| Revision as of 17:53, 2 July 2010 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →VG guideline and romaji← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:00, 2 July 2010 edit undoOst316 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers86,281 edits →VG guideline and romaji: at least part of it seems to be relatedNext edit → | ||
| Line 319: | Line 319: | ||
| For reference .]]] 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | For reference .]]] 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :The linked discussion has nothing to do with the issue at hand, Jinnai.—] (]) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | :The linked discussion has nothing to do with the issue at hand, Jinnai.—] (]) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :: Admittedly I ] much of the old discussion and don't currently have an opinion on the matter, but a cursory glance shows that ''SoulCaliber''—which you gave as an example—was contentious, so I wouldn't think that it has nothing to do with the current issue. I quote ] before a reply from you, "I ''do'' agree that, for the specific case of Soulcalibur, re-romanizing the kana of an English word is fairly pointless". —] (]) 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:00, 2 July 2010
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project watchlist | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Video game list names
For quite some time, video game lists have kind of gone by their own sort of naming conventions. Lists that are strictly video game lists and not media lists tend to be sort of a potshot at which name they use. Some examples:
- Titles: List of Star Fox titles, List of Harvest Moon titles, List of Need for Speed titles
- Video games: List of Wario video games, List of Dragon Ball video games, List of Final Fantasy video games, etc.
- Games: List of Donkey Kong games, List of Bomberman games, List of Mega Man games, etc.
I think we need to say which standard we're using for video game lists and then we should re-name all video game lists to fit the standard. Personally I think we should use "video games" but I'm not really too hellbent on keeping that, so if someone wants to do "titles" or "games", we can discuss it. You can see all of the video game franchise lists here. -- Nomader 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should use "video games". "Games" implies that it includes video games and other types of games. "Titles" is a bit too open-ended, implying any type of entry. In cases like that, we should probably use "media". (Guyinblack25 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC))
- I watch this page for any opinions about Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. So I am pretty neutral as far as other issues. My 1 cent is that "video games" is the correct usage. While I think "computer games" distinguishes games like Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri from the old games that one saw in the video arcades at the mall, most people do no consider the PS2 et al platforms to be computers."Games" can cover sports, e.g football. Vyeh (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed with everything Guy said. Gary King (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also prefer "video games," unless the lists are expected to include other games or media. —Ost (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- "video games". I have lengthily voiced why before. In summary: consistency. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, I never understood why some lists are named "List of *** media". I've never heard someone say "Disgaea: Hour of Darkness is a Disgaea medium" or "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a Final Fantasy medium". I think these should be moved to "List of *** products" or something. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the intended usage of "media" in this case refers to "products", as in the different types of media the franchise has been released on. For example, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a Final Fantasy spin off in the film medium. (Guyinblack25 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
- Media is not necessarily video games, and can include books, movies, board games and whatnot. If there is nothing other than video games, the page doesn't need the title "list of *** media" and can be "list of *** video games" instead.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Media lists are especially good when there aren't enough items to warrent a specific list of video games. So I think we can all agree that the consensus here is to move all of the pages to "List of XXXX video games?" -- Nomader 20:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Maybe give it a day to see if anyone else chimes in. (Guyinblack25 21:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
- I agree with "List of XXXX video games. I still don't understand how "List of XXXX media" is the best name for media articles though. The first thing that comes to mind when reading "List of Final Fantasy media" is that there is something called a "Final Fantasy medium", which might be somewhat understandable but it sounds really awkward IMO (news media, mass media, ...Final Fantasy media?). Plus according to a really technical definition a list of FF media would actually just list the physical types of media FF appears in, like this:
- The FF media are cartridges, CDs, DVDs, books, etc.
- instead of actually listing the names of the products that these media carry:
- The FF media are FF: The Spirits Within, FF: Unlimited, FF Ultimania Guide, etc.
- I think "Products" sounds much clearer. Should I open a new discussion section since this is kind of unrelated (er, totally unrelated actually) to the "List of XXXX video games" debate? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with using products is that you're then expected to list out things such as action figures or other things that aren't really particularly important to the list you're trying to make. Media (communication) is at its most basic level, "tools used to store and deliver information or data." This means that comics, games, and movies all qualify while things such as action figures don't. -- Nomader 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with "List of XXXX video games. I still don't understand how "List of XXXX media" is the best name for media articles though. The first thing that comes to mind when reading "List of Final Fantasy media" is that there is something called a "Final Fantasy medium", which might be somewhat understandable but it sounds really awkward IMO (news media, mass media, ...Final Fantasy media?). Plus according to a really technical definition a list of FF media would actually just list the physical types of media FF appears in, like this:
- Sounds good. Maybe give it a day to see if anyone else chimes in. (Guyinblack25 21:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
- Media lists are especially good when there aren't enough items to warrent a specific list of video games. So I think we can all agree that the consensus here is to move all of the pages to "List of XXXX video games?" -- Nomader 20:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Media is not necessarily video games, and can include books, movies, board games and whatnot. If there is nothing other than video games, the page doesn't need the title "list of *** media" and can be "list of *** video games" instead.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Nomander. Products implies every kind of product. Media implies every kind of medium. Video games implies only video (and computer) games. At each level it is more broad than the last. If we want to only list media such as CDs, video games, DVDs, etc. then we should use "List of XXXX digital media" and media in itself implies print and sonic (radio FE) as well as digital.陣内Jinnai 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I had never considered that title: "digital media". Sounds like it would make compiling some lists much easier, though I worry it would encourage cherry picking. Something to think about I guess. (Guyinblack25 15:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
- No one should be expected to list things like action figures. Action figures are not notable. We're discussing article names but let's not forget WP:N. There can be some short statements like "Action figures have also been released." but I don't see why anyone should list every barcode of every action figure ever released for a series. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:N covers guidelines for whether a subject is notable enough for its own article, not inclusion in a list. Even, redlinks can be permitted in lists. That is why it is important to set the inclusion criteria of a list with its name and description. WP:TRIVIA should be excluded from lists, but just going by WP:N can be overly restrictive. —Ost (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even though notability doesn't cover lists, WP:SALAT does and listing of products, which includes stuff like action figures and the like for a product originally released as a video game could easily qualify as "too broad".陣内Jinnai 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that part in SALAT and I think that that's your interpretation of "too broad" unless I skimmed past it. You may be correct and do fine keeping a list limited to it, but I think it's easier to name them appropriately to avoid confusion. We have articles on the Burger King Pokémon container recall, so I do not think that it's implausible for a toy to become notable. —Ost (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Toys are a grey area and a slippery slope. Not so much for other lists, but within a single list. If you include one, you're expected to include them all. And most lines of toys based on video games are poorly documented by our reliable sources. I've avoided some media lists for the same reason: every comic and soundtrack related to a franchise is difficult to track down.
- Regardless, I believe Ost has the right idea. Properly define a list's scope from the start, and the process should avoid most pitfalls. (Guyinblack25 14:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
- I didn't notice that part in SALAT and I think that that's your interpretation of "too broad" unless I skimmed past it. You may be correct and do fine keeping a list limited to it, but I think it's easier to name them appropriately to avoid confusion. We have articles on the Burger King Pokémon container recall, so I do not think that it's implausible for a toy to become notable. —Ost (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even though notability doesn't cover lists, WP:SALAT does and listing of products, which includes stuff like action figures and the like for a product originally released as a video game could easily qualify as "too broad".陣内Jinnai 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:N covers guidelines for whether a subject is notable enough for its own article, not inclusion in a list. Even, redlinks can be permitted in lists. That is why it is important to set the inclusion criteria of a list with its name and description. WP:TRIVIA should be excluded from lists, but just going by WP:N can be overly restrictive. —Ost (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- So it looks like there's consensus to move them to "list of xxxxx video games"-- for featured lists, do we have to move anything special or do any odd edits? I'm not too experienced with this whole moving business. -- Nomader 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- These, yes. I think (and perhaps a new section down at the bottom to garner renewed interest) a discussion on some appropriate types of list qualifiers could be added to the guideline. This wouldn't be all-encompassing, but might be stuff like discouraging (game) and use (media) only if you intend it to be for all forms, including print.陣内Jinnai 23:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Featured lists are a good place to start, but every list should follow the same convention to avoid further confusion. (Guyinblack25 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
- No one should be expected to list things like action figures. Action figures are not notable. We're discussing article names but let's not forget WP:N. There can be some short statements like "Action figures have also been released." but I don't see why anyone should list every barcode of every action figure ever released for a series. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
TITLE Subtitle
I think we should establish a convention for some titles and subtitles, namely those that are written as "TITLE Subtitle" by the official sources. It's a recurring problem for some foreign games (Japanese especially). Take Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep for instance. There are three different spellings:
- KINGDOM HEARTS Birth by Sleep (official sources)
- Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep (Misplaced Pages)
- Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep (gaming websites)
As you can see, official sources distinguish the title and the subtitle by writing the former in all caps and the latter normally. This distinction disappears on Misplaced Pages due to our guidelines on capital letters (KINGDOM HEARTS Birth by Sleep becomes Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep). Most review gaming websites use a comma to separate the title from the subtitle. Personally I think we should use a comma too. Some might think this comma is "not official" but I believe it's more a matter of convention than officialty. Official sources tell the reader where the title ends and where the subtitle starts with caps, and we should give this same information in some way, whatever way it is.
It would be different if the official sources did not convey any difference between the title and the subtitle. For instance Super Mario Galaxy is always written as Super Mario Galaxy and not SUPER MARIO Galaxy, and so we should not use Super Mario: Galaxy in that case.
Thoughts? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, Jonathan makes a good argument for Birth by Sleep. IGN consistently labels it without the colon:. GameSpot does as well:. A few other sites use the colon too: Eurogamer and Edge. Though I'm a little hesitant of such a switch when the game isn't even out in English-speaking regions yet.
- Regardless, the title without the colon should still be in the lead to avoid confusion. Something like "Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep (also known as Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep)". Official titles should be in the article for some level of factual accuracy. (Guyinblack25 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
- WP:COMMONNAME#Standard English and trademarks - all of them should use proper captialization unless they are acronyms which are widely used. So no matter what is used, we would always use Kingdom Hearts not KINGDOM HEARTS. As to the colon or not, there doesn't seem to be any consensus among the guidelines.陣内Jinnai 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just use the colon, it makes it clearer and easier to understand where the subtitle starts. It does not really change anything else. GameSpot's and whatnot usually don't care enough to pay attention to such details. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I second the motion to use a colon for subtitles. The lack of a colon is simply a design decision, and that doesn't make it any less of a subtitle.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not to pile on here but I think using the colon for these kind of things is the way to go. I think usually we should defer to what most websites refer to the game as for specific punctuation notes. -- Nomader 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- On a side note- I wish more members piled on in discussions. Consensus normally builds faster when people voice opinions, even if it's a simple agreement. (Guyinblack25 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
- I don't think that asking people to contribute on the WT:VG talkpage will do any good... if they aren't posting here chances are they might not be checking in here either. -- Nomader 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- On that note, I agree with using a colon—and I admittedly tend not to post if I agree with the direction that consensus is trending. I also didn't speak up because we tend to use what sources say, I'm not sure if introducing the colon is against WP:COMMONNAME because of the sources, and I'm not familiar with international approaches to subtitling. But personally, I see the colon as a convention to separate the title and the subtitle. —Ost (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- On a side note- I wish more members piled on in discussions. Consensus normally builds faster when people voice opinions, even if it's a simple agreement. (Guyinblack25 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
- Not to pile on here but I think using the colon for these kind of things is the way to go. I think usually we should defer to what most websites refer to the game as for specific punctuation notes. -- Nomader 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I second the motion to use a colon for subtitles. The lack of a colon is simply a design decision, and that doesn't make it any less of a subtitle.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just use the colon, it makes it clearer and easier to understand where the subtitle starts. It does not really change anything else. GameSpot's and whatnot usually don't care enough to pay attention to such details. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME#Standard English and trademarks - all of them should use proper captialization unless they are acronyms which are widely used. So no matter what is used, we would always use Kingdom Hearts not KINGDOM HEARTS. As to the colon or not, there doesn't seem to be any consensus among the guidelines.陣内Jinnai 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think WP:COMMONNAME is flawed in the sense that common english name would be difficult to find if the name originates from another language. Official names are the best as titled, and then mention the common name as a redirect or mentioned in the beginning of the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- There are exceptions, but generally you have an uphill battle if an official english name exists. You have to show how independant RSes use the non-English name (and make cetain you are cherry picking sources or it will likely backfire on you.陣内Jinnai 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think WP:COMMONNAME is flawed in the sense that common english name would be difficult to find if the name originates from another language. Official names are the best as titled, and then mention the common name as a redirect or mentioned in the beginning of the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I could only see that if there was more than one official English name, which in that case it would have to be the most official common English name. i simply don't see it as a big argument. Either way, the colon should be placed anyways as the rest of the kh games with subtitles that have/will be released in english territoriesBread Ninja (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What about Fire Emblem: Shin Monshō no Nazo ~Hikari to Kage no Eiyū~? The correct title of the article should be Fire Emblem Shin Monshō no Nazo ~Hikari to Kage no Eiyū~. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone help?
Hi. Could someone give their two cents about this situation? There is a debate about what the Kefka article should be called. One side claims that Kefka Palazzo is his official English name, and the other side (me) claims that Palazzo is only his Japanese surname and has never appeared in English materials. I will seperate my description in two sections, a "Personal attacks" and a "The actual arguments used" sections to try to provide an objective account of what is happening.
- The personal attacks
- Some time ago, I asked a question about the name of an article at . Ten days later, since there was no answer, I decided to correct the article's name, being WP:BOLD as recommended by Misplaced Pages guidelines.
- Then, out of nowhere, someone reverts my edit, says it was "without question the dumbest decision" they've ever seen on Misplaced Pages.
- I then proceed to revert the revert, calling the previous user a troll. Admitedly I could have avoided using that term and I agree that I'm a bit guilty here. I also tell him his comment was insulting and pointless.
- A third user chimes in and reverts, saying "You don't do radical changes like this *before* discussing, blast it!", even though I did open a discussion on the talk page and only acted after ten days had passed without any answer.
- I then politely ask the third user to explain himself, even putting a "Thanks" in advance at the end of my post.
- Meanwhile, the second user calls me an idiot and calls my actions uneducated and foolishness.
- And they also called my initial article name change "hasty" several times, even though, again, I opened a discussion first and only acted ten days later after no reply had been given to it.
- The actual arguments
- The second and third users claim that the full name "Kefka Palazzo" appears in Dissidia.
- I claim that the full name "Kefka Palazzo" doesn't appear in Dissidia. Only "Kefka" seems to appear.
Thoughts? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the personal attacks are an issue, I would take it to WP:DISPUTE. --Teancum (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd recommend WP:WQA before heading to dispute resolution, personally. An informal talk with the idea of calming things down from there would be more ideal. -- Sabre (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The personal attacks are nonsense, you've been just as rude as me and Kung Fu Man so don't try and act the victim. Yes my "idiot" comment was a bit far, but to be perfectly blunt, your actions were uneducated and foolish. You are wrong, plain and simple. Don't say it to be mean, I say it because it is the truth. You used faulty logic to support your stance, citing that the credits and website don't mention his full name, when no one has their last name given in either place. His full name is given as Kefka Palazzo in Dissidia's museum, I'll even snap a picture of it if you don't believe me. Final word: his last name is English canon as well, drop it and move on. The Clawed One (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Re-read my post. I'm not acting like a victim, I even said I did call you a troll once and shouldn't have done so. However, again, I politely asked a question first, waited ten days without any answer, and only acted then based on my knowledge. You then suddenly jumped in and said it was the "dumbest decision ever". I then called you a troll once, and you proceeded to call me idiot and stuff multiple times in what I guess is retaliation. Asking a question before doing something and waiting ten days to act (which is what I did despite what Kung Fu Man claims) is not dumb, it's what Misplaced Pages recommands (WP:BOLD). Next time I guess I'll try reading your mind or call a seer or something instead of waiting ten days to get a reply. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- You make a big deal about waiting ten days for a reply. I frankly don't care if you wait ten months before making the edit. It doesn't change the fact your decision was ill-informed and foolish because you didn't do enough research before making a decision. By that logic, any proposed edit becomes valid if no one replies to the proposition. Doesn't work that way, your proposal was misinformed and you made a dumb decision. Being bold is not a blanket excuse to edit however you like, use some common sense, do some research and don't act on your own. If you didn't get a reply after ten days, why not come here? If you had come here before instead of waiting for this mess you could have saved everyone a lot of hassle. Moving the page was very stupid, it doesn't matter how long you waited you were wrong, and now are whining about this ordeal for no real reason. In either case its over now, so as I said drop it and move on. The Clawed One (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the edit war looks fairly fresh, I suggest both sides of the disagreement disengage for a while. Errors were made on both sides; however, it is time to move past them. After a few days, revisit the issue on the article's talk page and finish the discussion before any action is taken. Such actions without consensus among the involved parties can be construed as violations of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, which in turn can lead to blocks (regardless of who is right and wrong).
In the future, please keep WP:CIVIL and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith in mind. (Guyinblack25 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
- I agree with Guyinblack25 above. Both sides made mistakes in handling this dispute, and I similarly recommend both sides back off for a bit and then return with cooler heads. Sometimes discussions start up weeks after its start after some inactivity, though that does not happen often. We have the bold-revert-discuss cycle for a reason in which bold edits can be challenged; we just need to get the "discuss" portion right. –MuZemike 14:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't think you guys get it. He says Kefka's last name is not mentioned in English materials. He is incorrect. The debate is over, there is no more discussion to be had, so yes I had planned to back off because the discussion is over. The Clawed One (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- We do get it Clawed. However, the factual accuracy of the discussion has no bearing on Misplaced Pages's civility policy. (Guyinblack25 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
- Honestly I don't think you guys get it. He says Kefka's last name is not mentioned in English materials. He is incorrect. The debate is over, there is no more discussion to be had, so yes I had planned to back off because the discussion is over. The Clawed One (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I just offer a quick, fast ending to this hogwash? Does someone have the manual or game on hand and a camera or scanner? If so just upload a shot/scan showing it saying his full name and call it a day. I lack all three at the moment, and didn't even realize there *was* a discussion on that talk page that long. But that's going to be the simplest way to resolve this bull without people making themselves look silly in the long run.
Sheesh.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. This matter can be quickly and easily resolved. But a discussion between the involved the parties is still recommended to mend fences and prevent further disputes related to the matter. (Guyinblack25 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
Naming conflict
Let's assume there is a Russian video game named Mordal Wombat featuring Shaolin monks. Main hero of this game is a fictional Chinese man called "Лю Кан" (romanization: Lyu Kan). According to our transliteration rules, direct romanization of these Russian letters is Lju Kan or Lyu Kan. However, if this monk was a real Chinese person with a real name, it would be written as "Liu Kang" according to the rules of Chinese romanization (Chinese names are romanized with Wade–Giles). Actually, Liu Kang and Lyu Kan are one Chinese name. In the real world they are just two analogues of the same thing, Romanized and Cyrillic spelling respectively. However, we are dealing with a fictional character. How, then, to name an English article about this character? Should we stick to his fictional nationality or to direct romanization of Russian letters? What Misplaced Pages rules say on this matter? Thank you. :) -- deerstop. 18:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Mordal Wombat? That sounds a lot like Mortal Kombat, but that is definitely no a part of the series. Where exactly are you seeing this conflict? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Let's assume" means "There is no such game really". ) Just a hypothetical case. -- deerstop. 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then you use WP:COMMONNAME, the name that appears more often. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- So, doesn't fictional nationality truly matter? -- deerstop. 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Provided there's proper sourcing, you can include the proper national name in the article. But the article name should use the most common name, which should also be included in the lead of the article. Common names are used to aid in finding the article and reduce confusion. It's the same reason we use coyote rather than canis latrans. Technicalities can cause confusion among laymen. (Guyinblack25 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
- Thanks! -- deerstop. 11:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Provided there's proper sourcing, you can include the proper national name in the article. But the article name should use the most common name, which should also be included in the lead of the article. Common names are used to aid in finding the article and reduce confusion. It's the same reason we use coyote rather than canis latrans. Technicalities can cause confusion among laymen. (Guyinblack25 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
- So, doesn't fictional nationality truly matter? -- deerstop. 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Eng-Wiki users! This girl think that we (in Russian Wiki) should use nonexistent names of Mortal Kombat characters, resorting to transliteration from Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc. (believing that these characters are persons of these nationalities). However, Mortal Kombat is a USA game series, and in territory of Russia this series extends in English too. It means that these characters are known only under English names for Russian people. But there is a conflict in Ru-Wiki with this girl and some people who believe that we should use Japanese/Chinese/Korean transliteration of these names, according to prospective origin of characters. I think we should not. We don't know these characters under Japanese, etc. names, but we know them only in English. There is many people who believe the same as me, but one of Japan fans has closed this discussion, having persuaded one of admins to sum up discussion in favour of the Japanese names. Now he refuses to open discussion and to discuss it with new people. Though it is many people against this decision, and they have challenged it. Even some other admins believe that my position is correct. We, certainly, should use English transliteration? Seems that it is necessary to call Jimbo... :D --Coolak (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Moreover, there is a reliable source in Russia - it's a game magazine named "World of Fantastic". This magazine use English-translated names too! It supports my position even more. --Coolak (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- On the English Misplaced Pages, we try to use the most commonly known name of a subject. The common name should be the article title, and used most frequently in the article prose. If there are reliable sources that mention national names, then there is an argument to include it. But I would not mention a national name more than once. I think that would confuse things.
- I have no idea what the Russian Misplaced Pages page for article titles says, but I think that what ever that pages says should apply. However, I don't think we should dictate guidelines on other Wikipedias any more than others should dictate our guidelines. Friendly suggestions back and worth seem fine though. :-) (Guyinblack25 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
- This page only says that we should use most common names, and that rules of articles about persons don't concern to characters. Unfortunately, some users have begun holywar because of it. Even admins can not help us. --Coolak (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- If things have gotten that bad, Admins are suppose to jump in. They should restrict editing to the impacted pages if things are unmanageable. (Guyinblack25 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
- One of administrators has summed up discussion in favour of the East names, but his "decision" was challenged by me and my side was supported by many people. We have resulted a lot of arguments and the facts, and rules are on our side, but the group of users persistently tries to close discussion in their favour and not to allow it to continue. Administrators avoid this discussion. --Coolak (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the administrators are not dealing with the issue, then I'm not sure what help we can offer. We would normally take the issue to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which apparently has a Russian equivalent. (Guyinblack25 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC))
- One of administrators has summed up discussion in favour of the East names, but his "decision" was challenged by me and my side was supported by many people. We have resulted a lot of arguments and the facts, and rules are on our side, but the group of users persistently tries to close discussion in their favour and not to allow it to continue. Administrators avoid this discussion. --Coolak (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- If things have gotten that bad, Admins are suppose to jump in. They should restrict editing to the impacted pages if things are unmanageable. (Guyinblack25 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
- This page only says that we should use most common names, and that rules of articles about persons don't concern to characters. Unfortunately, some users have begun holywar because of it. Even admins can not help us. --Coolak (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
King's Field (series)
King's Field is a Japan-only release and because of that when King's Field II was released in the West it was renamed simply as King's Field. And when King's Field III was released in the West it became King's Field II.
According to the guidelines we should use the title of the English language release. At least in the Final Fantasy series the misleadingly titled games were renamed to back to their original titles but these games never had re-releases. So, should they be moved to their Western titles or leave as it is to reduce confusion? --Mika1h (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- My first impulse is to put a hatnote on the first game; something like "For the game released in the US as King's Field, see King's Field II". Nifboy (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree. The guidelines are all well and nice, but sometimes you have to bend the rules in favor of common sense. After all, if you put KF2 at King's Field, then what are you going to name the first game's article? King's Field 0? King's Field (Japan)? Either one is more confusing than just naming it according to the original names and putting a note that they were renamed later. --PresN 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Theoretically you could use King's Field and another article King's Field I. It does cause a lot of mess though with redirecting. Might also want to head over to WP:COMMONNAME as they may have a better solution.陣内Jinnai 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Or you could just disambiguate them as "King's Field (**** video game)" and "King's Field (**** video game), however, I think leaving them in their Japanese order is better.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Theoretically you could use King's Field and another article King's Field I. It does cause a lot of mess though with redirecting. Might also want to head over to WP:COMMONNAME as they may have a better solution.陣内Jinnai 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree. The guidelines are all well and nice, but sometimes you have to bend the rules in favor of common sense. After all, if you put KF2 at King's Field, then what are you going to name the first game's article? King's Field 0? King's Field (Japan)? Either one is more confusing than just naming it according to the original names and putting a note that they were renamed later. --PresN 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)
I am here to ask if anyone is willing to work on Ninja Gaiden. It is currently GA status, as well as A-class status. However, I found problems and am willing to contest its status. When I asked the editor, Jappalang, he said that he doesn't really care for it anymore and I should ask if anyone should take the job of working on it. So, before I do the GAR, does anyone want to take the helm? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I am only interested in the 2-D Ninja Gaiden games. That reminds me that I need to get to Ninja Gaiden III: The Ancient Ship of Doom shortly, to finish off cleaning and polishing the NES trilogy articles. –MuZemike 02:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of them, I honestly believe that Sigmas 1 and 2 need to be merged. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have started the GAR. So if anyone wants to fixs the problems, here's the link. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of them, I honestly believe that Sigmas 1 and 2 need to be merged. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Simon Belmont
I think Simon Belmont, with all the notability he's been getting since he first appeared, I believe he should have his own article. If so, be happy if someone could start one and I'd be happy to help contribute to it. --VitasV (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You can start one yourself in your Sandbox and then move it to the mainspace when it has reached a decent standard. - X201 (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
DS Lite and DSi XL articles to be merged
If anyone is interested, Nintendo DS and Nintendo DSi have ongoing discussions on their talk pages about merging DS Lite and DSi XL. « ₣M₣ » 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- The article on the original DSi is pretty much complete. If the merge does occur, to anyone that wants to maintain a high level of completeness, there is not a lot to write about on the DSi XL. « ₣M₣ » 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Sonic and the Secret Rings
I'm sure everyone can see the FAC from the to-do list, but it's inactive and I don't want it to get closed because of that. Whoever has time to come, please do. Tezero (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Currently pursuing a second copyeditor per FAC comments almost exclusively from Jinnai. Tezero (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
GameZone.com
There seems to be an emerging issue with GameZone.com conflict of interest edits. I've had a previous run in with a user about it, back in March, (which resulted in a cross email from the Editor in chief), but I've noticed a resurgence in the past few days (I'm only aware of edits to pages on my watchlist, there may be more). The edits all take the same form - the paragraph starts with "GameZone" and mentions the journalist's name and the type of content in the first line, continuing with a long paragraph mainly consisting of direct quotes from the article, with a bare ref to the appropriate article at the end. This, and that the accounts all seem to be single-purpose, suggests there's something more than just fans of the site adding it as a source. I'm aware GameZone is listed as a reliable source (though all the evidence is literary based), just wondering if action should be taken. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- It looks marginally usable. No mistake though - its UNDUE on one reviewer's words, barely NPOV, and excessively long. It should not be pure QUOTEs, only useful information should be kept, possibly something that can be used later in development/reception section when the games come out. I suggest action taken is a proper edit of these, and notification of user(s) about this discussion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I use GameZone quite a bit when it comes to the older racing games I sometimes write about-- often, it's one of the few sources that write about the games and I really do consider the website reliable. That said, there is no excuse for someone who works at GameZone.com to be pushing links when they're only marginally relevant. I agree with Hellknowz in that these quotes should not be allowed and that maybe we have a WP:COI problem here. -- Nomader 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- GameZone is certainly considered a reliable source, it is merely a matter of cutting down the text walls into usable information relevant to the article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I use GameZone quite a bit when it comes to the older racing games I sometimes write about-- often, it's one of the few sources that write about the games and I really do consider the website reliable. That said, there is no excuse for someone who works at GameZone.com to be pushing links when they're only marginally relevant. I agree with Hellknowz in that these quotes should not be allowed and that maybe we have a WP:COI problem here. -- Nomader 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just want to point out the concern I have is that there's a conceited attempt to add GameZone.com content, not that the content or ref may be not be reliable (side issue). Thanks! Fin©™ 15:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the writing looks incredibly similar between accounts. Perhaps a sockpuppet investigation is in order? --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I remember Falcon's original report to ANI, which didn't seem to get much attention, and being very disappointed that a staff member of GameZone felt it necessary to spam WP (IIRC they stated that GameZone wasn't being used) as well as the tone of the editor's email. GameZone is used on WP, Like Nomader I've cited it many times myself, often for more obscure games (like the Geneforge series for instance). GameSpot and IGN have Alexa scores of 2**, GameZone is 8***, it's no real wonder that it isn't used in the same fashion. This might be a well-meaning member of GZ's community, or it may be another attempt to increase GZ's presence on WP, but those accounts are obviously sockpuppets or working in concert and shouldn't be emboldened, the more it continues the more poorly it will reflect on the site itself, which would be a shame. Someoneanother 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, the GameZone staff member who was the focus of the original report had a couple more goes at adding GZ material after removing their association from their userpage before stopping again on the 2nd of June. This is definitely no coincidence. Someoneanother 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I really think this should be addressed-- maybe someone could send an e-mail to the GameZone staff about it? I really appreciate their reviews of some of the older Game Boy Advance games I sometimes write about, and adding random quotes and reviews to articles is not the way for them to increase their reputation. This kind of behavior just can't be tolerated. -- Nomader 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- If nobody else does anything I'll take this to SPI, or ANI, or somewhere (not that I know what the hell I'm doing, same old).. don't intend to let misguided actions get in the way of our ability to use GameZone as a useful source and for the site to legitimately gain traffic through being used on WP. Someoneanother 10:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- (PS not sure if it would be advisable to contact GameZone off-wiki, without checkuser proof or whatever they may think we're being confrontational or trying to victimize one of their staff/fans, which we're not so again it would be a real shame to stir up that hornets' nest). Someoneanother 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken, I completely agree. However I really don't think we need to worry about it too much. I think we should just monitor his edits in the future as it seems he hasn't edited any articles since June 2nd. If he pops up again we should address it here and then report the problem to the necessary boards. -- Nomader 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm being clear as mud as per usual. What I mean is that it's fishy that the GameZone writer had a couple more stabs at it then stopped editing, only for a sock drawer to fly open a few weeks later. Even if it isn't the same editor, there's definitely some socking or meatpuppetry going on with the other accounts. I'll try and figure out WP:SPI now.. Someoneanother 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't conclusively say that they're all sockpuppets (though I suppose if they're all editing from a company IP, it's the same difference?), but there's definitely something dodgy going on. SPI's probably the best place for it (I think?). Thanks! Fin©™ 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm being clear as mud as per usual. What I mean is that it's fishy that the GameZone writer had a couple more stabs at it then stopped editing, only for a sock drawer to fly open a few weeks later. Even if it isn't the same editor, there's definitely some socking or meatpuppetry going on with the other accounts. I'll try and figure out WP:SPI now.. Someoneanother 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken, I completely agree. However I really don't think we need to worry about it too much. I think we should just monitor his edits in the future as it seems he hasn't edited any articles since June 2nd. If he pops up again we should address it here and then report the problem to the necessary boards. -- Nomader 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I really think this should be addressed-- maybe someone could send an e-mail to the GameZone staff about it? I really appreciate their reviews of some of the older Game Boy Advance games I sometimes write about, and adding random quotes and reviews to articles is not the way for them to increase their reputation. This kind of behavior just can't be tolerated. -- Nomader 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, the GameZone staff member who was the focus of the original report had a couple more goes at adding GZ material after removing their association from their userpage before stopping again on the 2nd of June. This is definitely no coincidence. Someoneanother 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Space Invaders games again
This is a follow up to a previous discussion: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 81#Space Invaders games.
Per the comments made during the last thread, I redirected the articles to List of Space Invaders video games and used the content and sources to expand the list. The remaining articles, some of which can probably remain separate, are:
- Space Invaders Extreme – Probably notable
- Space Invaders Get Even – Probably notable
- Space Invaders Extreme 2 – Probably notable
- Space Invaders Trilogy – Not notable
- Space Raiders (video game) – Probably notable
- Pepsi Invaders – Not sure
- Prize Space Invaders – Probably not notable
To the point, I have questions I hope others can help with.
- Space Invaders Trilogy: I'm unsure about one of only the reliable-looking sources I could find for it. The website is TechRepublic, but I've never used it before and thought others could chime in on its reliability.
- Should Pepsi Invaders and Prize Space Invaders be redirected as well? I think the prize game should be redirected, but I'm unsure about the Pepsi game. I know I've seen sources here and there, but I don't recall anything substantial about the development.
Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
- Is Pepsi Invaders the first advergame? It and Chase the Chuck Wagon have the same release year in the article on the subject, so that may provide some notability. Tangentially related, is the unsourced sentence This is the first ever home video game to feature product placement advertising in the game itself--Pizza Hut logos to be exact. from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (arcade game) untrue or in need of wording to exclude advergames? —Ost (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is the first or not. Regardless, I've found little outside the number of copies produced, where it was released, its rarity, and who programmed it. Any notability there is spares in my opinion since it's a derivative of the original Space Invaders. (Guyinblack25 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
- The title has Google hits, but most sources don't look reliable for Misplaced Pages. I also tend to agree that the sparse coverage lends itself to a merge, since if it isn't verifiably notable. —Ost (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you guys want, I can track down the programmer and do a full interview on the development etc. and publish it. I'm borderline on merging or not merging, as it's kind of small to remain on it's own. But it is also notable on it's own as an advertisement game and for it's collectibility. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we can get a developer interview, I'd put the time in the article. A reception/legacy section shouldn't be too difficult to piece together. But a development section just doesn't seem possible right now. (Guyinblack25 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
- If you guys want, I can track down the programmer and do a full interview on the development etc. and publish it. I'm borderline on merging or not merging, as it's kind of small to remain on it's own. But it is also notable on it's own as an advertisement game and for it's collectibility. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The title has Google hits, but most sources don't look reliable for Misplaced Pages. I also tend to agree that the sparse coverage lends itself to a merge, since if it isn't verifiably notable. —Ost (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is the first or not. Regardless, I've found little outside the number of copies produced, where it was released, its rarity, and who programmed it. Any notability there is spares in my opinion since it's a derivative of the original Space Invaders. (Guyinblack25 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Any word on the reliability of this TechRepublic source? (Guyinblack25 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
- Looks like a direct reprinting of a Taito press release. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. But I couldn't find the original press release from Taito or the developer. I posted at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get further opinions. (Guyinblack25 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
Finding charts positions for soundtrack articles
Hi, long time lurker here. Just a small heads up on Japanese soundtrack articles. To prevent the deletionists from targeting these articles, I think we need to treat these articles like "real" album/single articles. This includes adding charts positions whenever they are available. Cuz yes, many soundtracks do enter charts in Japan. I don't speak Japanese but here is what I do to find the charts position of a given CD:
- Go to http://www.oricon.co.jp/.
- Click on "CD" above the blue search box. Type the title of the CD and click on the button.
- Click on the album you're looking for in the search results. The red number next to "過去最高" is the album's charts position.
- Example: "Kiss Me Good-Bye" reached #6 on the Japanese charts.
If you can't find the CD you're looking for in the results, here are a few other ways:
- Try typing the title of the CD in Japanese instead of English (you can find it at http://vgmdb.net/ for instance):
- Example: 0 result for SaGa Frontier Original Soundtrack; 1 result for サガフロンティア オリジナル・サウンド・トラック.
- Try searching for the CD's catalog number on Oricon via Google:
- Example: Googling "SSCX-10003" site:http://www.oricon.co.jp/ yields 1 result.
- Go to http://www.oricon.co.jp/search/. In the box below "曲名に", type the title of one the CD's tracks instead of the CD's title (you can also find them on http://vgmdb.net).
- Example: Searching for the track Vamo' alla flamenco to find the Final Fantasy IX Original Soundtrack.
I hope this helps! :) Moldavian Sax (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- These are good suggestions. I've used a few myself with mixed success. To expand on this some, a regular google search using Japanese kana is a useful tool for any Japanese-based video game element: music, designers, or even the game itself. I turned up some good bits that helped either round out or finish articles like Super Mario 64 DS, Music of Kingdom Hearts, and List of Space Invaders video games. (Guyinblack25 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
- This is so helpful, you have no idea. --PresN 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:FICT
A new version is up for up for discussion.陣内Jinnai 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here we go again… --Izno (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That Videogames Blog
See also: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sonic and the Secret Rings/archive1Would like input from project members on whether this controversial source can be used on WP. Tezero (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the writers page and it does look like the site is actually a regular video game coverage site that happens to use blog in the name (ala a brand name) vs. an actual blog page. They appear to have a staff, have regular articles and news, etc., what would be expected from a typical industry site vs. a literal single person blog. That doesn't clear it for notability though, and in relation to your statement at the FAC discussion, the fact it appears in other articles does not prove notability or reliability. It just means it's usage in those articles should be questioned as well. Reliability can be proven however by contacting the site's head and questioning whether there is an editorial oversite process for the articles. In most cases we want resources to be both notable and reliable, but if nothing of more notability is available an allowance is made as long as it's still proven reliable. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Template:Franchises by Sega
Some IP is removing series from the template in question. I don't understand his/her rationale for it since they are all Sega developed/published series. I have tried to communicate by leaving comment on user and template talk pages but he hasn't replied. --Mika1h (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm against the inclusion of individual video games articles rather than series articles. I believe that it should be for the purpose of navigating articles about franchises, not intellectual properties. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'm fine with that but I don't think he is removing them because they aren't franchise articles. --Mika1h (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep - colon usage
Currently there doesn't seem to be an agreement over whether Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep should have a colon in its title. While I believe the colon should be used, I can't find anything in any MoS that handles colon usage. So, since the editors involved appear not to have discussed the issue at length (at least not that I've seen), and I don't want to see this turn into an edit war, I'd like to hear what the community has to say regarding this matter. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be just a punctuation issue overall. So adding the colon is best in my opinion. Just like Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. Also it's not like it will do any damage than what it might do in the future. THe problem i do see is, if we change it to have acolon then we will have to change the other kingdom heart titles that have sub titles on them aswell, like Kingdom hearts 358/2 days and kingdom hears coded.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
History split
Can anyone please take the history from Kirby's Epic Yarn up until the edit after this and move it to Kirby (cancelled game)? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think I got it right. I opted to move to Kirby (cancelled video game) to disambiguate a little more. –MuZemike 22:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Survival horror page move
Some one moved the survival horror article to survival horror video game. I am requesting it be moved back, which I think is proper protocol for contesting a move. If anyone wants to look it over: Talk:Survival_horror_video_game#Requested_move. bridies (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems odd. I went to the disambig page and found no articles about movies or books which was the point of the rename. We should probably move it back and create a diambig link at the top that says This article focuses on the video game genre. For more about films and books, see ... Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Guidance on platform section of infobox
I've noticed that many infoboxes do not include exhaustive lists of ports in the platform section. As an example, the Super Mario Bros. article mentions the arcade version in the article, but not the infobox. The 1942 article lists many ports in the article, but lists only arcade in the infobox. Even the infobox template page itself skips the platform section entirely in the instructions. What belongs, and what doesn't? Thanks! - superβεεcat 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Probably because of space and weight issues. The other reasons may be that those were not released in English (or in the original language if not English) or the items might be prone to adding without proper sourcing and are hard to verify. Maybe if there was an easy way to hide ports it might be okay.陣内Jinnai 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Still not seeing it - Super Mario Bros. was a big arcade hit, and the NES version of 1942 was definitely successful. I doubt that infobox lists really impact weight. I see some articles, like Bonk's Adventure that list a lot of platforms, and others, like Pac-Man which only list arcade. Is there any rhyme or reason? If there isn't, this project should really consider developing a guideline. Personally, I think an exhaustive platform list would be fine, especially if it could be collapsible, but I don't want to start adding platforms if they'll be reverted. - superβεεcat 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, an exhaustive list is not fine in the infobox per the guidelines on large lists and the guidelines of the project. Prose in the body is always preferred, which is why we have a Ports section in most cases, especially with a game like Pac Man. In most cases if the infobox is in relation to an arcade game (i.e. processor info, etc. because it's describing the hardware it ran on as well) we try and stick with just the main platform. Other more generic game infoboxes a small listing is ok, but again if it's a game that's hit a lot of platforms then only the main platform is listed. That's a general rule with all lists in the body of the article as well, if it can be said in prose instead of a list, then it's preferred. As I mentioned previously, look at some of the articles that have passed GA and FA status for example, using other articles that have not passed this or haven't been brought up to standards doesn't always provide a valid example. With SMB, I would move most of those platforms out and let them stay in prose in the body (which is where you said the arcade version is currently listed), since it's on just about every Nintendo platform. Let me just say I appreciate you asking all the questions you've been asking regarding this type of thing. Most newer people usually just go and do sweeping changes without bothering to find out what the guidelines are or if there aren't any listed, what the WP:Consensus is at the project. Oh, and on an aside I would disagree regarding SMB - SMB was not a popular arcade game, in fact most people have no clue it even existed. It was far more popular and influential in it's Famicom/NES format. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input! Alright, I'll leave the platform sections alone, though I still think a very clear guideline of what goes in and what doesn't should be formed into a policy and posted prominently... somewhere. I think at least some newbies would read project specific (and in this case, template specific) guidelines if they exist somewhere. I'll post in the template talk page about that specific issue. I do think, however, that the infobox could provide a list of ports in an easily-viewable collapsible list in addition to the prose in the main article. Platform could refer to the original release (or releases, if designed for multiple systems contemporaneously), and then a new "ports" section, collapsed by default, could list (and link to, if appropriate), other versions. As far as SMB arcade- I can't really find any info on popularity, but I do remember it at every arcade growing up (it was the reason I begged for an NES). In any case- thanks for the great guidance. - superβεεcat 21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've avoided listing ports in the infobox (Bubbles (video game), Pong, Q*bert, and Robotron: 2084). I think it needlessly bloats the table and the tangential nature is irrelevant to the purpose of an infobox. For the examples I listed, the subjects of the article are the arcade versions. Everything in the article focuses on the original arcade version: gameplay, development, reception. Ports are simply mentioned with little in the way of development and reception specific to the. (Guyinblack25 23:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC))
- Thanks for the input! Alright, I'll leave the platform sections alone, though I still think a very clear guideline of what goes in and what doesn't should be formed into a policy and posted prominently... somewhere. I think at least some newbies would read project specific (and in this case, template specific) guidelines if they exist somewhere. I'll post in the template talk page about that specific issue. I do think, however, that the infobox could provide a list of ports in an easily-viewable collapsible list in addition to the prose in the main article. Platform could refer to the original release (or releases, if designed for multiple systems contemporaneously), and then a new "ports" section, collapsed by default, could list (and link to, if appropriate), other versions. As far as SMB arcade- I can't really find any info on popularity, but I do remember it at every arcade growing up (it was the reason I begged for an NES). In any case- thanks for the great guidance. - superβεεcat 21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, an exhaustive list is not fine in the infobox per the guidelines on large lists and the guidelines of the project. Prose in the body is always preferred, which is why we have a Ports section in most cases, especially with a game like Pac Man. In most cases if the infobox is in relation to an arcade game (i.e. processor info, etc. because it's describing the hardware it ran on as well) we try and stick with just the main platform. Other more generic game infoboxes a small listing is ok, but again if it's a game that's hit a lot of platforms then only the main platform is listed. That's a general rule with all lists in the body of the article as well, if it can be said in prose instead of a list, then it's preferred. As I mentioned previously, look at some of the articles that have passed GA and FA status for example, using other articles that have not passed this or haven't been brought up to standards doesn't always provide a valid example. With SMB, I would move most of those platforms out and let them stay in prose in the body (which is where you said the arcade version is currently listed), since it's on just about every Nintendo platform. Let me just say I appreciate you asking all the questions you've been asking regarding this type of thing. Most newer people usually just go and do sweeping changes without bothering to find out what the guidelines are or if there aren't any listed, what the WP:Consensus is at the project. Oh, and on an aside I would disagree regarding SMB - SMB was not a popular arcade game, in fact most people have no clue it even existed. It was far more popular and influential in it's Famicom/NES format. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Still not seeing it - Super Mario Bros. was a big arcade hit, and the NES version of 1942 was definitely successful. I doubt that infobox lists really impact weight. I see some articles, like Bonk's Adventure that list a lot of platforms, and others, like Pac-Man which only list arcade. Is there any rhyme or reason? If there isn't, this project should really consider developing a guideline. Personally, I think an exhaustive platform list would be fine, especially if it could be collapsible, but I don't want to start adding platforms if they'll be reverted. - superβεεcat 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- The way I have it on Lemmings ("Amiga, various") with a subsequent section on the shear volume of ports, seems to be a wise way to go for a massively ported game. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Master Hand playable in Super Smash Bros. Melee
A glitch has just been discovered in Super Smash Bros. Melee which allows you to play as Master Hand and it actually works. You see about it here: http://kotaku.com/5577690/the-super-smash-bros-secret-that-took-7-years-to-unlock Could we please have in some way added to the article about it? --VitasV (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen the video already and would declare it irrelevant. We might as well add that you can jump the flag pole in Super Mario Bros. because of the video. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. The flagpole in SMB is so iconic, I could see that mentioned. - superβεεcat 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it could be worth mentioning. I just tried it, and it worked. (Although I used the way described on the SmashWiki, not the video. The video's way wouldn't work.) Blake 03:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno, I don't really feel it's too notable of an incident. By exploiting a glitch in the game, you can play as Master Hand-- I feel that it needs to be covered in a more reliable source to make it even marginally notable, and even then I'm not sure if it needs to be added to the article. Things like this and "UR MR GAY" in Super Mario Galaxy aren't really necessary to be added-- they're just fancruft. -- Nomader 06:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it could be worth mentioning. I just tried it, and it worked. (Although I used the way described on the SmashWiki, not the video. The video's way wouldn't work.) Blake 03:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. The flagpole in SMB is so iconic, I could see that mentioned. - superβεεcat 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's hardly 'just been discovered'. seems to point that people knew about it at least a year ago. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
VG review template mangled
Has anybody else noticed that the review box is missing its outside lines and looks a right mess? I just noticed in Geneforge that a line's missing separating two of the reviews as well. Someoneanother 13:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- It looks fine for me. Could it be a similar issue to the one posted at WP:VPT#Problem with singles table? —Ost (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the issue either. It might be a browser issue. (Guyinblack25 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC))
VG guideline and romaji
Japanese video game romaji issue has come up again. I suggest having the discussion at one point. I suggest having the discussion in WT:MOS-J as it was there last time.
For reference last time this was discussed.陣内Jinnai 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- The linked discussion has nothing to do with the issue at hand, Jinnai.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Admittedly I tl;dr much of the old discussion and don't currently have an opinion on the matter, but a cursory glance shows that SoulCaliber—which you gave as an example—was contentious, so I wouldn't think that it has nothing to do with the current issue. I quote Jpatokal before a reply from you, "I do agree that, for the specific case of Soulcalibur, re-romanizing the kana of an English word is fairly pointless". —Ost (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)