Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

NES vs Famicom

A discussion has been taking place at Talk:Final Fantasy#NES vs. Famicom. The discussion has yet to yield any real consensus, and since it has rather broad implications, a broader forum makes sense.

At the heart of the matter is a difference of opinion between myself and another editor. User:WraithTDK believes that using the term "Nintendo Entertainment System" when describing the release of Final Fantasy II and Final Fantasy III is inaccurate and misleading. I believe that using the NES and Famicom without sufficient explanation will lead to confusion for general readers unfamiliar with video games.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Knowing the Final Fantasy series myself, I think it would be more accurate to say "Famicom" if to disambiguate from the North American/European counterparts, as they are both Japan-only releases. At least that is my practice when mentioning release information. After all, games have released only for the Famicom and not intended to be released for the NES (knowing very well that adapters exist to allow Famicom games to be played on an NES and I think vice-versa). MuZemike 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly concede that the NES and Famicom have their differences, I've always felt the similarities overshadow them. My main concern, however, is making the prose accessible to non-gamers.

• The first paragraph of Final Fantasy#Main series starts with "Three Final Fantasy installments were released on the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)" as the main idea. Since only one of the games had a Western release, what should that first sentence be? It's the same thing for second paragraph about the SNES.
• Also, Final Fantasy#Graphics and technology uses the "NES" and "SNES" abbreviations introduced in the games section. If two system names are used in the earlier section, how should the consoles be designated when discussing the technical aspects that applied to both the Japanese and Western versions of the games?

This is what I mean by leading to confusion. Switching back and forth between two terms that are relatively synonymous would require further explanation that is not really needed in this particular article. I've always felt the generalization made the whole article easier to understand the topic at hand. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand why you would ask that, after reading (and repeatedly undoing) my re-write of that paragraph. The whole paragraph could be more accurate. It's really quite simple. Since the first game was released in Japan three years before it was released here, it's not like it was just a cross-platform release, so more accurate version of that paragraph would be:

The first three games were released in Japan on Nintendo's Famicom in 1987, 1988 and 1990, respectively. The first game was ported the Nintendo Entertainment System three years after its initial release in 1990. The second game would not see a North American release until the 2003 remake compilation of the first two games, entitled "Final Fantasy Origins" for the Playstation. A remake of the third game was released for the Nintendo DS in 2007. Easy. Simple. Accurate.(WraithTDK) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

The prose itself is misleading as written. Reading that you are saying they all were released on the NES/SNES which implies a NA release (less so a European release). The (super) famicom is used by other reliable sources when commenting on Japanese titles. Furthermore it could even be argued that all should be listed as (super) famicom and were (certain ones) were brought over to the (S)NES.陣内_Jinnai 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced either way yet, but the NES article tends to make me side with GiB. It seems to discuss the NES and Famicon as the same system and calling it "the best selling game console of all time" (singular noun), which includes both models. Jinnai's argument to inherently use Famicon instead of NES may dispel confusion at the expense of using the lesser known name (in English). —Ost (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the NES/Western vs Famicom/Japanese release, I agree the argument has merit. However, I started shying away from it a long time ago when I tried looking at it from a non-gamer perspective. If one never heard of the Famicom, the different names don't have the same context as they would to a gamer. Also, the paragraphs state the regions they were originally released in. So the specific names designating the region are redundant.

Just throwing this out there. I know I'm in favor of keeping the prose as it was before this discussion, but if someone comes up with a better way, I'll gladly go with it. The only thing that comes mind is having a notes section to explain the difference, but I still believe a generalization better serves our purposes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Looking at another Japanese release of similar calibur, Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Reverie lists it as Super Famicom, not Super Nintendo Entertainment System.陣内_Jinnai 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that comparison is that Dragon Quest VI was not released outside of Japan (until they did a DS remake), while Final Fantasy was. Anomie⚔ 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But we're not discussing Final Fantasy. We're discussing Final Fantasy II and III, which, like Dragon Quest VI, was NOT released outside of Japan untill they did a remake. That's teh whole issue. So it is a very valid comparison. WraithTDK —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Also, DQVI was promoted to GA in 2007, while Final Fantasy went through a FAR a few months ago. Besides, I think comparing other articles will lead us to a dead end because I'm sure there are a lot different examples across the board. Seems to me it's mainly been dependent on editor writing style.

I guess one issue I have with using different names as different systems/regions is consistency. What if a game was released in both Japan and the West? Would you say the game was released for the Famicom and the NES or just the NES? And if you say just the NES, wouldn't that imply that the game was released only the West and not the East? But if you say both it seems redundant to me.

That's part of the reason I stopped using the different terms. One system one term just makes more sense to me. And NES is the common term in English speaking regions. That's what how I see it anyway. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Given that Famicom redirects to Nintendo Entertainment System, I think using one term to refer to both is sufficient. Nifboy (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anomie⚔ - so too were FF2 an FF3 similarly delayed therefore the comparison is warranted. Furthermore, DQ1-4 were brought out in the US. Your point is ludicrus.
:Guyinblack25 - if all of the games were released, I'd say the NES. If some were and some weren't I'd say some were released on the Famicom and some were released on the NES. I would also say a game released on in Japan for the PS2 would state that it was released for the PS2 in Japan or Japanese version of the PS2.
Nifboy - maybe, but that article does also list the name Famicom. I personally would say we should go by what reliable sources say first. If nothing else, we should with what is least likely to confuse the general audiance.陣内_Jinnai 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for the part where we are directly talking about FF1 here in addition to FF2 and FF3, but we are not talking about DQ1-4 in your example. But I'm not about to waste any more time trying to convince you, if you want to remain deluded then feel free. Anomie⚔ 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm saying that the parallel is very similar. I'm saying that if we compare a group of games together where some were released outside their country and some aren't on different versions of systems it should be clearly stated as such.陣内_Jinnai 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this has other implications as well. Do we call the Mega Drive the Sega Saturn Genesis in places where it was first released in North America? Or do we label Star Fox 64 as Lylat Wars when talking about the game in a European context? The short answer is: no. We should use one name across all releases so as to not confuse those who aren't familiar with the gaming industry. These systems are essentially the same, with only minor differences, so although name changes in different regions should be prominent parts of console and game articles, it should be an issue when we're linking from other sources. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't wanna be a know-it-all, but we don't call the Mega Drive the Sega Saturn. We call it the Genesis. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Er... yeah, my bad... either way, I think I got my point across, but I changed it because that's kind of a bad oversight. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What do we call them in articles that deal only with the Japanese release? If we call them by their English name, then I will concede my argument. If we do not, I will inist that we still must distinguish titles released in Japan (and other nations( from those that aren't released in English if the systems are not the same. Just because 1 title in a group was does not trump the rest.陣内_Jinnai 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean what do we call the "game titles" in articles that deal only with the Japanese release or what do we call the "systems" in articles that deal only with the Japanese release? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

So where are we with this? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, it seems that consensus is leaning towards using just one name (NES) over Famicom, but I think the judge is still somewhat out. I know that's what I support, but I'd like to address Jinnai's concerns before we start to implement it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, I direct you to the article on the Sega 32x. Note the Market History. Sentance one: With the release of the Super Famicom in Japan and the Super NES in North America, Sega felt the need to leapfrog Nintendo in the technological department. This article seems to think that the Superfamicon and Famicon are different enough to mention them both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WraithTDK (talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet, other games and systems that have been mentioned in the above discussion use only "Nintendo Entertainment System". Because one article does something doesn't mean that it's consensus. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I see with the different usages is consistency. From what I've gathered, the following seems to be used in articles.

• GAME TITLE was released for the Famicom. – meaning it was exclusive to an Asian territory
• GAME TITLE was released for the Nintendo Entertainment System. – meaning it was released in a Western territory or a Western and Asian territory.

The second usage is too ambiguous in my opinion. And I think the different names don't add much, especially if we're writing for non-gamers. Perhaps something more simplified would benefit the readers more and make things more standardized for us. For example.

• GAME TITLE was released for the Nintendo Entertainment System in Japan. – No explanation needed.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I think that the Famicom should be left in. It's a completely differently designed machine. I think that you can add "Nintendo Entertainment System and Famicom" to make it less confusing.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The only design differences are the external casing and region lock out system. The guts of the machine are the same though. The name difference was primarily for regional marketing. Does that really make them different systems in the same sense as the NES and Master System or the NES and SNES? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Computer game icons

Just wondering, is it appropriate to use these icons on there related game pages, or would it be seen as excessive use of non-free images, or maybe just pointless? Any thoughts. Salavat (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Excessive and pointless. Most of those images should be fragged. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i might go through and remove then from the articles and nominate the category for deletion if it is no longer needed. Salavat (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically it might be useful on commons, but it's not here, so I'd support deletion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok becuase of my lack of knowledge with images of the public domain, what do i do with an orphaned public domain image, namely File:3 in Three.png. Salavat (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be deleted if it stays orphaned. Also, looking at them, i'd say move all them to commons delete them if there is potential copyright or trademark violations.陣内_Jinnai 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok i made it a candidate to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Salavat (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question, should a commons image be tagged with Computer game icons category? Salavat (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay im thinking that maybe my question got missed (question above). Can anybody shed some light on it. Salavat (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Flyers more notable than gameplay?

Senthryl has been going around replacing images of gameplay in video game info boxes (usually arcade games) with images of promotional flyers for the games (such as here). He then removes the cover request from the talk page.

I contest these changes since:

1. Promotional flyers often do not contain representation of gameplay
2. Are not notable, because many players have never seen any of the flyers in question
3. Do not constitute a "cover" as that is normally reserved for boxes for home versions of games.

Everytime this has been discussed before on the project, the consensus has been that arcade game flyers are not notable and don't belong in an article. I just want to see if my understanding is still sound. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem if he's putting the flyer up as an infobox cover and moving the screenshot to the article? Both images are still in the article that way. --Torsodog^Talk 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted this is for arcade cabinet games in which there is no official cover art. But I agree with Frecklefoot - the promotion image is being added in addition to the gameplay image but without adding anything new to to justify non-free use. The only possible replacement would be of the game's logo alongside a screenshot, but getting a clean version of the logo can prove difficult. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped doing this as soon as I discovered that this was a point of debate (I thought it was a non-issue). I've asked this question previously at the images department, which seemed to have evoked no response. Before starting to upload these flyers, I looked to see if this was resolved previously. I found another unanswered question in the image department archives, and after this conversation found a debate in the wikiproject archives, which seemed to me to suggest that flyers were preferable. I'd very much like to see what the current consensus is, since the images guidelines don't seem to definitively state how to treat arcade articles. — Senthryl ^(talk) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the last debate, and it was pretty inconclusive. But it did point out that flyers are essentially advertisements, and that therefore their value is pretty negligible, which I agree with. But I'm interested to see what others have to say. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Flyers would better to have in an infobox then gameplay. Gameplay belongs in the body of the article, not the infobox. As long as its getting moved and not replaced, it shouldnt really matter._Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion they are no more or less an advertisement then the game covers and they prove to be a better replacement for the random gameplay screenshots in the infobox. Ultimatly im sure a free arcade cabinet image would be preferrable for the infobox. Also the point that they dont contain representation of gameplay isnt limited to flyers, its also very common for box art. My opinion is they are more or less equivalent. Salavat (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a flyer is similar to having boxart for home games. Having a single representative game play shot in the body of the article should satisfy fair use as well. It looks to me like Senthry was doing the best thing...but that's just my thoughts. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I support the use of posters and flyers to identify arcade games in the infobox. Screenshots never belong in the infobox in the first place in my opinion.--Remurmur (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the flyers are the closest thing to box art that arcade games have.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like the consensus is that arcade flyers are preferable to screenshots in the infobox. I guess I was wrong. But screenshots should still be included in the article, not removed entirely. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure there's a clear consensus there? I'm not sure of that. My thought is that flyers are better for the article body to help illustrate the game's introduction to the market, its critical reception, etc. The purpose of the infobox image is to give the most recognizeable representation of the subject in question. For many of the older video games, this is best done with a gameplay screenshot since many of these games didn't have title screens or "box art". Not very many people would be familiar with a promotional flyer for an old game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly believe the arcade flyer should be used if available. In many cases this also shows the arcade cabinets used (i.e. (Centipede (arcade game)), which is very informative to a reader. A screenshot is better suited for the prose where the elements of it can be best explained right next to the text describing the gameplay, not up front in someone's face when there's little clue as to what all its about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

KieferSkunk's position is mine exactly. But from reading the responses, it sounds like more editors want flyers in the infobox and not gameplay screenshots. As a fan of old arcade games, the flyers say little to nothing to me, because I rarely—if ever—saw them. I was too busy playing the games themselves and few arcade owners would waste valuable wall space that could better be served with a game cabinet. Arcade game flyers just aren't very relevant. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume we're limiting this to arcade cabinet games in which there is no "box art" but fliers may exist. There are four possible images that can be used here:

• Gameplay screenshot
• Flier image
• Photo of the arcade cabinet
• Game's logo

Now, in nearly every case, these all are going to be non-free content, so we have to limit the usage to what is the most significant to the general user who may never have played a video game in their life.

Given this, I would assert that the best possible image for the infobox goes in the following order:

1. Game's logo - it's the closest equivalent of clear "box art" that we do for PC and console games, and thus should be used if possible.
2. Game's cabinet - it will likely have the logo on it, but may also include identifiable art on the front and sides

And that's it. Neither the gameplay or flier should be used in the infobox to identify the game, because these are both misleading. That's not to say the gameplay screenshot shouldn't be in the article, but it should, preferable, be in the text next to the section about Gameplay as to avoid having the user to scroll between the infobox picture and the text section. Gameplay screenshots are pretty much necessary for any video game to help describe the mechanics.

That leaves the flier, and, in my opinion, a flier image, unless it has some iconic history with it, is never going to help the casual, non-gamer reader gain any further comprehension on the game over the game's logo or cabinet picture and the game's screenshot. As it is NFC, we should not be including these at all unless there is more to say specifically about that flier image. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an ideal, but in many cases neither is easily obtainable in a clean format, and in all honesty without the body of a flyer a logo can be in some cases confused for a corporate logo. Not to mention if memory serves Guyinblack had a recent struggle over posting an image of an arcade cabinet because of a debate whether it counted as possible for free use or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd work on the assuming that an arcade cabinet picture is non-free, since there's 2D art on the side. That doesn't change my rationale: the infobox image doesn't have to be (and infact for most of our articles isn't) a free image, but barring a clean logo, is the best way to identify the game for the causal reader. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, on one hand, I understand one side of this discussion, that a flyer is closer to box art, introductory art, title screens, etc., than a gameplay screenshot is. It would be more consistent with the general use of such images in articles, and would make for a more consistent (and possibly informative) feel in general. But consider the following points as well:

• Most arcade flyers contain some amount of text and are made for relatively large posters. A lot of them also contain at least one gameplay screenshot, promotional art, an image of the cabinet, a logo (either the marquee logo or something similar), and other elements. Trying to fit all this into a thumbnail image in the infobox seems impractical to me - in at least a few cases, probably the only thing that would show up clearly would be the game's logo, at which point I'd wonder why we didn't just crop the image to show just the logo.
• Is it really such a good thing to overwhelm the reader with that kind of information in the infobox? A reader who isn't familiar with the game and may not have any appreciation for advertising practices of the time may have a hard time figuring out what the point of the image is, and would have to invest a fair amount of effort into deciphering the potentially tiny text (or click on the image to see a bigger version of it, taking them away from the article). IMO, it's better to give them a simple image that represents the game as a whole, and a flyer, despite presenting fairly comprehensive information, only really reflects one aspect of the game's lifespan.

I had discussed something like this previously on a user talk page, and I suggested that if there was a strong consensus to replace the gameplay images in the infobox, that they be replaced with the marquee art or the game's logo from the flyer, rather than including the entire flyer. The idea is to identify the game, not overwhelm the reader. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I sure missed this discussion. Just to throw my hat in, as I think there are some points that should probably be mentioned.

• I believe arcade flyers were mainly used to advertise to arcade owners. After reading a number of them, they basically said, "look at this new game and all its new features that will make you money". I don't recall ever seeing them in arcade either. In short, I'd say they were more for within the industry than for the general public.
• I did have a big headache involving and arcade cabinet image. My understanding of the whole is that most every arcade cabinet would qualify for as a non-free image, making them ineligible for Commons. But we can only upload images we ourselves take, because they are less "non-free" than say grabbing an image off a website or cropping it from a flyer (according to some general, unwritten practice associated with NFCC).
• Infoboxes don't always need to have an image. See Marble Madness.

Personally, I'd like to see cabinet images in the infobox, but if not, I know of no policy or guideline that says identifying images are required. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

As a side note, although not an arcade game, there is but one game I know specifically that the flyer have mis-information on it. Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology's flyer said players could team PCs of different Tales of series together in the same team, like Cress Albane in Tales of Phantasia with Lloyd Irving in Tales of Symphonia(names and series specified in flyer). However, the game did not include Cress in it and the statement is impossible in the actual game. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord British

Does anybody know if Lord British can be improved upon at all? I'm not really familiar with Ultima, but it seems like it's a fairly iconic series, so it may have some sort of potential. TTN (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Question. Does he really need an article of his own? Sure, lots of people know him, but again does he really need hiis own article? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on any possible development and reception information available. I know nothing of the character, which is why I'm asking here to see if anyone does have some sort of idea. TTN (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much of the character myself, other than gut feeling is it would possibly be better combined with Richard Garriott.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it should be merged into List of Ultima characters as an Ultima character. Avatar (Ultima) might also need to be merged.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've attracted an inclusionist to this set of articles, so if I could get some more comments stating that no current Ultima character needs an article, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord British's accidental death is a well-known event in MMORPG-dom and attracted a lot of media coverage at the time. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more something for the game it's related to than to set up a full article on?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've directed a merge discussion to this section. All three articles have already been merged to the best of my ability, and they do not establish notability. They don't need to stick around. TTN (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons mentioned already on the talk page. Lord British's death, and other information on that page, has been covered in the media already. Leave it be. Dream Focus 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• That doesn't establish independent notability in any way. I would even say that the online death is fairly trivial. You need creation and reception information in order to actually have an article. All you currently have is a very large mess that I was able to easily cut down to three paragraphs. TTN (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe more people will be against any loss of article, than would be in favor of it. I notice all the merge discussions redirect here, to one spot. Keep Avatar, Lord British, and Companions of the Avatar. No merge, no mass deletion of information in the article, no redirect. But actually keep. Dream Focus 17:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

...that's not a valid argument at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The accidental death is still not any reason to have a separate article. If you can find sources on the creation of the characters, media coverage and reception, and cultural impact, then it can have an article. So please listen instead of just ignoring everyone.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge for all three. They are all not good enough to be stand-alone articles. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I added links to news media for the Lord British article. The Avatar is the main character in a notable work of fiction, which includes not just the games, but also comic books and cartoons released in Japan. And the Companions of the Avatar would be too long if merged with another article, thus the reason it is separate from it. You gain nothing but destroying information. There is no legitimate reason to do so. Dream Focus 09:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• You DO gain something from destroying information, otherwise Wikipedia would be a collection of spam, useless trivia lists and fancruft. If the information is not notable, it should necessarily be removed. I really don't see what the problem with having a section rather than an article is. Is it a matter of honor or something? You only have a handful of sources without anything for character development, appearances, etc..--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• You don't like it, so want an excuse to destroy it. And the merger would remove the assassination bit, which my added links to news articles passes notability guidelines. Dream Focus 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• If people didn't "like it", the articles wouldn't have any coverage at all. Instead, we think that the topics do not actually have enough coverage to warrant separate articles, so they deserve more compact coverage instead. Actually, the version that I merged covers the death aspect perfectly fine. We don't need to list every single way that the character can be killed. Only III, which has an actual response from Garriott, VII, which has a connection to the real world (if the broken source can be fixed), and Online and Tabula Rasa, which have real coverage, need to be used as examples. The rest can just be covered within "The character can be killed by exploiting various in-game bugs in most titles" or something similar. TTN (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep due to improvements and as any time "cruft" is mentioned in a discussion, we have to keep the article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  I wanted to tell you this response was silly and a tad childish, A Nobody. However, I figured I should add that this reasoning can safely be ignored (as a message to the rest of you who view this page that you shouldn't consider replying). --Izno (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that "cruft" is a silly and childish word, which is why we do not take it seriously. In any event where have you looked for sources for these articles and what have you found? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Having the merge discussions here gets noticed by regulars that come here, but not others. It should be done on the talk pages of the articles, as is standard and fair. Dream Focus 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  I doubt there are nearly as many people who go to the original article. Not to mention that it's linked here from the article page, meaning that everyone can see it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  I agree the link from the article should provide the visibility needed without the talk page discussion (although it may be helpful for future iterations of the article to have this discussion on its talk page). The comment about how many see the discussion prompted me to use http://stats.grok.se/ to note that the pageviews were similar before realizing you specified regulars—which the stats can't discern. But I also checked Ultima (video game series) and thought it interesting that it gets less hits than Lord British. —Ost (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  The main reasons for this discussion being here is because, up until my first edit, Lord British had only nine edits this year, and I had already started this discussion to simply ask if anyone knew of the character. It's not really something normally done. TTN (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:"I had already started this discussion to simply ask if anyone knew of the character."

Really?

Second posting here: "so if I could get some more comments stating that no current Ultima character needs an article, that would be appreciated"

Again, I am really happy to see that you have begun to suggest merging instead of deleting articles. Ikip (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The only thing getting far less views than any of the Ultima pages is this page! [1] Maybe we should delete it instead. Since it has been so many years since the last Ultima game came out, there are going to be far fewer people looking up information. Any fans of those series have already looked up the information by now, and won't be paying attention. The companions of the avatar article gets far more views than the list of Ultima characters you want to merge it into. People prefer reading content. You gain absolutely nothing by destroying that, since anyone who doesn't enjoy reading that, won't notice it anyway, and the wikipedia has no shortage of server space. Dream Focus 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream, I understand your frustration, but your suggestion will not gain any converts here, I suggest striking it. Ikip (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire; You need to check the talk page [2]. The hits for this page are probably about the same as Ultima, although with a greater spread. Also, it was suggested that this page would have more regulars, as opposed to anon readers who may not check discussions. —Ost (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting to delete this page won't make you any more right, unless you're looking for a block. Your argument that only hardcore Ultima fans would benefit from the information isn't correct - since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we have to have content rules to fit everyone. Sure, a separate Ultima site could cater exclusively to those fans, but Wikipedia cannot. That's the whole reason for WP:FANCRUFT in the first place, it's mentioned right in the first paragraph...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft is an Essay, anyone at all able to publish those about anything they want. It isn't a guideline or policy. It is meaningless. And there are no content rules to fit everyone. Looking at the most popular articles, I see a lot of them are about sex. Obviously those articles are appropriate for everyone. Main characters in one of the most popular game series ever made, are notable enough to have their own article. Dream Focus 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dream Focus. Not only is it in an essay with no actual bearing on anything, it was created by an IP blocked thrice for vandalism and some of its most ardent defenders in the MfD have subsequently been indefinitely blocked or desysopped. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, let's go over this section by section using the notability criteria. "Origins" section? Contains one reference, the other paragraph is unreferenced original research. "Origins of the character"? Unreferenced, in-universe plot summary. "In the Ultima series"? Also original research, with no actual citations from the game dialogue. "Assassination of Lord British"? Contains game guide content and only references for a few of the paragraphs, and only a couple of those are actually reliable references. Does it contain any cultural impact or reception section? No. As it is now, it's clearly not a proper standalone article. And to say it again: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CHARACTER, just the quality of the article. Then again, if Lord British is as important as you say, you could find a lot of references?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a problem with an article, it can be fixed. You do not destroy simply because you don't like the quality level. I have added a reference to the Official Book of Ultima, a book which I own, which confirms all of this information. The assassinations are listed for each game, in every single gaming magazine around at that time. The problem with finding references is that Google gives far too many results, and that most of these old magazines aren't archived anywhere. And do you believe every article on the Wikipedia needs a reception and cultural impact section? Dream Focus 01:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Every character article, yes. bridies (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If character articles didn't need reception and cultural impact, we'd be overrun by articles about characters people WP:MADEUP one day, or minor characters with bit parts and no significance. That ruins Wikipedia's credibility and clogs it up - despite WP:PAPER there need to be standards. But if all those references are out there, it shouldn't be a problem to merge this article until those references are eventually found, right?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's credibility? LOL! That argument is always so ridiculous. We aren't here to try to impress any snotty elitists. Besides, articles like this never get any negative press, but the actions of deletionists do, that the only thing harming Wikipedia's credibility. Do you have a problem with the Princess Zelda article? Lord British has been in just as many video games. What about Princess Peach or the hordes of others? Why should Link (The Legend of Zelda) get an article, but not the Avatar, who has had far more dialogue and history written for him than the Link character, and who has also been featured in animation and manga. Do you tolerate articles that have enough active fans to defend them, but delete everything you can get away with? Or do you believe these other articles have a reason to exists, that the Ultima articles do not? Millions of people bought the Ultima games, they extremely popular in their day. Please don't give the standard otherstuffexit argument, to dodge my questions. Dream Focus 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And yet that's the very same argument you're using: "This exists, why can't my article?" Link, Peach, and Zelda all have reception that's citable in a very clear form across various subjects. If they don't, they'll be considered for merging (see Yoshi). You can't base the notability for wikipedia of Lord British or the Avatar simply because "those articles exist" or "they've appeared just as much". That's a pointless circular argument that goes nowhere fast. Either prove notability with third-party reliable sources in the body of the article or someone will AfD them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • [Princess Zelda] has no references other than the games and manuals. There are no notable third party references there. And the only reception there is that a magazine voted her and Link's relationship one of the most notable in video games. Does that one mention make it notable? If it goes to AFD, I believe reason will prevail, as it usually does for this sort of thing, and there will be a keep. Dream Focus 15:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Dream- I agree the Princess Zelda article is not in that good of a shape. (In fact, I'd agree with merging the content to another article based on its current state.) But that's no reason for the Lord British article to exist in an equally poor condition. The Zelda article will be taken care eventually, either redirected or expanded. Right now though, is Lord British's time.
        No one here would object to the article existing if the proper content was added. If you believe the sources exist to support an article, then please show them to us. If you need time to do so, please feel free to take a week to research it. But the point of the article is to provide encyclopedic content to the general reader. If it does not adequately do that as a separate article, it should be merged with to a relavent one.
        And after it's all said and done, you are also welcome to bring up this same issue with Princess Zelda or any other character article you feel doesn't make the cut. We're trying to improve article quality here. If that means forcefully nudging articles, then that's what we have to do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
        • You don't improve articles by eliminating them. If you try to send it to the AFD, instead of destroying it with a merge/redirect which less people would notice, enough people would most likely agree its fine. Its like when someone tries to delete a best selling novel that gets no reviews, they argue nonstop about the rules, but common sense prevails for most participates, and it is kept. And you will never even attempt to eliminate Princess Zelda or Link, because enough fans visit those pages each day to notice and thus protest. I believe enough people visit the Ultima sites as well to defend against any insane and pointless deletion attempt as well. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law, you ignoring them and using common sense. Over 90% of articles on Wikipedia might be considered poor quality or fancruft to some, but that is no excuse to seek to destroy them by any means. Dream Focus 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
          • You know, for someone who goes around whining about elitsts, you sure have a pretty inflated opinion of yourself since you believe your opinion of what constitutes common sense is somehow superior to guidelines reached by the consensus of multiple wikipedia users. Sounds elitist to me. Nothing wrong with that, heck, I certainly have an inflated opinion of my own views too, just don't go around claiming you are the poor defender of common sense over elitism when you are just practicing elitism of a different stripe.

You want to fix the Zelda and Lord British articles up with proper sourcing that is fine, since wikipedia has a very (in my own opninion overly) generous policy on notability: verifiability in reliable sources that do not consitute original research. While there are many notability guidelines that are optional as you say, the verifiability policy is not. The Zelda article does not meet that policy since it is not based on reliable sources, which are defined as third-party, ie not instruction manuals. That is fine for basic facts, but an article needs to be "based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as stated in the verifiability policy. The Lord British article similarly fails this test. If insufficient published sources exist to form an article, then there should be no article. If you can find the sources, then the article should stay. All your common sense nonsense and dismissal of core wikipedia policy does not change that. You and I certainly disagree on finer points of what articles should be kept beyond basic policy when the optional guidelines you mention are brought into play, but as of yet you have failed to prove these subjects even live up to the most inclusive definition of wikipedia notability as articulated in official policy. I imagine you will just call me an elitist and ignore my arguments since that seems to be your favorite way to respond, but at least try to refrain from this and explain how these articles meet the verifiability policy found at WP:V. Indrian (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Avatar (Ultima) opened here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Ultima

Because it wasn't weird enough, now we have a subproject specifically related to Ultima?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I don't think talking to yourself constitutes a task force.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, if it didn't go through our talk page, it would probably be safe to ask them to disassociate themselves from the project in the manner they've chosen. I have no preference if they wish to set up a separate WikiProject.… --Izno (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can make a Wikiproject. I checked the rules on that page. and the link is [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Ultima]]. Only two members thus far. There is a list of all Ultima articles that currently exist, a list of all those replaced with a redirect, and a list of all ongoing discussions for delete or merge. Dream Focus 16:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your project isn't a WikiProject. If you would like to have WP:WikiProject Ultima, feel free. But creating a task force of Video games (a subpage) without prior agreement (not necessarily consensus) is somewhat tendentious. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- Expanding on what Izno stated, I think the issue the above editors are discussing is that what has been created is not a separate WikiProject, but a page similar to a task force under the WP:VG namespace. I also believe the lukewarm reception to the new page is in part to that we've seen a large number of related WikiProjects and VG task forces get created and soon after fall active. It was because of the large number that we started doing a project clean up to consolidate splintered resources and help new members avoid a sea of defunct pages.

That being said, if this is the path you want to go you are welcome to operate as either an VG task force or a separate WikiProject. The plus to being a task force is that most administrative duties (assessment, peer review, etc.) would be handled by the VG project. The plus to being a full project is some more leeway in how the administrative duties are carried out. But since we all have to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, there shouldn't be much difference to how such administration should be executed. It makes more sense in my mind to be a task force as a full project is a big work load for two people and I've sure you two would much rather focus on article editing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

The AfD failed to get us anywhere, so now we're back to square one. Arguments from the AfD are still in favor of merging if you ignore the die-hard inclusionists, who just vote on everything related to fiction in order to keep everything. The sources added to Avatar are nothing special and fairly debatable, and even then, they would easily fit within the list entry anyway. TTN (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with merging Avatar, the few miscellaneous sourced sentences would fit within a list entry. bridies (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragon magazine's "The Role of Computers" column - this time I mean business! :)

OK, in a previous thread, I dealt with Dragon's early-80s "The Electric Eye" column, which ran in most issues from Dragon #33-63 and profiled aspects of computers including some video games. I managed to add tidbits to several VG articles (and created stubs for some of them), including early text-based games Civil War and Star Trek, Scott Adams's "Adventure" series (Adventureland, Pirate Adventure, Strange Odyssey, and Ghost Town), as well as other early games Dungeon of Death, Android Nim, and Time Traveller. The column ended abruptly, and I found only two more reviews in the early 1980s, one of which covered Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord, Akalabeth: World of Doom, and Crush, Crumble and Chomp!, and another which covered Dunzhin.

Oh, but no, I'm not hardly done yet!  :) Dragon's "The Role of Computers" was the second of three computer related columns that I'm aware of, so I'm hitting that next. It started in 1986 in issue #110 and was quite a bit more in-depth than "The Electric Eye" on computer games and ran for much longer. As I had stated previously I was going to add a mention of the column to the article of every game that had been reviewed. The column ran in most issues up through 1993 in issue #196 with "The Lessers" as reviewers. The new column "Eye of the Monitor" began in the following issue; reviewer Sandy Petersen wrote the column from #197-209, and after that the column was either by "Jay & Dee", Lester Smith (once), or any or all of the trio of Ken Rolston, Paul Murphy, and David "Zeb" Cook, and ran in that schizophrenic fashion sporadically from #211-223. I'll take care of "Eye of the Monitor" if I make it through "The Role of Computers" in the first place; not sure what Dragon did after that third column went kaput, but my guess is that they realized other magazines were doing a better job handling computer games, and decided just to just stick to pen and paper.

"The Role of Computers" usually tackled more than one game per issue; since it ran for some 70-80 issues, I'd say that safely puts us into the realm of over a hundred games from 1986-1993! As I've stated earlier, I don't intend to do more than put a blurb into each article with a comment that interested parties can seek me out for more info. Hopefully there is a higher percentage here of games which already have articles, because needing to toss up a stub more than occasionally will definitely slow me down! Issue #110 starts the column off with a review of the MacIntosh version of Wizardry, which I will get to shortly! BOZ (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1986-1989

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1990-1993

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

Video game template needs updating to comply with core

As this is getting no disucssion I'm posting here. Template:Cite video game is missing some key fields. At a glance, trans_title, isbn, url, [(and subsiquently archiveurl, archivedate and accessdate) for web-based video games] & location (publisher). Possibly also producer. In addition to level there should probably also be an area field for rpgs and the like. Finally language and isolang seem redundant.陣内_Jinnai 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans_title I can see. ISBN is for books--I wasn't aware that video games had them. I could conceivably see url/archiveurl, but it would only apply to the extremely small minority of games available solely on the internet (i.e. a flash-based game or browser app) AND are notable. It might be enough to use cite web, even. Location, sure, I imagine that if the major citation formats (APA, MLA, etc) began citing video games, they would establish location as one of the standard things to include. Level is a rarely used parameter, as far as I know, and probably should be deprecated--no book citation analogue either. Any other thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I readily use level to cite where in a game some text I'm quoting is from. archive/url has some use for the purpose of official transcriptions of text to give readers an idea of what's being said perhaps.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Echo Kung Fu Man; level is one of the few indicators in the template of specifity and should be used whenever possible (it also doubles as an area template, i.e. "Level/area:", which means there's no need for a second parameter.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What happens if the quote is from a cutscene rather than in a level itself?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding myself in similar situations. A lot of modern games don't have "levels" in the traditional sense. --gakon5 (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote the location of the cutscene, or in some cases the event itself (i.e. "(Character)'s ending", "Rival dialogue between (Char1) and (Char2), etc). Basically just describing to the player where to find what you're citing from the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm - If the cutscenes are FMV's they fall under {{cite video}}, else like for stuff like general gamplay items or games with lots of continuous dialogue without easy splits (such as many visual novels), we have no easy way of citing the specific location. Other games like Rune Factory 2, Phantasy Star 3 and Dragon Quest 5 have same locations but different tiemframe and there is no easy way to specify. Some games very wildy in divergant paths as well. If we are tying to give something that can be used for narrowing down a "location within the game", we need some more terms as "level" is too specific, even if you include area

ISBN is for books -If they don't use isbn we should also come up with other alternatives like Japanese Article Number as well.陣内_Jinnai 02:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here good at template coding? I think we have a list:

• trans_title - requires title
• url
  • archiveurl -requires url
    • archivedate - requires archiveurl
  • accessdate - requires url
• location - requires developer
• id
• -remove isolang or language (as they are redundant).

I still believe we need something more than just "level" though. Things like character, route (for storylines with distinct branches), newgame+, etc. are relevant info when descibing where something occurs in game. FE:In Chrono Trigger level wouldn't describe you needing to defeat the boss and restart the game in a newgame+ mode and go to Leena's square to access a new spot. By that time your beyond the scope of "level".陣内_Jinnai 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know someone who can work on the template to fix this as this isn't something we can ignore.陣内_Jinnai 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Be a little more specific about what needs to be done (I don't understand your list), and I'll work on it. SharkD (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically those fields need to be added above to the template. The removal of the isolang probably isn't required, but should be removed due to redundancy and probability that any FAC/FLC would require the language to filled out for non-enlgish titles anyway. As for the other field, I still think something other than level should be used, at the very least something like character such as is used for people in Template:Cite video.陣内_Jinnai 06:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another field would probably be edition or print. This isn't the same as version. This is needed for citing pre-order and initial release items at times to specific print-runs.陣内_Jinnai 04:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Complicated characters -- input desired

Hey, I've been, as of late, frequently editing articles regarding the Prince of Persia series. To give a short explanation, the Prince of Persia series are video games which have been frequently rebooted. The original debuted in 1989 featuring three characters, none of which really spoke or received much background fill-in. The sequel, Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame featured the same character list, and filled in a bit of character history. The proposed sequel to the second installment is Prince of Persia 3D, which presumably has the same characters, as well as adding new ones. I really say presumably because it doesn't seem certain; only two of the characters really return, but it's never confirmed that these are the same characters; but the antagonists, etc, are different, and it's in complete unrelation to the previous installments, so it's uncertain if it's really in the same universe. In 2003, the series was rebooted with The Sand of Time, which added a whole new list of different characters. It's in a completely different universe from the previous presumed trilogy, despite sharing the namesake. The Sands of Time characters carry over throughout three games, new characters usually being added in each game. Again, different universe as the previous trilogy, but same namesake. Then the series was rebooted again this past year, and featured, ultimately only two substantial characters. OK, so now you're filled in (sort of; any questions, just ask me), and this is where I need advice.

The first trilogy featured a Prince character, a Princess character, a Sultan character, Jaffar the vizier, Assan (the Sultan's brother), and Rugnor (the Sultan's nephew). If I remember, the Prince character is the only one to really receive any back story. The other characters are really, in a few words, paper thin. The Sultan, Assan, and Rugnor all only appear in one game, albeit briefly. Jaffar appears as the primary antagonist of two of the games. The Prince and Princess characters are the only two to appear in all three of the games. That's not too complicated -- but then you throw in the Sands of Time trilogy. Again, this is a reboot; none of the same characters carry over, none of the same plot devices, etc. That said, the main protagonist is again titled simply "The Prince" (referred to mainly as "Prince" by other characters, but his profile in the game booklets label him "The Prince"). I'll get back to the Prince character issue in a bit. Anyways, again, this trilogy spanned three main games, and a spin-off, as well as inspiring a movie adaption. Arguably the most meaty reboot character-wise. So yeah, now we have two lists of unrelated characters; with The Sands of Time trilogy having a substantially bigger one. Then we throw last year's reboot into the fray. Only two characters were really filled in in the reboot, one being filled in badly (The Prince character). Also, yes, yet another Prince character to throw into the fray; the third unrelated one. But now we have three separate universes, three character lists, but one character page. I wanted to propose splitting according to unrelated franchises; one for the original three, one for the Sands of Time trilogy, and one for the reboot. However, I doubt the originals and the reboot would in any way stand on their own, while I have no doubt that The Sands of Time would have no issues. However, leaving all three lists together creates the obvious issue of confusion: "Which character belongs to which universe? They're all put into the same list seamlessly, how do I tell the difference?" I do believe splitting the one list into three would be a good decision. I just need advice on a good way to do that. Now onto the issue with the Prince characters.

The current article for these three characters features all three put into one article. This produces confusion and clutter, as we're referring to three different characters, but all three characters are referred to by the same title, and possess similar abilities and sometimes, traits. It's very difficult to make it clear to the reader that we're referring to three different characters, and then to follow through with that and be able to keep the reader in the loop in-article; i.e. the reader clearly understands which of the three characters we're referring to throughout the article. Therefore, I believe that the Prince characters' article should be split appropriately. It's naming conventions I'm a bit confused about. Should I title the page, i.e. "The Prince (Sands of Time trilogy)"? That might not be descriptive enough to cover the character through all three games he appears in, though; only one game is actually called The Sands of Time. Then how would we go about naming the other articles, provided we could do that one successfully? The other two universes have no clear plot device that refers to the series of games that it appears in. In popular culture, the first reboot is called the Sands of Time trilogy. However, no such names exist for the other two universes. They are mostly referred to as "old Prince of Persia" or "new Prince of Persia", etc. So that obviously presents a problem. The only thing that I believe is obvious is that keeping the three characters confined to one article is a potential mistake. It would be a mighty feat for any editor to be able to write that prose clearly.

In short, I just need a few suggestions as to how to separate lists of characters that are from different universes, but of the same Prince of Persia namesake. I would also like advice as to separating the three Prince characters into separate articles in compliance with the naming conventions. Thanks for reading. The Guy ^(edits) 03:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't the main list article have individual sections describing the character traits in the different series? Batman has been rebooted as well, that doesn't mean there are articles about multiple Batmen. Conversely, you could split the main article by series and duplicate the characters for each, but with their different traits. As for the naming scheme, "Prince of Persia (date)" and "Prince of Persia (other date)" could work.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of making the discussion sound like an AfD, I'm not sure any of the characters except for maybe the Prince himself (condensed across all versions) should bother going in either a separate article or a list. The games and series's articles' plot summaries (should) do a better job of distinguishing which games are relevant to the plotline, and the one sentence in the plot summary relating to any given character doesn't really justify a list entry. Nifboy (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally you shouldn't seperate characters if they are essentially the same. I had similar problems with Popotan which was a visual novel with an anime adaptation that used most of the same characters, but in different circumstances entirely and the general consensus was after discussing it on several boards was to move them to List of Popotan characters divide format them with description first, then followed by 1-2 paragraphs depending on whether they existed in both versions. The first one if they exist is the visual novel as that is the primary work.

It sounds like this is essentially the same thing, except the media is different. That's why I suggest you follow this kind of model. While it's true Prince of Persia has multiple games, if they are all essentially the same character, but under different circumstances then this is how it appears to be dealt with. For character articles the same thing would apply and probably even moreso.陣内_Jinnai 04:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had described that the characters were different perfectly, but then there was a double edit conflict, and for some reason I can't retrieve the text in beta mode, so I'll try to type it up again. These three Prince characters are not the same. Batman has his essentials; his secret identity, his costume, his gadgets, Gotham City, etc. He's the same character even if the series is rebooted multiple times; he still has those essentials. He's much more than simply going by the same name. These Prince characters, however, vary widely. I tried saying that they had similar traits, but I fear I expressed that too broadly. It's true that they do have similar general traits; they're all three swordsmen who possess extreme acrobatic prowess. However, I daresay that's where the similarities start to stop. The first Prince starts off as a beggar on the street, but becomes royalty by marrying in. The second Prince was born into royalty. The third Prince is an adventurer, not related to royalty in any way. They possess extremely different appearances; the first Prince is a poor man, and appears as such. In the third game, however, he's dressed in royal attire, because he's become a prince by that point. The second Prince dresses in royal attire, because he's been born into royalty. Even in the second game; when he's become brittle and prefers to wear all-purpose armor instead of normal clothes, the armor is expensive, of royal make. Same with the third game. The third Prince dresses as an adventurer; leather leggings, non-consistent clothes, etc. He's clearly not royalty. So now there are vast origin and appearance differences. Then there's personalities. The first Prince never really uttered a word; virtually no personality whatsoever. The second Prince went from an innocent boy seeking to impress his father, to a bitter man who calls women "bitches" and has a "devil-may-care" attitude, to a man who cared about his kingdom and freeing his people. The third Prince, being an adventurer, is carefree. He doesn't take much seriously, he lacks tact, etc, etc. So there are also vast personality differences to go with the origin and appearance differences. I could go on. Really, the similarities stop at the general "name, sword-fighting, acrobatics". These are, essentially, different characters. The Guy ^(edits) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems it amounts to the same idea as Link (character) which means you need to adequetly statw their commonalities, but emphasise their differences. However, unless their are reviewers or analysis that differs otherwise, splitting them into seperate articles would be WP:Content forking and will likely not surivive AfDs for WP:NPOV conflicts.陣内_Jinnai 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The different princes are not different characters, but different incarnations of the same character. The page should definitely not be split, just divided into sections.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The characters are really nothing like Link from the Legend of Zelda games; not the same case. The Links in the Zelda games have a chronological connection, right? They are the same character in the same universe doing the same thing (typically). The Prince characters are not "different incarnations of the same character." More accurately put, they are different characters that share a few common traits. I could find sources to specify that these are different characters. In the official press release for the latest installment of the game, one of the main selling points, if you will, was that this was "A new Prince." So, while saying "different characters with a few common traits, the same name, the protagonist of the same game" would be an accurate way to put it, "different incarnations" likely wouldn't. Bottom line, they are definitely different characters (as I said, I could provide sources), and that provides complications since the commonplace solution is not to split the article. The article will have to be divided peculiarly; rather than the normal sections, we'll have to have the normal sections, then sub-sections to differentiate between the three characters. Either that, or masterful prose. Further, the article will require many illustrations; since these are three different characters, we'll have to equally illustrate them all, pictures and all. Not even to mention that the protagonist, unlike Batman or Link, wears different attire every installment. We'll really have fun characterizing and providing pictures for seven different variations of three separate characters. Not to mention reception of the individual characters, sections about their abilities, appearance (where the illustrations would likely go). Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm trying to make the point that, if done right, these individual characters could definitely warrant their own articles. I would definitely not dismiss that because they are similar characters in games of essentially the same title. If enough sources could be found for each individual character, it would definitely pass for notability; then it would be fine. I'm confident that I could find ample sourcing for the latter two iterations; both have received enough media coverage to warrant their own articles; probably start or C-class for the latest character, but an article no less. The Prince from The Sands of Time series is one I'm confident would have more than enough sources to warrant his own article. That said, I do see where you guys are coming from. Still, though, this is an obvious issue, as masterful prose writers are few and far in between. The Guy ^(edits) 03:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, just because they have different personalities, clothing, mannerism, etcetera, doesn't mean that they're different characters. They are all fulfilling the same role - that of "The Prince" - a protagonist who is some kind of Arabian prince, fights with a sword, etc. I can see why you'd want to split, but unless you can find enough external references to make 3 separate articles about the different Princes, they will still be the same character. In the Super Mario bros. movie, Bowser was a human...but you don't see anyone making an article about that because it's still the character of Bowser. You're in luck with the illustration part, because Ubisoft allows screenshots to be used regardless of fair use, but finding information for each is another matter.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does mean they're different characters. Your analysis is a bit too general; only one of the Princes are actually (revealed to be) a native Persian. Sure, they fulfill the same general roles: an acrobatic swordsman. Still, as I've already said, they've each unique mannerisms, origins, attire, etc. They are also trying to achieve different goals; the original to rescue his princess; the Sands of Time one to rid himself of the Sands of Time, first for himself, then for his kingdom; the third is just trying to get himself out of a mess. They aren't even all Princes; the first one wasn't, but was married into the throne; the second was born into royalty; the third is just not. The third is never even referred to in-game as "The Prince." He's known as that completely out-of-universe, no one calls him that in-game; he never becomes that. So yes, they're fulfilling the same "acrobatic swordsman" role, but they have different nationalities, different origins, different skills, different aims, different personalities, different mannerisms. In other words, these are different characters. They fulfill, essentially, the same attributes, but are fundamentally different in many ways. As I said, I could easily source this. The Guy ^(edits) 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You could start by making example articles in your User namespace, to prove that the character(s) deserve more than one articles. You'll have to find reception and development information for all of them, since I doubt that splitting would leave space for a "2-in-1".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know the steps I have to take. Remember that this discussion is not about whether or not these three characters warrant their own articles, but how to comply with naming conventions if they did. It's turned into a debate about something completely different, however, and I do not plan to indulge it further; let's get back on topic. My plan, I think, is to split the current main character page into three different pages: one for characters of each different PoP universe. As for the Princes, I plan to build up their articles, of course, but I still need advice in the matter of naming the articles. I really rather doubt this will be a problem with the original Prince character, who speaks not a word in any of his games. I think just give him an entry on the relevant character page, and that should do it. The other two Princes, though... how to name them. The Guy ^(edits) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you'll haveto probably find reception/analysis that shows reviewers treat them as seperate characters as well otherwise if anyone brought the articles up for AfD they'd almost certainly be merged on the basis of content forking and NPOV violations.陣内_Jinnai 04:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, to go back to the naming conventions thing, the titles would probably be like The Prince (Prince of Persia), The Prince (Second game) and The Prince (Third game). Actually, as the article is titled now, The Prince (character) would probably suffice rather than The Prince (Prince of Persia), but it might be overly confusing.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(article disambigs) if you get far enough, the titles should all be made clear that each is a character from a Prince of Persia game. The first does that. The others don't since The Prince (Second game) could be any game. "The Prince" is a title used in multiple games.陣内_Jinnai 05:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he was trying to illustrate The Prince (insert name of first game), rather than literally The Prince (first game). That said, that wouldn't work either; there isn't a new Prince character for every game. Basically, there are seven games in all, and three characters. Therefore, specifying games likely wouldn't suffice. There would have to be a way of specifying which generation (for lack of a more accurate term) would be appropriate. For example, The Prince (Sands of Time series). The only issue is that, and I believe I skimmed over this earlier, only one generation of PoP games is clearly defined in popular culture as having a definite name, and I've just used it. The newest Prince doesn't have anything like that to refer to him by. Nor does the old Prince, but I doubt he has enough info to constitute an article to himself, anyways. Hmmm.... The Guy ^(edits) 05:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, even if the character is different in EVERY WAY, it's still the same name, made by the same company, with the same trademark. There have been numerous instances of very different character incarnations, and all of them go back the the shared franchise. There really is no reason to split the article. Not to mention that the "appearances" section would have to be split up, just because the prince has a different personality? What about Princess Zelda? She is a different person in every game. Same with all the Final Fantasy Doctor Cids and such. They are all completely and utterly different, but share the same article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is irrelevant; you seem intent on derailing this discussion. I would appreciate if you allowed it to stay focused. The Guy ^(edits) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:VG Achievements?!

Well, not really, but I thought it might be an idea to come up with a very obscure (but not so obscure) subject to make into a quality article. Might be fun and invite people to make more interesting Wikipedia articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Like "fix foo on bar article and get an award"? Or "Get foo article to GA and get an award"? Seems cool. Everybody would be trying to to the same things and end up aruging over who got the award, and who has the most, etc. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, more like "create foo and make it quality" kinda thing. Like (not tooting my own horn, just drawing a blank of other creations) Burger King Pokémon container recall etc. But that's a good point, that it would create strife over who deserves it (though, I was just joking with awards, it would be just like a barnstar for participation in the article's improvement. But in all reality, it wouldn't be a quick add-on, but I think it's kind of an extension of the bi-weekly project and barnstars. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea! How about if people are working very hard on VG articles, you give them a barnstar?!?! Oh wait. Thats what they are for. lol. Sorry if it seems like I am being rude or something. I am just in a good mood for some reason. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, first off, we could read the first post sufficiently - I don't know why you discuss "rewards for working hard" when that's absolutely irrelevant to this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, if someone does make a really good article out of nowhere, you could just give them a barnstar. I dont really see what else there would be other then a custom userbox or something, but they would all mean the same thing. "You did good with this article, so here is something to display on your page." _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you mean, rewarding people for making esoteric articles like the Gears of War controversy, or the Burger King recall? Actually, I'm not so sure it's a good idea, since it might encourage people to make unnecessary spin offs. How about just awarding more Barnstars?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend avoiding this. Make it a game, and people will treat it as such. As noted, we have barnstars to deal with that if you feel someone has done a good job. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole idea came from the idea of encouraging discussion of more obscure article subjects, though got clouded by the whole "reward" thing. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably because the title refers to "achievements" rather than "obscure article creation" but, as I said before, usually that information can fit in the original article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A nice idea, but like most processes on Wikipedia the execution is always more difficult than we'd expect. Our current system isn't perfect, but it's working so far; we currently have a good collection obscure but encyclopedic articles. I'm sure more will pop up as time progresses. Keep the ideas coming though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Canyon Bomber

'Sup, gamers? Can someone please create a page for the old Atari game Canyon Bomber? Just create the page and leave the rest to me. Thanks! ^_^--66.177.73.91 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Enjoy editing... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Now, if only I could write articles for Turtles (video game) and Atari Football...--66.177.73.91 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Created Turtles, wasnt sure is the mobile game was also a port. Also created the Atari Football page now. Any one have any idea about the turtles mobile game???Salavat (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Romanization of English titles in intro

See Also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Romanization of foreign words rendered in Japanese katakana

It's been discussed there and gave us this... But I think someone went a little bit overboard with that one...

Let's keep it to intros, and English words in Japanese titles, just as the thing says, shall we?

Removing the romanization of a bunch of names, for example, isn't helping anyone, especially when those names aren't English and/or have unusual pronunciations... Erigu (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I interpreted that as "remove redundant Japanese game titles in the article intro"; the discussion wasn't clear in saying if the titles refer to "game titles", "character names", "plot terms" and the like; so I reverted some of the edits. — Blue。 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to extend this to any instance where a Japanese pronunciation is being provided as an approximation to a Western word or name. The principle is the same in that there is no actual preference for the Japanese pronunciation, which is likely to be just as inaccurate (if not more so) than an English-speaker's best guess. But definitely, anyone who had an interest in the previous discussion should weigh in on whether or not the guideline should be generalized to all text and not just the titles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that while the Japanese pronunciation is an approximation, it's still better than a guess.

Extending this removal to "Western" (what does that entail?) words or names would definitely be a mistake, in my opinion. Alphabet spellings don't necessarily tell us much about the way a name is supposed to be pronounced. At best, you can make educated guesses based on context. You could guess wrong. You could not get enough context. You could very well have to deal with made-up names from some made-up universe that don't obey "obvious" phonetic rules.

How is the name "Samus" supposed to be pronounced? Is it really obvious? A reader with some Japanese skills would read "サムス" and get a better idea: it's "samusu", meaning the "u" is pronounced as a short "oo", not as "uh". If you can't read kana, you're out of luck though, as the romanization has been removed...

How is the name "Zell Dincht" supposed to be pronounced? Well, that's obviously a... Er... It looks Western. Well, chances are it is, anyway. German, maybe? Something like "tzel dinsht"? Well, you could look at the romanization (which I put back): "zeru din".

Of course, I realize most people aren't too familiar with Japanese phonetics anyway, even romanized (there are some "quirks"), but still...

I really, really think romanization should only be removed to unclutter intros, and when the pronunciation is absolutely obvious (in fact, I'd say that should only concern English words that could be found in a dictionary, not names, not "English-sounding" neologisms).

(wouldn't a detailed table off on the side be a better way to unclutter the intro in that respect, anyway?) Erigu (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the consensus in the archive is pretty obvious to not include the romnaization, and it is very reasonable, which I fully support. Aerith Gainsborough (エアリス・ゲインズブール, Earisu Geinzubūru) sounds, well, pretty redundant and to be blunt, stupid. Aerith Gainsborough is not a Japanese word, and thus it is not necessary to include the Japanese romanization. A guess of how Aerith Gainsborough should be pronounced is not too much different to a Japanese altered pronounciation kana system then approximated back to romanization. No matter how the guess is, Aerith Gainsborough in English will not be pronounced as E A Li Su Ge In Zu Buu Lu(which is what the katakana is suggesting). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the consensus in the archive is pretty obvious to not include the romnaization, and it is very reasonable, which I fully support.

The discussion (and the guideline it resulted in) was about English titles used in Japan. And it was about article intros, too. Many of the recent edits have nothing to do with that.

Aerith Gainsborough (エアリス・ゲインズブール, Earisu Geinzubūru) sounds, well, pretty redundant and to be blunt, stupid.

It's not a title, and those are not plain English words.

Also, no, it's not "redundant". The kana and romaji spellings provide additional information regarding the intended pronunciation of the name. With the alphabet spelling alone, you'd have no choice but to take a guess. And I'm not sure how many English readers would guess the intended pronunciation of that last name (which apparently sounds a lot like "Gainsbourg").

Besides, removing romanization like that flies in the face of the manual of style... Erigu (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tell you that discussion did changed to talk about romanization towards the end, and people agreed that it is redundant, these include Prime Blue, Guyinblack25 and ZXCVBNM, Jinnai said if the pronunciation is very different, then it should be there, but at least agreed that it should be in the footnote instead. The one who opposed, sesuPrime, did not get back to the discussion. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The archived discussion mentioned it, but the guideline didn't elaborate: the use of footnotes.

When do we have to use footnotes to denote the Japanese titles?

Plus, I have to agree that the discussion didn't take into account WP:MOS-JP.

The former way might have been redundant to one who knows kana - but the present way didn't take into account those who don't. Personally I have always thought the romanization was helpful in learning how the Japanese might have pronounced terms or names, especially considering some terms used kanji characters.

I would really like it if the romaji was restored back to the articles. If the footnote method is the way it should be executed, then by all means. — Blue。 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the romanization also doubles as an useful substitute for furigana when some kanji have unorthodox or debatable readings, like here, for example. "白夜" can be read as both "hakuya" and "byakuya", and Konami opted for the latter. As for "協奏曲", it should be normally be read "kyōsōkyoku", but is actually pronounced "koncheruto" (Japanese approximation of the Italian "concerto") in this title. Erigu (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the way things work now. SharkD (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is common sense to figure out that kanji, if different from the title of the page, would need the pronunciation. However, I don't see why the characters having western style names officially in the Japanese release should include the romanization. I understand why the katagana is there, and regular readers would not be able to read them, but romanization of them would not give much more to the article, since the pronunciation of the word is already in front. No one is going to pronounce Aerith as E A Li Su, and the katakana is not pronounced as Earisu, usual English users would think that the E and A are pronounced together, but in Japanese, it is pronounced as two different words. Same as Mitsubishi, I hear a lot of westerner pronounced Mit-su-bi-shi, but Japanese is Mi-tsu-bi-shi instead. The romanization creates more problems than it is really helping in the case of the original word is already rendered in a very simple western style word like Aerith, Cloud, Tifa, Barret, Vincent, Cait sith, Red XIII, Sephiroth, etc. For the sake of it, Cloud is 100% English, you do not pronounce it as Ku la do even if the Japanese katakana romanization is available, Vincent is even an English name(with Roman/Latin origin) and Red XIII, do not tell me there are anyone who are regular English speakers do not know how to pronounce the word red and thirteen or would pronounce the terms as Ledo Satin after seeing the romanization. It seems more like redundant information in which an encyclopedia would not need. I am bring this to WP:MOS-JP and see if anyone can give me a better reasoning for this. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand why the katagana is there, and regular readers would not be able to read them, but romanization of them would not give much more to the article, since the pronunciation of the word is already in front.

It generally isn't, actually.

For the sake of it, Cloud is 100% English, you do not pronounce it as Ku la do even if the Japanese katakana romanization is available, Vincent is even an English name(with Roman/Latin origin) and Red XIII, do not tell me there are anyone who are regular English speakers do not know how to pronounce the word red and thirteen or would pronounce the terms as Ledo Satin after seeing the romanization.

Thing is, you are apparently working from the assumption those names are pronounced according to English phonetics. While it's often the case in Japanese games, that's not necessarily true (it could also be the French name "Vincent", for exemple). The Japanese pronunciation, even if it's obviously an approximation, is additional information in that regard.

Besides, the examples you just produced are from Final Fantasy and the series is well-known for its unusual pronunciations (see above for "Zell Dincht" and "Aerith Gainsborough"... and "Tidus" still puzzles gamers). Erigu (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would that change anything? Would you change what you are used to pronounce the word and start pronouncing it differently? Vincent is an English name BTW and the FFVII game is using the English pronunciation of it, even if you want to argue it could be used in French, look at the Japanese pronunciation and the French pronunciation at the linked page to see it yourself, if it is pronounced in the French renderization, keep the romanization, on the other hand, it would be redundant in the French wiki to include it. If this is the French wiki, and Vincent is in English, then keep the romanization. Also, I am not arguing to ditch the romanization as a whole, I am stating if it is not different from the English common usage or common guess, do not include the fairly redundant info. For Tidus and Tida, it is fairly obvious that it is out of the common sense to guess the correct pronunciation and including the romanization would be reasonable. For Aerith, you might want to argue the Su and Th but it is simply a Japanese habit to do so. Arguing regular readers could not read the katakana is also funny, if the readers cannot read the katakana due to not knowing Japanese, would they even bother to try to understand this at all? What sort of info would it tell them? How to pronounce in Japanese? That should not be wikipedia's concern. I am saying, if it follows the normal English phonetics as a whole, do not include the redundant data, if it is not, include it, maybe the IPA should be as well, since it is so much different from the English phonetics. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention "Balthier/Balflear". Thing is, the kana pronunciation is still information as WP:MOS-J puts it - being redundant and stupid just does not cut as the reason for removing romanization, especially when the game is developed in Japan and, as Jinnai said, most English speakers do not read/speak Japanese. What's the IPA having to do with Japan-developed games, I wonder? — Blue。 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would that change anything? Would you change what you are used to pronounce the word and start pronouncing it differently?

Yes, I'd rather take the intended pronunciation into account, personally.

For Aerith, you might want to argue the Su and Th but it is simply a Japanese habit to do so.

I was actually referring to the character's last name. ^^;

if it follows the normal English phonetics as a whole, do not include the redundant data, if it is not, include it

My problem with removing the romanization when the name appears to follow English phonetics is (at least?) two-folded:

1) You'll generally only be able to argue it appears to follow English phonetics, according to your own experience of that kind of Japanese approximations. I could see arguments stem from that.

2) Currently, the romanized spelling is already removed for redundancy in the case of ("actual") Japanese words and names (except for contemporary Japanese full names, as they're generally "switched" from "last name - first name" to "first name - last name" in the body of the article). That would make two different motives for such a removal, and confusion might arise.

(actually, if it were up to me, I'd never remove the romanization, not even for "unchanged" Japanese words and names, precisely to avoid any kind of confusion... but hey ^^;) Erigu (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinks in the whole Start -> FAC process

This is a rant, but please read and consider it. Posting it here because it focuses more on the reactions I've seen VG FAC's get.

Okay, this isn't targeting anyone in particular, but on the whole there's a really crappy trend going on:

• Article X gets started, improved, and achieves GA-class
• Article X goes to peer review, gets slapped about a bit, a copyedit, and told good luck (and sometimes barely gets that).
• Article X hits FAC, and it becomes a tossup. Quite often you get comments such as "needs a copyedit" and "needs more peer review".
• Author of Article X as a result either a) tries and tries again, b) moves on if he succeeded, or c) gives up.

This is not a process, it's a crapshoot. I'm sorry but it is. We as editors many of us long-term established here get the whole "it's our best work" thing. And yet we still try, and get the above comments about needing a copyedit or a peer review or similar. Look, and again not targeting anyone in particular or everyone, but if you're going to review the article for FAC, review it: point out every little flaw you find and point it out so we can fix it, and even try to tweak it yourself. Don't go halfway and shout "copyedit"/"peer review", you're not a mind reader and neither are we. We're not going to know for sure what the problems with the article are and sure as hell don't want to slave over rewriting something just for you to shout in Round 2 "Still needs a copyedit." Oh and by pointing out those errors, you help editors improve. And this is all probably hypocritical of even my own actions somewhere in my editting past, but so what, I'm saying at least try.

Hell if Peer Review worked the way some people apparently expect it to we'd have much stronger articles all around.

And while we're at it, telling us when there's a new requirement apparently added would be a good idea. We shouldn't have to stumble over these things (I never noticed it until I started looking at more FAC's in the TODO box). Knowing my luck though it's probably something I just missed anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be talking about this in FAC talk page?陣内_Jinnai 06:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I somehow honestly feel it'd fall on deaf ears there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Though this may not be the best place to discuss this, I feel I have to share Kung Fu Man's disappointment with the current system and agree that it does end with one of those three outcomes. However, I don't think it completely falls on FAC's shoulders. True, video game articles have a bad rep there and many reviewers have replied in less than polite ways (in my opinion anyway). But part of it is our level of editing skills within the project. Our peer reviews often go unanswered for lengthy time frames, and few provide in-depth dissections of the article. And even those are not always enough. I've seen several articles that I pick at as much as I can (both ones I've written and ones I just reviewed) get torn to shreds at FAC. It got to the point where I just stopped going to FAC. The 2–4 weeks of time dealing with the comments and the stress started to become a distraction to me. Not worrying about going for FA really sped up the amount of work I've done on articles.

Sadly, I think the real root of the probably is Wikipedia's structure. Since we're all volunteers here, it just wouldn't work if we were barking orders at each other to dedicate more time than we have available. For example, I do what I can to improve my desired articles, work on peer reviews and help the project, but sometimes I just don't have the time. If anybody wants to yell at me for that, they're welcome to, but it won't free up more of my time. Most of us are like that, we do what we can. The only real solution that comes to mind is becoming more structured as a project. Having a plan about which articles we should work on and how to accomplish that, like designating work to maximize editors' time and working on improving our grammar and writing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Minor updates and corrections to above post. Man I need to proof read my posts better. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

• When a reviewer says that an article "needs a copyedit", it's usually clear what they mean. Which is, they want you to find 1-2 copyeditors to heavily rewrite the article. In my own reviews, when I say something like that, I give examples of prose errors to prove that it's true. Listing every error is a tiresome, useless process; if you're going to get that detailed, you might as well copyedit the article instead. But I agree with your general point about the quality of FAC reviews: reviewers often do not properly describe the issues present in an article, which confuses FAC nominators. Also, the thoroughness of reviews is suspect in many cases—take, for example, Samus Aran. Here, we see that the first several reviewers did not assess the serious failing that was brought up later on, about copied text. In my own comment, I admit that I did not read the article; I merely noticed that problem while skimming and brought it up, with no intention of supporting or opposing—regardless of his response. To support an article, you must first be certain that it more-or-less passes all criteria. When opposing an article that has even a remote chance of reaching FA quality during FAC, however, you must give the nominator something to work with. If they are willing to put the effort in to fix what you bring up, then you should work closely with them, via Talk pages and even edits to the article in question. If you do not have time to do that, then you should not oppose a nomination. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mega Man 2

I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles and noticed that Mega Man (video game) was listed under the "Console games" section. Now I'm a fan of the first game, but I don't think it was as important as the second one in terms of impact. Should Mega Man 2 replace it? As a similar example, we have Street Fighter II in the "Arcade games" section but not the first one. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

• I love the first two Mega Man games but I don't know how important they would be for gaming. But for the First Street Fighter game, HELL NO! The first game isn't as revolutionary as SF2. So , no SF1. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Pretty much agreeing with GamePro64. SF1, while the start of the franchise, was ignored by a lot of folks (there are even letters sent to GamePro (magazine) in old issues asking "is there a SF1?" So I'd say that Street Fighter II should have priority.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with this proposal wholeheartedly. Mega Man was a failure that would never have gotten a sequel if not for the insistence of its design team and immense after-hours efforts. It is because of the far more polished Mega Man 2 that the series gained the renown it has today. As a note to the above posters, I do not believe Guyinblack25 was advocating listing SF there, I think he was using it as an example of a situation where the second game is far more important and so is listed instead of the series originator. Indrian (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the first Mega Man received a remake for the PSP, and while Mega Man 2 is more well-known, Mega Man started the whole series. Kinda like Zelda vs. ALttP or OoT. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really care which Mega Man game is on that list, either one has its merits, another one established the series (1), the other popularized it (2). My problem looking at the console games are three games: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. Each seem to have weak rationales. Also there are already two Zelda games there beside those and they far more influential. --Mika1h (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indrian is correct. I merely listed SFII as an example were we've done something similar. This idea came to mind after working on Mega Man 2#Legacy. To clarify, though the first game started the series, the series wouldn't have existed with the second game. Inafune, 1UP.com and Retro Gamer credit the rest of the sequels to the success and quality of Mega Man 2. IGN credits it with helping to shape the action platform genre.

By comparison, I'd call the second more important than the first. Admittedly, that may be because the proper research hasn't been done for the first game. Not sure. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

The first one has at least the more notable box art ;) --Mika1h (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As always, make sure you have good reception info in reliable sources to determine importance. I think most sources would agree that SF2 and Mega Man 2 are the most important and influential games for their respective series. If the list you're referring to is trying to assert this importance, it should be pretty cut-and-dry based on the sources. It's gonna be stepping into WP:OR and WP:NPOV if it's making conclusions "on its own", or based solely on editors' opinions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Though I didn't search specifically search for info about the first game, it's been my experience that some content will pop up during research about other games in the series. Not much really did, and the info that did compared the two in Mega Man 2's favor, hence my conclusion.

If more research is desired, however, I wouldn't mind waiting until Mega Man (video game) is brought up to par. No idea when that will happen though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Not to go off on a tangent, but I agree with Mika1h's concerns regarding The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. There's a few others I might take issue with as pushing "essential", but those three really stand out. Maybe this should be another thread... bridies (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How important is Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games anyways? I played the game and it doesn't really seem important in gaming. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that one per this discussion. bridies (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the tangent, I too question if Twilight Princess has really had enough of an impact to warrant being called an "essential article". Perhaps a new thread should be started to weed out non-essential articles, or the discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

I, Robot

Has anyone played I, Robot (arcade game)? I'm planing on working on it, but since this was a commercial flop, I'm screwed in the Gameplay department. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

MAME is your friend. --Mika1h (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have some print sources that describe the gameplay along with reception. I'll try to dig them out sometime next week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks GiB. I might need them. As for MAME, Mika1h, it looks too complicated. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that this is a reliable reference? It might help me with the Gameplay section and stuff. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say no because I cannot find anything that shows the website is reliable; that is, no evidence of fact-checking, oversight, and accuracy. MuZemike 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I need a good web reference (since Gib is helping with book refs) that has nothing to do with IGN.com (I found three refs to I, Robot's name and its sad) so can someone please find one for me? GamerPro64 (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I put two on the talk page: an old review and a patent on the terrible controller they used for the game. I couldn't find much. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Killer List of Videogames. They often have info about the game's hardware for development and gameplay descriptions. I typically avoid the scarcity and trivia info though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Boredom strikes!

User:New Age Retro Hippie/Power-ups in the Mario series If anyone wants to help improve that - specifically, writing descriptions for the items themselves, that'd be great! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehhhhhhhhh, this is really pushing it, in terms of both notability and WP:GAMEGUIDE. The fact that an article about the "top 10 mario power-ups" makes up more than half of the referencing is troublesome. I would consider smart intelligent grouping into a section or subsection of the existing Mario series article here describing power up types and general effects; only two of them seem to have any real distinction beyond being a game power up (Bee and Super Leaf) , and these are more specific to certain games so can be discussed in their section. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. Would need a significant overhaul to survive an AfD. Great as the starting point for an article on wikia, e.g. http://mario.wikia.com/wiki/Mario_Wiki though. In fact it's already there via category, see http://mario.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Power-ups --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it might could be a success source wise, as it already has 20 references. It wouldn't be much of an article though. Like they said, its pretty much gameguide. If you can find sources for most of your info it might would work though. I have a New Super Mario Bros guide. I could help some maybe. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I noted, 10 of the 20 are the same reference - a top ten mario power-ups list at GameDaily. Most of the others are also top/bottom lists which barely provide reception information. It would need a lot more rigorous sources to stand out over time; on the other hand, within the context of a larger article, that's less a problem. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did doall the editing in one day, so it's bound to be limited. But I picked this article subject for the sole reason that it'd be really, really hard to actually pull off. :p Isn't that a fun thing to do? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Easily one of the most nukable topics I've seen recently. If you can get that to the point where it could comfortably survive an AfD, you deserve some sort of cupcake. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

Hello! I posted this question that no one has replied to in literally months and just posted Talk:Pinball_Hall_of_Fame:_The_Williams_Collection#Release_date_of_PS3_version.3F. In both cases I am finding conflicting information. For example, some sites list Monster Bash while others have No Good Gophers. Has anyone else found a more definitive reliable source on the "new" upcoming tables and current generation release dates for this game? Thanks for any help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning WP:RS of a source

The source(one and only) included here seems very unreliable. The linked site did not even suggest the characters are the original design of the game, the Japanese words there actually only said the picture was rumoured to be original of something(it said the rumour is from the BBS but since it is quite some time ago, the thread could not be found) and the colouring is done by the web master, not the original artist. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But then wouldn't that be an unsourced statement?(Okay, I know the whole article isn't very sourced as well) I will place a cn tag there. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That works, though if you actively believe the statement to be false, you can just remove it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the knowledge I have in Japanese video game developers, I do not really doubt the statement to be not possible, but would like to have a source for it.(for what kills the cat.) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

List of all Japanese-developed games released in the US

I am currently doing research on gender in Japanese-developed video games vs. US-developed ones, and the first phase of this involved gathering data on all video games developed in Japan that were then released in the US from the Playstation 2 era to the present. Using the Category:Japanese video game companies I compiled a list of all games matching those criteria and organized them by developer. I am currently in the process of entering all that information into a database, and I was wondering if/how this could be useful to this WikiProject and what I could do to assist that. If not, does anyone know where this information could be of use? Rein Aurre (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the context for which you are making the comparison. If I'm correct in guessing that it's related to women's studies, the right article might be Portrayal of women in video games. The raw data could not be added to the encyclopedia, but the resulting analysis could be mentioned, if there is a meaningful difference in comparison. Your results would have to be published in a reliable source, though. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it you are asking if the list of games developed in Japan that have subsequently been released in the US will be of use, as opposed to the results of the research you are conducting. I would say that such a list does not merit it's own article as the information is available elsewhere either on wikipedia or other sites, just not in a direct table form. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We did briefly have a Table: namespace that it would have made sense to put that sort of thing in, but we got rid of it because nobody could decide what exactly the difference between a list and a table was.

If you want to make the list available to other people, an easy way might be to put the table in your userspace and then link it from the relevant category talk page. It wouldn't be officially on the wiki, but other people who wanted the information could be able to find it that way. --erachima talk 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How to cite pre-order items

I'm trying to figure out how to cite pre-order items so that I can state they came with the release of the game, however, I can't find any press release or similar info saying it. For this example is a CD from List of Popotan soundtracks which does have an ID, but the only sites that list anything about when it was released aren't reliable.陣内_Jinnai 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Mac OS games and Category:Mac OS X games

I've been going through Category:Mac OS games today and I have found quite a number of games there that shouldn't be in that category, they should be in Category:Mac OS X games instead. Here is a quick rundown on how to tell which category to use:

• New game (at least since 2004)? Mac OS X.
• Published since 2001? Probably Mac OS X (may be a CarbonLib game, so it may go in both categories).
• Has Linux version? Probably a Mac OS X game.
• Open source? Unless it is an old game, Mac OS X.

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Twinking

I propose cutting down this article and merging it with MMORPG or possibly World of Warcraft. I was trying to go through it, reference it and delete unverifiable content but it's becoming clear that this is going to leave one or two sentences. Sources: [3][4]. I notice that there seems to be no mention of twinking in either the MMORPG or WOW articles, yet still someone felt the need to write a whole article elsewhere. I thought I'd post here first before putting up merge tags, as I'm not quite sure of the best target article. bridies (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if its merged with MMORPG. But Bridies, why would you think of merging it to WOW? GamerPro64 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the only sources I can find (i.e. those linked above) talk about it in the context of WOW. There are a couple of mentions elsewhere, but I literally mean mentions, there's very little information to be gleaned and it's not necessarily clear that they're even talking about the same thing. bridies (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Use this custom Google search (listed at WP:VG/S#List) to find this result. It's not just WoW. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

MMORPG it is then. bridies (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Twink is an old MUD and tabletop term that was later imported into MMOs as well. If you merge it to MMORPG, please make sure this is mentioned. - MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It can only be mentioned of reliable sources are provided to support such claims. bridies (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you assuming it doesn't? I'd say that's not propoer procedure to assume it doesn't, especially as I also agree and such terminology would likely be in the offline kind. I would strongly oppose any merge/redirect that did not include use in tabletop and offline video-game RPGs on that basis.陣内_Jinnai 05:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming what doesn't what? I'm not proposing to AFD anything; the policy you're looking for is WP:BURDEN. bridies (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although on reflection it could be merged to Role-playing game, which seems to cover both table top and video games. bridies (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine...and before could also be seen as applying to merges as well as many people use AfD (inappropriately, but it's none-the-less it's not enforced) for merges.陣内_Jinnai 22:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute

Unrelated to the merge discussion above. Anyone care to contribute at Talk:Twinking#Reverts? I am getting nothing but incivility and bad faith accusations. Also keep an eye on the WP:VG sources page as the other party tried to uninilateraly add the source he is citing; DaveFuchs has reverted him. bridies (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We need some help here. He is persistent in removing verifiable information and indeed, there is quite a bit of incivility on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am about to post at Witiquette alerts. Not sure if that's the best route, but certainly I'm not going to debate with or revert him any more. bridies (talk)

Discussion clarity

Content disputes, merger proposals, problematic editors, articles for deletion and edit wars are often linked to from this talk page. Editors want another pair of eyes to look over the discussion, or someone to fight the flames. This is completely legitimate, but some call it callous to discuss such matters almost behind people's backs, as they would not know of the ongoing discussion here were they not to specifically look for it. To an extent, I expect many of us agree that sometimes it appears more like a call to arms, and isn't very inviting.

We need more clarity (buzzword) to what we're discussing, and it's essential that we make people aware of our threads, so they don't feel we're working like an underground gang of editors. For this reason, I propose that we have a standardised format to link back to our discussions here, which we can implement manually or through a template. This would allow absolute clarity in such matters.

At my sandbox, I've rolled down a little example of how such links could look. They are added directly after the heading of the thread in question, and are signed and dated (preferably by the editor who first posts here, but anyone will suffice). The text can vary, but it should always contain a link to the thread on this page. The link should always be in the same place (the start or the end? Discuss formatting below) and should contain a standard caption ("WikiProject Video games"?). The message itself can be changed for clarity.

Ultimately, this allows people who join the conversation to quickly see what we've said about it here, and recognise the history behind the discussion. I feel this sort of standardised message is important to ensure people recognise what we're up to. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that linking discussions is becoming a problem. We already have a similar template (Template:VG-Discussion), however, I'm not sure how much it is actually being used. Perhaps an edit notice on our talk page to remind editors to use it or something similar and to properly link discussions would help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

That would float my boat very nicely indeed. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this for the edit notice?

"This WikiProject talk page is for discussing improvements to video game-related articles and guidelines. If you came here seeking guidance and additional point of views for general topics, content disputes, incivility, etc., please be sure to link to the relevant page(s) and discussion(s) as well as provide a link here on the relevant page(s) the discussion originated."

Feel free to copy edit and expand the text.

I believe because it is in the project namespace, an admin will have to create the notice. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Yeh, sure. Anything will do, but it would be nice to have a link to the template you suggested above. People are much more likely to do something if they can copy and paste a template than if they had to write out a link. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with edit notices, but can they include wikilinks? Linking to the discussion template would be a big help for that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Dante (Devil May Cry) could use expansion in two areas

A general shout across the board, mainly to people that hoard interviews or print sources, but the GA-article could use some added reception and development information. It originally had a large chunk of both sections torn away because they had less to do with the character and more with the series itself. And as it stands I've got my plate full enough, to be honest. x_X--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help out, but my plate is full right now too. If there's no immediacy to this, whoever ends up working on it drop me a note down the road and I'll look through my sources at home. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

PC Gamer or CGW reviews?

My request on the Reference library talk page has gone unanswered, so I thought I'd ask here, to see if anyone has what I need. The following is copied from my request:

"Does anyone have the March 1999 issue of Computer Gaming World (issue 176), or the April 1999 issue of PC Gamer US? These two issues contain reviews of Thief: The Dark Project, which is undergoing a very successful collaboration. With CGW and PC Gamer US being the most prestigious and well-known PC game review sources of the late '90s, however, it's unlikely that the article could pass FAC without them. So, if anyone has access to these reviews, it'd be great. Thanks."

I'd be enormously grateful if anyone with access to these would help me out with scans or excerpts. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My archive.org kung fu beats your archive.org kung fu. CGW - hahnchen 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a lot to learn. PCG - hahnchen 10:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I bow before your might, master. Honestly, though, that's amazing. I did try to find the PCG review through archive.org, but found nothing. But I didn't even know that CGW once had their '90s reviews online. Thanks a lot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Are preambles considered part of the title proper?

In this case, a preamble would be the name of an associated person, as in Sid Meier's Civilization, Clive Barker's Undying, or American McGee's Alice. While these preambles work for titles that would otherwise need a dab tag, I'm wondering if they should be used in non-ambiguous article names (like Undying). And, regardless of the article name, how should the preambles be treated in the lead paragraph? Is the name of the work really considered to be Clive Barker's Undying or does it merely mean "Undying, by Clive Barker"? A case where the preamble almost never appears is "John Romero's Daikatana." Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It really depends how the game is marketed by the publisher, but really, the clue is if the game actually uses the possessive in the title (I can confirm that with Alice) then that preamble is part of the game's name, though certainly redirects and dabs should be there for the non-preamble version. (see, for example, how it appears in Alice). It would not be, however, something like "Tim Schafer's Psychonauts" as that's clearly not put on the title.--MASEM (t) 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you make the determination that the game "actually uses" the possessive in the title? I'm not sure what is meant by that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well again, if the game cover is says "Some Perons's GameName" (as opposed to "GameName, by Some Person"), it's pretty clear that it's meant to be consider as part of the title. I'd still check officially literature and game sites to see how it's most often titled. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about renaming the various Civilization games quite recently and if I recall correctly the consensus was not to include the preamble, the reasoning being that the common name is "Civilization". bridies (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we said the first game (or was it the series) might be, but that uniformity with the rest of the series was also important and trumped it as it's hard to tell when a preambles is a part of a title.陣内_Jinnai 10:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcade board cleanup

See Category:Arcade system boards. While a handful of these articles have some encyclopedic information in them, most of these are stubs that read like service manuals. Are there any sources that discuss arcade boards from a general perspective? As interesting as I'm sure all this info is to arcade hobbyists, I doubt Wikipedia is the correct place to host spec sheets. Perhaps the articles could be salvaged and merged into lists of some sort. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Retro Gamer had an "Arcade Retrospective", or some similar title, segment that was specifically about arcade boards. It featured some technical info and history as well as general info about the games. Killer List of Videogames sometimes mentions hardware info on their game entries, but not a lot. I've also spotted a few things here and there in some random articles I can't recall at the moment.

So some specific ones have received coverage, but not all. I'd imagine maybe a few could make it to B-class. Some merging wouldn't hurt. Though, I'm not entirely sure how to do that in a constructive way. Maybe combine the stubs into articles or lists by company, like "Taito arcade system boards" or "List of Namco arcade system boards". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Texts copied from the Super Mario Wiki (2nd)

Sorry for not answering in this section, but I'd like to bring the issue up again since it wasn't solved: A major part of the article Good-Feel was copied from the Super Mario Wiki article of the same name. In the Mario Wiki, the article was written by me. It was copied by a user to Wikipedia without giving proper attribution. The Mario Wiki uses the GNU-FDL as its license, and there are problems to copy such materials since Wikipedia replaced the GNU-FDL with a CC license. I have no prolem with making the text available under the CC license as well if that is allowed, but only with proper attribution, which is currently not the case. How can that be done when the article was already created months ago? And then there's also the article Yakuman DS, copied from Mario Wiki without any attribution (but not written by me). --Grandy02 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They're just stubs, I really don't see why you would want the material attributed to you when it is liable to be re-written anyway. I mean, if someone copied a whole article, I would probably add something on the talk page, but for articles this small, I wouldn't bother.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is short, and I wouldn't have bothered if the author based it on the Mario Wiki article or copied only a sentence, but the problem is that everything was copied word by word starting with "The company was founded." No, I'm not narcissistic, but I just want things to meet with Wikipedia's guidelines. If someone copied around 100 words unchanged without attribution from IGN or another big name, I bet that wouldn't be tolerated. If it is alright, I'd write in the Good-Feel article under References something like "This article incorporates information from the Super Mario Wiki" (as well as in the Yakuman DS article), and case is closed. Okay? --Grandy02 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take this someplace higher up, such as one of the Village Pumps. SharkD (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Phantasy Star Zero.jpg

TJ Spyke is consistently reverting this image from the European cover art which was uploaded first by Calamity-Ace to a box art which has the "RP" rating on it. The VG guidelines even say "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." He keeps reverting anyway though, citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can someone please help out; I don't want to engage in an edit-war. The Prince (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "don't change it" rule was so we wouldn't get shit like this. Spyke's excellent reasoning for the change is - "Smaller image (and their are plenty of cases where the North American boxart was added first and some idiot replaced it with the PAL cover)" Apparently, being that idiot - is fine. Also note that the version he uploads is higher resolution, yet of lower quality. - hahnchen 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the rest of the series use? If they are all NA (or Japanese for those lacking releases), then that may be okay, but a better quality photo should be found and he should defiantly be warned. Alternatively can we find one that doesn't have any symbol on it or crop it?陣内_Jinnai 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no standard. This, and pretty much all other art disputes - especially in this case, the art is fundamentally the same, only deserves a "Shut up arguing" response. - hahnchen 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Excessive edits/reverts. Content now protected, suggest the relevant parties engage in some discussion here. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the art is pretty much the same, unlike the Dragon Quest cover we discussed a while ago. That said, I can try and upload a cropped version if that'll resolve this dispute.陣内_Jinnai 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They are the same picture. Could it be that someone cares that much for the ratings icon in the bottom left. Salavat (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the guideline should be clarified as to which one, NA or PAL, should be preferable? Otherwise people will continue assuming that a certain region is preferable, even though the guidelines state not to change it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline should just make it as clear as possible that current images should not be replaced. Criteria for new uploads should just be marked as suggestions. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy needs to be changed. The image should be the finalized artwork of the cover-work from the first English-speaking country release. If the game isn't released in an English-speaking country, it should be the artwork of the original country. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The first English language country of release in a vast majority of cases is NA. Using that as a basis would effectively end up with a rule saying "Use NA artwork for non-English language titles". Are you really saying that? - X201 (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue. Because it doesn't matter. No one cares whether a game was released in Europe 2 weeks prior to the US release. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in 10 years from now, no one will give a shit. In the fair use rationales, box art is used purely to identify the subject. There is no reasoning which suggests that one cover is any more "official" than the other. If you upload a valid English language box art, it stays. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bovineboy. Why does it matter which version was uploaded first? Our policy should require more consistency. -sesuPRIME 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It matters when the artwork itself differs such as in Dragon Quest V. In this case, it really doesn't matter. The only other time it may matter is if all the other images from the series are from a specific region. As I said before, right now our guidelines empower those who are quick to the draw as it doesn't give exemptions once an English version is uploaded. It doesn't "If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." See, the last part is simply saying completely ignore what was just said since whatever is uploaded first always trumps, according to our guideline, the previous statement. It doesn't say "don't change it without a good reason." it says "don't change it." Period.陣内_Jinnai 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't just "empower those who are quick to the draw" it also empowers the users who have uploaded art for the thousands of games that aren't big name A-list titles, all the PSN and Xbox Arcade titles that have articles but no art. It prevents their efforts being wiped out with a brief "Sold more in NA/EU/Congo" comment - X201 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, your wrong. If I upload an English boxart you diagree with according to the guideline your SOL becuase whoever uploads it first automatically wins because it says "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." In such a case I would have been the person uploading that image and could point to that line arguing it trumps all other arguments because it says clearly "don't change it."陣内_Jinnai 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, you're interpreting the guideline too strictly. Quote: "This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." We've seen a recent "common sense" exception with Dragon Quest V. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap uses the European box art because that's where it was first released in English, but the other Zeldas use the NA box for the same reason. Are you suggesting Minish Cap's box be changed to the NA version despite the fact that it was released in Europe before NA? -sesuPRIME 06:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support an NA standard, at least until Europe becomes the dominant English speaking market, lol.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It won't be too long until China or India have more English speakers than NA and EU combined. So brush up on your Sanskrit and your Simplified Chinese because those box covers are going to get pretty interesting, pretty soon. - X201 (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the European upload of The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap box art, overwriting the American one, was a mistake. Valid English language covers should not be replaced. And before people seriously start arguing about languages, it's irrelevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for native English speakers only. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the point of me bringing up language. English is rapidly becoming a global language, before long "an English language release" or "English language cover" will mean any country on the planet. Making "cover of first English language release" an irrelevance. I was just future gazing. - X201 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the Phantasy Star image - User:Calamity-Ace uploads the first English language cover. User:TJ Spyke overwrites the image with a higher resolution yet lower quality replacement with a North American "pending" label instead of the final European one - without explanation. He is reverted, citing the "don't change stuff" rule, and then reverts himself, stating:

Smaller image (and their are plenty of cases where the North American boxart was added first and some idiot replaced it with the PAL cover)

This back and forth continues between TJ and other users, with Spyke claiming "No reason to change" regardless that it was he himself which made the change originally! It is now protected. I find it extremely difficult, given that the artwork is identical, to assume good faith on Spyke's behalf given his edit summary. This wasn't about finding which box art was most suitable, as they're the same - it's about planting flags.

As an aside, I have uploaded hundreds of box arts, from different regions. What are my criteria? Whichever I think looks best - see File:Dino Crisis.jpg for a graphic example. Cover arts are there to identify the subject, and any English language cover is generally suitable. What I don't do? I don't replace covers that have been already been uploaded, because it's an unproductive waste of time, seemingly motivated by nationalism more than anything else, and I have a respect for the decisions made by other editors. - hahnchen 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For info, I have invited TJ Spyke via his talk page to participate in this discussion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems a bit silly. If nice (high res, high quality) English-language boxart is already present in an article, there's no reason to change it. If there's a better image available, regardless of region, then it should be updated. Sometimes this might be to the detriment of the aesthetics (MGS4's EU boxart is a million times nicer than the US one), but that's just the way it goes. Imposing one version as automatically superior to the other just seems silly. The PS0 boxart should never have been changed in the first place, the EU art should remain. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just reading stuff again there, I basically agree with everything hahnchen says above. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Hahnchen. bridies (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Space yamato games not be merged

Space Battleship Yamato (video game) ,Space Battleship Yamato: Iscandar e no Tsuioku and Space Battleship Yamato: Nijū Ginga no Hōkai have third person and first articles to justify not being merged and the official website always has updates relating to star blazers.

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Power Pyramid

This article needs to be kept an eye on as an anonymous user keeps re-adding advertising information and undo-ing all attempts to clean it up. I would urge an admin to lock it up for a while. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the person is edit-warring and IP-hopping at the same time. If this keeps up, then I think semi-protection may be necessary to stop the spamming/warring. MuZemike 15:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article may be more appropriate for deletion than protection, along with it's parent article Konnet Technology Inc.. They were both originally started by the same user and were just advertising speil. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series

Can I get some more comments on merging Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series to Universe of The Legend of Zelda (discussion)? The actual content has been merged, though it's currently just an ugly list that needs to be turned into a few paragraphs. TTN (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Video game sales certification

I've been digging through press releases and reports lately looking for sales information for Anarchy Online. Most of the time I'll only see a vauge statement like "it went gold". I know the RIAA uses a "gold", "platinum", etc. system to describe sales of thier member's albums (Riaa#Sales_certification), but is there a comparable system in the video game industry? I have a sneaking suspision that it's just a marketing tactic with no real numbers behind it. Sebquantic (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Going "gold" in video games has nothing to do with sales, actually. It means that the game is finished and is being sent off for production. (i.e., [5]) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha thank you, it all makes sense now.Sebquantic (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For a little more info, see Software release life cycle#RTM. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with sources at Universe of Kingdom Hearts

Hey guys, this article is under GAR (here) and the main problem is that we're looking for the original location of these interviews: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. We need to cite to the original source, not the translation. Help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Localised names in article intro

Hiya. Just wondering what the policy is on native names in the intro of games articles. Articles of games developed in Japan, eg MGS4, often contain the Japanese name after the English one, and those developed in the west, eg COD4, just contain the English name. User:Megata Sanshiro has been adding the Chinese name to games developed in China (but often the game's developed software houses of western developers/publishers, eg Ubisoft Shanghai). What's the story with games developed in a non-English speaking country (and subsequently not released in that country, or the primary release was elsewhere)? I'd assume to just keep the English name, unless the game was first released in the native language and then subsequently translated into English (as would be the case with most or all Japanese dev'd games). Thanks! Fin©™ 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it or not the English was merely a restatement of the Japanese title or a subtitle; for the former it clearly doesn't need to be in as redundant. For the latter I would say it would depend upon how it was marketed and/or reviewed.陣内_Jinnai 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcjakeqcool

Mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs) is still at it, even after his short block at the end of last month. The user has been going through various video game lists, adding brief descriptions where they don't belong (see contribs). The user was already informed about this here. Then, while looking through Special:NewPages just now, he created Microcosm (game), in which there is already a Microcosm (video game). MuZemike 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DAMN IT! I thought Gib had it taken care of after this. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The user has done nothing of that sort but has continued. I gave the user a strong warning to stop what is now starting to be disruption here. MuZemike 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, there was apparently some confusion on Microcosm above per comment made to me by him [11]. MuZemike 16:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see it was a simple misunderstanding.

<Start rant> I know this user had a rough start, but they seem to genuinely want to help the project. Let's keep an eye on them like we do for most everybody else and offer polite advice as needed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather work with these new people than against them. These are the editors that are going to take over for us when we're gone. I'm certain I'll stop editing one day for whatever reason, and I'd like to make sure there are competent editors to continue the work we've done. Just like we've picked up where past editors left off. <End rant> (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Adding categories to redirects

What is the opinion on adding a category to a redirect page, eg adding Category:2001 video games and Category: Windows games to Deer Hunter 5: Tracking Trophies. Would it be acceptable to do this or should it be steered away from? Salavat (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with placing a redirect in a category, particular a non-admin one such as the categories you IDs. USers may use that to search out games that fall into them, so it's a completely valid too. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say that it's probably not the best idea. First off, it leads to clutter with some categories (consider Category: Female video game characters with every related redirect having it listed. Secondly there's the issue of which redirect gets the category: we have many instances where one article or subject can have quite a few redirects that are all completely valid search terms for the item.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that if it's a game that is being redirected to a series, it should get a category (and only the "proper" name, i.e., the one that might get turned into an article one day). Characters, not so much. –xeno^talk 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)