Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games - Wikipedia


15 people in discussion

Article Images

The recent TfD for Template:VG reviews brought something to my attention. {{VG reviews}} was edit-protected last year because a number of editors added their favorite publication to the table. This caused two problems: it needlessly bloated the template (more of a technical/usability issue) and caused confusion over what was a reliable source.

I'd like to get some input on what should be trimmed because I question whether all of the sources listed are reliable sources. I also think it's best to keep the number of dedicated parameters to a minimum. Anything extra can use the eight additional review parameters. Here's a listing of what publications are currently in the template:

Discussion

Getting the ball rolling, I'd like to see at least TopTenReviews and Action Trip removed. After discussing it WT:VG/RS, I removed topTenReviews from our list there and don't think it should be here either. Action Trip has been discussed before at the RS Notice board.[1] & link. Game Revolution and Nintendo World Report are question marks in my head.

I want to say that any magazine should get a free pass in, but that's a lot of magazines. Also, I think any publication that is only a website should be multi-platform to offer the most to editors. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC))Reply

I say we start by removing all of them not listed at WP:VG/RS; if it is not reliable enough for information, then it is not reliable enough for us to care what their review information is. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Game Ratio and GameWire need to go. If it's not notable enough for an article, it certainly isn't notable enough to cite for a review. --Teancum (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's not necessarily true, Teancum (though, for the most part, it's probably the case). Wasn't there an issue with that for VGChartz? But then again, I'm afraid I'm making a false argument, because VGChartz was considered unreliable, and it was subsequently nominated for deletion. –MuZemike 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
MuZemike's right. Reliability and notability don't go hand in hand. There are notable sources that aren't reliable and reliable sources that aren't notable. -- Sabre (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. There was a discussion just recently about this on either WP:N or WP:RS. Can't remember which. Just because something is notable doesn't make it reliable and just because something isn't notable, doesn't make it unreliable.
However we should remove anything not on WP:VG/RS because its not unquestionably reliable.陣内Jinnai 23:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I remember a long argument here in the summer where the result of the discussion seemed to be that sources with the largest cultural impact should be given the greatest weight -- not reliability. (I.e. this was in response to my call for being more egalitarian and giving all reliable sources equal weight.) SharkD  Talk  03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've brought this up multiple times before. I would personally cull all aggregators other than Metacritic and GameRankings - see this conversation from Archive 70. I've also brought up TopTenReviews as being unreliable/uninfluential in various discussions, an aggregator added to VG Reviews just to troll Featured Article - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (that editor is now blocked). It is a shame, that TTR is still featured prominently in that featured article, even though it has no influence, reach, or credibility in the video game space. - hahnchen 14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yep, that's the discussion I was talking about. SharkD  Talk  17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I say we get rid of G4. We have X-play, so why do we have G4 as well? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree that G4 shouldn't be on there. It is a television channel rather than a television show.
It looks like there's support to remove TopTenReviews.
How about Action Trip and Game Wire? The first has been deemed unreliable and the second isn't mentioned anywhere on WP:VG/RS. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
Any input? I don't feel comfortable making unilateral discussions on such a widely used template. It's hard to get edit protected content changed without consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
Um... What did we agree on so far? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Here's a summary as far as I can tell.
  • There's general support for anything deemed unreliable or not listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS
  • I expressed disapproval over Action Trip and Game Wire, one which was deemed unreliable at the RS noticeboard and the other we have nothing on.
  • You and I expressed disapproval over G4 because it is a TV channel that airs X-Play and is ineligible/redundant.
  • Hahnchen expressed disapproval over all aggregates besides Metacritic and GameRankings.
  • I expressed disapproval over the TopTenReviews aggregate, which is listed as unreliable on our source page.
  • I'm not sure what is the outcome over the MobyRank aggregate below. Lorson expressed disapproval over the score. There really hasn't been any opposition to his statement, just questions and clarification.
I think that sums it up. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC))Reply

MobyGames

MobyGames should be removed from the Aggregate scores. Volunteer users of the website choose which reviewers are taken in to account to create the 'MobyRank'. Plus the 'MobyRank' is affected by the websites personal opinion/reputation of the reviewer.

"MobyRank assigns a weight to each critic based on their history, accuracy and past variance. Critics with high accuracy, low variance, and high repute have their score weighted higher in the MobyRank calculation than critics with low accuracy, high variance and low repute."[2]

--Lorson (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedians also choose which reviewers are taken into account to create articles. But I suppose we're not using ourselves as a reference, so it doesn't count. Anyway, the blockquote sounds like an example of editorial control to me. SharkD  Talk  03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if I'd call it editorial control. Although they do have to be approved, it's entirely up to volunteer contributors to submit those reviews in the first place. So certain reviews could have been purposely left out by the contributors adding them. Reach Out to the Truth 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
What does high accuracy and low variance mean? I mean if you look at it with a cyncial view it could mean high accuracy=reviews we agree with, low variance=always give the same range of scores for everything. There's no detail what those vague words mean.陣内Jinnai 02:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not that different than Metacritic:
"The METASCORE is considered a weighted average because we assign more significance, or weight, to some critics and publications than we do to others, based on the overall stature and quality of those critics and publications. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together."[3]
A cynical view could mean "overall stature and quality = publications we agree with". GameStats also accepts review submissions:
"To ensure that our ratings and article lists are as up-to-date and accurate as possible, submit reviews and previews from sites and magazines that you notice are missing."[4]
The "Average press score" in the reviews section also differs from the "Press score" in the article's lead, so there's some sort of weighting going on. SharkD  Talk  17:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to put in an editrequest for the removal mobygames due to all the issues discussed above, unless there is any objections?--Lorson (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Let's wait to do all the removals at once. There are a few formatting changes that need to be done as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
I thought taking them out one at a time over time would cause less problems than taking out large amounts all out at once.--Lorson (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
The removal of the parameters won't break the template. They just won't display anymore because the template won't recognize unknown parameters. The only problem would be if someone sees their favorite publication gone. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
I object based on the reasons you have cited. MobyGames' practices seem to be industry standard, judging by the two aggregators that still remain, as I have pointed out. SharkD  Talk  02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are no volunteers who submit the reviews to gamestats or metacritic. Gamestats accepts submissions that are missing and have a proper editing process in place, not volunteer run. MobyRank is too open to user-influence and error. The site is helpful for finding reviews about older games that the other two don't cover though.--Lorson (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do we need them at all?

Getting rid of the pre-made parameters entirely would fix formatting issues where you have some publications that are pre-made and others that are not, and they are all out of alphabetical order. SharkD  Talk  04:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, we do not. The idea that all reviews should be predefined is a very bad one, and I have not been a fan of it from the start. The only gain, is that our title links are consistent, ie - the right publications get italicised and everyone refers to EGM as Electronic Gaming Monthly.
I've held this belief since the outset, my first comments in 2007 regarding the then new template was "The template is so wrong". The template legitimises several poor quality sources, and omits many others - try using it for anything predating the PS2, and you'll find yourself referring to multiple undefined publications. I've not been editing of late, but one of my last articles - David Crane's Amazing Tennis has 5 reviews in the table, yet only uses 1 template defined one. Although I use Nintendo Power as a source, I manually define it to get the ordering intact.
The solution is not to continue adding new codes and definitions to the template. That's unwieldy and hard to maintain. It's also means that every inclusion of VG Reviews in an article requires the parsing of a needlessly large template. Having hard coded definitions, has also created a giant barrier of entry into changing the table - we cannot change codes without having to submit bot requests.
We should not have any hardcoded publications, but instead rely purely on custom fields. We should link the documentation to our reliable source lists and ask that editors consult that to see what should and shouldn't be used. This will require heavy bot work. - hahnchen 14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
That would only increase the use of unreliable publications in an "authoritative" template, and make them harder to eradicate. It's not going to happen. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Templates should not be an authoritative dictator of sources. You are misguided. - hahnchen 18:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
And you're being damn rude. Calm down, Hahnchen. I agree with David's point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't this is such a bad idea. We should at least get some more comments before we dismiss this.
One of my biggest complaints about this template is I often find it bloated with 10+ scores. Sometimes the tables runs out of the reception section because it's gotten too long. I tried finding a way to limit the number of displayed scores, but came up with nothing. Switching usage solely to the user-defined parameters would alleviate this. However, I'm certain most users wouldn't format the publications properly. David does bring up a valid point though. The template should mirror what we have on WP:VG/RS.
Perhaps the solution to some of these problems is better documentation in the template. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
We trust the editor's judgement when it comes to the prose. We should trust the editor's judgement when it comes to the table. Creating an ever expanding table with hardwired codes that we can't change does little to help the state of reception sections. - hahnchen 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
And try editing one of these tables, the codes just confuse things. You have to look at the URL to see what you're editing, or have the documentation open. - hahnchen 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have been intending to write a "how to" on using the review table. The short answer is that for most modern games (post, oh, about 2003 or later), we only need at most eight sources in that table: the two aggregates from MC and GR, and 6 review scores, ideally from the set of IGN, Gamespot, 1UP, Gamespy, Eurogamer, and Game Informer (all which are platform neutral); a platform specific print source like OXM or Nintendo Power should be added for console exclusives, while Famitsu should be added for games first released in Japan (but not those released later). However, that itself is based on how the scores come out, as we should always include reviews from reliable sources that skew from the averages as to be able to ID the either strong positives or strong negatives they have on the game, if there are such outliers (this does not mean a 7.5 score when the average is floating around 8.5, but instead more like a 6.0 score from an 8.5 average). This is further emphasized that every reference listed in the box should be used in the reception section. I may have to write this out more formally to help here. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
That would be awesome if you did that Masem. Let me know if you need any help. I know my editing time on here is erratic, but I'll make time for something like this. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
Here's what I wrote up previously, adding a couple tweaks today. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I added a few things. I think what was there already looked pretty good. Should we add it to Template:VG reviews/doc once this discussion is done? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC))Reply

Summary

Well, the discussion seems to have died down. Here's a summary of the proposed ideas: [Edited by SharkD]]

1. Remove TopTenReviews and MobyRank

Based on specific requests from individuals and the general support to remove anything deemed unreliable or not listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS.

2. Remove Action Trip

Based on a discussion at the RS noticeboard that deemed it unreliable and the general support to remove anything deemed unreliable or not listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS.

3. Remove Playr and Gamezebo

These are reliable sources, but the parameters are only used once. It's also unlikely that usage will increase so switching to the additional review parameters will reduce template clutter. In fact, each one is already used once in the template via the rev# and rev#Score.

4. Remove all predefined sources

Creating an "authoritative" template may give undue weight to a handful of sources.

  • Neutral - Removing them would require a lot of work to fix existing templates. Otherwise I am indifferent. SharkD  Talk  04:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Oppose Being able to copy/paste the template into an article and have predefined sources makes creating a reception summary much faster. Any arguments of favoring this or that reviewer are irrelevant, as if there were no pre-defined templates the same could still be said. The reason people choose [x] or [y] reviewer is due to the reliability of that review and the fact that it's one of the reviews people look for. --Teancum (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Undue weight to sources. Relegates responsibility from the editor, who just fills in the blanks instead of asking themselves which sources should be included. A fundamentally flawed concept for a template, which will just continue to grow and grow and grow if it is to incorporate all suitable sources. - hahnchen 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak oppose: I'm not convinced this is a bad idea, but I think all the pros and cons need to be discussed by a much larger group. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
  • Oppose: By creating parameters, we're listing specific sources as definitely reliable to use; although there can be exceptions, I think it's a great solution for the number of newer editors we have in this WikiProject who may well use the template. If we need to add a review, we can add it through the additional parameters. However, I do think that there are a few too many review options, and some of them should be removed. -- Nomader (Talk) 07:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

5. Add support for custom aggregators

Add support for custom aggregators in cases where other sources are useful (such as very old games).

6. Remove G4

  • I think the G4 should be discussed further. Originally, there was support because it is a TV channel that airs X-Play. But I learned that their website offers reviews too. The X-Play website is under the g4tv.com domain and the only reviews I found there are from G4TV. So I'm not sure what should be done with this one now. Aside from G4, any objection to the five sources listed above? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
  • Though the website points to the G4TV reviews, the X-Play show actually does the review. It makes sense that they're hosted on the G4TV domain, and to keep things simpler for end-users to have reviews under the parent domain rather than hosting them in the X-Play portion. Still voting Support to remove G4. All G4 reviews should be changed to X-Play, who actually does the reviewing. --Teancum (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am of the opinion that Category:Screenshots of video games should officially be split into subcategories for all the consoles, just like with Category:Video game covers. There are already some subcategories but any file that's sorted into them still has to be put in the parent category as well. I'd tinker with the template to get it to behave like the one for "Video game covers" myself but it's completely locked. N. Harmonik (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd tell you to put an {{editprotected}} tag at Template talk:Non-free game screenshot, but you've already done that and were directed here.
This sounds reasonable enough to me.
Can we get some more input so we can have an actual consensus? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
  • Support - Are there any disadvantages? MrKIA11 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
    What about screenshots where we're not sure if it was PS3 or X360? –xenotalk 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
    Those can remain in Category:Screenshots of video games. I'm sure we have even more weird scenarios: arcade screenshots taken from emulators running on computers for example.
    This change will mainly trim duplicates between the main category and the specific platform category. I believe this is in line with WP:DUPCAT. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
    Actually, we can just put multi-platform screenshots in all the subcategories that they fit, just like with game covers. Example: File:Bioshock_2_boxart.jpg. N. Harmonik (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
    I thought of that too, but then realized that a screen shot has to come from a single platform. So the question is: should we place it in other categories on the sole reason that the game was released on multiple platforms? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
    Yes but many game covers on this site actually had the parts that indicate the platform simply edited out. N. Harmonik (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
    And that works for game covers. However, there tend to be differences between how platforms handle graphics: lighting, textures, draw distance, detail of object models, etc. We can't crop such content out of a screenshot. If it came from a specific platform, it stands to reason that the category labels on it should reflect what it is.
    If there's enough support to categorize screen shots by multiple platforms, then let's do it. But I think we should fully discussion what the outcome will represent. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
    Well, the outcome should be that video game screenshots would be easier to navigate around. As long as the category stays as it is now, people will have great difficulty finding what they're looking for. I think there should be subcategories for screenshots for the consoles that have subcategories for covers. Sixty-seven in all currently. N. Harmonik (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
    Makes sense. Though I think the video game covers setup should be used as a template rather than an exact model for some of the reasons stated above.
    Though four people is a small consensus, I'd say that coupled with a lack of opposition is enough to move forward with the proposed change. Putting a single screenshot in multiple platform categories should require more discussion and input though. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
    Perhaps if there are indications as to what platform the particular verison of the game is for, like button prompts and vast graphical differences, they should be put in their specific platform's category. As for the ones that aren't as revealing...that will possibly depend on how many files are in the parent category when all the others are subcategorized properly.
    More discussers, please! N. Harmonik (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Logical. The current system impedes navigation. Improved categorization should help. --Doink9731 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Sounds OK to me too. SharkD  Talk  03:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think I know how to change the coding around in the template to make it work like the one for Video Game Covers. It's posted at the discussion page for it. If only the template could be unlocked somehow for that... N. Harmonik (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'd say there's consensus to move forward with the change. Just place the {{editprotected}} tag at Template talk:Non-free game screenshot again and provide a link to this discussion so the admin can read it. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

User:Lorson has been using AWB to remove Moby games links from article that were added way back in 2006 by User:Ravimakkar. A previous discussion from late 2009 here last year suggested that removing spam-added links are appropriate, but not all moby games in one fell swoop. Due to the age of these links, as added several years ago, I would be hesitant to remove them all without checking for consensus. (If a spammer today added them, well, yes. But this is from 2006...) Any comments on this? Is what Lorson doing ok? --MASEM (t) 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't really like mobygames temps as I think they're rather useless. I'm not going to add them back in on the articles I watchlist, but if someone else wants them I'm not going to fight it :). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I fail to see any problem. Let's totally assume Ravimakkar was acting in good faith, spamming is spamming. Moby Games links are largely redundant, often left in long after the article has long since left them in the dust. We have magazine scan databases which provide actual sources, rather than Moby Games issue #s, we have GameRankings etc. which do the same thing more comprehensively, and we have allgame these days which in many cases is a far superior resource, offering directly citable information on gameplay and even reviews. Sooner or later WP is going to need a spamrectomy of Moby links anyway. Someoneanother 22:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Case in point: what possible use is this thing when we've got this? That link had no business being there, yet it only gets removed as part of a spamrectomy. What about this gallery when we've got this. We're more than a little too passive about these links hanging off articles for no reason, and a great deal of these articles which do lack cites could probably referenced these days. Someoneanother 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
We can't use the magazine scan databases as ELs though, as they are copyvios. SharkD  Talk  11:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely, what I'm saying is that the databases contain the actual reviews which can be used to expand and verify articles, rendering the likes of allgame and Moby Games irrelevant as ELs. The ELs are only a stopgap anyway, and we aren't half as beholden to them as was once necessary. Someoneanother 12:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
What does that have to do with anything? ELs are there for the readers, not the editors. They have no idea the magazine databases exist. SharkD  Talk  03:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say otherwise, readers don't need ELs which duplicate the information within articles, meaning if the articles are expanded then they're not needed. Someoneanother 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sure there's a lot of info that can be put into an article that's largely redundant when it comes to MobyGames. But that's not the point. There's a lot of info on MobyGames that can't be put into articles due to necessarily needing to be brief: Detailed information on individual releases in multiple regions, versus English-language-only release dates on Wikipedia; detailed images of different box designs for collectors who deal on eBay and so forth; different screenshots or credits for each release, including non-English-language releases, etc.. Does this stuff belong on Wikipedia? No! Does it belong in an EL? Yes! Judging MobyGames based on its usefulness as a resource to editors doing research is irrelevant, as the allowed content is necessarily different. SharkD  Talk  00:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The only links I am removing are ones placed by Ravimakkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Which I've nearly done. I am not removing every link I can find.--Lorson (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If the links themselves don't violate Wikipedia policy, what difference does it make who added them? I'm sure that there are a lot of editors out there that limit themselves to only certain activities. It seems to me that you're just replacing spam with more spam. (I agree though that allgame is often superior to MobyGames in many cases--except for maybe box scans). SharkD  Talk  02:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
On my last FAC the MobyGames link I had was removed for apparently violating WP:EL. –MuZemike 02:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I still think MobyGames is useful to collectors by treating each release of a game separately and including things other sites lack such as box scans. Sure, the descriptions and such are inferior when compared to allgame, but it covers games the other ignores (at the moment). SharkD  Talk  03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would just like to add that the last time this issue came up I think consensus was to forward the issue to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and let them deal with it. Has this been done or were they circumverted? SharkD  Talk  03:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Which FAC was that by the way? SharkD  Talk  00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Next despam includes additions by:

That's about 2,000 in total, I will be doing each one separately.--Lorson (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Considering that more than a couple of contributors have objected to what you're doing it's not cool to keep doing so until we've discussed this properly. Kindly wait a minute. Someoneanother 12:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the current consensus on MobyGames external links is that they may be useful on a case-by-case basis on sub-optimal articles. That is, a MobyGames link on a FA would be redundant with the article itself, but for articles that don't reach that standard, there may be something to it.

As someone adding hundreds of external links to the same site within a short time span cannot reasonably be presumed to add these links with the proper care and judgement needed for a case-by-case basis thing, I strongly support their removal by Lorson. That's just a presumption; the users in question are welcome to explain what their criteria for adding those links were. Until they do that, let's run with the presumption. User:Krator (t c) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Even on an FA - a MobyGames link can be useful. They cover things that we don't track - even in an FA such as detailed developer credits. This is useful, and analogous to IMDB links from the multitude of film articles. Unlike GameFAQs or IGN et al. - MobyGames are purely focused on being a repository of game information, and they're also independent with no company lines to toe - which is why I favour a MobyGames external link versus some of the other sources. - hahnchen 19:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to argue in favor of keeping MobyRank as a viable option in all this (semi-related, bear with me), simply because Lorson's arguments against it don't hold that much water: GameRankings for a very long time there also allowed users to submit links to reviews, and also decide which reviews they will include and will omit. Not to mention it still is the only alternative for such a score for older games since Metacritic has a cutoff point that excludes many systems, including the Game Boy's entire lineup.
As for MobyGames external links...yeah it's case by case. But I can see the validity in including it if there are instances where one link could take the place of several to, say, show the game's various box arts if there was significant variance as generally the fair-use rules limit how much of that can be shown in an article visually.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why not let him remove them? 9 times out of 10 it's not useful, and if someone objects they can just revert. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
GameStats also accepts submissions. SharkD  Talk  03:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The removal of links should not continue. The spam additions were added in 2006, any of the links still remaining have already passed through many editors. I objected to the 2006 inclusion of Mobylinks as evidenced by this Archive 8 discussion. But I even then, I acknowledge that Mobygames has certain qualities that Wikipedia (and Gamespot et al) don't - such as the ability to list an individual's contributions. The sole focus of MobyGames is complimentary to that of Wikipedia and listing Moby entries in our external links can be helpful. If you were reverting a recent spambot whitewash, then that'd be OK - but these are longstanding edits that have survived since 2006. I do not appreciate having to respam such edits 4 years later - this has not been a productive use of AWB editing. - hahnchen 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't see that there has been a consensus established on this topic, in fact, most editors seems to be against this purge. This is much more than a bold edit, and a very difficult one to revert. Further, the basis for it is very dubious: the state of the articles have changed since 2006; MobyGames is a notable and informative resource not pushing agendas; MB's inclusion in games articles seems to have become an norm, and a service I've used more than once; and this is an incredibly invasive incision. As such it should be thoroughly discussed and anchored before enacted. I think this slew of edits is extremely controversial, and I find the lack of discussion beforehand disturbing. Miqademus (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

So what you are both saying when somebody spams a 100 articles with a link to the same website, and that link is left there for a few years it makes the spam become not spam? I am not purging the links, I am reverting the spammers. Know the difference.--Lorson (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yep, that's exactly what we're saying. If your spam links remain in articles 4 years after they happened, if the link itself may be useful, then they should no longer be purged without any consideration or discussion. We should not have to rely on other editors letting us know of your behaviour. - hahnchen 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're making a strawman argument, trying to change the argument to "you say that yesterday's spam is today's valid info". Rather, I think most participants here are saying that
  • [major points] (1) extraordinarily bold edits requires establishing consensus, and bold edits contested through reversals or other means must be discussed to establish consensus before being repeated or continued, (2) consensus is against your mass-purge, which makes it closer to vandalism than editing, and (3) editing AGAINST consensus is anything but good faith.
  • [minor points] (5) things not removed for several years will likely be of a nature agreeable to editors and readers, and (6) mass updates are not necessarily spamming
You have also persisted in your edits against the requests of other editors to stop, which is against the cooperative and consensus-based spirit of Wikipedia collaboration. You should reflect on what that implies of your edits and you as an WP editor. Miqademus (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is more disturbing, is that you started your Wikipedia career spamming the crap out of GameFaqs. Of what possible use was this edit - leading to a website with no information, who only hold game data to complement their focus as FAQs and message boards. And yet you've removed links from Silent Hill (video game)[5], even though since the insertion of the link, there have been hundreds of edits from dozens of established editors. Take a look at ActRaiser, you've spammed GameFaqs - which offered nothing that wasn't already there, and then "despammed" MobyGames which had been on the article, having gone through hundreds of edits since its insertion in 2005. GameFaq links offer nothing that MobyGames doesn't, and is significantly worse in several respects. Those edits have not been helpful. - hahnchen 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I also don't really see the aversion to using GameFAQs. 1) it has lots of detailed GAMEGUIDE material (more than any other single source); 2) it's not a reliable source and is not directly citeable; 3) it's hugely popular. That makes it a good candidate as an EL, not bad. Sure it's connected to Gamespot or IGN or whatever. But so are Metacritic, Gamestats et al. Why are they being forwarded as good sites when GameFAQs isn't? SharkD  Talk  00:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've got nothing against GameFAQs myself (I'm actually one of the site's most prolific data contributors), but when a single editor spams links to the site and also "despams" links to another more useful resource... Well, it doesn't look right to me. I'll try to avoid bad faith assumptions here and just say that if the links have stuck around this long, people are probably fine with them being there. The removal of the links should have been discussed first. Reach Out to the Truth 01:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor using hacked AWB code. Reach Out to the Truth 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mistwalker is based in Honolulu [6] [7] and Hironobu Sakaguchi lives there too. [8] [9] However, Sakaguchi is Japanese. Does this make Mistwalker an American or a Japanese company? Note that the Mistwalker article claims that the company has a studio in "Japan", but I can't find any reliable source to confirm this. I can only find sources for the Honolulu studio. Thoughts? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Neither. That is, I wouldn't bother giving it an explicit nationality. But then, I'm headache-averse. Nifboy (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Or both, a Japano-American (something tells me that's not the right terminology) company. Where's the company registered, Japan or the US? -- Sabre (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The US trademark for the business name was assigned by Mistwalker Co. Ltd. of Japan, to Sakaguchi.[10] The original (abandoned) trademark application was also filed by Mistwalker of Japan.[11] Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, so I guess it's clearly an American company now. It's kinda the reverse of Sega which was founded by Americans in Hawaii but is now a Japanese company. Nifboy, I think it's useful for completeness. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Um, no, getting a trademark doesn't transfer the country of origin. The trademark was granted to "Mistwalker of Japan", so that makes it a Japanese company that has the bulk of its operations in America. --PresN 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
PresN is correct about the trademark. Companies often get numerous types of trademarks in multiple countries, sometimes even ones they don't conduct any business in just in case.
I'm not certain, but I want to say that the country where the headquarters is located determines the country of origin. I recall a number of American companies have moved their headquarters to other countries to take advantage of more corporate friendly and less strict laws. But then again, that may only apply to US definitions and not other governments. Anyway, maybe this can point someone more competent or tenacious in the right direction. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
Sakaguchi lives in Honolulu where Mistwalker has an office. I guess we need to find if Mistwalker still has an office in Japan. The website for Japanese trademarks doesn't disclose addresses :( Google Maps gives one hit for Mistwalker, in Honolulu. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The address of Mistwalker Japan is provided in the original trademark filing linked above. At this point the burden of evidence is on the argument that they no longer have that office. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just did o_O [12] [13] Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Are you asserting that a failed search on Google Maps is proof that Mistwalker has no Japanese office? Does this mean Nintendo is an American company too?[14] If you don't have any sources that plainly state that the Japanese office was closed/moved, then the office still exists as far as the record is concerned. One of Sakaguchi's blog entries seems to confirm this -- note the first and last lines: I'm staying in Japan. I have a big meeting for the new project today ... I should go to the office. Work is waiting for me.[15] Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just took a look at the two trademark pages Ham Pastrami posted earlier. Both list the country of incorporation as Japan. It looks like the US government recognizes the company as a Japanese one. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
I changed the article to reflect this. Thanks! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

O.K gang, on March 9th, Flower (video game) will be that day's Featured Article on the Main Page. So basically, all hell's gonna break loose that day (due to that and a little known game being released that day). Fun! GamerPro64 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh wait what?! Dude! I only FA'd that thing a couple of weeks ago! I was going to ask for it next year- that's pretty awesome. I'll watch over it that day. --PresN 06:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think Raul654 was a tendency to place recently-promoted FAs on the Main Page right away. –MuZemike 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know what the policy is for a DFA as to what class it goes to? That is to say, if an article was promoted to GA, followed by FA, but then delisted at a FAR, what does it become? GA again, or lower? And assuming it doesn't regain it's GA status, should it be listed as a DGA, since it used to be a GA, and now isn't; or not, because it was not demoted directly from GA? The article in question that this applies to is Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Generally seems best to go the DGA route from what I understand and rate it B class, though there can be exceptions where an article is still Good-class, just not FA?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, it depends on what the people who downgrade it think it is now, doesn't it? If an article has greatly decreased in quality, it may go to below B class. Like Link (The Legend of Zelda). Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I get you. You mean do you say Characters of Kingdom Hearts is a former featured article. or Characters of Kingdom Hearts is a former good article.? I would assume you would do FA, since it did make it to that point once. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well it's already listed on WP:VG/FA as a DFA, but should it also be listed on WP:VG/GA as a DGA? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so. --PresN 18:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is there anyone here who wants to take a crack at rewriting this? I don't even think it's salvageable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

it's just a list article. sources can found easily. just use the same source the other articles have. the real article i think should be AFD is chronology of PlayStation 2 games and list of playstation2 games with HD.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I never said deleted. I said rewritten. The article is one of the worst, messiest lists of video games I've seen on Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would if I had time. I think we should come up with a certain format that every List of [platform] games follows. I find that it doesn't make sense for each page to have a different format. What fields should be included, and in what format should they be presented? Also, should non-English games be included, and should there be dates for non-English releases? Should it follow the same rules as the infobox, where non-English dates are only presented if they were first? And should the games be divided by letter, or grouped as one large, sortable table? Just some questions that we should throw around, but I think a uniform method would be good. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

you said you don't think the article is salvageable. hint, hint. AS for format i think it's fine to just make it alphabetical order, and remove the flag icons. Other than, it's fine. it's not the worst thing, messiest list on Wikipedia compared to the other 2 i mentioned. Bread Ninja (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: also remove small comments like "greatest hits" and "box editions" Also we don't need a separate row for the same game with just different label like i said before with the whole greatest hits thing. Bread Ninja (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  1. To MrKIA11, I feel that we should do: all games, regardless of region; alternate English title; regions released in; and developer/publisher. I think that separating by letter would be ideal, too.
  2. Well, yes, I said that. But I also said that I didn't propose deletion. Your hints come off as "watch as I shove words into your mouth to make my statement right as rain". Am I to understand that an unsalvageable article cannot be completely rewritten?
  3. I'm not comparing this list to obscure lists that shouldn't exist. The PS2's releases are slowing, so this is the perfect opportunity to fix the article up. The article is in disarray; similar to the DS list, I have no idea how complete it is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

for #2. your taking it personally. i know you didnt propose deletion, but your basically saying it could get deleted. All i said was the ones i think deserved deletion were those two articles. So I'll just say this....be civil.

for #3, i know "you" aren't, but i was. Anyways, we could make this list all about which ones released in English. It would be easier to handle.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_PlayStation_2_games&diff=347758847&oldid=347758674

^^ here's a link to show you what i think is a good idea to fix the article and reorganize it. tell em what you think.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

For #2., I'm making an appropriate reaction to someone who is summing up my response in a way that I've specifically stated is incorrect. I'll say this: Stick to facts instead of "hinting what the intent of my post is".
I've never approved of removing Japan-only releases. Games like Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan and Mother 3 are definitely more notable than many English releases. It's more important to reduce how much unnecessary information that could be found in the respective game's article, only sticking to the most base, important facts like I listed above. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply


Uhm......no you didn't, your assuming that i assumed what you meant. just because i bring up a topic, it doesnt exactly mean it's going against yours. i knew what you meant, i just defended it a little more in case someone wanted to delete it. and no, reasonable responce, doesnt equal correct response in Wikipedia.

and no, notable article doesnt mean we cant remove it from the list. I'm just saying we can make it exclusive to english. look at List of manga.

It's not much of an assumption when you said "the real article i think should be AFD is chronology of PlayStation 2 games and list of playstation2 games with HD." Who mentioned deletion? The statement you made suggests that I proposed that the list of PS2 games be deleted. Nothing wrong for responding to a statement that clearly made implications. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

you see, i said "I think" not "you said". please hold yourself from assuming.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Working copy

Here is a possible setup that we can use as a working copy. I spent a lot of time on List of PSP games, which I personally think is a good setup, although now I think the last 3 columns shouldn't be included. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possible setups

Option 1: Static table divided by letter

A
Title Developer Publisher First Released Regions
Title
Alternate English Title 		Developer Publisher 2024 September 28 NA, EU, AUS, JP
Z
Title Developer Publisher First Released Regions
Title
Alternate English Title 		Developer Publisher 2024 September 28 NA, EU, AUS, JP

Option 2: One large, sortable table

Title Developer Publisher First Released Regions
A Title
Alternate English Title 		Developer A Publisher A 2024 September 28 NA, EU, AUS, JP
Z Title
Alternate English Title 		Developer B Publisher B 2024 September 28 NA, EU, AUS, JP
My two cents - we should not remove non-English releases. Just because we are the English Wikipedia does not mean we should give preference to English games; it nearly runs afoul of WP:NPOV. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I hope we can truly reach a consensus for these lists. As everyone else says, they are in horrible condition. Whatever format is decided, I suggest we turn it into a template to standardize the look and make input easier. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

You misunderstand. I'm not saying jsut because we are editing the english wikipedia, that means we remove all that isn't english. i'm saying we should move the article to list of playstation 2 games that have released englsih because we are running out of space. Also, it would be great to remove some fromt he lsit that dont have an article.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I like the setup you presented MrKIA11 except for the alternate title and alternate publisher. i think the alternate title is unnecesary and more than one publishercan go in the same box.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The second option is one large, sortable table. Each entry only has 1 developer and publisher. I think the alternate title is necessary to avoid edit wars over EU vs NA vs AUS titles, with the primary title matching that of the game's article. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are better things that we can do besides creating an incomplete list. The list of manga is the way it is for two reasons: one, there are way too many mangas to create a proper list, and two, because we'd have to have a "man in Japan" to actually do the research to make a complete list. We have the information on import video games at the reach of our fingertips. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I also like the style that MrKIA11 has shown, prefering the first option that splits the list down alphabetically. This way would be much easier to split down into smaller chunks when the list becomes too large to sustain on one page. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm a fan of sortable tables, which can have anchors for the start of letters, but I understand your point of lists being split. I still think sortable has greater benefits though. Also, should only the first release date/developer/publisher be listed? Or does someone have a genius idea as to how we can relate them across columns? I've never tried having rowspan cells in a sortable table, but that might be an option if it's possible. I think we should decide on one of the 2 options first, as that will effect some later decisions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's not possible unfortunately. MediaWiki's table sorting is rather basic and doesn't split rowspans when sorting.
I will point to how we do the Rock Band DLC lists. You can have smaller lists ("List of PS2 Games (A-J)", etc.) when then can be transcluded into a single large list for those that want to fully compare with sorting options. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think List of PS2 games is big enough for that yet, but are the separate pages sortable tables also? Or just the compilation page? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Playing with that concept, why not just have the separate pages as subpages? That way, readers will only go the main list. So for the list of PS2 games (assuming there was consensus that it was too big), the main page would stay the same, but the data would be move to List of PS2 games/A-M and List of PS2 games/N-Z, and they would both be transluded as is in the complete list of Rock Band DLC. Unlike the DLC lists, where someone might want to actually see only a single year, I can't imagine why someone would only want to see half of the PS2 games. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Comparison

Here is a comparison for the pros and cons of each:

Alphabetically separated static tables Single sortable table
Pros
  • Easiest to separate into multiples pages if necessary
  • Allows for more custom table (i.e., rowspan)
  • Can sort different columns based on user preference
Cons
  • Not sortable
  • Length can be overwhelming

Please add your thoughts to it. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

How about this setup? I don't think we need to list the regions in a list article. Further information would always be on there own respected article. The only thing we put is if there ever was an English release.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possible setup #2

Title Developer Publisher Original Release English release
A Title Developer A Publisher A 2024 September 28 Yes
Z Title Developer B Publisher B 2024 September 28 No
Adding my two cents. I've never been a fan of sortable tables. I think it's limits our ability to optimize lists and has mainly been used for comparison shopping. Dividing lists into sections, whether they be alphabetical or something else, makes content easier to digest IMO.
I see the point to the "English release" column, but I think it over simplifies it, mainly in favor of making the column easily sortable. Listing the separate regions seems fine to me, and readers can drawn whatever conclusions they want from it, like an English release. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
to be honest, i think it's trivial to list the regions it came out, as long as there is an english release, it should be ok. simply to leave it as yes or no. but listing regions seems to be something you can just look up in the main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Elaborating on why I think it oversimplifies things, I think English release can refer to either an English language release (like an English language is available regardless of region) or a release in an English speaking region. I believe a release in an English speaking region is the spirit of the column. I may be splitting hairs here, so I'll certainly defer to what others say on this matter.
However, the you comment made about finding the regions in the game's article makes me question whether such information should be removed entirely. One of the reasons these list have become so cumbersome is because there's so much information in them. Maybe further trimming is order. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
your over thinking about it. region is not necessary to list in the article. I intended the englsih release to be both English release with no specific Region. As for the second part, that is basically what i believe. these regions seem more better suited in there own respected article rather than having it on a list.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify, I question whether we need anything other than Title, Developer, Publisher, and Original release. Basically, I suggest we examine turning the list more into a navigational list rather than an informational one. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
that's basically what most list are meant to be. an informational list would be too long.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
We have some informational lists like List of StarCraft media, List of Space Invaders video games, and List of Kirby media. I think we may have been trying to emulate those too much in the past. The problem has always been that most platform lists are too long to provide meaningful information for every entry. The more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of removing the region column or anything like it all together. Let's see what others think. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

hi I've been wondering if anyone can help me on the .hack series articles. The one i really want to work on is making .hack//G.U. into .hack//G.U vol.1 Rebirth. the article is way too big, and it's easier just to fork out vol.2 and vol.3 into different articles. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

From what it looks like, a split is entirely unnecessary. Most of the article is simply an unreferenced character list and would be better off removed since it violates WP:GAMECRUFT - especially when it comes to the "minor characters" section and cast list.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The entire article is unreferenced. Every article about the franchise is unreferenced. So your not proving much of a point. Still, your not looking at it the way i am. Forking out information so that the article could appear more stable and allow more edits to be done would be beneficial.
i can't see how 3 notably different games could be in one article.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Through m:Mergism. See Holden Commodore for a Good Article (WP:GA) that is a result of merged parts. Merging helps prevent needless redundancy/duplication/repetition. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I fear i am not bing taken seriously. You simply cannot compare a series of games to a series of cars. it's like comparing a series of books to a series of toys. The game's plot, gamplay, new characters, and features differ significantly from eachother. just because they are related does not mean they all have to fall in the same article. Look at Assassins Creed or Final Fantasy. At least remove vol.2 and 3 until vol.1 is made properly, then make a vol.2 and 3 article when more sources are found... and this article is no way near GA status, keeping vol.2 and vol.3 isn't helping it get closer to GA status, Plus the article holds one to no sources at all. Removing such content would not be completely out of line as you think it is when you tried to use m:Mergism. Bread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The idea behind merging content doesn't ever have to be a permanent solution. It's often simply to collate related information in one place, until there is sufficient quantity to warrant splitting. I used the Holden as an example simply because I'm familiar with that article being a good merge result. (I don't think I've ever edited any .hack article).
In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Using_Wiki's you mentioned deleting .hack wiki links, but you didn't give any example links (to our articles, or to the external-wiki in question), so I was looking around and trying to determine which you were talking about (out of http://dothack.wikia.com and http://dothack.neoseeker.com which I found via google). I don't have time to look into this further though. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
And some games simply work better as a group. If three games can only really make a great article when combined, why not combine? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series is a good example of 3 games that work well as a single article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quiddity, please focus on the subject. EL is not sources. but still, like I've said before. Something like that could work much more sufficiently if the article had sources. this article holds none. it could simply be assumed as OR and remove it.

New Age Retro Hippie the problem is that, the article is not doing well at all. you cant compare a feature article or a GA article to a Stub just because you believe the same concept applies. If that were true, then the Project .hack games such as .hack//Infection.hack//Mutation .hack//Outbreak .hack//Quarantine considering they reffered to volumes as well. Magata Sanshiro that article actually could be forked out into three. there's sufficient amount of info to do so. Sorry if I'm not seeing the point.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bread Ninja, I think many are suggesting keeping the article as one because of the lack of sources. Splitting and merging topics is not solely decided by how they fit together, but also by notability and third-party sources. I believe that once sources are found, a real decision can be made. Until then, we're all just theorizing.
The games were released in the US and are only a few years old. I'm sure gaming sites covered it to an extent. I suggest working on the article in its current state to build the separate games. Another avenue is to create subpages in your userspace to draft the separate articles. If the separate games have enough sourced content, then splitting the article would certainly be warranted. Until then, the lack of sources is a compelling argument against splitting. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

Very well, this idea is much more satisfying.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just flagging this article up for a little attention in case this helps with consensus building. There has been an edit war over whether to include a cited quote that the game's storyline may involve Nixon's Government. Initially it was removed for being uncited, but since being cited it has been removed as indiscriminate information.

The talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:Metal_Gear_Solid:_Peace_Walker#Nixon_reference

The source can be found here: [16]

Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

As one of the concerned editors, it seems Whitmore 8621 is using WP:IGNORE in justifying his edit and he doesn't want to give up, and telling me to stop it as he has done several times in the talk page, his edit summaries (either his or an IP sock), and even on my talk page three times have sent him skidding over one of WP's no-flyzones. Blanking his own talk page doesn't help, either. He has continued his unilateral behavior despite a warning from Taelus. It's seems editing the article and protecting it against any edits (even mine) has become an obsession with him, and further questions his mental capacity as a Wikipedia editor. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

This particular IP address user 70.68.123.129 seems to be consistently setting video game article dates back in time for some reason. I spotted it on Super Mario RPG and reverted, but his list of edits seems to be growing. Can anyone stop him and sweep his edits with a bot maybe? NeoGenPT (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I warned the IP about it personally. Ping me if the IP continues. –MuZemike 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I sweeped the edits list and still found a few of his/hers edits that had not been detected and reverted them. Also, a new edit appeared today which I already reverted. Seems this fellow didn't get your message. NeoGenPT (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just following up on an archived discussion that went nowhere. Any thoughts on edit notices for some of our other project pages, similar to the one used for this talk page. The ones I had in mind are:

Good idea? Pointless idea? Comments would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

I think it's a good idea.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. --PresN 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would remove the "and encouraged" from the end of the notice, it's superfluous. Of course it's encouraged, it's Wikipedia! Otherwise, I agree.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sounds reasonable. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

I didn't see anyone listed as having it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Electronic Gaming Monthly, so I'm asking here. When searching for information on the SNES US release date in publications from 1991 (since there is a strong suspicion that the August 13 date quoted on various websites is inaccurate), I found mention in an old forum post that EGM's November 1991 issue gives an in-store date of August 23, 1991, on page 162. Can anyone with access to this issue verify? And if you feel like dropping me a {{cite magazine}} with the appropriate information, that would be appreciated too. Anomie⚔ 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A Nobody (talk · contribs) usually has EGM issues hanging around, he might be of help. -- Sabre (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, I can get access to full issues of EGM through my university, but only from 1993 to the present. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Scapler, do you have the April 1993 issue where it tells you how to unlock Nimbus Terrafaux in Mortal Kombat? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello! I have all of the EGMs from June 2007 through January 2009, i.e. the last two years or so worth. Unfortunately, I do not have any from the early 90s. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Don't have that issue, so this may not help much. On page 62 of the August 1991 issue, it stated that the system would be in the US in September 1991. Of course, this may have changed after it was printed.
Here's the citation if you decide to use it.
{{cite journal| journal = Electronic Gaming Monthly| title = Super NES Video Game Buyer's Guide| publisher = Ziff Davis| page = 62| month = August| year = 1991| issue = 25}}
(Guyinblack25 talk 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

THere's much contreversy going on regarding the retail release and the "hacked" release of this game. Someone from an IP in Italy has been making edits to the UbiSoft games in question, deleting the sourced references to the game being successfully cracked and placing information that is contrary to this. Just a heads up.--Txredcoat (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion information about a game being cracked or not or when or by who is totally irrelevant in Wikipedia. It's not really encyclopedic information. Over 99.9% of video games get cracked by hacker groups anyway. NeoGenPT (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. In fact, it's probably MORE relevant if a game DOESN'T get cracked (and it's reported at RSes). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Until a reliable source indicates that the game has indeed been cracked it's not encyclopedic information. Of course, this is a bigger deal than normal pirate releases due to the copy protection uproar, so it could be placed under "reception".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The reaction here is a bit head-in-the-sand. The game is clearly noteworthy as a centerpiece of ongoing controversy over DRM. Not only have sources talked about it,[17][18] Ubisoft themselves have released statements[19] attempting to deny the crack's effectiveness (and in so doing, they have provided confirmation of its existence which voids any counterclaim about it being a rumor). This amount of coverage doesn't happen for your average crack. The discussion itself has already garnered coverage and is probably the single most notable thing about this game yet, irrespective of the crack's efficacy (the attempt itself being notable), and it's one of the few topics in games that relate to real-world context. So saying that it's not encyclopedic information just seems disingenuous and I'd have to wholeheartedly disagree. It's one of the most encyclopedic topics we can have in a game article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

What's the situation with using sections of animation (specifically animated gifs) in video game articles? User:NeoGenPT has added a few to older video game articles; are animations considered necessary or even allowed under the NFCC, with regard to general video game articles? More specifically, with regard to Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf, since I removed that one. It would be nice if someone more clued up on the non-free content criteria could clarify. The only other place I can remember seeing an animated gif is platform game which lost its GA status due to among other things violating the non free content policy. bridies (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Limited use of animation can be useful to illustrate hard to describe gameplay elements. I think the way animation is used on Door Door is very effective. - hahnchen 20:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
That is a cool animation. By the way, Bridies pointed me out that I might not have my rationales in order, can someone point me to a couple of images with well created rationales that I can study as example? NeoGenPT (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
In the case of Desert Strike, one could argue something like "scrolling movement is fundamental to the game and is difficult to describe in words and impossible to show in a single screen shot. Thus the reader may require an animation to fully understand the scrolling mechanic and thus the essentials of the game." That would go under the "purpose of use" section: you should provide an explicit justification of why the non-free content needs to be in the article and in the case of gifs why it needs to be an animation. You also need to provide details of the resolution and why it can be considered "low". If you're taking shots straight from the game you might need to reduce the resolution using some kind of program. Again I'm sure someone better informed can clarify that one. bridies (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Expanding on the Desert Strike animation, I think bridies is on the right track about the scrolling animation. The camera rotation is described in detail in the "Development" section, but I don't think it's that easy to visualize from words alone ("camera travels on an elliptic curve... [with] momentum"). Others may or may not disagree. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
Playing Devil's advocate for a little, one could argue that almost every video game screenshot could (and should) be deleted because they do not show anything that could not easily be described in prose. And I would even extend the point to video game covers, which are put in place for the sake of identification, but doesn't the name, publisher, date of release and the rest of the info provides that? So where do we draw the line exactly? NeoGenPT (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think the consensus is that video game settings, mechanics, graphics etc are not "easily" described in prose. But in any case, that is what the rationale is for: a case-by-case argument that the screenshot is needed because whatever it shows cannot be adequately described in prose. With regards to animations, there are far fewer of them on Wikipedia and as such there isn't the same consensus behind them. I think that it's harder to justify the need for an animation over a screenshot, particularly in the case of graphically simpler games (as 16-bit era games like Desert Strike tended to be). Nevertheless, I do think an argument can be made for including the animation in the Desert Strike article as I wrote above. bridies (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Speaking as one of those chaps tearing down other people's image choices at FAC... it really just depends. In film articles I or other editors have successfully defended the use of <30 second video clips (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek: First Contact, American Beauty). The difference is that video game reviewers often take for granted certain elements that we could use for illustration; in many cases there's not the threshold of critical commentary that we need.
On another side, it should be fairly easy to defend the use of a few frames, given that there are millions, billions, an almost infinite combination of frames for a video game depending on player actions. Thus taking one or two or ten or twenty frames is not a significant chunk. Basically whether its a GIF or a video you just need the rationale to be very strong. I believe Giants: Citizen Kabuto does a good job of a compelling rationale for an animation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hmm.. that means that for all purposes and intents, the larger part of the decision to keep or delete derives from the rationale and not the picture itself, or its quality, or its contents. So, instead of doing destructive work like removing or marking pics for deletion, why doesn't the community work (constructively) on improving the rationales? I ask this because it is noticeable that there's a larger number of people more focused on just eliminating pictures due to policies a,b,c, than on trying to keep them and/or improve their rationales. NeoGenPT (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not necessarily, if the picture/animation/whatever is not justifiable then one wouldn't be able to provide a rationale. The "quality" (i.e. resolution) of the image is also important (see above) and I don't see how a third editor is supposed to provide that part of the rationale if they don't know the source or resolution of the image. That at least requires a bit of technical know-how that the average member of the community may not have; certainly I don't know how to do it. And yes, cleaning things up just requires time and inclination I don't often have. bridies (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Like many things on Wikipedia, there's simply more work than the volunteers here can handle. As bridies points out, not everyone can do everything. We have a task force for images, but again, it's a large work load for a small group of editors.
Expanding on what bridies said above, keeping images on Wikipedia is dependent on the content of the image and the rationale explaining why that content is important.
  • Not all images are equal in their encyclopedic value. I suggest everyone reading this to check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches if you haven't already, specifically the section about "Minimization". This gives a good explanation about how to evaluate images for inclusion (in others and your own articles).
  • The rationale should be related to segments of an article's text. If an aspect of the game is mentioned in the "Development" and "Reception" sections, then you'll more than likely want to include a picture to aid in comprehension. If the image depicts content not even mentioned, then the rationale will be weak and may require the image's deletion.
(Guyinblack25 talk 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

A few of these images are useful, however animations for the title screen and the like are not. If an animation genuinely helps a player understand gameplay in a way that words have a difficult time describing, I very much welcome it. But I don't think we should animate for the sake of animating. NeoGenPT's additions to some of the articles are helpful. I actually understood 100% of the gameplay in Bouncing Babies due to the image, which I don't know that prose could have described accurately. Prince of Persia (1989 video game) also has a very useful animation, though it's rather long. The middle "room" in the animation is plenty to show gameplay, and the animation in general helps to clarify the then-complex animations and gameplay. In general I like the idea of adding animations, but only in the way of demonstrating unique gameplay. I'd prefer NeoGenPT uses his talents for the games that could really use an animation, as I'm sure there's quite a few. --Teancum (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see your point of view, and I did create a couple of animated title screens, which I will revert back to single screenshots again soon. The idea came from World of Spectrum where they have animations for the ZX Spectrum's flashing title screens. On another topic, one thing I didn't know is that one could say in the rationale for an animation that the "portion" used is an x number of frames, I see that working with movies because they have a specific length, but videogames have no fixed number of frames, they're virtually infinite. So to be accurate the rationale would have to say that the animation is using x frames from infinite? NeoGenPT (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
For screenshots, I normally say: "A single screenshot of the game, a small portion of the commercial product." I'm sure something similar would work for an animation: "[X] frames of animation, a small portion of the commercial product." Decent fair use rationales rarely come under malicious scrutiny. And if they do, we can normally give further explanation to expand and strengthened the rationale. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
As long as you're providing a license and decent fair use rationale, you probably don't have to worry about anything else; your rationales will only come under serious scrutiny at WP:FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Are Template:Vgrationale and Template:Video game cover fur good templates to work with when dealing with video game images? I actually just found out about these two templates and they seem simpler to use than trying to create my own text explaining the purpose of the image and why it wont affect the copyright holders and etc. Does the text produced by these templates holds up against scrutiny? NeoGenPT (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just as heads up, MSGJ has proposed expanding the infobox's name to the full Infobox video game, which I don't have a problem with, but I thought should be known. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply


MSGJ also moved {{vgratings}} to {{Infobox VG/ratings}}, on the basis that it is only used for that, so it should be a subtemplate, but I'm not sure if I agree with that. If the template was called internally, it would make sense, but it's not. This already causes thousands of redirects, and the number will continue to increase unless we start typing {{Infobox VG/ratings}}, which is long as it is, but will become even longer if the above proposal is accepted. And if having a subpage is the consensus, it would also make sense to move {{vgrelease}}. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to comment on Template talk:Infobox VG to keep discussion in one place, and suggest others do as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article about FreeSpace 2 states that online multiplayer is available through PXO; it was possible to play on PXO, now with the new open source version of the game, multiplayer is only available online through FS2Net. My question is: should the article be left as is and considered to be an article about the original game or should it be changed to also include what the game is like with the open-source version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GameSlayerGS (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The answer is neither, it should state that it *was* playable through PXO and is now only playable through FS2Net. If you can, try to source it as well.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe that adding information to video game pages regarding what voice track(s) are included on the game by region of release would be useful to readers. Probably the region of initial release (if non-English speaking) and English-speaking regions would be included, like with release dates.

Some examples (being in NA, I am unsure of voice options on the EU versions of these games):

Currently, some articles contain at least part of this information, though where it is located is not standardized (Jak II mentions voice tracks in the lead section, Atelier Iris 3 under Voice Talents, and Star Ocean: The Last Hope in the lead section and under International Version and Reception).

It would also be helpful to indicate if games are unvoiced, although guidelines would likely need to be worked out regarding whether this information is obvious. For example, I think most readers would probably assume the original Legend of Zelda was unvoiced. However, until recently, I was under the mistaken impression that Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne was voiced, like the other Megami Tensei games on PS2; adding a specific mention that the game is unvoiced would clear this up.

I am unsure where in the article this information would best be placed should other editors agree that its inclusion would be useful; the infobox is already fairly long and some games could have quite a few entries (I think one of the Jak and Daxter games had five or six options in the North America release). Sharac (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... I have to disagree. Unless it was brought up as an important difference in a review, it really shouldn't matter if different languages are included in different regions, so long as the experience is the same. I feel that this kind of information could just be added into a gameplay line; "Video game has no voice acting", or "Video game features an English cast of voice actors, although a Japanese version is available in-game". The dates of releases of these different voice tracks should also correspond with the releases of the different versions, so I feel it would be kind of redundant to list both. Either way, I don't think it's a very major problem as long as it gets mentions in articles where necessary. -- Nomader (Talk) 09:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Nomader. I think the layman would assume that a game released in a specific region would use a language prevalent to it. Adding anything outside that would require a source to demonstrate some notability. Like a reviewer expressing happiness for the inclusion of a Japanese language track in a North American release or vice versa.
I also think that voice acting is typically not integral to understanding the topic. Again, if that aspect receives coverage, then it should be added in. But I don't think it should be a default in video game articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC))Reply
Nomader, I agree that a line in the Gameplay section would be sufficient to cover this in cases of no voice acting or multiple audio tracks; since most games from other regions are released in NA with English voices only (I think), but still a large minority are released with dual audio, and even a few have no English dub, I think that mentioning this only in cases where the game is not English-only in English-speaking regions would be fine. Most games have a Characters section that mentions the voice actors, but no indication of whether the original voice actors for a game made in a non-English-speaking region are present in English-region versions of the game; the layman would likely then either assume that all languages of voice actors in the game are present, or that only the English-language voice actors are present, either of which is a false assumption for many games. Also, due to a lack of standardization in Characters sections, if only one language of voice actors has been listed (perhaps due to an editor only being familiar with one language's cast, although knowing that others do exist), the layman may be given the false impression that this is the only voice track that exists; a single line in the Gameplay section could easily clear up such misconceptions, while not being so long or intrusive that it distracts the reader should they be less interested.
Also, regarding the dates of release, I did not mean that release dates for the voice tracks should be included; rather, I was saying that I thought it would be useful to include information about voice tracks in English-speaking regions and the region of initial release, the way that release dates are included for these regions. However, I agree that a simple line in the Gameplay section in cases that are not English-only would be more useful and less intrusive.
Regarding notability, I think that considering the popularity of voice actors (see Voice acting in Japan), and that both that page and Dubbing have sections regarding video games, a single line indicating that a game has multiple audio tracks or is unvoiced, whether a reviewer happened to mention it or not, would not be too much. -- Sharac (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cauldron (video game)'s GAN is currently on hold pending a copy edit. Could I trouble someone for a copy edit? The article is rather short. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

I am under the impression that MegaDriver may fail the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. The band has played for Video Games Live and claims to be "the first video game metal band", but this lacks any independent coverage. Your thoughts? Shawnc (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article claims that they appeared in the media and on television. If you can find those references it would be notable.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If anyone would like to contribute: Talk:First-person shooter#Planetside not oldest FPS. bridies (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply