Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Another question

sorry for dropping them at the same time but i got some freetime =)

anyways i remember this game that was ganna come out i think for PS2 that had to do with dating and fighting. you took the girls on a date and then you had to fight a monster or something . think it was called white blade or something with the word blade in it for the PS2 i just cant remember it. it looked cool but i never heard from it again. Maverick423 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Move debate.

I am arguing for Seiken Densetsu to be moved to Mana (series) on the common usage argument (SD is used only in Japan, while Mana is used in North America and Europe). SE has also referred to games in the Mana series as Mana games, implying that the series is "Mana". Please comment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Mana is the name of the franchise outside of Japan, and I don't understand why anybody would oppose it. TJ Spyke 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno how I missed this. I disagree with the move, mainly because SD3 wasn't released here, and the first game in the series wasn't called anything Mana here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Kirby magical items

This is in AFD currently, because it reads like a game guide. Anyone care to comment about it, in the AFD? RobJ1981 11:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles is getting a bit big

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Requested_articles. In the next few days, I plan to do some of the requests (and check to see if the articles are worth making or not). Anyone care to help? RobJ1981 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've just put in a translation request for de:Painstation which is on the requested list. But it would also be a good idea to clear some not-so-good requests out, I mean Galcon sounds very nn and so do some other web games on the list. Personally, I don't really bother with requested articles, they're usually obscure titles and I think there are more pressing articles that need addressing. For example, Dropzone, which until not too long ago was a redlink. - hahnchen 11:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are alot of CVG stubs that need work, but requested articles are important as well. RobJ1981 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra set of eyes on Cydebot's cat changes, please

Need an extra set of eyes watching User:Cydebot's contrib history tonight, especially on templates. Try to keep track of anything it breaks, as it is going to be editing pretty much every page in the project. --- RockMFR 05:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahahahaha...Cydebot has already pretty much crowded out my watchlist, as a majority of it is video games and templates. I'll be checking though. Hbdragon88 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of categories that have still got rename requests on them but the actual link to the new category has already been created on the article page. When will the category renames take place? - X201 08:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget that, they've been renamed now. - X201 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got down to Template:Mega Man series in Cydebot's template edit history. Will continue later... --- RockMFR 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues with an incorrect template

Template:Super Smash Bros. series is wrong. Smashing Live isn't a video game. I've changed the template a few times: and people change it back for no reason. Is there a reason people like to have incorrect templates? RobJ1981 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the soundtrack for a video game, and it's no longer linked anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A soundtrack still isn't a game. My edits were just fine, but I guess people just can't deal with change. RobJ1981 06:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because AMIB hates meta-data (i.e. clarifying "video game" or "sub series" or "characters") and has come down pretty hard on the Pac-Man and Silent Hill templates with editors who were adding it. I take AMIB's lead for metadata at least, as I agree with him on this aspect. Hbdragon88 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What about this Template:Duke Nukem series. Duke Nukem character article shouldn't be listed at the bottom: again, not a game. If anything, the link at the top of the template should be to the character itself. RobJ1981 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Many templates already have lists to characters, creatures, villains, etc. It just so happens that Duke Nukem only has one majro character, and lacks a "list of" that would be put in place. Those are still within the video game context - they are relevent to the video games - and I don't see any reason why to axe them. Hbdragon88 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And another Template:Resident Evil series. When it clearly is a video game template: movies and other things shouldn't be listed (unless the template is called something else, or the template is divided into different named sections), period. RobJ1981 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pikmin series is also wrong. I would fix them myself, but I don't feel like fighting over it again, and justifying something clearly isn't a game. RobJ1981 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If the problem lies in the template header saying "video games", then why not just remove the "video games" part? --- RockMFR 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading and obviously wrong just to throw in anything game related, and label the template "video games". Templates should be decent accurate navigation tools (like categories are). RobJ1981 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to comment? My Resident Evil template edit was reverted for no good reason. When the template is clearly called Resident Evil video games: movies and so on should NOT be listed or should have a clear note by it. Simply leaving it as it is now, isn't helping. I dont see why certain people don't understand this. RobJ1981 04:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues with Naruto Shippūden: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX

Can somebody help me out with this anime-licensed article? One user, Chill77 (talk · contribs), insists on adding characters to the article without showing any sources to prove those claims. I'm talking to this person on their talk, but they don't respond and judging from this edit., it seems "source" to this person means "the character is in the anime, thus they will be in the game". I'm about to start issuing vandalism warning at this point, but I'd like some other suggestion on how to deal with this user. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he is is predicting that the characters will be in the game which is a no no because with out sources to back it up it is just OR. once the person finds valid sources for his claims then he can add the data to the article however untill then, the data should be removed. If he continues to do so then we will have to take action Maverick423 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CfD precedent for "Computer and Video Games" → "Video Games" - change of title required for this WikiProject and articles?

I thought I would bring the close of a recent CfD for every "Computer and Video Games" category to be renamed to just "Video Games". The decision was apart from one or two editors, overwhelmingly supported by the community. This precedent may have implications for the title and naming of this Wikiproject and some articles, so I just bring it here as an outsider to allow the members of this wikiproject to discuss and meet consensus as per the CfD precedent.

The discussion for the CfD is now closed and is here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4#Category:Computer and video games and related sub-categories. --tgheretford (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for renaming the Wikiproject as well. It's bad form for us to not use the policy that we use in our articles and could confuse a lot of newcomers. All of the old redirects and such can still be used of course. Plus, those twelve extra characters do sort of make the project title kinda longer that I'd like. Here's to Wikiproject Video games (Or maybe Wikiproject Video gaming? Just a thought).--SeizureDog 17:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm opposed to the change. I just saw many game developer bios changed to "Video game designer," but in my opinion this is not an appropriate category for them. MUD developers, casual game developers, MMORPG developers -- "video game" isn't right. In the game development community, "video game" generally means console game. Perhaps we need to create subcategories to better reflect what these people do? --Elonka 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

CVG has a nice ring that VG just doesn't do... Hbdragon88 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, its kind of late to be going back now. I don't think we can satisfy everyone. I supported it even though I like the CVG "moniker", but I think its for the best. Thunderbrand 21:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

'm a bit attached to the WP:CVG moniker, but it'd be a bit silly to have all of the templates and categories be VG and the main project be CVG. So, change it. --PresN 02:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer CVG but can see the common sense behind VG. Change it. - X201 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Question. Does the 'precedent' now mean we must petition to get THIS name changed? Anyways, I don't support this, and if I had been here when the CfD was on, I wouldn;t have supported that either. The Kinslayer 11:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In one word, "no". Computer and Video Games magazine is independent of anything Wikiepedia does. It is the name of the magazine and so the page name should be the same as that of the magazine. BcRIPster 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was in fact being ironic. The Kinslayer 09:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't we grandfather this name in? This isn't the mainspace, we don't have to adhere to the naming conventions as strictly as we have to do there. Hbdragon88 21:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to stop using the WP:CVG shortcut, and I for one am going to keep referring to this project as CVG, but it'll be fun... we'll have confused newbies asking "what's CVG"? But the move should be made now that the general article is at video games and all the categories have been moved. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-20 22:28

I've hijacked the WP:VG shortcut and created WT:VG for those newbs who can't handle the CVG truth. - hahnchen 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Link fixes

Is there a place where you can list articles that need to have links fixes? For example, Nintendo GameCube Disc has a ton of links that need to be fixed (like changing GameCube Optical Disc). TJ Spyke 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking about red links, or links to a redirect? If the latter, you should be able to visit "GameCube_Optical_Disc?redirect=no", and then click "What links here" on the left. However, do note that Wp:redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken provides some guidelines for possibly leaving existing links in place. Presumably the concern here is that the way the name of the media format is inconsistent between articles and needs to be made consistent? -- Slordak 19:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Developer info

Does anyone know any sites that have good developer and publisher info? I've been looking for info about RFX Interactive for awhile and I just cannot find anything. And that's not the first time I can't find any info on a smaller company. DreamingLady 08:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Electronic sports in Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Article Creation and Improvement Drive: Electronic sports --141.24.43.104 09:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazon is a reliable source?

I saw a citation on one article somewhere (unrelated to the CVG WikiProject) which used an Amazon review as a source, but you could also use them to describe the gameplay. I'm guessing that because these aren't professional reviews we're talking about, they don't count as sources? UnaLaguna 06:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's like citing GameFAQs; there's a kind of editorial filter, but still don't cite it. Nifboy 06:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Right ho. Thanks for clarifying. UnaLaguna

Peer review request

I was wondering if anyone could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Star Fox (series). No one has replied since I posed it back on Sunday. Thanks. Thunderbrand 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

1UP's NWN2 review saga

Hello, all! I was just wondering where I could go to put information on the retraction, hubbub, and subsequent replacement of 1UP's NWN 2 review? I'd think it notable enough to merit some mention somewhere, given that there are enough sources to give an adequate outline of the events as they happened: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Someone might disparage the Joystiq and Kotaku cites given the bloggish design of their sites, but it seems the RS clause discouraging blogs is as regards their generally self-publishing nature and their lack of editorial oversight, concerns which I don't really think apply here. That said, I'm all for precedent. Whatever Wikiproject CVG; the afficionadoes over at WP:RS or WP:V or WP:FAC; or Jimbo by some magesterial editorial fiat, have declared, goes. I'm willing to drop this issue if the sources are put into any sort of question.

Source concerns aside, it just feels like the material would be discursive anywhere I might like to put it—1UP, NWN 2, VG journalism, whereever.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? I'm all ears. Thanks! Geuiwogbil 07:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think 1UP.com would be the most appropriate article to put that info. It's also quite a short article so it could use some expansion. --Mika1h 12:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is really a non event.

List of games

Hi there. Have a look at what we've done with List of Wii games, it's now a sortable table and looks, IMHO, much better than similar list of games that we have, so I propose to change the other lists to something similar. But before I start I'd rather ask if I'm the only one that thinks that this is a good idea or not, so here I go. Are there any objections or can the table be improved further? --Conti|✉ 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Only thing I can suggest is narrowing of the Exclusive column to stop the dates breaking over two lines. Other than that it's great and will probably be much copied in the future. - X201 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Having recently finished overhauling the GameCube and Xbox 360 tables... I'm personally exhausted. Is the sorting really that important? Do people really sort on anything besides title? -- Slordak 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can very easily see myself sorting by developer or date for quick easy reference or comparison. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow @ the ability to sort by column. VERY impressive. SubSeven 10:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll start converting List of PlayStation 3 games soon, as that list isn't very pretty and not too long. If there are any objections, please scream now. :) Oh, and all the praise should go to User:Digiwrld1 by the way, and not to me, as he created that table. Me and a few others are just implementing it. --Conti|✉ 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad that the impressions are positive, but I cannot take all the credit; there have been some very helpful people (ContiE, Telvin3D, just to name a couple) who have contributed greatly and given much input to make the list what it is now. So if anything I am indebted for all of their help and time. I'll try to help update whatever lists need to be whenever I have the time. Thanks for everyone's input. Digiwrld1 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Video Game console definition

There was a short discussion on the video game console page a while ago about the definition of a video game console as stated on the page. I checked back recently to find it still hasn’t been resolved so I have decided to come here for some input. The definition currently reads:

"A video game console is an interactive entertainment computer. The term is used to distinguish a machine designed for consumers to buy and use solely for playing video games from a personal computer, which has many other functions, or arcade games, which are designed for businesses that buy and then charge others to play."

With the release of the seventh generation consoles this brings the definition into dispute. The current generation consoles (PS3 and Wii especially) have many more features than to play games, yet the definition claims that video game consoles are "solely" for playing video games. Technically consoles as far back as the PS1 would not be games consoles by this definition, as the PS1 had a CD player.

I suggested to move to a definition that said that their "primary function" was to play games, but it was commented that this might make alienware PC's games consoles by this definition.

Does anybody have any ideas? Mattyatty 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think nailing it down to a single definition would be difficult. It may be easier to say "originally consoles were X, but in more recent generations they can also do Y". - X201 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The other issue is that "entertainment computer" really doesn't adequately describe earlier, non-cpu based consoles. --Marty Goldberg 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How about something like "dedicated to playing games made specifically for that system". I do think the "primarily" is fine, myself. And incidently I believe all CD based systems had CD player functions. Certainly the Sega CD did. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Change "solely" to primarily marketed for playing video games" and go on to explain how "since then, videogame consoles have gone on to add playback support for non-game media such as audio CDs and DVD movies." It's a little awkward, but you get the idea. Garrett^Talk 04:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it should also be clarified that, despite being referred to as "computer entertainment systems", consoles like the PlayStation 2 are not considered to be computer game platforms. Garrett^Talk 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again though, none of those cover early consoles which had no CPU or RAM (i.e. a "computer"). Likewise all games were built in to these systems, so "dedicated to playing games made specifically for that system" doesn't cover it fully either. --Marty Goldberg 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Total Annihilation: Kingdoms

A very large number of articles about elements of this game have recently been created by User:Avrillo. I don't think that they are notable on their own, and should probably be merged into the article on the game or deleted. These pages are-

• Noble Houses of Veruna
• Ulasem
• Zhon
• Taros
• Lokken
• Kirenna
• Thirsha
• Garacaius
• Kaluen
• Aidenfel
• Dernhest
• Heldain
• Buriash
• Elsin
• Aramon

Please could someone with knowledge of the policy and subject matter merge, delete or cleanup these articles as appropriate? It is also worth noting that this user is still working on the articles. I have not made contact with them, because this isn't a side of Wikipedia I am involved with much. J Milburn 12:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

These are definitely AFD fodder. All of these should probably be changed to redirects or deleted altogether. At first glance I'm not sure whether any of the content should be merged. It is worth salvaging? I'm thinking not but maybe someone more familiar with the game could comment. For now, I will drop this user a line to let him know not to waste his time creating any more doomed articles. SubSeven 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Which cover art should be used in articles?

Since these days, almost all of the games released are cross-platform, there should be some kind of consensus on which box art should be used in articles. Personally. I'd suggest that the "PC" box art be used for all games that have a PC(Windows/OS X/Linux) version. For all other games, I propose that the box art of most noted version should be used. Shall we have a consensus on this? rohith 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally use PC box art for most multi-platform games, basically because there isn't a really fuckugly banner across the top with the words XCubeStation written across it. It also means that there is more space for the actual box art. I have uploaded over previous versions of box art with PC versions such as Image:Tomb_Raider_Legend_Boxart.jpg and Image:Psychonautsbox.jpg, but I wouldn't do so with titles so ingrained within a particular system such as Halo: Combat Evolved. Just go with whatever you think's best, consensus wouldn't really bring much and no one would enforce it. - hahnchen 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The other thing to consider, after the Wii Play cover fiasco, is which country's cover art to use. Personally, I'd go for whichever country had a interesting/imaginative cover, and not automatically choose the U.S. version. --Oscarthecat 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, speaking of that, you might want to move your striked out comment above onto the talk page. Someone is actively claiming that consensus for replacing the art with the American version is already adequatedly formed. I might actually move more of the conversation above across.

And rohith, I've just looked at your PC box art uploads, and I'd agree with them. - hahnchen 01:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Titles that aren't newly released should use the cover of the best-selling edition. If that isn't possible, the first edition should be used. --Teggles 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're doing well. Remember to use {{game-cover}}'s Windows or similar parameters (which more accurately categorises the boxart) and to mark the old one for deletion (if you didn't upload over it). If the old one had a fair use rationale or whatever you could copy that across too. As for which region is the "right" one, we're going to have real fun when people start arguing over games like Gothic II. :) Garrett^Talk 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

Has an article about an expansion pack ever reached GA? Is it even possible? On the same note, is there a really good article about a series of games that is a good model?--Clyde (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda (series) and Air (series) are Good Articles, so you might want to start there. I don't think there have been any expansion packs. The reason for this is probably that they have less content and a smaller audience (not everyone buys them or, in the case of multi-platform games, can even get them) and thus there's less to write. Certainly it should be possible if it's well written, thorough, and has lots of references. An expansion that significantly overhauls the original game content and balance (e.g. Gothic II: Night of the Raven) would probably have more to write about than one that merely adds a few cars or missions or whatnot. Garrett^Talk 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, there aren't any good articles on expansion packs: Almost all of them are merely lists of new features. I wouldn't mind merging them on principle. Nifboy 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's possible. It's simply too hard for some people to do, and expansion packs usually don't get as much attention as the original game. Still, as for "Reception" and "Development", they can have their own sections. Only "Gameplay" and "Synopsis" might have a chance of ending up in lists or very short sections. Lists should be avoided at all costs. But with a proper link to the same section of the original game's article, it's not going to be a disaster if "Synopsis" and "Gameplay" are a tad short. Even a short article can be good, as long as it has a good amount of references, is well written and covers everything noteworthy.DreamingLady 10:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of gameplay or synopsis, is it good to add something like a {{Main}} or a further information of the orginal game to the expansion pack, or should I just add a link of the orginal game in the first sentence to gameplay or story?--Clyde (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That would probably suffice, unless the expansion changes the feel or balance of gameplay significantly (e.g. an RTS expansion adding a new resource type). As for story, it should be possible to say something like "ABC continues the story of XYZ by adding the backstory of 123 and adding more missions to 456's storyline". Garrett^Talk 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GCOTW a big letdown this week

This week's Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week was Prima Games. It's been rather a poor show, to be honest, very little activity. Appreciate any help others can offer in improving what is currently a rather shabby article. Thanks, --Oscarthecat 09:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna do some on it tonight. But I didn't reckon on the total lack of information available for a publishing company as compared to a game. NPD actually track game guide sales, so it'd be good to hunt some of them down. - hahnchen 10:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot of ground to cover. I seem to recall there being controversy over some particularly erroneous guides; IIRC that's what made them start releasing their so-called "web updates" (which is in reality a way to satiate customers by providing pages with corrected information). I think it was Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that was the first, as two crucial secret-hunting maps were completely wrong. I'll dig that info up later if I remember to. Certainly I think they were the first to do that, unless you count that Final Fantasy web help thing. Garrett^Talk 10:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Google has been notoriously sucky. I did log onto my university's search engine and pulled up a USA Today article (the only hit) that mentioned Prima's collobration with the developers of Half-Life 2, which I added. But otherwise I'm not finding anything. Hbdragon88 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You could try their old name (it was Prima Guides or Prima Publishing or something like that). Anyway, I'll see what I can find on the weekend. Garrett^Talk 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Navgiation template RE

Hi, is this template OK?

[6] Resident Evil template

A guy called A Man in Black is reverting it to a version that can't be understood by newbie players of the game. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, better than the one it was reverted to. I dont see how it couldn't be understood by newbies either. It might be worth changing "Misc." to "Lists" or something like that. Mattyatty 18:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer the original with the separate sections. There was a general consensus on CVG that quite a lot of templates were becoming hulking messes (Mario series etc.) and we cut them down. But the Resident Evil one was quite readable, so I'd be OK with the original. - hahnchen 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean the grey one? The template with a lot of characters listed? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. The template says "video games" on the top. I believe the reader can sumrise that the template is about video games. Therefore, I assume that every listed article is about the video game series. I can see "film" labeled on the third line, which means that those are films, not video games. And I can thus assume that the characters and creatures also refers to the video gameas as well. Hbdragon88 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before, but my message seems to have gotten lost in the shouting — why are all of these templates being changed to "SERIES_NAME video games"? I've seen certain users in this project change the header to say "video games" and remove the labels, and then they use that to justify removing more links from the templates. Individually, each of these changes might make sense, but as a whole, they are reducing the usefulness of these navigation templates. Apparently these collective changes have been deemed "standarized" by some. I don't see consensus anywhere for this illogical standard. --- RockMFR 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's a long discussion about the template change in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive19#Navboxes yet again --Mika1h 08:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same issues with Man in Black. He reverts templates: and doesn't always explain why. I asked him about the Pikmin template: he didn't reply. Templates should have sections to divide the things (in the case of video games/film templates such as Resident Evil). Template:Pikmin_series: the title of it lists it as video games. Not everything is a video game itself. Video game content (such as characters and so on): should be labelled differently, rather than just a cluttered mess. A CD for Pikmin was listed: I removed it, but I can imagine Man in Black will re-add it for no reason. Not everyone is a video game expert, and there is absolutely no need to clutter anything and everything related to the subject in the template. Then labelling it just simply as "video games" isn't helping either. Man in Black needs to accept change from others more, instead of just reverting what he thinks is wrong. RobJ1981 01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well...Wich template should be used?

This [7] or this[8]. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one should be used. I think that (or something similar) should be used for almost all game series. It's much neater to have sections, rather than it just being titled "video games" with movies and character articles just cluttered in anywhere. RobJ1981 05:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This looks far neater Mattyatty 13:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one. Much easier, both to use and on the eye. - X201 13:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So, now all the video games templates can use a smiliar structure? Look, this template (with the same structure of the RE template with labels) [9] is being reverted by A Black Man to this (the "standart" appearance) [10]. I really don't see wich is the problem. The only difference are the labels! I don't know why many users revert to the "standart" appearance (most of those can't be understood) Look this Template:Pac-Man series...this is really a mess, all the games are mixed and I don't undertand why (what type of games are ones and what type are others).Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So, are people in the market for a discussion about a new standard template appearance? The current navbox standard was adopted to combat the frankly really out-of-hand templates we had before, and I think it's hard to argue that a standardized appearance hasn't helped the overall quality of VG navboxes. Of course, things can always be improved, so I think if we're going to discuss any shortcomings of the current standard we ought to form a new set of guidelines so we can acheive the same uniform look. Template:CVG Navigation already exists, so perhaps a discussion on changing VG navboxes would be discussed on its talk page. ― El Cid ∴∵ 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not trying to change everything. The only thing that is being added are the labels. Nothing else! Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Which would be an alteration to the CVG navbox standard. There's different ways to add sections to templates (see Template: Mega Man series, Template:Dance Dance Revolution games) so I think we ought to have a concensus on organinzation if we're going to alter the way templates are organized. ― El Cid ∴∵ 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A new discussion about templates needs to happen, in my opinion. A Man in Black is just going revert crazy on many of them. "Standard appearance" is a cluttered mess, and you can't even tell the differences between games, films, game characters and other things alot of the time. Also it needs to be mentioned: confirmed games (not released yet) are being removed from templates by AMIB as well. If the game is notable enough for an article here, it certainly should be in the template. Why wait until later to add it? It does no harm at all to put it in the template. Templates deserve sections to actually be navigation tools. This standard appearance is clutter and not helping navigate much. RobJ1981 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've created a discussion here about the templates: Template talk:CVG Navigation. If anyone is interested, comment there. I really would like some changes to happen. RobJ1981 06:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There are something like 350-400 video game navboxes, and, quibbling about what appearance aside, there has previously been strong consensus to unify their appearance. I'm not really attached to this appearance (although I'm willing to argue strongly for several of its underpinning principles), but a series of slapdash design ideas, each different from the other, has zero support.

This is a big project, one where the first try is still underway. Rather than plugging in a single hand-made design idea into a single template, let us please finish the discussion at Template talk:CVG Navigation before replacing the standard design (which was the result of a previous, lengthy discussion) with a random design. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Game albums

Forgive me if this discussion has already taken place, I haven't seen anything too conclusive on any of the individual gaming WikiProjects, but what policy, if any, exists on creating pages for video game soundtracks or official arranged albums? I say this because some articles (Final Fantasy X albums and Wild Arms albums) group all game-specific soundtracks on one page, while others make seperate pages for each one (Final Fantasy VIII Original Soundtrack and FITHOS LUSEC WECOS VINOSEC: Final Fantasy VIII). In other words, is there any reason why, say, Final Fantasy VII: Original Sound Track, Final Fantasy VII: Reunion Tracks, and Final Fantasy VII Piano Collections aren't in the same article? Is it a notoriaty thing, or is there some other specific reason why they should or should not be brought together?

Merging would not only remove cruft, but take 2 or 3 articles that aren't even B-class and put them some place where they could get edited together. Plus, it cuts down on navbox size, AND all albums can be accessed from the main game's article and FFAlbums template with one clean link. Nall 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say merge 'em, though you might want to mention it over at WP:FF or WP:SE (or both) before you do it. They'll almost certainly agree with you, though. --PresN 03:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just using the Final Fantasy Pages as an example, since there's more albums for them than on any other particular series, and I certainly don't want to start sticking articles together if people had already decided it was a bad idea. It's just a solution I thought would cut down on the ever-growing navboxes and the continuing controversy of their formatting. I tip my hat to whoever decided the Final Fantasy X albums should be on one page, it just seems better all around. Nall 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject reform

As one of the more active WikiProjects, I figure it might be good to mention the WikiProject reform proposal that's currently going on. We touched on this topic a while back and took some less-active daughter-projects and made them task forces of CVG. This proposal might help us further strengthen our organized efforts when dealing with broad and narrow WikiProjects. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles on unnannounced games?

I thought that there was a clear consensus that we would not create articles for games that have not yet been announced. But apparently I was wrong. In previous AfDs for unnannounced games that are likely to be announced some time in the future there was overwhelming consensus to delete. Was there a discussion about this that I missed somewhere? JACOPLANE • 2007-02-27 17:36

With anything that has yet to actually happen, writing an article about it can be tricky. In a good deal of cases, probably most, it's a good idea to just wait for the game/event/whatever to happen and then make an article. However, sometimes we do have enough verifiable information about these things, and it is somewhat safe to have an article about it. It's all about sources and keeping speculation down and all that. -- Ned Scott 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The stages of the CVG project:

1. Include every piece of software ever imagined, including the text adventure game I made for my TI-82 about 10 years ago.
2. Include every game that has ever been discussed on an Internet forum or on a fansite
3. Include only games that are verifiably real (or [formerly] in development) (i.e. GameFAQs/MobyGames)
4. Include only games that are verifiably real (or [formerly] in development) and are of some (even slight) importance to gaming
5. Include games are verifiably real (or [formerly] in development) and have reliable secondary sources

On any given day on Afd, it seems that we might fall into any one of these stages. Today it seems we are at stage 2. We should be at stage 4 (and usually are). Stage 5 is a pipe dream (as it is for Wikipedia as a whole). --- RockMFR 08:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub templates up for renaimg at SFD

The various computer and video game stub templates are now up for discussion for renaming at SFD since you have by and large finished with the category renames. The one stub category that you didn't change over is also up for a rename. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Page moves again

A Link to the Past just moved Clubhouse Games to 42 All-Time Classics. He claims that it is more popular there and it also came out there first. Is there any guideline for this America-vs-Europe debate? Hbdragon88 20:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no guideline about it. Maybe I missed it? The more popular name makes sense (as long as he has proof it is indeed the more popular name). RobJ1981 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the CVG has suddenly broke out into the America vs. Europe war. There was recent edit warring on the cover art for Wii Play, for instance. Yoshi's Topsy-Turvy was moved to Yoshi's Universal Gravitation (the European name). Then there was Brain Age vs. Brain Training, Trace Memory vs. Another Code, and now this Clubhouse Games vs. 42 All-Time Classics. Hbdragon88 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do wish video game companies would stop releasing games under different titles in UK and the States. It would certainly save a lot of meaningless squabbling over here. -- Exitmoose 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the move to Yoshi's Universal Gravitation does not apply because it was moved becuase it was also used in Japan as well making it the most common name overall. That is not the case here so there is no reason to move it. --69.156.206.121 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say I find it funny. But my suggestion is: take the name that is the best translation of the original Japanese name. It may not be a solution for every case (like Touch Detective), but it is a proper guideline for most. Also, technically, we would then be using the most commonly used name. DreamingLady 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Many were only renamed for the North American region because of legal issues (Mega Drive, Lylat Wars) or because of the marketing department (Thunder Force IV became Lightening Force: Quest for the Darkstar--the typo is Sega's, not mine). Otherwise those games would have definitely carried the original name. So yes, I'd say if it has the same name in Japan and Europe but a different one in North America the former is probably the one to stick with. Garrett^Talk 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that often the North American/European names have nothing to do with the Japanese name, or even an NA/EU game being released as a different name. The Japan-focus rule doesn't apply well at all. --Scottie theNerd 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I already say it wasn't going to work for everything? Also, I said "best translation", meaning that it still doesn't have to be a good translation, just what comes closest. If it's possible, I'd say we follow that guideline. If it's not possible, we could use the name of the game in the continent it was first released in (not Asia ofcourse) or that best represents what the game is about.DreamingLady 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of console role-playing game and computer role-playing game

It has been suggested (not by me) that these two articles be merged, just like how the menu-driven Snatcher and the mouse interaction-centered The Curse of Monkey Island are both covered by the wide definition of an adventure game. I'm bringing it up here so it can get wider visibility, as it's a fairly major issue. See Talk:Console role-playing game#Merge discussion for the debate. Garrett^Talk 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as the discussion suggests, these are definitely two different breeds of RPG's. The unfortunate problem is both of the articles lack sources (though they definitely exist out there). I'd look for sourcing covering the difference between the two types, rather then trying to merge the two to fit one encompassing genre. —Mitaphane _?|! 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Project name

I understand the reasons for re-naming many of the categories recently, but for the WikiProject itself I always liked "Computer and Video games" better.. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It also would have been nice to have had a little heads up on that for those of us that were not tracking the cat discussion. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I noted a few sections up, we're not the mainspace, we don't have to hold ourselves to the NC as strictly as they do. But it was argued that it would confuse newbies. the change is merely cosmetic, though, and it doesn't bother me that much. Hbdragon88 08:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal, but just doesn't seem.. as snappy.. oh well :) -- Ned Scott 08:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese transliteration of non-Japanese names

Hi, I have recently noticed that someone has been removing the Katakana renderings of various characters' names from Japanese-made video games from their respective articles. In most cases, only characters that are supposed to be of Korean nationality have had the Japanese renderings of their names deleted. The reasoning behind this activity, as far as I can tell, is that since the character itself is not of Japanese nationality according to in-universe information, then the Katakana is irrelevant regardless of what the character's real-life origins are. Personally, I think that since the characters are properties of Japanese companies and presumably had their names written in Japanese in the original literature, then the Japanese name spellings at least deserve some brief mention within the related article. I have tried discussing this with the editor in question in the discussion page of one of the affected articles (Talk:Hwang_Seong-gyeong), but he/she seems unwilling to compromise. I bring this up because, despite searching through various Wikipedia guidelines and naming convention articles, I could not find a specific guideline that applies to this situation. Any insights and advice on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Shabby 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO it depends if the name itself has an origin. For instance, many Koei games are based on Chinese history, so in such cases Katakana are kind of irrelevent. Same with games where the characters names are already English - Sakura Wars 5 for instance. And of coruse, there's the case of Trusty Bell with Chopin...just my opinion though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm wondering is wether or not the Katakana rendering of a Japanese-made (Japanese-made meaning being the original creation and property of a Japanese creator or company) character's name should appear somewhere on the article even if the character itself is not Japanese. Take Mario for example. The first sentence of the article states his name followed by the Katakana rendering of his name in parentheses despite Mario being ostensibly Italian. Is including the original Katakana rendering of a Japanese-made video game character in the article (even if the character is not strictly supposed to be Japanese) standard operating procedure for Wikipedia? Shabby 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

CVG

So let me get this straight - if an article has a title with computer and in it, it should be removed from the title? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an example in mind? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

List of best-selling computer and video games (now List of best-selling video games). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess an article like computer and video game music should be renamed. Is that what you're referring to? JACOPLANE • 2007-03-1 23:55

Nevermind, edit conflict, you answered that just now. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-1 23:56

What I'd like to know is if I should remove all instances of "computer and video games" or not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes unless you are speaking of the magazine by that specific name. BcRIPster 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Soulcalibur

At present, just about every article on a Soulcalibur character has an {{unencyclopedic}} tag and is listed in Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic (easiest found via that category). Since I don't see the problem with covering characters from fighting games in Wikipedia, I removed a few of those templates, but was reverted with no further comment. Perhaps someone from the Wikiproject could look into it. >Radiant< 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I just picked Taki (Soul Calibur) at random. The first sentence is OK. After that, "Biography", "Weapons" and "Stages" need to be rewritten in an out-of-universe style per WP:WAF. "Character analysis" appears to be entirely original research and should be either sourced or removed. "Trivia" sections should be avoided in general. In general, the article appears to be a datadump of information which is of little, if any interest to people not already familiar with Soul Calibur, which no indication as to what (if any) influence Taki has had beyond the game itself. If the rest of the articles are like this, I would recommend the in-game information be removed and they are merged into a list. (That all reads rather harshly, I'm aware. Please nobody take it personally; this would be a very good article for a Soul Calibur guide, but isn't a good article for a general encyclopedia). Cheers --Pak21 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it me, or do all character descriptions seem to be "copy & paste" work. In general, they're horribly written (for an encyclopedia). Copy & Paste work, in-universe style, original research, GameFaqs-material.... Do I need to say more? The character pages can stay (they are notable enough), but they should be rewritten.DreamingLady 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• If it's a copy/paste from gamefaqs, we need to delete it because of copyright. >Radiant< 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else is echoing my thoughts! I'd been uming and ahing about this pages for the past few days myself, and I agree if they are going to be kept, then they need substantial re-writing. The Kinslayer 10:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it would be easier to redirect everything to a Characters in page. When and if (iff!) a character's description grows without incorporating too much in-universe info it can be re-split. Garrett^Talk 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If they are a copy and paste from GameFaqs, it should be checked to see if they were added by the writer of whatever it was on GameFaqs first. After all, it's not that unlikely that a FAQ writer would just copy and paste what they've already written and put it on Wikipedia. Of course, if the FAQ just copyed and pasted info from an official bio, then it would still need to be removed.--SeizureDog 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I second removing the Character Analysis sections. I think CVG article guidelines state that overly detailed gameplay descriptions should be avoided, and the character analyses can be considered as such. And yes, the character entries have certainly gotten bloated and are probably due for heavy trimming. A little uniformity would also be a nice touch. Shabby 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

More aftereffects of the "computer and video games" to "video games" moves

Should articles with (computer game) and (arcade game) in them be moved to (video game)? E.g. Black & White (computer game) vs. Black & White (video game). I think the majority of people agreed that computer games are still video games, so it seems we should make them consistant. However, this is unless we want to disambig title by platform (when they're only on one) instead. Take a look through Category:Atari 2600 games, and you'll notice just how inconsistant we are here. I see (arcade game), (video game), and (Atari 2600) about equally. Granted, some articles, such as Pac-Man (Atari 2600), are for a specific console and should stay, but many could do just fine at (video game). Of course on the flip-side, I wouldn't mind having those (video game) articles be at (Atari 2600), just so long as we have a standard. --SeizureDog 09:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest changing all to (video game) considering our new rules unless there are multiple articles of the same name. From what I've seen this can be for different platforms, in which case the platform could be put in parentheses, but it could also be a different game with the same title, in which case it should probably have the year released in parentheses. I think I've also seen the developer name used to differentiate, but the year would probably be more helpful. --ADeveria 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been a bit of confusion on what to do with Air (1977 computer game) and Air (game). I previously tried moving the 2nd one to Air (visual novel), but it looks like they might need to be Air (1977 video game) and Air (2000 video game) respectively.--SeizureDog 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have to lean towards the standardization myself as well. BcRIPster 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, I think that we all like standardization, but do you have a preference as to which standard to use?--SeizureDog 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The arcade categories

Also, is there any real reason why the categories in Category:Arcade games by year exist? It is the only platform to get special treatment in this way, and seems like it needs to be merged into Category:Video games by year. This however, will end up being a rather large task, as many articles have categories for the both the arcade year and a different category for their video game year. E.g. Soul Calibur II has both Category:2002 arcade games and Category:2003 video games. We'd have to check articles like these and replace both with Category:2002 video games--SeizureDog 09:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think arcade games, while of course most are still video games, have a bit of a different stigma attached in that the whole way you have to pay for them. And there are plenty of arcade games that aren't video games -- Ski Ball and Pinball for starters. You do have a good point though, and I agree there should be a bit more consistency (like all films are tagged with (film) and not (movie) )♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I considered that myself, but I checked some of the earlier years and if seems that all of the articles in those categories are video games. Skee ball for instance, is just under Category:Arcade games (none for the year) and pinball games have their own Category:Pinball games. The number of non-video game arcade games in the year categories is slim to none.--SeizureDog 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, and skeetball, ticket, gallery, and crane games, etc... should really be under something like Electro-mechanical games anyways, I would think. BcRIPster 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that doesn't take into account that the old, old school versions of arcade games such as skeeball were probably done without electricity or even perhaps mechanical parts. --SeizureDog 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Some categories that may need renaming

Animals in computer games -> Animals in video games
Multiplayer computer games -> Multiplayer video games
Pinball computer games -> Pinball video games
Puzzle computer and video games -> Puzzle video games
Real-time tactical computer games -> Real-time tactical video games
Strategy computer games -> Strategy video games
WOSlinker 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby move

There is a move request to have the Kirby article be for the video game character. Fromwhat I have seen, at least one of the oppose voters is voting against it just because it's a video game character (one of his comments was something like "it's a video game character, no one will remember him in 15 years). Just thought some of you might be interested in voicing your opinion. It's at Talk:Kirby#Requested move (2). TJ Spyke 11:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sega Pro and Mega Power

The articles on these journals require a listing of an ISSN. Can someone help me find this information? Keesiewonder ^talk 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean ISBN numbers? I found two magazines for Sega Pro (Sega Pro Master Volume 1, Sega Pro Master Volume 2). It wasn't a monthly magazine, but rather a regular series of guides. So each one had a different ISBN number. I can't find anything on Mega Power. TJ Spyke 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd noticed/wondered about that too. Whomever created the articles, though, clearly thought they were journals. If no-one objects, I may edit the articles over to reflect their book status. Keesiewonder ^talk 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Sega Pro is very much an old UK games magazine. [11] If you want articles on the books, I suggest something like Sega Pro Master. - hahnchen 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood, thanks; I'd seen that link in my travels too. All I need are the ISSNs ... (Does anyone have a copy of these magazines?) Keesiewonder ^talk 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

GamePro Reviews = Suckage?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought GamePro was a respected publication with some decent features (like the Chrono Cross interviews). But check this review out. There's one just like it for Goemon's Great Adventure. They appear to be user-written, and seem to feature little evidence that the author had more than a passing interest or played the game more than a few minutes. The reviewer utterly and completely misses the fact that FFC has new cut scenes and horrible load times. Has anyone else encountered this, and can we write off reviews like this as...well, stupid? Looking back at Goemon's Great Adventure's GamePro review, the guy makes some vague, passing criticisms; it too seems to be user-submitted. His criticisms of the game are also way out of line with the general gaming press's. What gives? --Zeality 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

GamePro is not the best game magazine out there (I stopped reading a long time ago), but I can find bad reviews in every magazine and website. Sometimes it's the magazine/website, sometimes it's the individual reviewer. TJ Spyke 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A question and comment. First the question: what exactly does this have to do with articles on Wikipedia? You didn't say anything such as "should we not list GamePro reviews in articles?" or so on. My comment is: just because GamePro's reviews aren't liked, doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed. They have been around a while, and it's notable. All reviews are opinions, and just because their reviews are hated doesn't mean it's something to be left out of Wikipedia articles (if that's the case you are trying to make). RobJ1981 06:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm wondering if we should use them; I'm currently writing a critical section for Final Fantasy Chronicles. I've no doubt that they pay certain people to review, but come on, "UNCLEDUST" and a one paragraph memorandum failing to note any new features of the game? At least on a case-by-case basis, I think the reviews are toast for FFC and GGA, and I'll be wary of GamePro in the future. If someone can confirm that "UNCLEDUST" or "THED-PADDESTROYER" are accredited employees of GamePro and competent reviewers, we'll be getting somewhere. But if more eloquent reviews from less notable sites are going to be challenged in CVG articles, these abysmal one-shots by anonymous posters should be left out as well. I guess we need some insight here on how their review system works. --Zeality 07:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't use/mention reviews I can't use. Simple as that. I often times cannot use GamePro reviews, though I always check.DreamingLady 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

With the game being a compilation of other games, publications may not have decided to give over their columns to it. As Spyke has mentioned, there are crap reviews in every publication, especially if Dave Halverson is involved. - hahnchen 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In relation to pseudonyms like UNCLEDUST or whatever, GamePro has always used clown names for its staff. It's their attempt to be hip cool and irreverent, like a Disco Vicar. - hahnchen 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the real question here is whether we should make this an issue om GA/FA nominations. If the reception section uses sources that are not professional, that might be grounds to oppose the nomination. Perhaps we should as a WikiProject compile a list (and we shouldn't be nazis about this because of one bad review) of sources that we feel are reliable in the gaming press. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-4 20:44

There's no real need for this, I think going on a case by case basis is fine. In this case, the GamePro review is obviously not that good. - hahnchen 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, GamePro has always been 2nd rate video game magazine. If we were to compare it to other journalistic standards, I'd say it is the equivalent of (or a little below) USA Today compared to other papers like The New York Times. Elitism aside, GamePro is still a solid source and should be used for articles. It might not be as critical as other sources, but it is still a reflection of sentiment in the world of gaming. —Mitaphane _?|! 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Character navboxes.

Quick summary: Navbox with characters, Navbox without

• User:A Man In Black removes characters from the Template:Guilty Gear series navbox.
• I revert him, he reverts me. He says that characters don't belong in vg navboxes. He cites some new guideline on navboxes
• I say fine, but ask for him to at least split the characters out into a seperate navbox for the character articles, pointing out that every game series used as an example in that guideline also has a navbox for their characters: Template:Mario characters, Template:Zelda character, and Template:Metal Gear characters.
• He says those kind of navboxes are being deleted at TFD and doesn't want to waste his time. Suggests I bring it up for discussion (and here we are).

So, is everyone against having character navboxes or something? Personally, I find it annoying as hell to try to browse through all of the characters in a series if I don't have a navbox to help. Lists and categories are ugly and require more steps. Is there any real reason that character navboxes are unhelpful enough for us to delete/not create them? I can understand for some series that might not have more than 5 or so character articles, but for games with large rosters, such as fighters, I think that seperate navboxes need to be created to help aid in navigation and that the responsibility of creating such should rest on whomever is removing such information from the main navbox. I mean can one really argue that Template:The King of Fighters characters is somehow not helpful if Template:The King of Fighters series is?--SeizureDog 06:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I direct people to Terry Bogard#External links.

Categories are for linking large groups of homogenous, loosely-related things. When you try to cram lists of such things into templates, it becomes a mess. Does anyone remember the old {{Mario characters}}? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'll direct you to United States#Navigation. Hell, any country, state, or even city generally has a huge section of navboxes at the end. And really, they're at the end, so does it really matter how large it is (to an extent)? It's not as though it hinders the reading of the article itself, since you're not going to see them until you're through.--SeizureDog 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a train wreck. What an excellent argument to continue using categories instead of templates for these things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a counter-example, the Comics WikiProject decided to delete all of their naboxes (i.e. X-Men members, Avengers members) because the comics world corsses over too many worlds and they weren't the most useful navigating tool (see 2006 14 September TFD. CVG and real-world will have different priorities, and we shouldn't use either to try to compare. Let's just narrow the scope down. I personally think that linking to lists of characters is far better than trying to cram every character in there; like AMIB said, {{Mario characters}} was horrendous. This is not helpful at all. Also, the Mortal Kombat characters navbox was deleted a month ago via TFD, so that might be a useful debate to check out. Hbdragon88 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't quite understand why games are being allowed to have navboxes and characters are being objected against. The same logic applies to both groups, as both games and characters for a series usually have their own categories and/or lists. I mean are we supposed to delete Template:Metal Gear series just because Category:Metal Gear games also exists? Also, this whole removing of "under development" games from navboxes is really stupid. What exactly is the logic for this anyways? Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is sure to be a highly looked for article, but if you check the navbox you'd think that we don't even have it. I mean seriously, it's like we're trying to hide these articles from people and make them check the category for the one article not in the navbox. This sort of thing isn't helping people nagivate Wikipedia.--SeizureDog 10:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, if an article exists, it belongs in its respective series navbox. If the article doesn't have enough content, it should be put up for AfD first, then removed from the navbox if it's deleted rather than being removed first. I've yet to receive a response from User:A Man In Black regarding this move. --Scottie theNerd 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we should probably repeal that guideline for a little while and have some more discussion on it. I completely missed out on it the first time around and there seems to be multiple instances where A Man In Black's implimenting it is causing complaints. In my opinion, navboxes should be handled more on a case by case basis instead of these "standards" we have to follow. Hell, is there even a Wikipolicy/guideline for navboxes on the whole? or are we the only ones that have anything for them?--SeizureDog 12:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but agree here. I don't see why game navboxes are ok, but character ones aren't. Either they should both exist or neither -- I don't have a problem with them being seperate, though, but they should both at least exist. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scottie. If an article SHOULD exist and a navbox exists for that series, it should be in the navbox. Navigational templates are meant to help the reader navigate to related articles (and help to bypass the terrible category system that is entirely useless to the reader). --- RockMFR 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Often I find that articles removed from a navbox aren't even tagged for deletion, yet the reason for removal is often the reason why it should be deleted outright. --Scottie theNerd 06:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

List of places and characters in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms

I created the article List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms by merging content from 14 separate articles (12 of which were up for deletion). I will perform as much cleanup and improvement as I can, but my knowledge of the game is at present limited to what I've read in the main TA:K article. So, any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, Black Falcon 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This issue was raised on February 24 in a discussion on this talk page (see above or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Total Annihilation: Kingdoms.

Let's settle the plot thing once and for all

Back in late 2005, Ryu Kaze and his friends completed a slew of Featured Articles. All featured plot summaries that covered all major arcs of the plot, and all articles were supplemented by out of universe information which always outsized the fictional sections. However, recently a few people are starting to get antsy about the summaries' possibly being too large, and I've personally encountered some resistance in the FAC process. So let's settle this with an argument and discussion. I am personally in favor of the large, complete summaries Ryu Kaze made precedent for. Featured Article criteria 1.b states that articles should not neglect major facts or details. The general style of writing has been to include major plot arcs with enough details that the reader may have a competent understanding of plot cause and resolution. To cite an example, I'll use Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, my last FA and my last FAC to be challenged for this.

Firstly, what makes the article good? It covers everything available and relevant to readers outside of Konami or the development team. History on both sides of the Pacific is chronicled; critical and fan reception is deeply represented, with all aspects of the game critiqued. Play control is well documented and stresses unique facets of the game's structure. The game's very unique audio presentations and styles are emphasized, and samples are given. To summarize, there is a lot of good, out-of-universe information here which covers every part of the game. Let's move to the plot. Would some of you call that too much? It summarizes every major arc, from Oedo Town to Zazen Town to Kyushu and the North. I left out a lot of fetch quests, but major character interactions, appearances, and events are represented. Readers who have never played the game will still miss out an the larger experience, but will be able to completely understand the game's plot and drivers. The comprehensiveness of the summary also allows several connections to be made with references in the rest of the article, such as the appearance of "Gorgeous My Stage", the four special abilities, the quirky humor and stye, etc. Okay, I'm rambling, but does the plot section (not counting the out-of-universe information concerning the humor) seem too long?

I received an objection on that count, and these Wikipedia principles were invokved (listed with my counterarguments):

• WP:NOTE (making good use of wikibooks): "...an encyclopaedia article about the work of fiction on Wikipedia giving a brief outline, [then chapters on Wikibooks, then full text on Wikisource, etc.)..."

This one is laughable. An article can't be comprehensive if it castrates summaries into brief outlines with a link to Wikisource. You would not summarize Moby Dick with a bulleted list of ten or 15 bullets. On that note, this suggestion hilarious sounds like an admonition to use lists, which is a cardinal sin! Also, check existing FAs on literary works. Whether Adventures of TinTin or Lord of the Rings, several paragraphs of in-universe information exist to provide a comprehensive understand of the plot and characters.

• WP:WAF (criticizing in-universe styles)

The article's out-of-universe information dwarfs the plot summary, so this objection was a little errant.

• WP:FICT "...plot summaries should be kept reasonably short..."

There's the stickler and the root of the argument. Reasonably short is up for interpretation, and I believe Ryu Kaze and several other WP:CVG editors who churned those FAs out chose to weigh reasonability in lieu of FA criteria 1.b. Reasonably is obeying what makes an article perfect (comprehensiveness; aiding the reader in understanding a major work, including its plot) while omitting details, detours, and other dalliance in fictional worlds and stories. In our arena, this includes side quests, minor characters (which are usually) relegated to List of Xenogears characters and stuff like that), and other conventions peripheral to main arcs of a story. I suppose this is what needs to be evaluated and have a conclusion reached upon. For many CVG editors, this is not a real problem -- you'd be hard pressed to write seven paragraphs about the plot of Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 (though an overall Mortal Kombat franchise article might suffer this difficulty). As many of you can and probably will argue, however, role-playing games often have deep, complex plots. Comparing them to literature and such is something for another time, but if we can agree that the plots of RPGs can be just as engrossing and expansive as the plots of literary works, then perhaps we can agree that RPG plot summaries can, without harsh scrutiny and on the condition that out-of-universe information is represented, include major arcs in a comprehensive plot summary. --Zeality 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion constantly changes on this issue. Initially, User:Silence came up to Ryu and myself with the featured article review of Final Fantasy X, which is where this concept of comprehensive, full plot summaries came from. Initially, I will admit that I debated with Silence in IM over this issue, but we agreed that comprehensive summaries is the best choice. I immediately tried the idea on Final Fantasy VIII while Ryu and Silence worked on expanding the X article's summary appropriately, and I believe we met in the middle very nicely with both articles. This was followed by a series of FA pushes (including VIII and a retaining of X's featured status), which allowed us to publicize this concept without much resistance; this surprised us (heck, we got more resistance from the lack of spoiler warnings). However, I do believe there is a balance point that needs to be made, especially with the new emphasis on "reasonably short" plot summaries. With WikiProject Final Fantasy, Axem and myself did a comparison of the script of each game versus the size of the plot summaries. Axem and myself concluded that Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X have the best balance between plot summary and game/script length, but it's not an exact science. These were the first two that the idea was tested out on, and based on percentages, it seemed to be the best balance. I'm not sure about the Chronos though, because I didn't take a look at the script word count. Unfortunately, Ryu is not around anymore to offer his arguments.

I understand your point that we need to argue on the FACs that RPGs have deep stories (because most people who object on story length do not actually read the synopsis). The key is to discuss the setting and characters beforehand from an out of universe perspective; inspiration for the setting, character designs, etc. This allows us to explain the plot in that succinct manner while balancing in and out of universe information for the setting/characters/plot supersection. This might not make more sense, but it's basically saying that we carry on what we are doing with the RPG setting/character/story sections, but with an added emphasis on out of universe, developers inforation for the first two sections. This looks good in the eyes of reviewers. — Deckiller 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so really a case-by-case basis, then. That sounds good; I suppose we might have to get our hands dirty in the FAC process, but at least I've formed a case here for necessitating good RPG summaries. I need to revise Ryu Kaze's CVG Featured Article guide, as I've got a bunch of new tips for getting that precious out of universe information that makes articles legendary. --Zeality 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a case by case basis; some games have large character backstories that mean nothing to the plot; other games have huge areas of fighting to get from point A to point B that don't really need to be mentioned outside of one sentence (the sandseas and the jungle/that big dragon boss creature in Final Fantasy XII). Perhaps a short way of putting it is that "if the plot summary can provide the reader with a general idea of the major plot progression points from start to finish in the shortest manner, then it is comprehensive and focused". Focus is another big FA criterion being taken into account; for instance, the article B Movie is being reviewed due to a supposed "lack of focus" on the general concepts (it was 120 KB at one point). Like I said, the key is balancing focus and comprehensiveness by providing what is needed to understand the major plot points.

As an example, say a party travels from City A to City D. Along the way, they pass Cities B and C, where they rest and discuss their past. If part of that past has information relevant to the story later on, then it should be mentioned; otherwise, the entire situation can be left out to be descriped in a character article or perhaps as an example in the characters section. — Deckiller 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the Mystical Ninja article, the plot summary isn't too long; it could probably be trimmed by a paragraph or so, I don't feel it's a huge issue. — Deckiller 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I like long but not unnecessarily so. I don't think that the plot summaries of the FF articles and CT articles are far too long. Also, on a semi-related note, I wish that people wouldn't be so anti-spoilers tags on Plot sections. I mean, really, what harm could possibly be done? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I favor shorter plots. My distaste for long plots has been cemented by seeing way too many in-universe ones (examples being Pokemon XD, Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire and Emerald, Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen; Time Crisis, 3, and 4). But having only authored two GA articles (one being DNF), and no FAs, I can't really authoritatively state whether we should be short or have longer ones. Hbdragon88 02:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Here's the problem as I see it: you people are lazy. What do I mean by that? Writing long plot summaries is easy. That's right, easy. Why? Because you have so much easily accessable information to work with that you can just write as much as you want. It's harder to condense all that information while still remaining broad. You don't need 1000 pages to write a summary for a 1000 page book; you can do it in 1000 words. If you can't, you're not summarizing; you're rewording. Let me give you some thoughts to think on:

• Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon has a longer plot summary than War and Peace, the book that is famously long (~1424 pages). Granted, War and Peace isn't a FA or anything, but still it does summarize it. On that note, it's also longer than Moby Dick's plot summary, which you provided as a counter-example.
  • I agree that Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon's story summary could be shorter. However, the article pays enough attention to the other aspects of the game AND is only 37KB long. So no harm done.DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Didn't 32 KB used to be the split warning point? --SeizureDog 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As long as you don't get the "this article is too long. Maybe it should be split" message, I don't think it's too long.DreamingLady 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• There is no good reason why a plot summary should ever be longer than any other section of a video game's article, especially gameplay. If you read a 5-page review on a video game, you're highly unlikely to find much more than a paragraph or so (if any) on the storyline. An exception would be for a video game with virtually no gameplay, but this isn't one of them.
  • No. Some games, especially Adventure games, have far more story than gameplay. I mean, how long should it take me to explain the Point-and-click system? Not to mention I hate explaining basic genre gameplay for each game individually if there's already a page covering its general use. RPGS tend to have huge (unique) stories, but often very traditional. Also, reviews can not be compared to encyclopedia articles. Reviews only mention the story's introduction and possibly praise the story for its greatness/awfulness in one of the last lines. Articles should describe the subject, with each aspect getting the attention it deserves. And story is ("almost") as important as gameplay.DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you miss the part where I pipelined to visual novel, the most extreme form of gameplayless adventure games? Adventure games are an even worse genre to explain in detail though, because doing that can completely ruin the game and can verge closely on being a game guide. Myst sucks if you know what happens.--SeizureDog 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, Adventure games are not. Because you have the actual action (gameplay) and the significance of it (story). Adventure games tend to have a lot of text that backs up the gameplay, so no walkthrough-danger. Anyway, that's genre specific, but RPGs and good horror games also need (quite) big plot sections, not to mention the many examples from other genres. Also, what kind of idiot would read the plot section of a game he/she intends to play in the near future?DreamingLady 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• There are two types of people who read video game articles. Those who have played the game, and those who haven't. Generally, the only editors are those who have, and if they love the game they want to put in every little detail they can, but the fact is that those who haven't aren't looking for a plot summary detailed enough to replace their need to play the game. Face it, people are not using Wikipedia as a "Spark Notes for video games".
  • Couldn't agree more. DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Longer does not equal better. The Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon fails me because the plot section is so long that I don't want to read it, especially since just scanning it gives me such trivial information like "Lily appears to ridicule the party, but is rudely interrupted by Dancin', who continues to call Goemon "Fernandez". Honestly, this article is like having an annoying friend trying to tell "all the funny" parts of a comedy film, and taking 30 minutes to do so.
  • Agreed, but I do disagree about one thing. The only reason why you don't want to read it, is because you couldn't care less about Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon's plot. At least, that's what I'm guessing. I've seen longer story descriptions, also from FA articles (or sometimes, GA), that I didn't mind reading, while I just couldn't get through way shorter storyline descriptions of other articles, simply because I didn't care about them. I think MNSG has a decent storyline description. Not perfect, no. But good enough.DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I never read the plot summary for Final Fantasy X either. I kinda want to know what it's about, but if I read what it has I'll probably regret it. Which brings me to another good point: short summaries serves as a happy middle ground between people who like spoilers and people who hate them. If it's short, you can still spoil as much as you need too, but it's not in detail enough to completely ruin it. Well, in theory at least. Still doesn't help with big things like "Jon dies."--SeizureDog 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, what kind of idiot would read the plot section of a game he/she intends to play in the near future? If you don't want to know, don't read it!!! Summaries in wikipedia articles shouldn't protect people against themselves, that's their own job. I want to play Hotel Dusk: Room 215 soon, so when I read its page, I made sure not to read the plot section yet. DreamingLady 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• A "but we need all of that space so readers can understand everything" arguement sucks. Readers do not need to know everything. Hell, they really even need to know much beyond what the back of the box or manual might tell them. A summary is "This happened, so this guy is on a quest to do this thing which causes stuff to happen (yes just "stuff", don't have to say too much on which stuff) and finally, he wins and the resolution is :D", not "This happened, so this guy goes and does this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this..."
  • If it's necessary to cover a certain detail of the story, because someone who hasn't played the game yet wouldn't get the summary otherwise, it should be mentioned. If that requires a description of "This happened, so this guy goes and does this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this...", then so be it. If there's no plot development in those segments though, it can be ignored. Readers do not need to understand everything as in "know every little detail that plays a minor-to-no role to the plot", but they have to be able to understand the summary.DreamingLady 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Granted, but what I'm saying is bad is stuff like: "First Jon gets the boots of speed, then he fights the forest boss, then he goes to the volcano level, where he mets Sally, who blah blah blah..." I haven't played MNSG, but it sure like it talks about every stage, item, character, boss, etc. Somethings do need to be left out.--SeizureDog 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, like I said, it's not perfect. If I had played it, I'd clean it up a little, but since I haven't, I can't. DreamingLady 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've made my point.--SeizureDog 07:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So you mean like the summaries in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, only without individual sub-articles (like this familiarly lengthy summary, cut down to a mere four sentences in the parent article) to dump plots into? Nifboy 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. They seem about the right size for summarizing a commedy (since in reality, plot doesn't really matter to comedy). Those individual articles are quite bad though. The plot summary at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book) (aside from being horribly in-universe) reads like it's trying to cramp in every punch-line it can. But yeah, anything that has a plot section that you actually have to scroll down really needs to start taking the ax to it.--SeizureDog 10:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I feel that a 1,000 word summary, like Final Fantasy VIII, is perfect for a complicated RPG, but a 400-500 word summary is perfect for a shooter like Super Metroid. Mystical Ninja, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and Final Fantasy IV are a little too long for my taste, despite them being RPGs. If it's a string of town hopping and fetch quests, then it needs to be brief (one sentence can cover 3-4 towns easily). However, if the game has significant character development and complicated resolutions, they will naturally take more space to succinctly describe. I've worked on plenty of fictional FAs - especially plot sections - and I can say for a fact that the 1,000 word synopsis for a 40 hour RPG is a fine balance, which does not result in objections; on the other hand, a 1,000 word synopsis for a 2 hour shooter will result in significant objection. I do agree with what SeizureDog is saying about items and bosses; this information is unnecessary. The Super Metroid article doesn't explain "First, Samus went into Brinstar to get the morph ball. Then, she traveled to where the large shaft was in the original metroid to get missiles. Then, she scaled Old Touria and went back to Crateria..."; that's gameguide. The Final Fantasy articles, with an exception being IV, also don't go into that level of detail; it just takes more space to cover the major elements of a 40-60 hour game than a 5-10 hour shooter. There cannot be a true "golden standard" for plot summaries; it has to be taken on a case by case basis. — Deckiller 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't edit video game articles much. However I do tend to like and play games with good stories, not generally Japanese RPGs, but more American & European RPGs as well as more tradional style adventure games. In my opinion we should have resonable detailed plot summaries. Comparing encylopaedia articles to reviews is frankly a little silly. Reviews by definition are supposed to be telling you about the game and specifically is it good or not in the context of deciding whether to purchase it. They are obviously not supposed to tell you the plot in too much detail because that would defeat the purpose of the review. Encyclopaedia articles are not reviews and their primary purpose is to sumarise the info about the game, including relevant history, background, plot details, review details, reception (including criticism) etc. A reader may be someone who has never played the game and therefore may want a resonable summary of what went on in the game or perhaps someone that played the game & wants to know remember it. A reader who is intending to play a game (I've done it before), may choose to read the article to get a basic understanding of what the game is about but they will of course avoid any likely spoilers (which is why proper tagging is important). I agree, it depends a lot on the game. Some games types, adventure games and RPGs obviously have more detailed plots. And of course the level of detail various between RPGs and adventures as well. Obviously there is no need to go into every nuance of what happened but on the other hand, it's not sufficient try and describe a detailed plot in 200 words either Nil Einne 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of participation in the Gaming Collaboration of the Week

People at the WP:CVG have barely been doing anything with this, and if a lot more people submitted more deserving articles and voting on them, a steady increase in quality could be seen. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium

Can I please have some help with this article? It's hopelessly in-universe, like a page from the Wikipedia of the C&C Tiberian series world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there an 'in-universe' cleanup tag of some sort? That might help get some more eye on it, as well. --InShaneee 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is. I've not known it to accomplish much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it does not accomplish much it is good to let readers of Wikipedia know that editors are not satisfied with the quality of the article. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-7 22:21

I think what would be more helpful at this point would be some help at Talk:Tiberium, and Talk:Cybran Nation if you've got an appetite for more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of terms in Xenosaga

I believe I've mentioned this article on here before. It just seems to be a dumping ground for terms and anything that doesn't fit in the other Xenosaga lists. I'm very tempted to AFD it, is there a good reason to keep it? It seems like cruft to me. Throwing together many things just because they "don't fit in other lists" isn't a good reason to have a list page. Xenosaga is popular: but does it really need every detail listed on Wikipedia? RobJ1981 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This was originally a junkyard for some in-universe stuff, merged by Deckiller (talk · contribs). Might be worth getting his input. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On a relate note: List of Pokémon items seems like a good example of listcruft as well. Pokemon has lots of items, but do they all need to be listed (or any for that matter)? It leans towards a game guide in my opinion. Not a guide on how to play: a guide on items which is crufty. RobJ1981 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You AfD'd the article just over a month ago, and it was agreed by several users that a a few months should be given to see if work can be done. There is no rush; there is a lot of work to be done on Wikiepdia, and forcing editors to repriotirize their todo lists will only harm the project. — Deckiller 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Pokémon items is also a junkyard. I don't have any great desire to see it kept, despite being the primary author. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A new idea is being proposed at User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/2 that is applicable to this discussion. — Deckiller 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't afd the Xenosaga list, someone else did. As for the Pokemon list: I see no evidence it's been in AFD, I'm nominating it. Hopefully it doesn't turn into something like this: Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. An absolute joke: the list was put in AFD with no consensus, and attempts to clean it aren't helping much. And now there is suggested splits for it? Wikipedia is turning more and more into a crufty item guide. It's too soon to AFD it again, but I think that's what needs to happen in the future. RobJ1981 15:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a bold solution to fancruft in the works at User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/2, and one of its test subjects is going to be the Xenosaga lists and some of the Final Fantasy lists. The Xenogears lists, which are in an even worse state, will soon follow. — Deckiller 06:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup requested: Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

A quick look at it brings up a knowledge bank of the game sufficient for its own Wiki. We need someone who has decent knowledge of the game to remove and/or rephrase information in a more palatable form in accordance with WP:NOT. --Scottie theNerd 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio check at TrickStyle

I ran across TrickStyle a while ago and noticed that the entire article seems like it might have been taken from an instruction manual (see diff), but I can't find any the manual online anywhere. If anyone owns this game or knows of a good instruction manual database, please check this out. Thanks. --- RockMFR 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

talk banner modification

I'd like to add some image request code into the project banner. I've posted the code on the {{cvgproj}} talk page. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've made it so articles are automatically placed in categories. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-8 08:36

Thanks for that, I forgot to specify. Also, can we put Image:Image-request.svg in there as well? I've modified the code snippet to reflect this. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Land of the Legend

The user JackSparrow Ninja has been continuously adding this fan site to Wikipedia as a source, despite that it fails WP:ATT. I ask for assistance in keeping it off of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. What fansite? What articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I assumed it was self-explanatory by the header, but I was in a hurry. [12], and in numerous The Legend of Zelda articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list [13]. If it persists, ask for it to be blacklisted on the m:Spam blacklist. Hbdragon88 07:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You can read about previous debates on this issue on User talk:TSA and various interconnected talk pages. Even if only half of what TSA says is true it puts the reliability and trustworthiness of Land of the Legend in serious doubt. Garrett^Talk 19:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)