WikiProject CVG Archives
List of archive topics by section	Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

{{gamecover}} now allows users to enter a category to put the cover in. While this is a good thing it is implemented in the worst possible way. Currently it is in the form of [[:Category:{{{1}}}]] that forces the user to enter the entire category, allowing it to be put anywhere, such as Category:Furniture. I would like to propose that the category mechanism be changed to [[:Category:{{{1}}} game covers]] to force the use of "game covers" into the category to help maintain organization. The reason I don't do this myself is that they must be converted first before the template is changed, so we do not misplace them. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've processed the gamecube and xbox categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have realized that before. I had followed {{Logos}} too closely. I'll change them promptly. Robert 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made the same proposal on the {{logo}} talk page as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That'll certainly teach me to read more carefully next time... Robert 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We gotta cleanup Category:PlayStation 2 game covers game covers, there is still a bunch there. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've emptied it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now to tackle the few thousand images left in Category:video game covers. I've created a bunch of subcategories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a bot to do it? Thunderbrand 20:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess is no, since I don't think bots have the ability to "look" at an image and determine what system is on the cover. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Robert 23:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible but far too much work for so little result. Unless of course someone has an advance OCR engine they've been working on. All the work that a bot could do at this point has been done. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

they are up for deletion....--Dangerous-Boy 04:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have sporadically uploaded packaging art for a number of articles over the past six months and put them in separate sections if the amount exceeds more than one (otherwise the sole cover would be placed in the infobox). But in light of the recent screenshot gallery discussion, I was wondering what the legality of these sections are? ~ Vic Vipr 12:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they are ok. I have seen a lot of articles with sections devoted to different kinds of packaging art (such as all the Resident Evil games). Thunderbrand 13:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

They're okay as in theres no one going through every article and removing the galleries.....yet. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How should I convey this in an article? Is there a wikilink to something? I am writing an article for The Adventures of Pinocchio (Game Boy) and am trying to figure out how to convey this view. For an example, here is one the screenshots I am using to show the perspective Image:PinocCastleLevel.JPG --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Isometric projection would be the correct term. Thunderbrand 17:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that should do just fine. Thanks and cheers mate! --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nintendude has brough this GCOTW up for deletion. Please vote. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently found some articles linked to various other articles related to characters and concepts in computer and video games. They consist of non-notable fanfiction and it seems the author of all the articles is the creator of the series (User:Peachspirit). Should these be speedy deleted for vanity or what?

Mario Fantasy 7

Satna Palm Beach

Materia Hut

Melody Shroom

Supernova Limit Break

Melissa the Fox

Mario Fantasy

Maple Prower

Marina Prower

~ Hibana 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed them for deletion as non-notable fan fiction. --Muchness 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the articles on the Poe Sisters, Jalhalla, and the Spirit Guide a while back. Just wanted to mention it in case it helps. I'm big on Video Game Articles, and am at work on the Rayman Revolution one as we speak...

Several CS maps have been nominated for deletion, namely de_dust, cs_siege, cs_assault, cs_italy, cs_militia, cs_office, cs_estate, de_aztec, de_inferno, de_nuke, de_cbble, as_oilrig, fy_iceworld, de_survivor, de_train, de_vertigo, cs_747, and cs_backalley. While I personally think they belong, I think this represents a chance to evaluate whether maps need their own articles. Aguerriero (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

All that effort to nominate all those articles and the Nom puts in a weak "I don't want them here" argument. *sigh*. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it's on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Goomba. Issues about the article have been raised. Would some people from this WikiProject be interested in addressing these issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.190.53.168 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 20 May 2006 .

• Update. It's now been defeatured. 172.190.156.78 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hadouken's up at AFD. I voted for keep because I think the Hadouken has entered a wider gaming consiousness than just a street fighter move. But I'm not too sure about dragon punch or hurricane kick which are also up. I personally don't think any of the articles are that great, very crufty and possibly OR, but I think as a subject matter, Hadouken is probably notable enough. - Hahnchen 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

List of piracy computer and video games has been nominated for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there enemies in the game besides crows? Can the egg get lost or destroyed? How does Billy end a level? I have never played the game, so I have no clue what the answers to those questions are. Could somebody please take a shot at providing more information to this game?

I've added a deletion watch section similar to the one we have at the Webcomics project. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I noticed we've been getting a lot of "Random article" on AfD posts here: tracking it somewhere is a better solution. jaco♫plane 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Now if I can only remember where the deletion archive project is… Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add this text to the debates listed on the deletion listing:
* <span style="font-size: smaller;">Note: This debate has been added to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Deletion|list of CVG deletions]]. ~~~~</span>
Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a proposal up to introduce categorisation into AfD itself. This would remove the burden on the Wikiproject to track all the AfDs and place it on the person submitting it for deletion. Makes sense IMO. jaco♫plane 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I played around with the colors of the portal. If anyone kan come up with a better color scheme please do so. (Colors are set on Portal:Computer and video games/box-header). jaco♫plane 20:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, larsinio... that looks horrible IMO. jaco♫plane 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Jacoplane's better myself. Far less garish. --InShaneee 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. By the way, what was wrong with the old colors? Thunderbrand 00:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing particularly wrong with them, personally I just didn't like the green very much, and I thought the page was a bit boring. jaco♫plane 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but to thell you the truth I don't really go to the page much since you can't put fair use screenshots there. Thunderbrand 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to, but I presume it gets quite a lot of hits from casual users since it's featured so prominently on the Computer and video games article. jaco♫plane 00:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, true also! Although I do like the colors as is right now. Thunderbrand 00:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No one answered this before it was archived, so, again: Why does this project no longer have its own cleanup tag? It’s an extremely specialized area of knowledge, and non-gamers are liable to delete info or AfD articles they don’t consider relevant or notable if the regular {{cleanup}} tag is used. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't even remember a cvg-cleanup tag. Thunderbrand 19:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We could incorporate an article-rating field into the {{cvgproj}} tag, as the {{Chemistry}} or 1.0 project does, using their assessment scheme, with an additional "cleanup" tag. Nifboy 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. --elias.hc 07:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a good idea. This is going to create an awful lot of new work in rating the articles, many of which would never make it into a Wikireader anyway. For rating articles, I would stick to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Essential articles. Do any other projects have their own specialised cleanups? Because I think one of the main advantages of Wikipedia Cleanup is that it gives the article a wider reach. I wouldn't be against a cvg-cleanup tag though, but I'm not sure if I'd use it that much. - Hahnchen 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

These sockpuppets are beginning to bother me. Is there anything we can do about them? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure which sockpuppets you're referring to, but if you have a suspicion who they belong to you can request a WP:RFCU. jaco♫plane 00:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

See category Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Krabs502. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't he banned? Or at least forced to use one account. In between some decent edits, he inserts reams and reams of shit vandalistic edits regarding WWE films, and ridiculous games based on medical documentaries. - Hahnchen 15:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is a known sockpuppet, but has not been blocked. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a template to cite video games. I've copied it from {{cite web}}, but it still needs a lot of work at this point.

"Sorry, but the princess is in another castle!" ^[1]

^ Nintendo (1985-10-01). Super Mario Bros. (NES). Nintendo. Level/area: \d-4.

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What all video game character infoboxes are there? The ones I know of include...

• {{CVG character}}
• {{King of Fighters character statistics}}
• {{Samurai Shodown character}}
• {{SNK fighter}}
• {{Metal Gear Character}}
• {{Resident Evil character}}
• {{FF4charbox}}
• {{FF class}}
• {{FFIV character}}
• {{FFV character}}
• {{FFVI character}}
• {{FFVII character}}
• {{FFVIII character}}
• {{FFIX character}}
• {{FFX character}}
• {{FFXII character}} (but no FFXI character infobox, thank Eris)
• {{Mortal Kombat character}}
• {{Infobox Warcraft character}}
• {{Infobox Star Control race}}}
• {{Infobox Guilty Gear character}}
• {{BoF2 char Infobox}}
• {{Infobox Street Fighter character}}
• {{Soul Character}}
• {{TOS character}}
• {{Chrono Cross character}}
• {{Chrono Trigger character}}
• {{DOA Character}}
• {{Tekken characters}}
• {{Phantasy Star character}}
• {{VF character}}
• {{Megaman character}}
• A handmade table for Ys characters
• A handmade table for Halo characters
• A handmade table for Legend of Zelda characters (doesn't seem to be too popular)
• A handmade table for Starfox characters
• A handmade table for Rage of the Dragons characters
• A handmade table for Romancing SaGa characters

Crossover (e.g. game/anime) infoboxes

• {{Infobox Galaxy Angel character}}
• {{Pokeinfobox}}
• {{Pokémoncharacterinfobox}}
• {{Infobox Digimon}}

Should there be some sort of uniform styling, or even uniform naming? Should we consolidate some of them (I could probably make a consolidated FF infobox that can cover all games, using #if). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely think that some uniformity in this area would be a good thing. Having tons of seperate userboxes is just confusing, and it also forces someone who wants to use userboxes for a new series to design a whole new userbox. jaco♫plane 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We should have just one infobox for all the characters. Thunderbrand 04:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am mildly opposed to the idea (and character infoboxes in general). Once you get past name, image, first appearance, and creator, many of the remaining fields either consist of a complete lack of information (Mario) or random statistics the creators put in the manuals for flavor. The article on Ryu lists hitchhiking as a "special skill". The hell? Nifboy 05:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for ditching the trivia-laden infoboxes for a simpler template, with a name, image, first appearance, creator, and voice/motion actor fields, but doing that is going to take more than me being bold, since I'm going to be going against every single fanboy (who inevitably wants their favorite character's favorite food in the article) ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

Well, who will bell the cat? There's going to be a lot of fighting over eliminating "Favorite food" and "Official Amano artwork" and "Battle sprite" from a lot of these templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that is probably true. I dunno, we should wait for more input. Thunderbrand 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we've been discussing this on Template talk:King of Fighters character statistics. I personally seem to think the current design to be cookie-cutter and the CVG box overused. -Zero^Talk 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The basic argument seems to be essentially over this design and this design. Both include the same syntaxes, only different designs. For article implementations, see here and here. I really don't have a problem with elimating some of these irrelevant data sections as well. -Zero^Talk 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like {{CVG character}} was created a while back, then abandoned. Let's see if I can't whip it into a decent standard infobox to replace most of the above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Test of a unified template

Template:CVG character So, how is this for a unified userbox for every single videogame character ever? Except for the Pokémon userboxes above (which I've similarly trimmed down, but I need to include concessions to their major anime/manga roles or else WP:PCP will lynch me), I don't see why this couldn't replace pretty much all of the game character infoboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, while I'm thinking of it, are there any generically useful fields that could be added? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, a snazzy feature: the little parentheticals specifying "English" and "Japanese" don't appear unless you use both fields. Neat, huh? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very neat ;) ;;jaco♫plane 07:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As cool as the unified template looks, just flicking through the previous templates makes me think it wouldn't work. Different game series care about different things, some fighting games care about style and their physical dimensions, whereas RPGs care about skills and classes. The only way a unified template would work is if it included almost every possible field, and I think it would be confusing to use. - Hahnchen 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anything that is in the infobox that isn't referred to in the body probably shouldn't be in the infobox, and most of these RPG trivial stats and all of the fighting game trivia is never again mentioned in the body of the articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that, I think the infobox can be used to mention quick short facts which do not have to be covered in the main body. I don't care for the game trivia in some of the infoboxes, no, but it's going to be nigh on impossible to convince some editors that a street fighter's height isn't important. And that's why I do not think a short universal infobox would ever fly. - Hahnchen 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right in the case of the ESRB ratings and DOB/death for real people. *sigh* I just hate seeing all these ugly templates, laden with trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough, what with the unified template

So, uh, how about some uniform styling or uniform names for all these templates? Right now, the names are unpredictable and the appearance varies from template to template. Any ideas? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unified template, attempt two

Solid Snake
Metal Gear series character
This isn't a picture of Snake, but I wanted an actual test image.
First game	Metal Gear
Created by	Hideo Kojima

Well, how about a unified template, then? This is an adaptation of {{CVG character}} above, but with the game-specific box converted into a subtemplate that meshes with the larger template.

This way, the boxes have a uniform appearance and always provide some basic, important info, but allow for game-specific fields.

Any thoughts? Any objections to me going ahead and adapting the above boxes into sub-boxes for this general-use-but-expandable template? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the inclusion of a standard template, but its too much to ask to make this a standard on the already exsisting ones (The CVG template design also shouldn't be used, these aren't boxes or screenshots, they're elaborated character articles).That said, I have created Template:Samurai Shodown character as the standard norm for the SNK character articles (Samurai Shodown, Buriki One, The Last Blade and The King of Fighters). Its already widespread used across a large majority of these articles and I have implemented it accordingly. Since there's a clear concensus that a standard template not be implemented as of yet, I'll request that my recent changes across the King of Fighters articles not be reverted; if a concensus has arisen that I acted in error, I'll revert myself. -Zero^Talk 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it asking too much to standardize the infoboxes? If new articles are going to use the infobox, why shouldn't older ones? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We're not in the business of deciding which templates might annoy us and which might not. We're in the business of deciding which images are informative and what was the previous concensus, which is valid in this case. The users here can decide on the other question and use their judgement accordingly. -Zero^Talk 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I also note that User:A Man In Black had taken to reverting similar changes I had made awhile back with rollback as if it were simple vandalism. Its not, and had it occur again we'll take it up on WP:AN/I as appropriate.

You replaced YET ANOTHER fork of the KOF infobox, without comment on the talk page. I don't think that's an inappropriate use of rollback. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Until a clear and agreeable template is agreed upon and action is taken to implement on a mass scale, inserting it as such into any articles is not yet appropriate. -Zero^Talk 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, so until the template is put into all of the articles ("action is taken to implement on a mass scale"), it shouldn't be put into any articles? I was going to do the heavy lifting on converting infoboxes over to the general box with a sub-box anyway; it won't take a lot of work, just a quick rework and some substing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, a feature of this box I didn't mention: it can include multiple sub-boxes, for characters who appear in very different series. (For example, you could include both the Tekken and Soul Caliber sub-boxes in Heihachi's article.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All valid points. I just wish to stay consistent. Let's wait and see what the third opinons say. If the concensus is to use the standard infobox, I most certainly will revert myself. And I like the fact the standard infobox can operate on variable info bars, I just find the design appalling.-Zero^Talk 20:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you find appalling about it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you have to ask. I find it appalling that you consider the character articles as flat, dull and as uniform as the video game articles and that it must be used on three different categories of articles. I'm appalled you find it necessary to slap clean-up tags on articles more than germans hand out flyers for Oktoberfest and not lifitng a finger to fix them yourself. I'm appalled that you think the wikpedia is the place for these antics. And I find it appalling you insert replies in between statements on talkpages, which makes it very difficult to follow conversation and sometimes rendered the nearby text unreadable.

In the meantime, I'm logging off to attend a meeting and I'll check back in a few hours (should probably get some sleep as well). I spammed the talkpages of some members, so third opinions should come in soon. We'll see how it goes. And, please can you clean up articles more in the future rather than assuming others will..? I spend most of my time these days fixing whatever article you've tagged and I'm aware you're knowledgeable enough to do it.-Zero^Talk 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a unified appearance class for infoboxes so everyone can customize all of the infoboxes in their personal style sheet, just like we have functionality to allow people to customize the way dates appear for themselves. If you think the unified appearance is awful, then either change your style sheet or get the infobox appearance class changed, instead of fighting over every single instance.

I don't see what the use of the cleanup tag has to do with anything, and I don't particularly feel the need to defend my use of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see a valid reason on why you changed zero's previous infoboxes. They were all wikicoded and worked find. Your boxes are just plain ugly and they aren't easy for the eyes to look at.--Dangerous-Boy 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the time, I was remerging them because he changed parameter names gratuitously (such as from "image" to "image1", breaking articles with no increase in functionality) often reinserting misspelling or caps problems that impede functionality, because he reverted/forked without discussion (we're up to the fourth fork now), or because he reverted back in a problem that took a lot of work to fix (such as replacing hiddenStructure with #if.)

I've used rollback on infobox changes that restored typos, bad grammar, or other such problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism, it's normal editing. The template was disputed, and apparently not accepted, especially on a large scale. If someone thinks they should go back I'll be glad to replace them.

Currently, the concensus is that their use has not been accpeted in the community. Until then, this template should definitely not be used.-Zero^Talk 04:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus supporting your template, yet you have no problem reverting my changes. It seems you want the status quo, as long as the status quo is your way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm developing a fresh one here. I'm not worrying about the style at the moment, I want to figure out what fields are needed.

{{infobox video game character
| name = 
| image = 
| caption = 
| creator = 
| owner = 
| voice actor = 
| motion actors = 
| rst appearance = 
| series = 
}}

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have no idea what the problem is with the MiB's unified template design. It echoes the Game infobox, and now there's a "In-Universe" section, you're not going to lose any of the previous detail that was in before, like favourite shoe or whatever. However, the fields after the In-Universe line would be entirely user-created right? Wouldn't that make it a bit harder for someone say creating an article for a new character in an established series? Whereas before they could just use the Elder Scrolls character template or whatever, they'd have to use the unified one, and then find out what in-universe information it needs. I'm not sure why Cyberskull is coming up with another unified template though, what's wrong with MiB's? Whereas I would appreciate the consistency offered by a unified infobox, I'm not sure if it's worth all the effort. However, I'm sure most benefits from it would occur in the future, when people want more character infoboxes. - Hahnchen 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the uniform template should only cover a series or a franchise. Can't use the same stats for final fantasy characters like you can on Tekken characters.--Dangerous-Boy 07:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC

I paticularly like Cyberskull's design for new character articles. Its neat and fairly unique to the source material. Per Dangerous-Boy's asute comment, I also think that when creating boxes for intertwined franchises, one box should used. All the FF boxes should be merged into one and used like Template:SNK character, which is implemented in the The King of Fighters, Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting, Samurai Shodown, The Last Blade and Buriki One character articles, creating a "franchise template". That would be appropriate when making character articles for the same company, unless the data fields are drastically different. I'm planning to implement the Street Fighter template into the Darkstalkers articles, for example.-Zero^Talk 11:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You could probably implement a capcom fighter's template for SF, darkstalkers, rival schools, Saturday Night Slam Masters, and final fight characters. Also, maybe merge the soul series and tekken into a namco fighter's template or use it for all namco characters.--Dangerous-Boy 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The template I made uses a supertemplate, {{General CVG character}}, then a sub-template that fits inside the box created by that template. If you look above, the Solid Snake example uses both the superbox ({{General CVG character}}) and the subbox ({{Metal Gear character}}). That way, you can make your own series-specific in-universe stat section, but still use the standard appearance and include the standard info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, since this is getting tangled...

As for using a subtemplate for in universe stuff, that is fine with me. The reason I did mine the way I did is because regional parameters are a bad idea. We can always put more than one actor in the field if need be, the same way we do with release dates. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Style argument

Please argue about the CVG infobox styling (e.g. {{SNK fighter}} vs. variable color / borderless (e.g. {{SNK character}}) here.

Obviously, I prefer the former, since it allows for a unified appearance which can be customized by each user in that user's personal stylesheet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unified vs. standalone vs. hybrid templates

What I was trying to do with {{General CVG character}} is make a template that always includes the basic real-world information about the character (image, name, creator, etc.) but also allows for a section for in-universe information. The way it includes the in-universe information is by using a series-specific sub-template, which meshes into the box.

Here's how it works:

{General CVG character
|name=Solid Snake
|image=Image:IIH.png|250px
|caption=This isn't a picture of Snake, but I wanted an actual test image.
|firstgame=Metal Gear
|series=Metal Gear series
|creator=Hideo Kojima
|artist=Some guy
|voiceactor=David Hayter
|japanactor=Akio Otsuka
|motionactor=Mizuho Yoshida
|inuniverse={Metal Gear character
|realname=David
|aliases=Iroquois Pliskin, Old Snake
|nationality=U.S.A.
|affiliations=Green Berets (during Gulf War), FOXHOUND (1995, 1999), CIA (exact time unknown), Philanthropy (2005-current)
}
}

The blue text is the supertemplate, which covers the real-world info. The rest text is a sub-template that fits into the box created by the supertemplate, filling in any in-universe info. If necessary, multiple sub-templates could be used (say, a Earthbound series box and a SSB series box for Ness).

Does this make sense? Does anyone have any objections to me implementing this once we settle on a unified style? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would like, I'm prepared to go ahead and implement this in an article or two, for demonstration's sake. I've already got a page ready to convert all of the Metal Gear articles just by adding "subst:" to the beginning of the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neat. I approve. Nifboy 04:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't you make easier on the eyes. the appearance is just plain ugly.--Dangerous-Boy 19:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some input as to how to deal with the bajillions of characters linked to off of 108 Stars of Destiny. I've been redirecting some of the more minor dead-end articles back there (from Rina (Suikoden): Suikoden II: Rina is the sister of Eilie and Bolgan. The Trio are a travelling circus, and Rina is seen as the "seductive" sister). However, I was reverted with the mysterious comments "Don't mislead people into thinking it's done" and "Counter-productive". Quite frankly, I'd be fine if we didn't have any info at all on these exceedingly minor characters, and we certainly don't need articles on every last one of them. Nifboy 20:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Rework 108 Stars of Destiny into a List of Pokémon characters-esque list of minor characters, and redirect all of these there? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

At least most of them are redlinks, but it gets complicated as some characters appear in multiple games (and thus might have a backstory?) whereas others don't. I have never played any of the Suikoden games, I didn't even know it was based on the Chinese classic Water Margin until I read that. But I think they'd be better off merged by game, with maybe recurring characters or main characters having their own article. They can't seriously have strong detailed backstories for 108 protaganists per game can they? - Hahnchen 01:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created a javascript-based CVG Infobox generator. Its purpose is to speed up the time making new infoboxes, and to re-use information entered for the article's categories and stub categories. Errors on my part notwithstanding, this should help us with the unexciting process of adding infoboxes and finding just the right wikilinks and categories to an article. For the ultra-lazy, there's even an "Add Article introduction" option which will do just that, based on given information.

By no means am I a javascript expert and I'm sure my code could use much optimization, but for the most part it seems to work quite well. Anyone who wishes to edit it and improve it is more than welcome to (just share with the rest of us, please). Any bugs found or suggestions for improvements can also be put on my talk page. I promise nothing, but will do my best to implement any changes or fixes.

Usage of the generator is pretty much self-explanatory, though a link to a help text is available at the top. Note that while some sections require you to just type in or select one option, others have their own textarea with (temporary) output. These can also be typed in without any selected option.

If this generator gains enough approval, I'd like to suggest it be linked to the infobox template page. If not, that's fine, I'll add a link to my user page or something. Anyone else who would like to host the page is also more than welcome to. The page purposefully uses no external documents, so if you would like to save it to your own computer, the one page is all you need. I hereby present to you, version 1.0 of the CVG Infobox Maker. Enjoy! --ADeveria 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome, good work :) jaco♫plane 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Shiiiny... I dig it. Nifboy 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Nice work. Thunderbrand 02:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

180px? Meant to be just-about-any-value or a guideline I don't know about? (great work of course) --elias.hc 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Things needed:

• CERO
• Mac OS X

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! The page has now been updated with improved PC platforms (see the first three platform links and the first two options in the drop-down list) and I've added the CERO rating. As for 180px...I forgot where that came from, probably some sample page. If a different default is appropriate, I'll gladly change it. :) --ADeveria 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Version 1.02 is now out with quite a few more improvements, for the changelog view the page's source (at the top). Enjoy! --ADeveria 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to use the flagicon template. See MvC1 for an example. --elias.hc 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about that templete. Will implement it on next edit, thanks. --ADeveria 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if this category and article is sanctioned by WP:CVG? It seems a bit vague and open for POV. Comments? ~ Vic Vipr 14:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how there's any relation between poor sales and potential for cult, as the article claims. Both the article and the category lack a basis the way I see it. --elias.hc 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty poor POV article. But looking at the "cult xxx" articles, they all seem kind of similar (although slightly better). You can describe anything as a cult can't you? Look at the list of cult television, so I'm not sure how we're meant to classify things. Are cult games just games that didn't sell all that well but were critically acclaimed? If so, then Killer7 shouldn't be there, because no one liked it. I'm not sure how Hitman: Codename 47 is cult at all. Surely, the entire emulation scene and thus all arcade games could be identified as cult games. So in conclusion, I'm not a fan of the category but I don't think there's anything you can really do about it. You'll probably end up in edit wars over what's cult and what's not. - Hahnchen 15:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've just signed up for this project, so hi.

Secondly, a question: Is there considered to be "standard" format for an article on a video game character, at present? The articles I've seen so far are fairly diverse -- Mega Man for example, lists the character's history first, whereas Proto Man lists a chronology of appearances before even touching on the character within his fictional universe (except in the introduction). Mario has development-related info spread out thoughtout various sections relating to appearance, personaility, etc; Link is featured, but doesn't have much on his real-world history, apart from documenting the differences between his various incarnations. Is there any recommended template on this stuff, or for that matter, should there be? I might be wrong, but it seems like if this project discussed, voted on, and came up with a sort of suggested template, it would be a godsend. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of the character articles do not follow a specific order of info. I think that is one of the things we need to work on. Articles on games have a specific order, but not every game uses this. I think that is more of a guideline than official policy. Thunderbrand 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The information that exists in the article determines its organization. I think that's the mose common-sense answer I can give you. If Protoman doesn't have much of a history section it's because he doesn't have much of a history (or nobody has written about it in a way that matches up with the games). Nifboy 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I assume this would have to be a guideline rather than a policy, as not every character would have all information available. But I think it would be worth working on for the articles that could use it. This project seems like the right place to discuss it. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I would rather have a diverse range of article formats, if they all work. Me, I would rather make sure I have all the information I want, and then organize it into a cohesive structure. And that's going to be different for every article. You can't write the Protoman article like the Mega Man article, because Protoman and Megaman are two different things with vastly different sets of available information. Nifboy 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if a diverse range of formats all work, that's a good thing. Unfortuately, a ton of articles on game characters that don't seem to have structures that work at all. I can't see the harm in suggesting a format for anyone who wants to use it, based on the types of information that are generally, if not always, available for a game character. Wikiproject:Film, Wikiproject:Television, and many others have something similar. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 03:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mariocomparison9.jpg is a compilation of three images of Mario throughout the SSB series. It was originally licensed under GDFL, which got removed. Question: Would this be fair use promo art or fair use cvg image? Also, can the creator of the compilation take any credit at all - can he or she, for instance, release his changes - the text and layout - to the GFDL? See Image:Samuscomparison2.jpg and Image:Linkcomparison6sa.jpg for other such images. I think these are really great images that need to be kept. Hbdragon88 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would tag it with {{Fairusein}} and explain in the description. As I understand it, you can tag the "original work" (text and layout) as GFDL, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of its contents (hence, the image as a whole) are copyright Nintendo and, hence, fair-use. Image:Sonics.PNG is an older example. Nifboy 06:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

From Fair use:

"The first factor questions whether the use under consideration helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of, say, personal profit. In order to justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, opposed to as merely derivative. When Tom Forsythe appropriated Barbie dolls for his photography project "Food Chain Barbie", Mattel lost its claims of copyright and trademark infringement against him because his work effectively parodies Barbie and the values she represents (cf. the 2003 9th Circuit case Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions). However, when Jeff Koons tried to justify his appropriation of Art Rogers' photograph "Puppies" in his sculpture "String of Puppies" with the same 'parody' defense, he lost because his work was not presented as a parody of Rogers' photograph in particular, but of society at large, which was deemed insufficiently justificatory (see Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons, 960 F.2d 301). Thus, even if a secondary work proves transformative, it must be appropriately so."

It seems to me that these images are really just derivative works and not transformative. Therefore I'm not sure we can claim them as fair use. jaco♫plane 06:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the compilation image is no different than putting the three images into one article, and claiming fair use on all three images. Yes, you have a weaker case with three images as opposed to one, but the compilation thereof itself serves an informative purpose that compensates. The Sonics image above replaced two separate sonic images on that article, since we couldn't agree which should go at the top. Nifboy 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that compilations/collages can only be made using free licensed images that allow modification or images in the public domain. No fairuse. K1Bond007 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion on Talk:Cooperative gameplay that could probably use more input from the Wikiproject. The cooperative gameplay article currently contains a list of games that support this kind of gameplay. There is a suggestion to remove the list and creating a category for all games that have a co-op mode (Something like "Category:Computer and video games supporting cooperative gameplay"). I don't think that we have any categories like this yet, at least browsing through Category:Computer and video games I couldn't find any. If we do this then presumably we would want to create other similar categories too. Is this a good idea, or are we pushing the categorization scheme too far here? Input most appreciated. jaco♫plane 07:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So long as we don't make "Category:Single-player computer and video games". Nifboy 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For this one instance, I don't think it's so bad. I don't really want to see frivolous categories based on gameplay though (e.g., Category:Computer and video games where the player cannot jump) :D, you know? Even ones like "single player only games" or "multiplayer only games" etc seem rather frivolous. I must say that the category title is quite long though - but that's a different subject altogether. K1Bond007 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I added Europa (warcraft) to the list of CVG games up for deletion, but I also wanted to add a note here that it is unfortunate that the treatment of this editor in AfD will probably cause him to leave Wikipedia. While I think the article should stay, it almost certainly will be deleted; that is not really the point though. User:ShadowZach is a new user, and unfortunately his first encounter with the Wikipedia community was people using AfD jargon and generally biting him. Granted, he didn't seem to thoroughly read the guidelines for new articles, but I feel that these people should be invited in for a hot cup of coffee, not have the door slammed on their knuckles. I hope he decides to stick with it and check out our project, because I think he could become a good editor of CVG articles. Aguerriero (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Kittybrewster 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AFD is probably the worst place to get be introduced with as a beginner. AFD people tend not to be very nice due to the sheer number of articles that are nominated and the number of fancruft and nonnotable artilces they get. Hbdragon88 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the word "The" from all the console/handheld articles that start with it. It just sounds wrong, and having it's say "PlayStation 3 is blablabla..." looks better if you ask me. Place either '''With "the"''' ~~~~ or '''Without "the"''' ~~~~ in the vote field below, thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the layout of the voting area so it's a bit more readable. Just put your signature under the appropriate section. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: For more discussions about this subject, please read what has been said on the Wii article. Havok (T/C/c) 22:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Without "the"

• Havok (T/C/c) 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• RadioKirk talk to me 23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
• Ifrit 08:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

With "the"

• elias.hc 15:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Muchness 23:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Aguerriero (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• jgp 02:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• --Zxcvbnm 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unknown?

• larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADeveria 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Kittybrewster 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rōnin 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is a trivial matter - Hahnchen 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever. Optichan 17:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

With "the" only if used with replacing word, e.g. "the console", otherwise without

• Shandris 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is ridiculous. -Zero^Talk 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Was it wise to make such a change without discussing it beforehand? You made essentially a grammatically incorrect edit to how many articles? Unless a direct object is a person, you always precede it with an article such as "a" or "the". You wouldn't say, "Please hand me PlayStation 3." You would say, "Please hand me the PlayStation 3." or "Please hand me a PlayStation 3." Aguerriero (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not grammatically incorrect, you can use which ever you feel like. And ofcourse you don't say "Hand me PlayStation 3", but this is not a conversation or a request, it's the beginning of an article. So, writing "The PlayStation 3 is Sony's..." is just as correct as "PlayStation 3 is Sony's...". It has been discussed before, and yes I did wrong in not starting this poll before I changed it, and I have allready said I am sorry for that fact. I have also stated that I will change it to whatever consensus comes down to. Havok (T/C/c) 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is grammatically incorrect, but it's common speech, so it sounds correct. Technically, if you said, "hand me the PlayStation3", the other person would be correct to ask, "the PlayStation3 what?" ;) RadioKirk talk to me 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused; are you saying it's correct to include the article or exclude it? At any rate, you are wrong. Read any book on grammar. In fact, read article (grammar). Words like "the" are used to modify nouns, as in "the PlayStation". In your example, you are suggesting that placing "the" in the sentence "hand me the PlayStation3" is effectively turning the word "PlayStation3" into an adjective, which is absurd. If someone said to you, "I'm going to wash the car." would you be inclined to say "You're going to wash the car what?" No. Well, not if you understand English grammar. Aguerriero (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read many books on grammar over my 40-plus years on this rock; what you seem to be doing is transposing a noun onto a title. "PlayStation3" is a title; "the PlayStation3 console" is a noun phrase. For instance, "the Captain Jack Sparrow" would be incorrect, while "the captain" is proper because it references the person (implying, in full, "the captain of the ship") rather than his title. RadioKirk talk to me 00:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That might be so, but in the context we are discussing here it isn't incorrect grammer. You can use the "The" or not. And you are basically saying that Nintendo are ignoring grammer when they speak of Wii? Check their website, they never use "The Wii" except when refeering to "The Wii remote" or "The Wii controller". I never stated this was about propper grammer, that has been brought up by everyone else. This is about the fact that not putting in "The" - in my opinion - looks better. That is the only reason for this vote, nothing more. Havok (T/C/c) 00:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument is more correctly titular than grammatical. Again, if the title does not include "the", then we don't include "the"—simple as that. Only when you venture out of the titular and into noun phrases, as within your examples from Nintendo's website ("the Wii controller") is "the" proper. RadioKirk talk to me 00:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Was this discussed here previously? I seem to have missed it. Straw polls such as this should only be initiated after reaching consensus through normal talk page discussion has failed. jaco♫plane 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that there should have been discussion first. Thunderbrand 19:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering the last consensus was apparently reached on the Wii article(?), I thought it would be ok to add a poll here where we can all discuss it. Havok (T/C/c) 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Read my reply two up. Havok (T/C/c) 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Simply put, if you look at the nameplate on the unit and "the" isn't there, then it doesn't belong there. When referring to a non-tilular noun (e.g., "the PlayStation console" or "The Wii controller") in such a case, only then is "the" grammatically appropriate—or correct. RadioKirk talk to me 23:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This all really just applies to the given situation. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And last I checked it was this situation we where discussing. Not if it was grammatically correct or not in any regard. As ridiculous and trivial as it might be, it is still a decision which must be taken. Havok (T/C/c) 08:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)