead of "film series", and seems to have migrated away from the business side of things and towards the IP itself. "Media franchise" is simply an extension of that to other media. Nifboy (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image use in Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest

I've been having an argument with an editor about the amount of non-free images in the Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest article. Currently, he has added 10 non-free images, only 1 of which is a gameplay shot and 2 of which are cover art. Please weigh in here if you have any input. Also, the editor is insisting upon having the Japanese version's name AND katakana in the first sentence of the lead, two things that I think are completely unnecessary considering the game was developed in an English-language country. Thoughts? --Torsodog^Talk 19:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I didn't add all the images. I only added eight. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "free" as well. I took the screenshots myself and they don't violate copyright protection. So did I fill in the lisence wrongly...? NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The images can't qualify as free because they're copyrighted - they can't be free unless Nintendo releases them into the public domain. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia that allows for limited exceptions for non-free, copyrighted works to be included if they significantly enhance the articles (see WP:NFCC). Part of this is minimal use - we only use images as needed. For most VG articles, this includes the box art and one screenshot at most, but there are additional exceptions. Eight more articles on the current DKC2 article is way too many. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Musings on a Pokemon species Good or Featured Topic

I've been mulling over a push for a GT/FT on the Pokemon species articles, as 3 are GA, 1 is FA, and all but one have clear potential to get to GA, with a few hot on their heels. However, I'm not sure how to approach such an idea, since it means most likely having to get all the lists sections to GA or higher as well, which is would be 100x the workload, and would drastically increase the frailty of a GT or FT as links degrade and information pours forth.

Is there a work around anyone can think of? Right now here are the following articles we're looking at:

Yep, as you can see big workload.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the main article going to be? List of Pokémon as an FL? Gary King (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems the best bet overall, nothing else can really encompass them as a whole.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If we do get around the many lists, I'd say our biggest problem is that we would have to push any new article to good status ASAP. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As soon as possible is three months after the English release. But I wonder how do split lists reach featured list status? We do have to include all the lists in Template:Pokemon directory, don't we? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's actually what I'm trying to find a way around at the moment Megata: if you included all of those you'd have a very unstable bear of a job.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

While we are here, does anybody have any suggestions for List of Pokémon (1–20) to get it to GA? Because it would have to be the "example article" to help make the others. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be hard to have List of Pokémon (1–20) become a GA article since its a List. But seriously though, to make it into a FL, you should find some more refs. Also, maybe give it a Peer Review, too. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont really think it is a "list". A list is like a simple list of characters with just names and a sentence or two, or lists of episodes, or something like that. This has real content. If they are defined as "Lists", then feel free to re-class all 25 of the lists. As for the references, do you mean reception, or just in-universe information needing references? Probably a very good deal of that could be referenced. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe more in-universe refs. And also, an article on Pokémons make them Lists since Pokémons are like characters. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain. How are they "like characters"? They are all animals...with special abilities... Thats pretty much it. They all look different, and act different, and are hardly "like characters". Even if they were like characters, what would that have anything to do with it being a list? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer your question witha question. If its not a List, what would it be called? I mean, the way it looks, it looks just like a List. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked about the distinction between lists and articles several times before and there has never been a clear answer. In practice, there is no consensus at all; some pages are assessed as articles and reach GA or FA status while other similar pages are assessed as lists and reach FL status. List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow even started as GA and then became an FL instead of FA. As long as people support your nomination you can basically make any "list-like" page a Featured Article or a Featured List. It's determined on a case by case basis. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I would be fine with calling it a list if that would help it get Featured status easier. I just dont think pages with real content should be called "lists". These lists of Pokémon are mini articles grouped in 25 groups of 20's. List of Pokémon is clearly a list, because it is mostly a directory to the other articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I wonder why the Castlevania article is not a "Characters of" article instead, to be judged by the FA criteria. Really, I don't know that raw lists of characters have much use, unless it's for, say, a fighting game. But if you have a list of Pokemon or characters in an RPG, in most cases there's more to say about them than just that they exist. --gakon5 (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have Nintendo Power Issue #138?

I have Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo up for FAC, and they are requesting more review sources. Unfortunatly, since this game wasn't all that popular, good sources aren't very easy to find. I was wondering if anyone had this issue of NP though, as it contains a review of the game that I might be able to use. Anyone have it? I think it has Hey You Pikachu! on the cover. Thanks! --Torsodog^Talk 06:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's just a preview article. Let me see if the following issues have a review... --gakon5 (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. There is a review hidden in here. Its status an an evaluation of anything is a bit tenuous, though. --gakon5 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"As the plans demonstrate, LucasArts has put a great deal of work into the Battle for Naboo…Swamps will come alive with frogs and insects, while a majestic soundtrack—based directly on John Williams' score—shadows your every move. The rendering engine of Rogue Squadron has been rewritten from the ground up to provide you with crystal-clear views of terrain, backgrounds, ships and enemy blaster fire. Droid pilots are smarter than ever, and their new ships are more deadly than ever." That's really all the opinion contained in this short text. Also, I don't see a score anywhere. That's on page 33, issue 138, November 2000. --gakon5 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The official review is on page 123 of issue 141, February 2001. "With Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo, LucasArts strikes back, launching a shoot-'em-up that smartly tries to recapture the wall-to-wall action of the original…To set itself apart from Rogue, Naboo includes some land- and water-cruising levels, but sacrificing the freedom to fly in a nimble Naboo Starfighter so you can hover around in a Trade Federation gunboat isn't anything that will keep the intensity of the action sky-high. Naboo is at its best when the action isn't grounded, and the heated aerial missions rise to the occasion to compensate. Flight aces looking for more Rogue-style fun won't be disappointed—despite its slight case of acrophobia, Naboo manages to soar with fairly consistent thrills and a first-rate package of action, audio, and graphics." Alan Averill: "It takes the best elements of Rogue and improves them while leaving the core intact. It misses the five-star score only because some of the ground-based missions are slightly tedious." (4.5) Andy Meyers: This is a solid action game with plenty of challenges and rewards for success. Aside from the vehicles and voice samples, there's little that makes you feel like you're in the Star Wars universe. For that, I blame the drab backgrounds and dry cinemas." (3.5) Drew Williams: "The ground-based missions are, with a few exceptions, uninspired, but Naboo does Rogue one better by providing some outer space missions." (4) --gakon5 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to point some people in the wrong direction. Thanks for the help everyone!! --Torsodog^Talk 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

List of video game consoles help

Looking for help on the List of video game consoles article for anyone interested. We especially need help in expanding, and cleaning. Also if anyone has time to verify some of the game consoles already on there that would definitely be helpful.

MystifiableUnknown (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Quest PR

DQ PR has been ongoing for some time could use some more as I would prefer not to have to reissue the PR because of this as I need some more serious comments before bringing this to a FAC.陣内 _Jinnai 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Shion Uzuki article?

Some time ago there was a discussion on Xenosaga character articles and I had made a sandbox version of a Shion Uzuki article to see if there was enough material to have a standalone article for this character. User:A Man In Black said there was not enough and I agreed, so I didn't put that version in the mainspace. However, looking at the character articles recently created by User:New Age Retro Hippie for the Final Fantasy series, it seems maybe there was enough after all. What is the consensus on recreating Shion Uzuki? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't check the article's current state.... It seems an IP had recreated the article in September. I've just reverted the edit since there was no discussion at all; if the article is to be recreated it should be with consensus. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, i always think different standards are applied to different series as to what denotes trivial coverage.陣内 _Jinnai 19:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard I apply is, is it better than its list entry in all the right places, and this one passes pretty well. Nifboy (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I have created the article. By the way, Albedo (Xenosaga), Testament (Xenosaga) and Wilhelm (Xenosaga) need to be merged to the list as non-notable but the articles are so messy that I will leave this for someone else to do. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[CoD] MW 2

There's an ongoing discussion on the MW2 talk page page about moving the page from Modern Warfare 2 to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Existing discussion (and consensus) was to leave the name at Modern Warfare 2 (presumably as it's been called this throughout development - the Call of Duty was added to the box due to Activision concerns about brand recognition, it's not recognised by the developer in game at all) but there's been a lot of moving over the past few days. Anyway, if anyone wants to chip in, feel free. Thanks! Fin ©™ 22:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should have the "Call of Duty" added since it's part of the CoD series and its predecessor was known as Call of Duty 4.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

But its called Modern Warfare 2. SO that's what the article should be called. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it WAS called Modern Warfare 2. Then they added "Call of Duty" again due to brand recognition problems. Therefore, the article should have "Call of Duty" included in the title.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree here that it should be under the CoD moniker. Most vendors list it as such as well as sites like IGN. There's no reason there can't be a redirect from MW2, of course. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like the CoD should be added. The game is being marketed with it and high profile sites like IGN and GameSpot have it. I don't really see why this is even up for discussion, personally. --Torsodog^Talk 04:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it being moved to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, as although the game was in development without the Call of Duty bit the official name is now inclusive of Call of Duty part. Somewhere in the article it could be stated that the Call of Duty prefix was added for the sake of brand recognition, as long as it can be appropriately cited. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the trend on agreeing to add COD, it seems "Modern Warfare 2" was just the development title and like AirRaidPatrol said just make a mention in the article, theres a sentence for the development paragraph right there for you. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

<--Going to have to agree with the unanimous sentiment expressed here: the article title should be "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2". That it was just "Modern Warfare 2" during development is something that should be noted in the development section along with the reasons for the change, but the name is now "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2". That this is even being contested strikes me as silly; its not the first time a name change/modification has come up in development, nor will it be the last, but this is the most fuss over it I've seen. -- Sabre (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my support of the CoD name in. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FMV games

Can someone explain the difference between these two categories: Category:Interactive movie video games and Category:Full motion video based games? Shouldn't they be merged?

Ugh, The articles themselves seem pretty confusing too: Laserdisc video game, Interactive movie, Full motion video based game. --Mika1h (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All three could probably be merged. Not sure what you would call the main article though. I've always considered all three very close, just slightly different. Interactive movies are games like Dragon's Lair, which are meant to be watched more than played. They normally never break from the video. I've also heard interactive movie used to describe video games like Indigo Prophecy that make very good use of technology to portray realistic characters and immersive stories. Laserdisc video game basically an interactive movie on the laserdisc format. I guess you could call FMV based video games an offshoot of interactive movies. They have more gameplay elements but typically the main element is watching and reacting to either live action or pre-rendered video. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

It's really hard to split hairs like that without approaching WP:OR in the definitions. I think it might be more feasible to define it by something that's more documented, like how the video interacts with both the player and the technology. By explination then, they all use pre-recorded video as a common base - which would be the grounds for a merge. The subsets are really only two - 1) either the video is used as a canned background with computer generated sprites overlayed (ala Firefox or Sewer Shark), or 2) The video is a scene watched but selected via user interaction, creating "the game" (ala Dragon's Lair or Night Trap). The medium (laserdisc vs. cd vs. dvd vs. even vhs (such as the late 80's console/vhs hybrids)) doesn't really define this issue. I think it'd be possible to merge all the articles you guys mentioned in to a single article. Then you just have two subsections defining the two main usages of pre-recorded video. So you're looking at an "intro/definition", "early history", and then a section each on the two main technology usages. I'm thinking a main article title around the lines of "Full motion video in video games" --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By my understanding (though I don't have time to look at the articles), interactive movies are things like Plumbers Don't Wear Ties, where the whole game is a film, which you interact with. Games with FMV are games as you'd think of them, but with actual videos and actual actors contained within, such as Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 or Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up department

Should there be something on the main page for this Wikiproject that the cleanup department is inactive? It makes it sound like it's still working.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still active. It's not an inactive cleanup department, it's a department to cleanup inactive projects. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, clicking the blue link to the Clean-up department leads to a page tagged with "Inactive/Historical", so I think that is what Abce2 is highlighting. --Taelus (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Abce2 is talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup; I think MrKIA11 is mistaking this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I was. I never realized the other existed. Where did you find the link to that? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually linked to here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games#Project Structure. JACO PLANE • 2009-10-22 13:02

Oh. Well IMO we should remove all links to that department, or else see if there is an interest in restarting it. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that everyone in the project does cleanup once in a while, usually requests are just posted on this page instead. It does seem like a good idea to have a dedicated cleanup team, but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have the November 1, 2006 issue of Official PlayStation Magazine?

If not, I don't want anyone going out of their way to help; it's only for a little comment from it I want to use as reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a hand full of OPM issues. I'll look through them tonight and let you know if I have it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, don't have it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

List of instruments in Wii Music

I think this is just game guide content at best. Instruments are essentially items in Wii Music and nothing more. Item lists = game guide content. Thoughts? RobJ1981 (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD'd --MASEM (t) 04:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

GameSpot error?

I recently noticed that something's wrong with GameSpot: when clicking this link I wanted to see the credits for the game Another Mind, but instead of seeing the names of the developers I only see digits. Am I the only one seeing this, and if not is it only temporary? I often use GameSpot's tech info pages as sources in articles I work on, and I'm not really keen on changing the source of all those articles if it's just temporary. Any thoughts on the matter? The Prince (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly to say this, but I see it too. I think its temporary, just like what happened to GameRankings. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Public domain patent images

I would like to point out the community here of some of the interesting photo and drawing in patents. Most patent images are public domain, see Template:PD-US-patent. I think patents here are an underused resource, now if I could only find that Soul Calibur patent again. — Dispenser 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First, whoa, Google does patents now. Thank goodness, the USPTO interface sucked for trying to get patents w/ images. But certainly we should encourage the use of patent images not to represent characters as alternatives to non-free images (eg I wouldn't use any of the above on the character articles) but should be used if the patent is very relevant to the game or technology. For example, I know Crazy Taxi (series) has a couple of patent images to demonstrate the patent that is the core of the game and part of its controversy. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, patent images should probably be used sparingly. But some articles could have some in "Development" sections. Is there expert image Wikipedian that we could consult to see if there are any non-free use issues? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Unless I'm missing something, patents, images and all, fall under the US gov't public domain (that's what you give up as an inventor to gain the limited protection on it). I cannot recall anything in the patent application process that lets you claim copyright on an image that is used in it but those nintendo ones still tickle the back of my head as being oddball ones. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

They have to include specific language at the beginning of the specification, and also identify each copyright-protected item with appropriate text next to the item. See Template:PD-US-patent for specifics. Anomie ⚔ 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[15] Stiltzkin-eng (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, it seems that Stiltzkin-eng uploaded an image of Yoshi to Commons:Image:Yoshi.png and it was summarily deleted by admin Commons:User:Dodo.

If the image actually was from the "Yoshi on a GoKart" link above (I have no way to check), the three year old discussion Dodo linked to in a later response to Stiltzkin does not actually support his assertion (i.e. this was the result of the discussion, not this) and it should be taken to Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests since the publication in question does not contain the language required in § 1.71(e). Anomie ⚔ 12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(Or the "Nintendo includes game covers and characters" link. Haven't checked the third). Anomie ⚔ 13:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the Yoshi image from [16]. Can someone file the undeletion request please? I'm not sure what to say in the request to support my point (and I'm a bit dumbfounded that my first contribution to wiki was brutaly rejected like that >_<). Stiltzkin-eng (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I filed the request myself at [17]. Stiltzkin-eng (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The first replies have been posted. Please add in your two cents, too. Thanks! Stiltzkin-eng (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The file was undeleted. I've also upload File:Mario.png, File:Wario.png and File:Link - The Legend of Zelda.png from the same patent. There is also an image of Pikachu (I'm waiting for them to delete the copyvio at File:Pikachu.png before uploading that one to that name. I have no idea what the sixth character in that patent might be.

Now, the question is what to do about WP:NFCC#1 relating to these characters… Anomie ⚔ 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, victoly!! The sixth character is a Chikorita from Pokemon. I think the non-free images of these characters should be removed, as there really is no honest way to argue for their keeping now, other than prettyness. They should only be kept if somehow color is very, very important to identify them, or maybe when we need to show a different design of a character (I'd keep File:NewLink.png but replace File:Link LOZ with items.png with the free one). Stiltzkin-eng (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know if the fact that the images are non-free is grounds enough to replace them with crappy quality lineart. The color makes a large difference when you're showing character design. There's no reason to want to remove non-free images, since they have a rationale...right? I can see why you'd want images to be free in the case of Ubisoft, but for these few images, it doesn't really matter.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care all that much. But there are some who do, so it would be better if the FURs for the non-free images of these characters address why they don't violate WP:NFCC#1 (if they don't) before someone starts {{rfu}}ing them. Anomie ⚔ 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For the article "Video game"

Does anyone know what core games are? I've searched everywhere. Abce2|This isnot a test 00:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard that term before; looking at the article, it seems to really be defined as "not a casual game". I don't think the core(hardcore)/casual split needs to really be defined like that in the article; it doesn't even make sense, as pong or pacman were definitely "real" games when they were made, but would be "casual" by the definition given there. --Pres N 02:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Core games are the same as Hardcore games, e.g. catering to the avid video gamer demographic who play games as a regular hobby. The line between them is hazy, though, but I think it can be safely said that Nintendogs is casual while Gears of War isn't. Generally, core gamers can play both casual and core games, while casual players will have trouble playing core games. I think Nintendo used the term "core games" to describe their supposed lineup for hardcore gamers, though it's more than a little lackluster.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I've searched through 10 pages or more of Google/Bing and I couldn't find anything.Abce2|This isnot a test 14:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just by searching for "core gamer" I got this article: [18]. It basically explains that core gamers = hardcore gamers.

Reading tt article i'd say:

core is slang for hardcore and we should thus use hardcore to avoid jargon, while mentioning it is also known as "core". We already have enough problems with jargon usage with release dates not meaning the same thing to the average user as they do to gamers and the industry, no need to add another term.
only a few genres were specifically mentioned as casual:
1. web-based games
2. Puzzle Quest - ie puzzle games
3. Rock Band - ie music rythom games

Some other stuff like MMO and Nintendo creating having the "casual" game backlash is also mentioned, but no real specific beyond the continuing shift to more casual games while at the same time casual games becoming somewhat more niche.陣内 _Jinnai 04:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Genres of games are never "core" or "casual", so they should really be classified by series or game. For example, I couldn't say "rhythm games are a casual genre", but I COULD say "Wii Music is a casual game" or "Gitaroo Man is made for hardcore rhythm gamers".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Casual and hardcore games may dominate certain genres, but they are not all encompassing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

I'd haveto disagree with that, at least currently. All web-based game (those originally designed to played on the web) are casual games.陣内 _Jinnai 05:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What about browse-based MMOGs? I'm sure some are designed for casual players, but others aren't. Also, browser games aren't a genre. It's akin to saying Wii games or PS2 games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

'All' is a pretty loaded word. I've certainly seen at least a couple very hardcore type flash games. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Care to list some examples because the idea given in the above Gamasutra article and others is web-based games are specifically designed as casual games.陣内 _Jinnai 19:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not a flash game, but Kingdom of Loathing certainly comes to mind. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many would be called "core games" because I haven't played any of them, but here's a list of browser-based MMORPGs. Also, there's The World's Hardest Game and the Unfair Platformer, both which are so hard that any casual player would more than likely give up before finishing a single level. They are admittedly far out numbered by the casual web games, but there is a niche of hardcore web games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Can you find RSes stating that some of those are hard-core or there are hard-core web-based games because i look around and i either see them mention they are casual games or if they are hard they are meant as jokes like You Only Live Once.陣内 _Jinnai 03:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an IGN interview about Fallen Empire: Legions that also mentions hardcore webgames. A Game Informer interview about browser-based versions of ThinkTanks and 3D Marble Blast Ultra. GameSpot interview about a browser-based version of Quake III Arena. Edge article that mentions browser-based MMORPGs. The hardcore games are still in the minority, but I think this is reason enough to avoid wording that states "web game = casual game". Though wording like "web games are typically geared towards casual players" sounds accurate to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

The former seems fine, but the latter doesn't actually mention its hard-core. Extrapolating that Q3 desginers = only hard core game designers is synthesis. It seems better wording that "web games are almost exclusively geared towards casual players" because i see only a few concrete examples, especially as not all MMORPGs are designed for hard core gamers.陣内 _Jinnai 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Quake III article was not so much about the designers being hard core designers, but rather their process in bringing a hardcore game to a wider audience via browsers. Admittedly, the last source does not explicitly state hard core MMORPGs. I assumed that most are and applied that generalization to the statement. However, I don't think that's a contentious statement.

Either way, the "almost exclusively" statement seems fine too. So long as it's not such a definitive statement because there always seems to be a small group of games that break the mold. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Expert needed for Core Design

Hey folks,

Core Design was in a bit of a bad state. I've started cleaning it up, but a huge amount of work is needed: for a start, the article basically begins and ends with Tomb Raider, though Core were respected developers across the 16-bit platform years before the Playstation. And it doesn't even have that much material on Tomb Raider, despite it being the game which Eidos owes its continued existence to. Anyone who can pitch in, feel free to help. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaborating on the Collaboration of the Week?

Anyone interested in cleaning up Command & Conquer (video game), since it's this week's collaboration? Nothing serious; just some work to make it more respectable, orderly and guideline-following. It's in poor shape, currently, so every little bit would help. Count me in. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of CotWs I would like to work on, like Joust (video game), Zaxxon, and Super Mario World. Sadly though, I never have the time to dedicate even minor work on them. :-\ It's a shame, because as you point out, most are in very bad shape. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

I'll try and jump in and help out best I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I can'd do some games such as Super Mario World; it's less fun to write about something you know. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Video Game Consoles

Hello,

Can anyone tell me where the organisation of video game console with generations comes from ? The only direct reference I've found is the following : [19]. Since no article on Wp is dedicated to the author, Michael Miller, it seems to me too sketchy to be the only ref... Zandra^[Moa ?] 09:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.16.161.237 (talk)

I would like to know this as well. I always thought Wikipedia was over-emphasizing this classification, dealing with it as if it were a widespread classification even though it doesn't seem to be used much in the gaming world. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its a general industry term, but i think it over-emphasizes it with modern consoles which are considered more of specialized computers due to technology convergence.陣内 _Jinnai 15:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for giving your opinion. Zandra^[Moa ?] 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.16.161.237 (talk)

Half-Life 2: Episode Three (video game)

If someone has time, please take a look at Half-Life 2: Episode Three (video game) and see if it's worth merging into Half-Life 2: Episode Three to recreate the article. Otherwise, just redirect it again or merge it somewhere. Gary King (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirected. It consisted of wasn't properly sourced material anyway, and was inferior to the at least sourced version that was merged at Half-Life 2: Episode Three. Given that (as far as I'm aware) no new information on Episode Three has emerged since the merge discussion—or at least substantive enough information to justify a spin-out at this point—there's no reason to change the status quo yet. -- Sabre (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

GAN reaching critical mass

We've got over twenty articles currently up there, all waiting for a reviewer.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not the best of the writers so my ability to review is limited. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help out... I'll be away for a few days, but might have time after that. Just depends on Real Life™. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Using my free time on the GAR Sweeps.陣内 _Jinnai 02:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What Jinnai said. And working on Dragon Quest and F-Zero. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take ToeJam & Earl III. As a side note, the reference quality of Saints Row 2 is not up to par; more than half of them need to be removed. Since the time required to redo that many references would easily exceed the 7 day GAN review allotment, the article could reasonably be quick-failed. Mercilessly tearing down the articles of others is not my forte, so I won't volunteer for the dirty work on that one. I just thought I'd point it out, since reducing the backlog is the #1 priority. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura and Blood Bowl (2009 video game) are missing reception sections. Salavat (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

...Yet neither are up for GAN Salavat, unless I'm missing something.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

They are actually, according to their talk pages. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

and the GAN page Salavat (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still going through a stack of magazine for Lara Croft (KFM- I have a small number of sources for Ivy (Soulcalibur) too), but I'll see if I can review an article this week. Free time has been very sparse though. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Don't forget the music VG GANs... Music of the SaGa series has been sitting there for 2 1/2 months; I'd really appreciate it if anyone would take a look at it. --Pres N 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the concept of Good Article reviews doesn't make sense. I'd rather that there be simply a strict FAR guideline and users can use the rest of the time to actually improve articles.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty if that happened we'd get less done than we are now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Using VGChartz as a sales figure source - should we?

I recently had to delete a portion of sales figures from the Wolfenstein article, citing it as not a reliable source for accurate sales figures, only for it to reappear and have me remove them once more. With the popularity of this website being cited by many amateur gaming websites (and the gamers at large), I'm starting to think we should blacklist the site from being used as a source for any accurate sales figures.

To support my claim, this article at Gamasutra should help: [20]

Personally, the only sites that should be used as an accurate source is NPD, Media Create and whatever Europe uses. Am I the only one agreeing with this? TonicBH (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We already list VGChartz as questionable for sales sources per WP:VG/S. It definitely should be removed for any recent games where we know its being tracked by NPD, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. Agree that VGChartz really ought not be used as a rule. –xeno^talk 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right to remove. Also beware of added reliable sources that cite VG Chartz as well (bad journalism happens.) NPD/similar numbers and what publishers release (assuming it sold well) are really the only good figures we can use. I believe the gamasutra article is already used as evidence in the WP:VG/S page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Feminist video games

I just noticed GVnayR (talk · contribs) tagging Street Fighter II with this category. Turns out he/she just created the category today, with the definition of "Video games that feature strong female characters that don't require male assistance to get around." I think this is category is unnecessary - is it really important to categorize games that have strong female characters? I'd like some input on this. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one find it totally unnecessary and any game's inclusion would be totally debatable based on how "independent" a woman is, and their role in the videogame as to whether a certain character makes the whole game feminist. --uKER (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well considering a BARBIE game was put in it...yeah, nuke away. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But what about Ken? Where is he in those games? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Original research. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a non-neutral category if ever I saw one. There's a big difference between a game with strong female characters and a game that puts forward feminist ideas. Kill it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I add my support. It doesn't make much sense, especially with the games on the list. I'd hardly call Barbie "strong" or "feminist." --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a unnecessary category, and the inclusion criteria are based on opinion rather than any verifiable factual stuff. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Help on confirming IGN as a reliable source

A user is questioning whether IGN is reliable or merely a promotional source in nature. Anyone with a better idea of IGN's internal organization may want to comment here on WP:RS/N. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, if we lost IGN as a "reliable source" in the eyes of Wikipedia we'd be screwed across the board.

What bugs me even more is Gavin's arguing the reliability of an opinion on a website with an editorial process that's clearly established, and statements that could only be used for reception. Does anyone else feel that the whole basis is, no offense, stupid? How is their opinion any weaker than someone that writes for the New York Times or appears on the BBC News?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a silly argument and it has nothing to do with reliable sources but whether the IGN award carries enough importance to be included. That's another question altogether. –xeno^talk 14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous. How would IGN not be a reliable source for... IGN's own award? The original posters argument makes almost no sense. --Torsodog^Talk 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Its just one extremist deletionist causing unnecessary and unproductive trouble. IGN's been long-standing as a reliable source across Wikipedia media articles in general; its not limited to merely games. I wouldn't put any real credence in that changing. Though I can't believe people are still bickering endlessly over WP:FICT... their time would be far better spent actually writing articles as opposed to complaining over wording on a non-functional guideline. -- Sabre (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously - that and Gavin's argumemts are the main reason I avoid WP:FICT like the plague. :) As has been said above, I wouldn't worry overmuch about his arguments here either - nor waste my time trying to convince him of anything. BOZ (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As a former IGN/Gamespy employee and current volunteer at one of their sites (Classicgaming), with the exception of user blogs and the such, all the content on regular sites goes through an editorial process. Usually multi-tiered depending on the size of the site. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dino Crisis soundtracks

I have noticed on the articles for all three Dino Crisis games the a detailed tracklisting is given for the soundtrack CDs for each game. Is this really suitable for the articles? If the soundtrack albums have got enough notability then they could have their own articles but I don't think this kind of detail belongs on the page for the individual game. Mention of a soundtrack CD can be put into the article, perhaps under a section about Development, but only if this can be properly referenced. Currnetly there is no referencing for the CDs at all on any of the three articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kid Icarus (series)

I noticed this was proposed to be merged, but didn't see a whole lot of discussion on the talk page. How about we discuss this now? Personally I don't see a huge need for a series page when he has had 2 games, and an apppearance in Brawl. Most of the series article is focused on his Brawl appearance, which is just recentism at it's finest. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the information in the section about Pit looks like original research to me as well as there are no references, especially about the mythology points. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Space Gun manuals

Does anybody have access to the instruction manuals for the Amiga, Atari ST and/or Sega Master System versions of Space Gun? I would be interested to know if any of them contain plot, character, enemy or locations details that I could use to expand the article. I have used the ZX Spectrum version that is hosted online but it does not go into too much detail. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Chrono Cross for TFA

Chrono Cross's 10th anniversary is coming up, and I've recently made sure the article's up to standard by trimming the plot and expanding the development section to reflect new translations. I'm in a very busy semester and don't have as much time as I'd like to babysit the TFA page and wait until the earliest request is pruned. If anyone's in the neighborhood of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and sees an opening (I'll be checking as much as I can), it'd be awesome if you could post the TFA blurb I've primed at User:Zeality.

I'm expecting a huge fight. The last time I tried a decennial TFA (Chrono Trigger, arguably a better article because more development history materials have been translated), it was bitterly opposed by other Wikipedians prejudiced against VG articles, and Raul ultimately had to move it a month forward to placate their bile. I'll probably be back here to rally some support. If it's like it was in early 2008, then they really hate video game articles over there. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 02:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to make sure you fill in your request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending as a starting point. Unfortunately, I see there's two other VG articles already proposed for November. You're at 5 pts with it not accounting for timing of other VG articles (FA 2 years+, 10yr anniv., and first TFA), and presently no VG has been posted within a month. This would likely beat the other 2/3 VG articles on that list. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to take away a potential argument against, you should take a look at the references and see how clean you can get them. I see refs with multiple external links (the only link should be to the reference itself, to avoid confusion); a couple of refs without a publisher listed; confusing refs, such as a GamePro ref that links to gamepro.org and states GamePro as the publisher, but then has a second external link to Chrono Compendium; some names are given as John Doe, others as Doe, John. It looks like this article was made FA over three years ago with no formal review since then. Our reference reliability standards have significantly increased since then, and I'm not sure that all of the current sources would pass the test today. Pagra shtak 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll get on it. I'll try to beat those other two noms to the list, since I'm hesitant to make flagrant enemies out of their nominators by replacing theirs (instead of pre-empting them). ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the TFA request is live on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 01:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Movie Battles GA?

Mmh, not to single out this article or something but, how comes it's a GA? o_O It's really surprising. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a GA from 2007; I'm presuming GA sweeps haven't got to it yet, in current state, it needs delisting. Its clearly not GA material now, what with only four proper secondary sources, one of which is not considered reliable (ModDB), and primarily drawing on forum posts as sources. -- Sabre (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If it was once a GA, why don't we wipe out everything from beyond the point it got it and re-add all relevant information in that keeps it GA? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Back when it was promoted, it only had two acceptable sources but is pretty much the same otherwise. -- Sabre (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Then who was stoned when they promoted it or were rules really lax back then? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't anyone give it a GAR already? I mean, I do it all the time to time that are or aren't on the list. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GAR? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment GamerPro64 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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 Rolston, 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)

1986-1989

I decided to hit up the other reviews from 1986 as well, adding blurbs to Rogue (112), Wizard's Crown (114), and The Bard's Tale (116). I might do 1987 and maybe even more, tonight; we'll see. :) BOZ (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #118 had three reviews. The first one was for OrbQuest, The Search For Seven Wards, from QWare, Inc. for the MacIntosh. I could find absolutely nothing on the internet for this, so I wonder what to do; I will not create a stub at this time since I can't find any additional info. Also reviewed in this column were Roadwar 2000 and World Builder. BOZ (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Got more: The Bard's Tale II (120), the first Might and Magic (122), Realms of Darkness (122, created this one), and Black Magic (124). One thing of note is that just about every "The Role of Computers" column also contains a number of one-to-two paragraph mini-reviews. I have not been touching on these because that would really slow me down, but perhaps at some point I'll go back and catalogue those as well. I'm going to start looking at #126 momentarily; it's worth noting that up through #124, the column was semi-monthly, but #126 states that the column begins going monthly (probably due to its popularity at the time). BOZ (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #126 actually does not contain a review, although it promises an upcoming one for Phantasie III; the column is mostly devoted to talking about the state of the computer gaming industry at the time. #127 similarly contains no review, but discusses in detail the awarding of the AD&D license to Strategic Simulations, Inc.; I'll have to make sure to get back to that one before long! :) #128 features Shadowgate and a few mini-reviews. I think I'll take a break there as that concludes 1987; since 1988 apparently begins the first full year of monthly columns, that should take some work and time. :) BOZ (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I realized that with issue #128 they started giving the games ratings (1-5 stars), so I will be adding that as well from now on. :) I will also add this to any articles with one of those ratings tables, since that will help. Got Tower of Myraglen (129, started this one), Wizardry IV (130, preview), Phantasie III (130), Legacy of the Ancients (131), and Beyond Zork (132) tonight. More to come, sooner or later! :) BOZ (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First time for this, but I figured it was just a matter of time! Quarterstaff from #133 already has the review noted in article - one less for me to do. ;) Added blurbs to Dream Zone (134, started this one), Alternate Reality: The City and Alternate Reality: The Dungeon (135), Dungeon Master (136), and my personal favorite: Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny (137). Will be back before long to finish off 1988. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Star Command (138, started this one). #139 had no column; 140 had several smaller (less than one page) reviews. You know, I have been skipping all the smaller reviews less than one page so far, so I think I'll do the same here. I'll try to come back and get all of these, depending on just how long it takes me to get through all the featured reviews. Will start 1989 before long - hopefully tonight! BOZ (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #141-142 featured smaller reviews on a number of games; I've skipped them for now, but I'm definitely starting to feel like I'm going to have to make an effort to make a "second trip around" on this column and pick back up on stuff like that. :) #143 I've already taken care of, as part of my plan to take Pool of Radiance down the path to GA. :) When I got to #144, I realized that the smaller reviews might be getting to be a trend, so I'll try to do at least the first game reviewed: I did Arkanoid (144), Wizardry V: Heart of the Maelstrom (145), and Might and Magic II: Gates to Another World (146). Will conclude 1989 before long! BOZ (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Got these: J. R. R. Tolkien's War in Middle-earth (147), Hillsfar (147), Prophecy: The Fall of Trinadon (148), Curse of the Azure Bonds (149), the original Populous (150), Silpheed (151), and Dragon Wars (152). That concludes 1989, and I'll begin 1990 before long. :) Enjoying this so far at all? BOZ (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1990-1993

Got Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain (#153), Mines of Titan (#154), Citadel: Adventure of the Crystal Keep (#155, started this one), Champions of Krynn (#156), skipped #157 for now, and finished with Bomber (#158, started this one as well). Will get more soon, but not necessarily tonight! BOZ (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Loom (#159). BOZ (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Conquests of Camelot: The Search for the Grail (#160), DragonStrike (#161), Ultima VI: The False Prophet (#162), Secret of the Silver Blades (#163), and MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy (#164, started this one). That caps off 1990; been slow going because I've been busy, but will start 1991 before long. :) BOZ (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Railroad Tycoon (#165) and Wing Commander (#166) - sad how underdeveloped the Wing Commander article is! BOZ (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured out a way to do this much faster, so I cleaned out the rest of 1991. :) I got Tunnels & Trolls (#167), Wizardry VI: Bane of the Cosmic Forge (#168), The Lord of the Rings, Vol. I (#169), King's Quest V (#170), Eye of the Beholder (#171), Darkspyre (#172, started this one), Death Knights of Krynn (#173), Quest for Glory II: Trial by Fire (#174), Castles (#175), and Heart of China (#176). I'm satisfied with that – time for a break! :) BOZ (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Quicker indeed - I just finished what I wanted to do from 1992 in an hour! Got Might and Magic III: Isles of Terra (#177), Gateway to the Savage Frontier (#177), Pools of Darkness (#178), Conquests of the Longbow: The Legend of Robin Hood (#179), Castles: The Northern Campaign (#180), Block Out and Ishido (#181), Buck Rogers: Matrix Cubed (#182), the masterpiece itself the original Civilization (#183), Out of This World (#184), no column for #185-186, A-Train (#187), and Aces of the Pacific (#188). Next time up, I will finish out the column with the whole of 1993! Maybe tomorrow! :) BOZ (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And, I finished off 1993 in less than an hour. :) Got The Dagger of Amon Ra (#189), Darklands (#190), Might and Magic IV: Clouds of Xeen (#191), King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow (#192), Amazon: Guardians of Eden (#193), Conquered Kingdoms (#194, started this one), Night Trap (#195), and Challenge of the Five Realms (#196). Well, that finishes off my first pass at the run of the column! As I mentioned earlier, I will definitely be making a second pass, and hitting all the ancillary reviews that I skipped the first time around. There are quite a few, so bear with me! :) In fact, since I have some time tonight to do it, I may very well start within the hour! BOZ (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Second pass

Why not - having finished my first pass (getting, really, only a fraction of the reviews in this column), I might as well start off my promised second pass. :) Should begin shortly, and end... before the end of 2009 hopefully? ;) BOZ (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I started Dragonfire II: The Dungeonmaster's Assistant. I admit that last time I skipped it because I wasn't quite sure what to do with it. It's not a game per se, but it is a computer program to assist in the management of other games, so make of that what you will. :) BOZ (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No new reviews tonight, but I added a bunch of blurbs from short notices I found in the magazine. There were quite a few such notices, but I only made use of ones which included some sort of commentary (at least a phrase or a sentence) outside of just describing what is in the game. One thing I did find was a table in #126, which finally gave star-ratings to most of the games reviewed up to that point (as well as Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer). Anyway, that was quite a bit of work for the night, so that's it for me! BOZ (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong about #127 above; it did have one mini-review, for Earl Weaver Baseball. #128 had mini-reviews for S.D.I., Into the Eagle's Nest, and Delta Patrol, the last two of which do not have articles at this time. I may come back later and create stubs for them, but don't feel like it at this moment. :) BOZ (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) - (Update; created Into the Eagle's Nest, and realized that Delta Patrol was just a version of Delta. BOZ (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

Issue #129 had mini-reviews for Pinball Wizard, GBA Championship Basketball. The Ancient Art of War at Sea, California Games, and The Eternal Dagger, so I added notes for each that has an article. Starting here in 1988, we see a lot more mini-reviews. Note that each column has a bunch of notes on publisher and games, and previously I had been adding bits to articles here and there... well, I just don't have the time and energy to keep up with that. I think from here on, I'll just stick with picking up the reviews I skipped on the first pass. Sorry. :) BOZ (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Added notes from the mini reviews the following, to those which have articles: Sanxion (#130), Mini-Putt, Alternate Reality: The City, Empire, Scrabble, Marble Madness, Street Sports Basketball, and Harrier Combat Simulator (all #131). There are a ton of mini-reviews in #132, so I will get to them most likely another time. :) BOZ (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC) - (Update; found Empire so didn't need to create that one, but I started a few other articles) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just finished #132, which had reviews for Pirates!, and yes a ton of mini-reviews: Hardball, Test Drive, Championship Baseball, On-Court Tennis, The Last Ninja, Wings of Fury, Earl Weaver Baseball (Amiga version), Skate or Die!, World Tour Golf, Winter Games, World Games, The Faery Tale Adventure, Superstar Soccer, Might and Magic (IBM version), Falcon, Soko-Ban, and Halls of Montezuma: A Battle History of the U.S. Marine Corps. BOZ (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a few more tonight: #133 - Dragon's Lair (C64 version), Skyfox II: The Cygnus Conflict, Indoor Sports, and Monte Carlo; #134 - Strike-Fleet, The Naval Task Force Simulator, and The Pawn; and #135 - Airborne Ranger, Power!, Decisive Battles of the American Civil War Volume 1: Bull Run to Chancellorsville, Tetris (IBM version), and TNK III. More later! BOZ (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I went back over the reviews I had skipped and started articles for anything which I couldn't find - got over a dozen new stubs created today! I'm beat. :) Notice no more redlinks above? I'm going to create them as I go (or soon after) from now on. Also handled a few more tonight: #136 - Basketball Challenge and Fantasy Zone; and #137: Oids, Out Run, Ebonstar, and The Universal Military Simulator. BOZ (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished up 1988 - making progress! Took care of the rest of the reviews from #138 - Questron II, The Bard's Tale III: Thief of Fate, Power At Sea, Shanghai, and Wooden Ships and Iron Men. #139 had no column, and I had skipped #140 entirely previously, which contained: F/A-18 Interceptor, Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer (MacIntosh version), Global Commander, Road Runner, Might and Magic (MacIntosh version), Penguin Land, and PT-109. Articles forthcoming in the near future for those which are lacking! BOZ (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Started 1989 with #141: Roadwars, Rockford, AAARGH!, Dive Bomber, Epyx VCR games (Play Action VCR California Games, Play Action VCR Golf, Play Action VCR Football, Head-On Baseball, Head-On Football), Moebius: The Orb of Celestial Harmony, Alien Syndrome, Solitaire Royale, Tetris (MacIntosh version). Going to create stubs for some of those, but probably not tonight - very tired! :) BOZ (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Got #142 today - this was a big 'un! Well, lots of little reviews, with many of them being MS-DOS versions of arcade games or of games previously reviewed in the column: Empire (MS-DOS version), Ikari Warriors, Karnov, Contra, Rush'n Attack, Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders, Battlehawks, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Version 2.0, PT-109 (MS-DOS version), Falcon (MS-DOS version), Final Assault, Star Saga One: Beyond the Boundary, Pharaoh's Revenge, Wizardry IV: The Return of Werdna, and Shufflepuck Café. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Decided to get a little bit more in before retiring for the night. #143 had no additional reviews beyond the 3-page review for Pool of Radiance. #144 also had: Zany Golf, The Legend of Blacksilver, Battle Chess, Space Harrier 3-D, and Wonder Boy in Monster Land. BOZ (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Two more: Gold Rush! (#145) and Hostage (#146). BOZ (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Got several more tonight; it looks like there have been fewer reviews per column lately - which is a good thing for me and my sanity! This time around, everything had it's own article already, and some had no citations until now: Abrams Battle Tank (#147), The Magic Candle (#148), Space Quest III (#149), and the following from issue #150: Axe of Rage, Hidden Agenda, Gauntlet, Trust and Betrayal: The Legacy of Siboot, and Barbarian. More to come, but not tonight! BOZ (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Finishing up 1989! Got Thud Ridge and Strider from #151, and The Kristal, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Graphic Adventure, and Beyond the Black Hole from #152. Getting into the 90s, probably over the weekend? BOZ (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Got Sword of Aragon and Space Rogue (#153), and David Wolf: Secret Agent, M1 Tank Platoon, and Star Fleet II: Krellan Commander (#154). BOZ (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Got TaskMaker, the Lynx game system, Knights of Legend, and Savage from #155, and Harpoon (PC/MS-DOS version), Populous: The Promised Lands, The Computer Edition of Risk: The World Conquest Game, Tiger Road, and Manhunter 2: San Francisco from #156. BOZ (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Did #157, which I had totally skipped last time around: Knights of Legend (PC/MS-DOS version), A Boy and His Blob, Day of the Viper, Dr. Plummet's House of Flux, Keef the Thief, Knight Force. Also finished up #158: Breach 2, War of the Lance, Time Bandit, Fire King, and Laser Squad; this column also reviewed the MEGA Pack of 10 games by Mastertronic, which contains Rebounder, Monty on the Run, Jack the Nipper II, Bulldog, Krakout, Future Knight, Cosmic Causeway, Trailblazer, Northstar, and THING Bounces Back. Note that of those, each game was reviewed in one sentence so I will not be creating an article for those four (Rebounder, Bulldog, Northstar, and THING) which do not already have one. The second half of 1990 looks like a cakewalk compared to the first half, so I hope to finish that this weekend! BOZ (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cakewalk it was - well, nearly so! Finished off the following - note that #162 had only one review and I got that one a long time ago. 159: Gunboat (PC/MS-DOS version), Iron Lord, Welltris, Nuclear War; 160: Drakkhen, Phantasy Star II; *161: Mechwarrior, Budokan; 163: Centurion: Defender of Rome, The Keys to Maramon, Dungeon Explorer, The Revenge of Shinobi; 164: MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy, Flood. I'll start 1991 probably this weekend, but probably not tonight. :) BOZ (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Did a few more this time all from #165, maybe no more for a few days: BrainBlasters (compilation of Xevious 2 and Bombuzal), Imperium, Starflight 2: Trade Routes of the Cloud Nebula, and Ishido: The Way of Stones. BOZ (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And some more: Armor Alley, If It Moves, Shoot It!, King's Bounty, Tangled Tales: The Misadventures of a Wizard's Apprentice (#166); Battletech: The Crescent Hawks' Revenge, Hard Nova, and Stellar 7 (PC/MS-DOS version) (#167). BOZ (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I had plenty of free time, so I went berserk and finished off 1991! The following reviews are now in the can, as they say. 172: RoboSport, Warlords, Shadow Dancer, Y's Books I and II, Zombie Nation; 173: Space Quest IV, Zarlor Mercenary; 174: Cybergenic Ranger: Secret of the Seventh Planet, F29 Retaliator, Sonic the Hedgehog, Gunboat (Amiga), Harpoon (Amiga), Railroad Tycoon (MacIntosh), Wizardry: Bane of the Cosmic Forge (MacIntosh); 175: Dragon Crystal, Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, The Faery Tale Adventure (Sega Genesis), King's Bounty (Sega Genesis), Might and Magic (Sega Genesis); 176: J.B. Harold Murder Club, Phantasy Star III, A-10 Tank Killer (PC/MS-DOS version), Thexder (Macintosh & PC/MS-DOS versions), Space Quest III (Macintosh & PC/MS-DOS versions). BOZ (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really on a roll! (Happy Halloween, what's left of it, by the way). I'm done with 1992, and since 1993 was brief and I'll have a bunch of time on my hands, I'm going to attempt to get through the whole thing tomorrow and finally finish this enormous leg of my project! We'll see. :) Meanwhile, tonight I got to the following... 187: BattleToads, The Four Crystals of Trazere, King's Bounty (PC/MS-DOS), Super Space Invaders (Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss was already done); 188: Darkseed, Falcon 3.0, Minotaur, Prince of Persia, and Red Baron. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some big progress, but it turns out that I had far more ambition than free time or energy. :) On the bright side, I did get four out of the eight remaining issues done, so I should be able to finish up this second pass through "The Role of Computers" sometime within the next week! Today I got from 189: Global Conquest, Gods, Mission: Thunderbolt, Pacific Islands, Prophecy of the Shadow, Siege, Warrior of Rome II; 190: The Ancient Art of War in the Skies, Goblins, Shinobi (Sega Game Gear system), Alisia Dragoon, SpellCraft: Aspects of Valor; 191: Discovery: In the Steps of Columbus, Legend of Kyrandia, Ultima VII: The Black Gate and Forge of Virtue; 192: Battle Chess Enhanced CD ROM, Cobra Mission, Kingdoms of England II: Vikings, Fields of Conquest, Quest for Glory III: Wages of War, Shadowlands, Waxworks, and Wolfenstein 3-D. BOZ (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a downer, but are these updates really needed here? It seems like they could be placed somewhere more specific than this talk page, as it is a LOT of extra text on an already very active talk page. --Torsodog^Talk 04:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point. However, it is immaterial now, because...

I AM FINALLY DONE with "The Role of Computers". :) Ah yes, I said it, I've been working on this SOB for three months, and a few hundred games later I'm done. Time for a long, long break, and to let this thread die and go to the archives so I can quit monopolizing all this space. ;) Tonight, I finished from 193: Castles II: Siege and Conquest, The Incredible Machine, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Lemmings (MacIntosh version), M4, Push-Over, Space Legions, Carriers At War, Eric the Unready, Paladin II, Task Force 1942; 194: Lure of the Temptress, Realms, Rex Nebular and the Cosmic Gender Bender, The Summoning; 195: Dungeon Master (PC/MS-DOS version), Empire Deluxe, Road Avenger, Star Control II, Who Killed Sam Rupert? ; 196: The Journeyman Project, Legends of Valour, Pax Imperia, S.C.OUT, and Spaceward Ho! v. 3.0! Eventually, some time from now, I will be hitting the last column "Eye of the Monitor", which (God help me) I don't expect to be anywhere near as time consuming as this one was. :) BOZ (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)