Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

WikiProject Video games
Main page talk
Archives Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175
Guidelines Manual of Style talk Article naming talk Sources talk Search engine Templates Wikidata Guide
Departments Assessment Reference library talk Newsletter talk Current issue Draft
Articles Article alerts Deletion discussions Essential articles New articles Popular pages Vital articles Recognized content Good content Featured content Requested articles
Task forces Esports talk Indie Nintendo talk Sega talk Video game characters talk Visual novels talk WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk List of active editors
Project watchlist view talk edit changes

So, according to User:Frecklefoot use of arcade flyers in infoboxes is forbidden and we should use screenshots instead. Is that the consensus here? --Mika1h (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade flyers? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See for example: Bubbles, Phoenix, Street Fighter II, Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection. --Mika1h (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thought it might be, just wanted to make sure. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a discussion on this in the last few months? I seem to recall it coming down on the side of the flyers/posters, though I might be mistaken. -- Sabre (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before. Flyers, cabinets isolated from flyers, and screenshots are all considered copyrighted and unusable as far as I can tell. I'm acutally talking to the owner of KLOV to see about getting permission for this project to duplicate the non-copyrighted photos of cabinets he has. I also want to see about possibly starting some kind of subproject here specifically for obtaining personally taken photos of cabinets and such for use on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it any different than a movie poster though?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I'm just reporting previous discussions and possible solutions. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I understand. I think we had a lengthy discussion here too on the matter that should be in the archives, and I think Sabre's recalling the same one because I was sure it ended in favor of them.

It's a strange setup too when you consider that the flyers are, effectively, the box art for the games, and for console-based games there isn't any such qualm regarding using box art. So according to the sum logic of that and what was used in the AfD, a screenshot would be better than the arcade flyer but a scan of the console box, even if it's more or less the same image in some cases, is better than a screenshot? That's what the AfD and current standing seems to suggest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two main archived discussions I could find. Here's a very early one from August 06, and the more recent one from August 09 everyone is remembering. After reading them, it doesn't really feel like a true consensus was ever reached. The discussions just kind of fizzled out despite some very valid points being brought up for and against. Shall we try to reach a definite consensus this time? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

When you have an arcade game that has had ports made to home systems then we use box art in the infobox (if I am correct), so are we only really talking about arcade games that havenever been released on home systems? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not the case for at least two articles. Street Fighter 2 has been released on several home consoles and Tekken 5 was released on the PSP.--70.24.180.120 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Street Fighter II released over XBLM? If it was, then it has no boxart in that form. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter II was released on consoles like the Mega Drive and SNES, for which there will be box art. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate seems to fizzling out again. How about if a game has only ever been released in arcades than a screenshot of the title screen gets used in the infobox? To a lot of people it may be more recognisable than an image of the cabinet or a flyer. As this would be being used for a purpose different to an in game screenshot would fair-use rationale pass for two screenshots in the article in these instances? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to jump start discussion- I think an issue to take into account is that many arcade game articles are written with the arcade version as the primary focus and home ports as derivatives. Putting in a home console box art does not sound like a good identifying image. This approach, however, would probably be suitable for an arcade game that is more well known for its home version.

Aside from that, I think arcade images should be sought after this order of importance

1. Arcade cabinet- the artwork and cabinet are easily recognizable physical objects.
2. Arcade flyer- flyers typically display one or more type of cabinet and identifying artwork for the characters or in-game objects.
3. Gameplay image- only identifiable if up close to a cabinet. But is typically desired for the article anyway. And with the internet and MAME so readily available, this is probably becoming an easily identifiable aspect.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm of the opinion that a screenshot of title screen should be used if a picture of the cabinet is not available. This should be more recognisable than a flyer to all but the most knowledgeable arcade goer, plus it will also cover arcade games that have been given conversions to home systems if box art is not suitable for these articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we use to do something like that before, but moved away from it once we tightened the application of WP:NFCC. If we can come up with a strong fair use rationale, then I guess we could go back to it. I'm still in favor of flyers over title screens though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not too hot on the legalities of non-free fair-use rationales, so if there is somebody in the project who is then feel free to step in at this point. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I favour the use of the arcade flyer as the primary image. It's most analogous to the box art used in other video game articles, and conveys more information on the theme and setting than the alternatives. - hahnchen 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a flyer to a screenshot, as well. SharkD  Talk  05:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill third that. Salavat (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concensus at the moment looks like the order of preference should be;

1. Picture of cabinet
2. Flyer
3. Screenshot

I still like the idea of the title screen but appreciate that it may be difficult to pass more than one screenshot in a article under fair-use, and a gameplay screenshot should really appear somewhere in the article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I favour the flyer over a cabinet image. The problem with cabinet images, is that a lot of them look exactly the same, and is usually pictured at an angle - which at low resolutions means you can't pick out any of the details. I think cabinet images are important, especially for unique cabinets, say Prop Cycle, but in many other cases - they're not. - hahnchen 16:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cabinet images I've seen here are decent quality and resolution. Either way, the limited availability of the cabinet images will probably amount to the more readily available flyers being used more often anyway. But it makes sense that some flyers would be better than a cabinet image. The Bubbles flyer for example shows the upright and cocktail versions, which I think is better than a single cabinet image. But something like The Simpsons flyer doesn't even show one of the game's distinguishing features. In this case, a cabinet image would be better because it would show the four player controls. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just to throw another spanner in the works, I have just re-read the debate on this issue from August 2009 and another suggestion is to use the game's logo in the infobox. This is the logo found on the arcade cabinet itself, or more than likely on the flyer. An arguement was made that the flyer could possibly overwhelm a non-gaming reader with the amount of information they sometimes contain. I think this could possibly be a good idea, and would be a work around for the issue with cabinet images mentioned above. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some flyers are especially loud, but I think most are mild enough not to overwhelm readers. The issue with the logo is similar to a title screen. Cabinets show the physical design of the object and display artwork. Flyers typically show the cabinet(s) and promotional artwork for the game. Basically, the more the image offers, the stronger the fair use rationale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And to add to the mix. Arcade flyers are specifically promotional documents. They are created for distribution within the buyer/seller community at tradeshows, or to trade press via press release kits or individual notice mailings. As long as they are shown intact with no modifications, I'm hard pressed to see how they wouldn't fall under fair use within an encyclopedic presentation. But they are advertisements and many of them contain hyperbole and sensationalized content. If we were going to include Arcade flyers, I would almost have to think that we would have to include them in the base template for all Arcade games. BcRIPster (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that a lot of arcade machines are still available to purchase, most of the modern ones anyway, would inclusion of a flyer in these instances violate WP:NOTADVERTISING? I'm guessing probably not but thought I'd throw it in to garner opinion. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think using them constitutes advertising. But I don't think we should use them. I am definitely in the camp of not using flyers. I grew up in arcades of the '80s, and no flyers ever come to mind when thinking of arcade games. I can't even recognize most. My vote: screenshots of gameplay should be the infobox image. Photos of the cabinet are illustrative and can be used in the body of the article, especially if the cabinet is unique or innovative in some manner. But arcade flyers have no place in the article at all, IMHO. They just aren't part of the subject matter. Do we show ads for IBM personal computers or Bounce cling-free sheets? They're just ads. And rarely-seen ads at that. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the project banner box template, {{WikiProject Video games}}, on an article's talk page we ask for both "box art or logo" and a "screenshot" to illustrate the article. I appreciate that box art is impossible for an arcade only game, so in this instance I would be tempted to place a logo in the infobox, and a gameplay screenshot somewhere else in the article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

It looks like we're still split on the issue. Here's a summary so far to push the discussion forward.

• Cabinet images
  • Pro: easily recognizable physical object
  • Con: can be very generic
• Ad flyers
  • Pro: typically include a cabinet image(s) and artwork of in-game elements
  • Con: the flyer itself is typically not discussed in the article
• Gameplay screenshot
  • Pro: recognizable picture that the article needs anyway
  • Con: is not always the best way for a layman to identify
• Logo
  • Pro: prevalent piece of artwork that found on the title screen, cabinet, and flyers
  • Con: provides the least amount of information of all the options.
• Port's box art
  • Pro: recognizable artwork that is easier to come across
  • Con: typically not the version discussed or only briefly mentioned in the article.

Sound about right? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think that pretty well sums up the debate so far, I think perhaps now we've identified the major options we need to discuss an order of preference for these images, and hopefully grind out a concensus. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The order of preference with reasoning for me would be thus,

• Box art of port - obviously only when there has been at least one ported version, this will be easily recognisable, with many gamers and other people perhaps not knowing that certain games originated in the arcade. This is an image that people may have seen in shops even if they have no particular interest in games. It is usually quite easy to get hold of this kind of image.
• Logo - another easily identifiable piece of artwork that is shown on both the arcade machine, on a ported version's box art (usually) and, in games post 1990 at least, in game. Again, it is quite easy to find this image.
• Flyer - can provide a lot of information e.g. cabinet art, game theme and other information, however they are not generally discussed in the article and have not been seen by many people, leading to identification problems.
• Cabinet - arcade goers may recognise the machine but not many home gamers would, especially in regions where video arcades are not prevalent. I favour an image of the cabinet in the bulk of the article if there has been some critical mention of it.
• Gameplay screenshot - only recognisable to the select few who have actually played the game, and even then many games can look very similar, especially in the case of 2D shooters and the like. Again, gameplay should be discussed in the bulk of the article so an image would be more relevent there.

AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only input is the generic stand-up cabinet should not be preferred, because it's the most difficult to identify from the thumbnail. Unusual controls or cabinet, okay. Nifboy (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nifboy- What would you recommend instead of a generic cabinet image? Another image or leave the infobox blank? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Any of the other four options: no universal preference as to which. For instance Pac-Man is fine with a screenshot (easily the most identifiable), and Street Fighter IV is fine with its box art, etc. Nifboy (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with using cabinet images is that very few arcade games outside the early-to-mid 80s were released with dedicated cabinets, but as conversion kits with easily changeable marquees, bezels, control panels, and side artwork. Also, American arcade game cabinets are very different from what is sold in other regions like Europe, Asia, and Japan. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over things, it sounds like the common ground we've reached about arcade cabinets is that they should be only be used in the infobox if it had a distinguishing feature: three to four player controls, unique shape, and uncommon control-scheme. That being said, is sounds like everyone believes arcade cabinets should not be the first choice. Sound right? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think that having those things should automatically mean the image of the cabinet goes in the infobox, just that it should go in the article somewhere, possibly in a development section if it is discussed. It should only go in the infobox if an image higher up the preference scale is unobtainable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, speaking from a non-free image issue, it appears to be identified that a free picture of an arcade cabinet should be possible (albeit difficult to get - may require trolling old game warehouses), and that this is preferred over any non-free image of the cabinet, but even more so, as we are suggesting in this thread, it is also considered a replacement for a logo, screenshot, or the like (all which are non-free). As long as a picture of a cabinet is going to be considered a free image, it is going to be difficult to assert that any other infobox image is an appropriate replacement (again, strictly speaking as a NFC proponent). It should be the case that if there is no free image of the cabinet, then there should be no image otherwise in the infobox. (this is how it applies to living persons) This does not preclude the use of screenshots of the game in the article body, of course. Now, the only angle I'd change on this is that, at least with cabinets with significant side/front art, that a photo, while capturing the uncopyrightable shape of the cabinet, is also capturing the artwork which is copyrighted , and thus make the cabinet photo non-free. However, this is a question that probably needs to be brought up at commons or WP:NFC or the like. If it affirmed that cabinet pictures are inheriently non-free if they have art, then we cannot assume a free image for every cabinet game, and thus we then are free to consider the use of non-free images as infobox pictures (as we done with nearly every console game). --MASEM (t) 15:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue I ran into with the Marble Madness cabinet image. Most people in the discussions reasoned that a free version of arcade cabinets can exist. However, I agree with you that cabinets with artwork fall under non-free content (based on an incident I had on Commons with The Simpsons Arcade cabinet). When I brought that up, they said that precedent had been set to use a "more free" version, which is apparently when someone takes a photograph of a non-free object, but gives up there artistic copyright as the photograph—like a Wikipedia editor uploading their own photograph of a non-free object. I argued that if the cabinet is taken from a company's advertisement, then the copyright owner of the object and the photograph is the company, making it is just as "more free" as a Wikipedia editor uploading their own photograph of the cabinet.

The whole process put a rather sour taste in my mouth because when ask to support the precedent, no examples or guideline pages were given. It didn't seem worth the headache trying to keep up with the numerous discussion this would entail. However, if others can help keep track of this, then I'd be more willing to pursue the issue.

As it stands right now, there is a whole category of images on Commons we should look at. If our interpretation of copyrights is correct, which I think it is, almost all of them should be removed from Commons and moved to Wikipedia. Something like File:PongVideoGameCabinet.jpg can stay because it has no artwork and even then the content on the screen is just simple shapes that are ineligible for copyright. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The membership list has been around long enough that there are no more people moving their names to Active on any type of regular basis. Should we now send out some type of message to those still Unknown, asking if they would like to continue to be in the WikiProject? I think a month would be long enough to respond, so by the new year, we can remove all those who still have not responded. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have a lot going on in the project right now, but I don't think we should let this get archived without some feedback. Any takers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There's no harm in sending out a "last warning" before being cut from the list.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's as close to consensus as we're going to get.

MrKIA11- can you send out the message or put in a request for Xenobot? Whichever you think is best. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed your response. I'm not really one for words. So if someone else can come up with a good notice, that might be better. I could send out the message, but I think it would be a lot easier for Xenobot. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue is reaching the breaking point; there are about 30 Lists of characters needing cleanup and large disputes on whether or not to delete them. Not to mention that there is basically no distinction between a "list of characters" and a "characters article" (such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII), because both types feature more than one character in a specific title, but one type can only become Featured lists while the other can become Featured articles. We should decide on a standardized name for all articles about characters, when such articles merit creation, and if the huge amount of List articles needing cleanup (probably because they have long been forgotten) should be merged or deleted due to non-notability. If there isn't consensus, the preservationists will argue with the deletionists for every single article - they tread the line between cruft and notability for being solely about plot content. I suggest setting some kind of system up where you have to demonstrate the characters are notable before creating an article of this type.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we ought to puzzle out the List of Pokémon (1–20) problem (i.e. it is nigh-impossible to write good content in any format, wtf do we do?) but a bureaucracy is not the way to go. Nifboy (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well some standard would be dandy, because as of now the lists have become a dumping ground of dead character articles to appease people that feel "everything and everyone should be covered" from a series, despite plausibility of real-world reception or anything even possibly tying the series characters together. We do have some great character articles such as List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow, but for every one we have serveal that list every minor character because someone insists they must be listed and quality be damned, such as List of Paper Mario series characters. Some guideline of some sort to at least exercise would go miles here for sure.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a standard should be put in place. There is way too many character list dumping grounds for any minor/brief character in games. People attempt to clean this up, merge them or just delete them: but the inclusionists refuse to listen to reason. Then the article gets kept (Paper Mario as one example), and it just sits in bad condition until the next AFD where the process of fighting back and forth resumes. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think all articles on groups of characters should be classified as articles and not lists. WP:LISTPURP states that lists are for informational, navigational, or developmental purposes. Based on the descriptions of these things on WP:LIST, characters articles don't fit the bill. I understand there is some flexibility in what you can classify as a list, but I don't think these "List of characters in"/"Characters of" articles can be considered lists. There's too much prose and not enough... list-ness too them.

And with regards to notability, I completely agree that a crackdown is needed. I watch a few characters articles, and they are indeed more or less dumping grounds for the occasional nonsensical babbling. Every once and a while a gem like this finds its way in: With Main Character's soul become the barrier between Nyx and humanity, his body will most likely to fall in eternal slumber. I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything at all.

"Characters of" articles need some threshold of notability that at least includes development information and reception. For a game like Persona 3, such development information does not exist. The best you get is a few anecdotes in the Persona 3 art book, about a paragraph of information on seven or eight characters when combined. That article may or may not need to exist, I don't know. I'm sure there's reception to be found, but not a lot of development. In contrast, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII has five paragraphs of development info, other assorted character development info in sections for each character, and two paragraphs of reception. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't think that character articles fell into the "List" classification either - not only does it give free reign to a lack of sources and citations (List type character articles are the most in need of cleanup/merge/deletion), but it's also confusing. If an article about characters is notable enough to be included, it must follow the article guidelines on notability rather than the list guidelines. I think that all "List of" articles should be either name changed or deleted depending on the possibility of achieving a full article (Characters of FFVIII-style), and afterwards handled on a case-by-case basis to avoid the "plot creep" that happens so often and leads to these kinds of pages. One thing is for certain; there needs to be a crackdown before every. single. video game in Wikipedia has its own crappy character page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more suggestions? I don't want this to go unanswered as it's very important.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario slipped through with no consensus again. There are a number of people who want these sort of twisting-in-the-wind articles to persist, although many of them aren't actually invested in improving them. I don't see why these articles don't go away based on the most basic premise of notability alone: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the characters of any Paper Mario game have received such suitable coverage.

Perhaps we can draw up a list of every "Characters of"/"List of characters in" article and "assess" them to see if they're notable. The problem is that some may be potentially notable (development/reception info exists but is not in the article), while others will never pass notability. Also, something should be written for lists of characters and added to WP:VG/GL. In my mind, a character list is probably notable if development and reception information exists. It's just like single character articles in that regard. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A no consensus does not preclude a merge and redirect, however. There was little reason given against a merge, to which even one of the keepers acceded would be a better choice than deletion. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really bothersome. I don't see how it actually survived besides the reviewer focusing on the number of people wanting it kept and not the strength of their arguments. I guess we either try to merge content, or wait five months to reopen the discussion since it'll be ignored for the entire time. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to suggest a comprehensive assessment but you beat me to it. I'll get it going at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Character lists, starting with Category:Lists of video game characters. Nifboy (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of having an incredibly large page, perhaps instead of a table we can give each article a subsection and allow editors to discuss each one. That at least makes it easier for multiple people to chime in on a contentious article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let that be for the talk page, imo. People can bring up contentious lists there. --Izno (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used a table primarily because I'm hoping assessment won't be contentious, and I explicitly don't want to run the usual five-page AfD discussion on all 300 articles. Nifboy (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment, in the sense of the assessment scale, sure. I'm more interested in assessing notability, though, not the quality of the article. This is because the former is a rationale for the deletion, not the latter. Of course, that section of arguments to avoid also notes that "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws...the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I wonder is how we are to determine which of these articles, most of which lack any secondary sources, are notable for inclusion. Are we allowed to say "this article does not assert notability, delete; come back when you have sources"? You'd think an AfD discussion would prompt people to seek out third-party information (in this scenario, development/reception info, once again). That's how it works everywhere else on this website, and yet Paper Mario slipped through without anyone asserting notability. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the reason I wanted to do just assessment right now is to get a birds-eye view of the problem, before we start getting ourselves tangled up in the never-ending argument that is WP:FICT. Once that's done, what I was planning was treating it like a backlog, where the objective was to get every one of them up to at least C-class; Only once that's attempted would I start looking to cut out the worst of the worst. Nifboy (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm wondering if I should set the table up for B-class criteria and assess them that way? Or should we just do "needs cleanup Y/N" and leave space for comments? Nifboy (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to use normal assessment cats for now. Nifboy (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done assessing for tonight. Will continue sometime tomorrow. Nifboy (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not lists then why is the category "List of video game characters"? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're not really lists in the sense that WP:LIST provides, even if there isn't a better English word to use for character lists, which are basically articles about multiple related things. Like the word "notable", our internal usage of the word is mangled and is currently accepting applications for a better alternative. Nifboy (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:V covers these articles, WP:N doesn't. Even the WP:FICT proposal does not seek to cover character lists. That said, certain things can be used to help ween these lists one of which is to use FLC's suggested guideline of 10 in most cases (this is a general rule, not an absolute). If a game only has 9 characters of note, maybe it needs to be merged if most don't have much info and (almost) no sources.陣内_Jinnai 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no problem with deleting the articles and moving the information to a gaming wiki or Wikia page. I don't see how information preservation comes into the picture when the info can be moved somewhere else where contributors are free to add as much specific info as they want. But otherwise, they should be judged not as list articles, but as regular ones.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They still fall under the criteria of list articles. We can't just decide that here because we have overlapping wikiprojects who many of these articles will conflict with and who do not use them as such.陣内_Jinnai 02:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pound for pound, the character lists under this project are solely related to this project, so we should be able to set a standard for them without (too much) incident. Something at the very least could and should be done given we have 90+ articles that really are just extreme plot analysis.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about MoS organization and clariffying a bottom threshold for what constitutes a "trivial" character that's probably fine. However, getting pages with a bunch of plot-important characters merged back into the main article will almost certainly be met with stiff resistance on talk pages and AfDs because character lists, for better or worse, are "dumping grounds" for characters that fail the WP:GNG, but need some amount of explanation as they are still nessasary to understanding the work as a whole and whose article would be too large if they were all merged back in.陣内_Jinnai 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that's always bothered me was the Pokémon lists. They may or may not fall under it; while one list may have enough notable characters on said list, another may have none. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that Pokemon is notable enough that we shouldn't start deleting non-notable Pokemon. And really, either we remove non-notable Pokemon (not a very good idea) or we just list them by name and link them to the corresponding Bulbapedia article (but Wiki doesn't allow that, so...)--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Pokemon lists are fine how they are. If we removed some, then people would argue that certain ones are notable, and there would be no real way to do it. For sanity, we should leave it alone. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As plot-heavy as those lists are I like how they cross-reference a lot of the various Pokemon media. We're in agreement those lists aren't where cleanup effort is due anyway. Nifboy (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting anything be done. I am, however, suggesting that someone else would from these new guidelines. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can cross that bridge when we get to it, but right now, the Pokemon lists are actually comparatively well organized compared to most of the other lists out there. The large majority of them are Start-class and their prospects aren't looking too good. We should figure out what do do with all this stuff. Maybe a comprehensive transwiki program?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be an idea. The only other idea I've had was organizing by type, which could provide a means to organize them together by reception [ie, a fire Pokémon would be covered by the reception of said type]. Just an idea. ~.~ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that organization by type would work, since some Pokemon have multiple types. But what I meant was, we should focus on the miscellaneous lists before trying to do anything Pokemon related. After all, the Pokemon lists were created for a reason.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning on doing any BOLD work on these lists, but a batch of articles on GTA gangs was just so flat-out bad and unsalvageable that I couldn't hold off on redirecting them. Old versions for posterity: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Nifboy (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up list of character articles

So, now that we're more than halfway done assessing the articles, what are everyones' opinions on what should be done with them? It looks like there are far too many start-class articles to simply clean up and many of them don't have any references. There are a relatively small number that are C ranked and only a few B ranks as well as a couple of FA's.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good number just need the effort put in, as with the Half-Life, Brothers in Arms, Splinter Cell character articles, etc, they've simply lacked someone with experience coming in and building up the article properly. There are ones that should be disposed of entirely, others that should be merged together rather than having them for individual games in a series, but there's no such thing as "too many to clean up": no deadline remember? -- Sabre (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is basically twofold: When a list is split out from a game/series article it never takes any WP:WAFFLES (otherwise known as out-of-universe information) with it. Likewise, when a character earns enough waffles to level up to "separate article" status, it takes all its waffles with it, usually leaving the list back at zero. So, especially in cases like Nathan Drake (character) (GA) -> List of characters in the Uncharted series (Start), it should be a relatively easy task to extend the character's summary to include some reception and development information, and if the main article has any relevant info, that should also carry over. That would get more than a few of them up to just-barely-passing-class. As for where I would start cutting, I'd start with lists where the main article and references give little or no emphasis on characters at all. Nifboy (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deal in deletion often, and I poked around WP:DEL, but since I'm not sure, I'll ask here. If a character list is presumed to not be notable (such as List of characters in AdventureQuest, which has zero OOU information), is it our job to seek out sources and test notability, or can we prod the article to try and motivate other people to do it? It seems like, with such a large group of people who want these articles around (or at least, large enough that a fiction article can pass AfD without any claims to notability), it should be their job to maintain the quality of these articles. Cleanup should come after its established that OOU info exists for a given article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I keep forgetting a lot of these articles will end up as a merge and redirect, but really, with most of these articles, there isn't much to merge. It's all overly-detailed fiction stuff that doesn't necessarily have a place in a game article. So it's more or less deleting the article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically not your job to do so, but would certainly be appreciated by those involved. A common comment in AfDs for character lists is that the nominators don't "help save" it. If you did even a basic search for sources before taking something to AfD and outlined your search in the nomination, I sure that would make the whole process much easier. Basically, you'd preemptively address the most common objective before the opposition says it. The more thorough the search, the stronger the rationale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Most admins at AfD won't touch merge discussions with a ten-foot pole anymore, so I wouldn't bother with that route. Use your own discretion on how much due diligence/research is necessary, and how much of it should be merged before redirecting. Nifboy (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible and you can "get away with it" (I use that phrase tentatively), merge and redirect preemptively rather than through AfD. There are too many people hanging around that want lists simply because they want lists. And, if that would have been the outcome at AfD, as Nifboy points out, [most] admins won't touch it beyond closing the AfD as a no consensus (which is not the ideal target). --Izno (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a list hasn't been greatly edited in a good while, I think you should redirect it, then if someone objects, then AfD. No reason to AfD a dead article. AfD is just for settling disputes somewhat and if you think something is bad, but you aren't sure. If somebody cares about an article, then give them a deadline. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick stats:

• 2 FAs
• 1 A
• 3 GAs
• 3 Bs (including one FL)
• 25 Cs
• 185 Start
• 3 Stub
• 5 Redirected during assessment
• 6 Lists

= 233 total, about 80% of which are badly in need of a cleaning. If you also count C-class, Sturgeon's Law applies. Nifboy (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always PROD a dead article instead. I don't think there is a need to redirect these pages as most people don't actively search for "list of XX characters", not to mention that someone could always reverse the merge and re-create a crufty page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the ones I was thinking of prodding have already been prodded by TTN and deprodded by DGG. Nifboy (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Role-playing game currently describes tabletop role-playing games (i.e. traditional role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons played with pen and paper, not computers), with other forms such as video RPGs and LARP described as varieties of tabletop game. This does not meet the WP:NAME policy, which requires the content of an article to unambigiously match the name and meet visitor expectations. Many users are surprised to find that Role-playing game specifically describes tabletop roleplaying, as can be seen from the recurring comments to this effect on the talk page

Please see my proposal at Talk:Role-playing game to change Role-playing game to describe roleplaying as a class of activity with varieties that include tabletop RPGs, video RPGs and LARP as varieties of that class of activity, and to create a new Tabletop role-playing game article to specifically describe the tabletop RPG variety. This naming structure will remove the current ambiguity that exists in regards to the role-playing game article, so that the new articles will be more likely to meet the expectations of visitors based on the names of the articles.

Please make your opinion heard either way on at Talk:Role-playing game so we can put this long-running point of contention to rest. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need an overarching article to describe it in general as many concepts are similar and video game rpgs are based on tabletop. I'd prefer to move that to there but also combine info from tabletop and video game article to do a general page.陣内_Jinnai 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The change I'm proposing will achieve what you've described. Role-playing game will become an overarching article that describes tabletop RPGs, live action RPGs, and all forms of video RPGs. It will describe the history of how the varieties developed. Also, a separate article will be created for Tabletop role-playing game that will describe that variety of role-playing game in more detail. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with the change as long as each of the three articles contains suitable content. SharkD  Talk  03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Raul has decided to throw one of my articles up, and I had no clue until GimmeBot rolled by. Any more eyes would be great (Spyro: Year of the Dragon) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I guess that kind of messes up any chances that Planescape: Torment had on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests. It was due to be on the main page December 12. JACOPLANE • 2009-12-10 09:53

Sorry, I never try to put these up :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems Raul will do the highly unusual thing and put up two video games in the same week. Expect fallout people. JACOPLANE • 2009-12-10 16:48

I'm sure we can avoid a TFA for a couple of months in reparation. Though no doubt they'll be out to block any future VG TFA or crucify Raul. I don't envy that man's job. -- Sabre (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be fallout? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. Talk:Main Page/Archive 146#Not another video game!. I couldn't tell you why people complain about it, but that's just how it is. Nifboy (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we were listening to an IP because...? Seriously, if they're featured articles, who cares what they're about? (grumbles about the lack of common sense in the world) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "a lack of common sense". Some people think that video game articles are over represented on the main page and would like to see more diversity. Honestly, I think it is kind of hard to argue with them. --Torsodog^Talk 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 VG FAs in 3 months (an extreme outlier) is still only around 4% representation on the main page. That's hardly overrepresentation (especially considering the relative number of FAs for each area of knowledge on the wiki.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one such example of a discussion or complaint, there's more in the archives. It just happens, dies down, then someone complains about the next one, and so on. -- Sabre (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use up all our FAs then. Then people will forget for a time until we can make a new one. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea, except, we keep writing new ones. :P --Nifboy (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like two VG TFAs in the same week! Spyro today, and then I get my birthday wish. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I've created an article on Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series and nominated it for both DYK and GA. Nathan Drake (character). Cheers! Scapler (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Very well put together. -- Sabre (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GAN. I wonder if we can pull off 50 character GAs by New Year's Eve...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: shouldn't the article disambiguation be "(Uncharted)" rather than "(character)"? -- Sabre (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that too, since it is viable to have more than one character named "Nathan Drake" pop up in fictional material (i.e. Toad (character))--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it was created so recently, I have put up the article for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Nathan Drake (character)/archive1. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's another Nathan Drake, we can always move the page..--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That very, very, very... prominent donation banner keeps sticking in my head every time I log in. Anybody feel up to tackling the Beyond Good & Evil (video game) bounty before its March 28, 2010 deadline? The articles is far from FA, it's not in terrible shape.

While I was going through my magazines for Lara Croft, I noticed a number of articles about Beyond Good & Evil. I don't think I could get it to FA, but I could provide some print sources to one of our FA producing machines and help with research. Any takers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, I wish I could do it, but usually, I never even get to the FA-making process; I just kinda get a buzz and start working on it - but often I'll just up and stop in the middle. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it to FA would be great. I think a collaboration is in order. I personally expanded the soundtrack section and other stuff based on an interview.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably pull off Jade as a stand-alone article too: she received a *ton* of reception over the years beyond the scope of just the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any takers at all? If I'm going to dedicate time to this, I'd like get started now because it may take me a while to get them together. Just ask Kung Fu Man. :-P If not then I'm going to focus on other things. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "taker"?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody willing to dedicate time to clean up the article and push it towards FA before March 28th for the bounty. I'll help that person by researching and copy editing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've never played the game and have no real interest, but if others are even marginally interested I'll help out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had half an eye on the bounty for a while, so I can help out as much as time permits. bridies (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridies and David- Do you want me to send you whatever sources I can find then? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sure. Probably best not to count on me too much though... bridies (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently cut back the sheer amount of plot in our article on LeChuck—it was nearly 7,000 words of blow-by-blow regurgitation before I had my way with it—but I'd really appreciate it if someone could run a copyedit on the Appearances section, while I go off on a sourcing search for development and reception stuff (Why is it that the older things are with video games, the harder it is to write about the real-world aspects of them? Its quite irritating). Fine-tuning plot sections isn't my forte, but I'd really quite like to try to get it down to one paragraph per game if possible, as in Elaine Marley. -- Sabre (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've just returned from a two month 'retirment', and decided to go looking for a Guitar Hero Wikiproject. However, none could be found. Thus, I propose a subproject of this project is created for Guitar Hero (and possibly including DJ Hero and Band Hero. Leaving this open for discussion -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Task force rather than Wikiproject, if anything. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually in doubt to if it should be a project or a taskforce, or if it was even too small for anything. Thus why I brought it here. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music video game project? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might even be a idea. DDR's almost would have the same number as articles as Guitar Hero. I honestly don't know why that didn't pop into my head. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that, as there are many music games. As it is, I would question the need for a Guitar Hero task force, as collaboration and improvement to those articles seem to be getting along fine without one. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just be bold and create Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music Video Games as a subproject of this project? Or would more discussion be needed? -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do admit that such a project falling through is possible, but we won't know until we try. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have way too many dead projects already. Not to mention the ever-increasing number of project tags on article talk pages. Gary King (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music games task force then? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created WP:WPMVG earier. I'm going to (unless a concensus forms) let it run and see how it goes. If it flops, then a taskforce may be in order. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb with this but expanding its scope to include music *from* video games might work to its benefit too, especially since we do have quite a few soundtracks and musicians out there and PresN's been an almost one man army at improving them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the compliment, I'm not sure if including music of video games in with "music video games" makes sense, as it seems a little disjointed- half of the project would be about games like DDR and Guitar Hero, while the other half of the project would be about music from games that aren't in the project, i.e. Music of Final Fantasy, while Final Fantasy itself wouldn't be in the project. I'm not super-opposed, but since it doesn't seem like anyone else would be working on the music articles, it would just me my stuff tacked on to some other group's project. --PresN 00:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't believe this needs to be a new WP, but instead a task force under VGs. This is because most of the same guidelines on writing and sourcing and the like will remain the same, the only difference will be how content is organized and written towards. Even if it dies, it is easier to deal with a idle task force than an idle WP. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed WP Music Video Games templates popping up on the Beatmania and Dance Dance Revolution articles but I can't find anywhere that says this WikiProject is even sanctioned. It has three members in total. With seven potential members my proposal for a mere task force was turned down due to lack of involvement. So I'm hesitant to back this horse if it's not going to stick around. I would love to see an organized effort to work on the music video games especially with Guitar Hero and Rock Band causing these games' popularity and density to explode over and over again. But every attempt of mine to start such organization has failed which is why most all music video game articles outside of Guitar Hero are in terrible shape or non-existent.  æronphonehome  13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When individual songs have articles should these always be included under this project/task force, or should they be left to the appropriate sub-project of Project Music? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have a Music Gaming task force in general rather than having a bias towards other franchises. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added/going to start a discussion at the project's talk about if songs should be in the scope. As for the format of the articles, I don't believe they would quite be the same, as there's all the track lists to deal with. Albleit they would otherwise be the same. As far as the taskforce goes, I don't see this as biased towards GH (I intend to start tagging DDR soon, if anyone wants to help the templates at WP:WPMVG), or any other franchice. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this project would be especially useful for User:AeronPeryton because I've noticed this user patrols all DDR articles and has their own set of guidelines that are not written anywhere but seem very consistent (splitting regional releases of a single video game into multiple articles, using different abbreviations in infoboxes than this project like "U/C" instead of "NA", etc.). It would be nice to have a place to discuss these guidelines. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing some comments above, I think a task force would be the best route. Not to talk down to people but WikiProjects don't run on their own. The back office maintenance involved with them can often be too much for a small group to handle or execute with the desired effectiveness. Our own project doesn't even operate at an optimal level. So the enthusiasm looks to warrant some kind of collaboration, but the full scope of it should be taken into account. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed, a task force would be better suited. –xeno^talk 15:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the article Video game writer be appropriate for Wikipedia? Or was there a concious decision that such an article shouldn't exist? Category:Video game writers exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.200.70 (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What could be said about it that would be notable though? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly best to redirect it to Writer, and simply acknowledge that writers do write storylines for games and such. I can't really see any unique content to warrant its own article, or even its own section in Writer. --Taelus (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article for Script (comics) and Screenwriter, so either we merge those or create a separate one for Script (video games).

Oh, writer as in script writer. I was thinking writer as in Video game journalism (which is hardly "journalism" anyway). If it got its own page, I think the term would need to be more specific, like Video game script writer. Although, I suppose not everything you write in a video game is its script, as in what people say. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 16:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The screenwriter writes camera directions as well as dialogue. The game writer does pretty much the same thing.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps something like Video game writing à la Video game music that documents the history of writing in video games from simple beginnings like Mario saves Princess, to something like Myst, to a more developed stage like in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. I think it could be an interesting article if the right sources could be found. --77.250.200.70 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting aspect could be how writing in video games relates to other media, and whether games like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic & The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar should be considered as canon (fiction). I also noticed that List of video games based on movies doesn't exist, which probably should since it's a common phenomenon. See: Category:Lists of video games based on media. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Light side, male Revan and Light side, female Exile are considered Canon. However, with LotRO, I believe I read in PC Gamer UK that what Tolkien said, they stick to. What he didn't say, however, is fair play. So I seriously doubt that LotRO is considered Canon. Not that anybody has the right to decide anymore since Tolkien's dead. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user and I are having a dispute on the spelling of the name of a character that appears in this game. The main character of Neo-Human Casshern appears in this game, and the anon insists that the name should be spelled "Casshern" since that is how it is spelled in the anime series he's from. I say it should be spelled "Casshan" since that's how it is spelled in the game itself (see: [5], [6], [7]) and the article about the game should be consistent with the game itself. The anon user, however, insists that the name from the original series should be used even thought it's not used at all in the video game itself, and the translated name in the game is wrong. I don't want to get into a revert war with this anon, so I'd like a wiser user here step in and help out here. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In name disputes like this, where there are clearly multiple official translations, then 2 options are open: use the name from the original work or the most commonly recognized name (by independent WP:RSes. Either way it should be consistent across the board. If its used in 1 article, it should be used in all articles about the character. However, the anime and video game should note both spellings at least once.陣内_Jinnai 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Where does this project stand on Featured Pictures and Valued pictures? I ask because here, a picture of the Dreamcast nominated for VP. Thoughts? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I'm going to throw a shot in the dark and say that >95% of the video game pictures fail on the criteria item number 4 (for both categories) that says "Has a free license."  :) NeoGenPT (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure about the Dreamcast image, the nominator has claimed that the logo does not have copyright on it but I somehow doubt that, I have questioned the fact that there are also logos for SEGA and Windows CE and am awaiting response. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know if some of the Ubisoft images have been tried for FP? User:Krator (t c) 12:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Ubisoft images are likely to be deleted soon (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3). Jean-Fred (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, so much long winded crap (and yeah it is long winded, that's not a variant "tl:dr" response). It amazes me to what lengths people online will go to shoot themselves in the foot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very unsure of what you mean (probably as I am not a native speaker), so I'd rather not try and misinterpret. I guess my answer would be, well, you know, free content, stuff... Jean-Fred (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, File:Circlestrafing.svg is a featured picture and I found it in the Portal:Video games/Picture list. Should this have a {WikiProject Video games} to it? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That image is incorrect and needs to be fixed. The bullet is actually going backwards - the farthest shot takes place at the earliest point in time while the shot is fired at the latest point in time. Not only that, but you fire multiple bullets when you circle strafe...the difference being that the enemy, firing from the center, can't keep up with you. This would probably work better as an animation - the center dude should be turning too.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an animated version: File:Circlestrafing animation.gif. Nifboy (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that my point is being understood. Where does this project stand on Featured Pictures and Valued pictures??? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you are asking. What do you mean by "stand"? Obviously we would like to have FP and VP if possible. As stated earlier, however, the problem is that most of our images are non-free screen shots so it makes it hard. --Torsodog^Talk 01:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torsodog summed it up. Because we deal with media that is primarily non-free, such things are an afterthought. Meaning most of us are very unfamiliar with the process of getting a free video game image to VP or FP status. Of course as Torso dog said, we would welcome the recognition pictures related to our project's scope. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I got a little bored and tried to recreate what I think is one of the earliest "big" character articles merged. User:New Age Retro Hippie/Goomba - I think it's come quite a bit of way, but due to it being protected, I decided I should seek advice, help, and comments. So do that stuff kay! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original (and decidedly bad) featured article from 2004 had a bit of info that claimed that the goombas were in fact named after goombah. Is there anything that states where their English names originated from?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check around, but I think that's one of those "urban legends" that tend to float around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one seems to be objecting, and the response seems positive. Can I get an admin to unprotect the article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a decent start on a reliably-sourced version of the article. I'd be for spinning back out. MuZemike 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I've been browsing the video games articles in wikipedia, in particular the older ones (1980's), and come to the conclusion that most of them are in bad shape, mostly they are just stubs except for a small bunch of them. I myself am still actively developing an article on a 1985 video game Formula One, and with alot of dedication I've already managed to get it to a C-Level. :) I'm aiming at B-Level but it's going to be tough, with the lack of references about it.

But the question I wanted to ask is... would it be possible to have a task force created that was dedicated to these old games? I don't have a clue of what to call it, maybe "1980's task force", or "8-bit task force", or "oldies task force", but the point being in trying to get the articles on the older classics up in shape. The 1980's were a great decade for gaming, with all the classic titles and different home computer systems that marked the generation now called "old school gamers", we shouldn't let it fade away into forgetfulness (not sure if that last word is correct).

I myself am an "old school gamer", I enjoy much more revisiting the old days of the simple ZX Spectrum games through emulators than to play the overly complicated 21'st century next gen video games, that come with more features, actions, combos, cameras views, and assigned keys than you can shake a stick at.

What say you? :)

NeoGenPT (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nostalgia Task Force? That way it can covers all games when they reach the age that it's hard to find a copy of them. I'd say... any games before 1997, right now. That's thirteen years, so those would be bloody old now. If you just want the PacMan era stuff, though, a Retro Task Force would be best. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thirteen years limit sounds cool, it would include the master system/genesis/nes/snes generations. But would we have to do every year a sweep for games that are of "year <current> minus 13"? I took a look at the existing task forces (and WikiProjects under this one) and they all seem to be very strict to a company, platform or game series, which makes their goals almost immutable. (Is this in the guidelines or was it a choice of the creators?)

Anyways, I really can't tell what would be best, I'm really a newbie wikipedian yet (but evolving!), I am conscious that my level of knowledge is nowhere near enough yet to say what is best or not. I'm hoping the more experienced wikipedians around here could analyze the pros and cons of the idea and say if it would be good or not. :) NeoGenPT (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's personal choice to my knowledge. I'm the owner of the BioWare task force (someone prod me to fix that crud up when New Year is over), but if you look at other Wikiprojects, you've got things like the Science fiction task force, which covers an awful lot. As for searching for things, that's very simple. There are categories such as Category:2009 video games. We'd just need to search through those for the release date (in case of false positives) and then add them in. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few small task forces should be created e.g. Pre-1980, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-present? This would save needing to check through the lists each year as the year a game was made will never change. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I've noticed quite a few inactive task forces lately and maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I think it best to have as many people in it as possible. With my suggestion, we'd gain more every year. With the date-based one, we might only end up with four or five people in, say, the Pre-1980 task force. I certainly wouldn't join it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just think there should be a definite cut off date for the "retro games" task force. Perhaps 1995 as this was when the PS1 came out, a moment in console gaming which changed how games were made with the move to polygons and CD sound becoming the norm. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everything from the SNES/Mega Drive backwards is already considered "retro" so it would possibly fit in nicely. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested, possibly have two task forces? Retro and Nostalgia? Retro would definitely need a cut-off point, at least until gaming evolves dramatically once more. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the difference between "nostalgia games" and "retro games". The word nostalgia to me pretty much means looking at something from the past through rose tinted spectacles, which isn't really what we're about, more relating the facts. If we are to have a universal task force then I would suggest only a Retro games one. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Nostalgia would include all old games (though it may be best to ignore the ones covered by Retro). And maybe the name could be changed, but it was the only thing I could think of. I'm aware of the connotations, but I can still look at something through rose-tinted spectacles and still achieve NPOV and I can feel like something is the modern Black plague and still achieve NPOV (which I have proven before). But take, say, Star Wars: Dark Forces. In no way would that ever be covered by Retro games (at least, not until we're all playing on holodecks). But it's incredibly hard to find a copy of it nowadays (at least, it was. Then LucasArts had to go and make a shoddy re-release). That's what the Nostalgia Task Force would cover. The games that aren't old enough to be considered retro, but too old to be easily findable. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we pretty much agree then that the Retro task force has everything from the 16-bit console, i.e. SNES and Mega Drive and before, under its scope?

Then we just need to find a name and properly hammer out the scope of the "nostalgia" task force. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even need debating. :) I agree. If anyone can think of a reason to disagree, then speak up. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could even work as a sub-project as discussed earlier, considering that the Dynasty Warriors games have their own WikiProject comprised of three people. But probably best to stick with the task force for now, and if it gets too big then consider a WikiProject. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll apply to join the Retro task force if it is created. I have a small number of articles already in sight that I would like to expand some more when I have some free time for research. One extra question only... does "retro" only include consoles (NES, SNES, Mega Drive, etc) and home computers (ZX Spectrum, Amiga, C64, etc), or will it also cover the early days of the IBM PC DOS games? (like this old classic, Digger NeoGenPT (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a task force has bounced around in my head before, but we've had such mixed success with task forces that it didn't seem worth mentioning. Older games typically need different sources and formatting than more current games. Plus they are a underdeveloped area, quality-wise, of our project.

Even with a large number of members, I think a task force would be the best format. Assessing, peer review and project maintenance is very time consuming. It's really best to piggy back on the VG project and assist the project with those functions.

Anyway count me in. I think a simple name like "retro games" will suffice. Since the term "retro" is loosely defined by the video gaming community, I think we can have generalized guidelines for the scope as well. Anything pre-1999 would count in my book. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I will certainly join this task force, older games article are seriously under developed, with many games simply missing even though there are reliable sources to be found if you know where to look. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I don't know enough about retro games, but I'd certainly join any form of nostalgia task force. Anyone want to be bold and create them? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI- Created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Retro games. Those interested please sign up so we can get the ball rolling. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've opened up a discussion about which image to use on the Yoshi article here. Please feel free to comment. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. How should I deal with track lists in video game articles, particularly those with lots of tracks like that of Bayonetta? An anonymous user added the game's track list (150-ish tracks!) to the article, which roughly doubles the article height (on a visual browser).

I'm not too keen on removing info and would not mind splitting it off, but the soundtrack itself doesn't seem very notable, so it'd probably get deleted anyway; the soundtrack doesn't mean that much to take so much weight in the article itself; and I'm not eager to hide it with an expand/collapse script (for access reasons). The user has made three edits, all to the list, and no other edits outside of the article.

I'm guessing WP:VGSCOPE point 1 and WP:WEIGHT make both splitting and inclusion unlikely, but I want another opinion. --an odd name 07:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most game soundtracks use a collapsible table for the track lists. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to Melodia, and in general we don't split off soundtrack sections unless there's multiple albums or a bunch of critical commentary. I have a script to whip up a collapsible collapsed table, I'll make you one to save the article's appearance for a bit while you decide what to do. --PresN 15:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up about a couple deletions discussions at Commons that I think will effect this project.

• Template:PD-US-patent-no notice

"The text and illustrations of US patents are in the public domain unless the patent text contains a specific notice that portions are copyrighted. The original patent contains no such notice, so its contents are in the public domain."

The nominator, when nominating this template for deletion, specifically brought up examples of Mario and Link so I thought it should be brought to the project's attention. I ran across it when I was looking for a free image for List of Wario video games and stumbled across a Wario image which had the tag. I'm not a patent expert by any means so I have no idea if he's right or not on this one-- there's been no discussion, so anyone who's well versed with patents should probably take a look over the nominator's rationale.

• Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3

This template has been brought up before for deletion (#1 #2), and has been brought up quite often in WP:VG discussions (see the search results). Unlike the previous deletion requests this one seems to be gaining steam-- I'd recommend that we begin to attach FUR to Ubisoft images and migrate them out of Commons unless compelling evidence is brought up showing that the free licensing was given for all screenshots.

Sorry if I haven't been around lately, and I hope I get to use that Wario image... -- Nomader ^(Talk) 10:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working the the Arc the Lad articles and I heard that there was a feature article about Arc the Lad Collection in an early 2003 issue of Play Magazine. If anyone has that issue, please contact me : ] thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems at least one person was unfamiliar with the fact that our talk page template supports it, I am going to mention it here. I do not know why it was never documented before, but I added documentation for it at {{WikiProject Video games}}. Please use it as appropriate. I have started adding it to several templates so don't remove them without checking if its placed appropriately first.陣内_Jinnai 16:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese baseball video games was nominated for renaming to Category:Video games about Japanese baseball, at CfD November 29.

However, the discussion fizzled out, so I have relisted it at CfD December 18, where your input would be appreciated.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]