Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:11, 29 October 2006 editNed Scott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,898 edits →Should links to Maps for video games be allowed?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:27, 25 December 2024 edit undoQuicoleJR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers14,578 edits →Page for Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree?: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{to do}} {{Talk header|WT:VG}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
{{WikiProject Video games}}
|-
}}
|align="center" colspan="2" | ''']<br />]'''
{{WPVG announcements}}
----
{{WPVG sidebar|shortcut=WT:VG|showarchives=yes}}<!--
|-
Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line)
|align="center"|
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<small>Archives: ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ]</small>
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
----
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|-
|counter = 177
|align="center"|]
|minthreadsleft = 4
|}
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Call of Duty retrospective rankings ==
== ] page moved. ==


With the '']'' series now over 20 years old, I'm thinking it would be beneficial to add retrospective rankings of the games, i.e. from worst to best. As a CoD player myself, the CoD community has specific ideas on what are some of the best games and some of the worst. Additionally, reception to the games themselves has changed a lot over time; even critic and fan reception on launch is different than the end of every game's life cycle (especially in recent years). I was interested to see what critics and publications think so I did a little research and there are plenty of sources that rank the main games and/or pick the best ones. Here's a few:
A user has recently moved the Luigi page to ] without any discussion whatsoever. What's more, none of the links were changed. Even on the disambiguation page that was created in the process. I brought the subject up at WikiProject Nintendo, but I feel that it should be mentioned here too. -]] <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:To be honest, I don't care particularly about the move, although I wouldn't have made it myself. If people are OK with this, then you need to do a {{]}} at ] and then move the disambiguation page in its place. - ]]] 03:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
::I think this completes the trifecta of major Mario naming disputes (Mario, Bowser, and now, finally, Luigi, although Peach also had a somewhat less controversial article name change). ] 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


*https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/best-call-of-duty-games-ranked/2900-3802/
:::Yeah, but the ] paged was never moved. -]] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
*https://www.ign.com/articles/best-call-of-duty-games
*https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/every-main-call-duty-game-210059835.html
*https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/best-call-of-duty-games/
*https://www.nme.com/features/call-of-duty-games-ranked-from-worst-to-best-3344922
*https://www.gamesradar.com/best-call-of-duty-games/
*https://www.denofgeek.com/games/every-call-of-duty-game-ranked-worst-to-best/
*https://www.thegamer.com/ranking-every-call-of-duty-game-from-worst-to-best/
*https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/dan-wenerowicz/every-call-of-duty-game-ranked-worst-to-best
*https://www.si.com/videogames/features/call-of-duty-games-ranked
*https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/every-call-of-duty-game-ranked/


I'm sure there are more but you get the gist. Basically, I think it would be beneficial to start adding retrospective rankings into the respective articles, as the majority of them only have initial reception, which can change over time. It would be nice to see in prose how these games hold up years down the line and how they are viewed within the franchise as a whole. I'm willing to get a start on this but I wanted to see what others thought first. – ''']''' <sub>(]) (])</sub> 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
== Some random AFDs and prods ==


:It would be good to add some retrospective reception to the articles on individual Call of Duty games. ] (]) 18:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I came across ] for a mod I know nothing about and someone spouted the useless '''keep''' vote of "But there's loads of nn-mods on Misplaced Pages. Look at these!" Well now, ''these'' nn-mods have all been prodded or AFDed. I've removed prods on some that I ''know'' to be more notable than the article suggests, but the nominations have been on the whole incredibly lazy. I've removed prods on ], ] and voted on ], ] and the stupidly notable ]. - ]]] 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
::Seconded, although I recommend only using a few of these lists at a time to try and avoid repetition, and also attribute who exactly ranks the game at that place. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 22:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm very annoyed that someone tagged Dystopia as AfD mere hours after I marked up as a CVG article. Was this guy just waiting for anything to come along that he could afd? I hadn't even had a chance to insert all the awards and links that irrefutably prove it's notability. It won Game of the Year at the Independant Game Festival for crying out loud! ] 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:I basically agree with the other editors. Offering a different take on NegativeMP1's advice, I recommend that we avoid having one sentence per source (e.g.: 10 sentences / one long paragraph). I wouldn't mind including most or even all of the sources, but they could probably be summarized in fewer sentences. ] (]) 00:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think one or two people are being extremely over-zealous in marking stuff for deletion. The reasoning seems to be 'The article isn't finished, and I'VE never heard of it, so it should be deleted.' ] 11:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
::You'll probably want to avoid things like "John Doe ranked X as the 7th best game in the franchise, while Jane Doe ranked it as the 8th best game." However, something like "Both John and Jane ranked X as an average game in the franchise in a 2024 retrospective" would be good, preferably of course with matching reasoning. When multiple writers point out the same things, then that's definitely worth including. ~] (]) 12:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::The second pointer in clearly states: Consider adding a tag such as {cleanup} or {disputed} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content. In the case of at least two of the above AfDs, this hadn't been done, not even giving people a chance to fix the 'offending' problems. ] 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


== Suggestion to merge ] into ] ==
:] seems to be the main culprit for the lazy AfDs. He certainly seems to have stirred up a couple of hornets nests with AfDs recently! He is very over-zealous with deleting new articles within a couple of hours creation, citing non-notability and lack of sources as the reasons, even though he usually deletes the articles before the person had a chance to add the links! Just letting you all know to be careful when your creating new articles, as this guy will probably delete it! He's also fond of quoting wiki policies chapter and verse, but seems to conveniently forget ones that provide arguements against deletion, such as the one I quoted further up the page.] 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Most of ] is a heavy ] with ] or simply ] in general. All in all, there is nothing particularly distinguishing about a video game when it is played on a console as opposed to a PC, save for select - usually Nintendo - consoles that utilize non-standard control methods that are not a typical controller. I also feel like ] and ] suffer similar ] issues, with a large chunk of the PC game article being about hardware tech. I would like to solicit feedback about a potential combination of the articles. ] (]) 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Lazy though those AfDs may have been, there is ''no need'' to attack Wickethewok. Seriously, how about you take the time to explain why his actions were incorrect, and what should be done to correct them? If you ''have'' already done so, there should be no need to continue the thread here. Remember, ]. ]<font color="green">]</font>] (<span style="font-size: smaller;"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></span>) 09:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
:I could see part of that serving as a starting point for ] which would try to be agnostic to the generations and focus on the larger trends. And other parts could be shuffled elsewhere.<span id="Masem:1734023317465:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
:Indeed, Wickethewok was completely in the right to nominate any article that does not have meet ] or similar policy / concern. WP:V says "''The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.''" -- ] 09:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, the console history page definitely needs a rewrite. ] (]) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::The issues been resolved, and I wasn't attacking him (as I stated on his talk page.) I was just expressing concern over his nominations. But since it's been resolved, lets all just move on now. ] 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
:This looks like a good case for a merge. ] (]) 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::Okay, I have created an official merge discussion, so interested parties can comment at the page itself. ] (]) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Per request, nav boxes == == ] FLCR ==


I have nominated ] for featured list removal. Please ] on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> ] 03:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
see ] <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]]]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 12:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:Um, please explain what you're talking about. It's a proposed guidline for nav boxes. "Per request, nav boxes" doesn't tell me what you're looking for here. --] 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


:On this note, can I get some eyes on my FL for another video game award, the ]? I'm slightly concerned myself that the sourcing is too bare-bones for a FL, though perhaps I'm being too hard on myself. I'd just like some opinions on whether or not it is good enough to retain or whether I should nominate it for FLRC. ] ] 15:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
== Cover art to use for simultaneously released ] games (take two) ==


== Pinball FX ==
The following is an edited duplication of ], which is created following a suggestion to bring the discussion to this page:


Hi. I wanted to create a page based on the Zen Studios game Pinball FX (the new version not the original). I dont really know how to build pages so I was wondering if more expierenced editors might help me. (Creating an info box, setting up citations etc.).
For some ] games like '']'', there are multiple versions released simultaneously for each platform (PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube and the Xbox 360, for example), and thus has multiple cover art labels. Would a PS2 cover art, for example, be preferable if the port is notable in any aspect (i.e. special edition, ])? ╫ '''] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup>''' 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫
I created a chart listing the tables but that's really it. Its about as barebones as you can get. Here is the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Pinball_FX_(2022_video_game)
Any help via editing would be appreciated.] (]) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:As a quick comment, in the first column of the DLC you have links that are mixing links to notable pinball tables (eg the Williams ones) with links to just general fiction franchises or similar works. I know it seems simpler to have the single column for that but given that there are real-world tables included in the game, you may need an indicator for identifying the physical tables brought into the game. ] (]) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:If it's multi-format, I usually go for the PC box because they don't include a Xbox/PS2 banner advert at the top of the box and you get slightly more of the art. See for example ] and ] where I've uploaded PC covers over the originals. The NFS box however, even has a banner for the PC edition, so it doesn't matter as much. But in general, I stick to the generic most common box cover over the special edition ones. For example, I could have uploaded a box shot for the special edition of ] (PC), but decided against it, being that the special edition was a different colour to all other box art. - ]]] 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:JSYK, the game seems to be borderline notable, I found only 2 reliable reviews for it: and . --] (]) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's odd. ], ] and ] all have pages. That's why I was trying to create a page for this game (which is essentially Pinball FX 4).] (]) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Page for ]? ==
::And now the ''Psychonauts'' box has no source. I'm starting to get frustrated at this. Please provide sources, people. ] 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ] (]) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for input; the importance of using a plain box art over a special edition or more notable port in the infobox is also noted. However, taking your approach into consideration, the present PC cover art of '']'' would still be unsuitable because it includes an extra PC CD-ROM tag, while the top banner is just about the same size as those on the PS2 and Xbox; as such, I took the liberty of submitting a PC DVD version which has minimal obstructions. ╫ '''] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup>''' 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫
:I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. ] (]) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Can someone please clarify the need for sources in fair-use scenarios where the source has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright holder? I thought the source was needed to confirm that it was indeed fair-use, what use is a link to a random hungarian game site or a link to amazon? At ], I replaced a sourced watermarked image with an unwatermarked unsourced version. That image was a widely distributed promotional screenshot, the source is Valve Software if needed, should I have a handy link to gamespot there? - ]]] 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
:::Well, as soon as you click on ], it says to provide a rationale and source. ] 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. ] (]) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? ] (]) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise '']'' and '']'' basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus '']'', which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that '']'' is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in ''Elden Ring'' and ''then'' decide on a split. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The other factor to keep in mind is that per ], just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) ] (]) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{xt|"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split."}} I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, ''then'' we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on ], ], ], and concepts like ] that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, agreed, the ''Souls'' area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. ] ] 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. ] ] 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Now ] was just created. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Bloated and ] to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. ] ] 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. ] (]) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while ] for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. ] ] 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘<br/>Another new one today ]<span id="Masem:1735066253435:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::{{Ping|PrimalMustelid}} I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm only making two ''Dark Souls'' locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. ] (]) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by ''NME'' and ''Goomba Stomp Magazine'' primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with ''Arcade Sushi'' communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main ''Dark Souls'' articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the ''Dark Souls'' series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. ] (]) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... ] ] 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. ] (]) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Sure, but looking at their page, I think it'll be a short discussion... ] ] 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. ] (]) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Discussion started ]. ] ] 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
:::::::::::I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like ] passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. ] (]) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. ] (]) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding ''any'' of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on ] from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. ] (]) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:You haven't really advanced any argument for it. ''"more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability"'' is just a long way of saying "]". ] ] 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::If it's something to the scale of '']'' and '']'', I don't see how a separate page for the ''Elden Ring'' expansion would hurt. '']'' may be notable on its own, but idk if the '']'' expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. ] (]) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. ] (]) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was ''notable'', which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
::As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about ] or ] despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than ] or ]. ] (]) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. ] ] 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what ] is all about. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a ]. ] (]) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


==New Articles (December 2 to December 14)==
After a discussion with ], I'd rather conclude that:
:1. Since Misplaced Pages is widely viewed using the PC, all games should have the PC box art rather than the console box art, unless the game lacks a PC version.
:2. If the game under discussion is ''MOST'' notable in its console version, whichever that may be, the box art for that console should be used. (eg. '']'' and '']'')


{{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}}
What are my fellow Wikipedians' views on this?


<small>A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --''']]''' 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
P.S.: I've taken the liberty to replace some of the games' console box art with their PC counterparts (vis-a-vis ''Hitman: Blood Money'', ''Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter'', ''NFS: MW'', ''NFS: U2'' etc.)


*'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
Here's an easy order, based on how pointless style disputes are handled in other areas:
*'''Drafts deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
#The version most strongly associated with the game (in English-speaking territories, if there's a conflict).
*'''Articles redirected:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
#The first English-language release.
*'''Articles moved to draft space:''' ]
#The first publishing in the creators' territory or native language.
*'''Categories deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
#Whatever was uploaded first.
*'''New categories:''' ] <small>— {{u|0x16w}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 9 months ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|(Oinkers42)}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Kung Fu Man}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Kung Fu Man}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|NeoBatfreak}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 5 years ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Phediuk}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 3 years ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|JazzyBsolarjatt}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 2 years ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Vitaly Zdanevich}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 15 days ago)</small>
*'''New templates:''' {{tl|F1 Esports driver results legend}} <small>— {{u|Zwerg Nase}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 years ago)</small>, {{tl|2025 Call of Duty League standings}} <small>— {{u|Brandon Downes}}</small>


<div style="line-height:1.4em !important">
This is based on the way stupid grammar issues (color vs. colour) and original-language vs. English-language issues are handled, and assumes we don't have a free/unfree situation (use the free version no matter what) or an image quality situation.
'''December 2'''
*{{Article status|Unassessed|User:Rotoryu/Hayauchi Super Igo|Rotoryu}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Ananta (video game)|Armandaneshjoo}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>


'''December 3'''
This specifically ignores ZS's suggestion to favor PC game boxes. The PC versions of games which are not initially released on the PC are often afterthoughts; it would be silly to represent many of EA's latter-day games with the PC versions. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Atlyss|Reconrabbit}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Garfield: Lasagna World Tour|Cakelot1}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 2 years ago)</small>


'''December 4'''
== List of best-selling computer and video games ==
*{{Article status|Stub|Zero Divide 2|Sceeegt}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 1 month ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Hotshot|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Impossible|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Kung Fu|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>


'''December 5'''
] is currently suffering an edit war that has lasted around 2 weeks already. WhiteMinority believes VGCharts should be used to reference sales information in the article, while A Link to the Past believes it is not a reliable source. I would appreciate some members from this WikiProject to drop by and give an opinion ] to try to settle the matter, as I don't want to call for a mediation. Thanks. -- ] 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Legend of Zord|Ervuss}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 12 months ago)</small>
:What extensive options do we have besides VGCharts? --] 03:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|List|List of Brian Blessed performances|03ElecBerg}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 years ago)</small>
::For every game, we should find an article in a reliable source stating the game has passed the 1m mark in the european, american, japanese or worldwide market. -- ] 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Which is not easy. -- ] 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::::True, but put it this way, are shipping figures the same as retail sales figures? No. Therefore shipping figures should not be used to get numbers for the best <i>selling</i> computer and video games. ] seems more concerned with trying to provoke Link by reverting his edits and accusing him of vandalism than he is with the quality of the article. ] 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
:There must be someone on Misplaced Pages with access to the . Just like we're using the magazines project to collect information on which users have access to which reviews, we should as a project try to find people who have access to this data. Some other portential sources: , , , . It sucks that all this stuff is not just open and out there, but at least if we know who has access we can start using this data to properly source our articles. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 11:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::Not someone on Misplaced Pages, as that would be original research and no reliable source. For japanese titles, it is easy to track which titles are best selling, as there are three independant trackers Dengeki, Famitsu and Media Create. For others, we need to rely on press releases and sites like GameSpot and IGN. The important thing is getting a reliable source stating the game sold over a million copies. No need to get exact numbers, just knowing 1m copies have been sold should be enough for us. -- ] 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
==Computer and video games lists issue==
Why are the lists slightly different in format? All are a list in alphabetical order, but that's about the only thing that is the same with them. On the Xbox 360 list: ], there is *'s and FP by games meaning certain things, along with release dates for games that aren't out. At ], there is a list of cancelled and Europe games at the bottom. Other game lists have small differences as well. Shouldn't all lists be in the same format and have the same exact things? I think all should be the same, since they are the same type of list: a list of games for a certain console. ] 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
:Good question. The subject was brought up ], but the subject drifted towards the non-platform lists, and no clear consensus was reached on how to format the lists based on platforms/consoles. Personally, I would suggest including only the title and the regions the game is released in, probably in a list format rather than a table. Adding alternate titles given for games in the list would seem like a good idea too. I'm not sure if publisher/developer information is significant enough to add in these rather large lists, and perhaps release dates should only be shown on a chronological order version of the list, as exists for the ]. Not that I care much either way, but I do agree they need to look the same. --] 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::A partial attempt at making ] more useful (like ]) was deemed far too time-consuming to be practical. ] 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


'''December 6'''
== External Links for Video Game Articles ==
*{{Article status|C|Capcom Fighting Collection 2|RebelYasha}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|C|Fighter Pilot (1983 video game)|Zoq-Fot-Pik}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 24 days ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Glorkian Warrior: The Trials of Glork|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Nightmare Kart|EnzoTC}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Racket Club|Kurt Jansson}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Real World Golf|Angeldeb82}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Rugby Challenge 4|Tamariki}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 4 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|C|Xbox Wireless Controller|Calerusnak}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 10 years ago)</small>


'''December 7'''
I do not believe it's necessary to have links to generic, popular websites such as MobyGames. They are popular, so a lot of people know about them and they are easy to find, so it is kind of a waste to link to them in every single game article. If people want those links, they can easily do a search and find them within seconds. Most of these websites do not actually have that much information on games, anyways. They usually just have general stuff that you can find basically anywhere, and, more importantly, on the Misplaced Pages article. So why bother linking to them? I believe they should be removed. -] 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Moida Mansion|Vrxces}}
:I, on the other hand, believe that they should be included, because they are easy sources for the articles and generally used. This is regarding an edit war over the external links on ], by the way. Another link that was being repeatedly removed was a link to an external review. --] 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Combat Lynx|Zoq-Fot-Pik}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Dance Dance Revolution World|LABcrabs}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|DarkwebSTREAMER|Jack4576}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|LifeAfter|Mcx8202229}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 6 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Royce Pierreson|TBoz2011}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 7 years ago)</small>


'''December 8'''
::Why does this keep coming up? ] is an extensive database of video games (a term, which I maintain, encompasses computer games as well). It has much more content than we generally have for Misplaced Pages articles, including game credits and ''many, many more'' screenshots than we have for games. Plus, MobyGames has most information in a relational database, so information and context for games can easily be retreived. Because it is a popular game resource is ''exactly why we should'' include links to it, just as we link to ] for board games. &mdash; ] | ] 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Unassessed|The Rise of the Golden Idol|Vrxces}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Unassessed|User:Toptier5stars/Touhou Mystia's Izakaya|Toptier5stars}} <small>(previously a draft)</small>


'''December 9'''
:::I agree with Frecklefoot. Moby should be included simply because of those reasons. But I also feel the courtesy should be extended to other major archives/resources as well like KLOV and http://www.arcadeflyers.net/. --] 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Inspector Gadget Racing|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Start|Batman: Arkham City (comic book)|JHunterJ}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 13 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Batman: Arkham Unhinged|Frankiethebunny}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 12 years ago)</small>


'''December 10'''
:::The MobyGames page DOESN'T have game credits for Riviera, though. Besides, "Everything in MobyGames is contributable by users." So I might as well link to the GameFAQs information pages about Riviera. The are incomplete due to GFAQs rules, but I ripped them from the game myself and I know they're accurate at least.<br>
*{{Article status|Stub|Block Blast!|Winterjunpei}}
:::Also, the MobyGames page doesn't even list RiviPSP. --] 00:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Echelon: Wind Warriors|Timur9008}}


'''December 11'''
::I agree that the ] should be included for all ]s, but not arcadeflyers.net, whose content is of dubious value, at best. But I don't see the inclusion of links to these sites as a "courtesy" to the web site operators, just to our readers. But I digress... &mdash; ] | ] 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Dawnwalker|HxD}} <small>(previously a draft)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Rebel Wolves|Yeahimaboss413}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Star Legions|BOZ}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Paper Trail (video game)|Jlwoodwa}}


'''December 12'''
::I think that KLOV should certainly be used as an external link; the information on the site usually expands upon the information of articles. arcadeflyers.net, on the other hand, doesn't. That said, I'd love to see some Project-backed encouragement to use it as a source when documenting a game's history (which is something where it ''could'' be extremely useful). ] 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Muppet Pinball Mayhem|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Start|Shadow Labyrinth|NegativeMP1}}
*{{Article status|Start|Fortnite Ballistic|NegativeMP1}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>


'''December 13'''
::::::Regarding arcadflyers.net, I'd say the view of dubious value" is certainly not the case among industry historians. Its been a pretty standard reference since long before wikipedia was created and has a large significance when discussing and informing about arcade platform games. These flyers (which were distributed to vendors and operators only) represent the commercial viewpoint of the manufacturer and its vision for the game (which is a commercial product). This includes relevant vendor and operator info (if you're not familiar with the coin-op terms, vendor is the distributor or "middle man" and operator is the end location - i.e. the arcade owner), specifications (including design advancements, settings, available formats such as standup, cocktail, cabaret, etc.), artwork, designer info and more. This is also why these types of materials are frequently referenced and presented in books, articles, and references on the subject. While there is some overlap with KLOV from a purely database facts and figures context, KLOV does not address the facets of vendor and operator promotion and explination. --] 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet|RodRabelo7}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
:::::::I understand that, which is why I think arcadeflyers.net should be used as a source, not an external link. ] 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Karl Hörnell|Zxcvbnm}}
*{{Article status|Stub|Movistar KOI|Gogus}}
*{{Article status|Stub|The Campaign Trail (Web Game)|Lgndvykk}}
*{{Article status|Start|The Witcher IV|OxMx}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Your Shape: Fitness Evolved 2012|MKsLifeInANutshell}} <small>(previously a draft – moved out 9 months ago: accepted ] submission)</small>


'''December 14'''
I think you are all missing my main point. If people want information from those sites, they will go and find it themselves. It is not difficult in the slightest to find them. I mean, it's like saying every gaming website should have a link to Misplaced Pages, just because it's well-known. Fansites are different because they generally focus specifically on that game, and are usually not so easy to find. Am I seriously one of the only people who think this? -] 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Fungus (video game)|Zxcvbnm}}
:Yes, yes, you are. We link to those sites because they contain useful information, both to us at times as writers and to the readers. It doesn't hurt anything having them there, they meet ], and they make it a whole lot more convenient for the reader. We're a reference source, providing links to other useful (non-competing) reference sources is only sensible. --] 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|MechWarrior 5: Clans|Rockstone35}} <small>(previously a draft – moved out 15 days ago: undrafted by original creator)</small>
::I know they meet ]. Did you think I came here just to whine for the sake of whining? No. I came here in hopes that others would agree with me and eventually stop adding links to these websites. And I'm sorry, I thought this was an encyclopedia. Apparently I was wrong. -] 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Split Fiction|OceanHok}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
:::I challenge that they fit EL. The usefulness of the page is the Chinese name (which I have doubts about), the screenshots (which are found on the Atlus page), the links to buying the game (oh, so now we should link to an Amazon search of Riviera:TPL?), and the ranks/ratings, which a link to GameRatings.com can do better. Everything else you can find on the page belongs in the wikipage, instead of linking to it. IMDB at least has things like trivia pages and quotes, while the Moby page for RTPL has... non-trivial information which is already included. --] 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
</div>
:Mobygames again?! Linking to Mobygames is generally seen as alright, although I definitely wouldn't want it being an infobox item like imdb is. If you've used mobygames for research, then it's nice to link to them and they might provide further information. But sometimes Mobygames articles are crap, just as some Misplaced Pages articles are, I don't think we should link to them when the only information offered is places to buy the game. Another dubious activity is that of ] who was warned by a non-CVG editor for spamming mobygames, being that ''every single edit'' he made, right from the start was just to add links to Mobygames. I know we have ] and all, but do you really think he was trying to improve Misplaced Pages, or just to direct more hits towards MobyGames? - ]]] 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
----
:Your rationale doesn't seem to make sense. Technically you can find websites (including fansites) on ''any'' topic quickly through Google or other search engines, so why is being "easy to find" an issue? Also, fansites are generally not as reliable or verified as more notable and popular websites such as Gamespot, IGN, or Mobygames.--''']<big>Φ</big>]''' 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Skipped a week, so here's a double-update! --''']]''' 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I suppose the easy-to-find part really depends on the situation. Less popular games will have harder-to-find fansites, and popular ones will probably have a ton that are easily discovered. And you are correct about fansites usually not being very reliable/verified, so maybe we should not include links to fansites that have false information frequently. However, IGN is really not reliable at all. I've seen tons of false information there. -] 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
:::"Easy to find/difficult to find" is a horrible qualifier for an external link. The official website for '']'' is easy enough to find with Google; does that mean we shouldn't have a link to it? We're not a link deposit; often an obscure website is obscure because its crap and has nothing on it worth checking out. Such a website has no place being linked to on Misplaced Pages, as the entire ''point'' of external links is to provide the reader additional useful information that is highly relevant to the topic at hand (and a shitty website just plain doesn't qualify). ] 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
::::No, you should have a link to it. Why? Because it actually focuses specifically on that game, and likely contains significant information on it as well. And I wasn't saying that every single hard-to-find website should be linked to. I don't even know how you came to the conclusion that I even implied such a thing. But don't worry, I have an idea. We should put links to Google searches in each article! It's well-known, will probably lead you to a ton of information on the subject, and best of all, almost everyone who uses the internet knows about it so it will just be a waste of time and space. -] 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

" I thought this was an encyclopedia." We are. That's why we should link to Mobygames if we got information from them, because it's part of our journalistic integrity that we source our information. At any rate, I hope you've realized why I kept reverting your link removals. --] 04:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
:Then do not state that it is something other than an encyclopedia. And keep in mind that I only removed the links once before I turned to discussing it. -] 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:You're talking about in-general. You're not talking about Riviera's page at all, since we DIDN'T take information from that MobyGames page. Your reverts have nothing to do with sourcing.<br>
:Also, your reverts after the first one were UNJUSTIFIED. The editor in question gave a valid reason for his/her edit, and the issue was brought into question. From there, the discussion should have IMMEDIATELY gone to the talk page. You also violated the three-edit rule, and insulted the editor in question by calling him/her a vandal without proper justification. A registered user should know the rules better than an anonymous or new user.<br>
:So no, I don't understand why you kept reverting the link removals and the "overweight" comment. Also, I responded to two other people above. --] 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
::I never broke ], don't throw around false accusations. My closest together reverts were 2 within 24 hours. --] 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::I actually think in the case of ] that the mobygames link or the Netjak review weren't that important. The mobygames entry was pretty incomplete and didn't include the dev-team which I think is the most important mobygame asset, but still there was some information there. Why not just link to Metacritic or Gamerankings instead? I know they're both part of the CNET global empire, but the link looks quite promising. - ]]] 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:''I do not believe it's necessary to have links to generic, popular websites such as MobyGames. They are popular, so a lot of people know about them and they are easy to find, so it is kind of a waste to link to them in every single game article.'' - '''strongly disagree''' - by that rationale we should remove links to IMDB for each film article too! We might know all about MobyGames, as hard-nosed gamer types, but the casual user doesn't necessarily. --] 04:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, I do think we should remove links to IMDB, as well. Regardless, people still seem to be misunderstanding me. Maybe I'll just go find a free thesaurus that anyone can edit, instead. Maybe they will be more open to improvement. -] 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::Let me try to validate the links to MobyGames with a list. I don't think any of us want anyone leaving in a huff:
::# MobyGames lists a great deal of purely statistical information that we may not want to include in the article (entire dev team, for example).
::# MobyGames often has large galleries of screenshots of games in play, which we usually do not. Even if we did have the same volume as MobyGames, we usually don't have an elegent way of working them into an article (a few is great, dozens is too many).
::# MobyGames is not commercial. Yes, they have ]s, but they don't have the bane of the Internet, ]s. And I'm sure the revenue generated from the banner ads do little more than pay their hosting and bandwidth costs (if that). Yes, they now sell some "MobyGear" (mugs, t-shirts, other stuff), but use of their site&mdash;including membership&mdash;is completely free.
::# MobyGames information increases over time. Like Misplaced Pages, information in MobyGames is not static, information for entries is being added all the time. For this reason alone, MobyGame links should be added to articles, even if at the time of the writing of articles, the MobyGames entry is "crap."

::Now, if MobyGames only had stuff like reviews, I'd contest their inclusion. But with all the pros above, I think we should link to MobyGames in ''all'' articles, even if they really don't augment the information in the Misplaced Pages article when it is originally written (I know I am probably in the minority here).

::That being said, I think links to IGN, GameSpot, <insert your favorite online magazine here> can justifiably be included, when they have NPOV information on the game. This doesn't include reviews, unless it is citing, e.g., a major bug (this doesn't include stuff like "I found the gameplay extremely uninspiring"). These game sites also include news and industry info, which MobyGames doesn't, which can augment an article's content. Just cite them as the source for the information. &mdash; ] | ] 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:::#Except when it doesn't. GameFAQs DOES have the dev list, though incomplete due to their rules about "real names" and such. I can edit in the COMPLETE dev list, but to get it on MobyGames, I would have to make an account.
:::#The screenshots in the case of Riviera are easily accessible from the Atlus website. In fact, I believe RPGamer has a lot more screenshots than MobyGames does, as well as news, an interview, the movies (which are ALSO accessible from the Sting website, if not the Atlus one), the character art, and pre-release screens.
:::#That's not reason to put it on every page. That's barely justification for ALLOWING it on every page.
:::#It's been over a year. They have the bare-bones. It makes Misplaced Pages look bad for linking to a site that has almost nothing, even after a whole year. No one links to a blank Misplaced Pages page as a source for information except Misplaced Pages, and only because Misplaced Pages wants to encourage people to edit those pages.
:::Also, I looked at the Netjak review on Metacritic. It was the on that site. I believe now that the person who originally added it was a vandal. --] 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I doubt the Netjak review was added by a vandal. Netjak scores hard, and we had a fan spamming Netjak links a while back. Probably just linkspam. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, that's what --] 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

== Acceptable genres ==
Is there a list of genres that should be used for new game articles?<br>
If I asked this in the wrong place, please ''rudely shout'' at me and ''don't'' give me a link to where I should ask it.<br>
--] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
:Um, why would anyone shout at you, it's perfectly fine to ask your question here. For the genres, see: ]. Hope that helps. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
::It was meant to be a joke, you know, the whole self-deprecation thing... Regardless of the unintentional confusion, thanks for the link! --] <sup>]</sup> 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

== Request for mediation on EDGE magazine article ==

I've been involved with some edits of ] article. Another contributor very strongly disagrees with my opinion that the article is POV and makes uncited claims, with regard to the foreign language editions of the magazine, see ]. I'd be grateful if others in the CVG project could get involved with reviewing the article's contents, rather than me getting into an edit war. --] 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

== Game name ==

* ]
* ]
Anonymous user engaged in reversions regarding these name differencies. I think this need more experiences WP:CVG member to clarify. --] 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:I would vastly prefer a year attached (a la ]), and bar a name change that's where it should ultimately end up, but since we don't have even ''that'', I'd go with the console. ] 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

<s>If there's no Ninja Garden 2 in the first place, why are we even adding a parenthesis disambiguation? That's only needed if we have multiple versions, such as Mission: Impossible, whose game franchise has all featured the same title. Anyway, "(Next-Generation)" is very vague, so (Xbox 360) would be much more preferrable ] 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)</s>

:I always seem to mix up Gaiden and Garden. I concur with Nifboy in stating a year rather than the time-subjective "Next-Generation" and this will change when PS3 comes out - next-gen would be the eighth generation. ] 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== CVG WikiProject mascot? ==

I was thinking it would be cool to have a mascot for the WikiProject. Perhaps someone could create an image of ] playing video games? This is the character that is the mascot for the ] and the ]. I know, it's very esoteric. Perhaps we could organise a contest? ] ?? We could take submissions and then finally vote. Or is this a stupid idea? <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
:I say no to that idea. A mascot isn't needed, and would just distract from people editing. ] 04:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
::How would it distract people from editing? I think that it might actually improve the project by community building. It would be good for marketing the project to newcomers I think. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 05:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
:::People should want to help the project, not be attracted in by the mascot. The whole contest thing is the distraction. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place to do random contests to create a mascot for a project. ] 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
::::However, if someone were to create ] in a video game setting of appropriate quality, I don't see why we wouldn't use her. But a contest is simply out of the question. ] ] 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Someone ]. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 09:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::The only way a mascot would distract editors is if it were a Lara Croft lookalike. Still, not sure if it's a good idea. I don't think there can be a good avatar for a category as broad as CVG. -- ] 07:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

::::::Who would be distracted by a Lara Croft look-alike?? -]] <sup>]</sup> 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
:Straight up, no. I don't see anyone coming up with a mascot which doesn't involve stupid cutesy japano-characters. - ]]] 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::If not Wikipe-tan playing a video game, who else? Would ] or ] (]) look better playing video games? Wikipe-tan is better than the alternative, methinks. Besides, Wikipe-tan doesn't have to be in "cutesy" pose, just look at ] for ]. What's cute about that? --]]] 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:::The fact that Wikipe-tan is a cutesy japano-character breaks your argument. - ]]] 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, I'd be highly amused by a picture of Wikipede playing a four-player match of SSBM against himself. That said, we've devoted entirely too much time to this inane discussion, and I really, really don't think we need to follow ] as an example for anything. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:IMHO, you should ask Kagura to draw a mascot for you. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::Hmm, have two versions of Wikipetan (as seen ]) playing against each other seem to be nice.] 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:::If it can add to the discussion, the joypad we use as a logo doesn't really appeal to me, and probably doesn't even mean anything to the young generation, who never saw a white joypad, let alone with two buttons. I thing a mascot is a cool thing to have, as wiki, and the projects, are comunity-driven efforts, and not result-driven kolkhoz. Maybe Duke Nukem would be good, as it's not too "cutesy japano-character". Oh, and the term is "Moe".--] 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Image Galleries ==

I seem to remember there was a discussion here about cover galleries in articles not really being fair use, anyway, I have come across a few articles that contain them, for example ]. I know this article is about a series, but is it really necessary to have every single cover of every game there? It even has four different covers for NBA live '06! Surely this violates fair use in a big way. ] 22:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, that gallery should go ASAP. I'd do it myself, but I can't be bothered to go through and tag all those images as orphans right now... -- ] 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

==Please Adopt and Audit Panzer General==
Hello. Could someone please "adopt" ] and neutrally review the edits for vandalism, spam, and NPOV. Thank you.] 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==

] is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found ]. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. ] 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

== Unusual request ==

:''Moved from ]''

Sorry if this request is off-topic or otherwise unsuitable for this section, please redirect me accordingly. Over at talk for the article for ''Motorhead'' a dispute has erupted. Basically we had for some time the article for ''Motorhead'', a videogame, which had a For-template link to Motörhead, a heavy metal band. The heavy metal enthusiasts argued that the roles should be reversed, I argued against. After an AfD nomination (in itself a rather dirty "trick"), User:''Freakofnurture'' performed the move "Motorhead" -> "Motorhead (video game)" and created a dab page at Motorhead (after he first populated it with a #redirect to Motörhead). What happened next was that there has been kind of a revert war going on between the dab and the redirect. Apparently, the heavy metal people have joined forces, so before I go any further (or not), I'd like to hear what the rest of the CVG community feels about this. --] 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
:You would get a better response at ]. ] 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone from the CVG camp my two peneth is: Redirect to band, link to game on band article - ] 08:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah. ] should redirect to ], which should have a dab notice at the top of the page to ]. Common usage VASTLY favors the band. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::I'm fine with the move. I can't believe that some users who were pathetically trying to compromise to save their own petty decision actually thought a disambig page would be the best idea, where the disambig was the worst possible solution in each case. Go go compromise groupthink. - ]]] 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::Could you please elaborate since, in my head, there really shouldn't be an issue with dab at all, ref. eg. ] vs. ].... --] 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I personally don't care too much about the page move, but the suggestion and implementation of a disambiguation page at ] was totally ridiculous. You're forcing everyone at the Motorhead article to waste another page load and click again, it was a pathetic attempt to try and keep the video game article visible and baseless cries of undue weight, when having a link at the top of the ] article was enough. As I said, I don't care about the page move, what I do care about are when people decide to go for the worst possible solution in some compromise scenario like a disambig page, one of the worst examples of this can be seen at ]. To Liftarn and the others who proposed a disambig page, do you really think ] should be a disambig? What about ]? - ]]] 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree - the dab page is not the best solution - I did '''not''' implement it, though. Yes, I was enforcing it based on the what was set up by the mover. What '''I''' reacted to was the "sneaky" way this was done, without any real consensus or a call at ]. I consider myself neutral as I have never played neither ''Motorhead'' nor Motörhead, hence why I ask here. But why a redirect and not (a move of) the ] article to ]? --] 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

== Emulators ==

There are a lot of emulators with articles on Misplaced Pages. see ]. Recently, there have been proposals for deletion of a few of the Nintendo Console emulators(see for example ], ]), but given the large number of emulators with articles (Not to mention the Redlinks), I felt it would be important to open up a discussion on where to draw the line as regards emulation software. Certain examples (like ] should clearly be kept, although they could clearly be improved, but others might not qualify. So I'm here seeking some thoughts on where to draw the line, so forth. So share what you feel. ] 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:] seems good, although software included with a Linux distro is a lame standard we really shouldn't use with peripheral software like emulators. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not sure I can agree with applying WP:Software as emulators really don't receive that much published attention. How much though, do you think is the absolute minimum necessary? ] 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I can safely say that just because an emulator <i>exists</i> isn't reason enough to have an article on it. Existence and availability are totally different from notability. Surely there are reviews of emulators that can be cited to prove notability? As ] states: 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.' Nearly all these emulator articles utterly fail this, as well as other Wiki guidelines and policies. ] 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
::::First, citing rules like that is not convincing to me, for reasons I've already mentioned. It troubles me a lot. But instead of getting into that, I'll just say that for the vast majority of emulators, I must say, I'm completely unaware of any reviews more significant than "here's this cool emulator here" or a release on some website that is nothing more than the changelog. This is particularly true of console emulators, which is something of a less formal environment than most. It really doesn't get the kind of formal attention that say, automobiles do. Does this mean Misplaced Pages should have no information whatsoever on them? I can't say that appeals to me. I can't imagine how that improves Misplaced Pages at all. ] 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::The rules are there for a reason. You can't apply the rules to only the bits you want, and I don't really care if you have a problem with the rules, because I don't, and I intend to use them to highlight my point, which is, those ARE the rules (regardless of whether you like it or not), so how can we fit emulators into that frame? Obviously it can't be done in the most conventional sense, because as you say, emulator communties are too informal. So we have to to adapt. I stand by my conviction that just being listed for download on a couple of meta-emulation sites is not sufficient notability in itself. ] 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Actually, there are reviews at sites like and , which have been standard emulator resource sites since 1996 and 1997 respectively. Zophar even goes so far as to categorize by "Best", "Good", "Promising" and "Not Worth The Download". --] 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Well, there we go then, that's two places we can use. The problem here is that it can easily turn into a 'if it's not mentioned on them, it shouldn't be here' which may not be the best situation. But a least we've got a starting point. ] 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sigh, yes, the rules exist for a reason, but reasoning and discussion exist for a reason as well. Why? Because the rules simply aren't appropriate in every situation. Your own statement covers that, and I agree, the conventional standards don't work for emulators, particularly console ones. And BTW, every emulator I saw you nominate is mentioned on Zophar's(and at least one is also on Classicgaming.com). ] 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'd like to say that <i>most</i> of my noms for speedy deletes were upheld today, and I feel that most of these pages have been set up as either ads, vanity pages or, in a couple cases, set up to compare the emulator unfavourably to another emulator specifically. I agreed with Mister Manticore that we'd take the discussion here and try to reach a group consensus on what standards we should be setting for emulators (how do we define notability etc etc) ] 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In the case of ] reveals that it was created in April last year, and counting a couple of people randomly correcting some spelling, has received 7 edits up to this point. This article seems strongly not worth keeping. (I know this isn't an AfD discussion, I'm just providing it as an example of the pages I've been nomination for deletion.) ] 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''BTW''' does anyone else think that ] needs a bit of work? It lacks sources, and some sections (like the bit on Nesticle ) probably receive too much attention. ] 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
**'''I agree''' it skips right through all the various consoles in the first paragraph, then seems to dwell on the NES and SNES for most of the next 3 paragraphs. ] 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
***Any suggestions on how to tag it? I'm not sure whether to go with unverified or simple cleanup.
****Actually I just removed the entire first paragraph in question because it was completely incorrect. None of those used any sort of emulation. Provided references on the talk page. ] 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another resource is Category:Emulation software stubs that might help show off the problem. ] 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
*Do you mean another example of poor quality emulator article? All the ones on the AfD list on our project page can be used as them in that case. ] 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
**No, I meant to type in a category, but I can't figure it out. Anyway the Category Emulation software stubs has probably a hundred entries in it. ] 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Ok, so I'm still going through some thoughts in my head, but in general, I'm going to say this about console emulators. (Note by console I'm also including handheld devices).
#There's a lot of console emulators out there. Most are freeware, and most are never going to be reviewed or studied by anyone reputable. This doesn't mean they aren't widely used(for an emulator), or important. It just means that this particular area doesn't attract the same kind of scholarly attention as much popular subjects. Yes, there are exceptions that make the news, or get a commercial release. Or are produced by a major company. But that's not true of the vast majority.
#It doesn't do Misplaced Pages any good to not have information on them, as this is still a reasonably important subject. Misplaced Pages not having information is not a good thing. Sure, it'd be a bad idea to get into any comparisons between emulators (as some of the articles tread upon now), but there's a difference between simply reporting that this is Emulator X, and this is Emulator Y, and Emulator Z and saying Emulator X is the ROKS! while Y and Z are deh SuX! .
#There's a lot of articles on them, some of which will probably never be expanded. See the stub-Category I already mentioned. So for many cases, perhaps a better way to do things would be to merge and redirect to an informational list. See ] . This would also help as it would allow us to determine whether or not what's being emulated is important, which may be somewhat easier. Obviously, there are exceptions that merit their own articles, but that can be determined after the fact.
Anyway, that's what I'm thinking right now. Does anybody else have any other input that isn't just repeating some Wikipolicy or another? I'm sorry, but I just don't find that quoting WP:Software or WP:NOT or whatever very stimulating thoughtwise. They actually tend to preclude discussion IMHO. ] 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:The best compromise I can think is the one Manticore suggested (I think) on one of the AfDs, which was rather than having 70-odd (random number) articles with three sentences about them, compile them into lists of emulators by system. We could then have articles about the TRULY notable emulators. ] 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, this seems to have stalled now, so can we either have some fresh input from other people, or reach a decision on how to handle emulators? ] 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
:No, I'm afraid three or four people contributing on a subject that covers at least 90-odd articles isn't enough for me to think we've got enough people to have reached a decision. Especially since some of the people have only chimed in once to cite some already established policy, without replying to comments on why that policy might not be quite fair. I'm just not sure how to get some real discussion going. Considering the PITA that was resulted in over a dozen undeletions from those cookie articles the other day though(or the earlier Esoteric programming languages thing), I'm inclined to advocate patience and thought rather than act improvidently. ] 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
::Good point. I do like the idea of a list though. Because emulator use is in most cases illegal, is it not ? Sure, if you have a legitimate bios to make them run, you are kinda ok for personal use. But that's just a technicality IMHO. The risk exists that Misplaced Pages might get some copyvio complaints. I hate the idea of having Misplaced Pages lack information but in case of illegal software... The less we have the better. A list with links to other sites would be informative and not too risky IMHO. ] 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Nope, besides the fact that reporting on something criminal is rather different from actually doing the thing, emulation is NOT illegal in and of itself. I don't know of any emulator being found criminal at all, though I suppose it could happen. In any case, relatively few emulators require an actual BIOS to run, and even then, those haven't been the subject of any of the discussion here, or anywhere that I know about, solely because they might require a copyrighted bios. Now if there is a wikipedia page that talks about getting copyrighted ROMs, proposing that for deletion is another matter. But it's not like we go around deleting pages like ] or ] just because they might be "risky" in some vague sense that they could be misused. As arguments go, this is relatively weak. ] 05:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
::::An emulator itself is certainly not illegal. For emulators that require a bios image (and there are some, but they're more commonly computer emulators), it is the bios itself that would be illegal to have and not the emulator. Even then, there are some bios's that have been released to the PD, and others that have been reversed engineered and provided in PD format. Such is the case with the ] for example, where the owner has released all roms (including the bios) in to the PD. Nintendo is the only one that I'm aware of that took an "emulators are illegal" stance, but has since corrected it since they couldn't prosecute anyone. They even tried prosecuting hardware based "famiclones" (NES's on a chip) but couldn't win that because they were produced with reverse engineering and couldn't prove otherwise. (I believe it was against someone selling them locally to NOA in Washington in fact just a few years ago). Their on emulation is still very negative, i.e. "emulation promotes piracy therefore it is bad". --] 14:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

*****I think we're moving away from the point here. The issue is how we are going to deal with all the emulator pages currently in existence. Most of them have no further information to expand them, and some seem like adverts. I think the way forward would be to delete articles and compile them into 'List of Emulators.] But also, I do think it would be good to include something about the legality of emulators in the general overview article, and I think the whole Nintendo situation is especially worth noting. ] 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== Consistency for MobyGames in External Links ==

Does anyone here besides Frecklefoot and tjstrf think that MobyGames should be linked to on EVERY video game page? Because tjstrf is adding it to ] citing "consistency". --] 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:Mobygames should be linked to when it is used. Consistency is not a valid reason for external links. There are almost 10000 tagged cvg articles- they don't all need a mobygames link. --] 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
::Personally I think MobyGames should be added to every article. MobyGames provides screenshots and information that is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:If the MobyGames article covers information that exceeds the scope of the Misplaced Pages article, it should be linked to. If it has just the same info, it shouldn't be. ] 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Jaco, in the case of certain pages, such as ], Atlus already provides screenshots. Just about the only other things that the MobyGames page offers are where to buy the game, some reviews (which Metacritic does better, in my opinion), and a Chinese name for a Chinese release I've never heard of. Do you think that it should be added to Riviera? --] 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'll ammend my previous comment and say that it doesn't have to be linked in every article. If you want to wait for the information and other data to be updated first, before you link to it, fine. But I've always been partial to only doing work once. If I'm working on a game article, I'll link to MobyGames because I know the information there is generally useful and expands on what Misplaced Pages will have. Linking to MobyGames isn't—and shouldn't be—a requirement. However, it is one of my personal standard practices. &mdash; ] | ] 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Same stupid edit war, different day... I think that it's important to have a standard system for linking and that there is no reason whatsoever to remove a link that is normally included on other similar pages. --] 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I would typically agree that a link should be provided if it is used as research or if there is additional information not part of the pedia. In the case of Riviera: The Promised Land MG has , Example the Japanese release was developed and published by Sting whereas the US release was published by Atlus and developed by Sting. The wonderswan version was published by Bandai. Some people go crazy for these details. Obviously . I think I may of put the link there in the first place ... but hey whatever you folks decide. --] 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I was under the impression that the MobyGames entry had no more information than the Misplaced Pages article. Now I see it has a great deal more than our article. The screenshots alone merit its inclusion. But since the comment at the top of this thread excludes ''my opinion'', I'll keep it to myself. >:( &mdash; ] | ] 16:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Well MG and the CVP are like sister projects. Both user contributed. There are some philosophical and technical differences but I think both goals are the game. Video games are culturally and historically important. Document everything. Offer that information free to the public. I think both benefit from the association. Obviously the policy should be by concensus, but my opinion is that the MG are OK. --] 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::I didn't say that it had no more info than the Misplaced Pages article. Pay attention. already covered most of what MobyGames had. If you want me to respect your opinions, then I expect you to actually read what I say so that I don't have to keep saying it. --] 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::And , to finish it off. --] 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::It seems you are just bent on ignoring the reasons people ''do'' give to you, which are more than sufficient for the rest of us. This discussion has gone on long enough and it's obvious which way consensus goes: link acceptable or imperative, argument over removal ]. I'm readding the link. --] 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::What reasons did I ignore? Back it up. You're saying that "we should support MobyGames" is a valid reason?
::::People said that MobyGames provided information. I responded time and again that the other links provide just as much information and more. Redundancy isn't a valid reason for exclusion now?
::::"Consistency" for external links is NOT Misplaced Pages policy and you can't cite that for a reason unless it's decided by consensus that it is a valid reason, because then it leads to stupid edit wars.
::::People then brought up that MobyGames had screenshots and release info. I replied that I already talked about how the other external links covered those screenshots and release info, and did it better. What exactly did I miss? --] 01:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::You have just made for the in this same debate. Lovely. I have not made personal attacks, nor have I broken the 3RR rule, I have explained my actions, and I have attempted to negotiate here. There is nothing more to say in this debate if you refuse to acknowledge that an acceptable link according to policy may be included in the article. Even the original IP opposer to inclusion acknowledged that the Mobygames link met ], and Yggdra's opposition was due to a misunderstanding of policy to begin with (he believed that External Links should be to obscure sites that were not widely known, misunderstanding that the site must be mainstream in its field to even qualify for inclusion). --] 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that everyone take a breather for a couple of days? This debate is becoming absurdly heated, and I think everyone would be better off if we let it cool down. ] 02:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:Fine with me. I really didn't care what happened with the specific links to begin with, just about correcting Yggdra's misconceptions of the purpose of External Links. I've only continued this argument after he left because Raijinili's false accusations ticked me off. I won't interfere with the links anymore if Raijinili promises the same. --] 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't "cool down". I forget.<br>
I admit that I misinterpreted 3RR, ignoring the time restriction.<br>
You accused me of ignoring valid reasoning. I personally find that offensive and take it as a personal attack. It's certainly not backed up and has no relevance to the debate (both of which would have been solved had you provided some examples).<br>
The original IP opposer doesn't understand Misplaced Pages policy. I challenged that it met ], which everyone seemed to ignore, because it didn't contain much information outside of what the other links covered (under "useful"). --] 04:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::<s>Even the original IP opposer to inclusion acknowledged that the Mobygames link met WP:EL</s> Consenting to it being allowed is not the same as consenting to its inclusion. Learn to read; I said that the ] allows it, but that it shouldn't be included because it provides absolutely no new information. ] 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::So this may a bit overly nuanced, but ... In terms of screenshots MG and VGMuseum screenshots are actual grabs of images of gameplay that the user/player would see in their native resolution. The publisher / developer and sites like Gamespot, IGN use promotional material. Often there are subtle but important differences. The publisher/developer grabs screen from their dev environment or using a debug kit. This means that the screen is in a resolution not possible during gameplay and sometimes elements such as nav, hud and info boxes, prespective are missing or incorrect. check out the first screen on Gamespot added Sep 22. This screen is dramatic but entirely inaccurate. The perspective is wrong and there is no hud. This screen is the creation of someone using a dev kit and would be impossible to experience playing the game. I don't know if anyone really cares that much, but for instance MG requires actual captured gameplay for screens. I believe VGMuseum is the same way. Just a FYI. --] 15:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::That does not apply to the situation of Riviera, which is what started this whole thing. Atlus has many more shots than MB and in a more accurately displayed resolution. ] 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== Low importance / no importance article assessments ==

I think we should merge ] with ]. Then we would have low/mid/high/top, which I think is plenty. I find it very difficult to say an article has "no" importance whatsoever. Also, other projects like WPBiography ] this "no importance" category. Another reason is that the ] I've been using to rate/prioritise articles doesn't have support for "no importance". Anyone disagree? <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 08:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:Also, if an article truly has no importance, shouldn't it just be deleted? <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not certain, but I think to actually merge the two, you need to take it up wiht the Version 1.0 project, who made the rating system to start with. Personally, I agree that I don't like slapping on a "no importance" tag. I prefer to not use that tag, basically treating not having a tag as the same thing as no importance. I propose rather than merging no and low, we just don't use no, getting us the same result. --] 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Nice edit summary :) Anyway, I actually think we're the only project that has a "no importance" category, see: ]. No "no importance" there. So I think that we don't really need to take it up with the Version 1.0 project since they're not using this anyway. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 13:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:I support their merger. I agree that an actual "no importance" article would equal a deleted article (in which case, there'd be no talk page for the tag to be on...). ] 18:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
On a historical note, No-importance was created especially for the ] list, which is meant to list only ''essential'' articles and rate their importance appropriately; for example, the EA list has only 9 top-level, whereas 22 are currently top-level on the bot's list. No-importance articles had to be justified or removed. ] 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with the statement that "no importance" implies that the article should not even exist on the wikipedia. But that's an issue of semantics. If the 1.0 editorial team has use for it, then we shouldn't worry about it too much. Like other editors have mentioned, I've just been ignoring the difference between "low" and "no". Effectively they are synonomous; almost all things in the "low" category are such minor topics(e.g. various minor video game characters, or minor games that have made no impact in their genre) they will never see inclusion in version 1.0. —] <sub>]</sub> 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:To further the argument, ] would, I assume, classify articles of No-Importance as not ranked for importance - ]. I'll change the template so that articles marked as No- are put in Low-Importance. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
:I've updated the template, but only with respect to the category. The template will still display No-Importance, but will be categorized as Low. It would be possible to force the template to display Low when No is used, but I don't think it would be worth muddying up the code for that at this point. For now, I suggest leaving the display and switching No to Low if you run across it and feel like updating it. Or, someone could request a bot to update it if he feels it's important. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It actually should be "priority" and not importance as explained by Morphh. Some games and systems just have no priority whatsoever to be included in Misplaced Pages 1.0 ] 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
:Importance -> priority change implemented. Should we rename the associated categories? --] 06:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah. We should aso run a bot to change all the cvgproj headers from "importance" to "priority" as well. ] 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*How does "priority" gets assigned ? FFX got changed from High to Low without nary a word by the editor. Yet Famitsu readers just elected it best game of the last decade. ] 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*:In general, single games aren't high unless they're extremely influential. FFX isn't high, but mid wouldn't be inappropriate. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could a couple of people please come and give their opinions in this? At the moment it's just two or three of us debating back and forth, and I think some fresh opinions are badly needed. ] 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)<br>
Additionaly, the AfD has now been mentioned on The Trenches forum, so I'm expecting some major sock puppetry any time now. ] 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

== This page's history ==

I've known about this for a bit, but it's really eating me up lately. This page's history only goes back to July 29, when the page was moved to archive old discussion. The rest of the history is , at Archive 13. Is it too late to fix it? I know, I'm an admin and I could probably fix it, but I'm one of the lazy admins. Also, I tend to mess up fixing cut and paste moves sometimes, and don't want to make it worse. Comments? ] 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:What eats me up more is having the history all on one page. Really, why can't we must move pages over instad of cut-and-paste archiving? If I'm looking up an old discussion, I hate having to look through 5-6 archives. I'd much rather try to hunt through my own contribus to find which archive page I put the discussion on. ] 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
::It's just that we should probably keep it consistant, as per ]. From archive 1-12, they were cut and pasted, and 13 was moved, and the rest are also cut and paste. ] 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

== various stubs up for deletion ==

I am just notifying you that I am putting a few cvg-related stubs up for deletion since their categories are empty or nearly empty. Please voice your opinion on the SFD page ].
*no template / {{cl|Computer and video game franchise stubs}}
*{{tl|cvg-hardware-stub}} / {{cl|Computer and video game hardware stubs}}
*{{tl|speedrun-stub}} / {{cl|Speedrun stubs}}
*{{tl|MK-stub}} / {{cl|Mortal Kombat stubs}}
*{{tl|Zelda-stub}} / {{cl|The Legend of Zelda stubs}}
] ] ] 17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

== WikiProject Tycoon Computer Games ==

Yes, it's still alive! I took a wikibreak, and it seemed to have deteriorated--but I'm back! I was thinking of removing the inactive notice, reply if you have an objection. <font color="66AAFF">]</font><font color="00FF00">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
:I mildly object- one person does not a wikiproject make, and you're the only person who's active in the project. That said, go ahead if you wish, it doesn't really bother me. --] 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== need some help with CVG by year again ==

I've got some work to be done on the CVG by year categories.
#remove interwiki links. Most or all of them are automatically covered in {{tl|cvg year interwiki}}, if not, please add them to it.
#add it to the parent year in software category (don't worry if it doesn't exist yet, I'm making them).

See ] for an example. ] ] 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== Category:Unassessed computer and video game articles - Donald Duck ==
Donald Duck has appeared in the category today. The actual article merely lists video games he has been in. Should it really be part of cvgproj? My opinion is not. Yes he is a game character but it was secondary to why he exists, if you have any comment please add them to ] - ] 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
:Also, just in case anyone cares, the Unassessed catagory now only has articles from F through U, which still encompanses around 3700 articles. So, drop on by, assess some articles! Link is in the to do box on the main project page. --] 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
::No, Donald Duck doesn't belong in the CVG project. His games do, that's it. Articles that just mention video games briefly, certainly aren't a part of this project. ] 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== BZFlag removed as FA ==

BZflag has been removed as a Featured Article, due to...well, being a B class article that no one cares to fix. This means that the only CVG related article currently at Featured Article Review is ], though it looks like it's going to pass. This has been your daily Featured Article News Update. --] 17:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] deleted ==

Apparently the article ] has been . This is completely absurd; it was a fine article on an important subject, and tons of pages link to it (there are now a lot of dead links instead). Any administrator who can figure out why it was deleted, or better yet, would be willing to simply restore it? ] 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
:Well, if someone had bothered to remove the ] tag that wouldn't have happened. Just ask an admin to restore it. --] 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== VGCharts ==

Well, seems that there's controversy over removing the website run by a GAFer (who is not a professional estimater, and it does not have any actual sales figures). Well, see, we are asking for sales figures, VGCharts does not provide sales figures, so it cannot be a source for sales figures, the end whee! - ] ] 03:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:Wow, that's an awesome job of explaining what you're doing and both sides of the discussion. Please don't remove VGCharts links until you've explained better, please. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::Not sure what this is about, but isn't it the job of the editor who wishes to include information to provide reliable sources, and not the one seeking to remove it? -- ] 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::ALTTP has been removing links to VGCharts from a number of articles, many of them long-stable and some featured. If there was some evidence that ALTTP had considered the arguments to keep these links, or even considered why they were added, then removed them for a second, more-compelling set of reasons, it'd be fine, but he's pretty much refused to do anything but point to a rather useless argument between him and some anons on a fairly-obscure talk page. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 03:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Ah, I see. I agree then, more discussion is needed before a mass removal of such citations and links. -- ] 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Right. I have no great stake in this, but I'm unhappy to see references being removed unilaterally from multiple articles. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::I would no more consider this link appropriate for Misplaced Pages as I would a dead link. The link has zero legitimacy - why am I the one arguing against this? Can anyone show me evidence that his numbers are sales figures or that he can be considered as professional as the hair on NPD's pinky knuckle? - ] ] 04:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::And, there is no other side. The only one arguing for VGCharts are those who don't want content to be removed, and users who appear to have come to Misplaced Pages for the reason of inserting this link. - ] ] 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::No worries, we're just trying to get all on the same page here. -- ] 12:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) Well, this is an interesting issue. I had heard ALttP explain it, and had agreed to a certain point with him. We need to determine if VGCharts is a ] or not. VGCharts started as everythingandnothing.co.uk or something like that, and somehow became part of Advanced Media Network. Per www.vgcharts.org/welcome.php
:<blockquote><i>VG Charts uses a proprietary system</i></blockquote>
:As I said, this site began as a site founded by Generic Bob, where he picked the data from trackers, calculated an average, and rounded up (in example). No different from me uploading my estimates at a Geocities page.
:<blockquote><i>Since VG Charts does not collect or assemble the raw data itself, we recommend that anybody wishing to use officially sourced data for formal reports and so on should really contact the tracking services above</i></blockquote>
:So, does Misplaced Pages need to use officially sourced data, or are these estimates enough?
:<blockquote><i>When analysing the sales of a particular title, or comparing present data to historic data, we strongly recommend the use of VG Charts in your analysis</i></blockquote>
:Well, a site without advertisment would not be able to grow.
:So, is VGCharts a reliable site? Someone should sit down and check that out. I am off to sleep. -- ] 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying, but ] for advertising. ] 11:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Based on what I've read here, I'd have to give a gritty in-your-face 'No' to including this as a reliable source. The quotes above imply thatL
:::A) They work it out themselves, based on what they find (this sounds awfully like off-site original research)
:::B)There is absolutely nothing official about it, and the links seem to be added purely for advertising reasons.
:::C)They even say themselves 'Don't use our data, go straight to our sources.'
:::D) Why has this even come up for discussion again? I thought we settled this last time in the debate over sales figures. ] 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Additionally, ALTTP is right, he's arguing on the basis that site is not relaible enough to be a wikisource, while everyone is arguing over the fact he was bold and removed spam. ] 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::However, and here comes the tricky part, according to ], ''May have taken their own look at the available primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them.'' which is basically what VGCharts are doing. And according to ], ''Reliable sources also are ones which differentiate within their own information stream between assertions which are backed by observation, those that are theoretical but highly likely, and those which are speculative, conjectural and rumor.'' which they do, however, they may fail the following point, as ''Reliable sources have reproducible or verifiable means of gathering information. A fact which could be checked, even if it has not been, is generally more reliable than one which cannot be checked.'' which we can't as they use a proprietary system to get the final numbers. As I said, someone must sit down, verify every point in WP:RS, and inform whether VGCharts is a reliable source or not. -- ] 12:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much a green light to continue the removal of these references, now that we are all on the same page. -- ] 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::I think we should put it to a vote, just to make sure. ] 12:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::], and it's pretty clear that VGCharts don't qualify as ]. -- ] 12:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Also, ] (a better link) -- ] 12:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Then I stand corrected! I just wanted to avoid potential editwars, since VGcharts has cause trouble recently already. ] 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Note the ] essay. Although I agree that polls are often evil, they should not be discouraged on sight. -- ] 12:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Just when they are unneeded. I've made polls on Misplaced Pages before, I don't ''always'' find them evil. -- ] 09:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:Just as an aside, anyone looking for Square Enix game data should consult their website's fincial reporting page. They have a 2003 IR Roadshow document I've used for the Chrono series that lists figures for games sellin over one million copies (and there are a bunch, let me tell you...) --] 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

==Magazines Project - (Blowing our own trumpet)==
Just a piece of blatant project publicity about the fact that ] now has over 200 individual magazines listed, and the size of the list is increasing (almost) daily. It now covers the last 12 years of video gaming and has articles available on everything from trade shows to French computer games. - ] 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== Computer Gaming World archives available for download ==

I'm cross-posting this at the ], but thought the wider WPCVG community might benefit from it.

Now that ] is changing their name, the <strike>entire back catalogue of</strike> '''first 100 issues' worth''' of CGW articles has been posted for free download at FileFront, . It's a pretty huge collection of free content, and provides both interesting historical information and an accessible source of facts for articles that touch on its subject matter. ] will be received some new citations from this source, and I hope it helps improve some other articles as well.

Unfortunately, these are '''''extremely''''' large PDF files - Issue 1 alone is fourteen megabytes. I'm downloading them all now, though, and would be happy to start a torrent if necessary. ]<font color="green">]</font>] (<span style="font-size: smaller;"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></span>) 06:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

== Talk page template stuff ==

Since before there was discussion about how to clean up the large amount of WikiProject templates on talk pages, I thought you guys would be interested in the proposal at ] for the additional templates (like featured article, good article, peer review, etc). -- ] 09:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

==Too much trivia on several video game articles==

Here are just some: various ] characters, ], various Mega Man articles and much more. If you want a more complete list, see ]. ] 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

: it's an ongoing problem - arm yourself with an anti-chuff cannon and set about it :) --] 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll see your ] and raise you ] - ] 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:What a mess. I've seen articles bad like that before though. For some shooter games, there is huge lists of every single weapon. People fill articles with way too much cruft. ] 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::You like trivia? Check ]. 52 trivia items in 10 trivia sections. -- ] 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Get your mouse button ready and commence trivia whacking. ] 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at pretty much everything linked from {{tl|RE series}}. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 07:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

: I thought I should probably bring to mind the ] and ] articles here. Both of them not only have "plot" sections that are massively long, but for some reason an enormous amount of in-game character quotations have "cross references" going down to where, ordinarily, external link references would go. Given the huge plot text, this results in the references section being way, way too large. I'm going to go through and get rid of those cross references (we don't REALLY need an entire section devoted to ingame quotes like "What's going on Lucca? WHERE IS SHE?"), but the plot text itself will still need some extensive paring. It looks like several other articles like ] also have this inane plotlinking. Seriously, if someone REALLY wants to read each and every quote that a character makes during the course of a game, can't they just play the game itself? It seems to be of limited value to fill up entire article sections with this stuff. ] 11:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::See, the difference between what we're talking about here and CC and CT is that ] was half-filled with a list of all 100+ soccer players in the game (before I whacked it), while CT and CC are featured articles, and held up as examples of what all cvg articles should look like. Also, what are you talking about? There isn't a section in CT about quotes. Please do not go about hacking apart featured articles, you will be reverted. --] 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, I see what you meant. You meant that every ref that was to the game itself should be removed. Ironically, the editors at FAC felt that not referencing the plot meant that it was OR. Since you deleted 20ish references, I've reverted you. Please do not do massive edits to a featured article like that without at least discussing it first. --] 13:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: PresN is correct. DO NOT REMOVE those cross references. Those were put there in response to ''citation needed'' tags during the FA and GA process. The cross-reference section ''is not a quotes section'' and is indeed part of what makes the CT and CC articles worthy of being Featured Articles. ] 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::::: " No, PresN is not correct. There is absolutely, positively no reason for each and every single plot-related dialogue quote to be referenced within the article itself. Someone who wants such a deep focus on the plot can read a guide (which Misplaced Pages is not). If you don't feel that the cross-reference section is a "quotes" section, then simply don't fill it with quotes. Imagine how disturbingly large every single game plot section would be if we did that to them all. A short summary of the plot is all that is neccesary, no matter how well-liked the game is- a massive, guidelike list of events and quotations, on the other hand, is not. Come on, do we seriously NEED to reference things like "Look, Crono! Your cat's running away because you haven't been feeding it!" I don't know how something like that got to Featured status, but there's no reason we can't pare down the un-needed pieces to make it better. ] 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Well, lets see why it passed FAC, shall we? It was only the beginning of August. Here's a scattering of quotes from the nomination- "The Story section needs to be more comprehensive, and shouldn't be rushing itself quite as hard as it is" "I know you're probably concerned with length, but being comprehensive is more important than length. Don't try molding the article to fit some imaginary standard of length. The only standard of length is that it cover everything important and do it with clarity without going into the territory of detail that only fans would look for." "'Do you mean for the story? I can dig up some script references'.....'Some for the story would be good, yeah'" "You don't come to an encyclopedia if you don't want comprehensive overviews." I respect that you feel that the plot section is too in depth, and that there are too many game references. I do not respect the fact that instead of starting a discussion, you went and removed all of the references to the game. Yes, anyone can edit wikipedia, but for FA class articles it's usually a good idea to tell people about major changes to the article before you do them. --] 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::: And yet, despite your lovely quotes, references to people's cats still remain. Oh well. Honestly, if you want to turn ] into a vast repository of random facts and quotations about Chrono's pets, be my guest. I have parakeets to feed. ] 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
* Ex, you are missing the point and blowing it out of proportion. The quotes are presented to solidify that the synopsis is not original researach; it also deters OR drops. This has been an accepted procedure in numerous featured articles; I believe you are only the second person to have a real distaste for them. Furthermore, these plot sections do not cover all minor subarcs; however, they are ''comprehensive'' in all areas of the games (yes, including the plot) in a succinct manner to satisfy both criteria as much as possible. Plus, the cat reference is key to the conclusion of the plot section; it's not about the ''cat'', it's about the ''situation'', and the quote provides evidence that such a ''situation'' described in the plot synopsis is not OR. &mdash; ''']]]''' 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
** Ex-N Missing TWO points actually: No matter how he feels about the citations section, it was pretty rude to just erase half of it without discussion, on an FA class page. Had he bothered to ask we would have explained the difference between '''citations''' and random quotes. For anyone not familiar with how to survive a peer review, Good Page Award review and FA review they might look unsightly but Deck and Ryu can confirm what I tell you, ''no page makes into FA without citations''. ] 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Just got back from visiting my birds, and look at that! A slew of new replies. Hey Renmiri, I'm not missing ANY "points" here- I just happen to disagree with you. You'll notice that I've stopped bothering with the CT article- I know that the little group that's huddled around it would immediately jump to its "defense", no matter what unencyclopedic minor content one attempts to pare down. It doesn't matter that quotes about a cat, random dialogue about the gate Keys and other fudd aren't really "citations", they're just fluff- fluff that puffs up an article's size and makes it interminable to wade through. Despite all the self-congratulatory back-patting going on here, the fact remains that you're sitting on an article filled to the brim with minor, unencyclopedic quotations. Remember, just because someone disagrees with your point of view (as I do) doesn't make them either stupid, nor does it mean they're "missing any points". And for the record, I haven't seen any evidence that the dialogue about Chrono's cat food helps give the article any level of succinctness. That's my two cents, and I'll go away now and leave your group to ponder over what next to do with your gargantuan puffy article. I'm sure more back-patting will occur, and a few rounds of "Oh, that darn Ex-Nintendo Employee." Have fun! ] 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Actually, what you said toward the end proves that you missed my point. Also, the term "missing the point" was not in response to disagreement; it was in response to the fact that you did not (and still have not) addressed the issue of why the references are being used (which would therefore be the point). I stated that the reference with the cat in the dialogue provides evidence that the scenerios mentioned at the end of the plot synopsis actually ''occured'', and were not just OR statements. That has nothing to do with succinctness, nor is it a quote section &mdash; again, they are ''direct references to the text to prove that the synopsis is not speculation or false''. &mdash; ''']]]''' 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

XNE has a couple of good points, albeit somewhat harshly stated. Regarding the length of plot summaries, remember, not every plot point or event needs to be described in a plot summary, despite the recent trend (I'm finding which is largely led by ], since they've done the bulk of the CVG FAs lately) to write very detailed plot summaries. When you are writing a plot summary, strongly consider omitting points which are not necessary to the understanding of the rest of the article. (Chrono's cat food is a good example.) We're not here to retell the story in less-compelling form.

As for the citations to the text, this is better than not citing anything, but is less than ideal. Whenever possible, try to use secondary analysis of the story, rather than relating it yourself based on primary observation, as part of the foundation of this encyclopedia is to synthesize commentary in secondary sources. I realize that such secondary sources are often scarce, but we should not have a five-page-long plot summary of Chrono Trigger when no other source has ever felt the need to go into that much detail.

I realize these aren't popular points, but they're important ones, and I think the current trend needs to be reversed. Comprehensiveness does not require that we retell the story in less-compelling form. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:To give an example we should follow, ], a featured article on an exceedingly plot-dense ''trilogy'' of lengthy books, currently has a shorter plot summary than ] or ]. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::As we both know, secondary source plot analysis are often published by self-published sources, which are currently even ''more discouraged'' than primary source citations. :) Also, I checked, and the only time the word "cat" is used is in the citation that happens to have the subject of the cat in it, despite the reference being used for a more general reason. &mdash; ''']]]''' 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
* The recent trend follows a series of featured article reviews, which claimed that the articles were not comprehensive because they lacked detailed plot summary. Said reviews were placed by fairly experienced outside editors (such as ]), who don't normally edit RPG articles (making it more important to follow). Thus, it is not necessarily our ''wish'' to provide such detail (which is NOT fancruft), but not doing it can very well result in getting hit from another (and potentially more brutal, since the FA voters are usually outside editors). So, it's not as simple as it's made out to be here. You know me; heck, I had my four paragraph plot summary of Final Fantasy IV (and my three paragraph summary of Final Fantasy IX) completely rewritten (partially by myself) to be more "comprehensive" as these users wished. And since the articles managed to pass FAC without much resistance to it, the trend was set to be how we'd handle things. Ultimately, it boils down to what is best for the ''reader'', not what's best for editor politics. That is, unfortunately, the achilles' heel of Misplaced Pages (especially since we're debating ''featured articles''). In all honesty, I'd rather do without the lengthy plot summaries as well (but keep the citations, as this is an encyclopedia), but we must also remember that the current versions are actually a compromise between the opinions on peer reviews and FAs, so they ideally represent what is acceptable to editors on the outside. &mdash; ''']]]''' 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*:My point (and I think XNE's point) is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and that the example of FFVII, a 90K monster, is being used to make ridiculously long plot summaries for games that are not nearly so plot heavy (], for example). The next time someone complains that a four-paragraph summary isn't comprehensive, feel free to let me know so I can make the opposite case. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*::My issue is that if said pendulum overswings in the other way, it would be even more of a problem. You know me, I always like to strike a balance and a compromise; all I did with the Chrono articles was copyedit them, so I can't really defend the length of those articles' synopses (I can, however, say very firmly that the synopses of FF6, FF8, FF10/X-2, and soon FF9 are compromises considering how plot-heavy they are). In the end, though, it's more of a superficial issue; these articles passed FA, so outside editors don't see it as much of a problem (or they have given up; Ryu and myself were pretty hard on all the inclusionists and deletionists who poppsed up to say that the articles were too short/too long).
*::I can offer to cut down 20-30 percent of the summaries for CT and FF4, if I can be certain that there will be no more lingering problems about "length". We are here to educate the masses; so, as editors, we must balance all of our organizational ideas to a common point (which had certainly been done with FF6, FF8, and FF10/10-2). If we cut back, we MUST not overcompensate. &mdash; ''']]]''' 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*:::Well, I'd argue that overly detailed plot summaries do the reader a disservice, to the point where little is lost even when the plot summary is short of "comprehensive". You're ruining the work for readers who haven't already read/played the work in question, while boring those who have. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 03:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*::::Whereas the arguement for a brief summary is that it doesn't cover the topic on the whole, and readers who wish to gain a grasp of the story in conjunction with the article are often docked major events (and people who have played it will not be able to get an adequete summary as a whole, or make more significant edits). That's why I'm an advocate for finding a balance between informing and overinforming &mdash; I believe the plot summary of Final Fantasy 8 is a perfect balance thereof. If we can mold articles around that style, I think it can be a fitting compromise. The key is to inform, but not cut so much to let ignorant wikipoliticians get their way, and not include so much that your arguement comes into play (which I really only think is an issue with the summaries of Chrono Trigger and maybe Final Fantasy 7)&mdash; ''']]]''' 03:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*:::::This isn't going to have any bearing on the argument, but as a former lurker (ages ago), I always appreciated it when an encyclopedia had more than two or three paragraphs of plot summary. A lot of film entries basically echo the plot outline given in the press kit and do not reveal the resolution, major arcs, characters, etc. These seem like things that must be included an an encyclopedic article on a fictional work. Not arguing for expansive blowouts here, but perhaps we could set out some guidelines? Like, CVG articles should cover major plot arcs, major character development, and major events in the game? And perhaps we could note that editors should exclude sidequests or plot jokes? --] 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have had to add the {{tl|toomuchtrivia}} template to virtually every Sonic game article going. According to ] the guidelines are not about the trivia in articles, it is to do with trivia being in articles <u>at all</u> (or as I informally call it, the War on Trivia). The guidelines suggest that trivia sections should be avoided and be merged into the article or deleted off the page (or better yet, of the idea of a project like Wikitrivia gets off the ground, moved there). Too much trivia on a page according to ] is regardless of how much trivia there is on a page, it should all be merged or removed. I love reading trivia on games, but I think the time is now where it should be moved to another project (a la Wikitrivia?). --] <small>(])</small> 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:A project for trivia? I certainly hope that doesn't exist on Misplaced Pages ever. Trivia is a problem on Misplaced Pages now, and a project for it wouldn't help matters. The only useful trivia project is one that is used for cleaning the sections, not helping promote it. People need to realize Misplaced Pages is for encyclopedia content, not every little trivia note that they think is useful. In my opinion, trivia sections should be completely banned from Misplaced Pages altogether. They seem to be just sections for random things that don't fit anywhere else. If it's useful: add to the article itself. If it's not useful: don't add it to the article ever. Misplaced Pages isn't a fan's guide for every little detail. ] 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::I think you may have misunderstood my point, I was refering to the idea being coined where trivia would move to a project completely separate from Misplaced Pages in all regards, like Wikiquote is for quotes for example, or gaming guides to one of the separate gaming Wikis for example (technically if all trivia should be banished from Misplaced Pages - wouldn't the ]'s ] sections all be ripe for ]? I'd hope not! ]) --] <small>(])</small> 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, I see two fabulous ideas here: First, the WikiProject: Trivia integration, whose sole aim would be to hunt down trivia sections, integrate what they can in the article, and sort the interesting, relevant, sourceable facts from the basic fancruft. Second, the Wikitrivia. That could be a great place for all the fanboys and fangirls to breathe a little, and rave about the subject of their passion in very tiny, but oh-so-amazing detail. Any support to these two? Does anyone know where I can post the idea for the wikiproject?--] 11:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Yeah, you go . Note you have to create a new account for the Meta Wiki site, from what I gather. ] 12:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

==] is in need of help==

After cleaning up some redundant information, I noticed the page needs help. It just seems like a cluttered list of North America and Japan releases. I think a split should be made, or the list should be in a table of some sort by year to make it look neater. ] 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

==] GA?==
Is it appropriate for this title to be considered a good article? ] 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:Too many bulleted lists, and not enough references. It's a very good B-class though, wouldn't take it too much to get to GA. Also, we don't decide if it's GA class, ] does. Though I and other CVG editors review articles on there sometimes. (I try to avoid CVG articles, I'd feel biased.) --] 00:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can someone figure out what this is and what should be done with it? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 23:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:My eyes! It should be deleted, as Tron ni Kobun is the japanese name for ], a much better article. --] 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== The name PCP ==

Hi! I am ] from subproject ]. In the past 2 months, we have received 2 inquiries concerning a name change. The first came from me with no consensus. The second came from ], which mentioned PCP is a drug (as an abbreviation). Would you, our parent, support a name change for three Projects:

*Pokémon Collaborative Project (]) to WikiProject Pokémon (], ] as dab link at top, ] dab link at top)
*WikiProject Digimon Systems Update to simply WikiProject Digimon (no shortcut change)
*WikiProject Legend of Zelda series to just WikiProject Legend of Zelda

I think all Projects should be held by a standard name, and should meet naming conventions so they are not mistaken for a guideline page or anything else in the Misplaced Pages namespace.

] <small>(]|]|])</small> 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
:] a bureaucracy, last I checked, and, really, who cares? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
::Two people appearantly. -]] <sup>]</sup> 06:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Call yourself PCP, it dosen't matter that it's the same as something else. If it really worries you prefix it with CVG-PCP - ] 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Shouldn't this be at anime and manga? We've got more manga and anime articles than video games articles. ]<font color="green">]</font>] <b><sup><font color="#CCCCFF">]</font></sup></b> 09:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
::No, no it shouldn't. You have approximately 440 Pokemon articles under CVG, far less than that which would fall under ]. I believe the name change unnecessary, btw. --] 16:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Em, the Pokémon appear in -

* the games

which covers your portion, they also appear in -

* the anime
* the 10 mangas
* the trading card game

So how do they get grouped "under" CVG? ]<font color="green">]</font>] <b><sup><font color="#CCCCFF">]</font></sup></b> 11:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:Because ] primarily defines its involvement in an area by the original media. We cover things which were originally Japanese manga, Japanese anime, and Japanese ]s, and their derived works. This means we don't cover Pokemon, because while Pokemon overlaps with our "jurisdiction" in content, but it is not '''based on''' a light novel, manga, or anime series. Similarly, we don't cover ] because (despite its manga adaptation) it was '''originally''' a normal Japanese book, not a graphic novel or anime. --] 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::How bureaucratic. Why not just cover the subjects to which your tools are well-suited? We could really use the help with the largely anime-based articles at ]. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:::If you look at the most recent discussion the project had on the subject ], you'll notice that I don't exactly agree with the current standards. Personally, I believe the scope should be expanded to include subjects such as ] and published manga based on other licensed properties for the sake of standardization, but I got shot down. --] 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the collaborative part, as it indicates that it's a collboration. I don't mind either way (though I haven't been contributing to Pokemon articles for awhile). ] 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Macrons in Japanese names. ==

Hi all. I am currently working on renaming a whole bunch of Japanese history articles to their more proper spellings, using macrons. One of the more common examples of this coming up in video games (as many of you are probably aware, and many of you may not be) is in any name that involves "ryū", meaning "dragon." Technically speaking, "ryū", representing "ryuu", is a different spelling and hence a different word from "ryu". What I am getting at is to ask your opinions and policies towards the renaming of such characters as Ryu from Street Fighter and Strider Hiryu. Let me know. Thanks. ] 13:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
:From ]: ''Article titles should use macrons '''except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries'''''. In other words, the vast majority of CVG articles won't have macrons (including aforementioned examples), because I don't know of any English translations that keeps the macrons. ] 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, so it's called a ]. I did not know that. Utterly off topic, anyone played '']''? ;) ] ] 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Subject dates? ==

I've been trying to use the Manual of Style (]) to dictate my work on infoboxes in the CVG project, however I've been receiving a lot of annoyed users about this (well not really, but several reverts). I have my date display preferences set for dates in the dd MMMM yyyy format (e.g. 16 October 2006). When users put release dates of games with a subject year (1998 in video gaming for example), it screws up my date display. Is there an official guideline I should follow regarding this? I don't want to get on other user's nerves regarding this. ] 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
:I thought we all settled on what is at ]. ] 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry bout that. Misread the page. ] 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== Flags in infobox ==

While I'm thinking about it - what's the justification for not using flagicons for the release dates instead of the ISO TLDs for country designations - is it accessibility? I'm just curious - don't wanna screw up any actual policy when I'm so passionate about this project. :) ] 05:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think there was ever really a discussion. I just use the TLDs because little images are annoying. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A previous discussion (now archived) did cite accessibility. There's also issues with multi releases - Canada might be different from the US release, and there might be a few release dates in Europe, etc. ] 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:The previous discussion was archived ]. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 11:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding information considered game guide-ish ==

I have been adamant in removing information is feel is bordering on being a game guide from ]. Could anyone help me define what is to be kept and not? Do we allow information about how many % in armor a spell gives and things like that? I have tried to keep the article as clean as possible, but it's an impossible task. Any help much appreciated. Thank you. <strong>]</strong> ]/]/) 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:See the main page of the project. Item statistics and lists of minutiae are not encyclopedic. ''']''' (]) 01:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::Then could someone help me clean it up, seeing as I get flamed and reverted when trying to remove information like this. <strong>]</strong> ]/]/) 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] - Expand and Improve ==

I once nominated this for the , but it lost out to some crap like Dead Rising or some minor Final Fantasy character. It then got lumped together with the ] article, although the concepts are fundamentally different. Still, better late then never, I've made a bit of a start with the article, and would like others to help expand it. I've left empty section headings as a guidline although you don't have to follow those, it'd also be appropriate to move some of the history of in-game advertising (static ads, such as sponsorship in sports games or crazy taxi) into the lead, and move some of the lead into the section on dynamic ads. I've also written nothing on concepts such as the virtual advertising islands you get in overrated chatrooms such as ]. I don't normally announce new articles here, but this is a big concept in advertising and gaming, and rates pretty highly in terms of importance I believe. It's been a misplaced redirect for so long, I hope we can finally sort it out. - ]]] 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== Video game subtitles in article titles ==

I've noticed that the titles of video game articles are very inconsistent, many have game subtitles in the article titles and many do not. Which one is preferred? Local discussions have taken place in a variety of places, with various outcomes, but there should be a site-wide standard. Personally, I think that all video games that can only be told apart by subtitles should use subtitles (such as ]) and others that can be disambiguated by number (where the number is the primary distinction, such as ]) should not include the subtitle. Opinions? —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:I don't really see this as an issue. Yes, we could change the ''Xenosaga'' articles to just the numbers and not the German subtitles, but why? The subtitles are right there on the game's box. ] 14:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think the standard is to use what the box identifies itself as. People are going to have different conventions regarding the use of subtitles, sequel numbers, etc. To keep it simple, we might as well use what the game calls itself and call it a day. —] <sub>]</sub> 15:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== ''Super Mario 64'' review ==

For some reason, '']'' is up for ] again. It's already come through a previous FAR and a removal candidacy, but for some reason it's not very well-liked. It was one of the CVG project's first featured articles and I think it's still a great article, but I guess everyone might not agree with me. Please weigh in on the FAR page. ''']''' (]) 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Nintendo franchises }} ==

] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!-- Tfdnotice --> ''']''' (]) 06:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Navboxes yet again ==

We need to do something about navboxes. We're getting inexplicable glitches in the hide/show functions of certain templates, and that was pretty much the only thing keeping increasingly-bloated templates from taking over articles.

Thus, I propose these as the new guidelines for CVG bottom-of-the-page navboxes.
#80% width, class toccolours, color #CCCCFF;, cellpadding=2
#Favor centered text over left-aligned
#As little meta-commentary as possible.
#Avoid breaking the template up into sections whenever possible
#Link lists of things (characters, places, items, etc.) over the individuals even when the individuals have their own articles. Individual fictional people/places/things are almost never a good idea for a series template.
#Exclude unreleased games and games never released in English unless the series as a whole was never released in English. If space is at a premium, also exclude unreleased, upcoming games. If an unreleased game is ''particularly'' noteworthy (noteworthy as in Duke Nukem Forever noteworthy, not Foo-Raider-4-is-the-much-anticipated-next-game-in-the-Foo-Raider-series noteworthy), make sure to include it.
#A template doesn't have to be exhaustive; include only articles which are likely to be useful links from all or most of the articles linked
#Use nonbreaking spaces to make sure names don't split on linebreaks
#Separate&nbsp;• names&nbsp;• with&nbsp;• bullets
#Omit the name of the series, in the game names, when space is at a premium. In the case of "Foo Raider" and its sequels "Foo Raider 2" and "Foo Raider 3: The Barring", refer to the first game by the full name, then abbreviate the later ones "2", "3", and so on. In the case of the "Quux the Wombat" or "Kwazy Quuz" series, it may be appropriate to instead refer to them as "Quux 2" and "Quux 3". In a series of games differentiated by subtitles, using the subtitle alone is acceptable. '''''DO NOT USE ACRONYMS''''' (save when the game's name is itself an acronym).
#The title should be styled like so: <nowiki>''']&nbsp;]'''</nowiki>
#:If there's no umbrella article for the series, leave the title unlinked
#''Italicize game names.'' Don't italicize things that aren't game names.
#Make sure to pipe link any name with a space in it, then replace spaces with non-breaking spaces (&amp;nbsp;)
#Don't link redlinks or article sections. If we don't have an article for '']'' yet, it doesn't aid navigation to link an article that doesn't exist.

If someone wants to write this as a proper guideline or put it in a MOS or something, feel free. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

{{tl|Pokémon games}} is a good example of what the final product will look like. ( is what it looked like before.) - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yikes, AMIB, you really took a meat axe to that template, didn't you? (I was involved in a minor edit war in February over what should be added and how much divsion should occur). Anyway, I think 80% gives too much whitespace and would prefer 60%. We also need to decide on inter-template linking - I modeled {{tl|Mario series}} after the {{tl|EnderBooks}} template - which linked three templates together under one heading. However, with so many spinoffs - Mario Party, Mario RPG, Game & Watch, Dr. Mario, Mario Kart, Mario remakes, and so forth - it's gotten out of control as well. ] 09:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::I picked 80% because it's common and is readable on any size screen.
::As for {{tl|Mario series}}, yeah. It's out of control. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:::You should see the ones for the Sonic articles. One Sonic related article could have up to three large templates! {{tl|Sonic}}, {{tl|sonicGames}} and {{tl|SonicFeatures}}. Take the ] as a prime example of this (which actually has four!). --] <small>(])</small> 10:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start doing this to game series navboxes first, then move onto other game navboxes. This will not be popular, so I'd appreciate the support of anyone who is sympathetic. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 10:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'm here. -- ] 10:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::Not only does this enforce stylistic consistency across the project, but it's also a good method of eliminating cruft, general inconsistencies and odd arrangements in the process. You have my support. ] 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I like it too. I converted some templates, too. ] 01:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I changed enough of them that anyone who watches templates will know. The white whales (that I know of) are the bloated Mega Man templates (although most of that cruft needs to be merged), the Halo template, and the Legend of Zelda template. Either this new idea will be hated and reverted on sight (although from the reception from the CVG regulars, this doesn't seem to be the case) or there will be enough interest to get a redesign to stick on the cruftiest templates. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 12:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'll clean up {{tl|Halo}}. Since there's no all-encompassing list of ancillary media to link to (novels, etc.), I'll create that. — ]::] 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::Done. — ]::] 02:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In general good thoughts, but I don't like the concept of having a list that looks like this: "] ] ]" which to me is an obnoxious and unprofessional abbreviating convention. I'd rather just spell out the title and the number. ''']''' (]) 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Well, consider the case of {{tl|Metal Slug series}}, which I believe is an example of what you're talking about. Adding "Metal Slug" to each would easily treble the size of the template, and using "MS" looks unprofessional. What do you suggest as an alternative? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::I just switched it to show you what I think would be good, but feel free to change it back if you don't agree. The template is larger, yes, but well within the boundaries of the template's outline. I agree that using MS would be bad, although I think abbreviations are OK in some situations (PS2, for example) and I think there's a guideline about that on the main project page. ''']''' (]) 03:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I think you're probably right about writing the full name out when there's space available. I'll note that. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the level of support for this move is unprecedented. Doing my part: I've simplified Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, Dr. Mario, and Panel de Pon. I'm afraid to try to tackle {{tl|Yoshi series}} or {{tl|Mario series}}. ] 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:They'll get done. This has been a long time coming, it seems. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, whoa, looking at all the changes you guys have done to the game navboxes, and I have to say, it looks bad. They looked good and professional before, and actually justified themselves. They met with Misplaced Pages standards, like the ] and the various comicnav templates, like the ] and ]. Now they are basically nothing but a small list, and might as well be removed and turned into list pages. ] 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand what you guys are trying to do, and most of the time I agree with stuff like this, but things like what happened to {{tl|halo}} are... well.. what's the point in even having it anymore? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind nuking it altogether, but as it is now it's not useful. There's too big and then there's big because there's a lot of articles that are directly related to that topic. Maybe the real issue in some of these cases is not the nav template, but that there are that many articles to navigate to. -- ] 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The old templates were so large that they weren't useful. Everything but the kitchen sink was crammed into them, obscuring the important entries and often including or even encouraging overspecific articles to fill in "gaps" in the coverage. The Legend of Zelda template, for example, had cancelled games, fangames, and even the games only available through a cancelled game download service in Japan.

Navboxes shouldn't replace lists or categories; they should, when used, link a set of highly related articles, such as the games in a single tightly-linked series (so not every game Mario has ever appeared in). When you've got a lot of scattered related articles, ''use categories or lists'', then link them from the template. {{tl|Sonic games}} is a paragon of this philosophy; the platformers designed by Sonic Team are in the template, then a link to a list of all the unreleased, upcomic, spin-off, and cameo games are in an exhaustive list linked from the template.

I'm not sure {{tl|Halo}}'s redesign was perfect, but it links the noteworthy games, then links a set of umbrella articles to cover everything. If you want to learn about Halo, that navbox is a good start. If you're looking for a specific narrow article, we have a number of more-specific tools, including lists, categories, and search. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 03:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:I suppose that the new {{tl|Halo series}} is, at the risk of a bad pun, a bit spartan, but that entitre category needs a good reworking anyway. Maybe once you're in an article about a specific character, we could include some navbox for other characters (instead of the general series navbox), but the old one was far too inclusive. I've learned in software development is that you have to make the common case clearly accessible and that it's fine to put "advanced" controls in a separate click if that unclutters the UI. Pragmatically speaking, If we were to add, say, ] in the navbox, then other people start adding the ], then ], and so on. Rhat's where the creep starts. There was a recent query as to whether ], a fan site, should go in. By establishing a clear boundary, that eliminates this issue. — ]::] 11:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine I'll (reluctantly) discuss it here, one, why does each template have to be the same, two, I hate the new design and am not alone, three, it would be a whole lot easier just to fix the ones with problems rather than all of them, four, the "E.Whatever.V" thing in the corner is causing me problems, if I click "E" it says no such page exists and if i'd like to create one, and that's annoying, five, I is far harder for a non accustomed audience to navigate the pages mow (e.g. ''2'' instead of ''Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake''), six, ties in with three, if you make a permanent change ot one you have to change all of them. I could go on further but I just can't be bothered, i'll be back in a couple hours to make my third rever to the Metal Gear series one ] 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:They need to look the same because many articles have multiples, and having a motley assortment of dissimilar templates looks awful. (Look at ], which still has several unchanged templates.) Do you have any ''constructive'' comments on improving the design? "I hate it" with nothing else tends to get ignored.

:Now, a couple of your points need dealing with. If the edit link isn't working, that's a glitch, and I'll try and figure out what's causing it. As for the abbreviating, that's still an open issue; do you have any specific ideas on what would be better? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Okay they can all look the same, but why do they have to look as they are, to me it's all over the place difficult to navigate (these • are distracting)? I'm not good with all that syntax stuff but i'd prefer something to seperate non-canon from canon includes more things and does a better job of dealing with the ones that it has included, I'm short of time just now, i'll be back soon ] 04:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::What do you suggest as a separator?

:::As for canon and non-canon, that's the sort of metadata that belongs in series articles and game lists. Navboxes shouldn't have all sorts of extra info crammed into them; they become distracting and bloated. Instead, they should guide readers to the introductory and umbrella articles whichdo have this core information. Taking {{tl|Metal Gear series}} as an example, the main, Kojima-directed games are up top, and the main series article is linked prominently.

:::This principle about meta-data is important; there's no way to give a new reader enough info in a navbox, just enough info to confuse them. We need to guide readers to the main articles, while tying together strongly-related articles. Weakly-related articles are just clutter, and linking them isn't useful because they'll already be linked inthe articles they're strongly related to. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In order for the "V-D-E" functionality to work as intended you have to substitute {{tl|pagename}} with a hardcoded reference to the template in question, it will otherwise pull the article name instead of the template. I think I've sorted them all but there may be a few left. ] 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'll double-check any articles where I used it. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

===Issues and ideas===
I've numbered the rules above; I'm going to write this into a proper project guideline, but I wanted to see if anyone had any extra ideas or suggestions or replacements or complaints.

So, make any suggestions or suggest and ideas or complain (constructively!) or whatever. Each rule is numbered for easy reference. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:I’m going to have to register my complaint with point 7 (every thing else I either support or do not care about. Apart from 6 in certain circumstances) in my opinion, the big advantage of templates is that they can store a vast amount of information on a particular subject. And they should include all the bits of information that is relevant to the subject while still having a practical use.

:Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of including “Everything but the kitchen sink” and I support the gist of what you’re trying to do (trying to unclog the templates), but the changes you’ve made to some templates make many of then redundant. What is the point of a template if it doesn’t inform the reader about the subject? The template {{tl|Sonic games}} is now without point at is neglects almost every signal game in the sonic series. The extra link you add, ] also fails to address this concern as games are lumped together by platform and thus it is imposable to distinguish noteworthy game from one another, whereas the previous template (although it suffered from a number of problems) was capable of doing this. ] 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::This seems to be a quibble with the specific case. What games were omitted that are so important to the series as a whole that they be linked from every single article? The links omitted (see the old version ) were derivative and largely inferior handheld games released by third parties, various party and racing games of little long-term impact or popularity outside of hardcore Sonic fans, compilation titles of little long-term importance, and some just-plain-inexplicable inclusions like Flicky and Mean Bean Machine. That template was a study in how too many links can greatly obscure the links of greater importance. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, most of the templates were like the old Sonic template, and it is a case of an '''all or nothing''' situation. You can't just clam to have "notable" or "important" games, as then you have to define notable and important, which opens a whole other can of worms. I believe I've already pointed out some templates from other sections that are like the earlier templates which nobody seems to be thinking of trimming down. This also relates to issue number four, that there should be no sections, when clearly they will be needed. If you look all the old templates, which some are calling the more professional version (myself included), they had multiple sections, and worked just fine. ] 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I have no idea who I'm replying to, here.
::::For most of the kitchen sink templates that I edited (can't speak for anyone else) I defined notable/important/relevant on the fly, looking for a series of interrelated articles. "Platformers starring Sonic developed by Sonic Team/its predecessors" seemed to be an obvious thread in the pile of randomness that was {{tl|Sonic games}}. This is mentioned in the draft guideline; don't make a scope so huge that you end up with many unrelated articles crammed together. There may be a new niche for a template devoted to, say, the 8-bit Sonic games or the handheld Sonic games or whatever; this is a feature and not a bug. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 15:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, forgot to sign. What I'm saying is, you can't define notable/important/relevant without a consensus from other people. What is notable to one may not be notable to another, and vice versa. If you want to define it, you can do that, but you'll want to bring before others, and you'll have to do that for ever template. Otherwise, you open up the kind of debate going on here. If you want to define, for example, the Sonic games as "Platformers starring Sonic developed by Sonic Team/its predecessors", then you have to make that nice and clear, which would probably mean labeling the template "Platformers starring Sonic developed by Sonic Team/its predecessors". I think the old templates had nicely defined scope, which went along the lines of "Games in Series X". Why you think this is a kitchen sink approach is beyond me. If you've seen the templates in other sections, a number of which have been referenced in this talk, you'll see they work fine. The only template I've seen that is even close to "Kitchen sink" levels is the {{tl|Simpsons characters}} template, and if you look at that, you'll see that it's nicely organized, sectioned template. And I don't think splitting the templates into subsections helps at all. This is part the reason I have such a problem with #4. Having sections and such has become a standard of the navboxes. If you don’t want them, your going to have to convince all of Misplaced Pages to drop them. ] 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::The old template included dozens and dozens of games. It had a vaguely-defined scope of "games related to Sonic in some way" (Flicky? Mean Bean Machine?). It was a hallmark of the problems with scope creep. If someone wants to define some other basic series of articles for {{tl|Sonic games}}, I'm not going to lose any sleep, but if it gets huge again it's going to get trimmed again.
::::::Needing to section a template is a good sign that you've probably stopped linking an article series and that you've started cramming a comprehensive list into multiple articles via a template transclusion. Comprehensive lists with metadata are why we have lists. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think the scoop was as vague as "games related to Sonic in some way" for most of the navboxes. However, if it was, then yes, it would need to be trimmed. I fell, however, that you are going to the extreme. I fell that instead of trimming the fat, as you say you are, you’re leaving nothing but bone. As for sections being a sign of an over stuffed navbox, no, it's not. Have you actually looked at the other templates presented, like {{tl|X-Men}}? Those are sectioned, and they show all important and relevant information to the main topic. I don't see how you can thing that. You’re a supporter of merging, according to your user page, so wouldn't you merge collection of lists that could all go on one page, and each would be it's own subsection? How would this be any different? ] 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I did leave only the bone. Navboxes are skeletons, and should lead to the core articles. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, ] has a draft of a guideline on navboxes for this project. It's a rewrite of the rules above, but geared to a less wiki-savvy reader and with a whole lot more explanation of hows and whys. If you're curious about why such-and-such rule is the way it is (or how strict it's meant to be), the guideline writeup is a lot more verbose. Feel free to edit it, for anything from copyedits to major points I missed. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think rule 6 should be changed a bit. Saying "no non-English games unless the whole series wasn't" is a bit too broad -- a perfect example is the ] series. Two (three if the 5th game comes here) of the series in English, the rest not. Another example is ] which had some European releases of two (or three?) of the games. I could probably name some more. ] 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed; Front Mission, Fire Emblem, and Parodius are good examples (but do we have separate articles for each Parodius game? Really?) The guidline draft has some softer language about erring on the side of peripheral games, with games not released in English and spinoffs given as examples. That way we're not cramming (for example) the various Japan-only spinoffs of the Mega Man Battle Network series into a MMBN template, but the Fire Emblem template could cover the whole series. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 07:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Having a rule about no non-English games sounds a like Americentric to me. Plus, having you ever heard of importing? Just because it was never released in an English speaking country doesn't mean it wasn't played there. ] 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, English-language Misplaced Pages, you know? This is discussed in greater detail below. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I didn't see any greater details below, but English language doesn't mean we talk only about English things here. Are you suggesting we delete all the articles about countries that don't speak English? Or don't include them in lists of countries on the English Misplaced Pages? Are you saying that people don't want to know about the games released in other countries, but not here? I'm curious as to what exactly your reasoning is. ] 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Oh, it's right above. Please spare me the red herrings and straw men; I wrote that thinking of series where there are fairly obscure spinoffs that never made it to English, such as the MegaMan Battle Network series. Obviously, core games that never made it into English (Dragon Quest, Parodius, and Fire Emblem come to mind) should be included. Were you making some other point? If you weren't, I don't think we disagree, here. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This new template format for the CVG templates is out-of-line with the movie and comic book templates (for example, look at the templates for ], ], ] or ]). Even music templates follow a similar format (look at ] and ] templates for example). Using a different template format for the CVG articles would be inconsistent with the templates for other forms of media. Another flaw has already been pointed out by a few other people; the new templates are essentially redundant if all they include are a few games. Another problem I have is with #6. I have not yet seen a good reason for why upcoming ''canon'' games should not be included. It would be reasonable to exclude spin-offs but I still don't see any decent reason why upcoming ''canon'' games which are essential in the series (such as ''Metal Gear Solid 4'') should not be included on the template. ] 09:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:Being more restrictive than other content areas is unavoidable. Scope creep in templates is pervasive, and the only way to reverse it is to start in one place and move to another. Is there some reason they shouldn't follow our lead?

:The goal of a navbox is to link only a few, strongly-related articles. What are the slim boxes redundant to? The huge kitchen-sink templates were ugly clutter redundant with actual list articles or categories.

:As for upcoming "canon" games, who says what's canon? These templates are bad enough without cramming speculative, low-quality articles which may turn out to be completely wrong and misguided. That's said, it's a bit softer in the current draft guideline (which I suggest people read because I could use help with it); it's an example of something to cut when space is tight or when the articles are low-quality, not a draconian DO NOT HAVE UNRELEASED GAMES EVAR. If you'd like to discuss the specific case of the upcoming Metal Gear games, I'd be happy to do that on the talk page for that template. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 10:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Isn't there a navbox standard for all of Misplaced Pages? Isn't that what was being followed before? As for who says what is is canon, I think that that is the people who make the games. Having games that have been announced is fine, and having the game on the template makes sure it gets its fair share of attention, and thus is kept up to date, so it becomes more than a low-quality bad-info article. And remember that the function of Misplaced Pages is designed to remove or fix up wrong and/or misguided information. It's the whole reason that info has to be sourced, and goes through that whole process. ] 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::No, there isn't a standard navbox appearance. That's the problem, and it's why I decided to just go ahead and declare a certain appearance standard. There's {{tl|Navigation box}}, on which this design is based, and then most of the non-pop-culture projects use vertical seriesboxes at the top of an article. The navboxes are in general pretty haphazard; I'm fairly sure the film project doesn't have a standard style, I KNOW the comics project doesn't have a standard style (they can't even agree on a fixed width), and the motley assortment of TV projects don't agree on much of anything. Our standard style is just {{tl|Navigation box}} substed with some standard parameters, to be honest.

:::As for announced games, Misplaced Pages isn't a crystal ball. Between announcement and release, games are often renamed, completely redesigned, delayed, cancelled, inaccurately described, deliberately deceitfully promoted (MGS2 anyone?), and, invariably, the subject of great speculation. An article for an upcoming game is nearly never a useful part of an ]; most of the editors who bring things to GA/FA quality avoid touching game press on upcoming games in articles on existing games because the preview press in the games industry pretty much sucks. (If I were ChrisGriswold and I could convince people to adopt good-sense rules, I'd be pushing for this project to deem preview coverage unsuitable as a source for a Misplaced Pages article save when that coverage was noteworthy in and of itself, as in the case of how MGS2 was deceptively promoted.) A navbox should be guiding readers through a series of strongly interrelated articles, and an unreleased game's article is almost never going to be usefully interrelated to other articles. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 15:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Ok, don't see a {{tl|Navigation box}}, and I can't find one by looking. If there isn't an official standard, I'd say that the old templates conformed to the unofficial standard. The comic project navboxes just went through a major change, but their end result looks like the old templates, and they still agree on that stuff being standard. Most of the TV projects do their own thing, as far as I know, so they aren't that good an example. As for what I'm guessing {{tl|Navigation box}} is suppose to look like, I'd that that is just a simple navbox designed for simple copy-paste processes. The old templates look much more developed and, in my opinion, profession and encyclopedic. I know that Misplaced Pages isn't a crystal ball, but if something like a name changes, people will change the stuff referring to it. Misplaced Pages is adaptive, and if it is the next game, I'd say chances are good the people will keep the info up to date. Things like inaccuracy and speculation have a system for being dealt with, as evident with '''every other article in current or future status'''. Most articles don't get to GA/FA status until '''after''' the item is out, so there is no chance of speculation and such getting in. And does a press article about an upcoming game usually talk about a game already released? Don't talk about ChrisGriswold here, as he isn't here, and is probably wrapped up in his campaign to have all Marvel ] comics merged into one page. Also, the one game you keep bringing up (MGS2) cannot be used to describe events surrounding all games. It's just one unique example, and is not a basis for games as a whole. Yes, a navbox should guide people through a series of strongly interrelated articles, which is why I'm here, and a future game is important to the other articles, as it is the future of the series. It tells people where the series is going. Don't you want to be informed about the future of your favorite games? As far as anyone knows, it is going to be part of the series, so you'll have to add it sooner or later anyway. Are you asking people to wait until the release date to add it the template? That just sounds counter-productive to me. ] 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::The old, unofficial standard sucked and was broken. The template to which I was referring was {{tl|Navbox}}. We shouldn't link bad articles prominently until they have some hope of becoming good articles, and unreleased games are not likely to be major subjects of commentary in other articles. Preview commentary still isn't reliable by any sane standard. Future games may be important, but just as often they're not. (Games get cancelled, changed, postponed, redesign, sometimes the promotion is overblown, sometimes it's a lie, etc.) We should add things once we know they're important, instead of just assuming they will be. I'm suggesting that people err on the side of exclusion of speculative content when there's some doubt as to the value of that content.
:::::This comment needs specific refutation, however: ''Don't you want to be informed about the future of your favorite games?''
:::::Halt. Navboxes are not for fans of the series. Fans of the series already know about all of the games in the series. Navboxes need to guide readers who aren't already fans to the articles they need to read to fully understand the whole, with general information given prominence over specific. Navboxes tie together a series of articles, and until a game is released its article is generally not yet a part of the whole. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Ok, first, saying the old templates sucked is POV, which you shouldn't let get in the way of your editing, and as for broken, if I though they were broken I wouldn't be writing this. Second, I see what you were referring to, and now I must point out {{tl|Navbox generic}}, which is a simpler form of the old templates. Third, you’re assuming that all articles about future games are bad, which is a generalization. I've seen future games pages which fall anywhere from stub to GA quality. Also, even if the page isn't that great, it doesn't make the game any less a part of the series, and by adding them to the template you can draw more attention to page, and get more people helping out with the fixing up of pages. Are you suggesting that we only focus on the good pages, and ignore the bad ones? If you do that, than the bad pages are going to stay bad, because nobody knows about them but hardcore fans. I'll agree that future games are unlikely to be referred in other game articles, but what about things like the character pages, and the series page? I'm not saying Preview info is reliable, but it is all the people have. As for not wanting to do it because the game may get cancelled, changed, etc, that's like saying you don't want a page to get created because it might get vandalized. Yes, change is possible, but that's what the little edit button is for, so that you can change the info if it falls out of date and such. Again, what's important to you may not be to someone else, and vice versa. I personally believe in adding anything that might be important, and if it's not, whoever removes it will say why they think it isn't, and I can agree or disagree, and we can take it from there. As for speculation, remember that everything has to have a source, to speculation usually doesn't get in to the pages, so you don't have to worry about it. As for my comment, you do realize that Misplaced Pages is run by fans, right? I agree that Misplaced Pages is not for the fans (that's what special wikis, like the Trekkies' Memory Alpha, are for). No, Misplaced Pages is for conveying information to the ], like you said. Now, if it's not in the navbox, how are the laymen going to know about it? Are you saying that non-fans don't ''want'' to know about it? ] 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::WTF? Those templates were huge and ugly. NPOV does not demand that we put huge and ugly things in articles other than in articles about things that are huge or ugly.
:::::::You're conflating "game series" and "article series". A game can be part of a game series, but its article shouldn't be included in an article series until it's a useful part of that article series. The vast majority of preview articles aren't the latter. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

AMIB i'm taking a brake from editing wikipedia for a few days to allow my temprement to cool down. however i will say the following, one: i am concerned with other templates such as {{tl|Halo}} and {{tl|Mario series}} which i believe to have been made useless. Two: i'm sorry for reverting the page like that, i did it in the heat of the moment. Three: future games should be listed in templates as they are a vitle aspect of a series and just because they '''may''' contain speculation is no reason to not includ them. and fore: i agree with what ] says about what to includ as templates are for both fans of the series and newcomers and therefore should contain as much info as posable to make it more usefull ] 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:Again. Vital part of the game series, not a vital part of the article series. Don't sweat taking a break; it's a good idea and the wiki will still be here when you get back. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this post is probably going to look suspicious coming after a user with practically the same name, but what're you going to do? In regards to '''rule 1''', I'm not sure if standardizing the color for all of the templates is entirely necessary. Some garish color schemes pop up of course, but I feel like these can be resolved on a case-by-case basis, without the need to make a blanket ban on unique color schemes. Some games have a fairly strong association with a color, and using such colors in navboxes could make make them a bit more recognizable. To use Zelda as an example, green might act as a sort of unifying element for Zelda-related articles and navboxes. Not to say that all navboxes need color, but where it's visually appealing and makes sense I don't think it needs to be prohibited. Perhaps there's a less restrictive way to avoid crazy color schemes from getting out of hand. Suggesting using lighter colors maybe, or limiting color use to the title line only. ] 07:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:The problem is that you get a motley assortment of different-colored templates at the bottom of each page, in addition to the problem of occasionally-garish color schemes or disputes over which color should be used. This way we're using the same color as the navbox, which also has a standard, fixed color. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 08:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::I know you really want to push this thing through, MIB, but I believe this is still in discussion and a standard has not been agreed upon. That aside, I agree that a color ban / standardization is a bit nit-picky. I suggest not using exact values for such a guideline, but give some reasonable room. -- ] 08:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Standardizing the appearance of navboxes is the whole point, and why I started all of this in the first place. Wario used to have four templates, each of which was a different color and size and style. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and picking a single neutral color prevents the inevitable mess. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 10:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:Standards or no, I'd like to bring up a template that no one's mentioned yet (as far as I know): {{tl|Half-Life series}}. I mean, wow. --] 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::While well done, I think that that template is too big, as it should just focus on the games. The other sections are good, so it should be split into three different Navboxes, basically ''Games'' (which would be the first three sections), then ''Characters'' (the next three sections), and then the last three sections can be another navbox, although the name will need some though. ] 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

===non game examples===
I haven't been closely following the discussion above. However, from what I've seen I think there's more than one issue here. AMIB has the basic idea here, but I don't think we'll get the exact same results for each nav box. Nav boxes need to be about articles that are directly related to each other or to a parent article. Most stubs in nav templates don't help and probably should not be in a nav template.

BUT, I don't think the point is to make all nav templates only include X number of links. Lets take a look at some non-game examples (same idea, but might include more templates outside of this WikiProject, to bring in some "outside" ideas):

], I believe all the links on that nav template are completely appropriate. It's not a small nav box, but it's not huge. All the links it includes are to articles that are beyond stubs and are pretty well written. The articles all share a direct relationship with each other. One could create a List of characters to replace individual links, but it's hardly necessary.

Another example, ], is a bad nav box. It's smaller than my above example, but these articles don't share a direct relation other than being produced by the same animation company. The works themselves are very different and the over-all production staff and plots are not closely related.

Here's a really good nav box: ]. It could be even smaller by listing the links one after another, but using the table format makes this a lot easier and cleaner looking.

So yeah, just some things to keep in mind. I don't think we should make nav templates so small and unformatted that it defeats the whole point in organized navigation. Thoughts? -- ] 05:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:Also keep in mind that a lot of the problems might be red flags to how the articles are organized over all. Fixing the nav template, while making things cleaner, won't fix the real problem. When you do find a huge template that contains links that are mostly related it might be because there's merging and 'cruft cutting to do. -- ] 05:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:Nearly half of {{tl|Cardcaptor Sakura}} is whitespace or metadata. I would redesign it by identifying the characters as the series of articles being linked, then linking the umbrella articles in a single line of links at the bottom; this would reduce size by nearly half.
:All ] needs to reduce size by at least a third is to ditch that column on the left, which really isn't adding much info. You would probably have to make the links a bit more verbose to compensate; this wouldn't be a big problem, however.

:Remember that video games, unlike these dissimilar examples, lend themselves to simple horizontal arrangement, in chronological or numbered order. Generally, when you have a case where that isn't true, where there's as much vertical arrangement as horizontal, you're no longer linking a series of tightly-integrated articles but instead trying to cram a comprehensive or semi-comprehensive list into a transclusion.

:As for merging and cruft cutting, that indeed needs to be done. One task at a time, though; if we wait to fix this problem before fixing the problem of uencyclopedic, overspecific articles, the templates will never get fixed. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::Part of my point is the number of links as well as "acceptable size". Yes, there is white space, but that is not always an issue, it depends on the situation. Also, whitespace can be a good thing in that it helps the visual layout of something to be cleaner, making it easier to navigate and find the link you're looking for, etc. Smashing everything together can make the whole nav box useless. -- ] 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Ok, AMIB, agian you dismiss the spliting of them into columns. While you could take them away, it helps to have them there. If it wasn't though they were useful, then why did people use them in the first place? Why do you find them in so many navboxes? Also, no, not all video games lend themselves to simple horizontal arrangements. If they did, don't you think it would have been like before you got to them? Take the Legend of Zelda Template. Before you got to it the it mentioned the BS disk series, the CD-i games, and the LCD games. Now, nothing about those. That's a loss of information, pages that a user may not know about that are an important part of Zelda history. ] 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I only have three points: we need to standardize the appearance, we need to reduce metadata, and we need to reduce useless clutter links like Satteliview games, CDi games, and LCD games. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, we need a standard. I suggest following the {{tl|Navbox generic}} template, as that is what most navboxes follow. Metadata isn't that big a deal unless it isn't properly written, and things like the CDi and LCD games arn't "useless clutter", as they fall under scope (even by your standards) and are a part of the game's history. ] 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Oh, and I'd like to point out that none of these changes were put up on the navboxes' talk pages before or after, which they should have been, as a number of them ask to bring up any style changes before hand on the talk page. This is a result of there being no standard. No standard means that changes to each template need to be discussed on each template's talk page. I think if you had gone that route you might be getting better reception. I've gone through and looked at the changes you've done to most pages, and most I disagree with. The only navbox I think that really needed to be "dealt with" was the Resident Evil template. That one should be broken up into multiple templates. ] 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::To be fair, many of them lack a discussion page and {{tl|navbox generic}} is but a proposed standard, if that. That's not a good enough excuse to revert. ] 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Lack a discussion page? Every page has a discussion page! Even discussion pages can have discussion pages! And {{tl|navbox generic}} is the norm for the majority of the navboxes, and was for the ones in discussion before this all started. I just re-proposed it to make it clear what most navboxes use. ] 14:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Lack of, as in empty, non-existent etc. Then might I ask why you're reverting to something that doesn't follow {{tl|navbox generic}} guidelines? At best, some of them may resemble the appearance of one, but the structure and code vary from box to box. ] 15:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Just because nothing is written there doesn't mean you can't write something. And most of them do follow {{tl|navbox generic}} guidelines. {{tl|navbox generic}} is just a basic template, with no colors changed in the sections title and such. Some of them have moved the title to be a bar over the links instead of beside, but other wise are the same. ] 15:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Yeah, I agree with all those who oppose AMIB's points. Without expressing everything that has alraedy been said many times, his ideas and messages seem to be the most unreasonable and non-viable way to go. It seems as if the majority of users agree with this as well. Your claim that the old templates are "cluttered" are overrated and a reduction of metadata is very unclear to me. If necessary, I will restate every single thing ( that has already been said ) against your argument that is valid, but I hope that such prior things will have actually laid an imprint within peoples mind as they can then weigh the two sides properly, instead of "my way or eff you". I'm not going to state that WIKIPEDIA! is a wikiality, but in many ways we all know it is. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::::::::::I just want to make it clear that I do not oppose AMIB's points. Also, the entire point of a WikiProject is so that we have a '''centralized place of discussion''', and that we don't have to start a new discussion on each and every talk page of those templates. We're talking about how to improve upon ideas, and this whole idea of "opposing" and taking sides needs to stop NOW. JQF and other's comments are disrupting what was a healthy discussion and collaboration about nav templates. -- ] 05:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

===Needs consenus===
Though I'm not completely for or against AMIB's proposals, please remember not to change the templates until some sort of consensus is reached among editors (such as with a straw poll) to prevent any edit wars. After all, this is still a ''proposal'' and not yet a guideline. Also, wouldn't ] be a better place to discuss this, since this topic applies to all navigational boxes?--''']<big>Φ</big>]''' 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:Yes it would be. I'll go do that now. ] 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

{{User|JQF}} has reverted every template he can lay his hands on. Fuck it, this isn't worth the effort if nobody wants anything improved. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:I don't like the idea that there are "sides" to this issue. The more I think about it the more I understand AMIB's rational. This is a discussion, and we shouldn't be so quick to take "sides". Rather, we should push forward and take the good and throw out the bad. I've reverted those templates back to the ones introduced by AMIB. We can improve on these templates, but we need to more forward, not backwards. -- ] 05:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::Let me clarify: I'm not saying that we should "take sides", I simply think we should improve on and discuss AMIB's template guidelines first before actually implementing it. This way we can avoid any edit wars or incivility among users.--''']<big>Φ</big>]''' 05:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I do think your suggestion is in good faith, but it does make an "idea vs idea" type setup. I don't think we're finished discussing the exact look of the "new" template layout, so a vote or such would be premature. I guess there isn't a major need to edit all the templates before finalization, but considering the horrible shape most of them where in, there really isn't a need to leave them be. -- ] 05:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

===Continue discussion===
Lets continue discussion and improve upon the ideas proposed by AMIB. I think we can all find something that we all agree upon. I think there are many template layouts that would satisfy all involved that have yet to be proposed, but still address the concerns raised. We shouldn't forget the core issues here: standardize, reduce link clutter, etc -- ] 06:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:Well, first of all this discussion should be moved to ] as I've noted above. After all, if a guideline is to be made for the structure of navigational templates, it must apply to all genres and not just video games.--''']<big>Φ</big>]''' 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::Not necessarily. I've given some additional thought to AMIB's comments to my non-game examples, in that a lot of game nav boxes can be different from others. I think I was mostly thinking of Halo when I was giving those examples, and Halo has sort of grown beyond game.. so it probably wasn't the best example.

::In any case, we're still discussing ideas, and I think we should visit ] ''after'' our ideas have formed a bit better. I would not oppose discussion there, but it just seems premature to try to include everything and anything when everything and anything might not apply. -- ] 06:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:::One comment about ''Halo'' is that even though it's branched out into other media, the main video game trilogy still seems to be, for the time being, paramount. The film is still in production, and the books don't really seem to have taken off ''independently'' of the games. So I'd wager that most people are still looking for the main trilogy, or need an overview article or two to branch out.

:::That said, I do think that, once you're already in an article on a specific topic, a separate template for articles of similar specificity would be a good idea. For example, a template linking all of the characters with individual articles together would be fine if you're already in an article on one of those characters, but not from the main game series article. I guess what I'm going for is that, if you view articles as belonging to some sort of layer of detail, it's most efficient to design templates to link ''across'' that layer, and to overview articles for one layer down. — ]::] 10:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm sorry if I started making this out to be two sides, that was what I though it was becoming. And for the record, I kept reverting the templates because they kept getting changed to a set of standards that were still being discussed, which I think is jumping the gun. Anyway, the only points I have a problem with are: 4 - the removal of sections, 6 - the removal of non-English release games, and 14 - the removal of games without pages. See reasons for each below.

::::I think sections are important because they help the user understand things about the games in the templates. Take the {{tl|Wario series}} template. Wario has been in two completely different series of video games, the Wario Land series and the WarioWares series. Both should be mentions, but they should be kept separate, as the two are their own series. And, if start throwing list of character, places, etc, you should have them sectioned off from the games, cause they aren't games.

::::I don't see how you can remove the non-English games. They are part of the series, so they should be there. Just because someone in America has never heard about the game doesn't mean they don't what to. The English wiki isn't suppose to be Americentric, and if look at ]' list of launch titles in all regions, you can see that people want to about gaming all over the world.

::::Again, I can't see how you can remove games without pages. They are part of the series, right? So they should be there. Just because there isn't an article doesn't mean there won't be one forever. And who knows, if somebody see that redlink, and knows something about the game, they may start a page for it. That's how these things work. Same thing goes for "weak/bad" and future game articles. The more attention it gets, the more people will fix it up.

::::Those are the three items I have issues with. The others I don't see any problems with. ] 13:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Oh, and I'm going to revert the templates to before this discussion started, as making changes under proposed standards is jumping the gun, AMIB should have waited until a consensus was reached. ] 14:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'd rather we refrained from labeling a specific group of games canon, series, spin-offs and whatnot and remain neutral, and simply list relevant or related titles. The ado of interpretation can be left at the discretion of the reader. Furthermore, the VDE functionality provides quick access to template discussions as well as edit should someone wish to expand the template with additional items. ] 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Well, like I said, I fell that some need that differentiation, as it is kind of an all or nothing situation. I don't think that "canon" should be used as a sorter, but series and such are officially labeled and should be used. Take the {{tl|Donkey Kong series}}. That has three different series, which are all relevant to DK, and are related titles. By separating them into seperate sections, it makes the games easier to navigate. As for the VDE, that should be in. It's a pain to get to the template and make changes otherwise. ] 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

===Basic principles===
Reforming these templates needs three basic principles:

*Standardize the appearance. It's inevitable that some pages will have multiple navboxes, so they need to have largely similar apparance and line up nicely.
*Identify series of articles and link only the articles in that series. While ''article'' series will often coincide with ''game'' series, that isn't always the case. To avoid scope creep and bloat, navboxes need to be pared down to a series of interconnected articles, favoring umbrella articles over specific articles.
*Reduce metadata. There's a tendency to include metadata not necessary for simple identification of the links. This not only bloats the template, as the metadata is relevant only to specific articles, but often encourages linking multiple series of articles, by splitting the navbox into sections.

All of the rules about excluding articles were getting at the second point; oftentimes obscure spinoffs are not relevant to the bulk of the rest of the games, and such games are often not localized to English. When talking about the Legend of Zelda series, the LCD games (simple games branded with the Legend of Zelda name, mostly unrelated to the bulk of the series) and CDi games (made by a third party under a contractual obligation) aren't closely related to the whole.

Is there any significant objection to the core principles? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 12:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==

] is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found ]. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. ] (]) 15:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==

Is this worthy for GA class? I just wanted to get a broad assessment before going for a peer review. ] 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:The lead-in and plot have no references at all. "the popular Duke Nukem series" and "It is notorious for its protracted development" are almost POV, and will definitely need references. The external links section needs to be trimmed down to 4 links at the '''most'''. I haven't really read it, but the timeline section seems to be following a format of "In 2001, they did this. . In 2002, they did this". Don't take my opinion as crucially as others, but consider the improvements.--] 03:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks very much, your input is appreciated. Will be working on those issues for the next few weeks. ] 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Project Directory ==

Hello. The ] is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing ]. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
*],
*],
*],
*],
*],
*], (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*], and
*]

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at ], listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding ], ], and ] are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters.
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. ] 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. ] 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== {{tl|Ubisoft-screenshot}} ==

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops; screenshots of software for which Ubisoft owns the copyright can be used freely, as long as we attribute them to Ubisoft. This is kosher; there's a summary ], and the permissions are listed with the Wikimedia foundation.

This means that the usual restraints on being sparing with images are not applicable to Ubisoft games, and that we can use images of Ubisoft games in much less restrictive subjects (for example, we could use a screenshot to illustrate an article on a genre, for example). If you've uploaded any screenshots of Ubisoft games, make sure to tag them with {{tl|Ubisoft-screenshot}}.

Please only use this template on screenshots uploaded by the person who took them; any other screenshots should be tagged with <nowiki>{{subst:rfu}}</nowiki>. Note that this doesn't apply to boxcovers, promo art, or other related images, which are still fair-use images and should be used sparingly. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if people could help me tag any images that aren't taken by the uploader with <nowiki>{{subst:rfu}}</nowiki>, and if you have any Ubisoft-published games and can take screenshots, by all means, do so! Ubisoft publishes the Myst games, the Rayman games, all of the Tom Clancy games, as well as many others. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's better than the one I made. ] ] 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been mentioned before on WP:CVG (at least twice I believe), but never actually implemented. Either way, great job on the template.--''']<big>Φ</big>]''' 05:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:Also, ] only applies to franchises '''owned''' by Ubisoft, not just those they publish.--''']<big>Φ</big>]''' 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
::That's actually what I was gonna bring up next. '']'' was published in stores by Ubi, but is developed and owned by '']''.

== Fangame articles ==
I noticed the Sonic ] articles have been put up for AfD, with a lot of consensus citing that fangames are not notable enough and should be deleted. As a result, shouldn't ] and almost every article be put up for ]? --] <small>(])</small> 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Well the nom for ] states that it fails ]. Whether or not all the games in that category fail WP:SOFTWARE is subject to debate. Of course, WP:SOFTWARE, is a '''guideline''' and not '''policy''' so the only way you're going to get deletion is by clear consensus. Mass AFDs usually only go through on clear cases of mass hoaxes, spamming, etc. so I doubt trying to put all these articles up for deletion would succeed. —] <sub>]</sub> 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Seems very notable to me, based on the 'number of google hits' straw poll. Have voted at the nom page. A worthy piece of software. --] 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD is really just a vote based on who shows up to vote. In the case of Sonic: The Fated Hour, as an unreleased fangame it had no notability whatsoever and was deleted. The other three fangames got strong support from its fans (who are also Wikipedian editors) and survived their initial AFDs (I suppose that some have been renominated again). ] 03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering placing most of the articles in that category up for deletion. Most are totally unsourced, and some aren't even about finished, playable games. A mass AfD probably wouldn't be the best idea, so I was thinking something more like AfDing five or so articles separately every day. How's that sound? I wouldn't mind help, either, both in choosing which articles to nominate and making the actual nominations. --] 07:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:A '''''proposed''''' guideline WP:SOFTWARE, and not unquestioned one. Unfinished are one thing, however, for most of others a non-trivial web publication still can be found. ]<sup> ]</sup> |]| 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


:Seeing an article like ] makes me think it's possible to do an article on OG Fortnite. Not the game mode, like the concept and culture surrounding Fortnite as it was back in the day, and its many comebacks since. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 00:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:If the some of the games aren't finished they would definitely fall under WP:NOT crystal ball, barring some notable outside coverage. I'd shoot for those first. —] <sub>]</sub> 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Seriously, no. You need development (beyond basic release info) and a good reception separate from the main mode, and since OG is just the battle royale mode on a different island, just like Reload, it makes no sense for a separate article. ] (]) 00:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No, what I mean is ''all'' of the OG Fortnite stuff. For example, a history of how Fortnite has evolved in comparison to "back in the day", its garnered criticism from new additions and gameplay alteration, and why that resulted in various "OG" stunts. The concept of "OG Fortnite" and their many attempts to capitalize on nostalgia, and how it just keeps working. Fortnite: OG, Fortnite Relead, and this new OG game mode all in one article, for example.
:::Although from a quick search there doesn't seem to be too much sourcing that connects this stuff together into one concept. But it ''was'' a good idea, ya bully. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Early_Access_dates ==
What about fangames that are approved or supported by the authors of the original work? ] ] 11:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see why the basic principle of fangames which are the subject of commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject itself isn't a good one. It works for pretty much everything. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 11:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


] look for more opinions on fixing template doc in line with ] -- ] (]) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
==]==


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Hi, I've been working on the ] article, and need help with the PSX game part. The anime is quite famous, so it wasn't a problem, but the game was never released outside of Japan, and I could find ''no'' reliable information whatsoever on it, apart from a few screenshots, and an AMV on youtube. Does anybody know where I could make some research? The game was released in 1998, and is some kind of network simulator, where you gather pieces of info in order to understand Lain's story. Thanks in advance to anyone who could help.--] 17:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I did some looking, I'll post things here as I find them.
::"In the game, users can interactively access fragments of Lain's memory. Then users can actually feel the Lain who exists inside the Web. In the TV animation, people can understand Lain by following the story." - Yasuyuki Ueda in Animerica Vol. 7, No. 9 - I found it on this page: , so good thing it's referenced, eh? Might want to find that Animerica somewhere to confirm. --] 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::There's obviously the pretty bad source of , but I assume you saw that already. --] 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, I didn't. Thanks! --] 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


== Ubisoft Decommissioning Dates ==
==What should be done with ]?==


Apologies if this has already been posted. I stumbled across this while searching for for something else, Ubisoft maintain a list of all their server shutdowns by title and platform stretching back to 2013. Might be useful if anyone need to check a date. The list is in two parts and - ] (]) 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem is: Aliens don't always appear in Predator games, and vice versa. The category needs a rename, and a possible split: Alien games, Predator games and Alien vs Predator games I suppose could work. They are two seperate franchises, but have had numerous crossovers (but not all movies or games feature both Predator and Aliens).
==Street Fighter fighting style==
*This also brings up the issue of this template:
After researching about Street Fighter, I started this in order to see if we should change the infobox of the Street Fighter characters since Capcom and Capcom USA give different names to what style they use: ] or ]. If a bigger expert in the series knows it, please join. Cheers.] (]) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{alien}}


== ] ==
As you can see, the Alien template lists Predator as well. The template probably needs to be changed, or a Predator template should be made. I see no reason why they should be clumped together, just because of numerous crossovers. They are still two seperate franchises. ] 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. ] (]) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== Should links to Maps for video games be allowed? ==


:There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See ]. I'd recommend working on that instead, though either way, you're not going to be able to move it out of the draft space and publish it until it's actually announced/revealed/named. ] ] 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I believe maps for video games are a valuable resource for game players. Sometimes a map can be more helpful then a FAQ. I feel both are very useful when playing a game. That is why most strategy guides have Maps as well as walkthroughs for games. The user "ReyBrujo" believes that maps "do not add useful information for the casual reader". He will not allow me to add map links for video games.
::Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. ] (]) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. ] ] 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. ] (]) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. ] ] 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is ''others'' not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Misplaced Pages when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... ] ] 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the ] page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. ] 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff ==
I feel differently. I think if the casual reader would find a FAQ useful, then they would also find a Map useful.


While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes.
Please help me to make links to maps for games an officially approved link on wikipedia.
* ] - no sources cited, so no notability established. Should probably be merged with ]
* ] - removed from ] as it was redundant with the cover image (i.e., conveys the exact same information and thus is an excess non-free image). It is now an orphan file and should probably be deleted.
* ] - too many non-free images. I removed most and those are now orphan files
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]


It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? (] <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC))
Thanks,
] 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:As I explained in the user's talk page, I have no problems in accepting nesmaps.com external links if the WikiProject agrees. -- ] 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


:The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ] (]) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well ] a game guide, so linking to them doesn't really seem to be fruitful. A link to the ] entry, which I've seen on a number of pages, seems to make more sense than the specific linking to maps. ] 00:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::Hey @]. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The ]'s editor ] may be an . So we got a probable ]. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the ] so we can use the relevant images. ] 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


=='']'' has removed the video games calendar search from its website!==
:::I would think "not a collection of links" would also come into play. ''However'', sometimes adding these links can help give some fans a bit of .. an outlet.. of sorts.. showing that there is information on this, but it is not on Misplaced Pages and it should stay off of Misplaced Pages. Basically, as long as we don't get ''wild'' about adding such links, they could actually help reduce game 'cruft and bad articles. -- ] 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown . In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their ''Famitsu'' scores anymore. Now what? --] (]) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:27, 25 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Video games and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVideo games
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Shortcut: WT:VG
WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Archives
Archive index

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177

Guidelines
Manual of Style talk
Article naming talk
Sources talk
Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
Newsletter talk
Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Popular pages
Vital articles
Recognized content
Good content
Featured content
Requested articles
Task forces
Esports talk
Indie
Nintendo talk
Sega talk
Video game characters talk
Visual novels talk
WikiProject
Portal talk
Project category talk
Project cleanup talk
Traffic statistics talk
Article statistics talk
List of active editors
Project watchlist

Call of Duty retrospective rankings

With the Call of Duty series now over 20 years old, I'm thinking it would be beneficial to add retrospective rankings of the games, i.e. from worst to best. As a CoD player myself, the CoD community has specific ideas on what are some of the best games and some of the worst. Additionally, reception to the games themselves has changed a lot over time; even critic and fan reception on launch is different than the end of every game's life cycle (especially in recent years). I was interested to see what critics and publications think so I did a little research and there are plenty of sources that rank the main games and/or pick the best ones. Here's a few:

I'm sure there are more but you get the gist. Basically, I think it would be beneficial to start adding retrospective rankings into the respective articles, as the majority of them only have initial reception, which can change over time. It would be nice to see in prose how these games hold up years down the line and how they are viewed within the franchise as a whole. I'm willing to get a start on this but I wanted to see what others thought first. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be good to add some retrospective reception to the articles on individual Call of Duty games. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Seconded, although I recommend only using a few of these lists at a time to try and avoid repetition, and also attribute who exactly ranks the game at that place. λ NegativeMP1 22:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I basically agree with the other editors. Offering a different take on NegativeMP1's advice, I recommend that we avoid having one sentence per source (e.g.: 10 sentences / one long paragraph). I wouldn't mind including most or even all of the sources, but they could probably be summarized in fewer sentences. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You'll probably want to avoid things like "John Doe ranked X as the 7th best game in the franchise, while Jane Doe ranked it as the 8th best game." However, something like "Both John and Jane ranked X as an average game in the franchise in a 2024 retrospective" would be good, preferably of course with matching reasoning. When multiple writers point out the same things, then that's definitely worth including. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge console game into video game console

Most of console game is a heavy WP:OVERLAP with video game console or simply video game in general. All in all, there is nothing particularly distinguishing about a video game when it is played on a console as opposed to a PC, save for select - usually Nintendo - consoles that utilize non-standard control methods that are not a typical controller. I also feel like PC game and gaming computer suffer similar WP:OVERLAP issues, with a large chunk of the PC game article being about hardware tech. I would like to solicit feedback about a potential combination of the articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I could see part of that serving as a starting point for History of video game consoles which would try to be agnostic to the generations and focus on the larger trends. And other parts could be shuffled elsewhere. — Masem (t) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the console history page definitely needs a rewrite. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
This looks like a good case for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I have created an official merge discussion, so interested parties can comment at the page itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Appy Awards FLCR

I have nominated Appy Awards for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 03:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

On this note, can I get some eyes on my FL for another video game award, the Nuovo Award? I'm slightly concerned myself that the sourcing is too bare-bones for a FL, though perhaps I'm being too hard on myself. I'd just like some opinions on whether or not it is good enough to retain or whether I should nominate it for FLRC. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinball FX

Hi. I wanted to create a page based on the Zen Studios game Pinball FX (the new version not the original). I dont really know how to build pages so I was wondering if more expierenced editors might help me. (Creating an info box, setting up citations etc.). I created a chart listing the tables but that's really it. Its about as barebones as you can get. Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Pinball_FX_(2022_video_game) Any help via editing would be appreciated.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As a quick comment, in the first column of the DLC you have links that are mixing links to notable pinball tables (eg the Williams ones) with links to just general fiction franchises or similar works. I know it seems simpler to have the single column for that but given that there are real-world tables included in the game, you may need an indicator for identifying the physical tables brought into the game. Masem (t) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
JSYK, the game seems to be borderline notable, I found only 2 reliable reviews for it: Push Square and Digitally Downloaded. --Mika1h (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
That's odd. Pinball FX, Pinball FX 2 and Pinball FX 3 all have pages. That's why I was trying to create a page for this game (which is essentially Pinball FX 4).Wikieditor9117 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Page for Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree?

Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. Masem (t) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Hearts of Stone and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that Elden Ring is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The other factor to keep in mind is that per WP:NOPAGE, just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) Masem (t) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split." I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, then we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on locations, bosses, NPCs, and concepts like bonfires that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ Dissident93 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, the Souls area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ Dissident93 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Now Blighttown was just created. ~ Dissident93 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Bloated and bombarded to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ Dissident93 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. Masem (t) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. λ NegativeMP1 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ Dissident93 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ Dissident93 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘
Another new one today Northern Undead Asylum — Masem (t) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@PrimalMustelid: I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ Dissident93 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm only making two Dark Souls locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ Dissident93 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by NME and Goomba Stomp Magazine primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with Arcade Sushi communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main Dark Souls articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the Dark Souls series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but looking at their About Us page, I think it'll be a short discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion started Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Goomba Stomp Magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like Anor Londo passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding any of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on Shiori Fujisaki from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
You haven't really advanced any argument for it. "more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability" is just a long way of saying "WP:ITSNOTABLE". Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
If it's something to the scale of Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned and Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony, I don't see how a separate page for the Elden Ring expansion would hurt. Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge may be notable on its own, but idk if the Red Alert 3 – Uprising expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. Masem (t) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was notable, which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about Galarian Corsola or Klefki despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than Torrent or bonfires. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what Misplaced Pages:NOPAGE is all about. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a WP:SIZESPLIT. OceanHok (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (December 2 to December 14)

Main page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements 
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 8

December 9

December 10

December 11

December 12

December 13

December 14

Skipped a week, so here's a double-update! --PresN 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeing an article like Fortnite Ballistic makes me think it's possible to do an article on OG Fortnite. Not the game mode, like the concept and culture surrounding Fortnite as it was back in the day, and its many comebacks since. Panini! • 🥪 00:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Seriously, no. You need development (beyond basic release info) and a good reception separate from the main mode, and since OG is just the battle royale mode on a different island, just like Reload, it makes no sense for a separate article. Masem (t) 00:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
No, what I mean is all of the OG Fortnite stuff. For example, a history of how Fortnite has evolved in comparison to "back in the day", its garnered criticism from new additions and gameplay alteration, and why that resulted in various "OG" stunts. The concept of "OG Fortnite" and their many attempts to capitalize on nostalgia, and how it just keeps working. Fortnite: OG, Fortnite Relead, and this new OG game mode all in one article, for example.
Although from a quick search there doesn't seem to be too much sourcing that connects this stuff together into one concept. But it was a good idea, ya bully. Panini! • 🥪 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Early_Access_dates

Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Early_Access_dates look for more opinions on fixing template doc in line with MOS:VG -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Clannad (video game)

Clannad (video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ubisoft Decommissioning Dates

Apologies if this has already been posted. I stumbled across this while searching for for something else, Ubisoft maintain a list of all their server shutdowns by title and platform stretching back to 2013. Might be useful if anyone need to check a date. The list is in two parts A to M and N to Z - X201 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Street Fighter fighting style

After researching about Street Fighter, I started this section in order to see if we should change the infobox of the Street Fighter characters since Capcom and Capcom USA give different names to what style they use: Ansatsuken or Shotokan. If a bigger expert in the series knows it, please join. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Next Nintendo Console

I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console. I'd recommend working on that instead, though either way, you're not going to be able to move it out of the draft space and publish it until it's actually announced/revealed/named. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. Masem (t) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ Dissident93 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is others not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Misplaced Pages when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. Lee Vilenski 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the Nintendo Switch page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. Fantastic Mr. Fox 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff

While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes.

It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? (Guyinblack25 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC))

The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ferret (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Guyinblack25. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The Last Epoch's editor Judd cobler may be an employee. So we got a probable wp:coi. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the Commons VRT so we can use the relevant images. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Famitsu has removed the video games calendar search from its website!

Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown here. In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their Famitsu scores anymore. Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: