Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 42

Heads up: There's currently an effort underway to increase membership and participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games, which could/should be considered a subset of WP:VG. The original members of that project that are still active are asking for other people to sign up and help out. I believe the project could provide a more specific focus on arcade games, so I've put myself on the active list. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good. They were next on the clean up list after the Dragon Quest project. We can hold off on examining them to give them time to get the project going again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Incase anyone is interested, i have nominated OGame for deletion. Discussion here. Thanks. John.n-IRL 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Naming convention as the former simply regurgitates the latter exactly and therefore serves no useful purpose and is unnecessary. It is also too short to be a standalone guideline article and there's no reason why any possible links couldn't just redirect to the section on the Article Guidelines page. .:Alex:. 11:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - there doesn't really seem to be a reason to keep it on a second page. It seems like it would be a pain to edit since the main guideline article includes the naming article with {{/Naming}}. --Eruhildo (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I need a third opinion on Wavedashing's inclusion in Super Smash Bros. Melee, on the grounds that two reliable published sources verify its notability (namely Nintendo Power and Major League Gaming). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll establish some context here. ALttP provided a source which says that Nintendo Power asked the game's producer, Masahiro Sakurai, about the inclusion (or exclusion) of wavedashing in Brawl. Wavedashing is an advanced technique in the game. Link claims that it should be included in the article based on the source—I strongly disagree. Long story short, I feel it is of no use to anybody beyond the hardcore, and is of no encyclopaedic value. Anywho, I won't dwell on details—just look at the lengthy the talk page dispute for that. So...any thoughts? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. It is already a long article with tons of references. This is not a FAQ or game guide. Plus I am getting a little sick of reading about Smash Bros Brawl.--8bitJake (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Given it's a significant gameplay technique, a note about it can't hurt the article in any way when handled properly. It should have mention to some degree.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, "it won't hurt"—which I here all the time—is among the weakest arguments going, and one which should be discarded when debating the inclusion of content here. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jake, I've already established that it can be written without teaching the player how to perform the technique in any scenario, so how is it game guide content? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And Ashnard, the argument DOES hold weight - it wouldn't hurt. There's no real reason to exclude, and there's been sources that give the technique notability, and it's relevant by the fact that, by one reliable source's words, is "known by competitive and casual players alike". - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it all before and too many times. People use that "argument" as a top trump to put whatever they want into the article without question, as long as it fits their interpretation of things. Let's debate what it does contribute, which is virtually nil to anybody beyond the hardcore. It does not establish anything about gameplay. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To be more direct (sorry I'm busy with trying to get a render done for college too atm) it won't have a negative impact on the article, only a positive one. Additionally it is relevant to gameplay becuase it in effect changes how the game is played significantly even in casual gameplay given it's readily available to those beyond the "hardcore".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard, on what basis do you say it contributes nothing to anyone except for the hardcore? I have a source that casts doubt on the idea that only hardcore gamers would care about it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would use the article on Street Fighter III as an example. They talk about the game play but do not break down every single technique and strategy. “Blitzing”, “turtling”, “supering” --8bitJake (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question, where in the article is it being considered to be included? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

By undestanding of the phrase "advanced technique", I'd say that would define it as an aspect beyond the average scope of gameplay. Within Wikipedia articles, "Gameplay" sections establish the fundamental elements of gameplay, and specifically, noting deviations from predecessors or games from the same genre. The articles should not and mostly do not delve into elements beyond this, such as minor techniques or very specific aspects, except as examples to establish a broader concept. Of course, the limitations to what does and doesn't fall into these categories is a kind of subjective one, but I think I'm pretty safe in saying that an "advanced technique" falls outside of this, and thus not within the purpose of the section. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

@Guy, Link's pretty ambiguous about this. There's been references to inclusion in either "tournaments" or "gameplay". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) Well, given we write for the average reader, and not the average gaming reader, I'm inclined to not include it in either "Gameplay" or "Tournaments". However, it sounds like it could be included with the right wording in the development section. Just a thought. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Ashnard, your reasoning has one flaw - it would entail that it cannot be notable, under any circumstances, even if it somehow gained notoriety to the average reader. Being advanced does not constitute being "too advanced". What it is does not matter, so long as it is notable, and I've established notability with two sources used in the article already. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is actually of high significance (to Melee anyway; it was removed from Brawl with the removal of L-canceling), and was presumed to be a flaw in the game engine. I could conceivably see it used in the development section to point out that the engine does (did) have flaws, or something to that effect. --Izno (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if it's an advanced technique, the only mention it should have in the article is if it's provably of major significance to the industry or culture as a whole. (For example, Asteroids has a cheat technique known as "lurking" that enables players to safely play indefinitely and score huge points. That could arguably be called an advanced technique, but it is mentioned there because it's also a very significant point about the game, and more importantly, its impact on the industry.) However, as described, this "wavedashing" technique does not sound like it has that sort of impact, especially since it had already been introduced in earlier games. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1. It's mentioned in Major League Gaming, the biggest tournament host in the industry, and they described it as the most advanced technique in the game. They say it's known to casual gamers and competitive gamers alike, and NP found it of interest to ask Sakurai about. I don't see why lurking is so much more important.
2. Also, it is not a game flaw; it was not intended, but Sakurai did not consider it a flaw. He stated it was removed to balance the game out more. I mean, if Sakurai considers it significant enough to unbalance the game enough to remove it in the sequel, it seems like it's pretty notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I can't argue that two mentions in interviews help establish its notability, the placement of such information is what makes this awkward. Unless the technique has in some way change industry standards and/or the practice of tournaments, I don't see it garnering anything more than a brief mention with little to no details. But depending on the wording, it could fit into the "Development section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

It's done pretty well to change Tournaments - in fact, the source used to say that it's known outside of hardcore circles also says that it's "changed the face of tournaments". - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did they say more than just that? Like how it's changed tournaments? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

But again, as with whole Ken Hoang fiasco, this is not the point of the tournaments section. That section is a very brief one discussing the impact of Melee's tournaments. To discuss it would be going on off on a tangent. By reference to "development", I don't see how that could work, especially since the source in question is actually talking about Brawl. Besides that, what does it actually have to do with "development"? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not say how it changed them. It merely stated that it was "so influential to competitive play that even Nintendo Power acknowledged it". However, I see no reason to assume that they would pull our legs about it being influential, since they seem to be a reliable published source.

So, you want to actually provide a reason why tournaments have to only discuss the impact of Melee tournaments? At what point does probably the most defining aspect of tournament play in Melee's history not have any relevance to its impact? I have a source that states that it defines tournament play, and yet it's irrelevant to tournament play's impact?

And at what point is it not about Melee? They said that they were aware of wavedashing during the development. Are you saying that that wasn't about Melee? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone actually define Wavedashing real quick? I read the brief version in the Wavedashing "article" that existed before it was changed into a redirect to SSBM, so if I were to base my recommendation on that alone, I'd say it's totally insignificant and doesn't even impact gameplay in a major way. The conversation above seems to say otherwise, so could someone point me to someplace that actually talks about this technique and what its impact on gaming as a whole is? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anyting of interest in the Nintendo mag response beyond the fact that its mentioned? Does Sakurai comment on it anymore, if you could expand upon the impact of the move as opposed to the move itself, like why it was removed. I dont think saying "balancing" is enough, since its a sequel and lots of balancing probably took place. Otherwise I dont think its notable enough and probably gamecruft. John.n-IRL 22:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard- Ok, I think I'm getting up to speed now. If it isn't mentioned in regard to Melee's development, then no, I don't see a reason why it should be included in Melee. Any mention in development should be confined to Brawl. Unless there's a strong impact to the tournaments, then I'm still on the fence until I get more info. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. One note, by mentioning things beyond the very general impact between Melee an tournaments, then that would be opening the flood gates to the inclusion of every notable, player, highscore, event and development of the tournaments scene. Again, this is not the purpose of the section. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sakurai stated that it was removed for balancing - he didn't reference anything else besides that. Wavedashing being mentioned in particular as unbalancing the game makes it more notable than any other unbalancing.

And this here explains what Wavedashing is: [1]. It doesn't have to impact gaming itself, only the game in question. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And Ashnard, I am still curious as to how it's not referencing Melee. Sakurai knew of it during development? You either were simply not telling the truth, or you're saying that he's talking about Brawl's development.

And since when are you the judge of what's "too much"? Arguably, 100% of all content that we knew, know, and ever will know "opens the flood gates for more information to be added". Why do you get to draw the line and say "tournaments are fine, but the #1. defining element of tournaments is not!"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No one here can define what the number one element of a tournament is, however if you had a reference that said something like that...all it needs is more out of universe information. Impact it had on reception maybe? John.n-IRL 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be short, but i'm getting tired of linking to MLG constantly because no one is reading my messages when I link to it, where I link to it almost right above your post, and I've constantly mentioned MLG having said it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You linked it saying its an explanation of what Wavedashing is...so I didnt read it since I know. Sorry. and having looked at it, that in my opinion actually supports the idea that it mite be WP:Fancruft, despite its mention (not exactly extensive coverage) in articles. But thats just my opinion. John.n-IRL 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because it has a guide? If IGN made a guide and, for some reason, mentioned the game's sales figures, does what it is prevent it from being used? And it doesn't HAVE to be extensive coverage to be adequate coverage. One sentence that asserts enough notability as directed by all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines can and will not be denied because of not being "extensive". You're basically excluding it because "the coverage of its notability wasn't big enough". I've proven that it wasn't a game flaw, or unintended, or trivial, so what makes it fancruft? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe that this satisfies wp:n, more precisely, the source does not "address the subject directly in detail". No problem with the general topic of the source being a gameguide by the way. John.n-IRL 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying it's the most influential subject in something that is apparently notable is probably notable. Can you provide any reason, any reason whatsoever, why Nintendo Power would ask about something not notable? Tournaments are important to SSBM, so why doesn't something that defines tournaments get to be called important? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Im not saying its not notable, im saying its coverage is. Notability is derived from coverage(here anyway), and I do not feel the league site (the nature of which detracts from its own coverage since they host the tournaments in question I believe.) and Nintendo Power alone provide enough. And yes, magazines are full of things which could be considered wp:fancruft, even in interviews. By there nature they are appealing to gamers, to whome this is of more interest. John.n-IRL 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not my burden to establish that what these reliable published sources are saying isn't fancruft - that'd be your burden, to establish that it is fancruft. There's no reason to assume, by default, that it's fancruft. Why is this content fancruft now? This content was mentioned by NP and Sakurai and Major League Gaming in a context of importance. Sakurai was aware that the ability to do this was in the game during development, was aware of what it was called. NP thought it important to mention, and MLG, the #1. host of tournaments in gaming and a notable source, said that it was the most influential aspect of competitive play. And do you have any sources that would establish that something said by NP is likely to be guide content? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought it is your burden to prove notability though? Concerning NP, no, nor do i need to in this case. Im not saying the fact that magazines generally do only have info which would be of interest to fans is the reason it shouldnt be included, just saying that I do not believe it is sufficient. John.n-IRL 00:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, cant see where it says it is the most influential aspect of tournaments. I think you are extrapolating from the source. John.n-IRL 00:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Are you saying it's not covered by reliable secondary source?

And if by extrapolating, you mean reading, then yes, I am totally doing that. "Wavedashing has become so influential in defining competitive play that even the writers at Nintendo Power know of its existence. Given this, Wavedashing seems to be the appropriate place to start." It's not the exact same wording, but if it wasn't the most influential aspect of tournament play, then why would they cover it before every other aspect of tournament play, citing the reason for doing so how influential it is? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you need to explain how it is the most influential based upon this article indicates extrapolation. And read more of the wp:n page, where it goes into specifics. John.n-IRL 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Ok, this is getting out of hand and we're debating finer details while many involved (myself for example) don't know why. Link, what exactly do you want included in the article, where, and in what capacity? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Yeah I got the feeling we were starting to move in circles...ah I love wikipedia. :) Concerning the issue, I'd say it could be added, just more sources on effect(or is it affect...I never know), in tournaments or something. John.n-IRL 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (Oh...and damn you guy, I was enjoying my nice healthy debate at two in the morning! :p ) John.n-IRL 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, just so you know, they don't make the nutshell template so that people can read a false statement about the guideline. There is nothing at any point that ever suggests I should not use the reasoning in the nutshell. Why should we not presume it's notable when it says we should? And fine, you win - I'll ammend MY statement - it's one of the most influential, with no other technique in the entire series' history having as much documentation or assertion of notability as this. I hope you feel like you just won the battle of the century - because correcting something, resulting in no change whatsoever in the argument, is such a big deal. That doesn't change the fact that MLG ranked it higher than any other aspect of tournaments in the article. I have gone head over heels to establish notability. You say to read into WP:N more, and I find "it's presumed notable unless it violates WP:NOT." Wanna say what it violates? And detail? At what point is there no detail in the interview? That establishes NP's knowledge of the technique and the developer's knowledge of the technique. MLG adds to this, establishing how important the technique is to the game. Reliable? If NP and MLG aren't reliable, does that mean that Ashnard found them notable when featuring SSBM, but not notable in this one case? Just because NP didn't do some mega-blow out article about Wavedashing doesn't mean the coverage wasn't "substantial." The fact of the matter is that both of the reliable published sources cover it in detail. Both articles assert notability.

Now, do you have any reason not to include? I'm pretty sure some difference of opinion of what is substantial enough to warrant being called substantial - and that being the ONLY reasoning you have to not include, is not much to say that those sources are not "objective evidence" to assume notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you stopped making fake guidelines to support your case, we'd be done by now, huh? And why the Hell do we need more sources? Why is MLG not enough? You have never ever EVER gave any reason why we should have multiple GOOD SOURCES. As in, they could say the same thing, but apparently, the best source for tournament information isn't a good enough source for tournament information? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mate, was just discussing it with you and saying what I thought, sorry if you thought I went to far, at no point did I say or mean I was gonna go in there and change it. As for the nutshell part, just referring to "sources address the subject directly in detail". Anyway, happy editing. John.n-IRL 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) I still feel in the dark about this. I don't want to throw around opinions and policies without fully knowing what is to be included and in what section. Also, if we're going to go into details, perhaps this should move back to the article talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Wow, I cannot believe I read all that. I'll summarise the main objections to its inclusion and respond to them. Then I will provide my only concern about its inclusion.
• Objection 1: _{"it is of no use to anybody beyond the hardcore"} Wikipedia is not a guide; just because casual players don't use it does not mean it should be excluded, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to teach those who wish to know how to play a game, but inform them about various aspects of it. Therefore, its utility to the general population is irrelevant.

• Objection 2: _{"Let's debate what it does contribute, which is virtually nil to anybody beyond the hardcore."} The mistake here is the presumption that people who do not use or do something are necessarily not interested in it. I, for example, have only played SSBM casually and yet I was interested enough in reading about this technique that I googled and read other wikis.

• Objection 3: _{"we write for the average reader, and not the average gaming reader, I'm inclined to not include it in either "Gameplay" or "Tournaments"."} If "advanced techniques" are of no interest, then neither are the groups that use them, so the Tournaments section should be removed too. But you're writing to those who would be your audience. For a game article, that's people who own or are interested in the game—probably gamers. The non-gamer who has only a passing interest can read the lead section and go along their way because the rest of the article will be of little interest anyway.

• Objection 4: _{"by mentioning things beyond the very general impact between Melee an tournaments, then that would be opening the flood gates to the inclusion of every notable, player, highscore, event and development of the tournaments scene."} Its importance to tournaments is that it's become a must-know move if you enter tournies. Knowing players, high scores, past tournies dates, etc. is not required to be competitive. No slippery slope.

• Objection 5: _Fancruft. Fancruft is not a guideline or policy, so it can't be an argument for exclusion. It's a good thing it isn't a guideline, because it would have very negative implications across Wiki and undermine the entire purpose of it! There are a lot of underrated video games that very few people know about, let alone have played. Only serious fans of the company or genre, or professionals in the industry have played them. But the articles on them shouldn't be deleted because Wik was founded for the very purpose of allowing the inclusion of more specialised and detailed info than could be included in print encyclopedias.

• Objection 6: _Notability. Sakurai noted that it needed to be removed to balance the gameplay. And a cursory google search turns up bitter arguments between players, some alleging that it is exploitation of a glitch and is therefore cheating, some alleging that it ruins the fun for less hardcore players... suffice it to say, in was generally perceived to unbalance gameplay and even if a casual player was not interested in learning the technique, they're very likely to have been affected by others using it while playing with them, given the technique's popularity and contentiousness.

As for addressing the subject directly in detail, the notability page is written to determine whether a "topic" should be included on Wiki. The threshold for "in detail" is a lot lower for a mention within an article on a topic than it is for the topic itself. It's a good thing that elements for inclusion in an article do not require too much detail, or else it would be impossible to include anything within an article unless it required an article of its own! That it is addressed succinctly by NP is all the more reason to include it, because it means it can be dealt with swiftly in the article, without seriously lengthening it or getting too much weight.

• My concern: I would like to see what text is being considered for inclusion. As long as it is not too long, I am absolutely for its inclusion as I can see no reasonable objections to it. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

After having read about the technique, I agree as well: It seems notable and important enough to warrant a mention with respect to tournaments. I don't think including it necessarily means we have to mention all other techniques as well, but it may be worth mentioning in a general sense that players have discovered ways to exploit the game's engine to gain a competitive advantage. In a way, this is similar to Super Metroid's speedruns. I think mentioning the term "wavedashing" specifically might cause some issues with "too much detail / gameguide / slippery slope", as it will probably require a considerable amount of explanation either directly or via a link. But I'd recommend a more general statement along the lines of this:

This is just a preliminary suggestion, but I think it would allow us to mention "advanced techniques" in a way that is interesting to the casual reader. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Time to address some misconceptions. Here we go:

• Notability—please, this applies to the article's topic only, and does not dictate content. Perhaps the relevant links would be WP: GAMECRUFT, WP: TRIVIA and WP: WEIGHT.
• Objection 1 of Cc: Its utility to the general audience is relevant. You've misinterpreted it as me talking about in the gameplay-sense exclusively. I can't speak for the general audience, but how is an advanced technique of any encyclopaedic value? On the furthest stretch of desperation, you could make an argument for cramming it into "tournaments", but this is not the purpose of the section.
• Objection 2: Good for you. But by your definition, I could add in the special moves of my favourite character, merely because I find it interesting. But again, I can't speak for everyone when I say that it's minutia.
• Objection 3: No, no, no. The "tournamnets" section exists to establish the game's impact on the scene and nothing else beyond this. The exception to this is the Ken statement, but that never should have been put in. Justification by example isn't the best either. Hah, so we should cater to the hardcore because the casual reader only reads the lead—how many policies are you contradicting there?
• Objection 4: But this is not the purpose of the section. By definition of others' arguments, it has an impact on the tournaments. Then by the wonderful example, everything that has had an "impact" should be included. My limited knowledge knows that this list could be very long. This isn't my main argument, though.
• Objection 5: No, but WP: GAMECRUFT is a guideline. If we couldn't use it as an argument, then it would be completely redundant. As for your Wikipedia "philosophy" if you can call it that, well...what can I say?
• Objection 6: You're only setting some vague criteria of inclusion without saying how this information meets that, except from "I'm a casual gamer, and I like it".

To KieferSkunk, I've seen this before on WP:VG. If we find information that is ambiguous in its relevance, we like to coat this by wording in it in a way that seems to extend its relevance and impact. It's the same thing, there is no justification, but we include it as an example to establish a somewhat broader concept to appease its advocate who for some questionable reason fights tooth-and-nail to include. Anyway, I thought you wanted some sort of cultural impact to warrant inclusion? My big sentiment is that we shouldn't include things for the sake of inclusion. When things come up, we shouldn't try to accommodate something where it has no place. And please, before anyone suggests, don't look for "compromise", look for what's actually good for the article. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

re: 1. Sorry for misinterpreting what you meant by "use". It's of encyclopedic value when it is notable. It is.

re: 2. No, now you've made the mistaken assumption that my refutation of objection 2 was my grounds for supporting its inclusion. It is not. I am merely systematically eliminating objections. I would assert that it does contribute something to those beyond the hardcore—not that this is enough to justify its inclusion, but it's enough to eliminate opposition on those grounds.

re: 3. Indeed. "The scene" is for the hardcore. If no techniques used by the hardcore are to be included because it's only of concern to them, then why should the impact of the game on their scene be included? Both can be construed as only information of "use" to advanced/hardcore/elite players. I am not contradicting policies. I am asking you to consider the implication if the non-gaming reader's interests were to be taken into consideration.

re: 4. Merely having an impact—how vague— is oversimplifying things. It's the kind of impact it has, and the slippery slope of things you listed have a different quality of impact than this technique. Hell, I doubt if you could even find notable sources like NP listing that info.

re: 5. WP: GAMECRUFT means that WP is not a game guide. ALttP already stated that he's "established that it can be written without teaching the player how to perform the technique in any scenario"—an assertion you did not challenge. All that is required by this guideline is that he describe wavedashing without "explaining how to execute [it] using the controller". If he can do this, then this guideline is not a valid means of objection.

re:6. I had an extra paragraph detailing all my reasons, but I found it repetitive and obnoxious to make people read more so I deleted it. It should be included because: A. it is of interest to those beyond hardcore gamers because i) just because people don't do something doesn't mean they aren't interested in it AND ii) they are likely to have encountered others using the technique on them in a match and so it affected them directly so they might hold negative opinions about the technique (since it is noted for unbalancing gameplay) or be interested in reading what it was. AND B. I see no guideline regulating the inclusion of content based on who is interested in the info. I instead see guidelines for that purpose based on notability. AND C. It is notable because i) noteworthy, reliable sources have reported on it AND ii) it is a required technique in tournies AND iii) it has been a source of controversy on whether it is a 'glitch' and whether exploiting it is fair play AND iv) it was so grand in the scale of its consequences that special attention was paid to eliminate it in making the sequel. AND D. There remain no objections besides how much weight it should be given in the article. As long as the mention is short and concise, I am in favour. If it isn't, let's work it down to a manageable size. Then worry about where to include it. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

• 1: What do you mean by notable? If by this, you're referrring to WP:N, then you're mistaken as this applies to the article's topic only.
• 2: But how is your personal experience enought to discount this? In terms of using it to establish "gameplay", I believe it would be of no interest to the general audience, and I don't think your statement discounts this, although I cannot necessarily prove my original claim. When talking about "tournaments", it's a whole different ball game, but inappropriate for other reasons.
• 3: The tournament section was written explicitly to factor in the legacy of SSBM in relation to tournaments. The section does not cover the "scene" but establishes the game's influence on tournament development. Again, the only statement that deviates from this purpose is the Ken statement, which shouldn't be there.
• 4: Actually, there's a slew of sources that cover the "scene" in great detail. By using this as a precedent, I would not be able to deny further coverage, but again, the section is sub-section within "legacy". It is only there to convey the game's legacy. I don't know what you mean by saying it has a different impact. There are many reliable sources that cover factors that affect the tournaments much in the vain of Wavedashing.
• 5: From the guideline that you know so much about: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." Of course this applies mainly to the notion of explaining it as a factor in "gameplay".
• A: How is it of interest. You could only ever try to find a way of pronouncing the impact on tournaments, but that is not what the section is for.
• Ai and ii: But these are all nuances of the gaming audience. To say that it has been used against you is not a plausible context for inclusion in Wikipedia.
• B: I've provided that guideline, although there is more coverage about audience issues. Writing for a general audience is one of the fundamental aspects os the encyclopaedia.
• C: i) Reliable sources reporting on something doesn't make it automatcially worthy of inclusion. Reliable sources report on winners and losers, but that's never going to go in this article. ii) To report on techniques in matches is to lose focus. I expect that there is a favourite character of choice there, but this article will never report on such nuances. iii) Controversy? Please, some forumers probably started moaning. From the evidence, there is no major controversy.

Finally, the proposal to write about and then figure out where to put it epitomises the whole attitudes raised here. Just putting it in for the sake of inclusion, without thought of what it actually contributes. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point three, I'd like to point out that I said that without knowing much about the debate. I said "inclined" because that's my general rule of thumb when dealing with precise gameplay details. However, I do believe there are exceptions. Having said that, I still think we're going off on a tangent.

Regarding Kiefer's suggestion, "While Melee has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, advanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's engine, often giving them a competitive advantage in tournaments." It sounds reasonable, but I would tweak it a bit. "While Melee has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, aAdvanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's engine, often giving themto obtain a competitive advantage in tournaments."

I personally don't see any reason to mention the technique by name in Melee. However, it seems appropriate to mention it by name in the development section of Brawl. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Ashnard: I disagree that the proposal is there just to appease the person who wants to include the text in the first place. I'm not attempting to appease anyone - I'm saying that I agree there is sufficient ground to actually include this statement - the SSBM engine is flexible and varied enough that it lends itself to many different styles of play, and not very many games can claim that. Again, I cite Super Metroid and the concept of speed runs. If we can mention speed runs in the Super Metroid article, we should also be able to mention the fact that there are well-known exploits available in SSBM. I don't see the harm in doing so, it violates no policy or guideline that I'm aware of (even given the detailed point-by-point arguments above), and it helps to broaden the scope of the article.

Think of it this way: An average non-gamer may not necessarily be interested in reading about HOW to perform a wavedash, or what specifically it allows him to do, but knowing that it's possible in THIS game specifically might increase his interest in the game itself. We do have to consider multiple levels of readership here, not just the lowest common denominator. I think the biggest challenge in this particular case is figuring out the most appropriate place to insert the comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re point 2 Ashnard: You seem to be arguing the same way others have argued (other than Clickety) in that while arguing for its non-inclusion, you have already decided it doesn't need to go in the article, based on your own prejudices about the information's value. You are not (nor is any other person) the judge of that; reliably sourced information is. I honestly think Kiefer's middle-of the road approach is the way to go here, as it's a general statement that allows for expansion if someone deems it needs to be. Naturally, such a statement would need to be made in the development section. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what, whatever—do what you guys want. I've got thirteen GCSEs to revise for and I can't be doing with this. I've wrote the article to include what is relevant based on the guidelines, and now that's twice some ranting user has came there, yelled the loudest and has forced something that has no place in the article. I guess that's taught me to try and make something of a popular game. To Kiefer, by definition of your "explanation", this article nor any other article on the project would be what it is if we were to take that stance. We seem to include things on the basis that they may be of interest to some fringe minority in the world, and then all we need is a source and an exaggerated rationale-effect and then it's in the article. But nobody batters an eyelid because it "does no harm". A bit melodramatic I know, but it's just so annoying. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To Izno—bollocks to middle-of-the-road. The merest sign of ambiguity and people look to something "middle-of-the-road" -like because they don't want to commit one way or the other. The worst thing is that something that doesn't dismiss one party exclusively for the sake of curtailing Wikidrama is always viewed as the best option. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You basically try to strong arm me by telling me I don't have enough throughout this whole conversation and try to dominate by simply blocking the text from being added (knowing that the one opposing the text has the advantage), but when you realize people have more sense than to let you use strong arm tactics on them, you just throw in the towel. You keep making up your own personal, POV, OR, biased assessment that it's "only of relevance to a small group of people". If you find that annoying try dealing with someone who clings to imaginary guidelines.

And Ashnard, Notability DOES work for me. You've never suggested that it fails notability - merely it's not in a position to pass or fail it. If you are so adamant on opposing its usage of WP:N for being in the article, let's say that I want to make an article on Wavedashing. Are you saying it does not pass WP:N? Of course it can't be an article just for passing WP:N as it would be very short, but if it can pass WP:N, then theoretically, it's one step closer to having an article. And in essence, ALL articles are "the contents of articles". So if it can pass the guideline to bring it one step closer to being its own article, then it is certainly notable enough to be mentioned in ANOTHER article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are arguing about something's inclusion in an article, and then you talk about a guideline applicable to the article's topic only, then the proceeding "logic" is immaterial. You can't criss-cross policies this way to justify your argument. For that reason, I've never argued about its Notability because it isn't applicable. But, as a matter of principles, it fails it anyway because a passing reference in NP and the tournament's site does not count as "significant coverage". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are continuing to misunderstand what I say, Ashnard. I won't get into detail per Guyinblack's observation that we're on a tangent, as well it seems to be getting hostile (I'll peg it as stress of exams.) If you really want to know, I can spam up your talk page, but this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As Kiefer and Izno noted, what's relevant are the guidelines and policies, in order to avoid WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which warns: "what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there is no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted... Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as cruft. While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential."

You're correct in saying that WP:N is really written for topics, not facts for inclusion, but that really only strengthens my argument, seeing as I had to make that distinction in defense of inclusion. What's left to consider? It is WP:VERIFIABLE because it has a WP:RELIABLE source. WP:TRIVIA is not valid grounds for opposition because it pertains to lists of info and because it "does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Neither is WP:Undue weight, because it applies to representing perspectives on an issue fairly. WP:GAMECRUFT is subject to the caveats of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and whether "content only has value to people actually playing the game" is hard to determine, except by the list of unsuitable content, and as long as we can avoid "explaining how to execute [wavedashing] using the controller is not", then we're golden. On that note, I'll turn to Guyinblack's edit of Kiefer's suggestion.

"While Melee has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, aAdvanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's physics engine, often giving themto obtain a competitive advantage in tournaments. While exploits such as wavedash were discovered during development, they were omitted from Super Smash Bros. Brawl in order to "level the playing field" because Nintendo noted that these exploits were the cause of "a growing gap between beginners and advanced players" in Melee, according to Masahiro Sakurai."

Note: we will not make a move to insert this information until you are finished your exams and have ample time to respond, Ashnard, because there is no deadline. Don't feel pressure to respond now. Do well on your exams and we'll have a finalised version of the proposed text ready for you to look over when you can afford to. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a straw poll if the issue is not resolved soon. Without any personal attack meant, discussions with clicketyclick can be rather tiring due to a lack of conciseness, and it would be a shame to exclude anyone from the consensus-building because of this rather 'administrative' side effect. On a broader note, I think that a survey akin to the WP:AMS would be beneficial on the general subject of "gamecruft"/"useful in-depth discussion of the gameplay". User:Krator (t c) 20:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Krator, do you mean like a "support" or "oppose/object" thing? If so...

Oppose: Besides all my arguments, none of the advocates actually know where to put the information, which doesn't reflect well upon intentions in my opinion. After all, the info should be based upon the pupose of the section itself, so I don't know how writing and then choosing sections is supposed to work. Anyway, I digress: it is of no use in "gameplay" considering gameplay is only described in a very general sense, and this would be setting a precedent for other nuances. It shouldn't go in "development" since it is unrelated to development unless in the Brawl article. To include it in "tournament" is to lose focus of the section and to deviate from its purpose, which is to establish' Melee's legacy only. The only evidence we have that it's more than an advanced technique is its impact on the tournaments, which the article does not cover in any detail. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No personal attack meant, yet you single me out from among all the participants as the cause of this continued discussion and exclusion of others from consensus-building, despite my efforts to make sure all can participate. However, I do seem to recall that the only time you've encountered me, you attempted to exclude dissenting voices by means of deleting an entire discussion and referring back to an informally proposed one, in which three people agreed, as established consensus on the issue, which any further discussion would be upturning. No personal attack meant.

Support: Per my explanation of the need to avoid WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which informs WP:GAMECRUFT, which is wholly satisfied by even this early draft of the text for inclusion. As well, it is WP:VERIFIABLE because it has a WP:RELIABLE source. These are the guidelines and policies dictating inclusion of info and it meets all criteria. It can fit into either Gameplay or Development. Precedent for "nuances"—whatever those are—are not set by articles, as each time the issue comes up, the guidelines and policies are the things referred to. Brawl is only mentioned in passing to indicate the conclusions Nintendo drew about gameplay in Melee. It fits in Dev because it mentions a 'glitch' noted during development. It fits in Gameplay because it contains Nintendo's perceptions of flaws with Melee's gameplay. Hell, it could go in Reception as criticism that Nintendo leveled against itself. That the location hasn't yet been decided upon is not sufficient grounds to fundamentally oppose insertion.clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That a location hasn't been decided on wasn't my main argument, and I think I made that explicitly clear. By the way, precedent is set by articles. If an interpretation of a guideline leads to a piece of information's inclusion, then that will be held as an example. People assume that the original inclusion was justified, so they think using that as an example is a great argument, and most won't disagree. For example, when KieferSkunk tried to use Super Metroid's speedrunning as an example in favour of wavedashing's inclusion. The information about Brawl's development should be reserved for Brawl. You can't allude to some strange synthesis like "they removed it to balance it in Brawl, so that must mean Melee was unbalanced". I don't know what you mean by "glitch" because it apparently wasn't a glitch, so please explain. To say that it's preceived flaws in Melee's gameplay again is original synthesis, and it wouldn't go in gameplay too. "Gameplay" comments on gameplay, and not rationales or consequences of features, even though again, you couldn't use the claim. Mainly, you can't interpret it as a critcism. All series undergo development, and if we were to comment on existing features in Melee by merit of alterations in Brawl, then that would be losing focus. The predecessor-successor relation doesn't work like that in articles. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your argument then, in light of my response about policies and guidelines? Regardless of the Metroid example, Kiefer's main argument was that it violated no policies and guidelines. There is no strange synthesis: "With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, "OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?" We really just wanted this game, again, to appeal to and be played by gamers of all different levels. We felt that there was a growing gap between beginners and advanced players, and taking that out helps to level the playing field." (Sakurai's words.) Glitch was in scare quotes. Discussion of where it goes can take place later as we all agree that it is irrelevant to this argument. 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC) clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it violates any guidelines or policies is, to some extent, dependent on its usage, which is somewhat counterproductive for this debate. For example, if it was used in "gameplay", I could conclusively say that it does, per WP: GAMECRUFT. That it violates no policies or guidelines explicitly in this context is why we're discussing this—otherwise no discussion would be required. I think it's dependent on users' interpretation of relevance, and what is or is not conducive to an article. But again, not specifying how the information is going to be used/placed is limiting how this can develop, because that makes such a difference. At this point, I can't see its relevance in any context within the article, as explained above. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of gamecruft, precisely? And you are opposing it at the outset on the grounds that you can't see where it would be placed before efforts have really been made to write the thing. As it currently stands, it is two short sentences. Since you agree this comes down to different ideas of relevance, is it really worth such adamant opposition and this whole discussion? Why don't we stop this tiresome discussion over whether it shouldn't be allowed outright and turn to productively attempting to write it and figure out how to fit it in. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But I can only be as tenacious as the opposing debater for it to continue. For WP: GAMECRUFT, "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." would, in my interpretation, exclude it in the context of the explaining the game's gameplay. By the way, I have never said that I opposed on them grounds, only that it is seriously limiting how the debate can develop, and essentially, what we are debating. Its length and the fact that it will add content to the article is irrelevant towards the rationale for inclusion. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If that were some sort of "ending rule", then it wouldn't be a guideline. It would be a policy. There's tons of precedence to show high quality articles featuring similar content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As part of working on adding sources to Sega Mega Drive, I found that I could include a link to Joe Montana Football (a 1990 game), which to my surprise was a redirect to its 1994 sequel. I threw together an article with the development and reception information from my source and one other I found in a quick search for an infobox image. If anyone is interested, it could use a Gameplay section and critical reviews added to Reception. It could also use a slightly better infobox image if anyone can take one. Anomie⚔ 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon the Category:Computer mahjong and it's pretty atrocious. Virtually all the articles are lousy stubs, many of them have been that way for years and many of them are orphans.

• Aki (computer game)
• Apparel Night
• Baka Tono-sama Mahjong Manyuki
• Bijokko Gakuen
• Bijokko Yume Monogatari
• Dynasty Warriors Mahjong
• Ide Yōsuke no Mahjong Juku
• Jangō Simulation Mahjong-dō 64
• Kiwame Mahjong DX2
• Brodie Lockard (an author. is this even notable?)
• Mahjong 64
• Mahjong Hōrōki Classic
• Mahjong Master
• Mahjong Taikai
• Maqiupai
• Princess Brave
• Pro Mahjong Kiwame 64
• Pro Shinan Mahjong Tsuwamono 64: Jansō Battle ni Chōsen
• Yosuke Ide's Mahjong Juku

There are only two non-stubs in the entire category. Computer mahjong and Mahjong solitaire which are both in rough shape. That's a whole other story.

I'd like to merge these all together in a list of mahjong video games, unless someone else has another solution. I'd appreciate some help too. Randomran (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The only issue I see with that the list may never be comprehensive as the number of mahjong video games is too large to keep track of. So Featured status may be out of the question for it down the road. But I can't really think of an alternative. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

I can live with that. At this point, it's nice just to avoid a bunch of barely notable, orphaned stubs. Randomran (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahjong video games are all the same... just consider them all the same game, and merge them in Mahjong video game, mentioning any specific game when needed. This way it doesn't have to be comprehensive. The number of mahjong games is large, but that doesn't mean they're all notable. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Making a genre article would be a good idea in any case. For most of these particular articles, however, I would just prod them rather than put them in a list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I PROD'ed a few. I'll wait a few days and try to mention these individually in some kind of Mahjong video game article, with a bunch of redirects. Randomran (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the deletions of the clearly non-notable stuff have come through, with the exception of Aki (computer game). If someone wanted to do a formal AFD because the sources found are not notable enough, I'd support it. Otherwise, I'm going to do a merge of the remaining articles. The information is all going to be essentially for the same game(play). Randomran (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a mahjong video game article based on a merge of the remaining mahjong game articles. I'd appreciate a copy-edit or a clean-up. I really want nothing to do with this topic, but I do enjoy a good cleanup. Another helpful thing to do would be to clean up a few of the redirects so they point directly to the new article. Randomran (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

These templates are currently overlapping: Template:Gamecleanup and Template:Gameguide. Both have a fair amount of usage. For consistency we should pick one to use and redirect the other. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep Template:Gamecleanup, just makes more sense to me. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gamecleanup is for any type of cleanup needed for a video game article. Gameguide is for an article that has game guide information that needs to be cleaned. Pagrashtak 05:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, the templates and their documentation need to reflect this. Otherwise people are just going to use the first one they find. A lot of articles are probably miscategorized. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a basic description of the two templates on the other's instructions and linked them. Hope that will clear things up at least a little bit. Feel free expand it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

I think we need both, to be honest. There's a special place in hell for articles that have lots of game guide type stuff and need to be summarized and scrubbed. That's compared to other game articles that just need copy-editing, organization, etc. I'd prefer to keep both, and create a more clear distinction between the two. Randomran (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should Gameguide be expanded to include not just gameplay but also excessive story detail? The article I'm looking at is Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should expand for sure. But articulating it properly is difficult. How much detail is excessive? I've tried to rely upon WP:GAMETRIVIA when it comes to something like that. Obviously we can never be 100% clear. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to produce a rule that can be interpreted by the community to weed out the most terrible of info. Randomran (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I decided to dig around the internet for the article I'd gone tooth and nail over in the past and see if more information had turned up, and some indeed had, but there's a bit of an issue. Derrick Sobodash, CinnamonPirate's webmaster and fellow that made the initial english report on the cart, managed to get his hands on a copy of it and did a detailed extended analysis (vital information for the article), as well as mentioned the fact that many initially reacted to it as being a fake (something even the AfD discussion partially reflected when it went down). Aspects of that analysis are also reflected in a copy of an eBay sale that can be found here (it should be noted that according to the seller, Kitsune Sniper, SquareEnix had the auction terminated on eBay).

Now the dilema is, I've cited CP's original article heavily the first time...though the reason being most of the sites covering the subject did the very same thing rather than cover it themselves. So should I cite the second article still? And can the gamecollecting.com article be used in accordance with it or would reference issues come up there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody happen to have Issue 42 of Retro Gamer? I checked the Magazine page but didn't see it and was hoping a member here might have it. Please leave me a note on talk page if you do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

There seems that there is not an article on yirn based RPG's. Examples are Blue Dragon which is a turn based RPG. I think an article should be made, what do you guys think? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any real value to having RPGs categorized based on real time versus turn based. Do other scholars/journalists talk about them along these lines? I know there's a lot of talk about different combat systems in RPGs. But I think it's already covered at Role-playing_game_(video_games)#Combat. Randomran (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For RPGs turn-based is the implied default. Action RPGs are the exception. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been brought up before, but I have not seen any concrete decision regarding chronology. I know that dates should be grouped by platform and then by country, but does it matter what order the countries are in? Is it better to just have one translusion of {{vgrelease}} where the dates are not chronological, or have multiple translusions so the dates are? I personally think that chronology is important, but one translusion is better. A recommendation I have is to change {{vgrelease}} so that the order that the parameters are given are the order that the dates show up. The best way I can think of doing this would be to create subtemplates (i.e {{vgrelease/NA}} which would be <small>^{[[North America|NA]]}</small>), and have the main template translude whichever subtemplate is needed (i.e {{vgrelease/{{{1}}}). MrKIA11 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that setting the order of the Release Date field in concrete would be a bad thing. At the moment we have the flexibility to group varying dates by platform, if dates were displayed in strict chronological order we would end up with the platform being repeated numerous times for quite a few articles. Some articles format better when chronological ordering is used but other articles format better when grouped by platform and then chronological order. I think we should keep the flexibility of having that option. I also think that having multiple templates for different occasions will make it harder for passing casual editors to add information. - X201 (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what I said originally was not very clear. I think that the current guidelines of sorting by platform first should be kept, but the template should be changed so that the dates can be chronological within each platform, with one call to the template per platform. The user would not be using different templates, only the template itself would be. For example, a release date of May 8, 2008 in North America and a release date of May 10, 2008 in Japan could be {{vgrelease|NA|[[May 8]], [[2008]]|JP|[[May 10]], [[2008]]}} or {{vgrelease|JP|[[May 10]], [[2008]]|NA|[[May 8]], [[2008]]}}, both of which would display the same chronological order. Depending on the region specified (i.e. NA, JP, EU, etc.), the template would translude the respective subtemplate for that region. I hope this clarifies my idea a little. I can make a userpage of my idea if someone wants me to. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I created a template page here as an example. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion I think is to use both in form of indented lists, although I'm not sure how you'd demplate this. Essentially, you have platforms sorted in the order of the first instance of release for that platform. Other release dates are included under their relevant platform in date order for the territory. Please let me know if this isn't clear and I'll try to include an example.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be done with multiple calls to the template. The new template is just to have a one call per platform. I don't think an indent is necessary though. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, so that you use the template once for each platform. Makes sense now. I'd agree with that, and in that case suggest it's sorted chronologically, with seperate calls used for each platform.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So I guess since no one else has anything to say...Where should I request a bot to change all of the current calls? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After completing the exhaustive listing of the SNES / Super Famicom games, I'm thinking of turning my interest to a different kind of listing, and was looking for interest. Please respond back with any helpful guidelines you may have for the page I'm considering.

I'm looking at creating a List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games by genre. I would use the Video game genres page for the actual naming of the genres, of course. Games would be listed with the following columns under each genre: 1) Wikipedia Name, 2) NA Name, 3) European Name, 4) Japanese Name, 5) Other alternate names. The producer, developer, and release date information would be left off with the assumption that such information would be available from the game pages, or the main lists (which would be linked on the page.

With the number of games listed, I might be better off making separate pages for each list, or at least each main genre. Preferably, I'd like to see each game listed under its most specific genres. So, Tactical RPG's would not just be lumped together under an RPG heading.

I realize that the idea of Video game genre is often controversial, and as often, blurry for specific games. On the other hand, since the demise of NSRT, I've been looking for something to provide a genre classification of this game system.

Am I overlooking projects that may already have this covered? Is this something desired by others? Or would this just create a long flame-war over classification of specific games? Dawynn (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I pay a lot of attention to the genre articles and they're in rough shape. In a lot of flux at this point, even core ones like shooters or RPGs. Because very few of the genre articles make solid use of reliable research, they become magnets for information creep based on "common sense". Which inevitably leads to an edit war on a genre article now and then. I think this would provoke too many edit wars at this stage. Most of the genre articles are B-class. If some of them passed "good article review", then people might be able to rely upon them to classify games in a reliable way. Then again, that shouldn't stop you. There are lots of video game lists that attempt to list genre. The great thing about wikipedia is can constantly evolve and correct itself with new information. Randomran (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of unnecessary articles with limited / bad information. So I'd like to draw your attention to three proposals:

• Merge Run and gun, Scrolling shooter, Top down shooter and Run and gun into Shoot 'em up. In a nutshell, shoot 'em up covers all the information and these other articles just get into unnecessary detail about viewpoint/perspective. (See discussion)

• Merge Grand strategy wargame into wargame and wargame (video games). This is really a minor distinction that hasn't been written about extensively. Probably because it can be summed up in a sentence. (See discussion)

• Merge space simulator and space flight simulator, but split out the video game information from the academic information. These articles are a mess, probably because the scope of each article is unclear. (See discussion)

Take a quick glance at the articles and discussions to get a sense for why these mergers might be necessary. I'd like to build a consensus to organize this creep of unnecessary genre articles. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it. The genre articles are growing to ridiculous proportions. Just last week we had to delete "Cartoon Shooter" or something like that. What's next? "Bear and bird action platformers with shiny golden puzzle thingys"? .:Alex:. 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd be doing me a big favor if you echoed that sentiment at the three respective discussion pages. I want to have something to point to in case I run into an edit war with people reverting the merges. Randomran (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. If someone complains, just point to this discussion post. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I might encourage people to view the "mergeto" articles and help me with a quick copy-edit:

• shoot 'em up (top priority!)
• space flight simulator game
• wargame (video games), turn-based tactics

Thanks for all your help so far. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WLU has just re-written Master of Orion unilaterally, despite the fact that I pointed out some drawbacks of changes he had already made and asked him to discuss further changes on the Talk page. The further down the article I read, the more dissatified I am with the changes - there are errors, omissions that are as misleading, a lot of re-phrasing for the sake of it that IMO generally reduces clarity, etc. Arbitration is needed, otherwise this is going to wind up as an edit war. Someone who knows the game woudl be the ideal arbitrator, to avoid the need to paste chunks of the manual and other rlevant material into the discussion. Philcha (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No one has attempted to revert my changes or edit the page since my edits. I don't claim to be an expert on MOO or the sequels and I've no objections to the page being further expanded or corrected. There's no edit war since no-one has reverted, and I've repeatedly said I've no problem with someone else editing if they think it warranted. WLU (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on the above article's peer review would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can people please, please, please comment? For some reason, people can easily comment on the existence of one article or the inclusion of two sentences in another article, but the existence of close to one hundred gets two comments at most. Those articles are pretty much all messes with no potential. Only seven articles (Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Miles "Tails" Prower, Knuckles the Echidna, Doctor Eggman, Shadow the Hedgehog, Metal Sonic, and Amy Rose) and seven character lists (List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Sonic the Hedgehog (comic book) characters, Sonic the Comic characters, List of characters from Sonic X, List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series), List of characters in Sonic Underground, and Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog characters) are necessary, give or take one or two.

That's the basic plan, but if someone want to change it, that's fine. The main thing is that it gets started, and the only way that will happen is if people will comment. It won't take that many, but It'll take more than the two or three that usually do so. TTN (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way is to nominate these for deletion one by one over the course of a few months. Takes a long time, but will avoid any problems like last time a noble cause as this was pursued with too much zeal. User:Krator (t c) 12:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that would end up working correctly. Some may end up redirected/deleted, but all of the usual complications will eventually pile up on them. If you want to do it for some of the minor comic characters, that may be fine, but any that are "major" or appear in multiple pieces of media will be shot down pretty quickly. It's really only three or four actual users opposing it, so as long as there is a number consensus here, and the actual mergers are done slowly, it should work out. TTN (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest taking this to Fiction-related noticeboard, making sure to announce here and to the Sonic articles/project that it is there? There's a couple reasons, one being that it is part of a dispute resolution (even if there's a handful that want to keep them, overwhelming with numbers is not really the greatest idea). The second being is that this will be a good test of a recent addition to WP:FICT on non-notable character lists and how they should be organized - the Sonic fandom is large enough to have several spinoff medium but doesn't lack the huge background of materia like Star Wars. --MASEM 13:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You can if you would like. So far, not enough people have bothered with it to make a difference in any discussion. If you want to get the people from the FICT discussion in on it, that may work. TTN (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you list the usernames of those who oppose this redirection here please? User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought there were more, but I guess it's just User:Doktor Wilhelm, User:Red Phoenix, User:Fairfieldfencer, and a few anons that commented once. TTN (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm's not currently active, as it happens. I don't think RedPheonix is opposed to merging certain of the characters also.Bridies (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a chat with Fairfieldfencer after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie-Su ends. User:Krator (t c) 14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you beg for comments, here's mine: Weren't you restricted from requesting merges, redirections, or deletions of character articles? And before anyone tries to claim it doesn't apply to VG characters, note that List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series) is in the list. Anomie⚔ 15:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's through the use of tags. I'm still able to use talk pages according to that. At least, that's what I'm able to get from it. I commented on a request for clarification, but they haven't bothered to respond. TTN (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN, I know we have tangoed a bit at WikiProject Sega, but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. My opinions that I stated against merging apply only to these articles which you have put under your blanket for merging: Cream the Rabbit, Blaze the Cat, Silver the Hedgehog, and Rouge the Bat. That's it. We can discuss the rest later if you can keep your nose clean and out from ArbCom violations. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

VG editors should be aware that there's currently some issues with how VG articles are being bought up and commented on at Feature Article Candidates as per this talk section. The "tl;dr" version is that some of the actions look like cabal-type activies, with the same grouping of VG editors nominating articles while strongly supporting others (though this is only what is looks like, there's no evidence there is a cabal), but more importantly that articles being sent to FAC are not the quality that they should be for FAC, resulting in the FAC making a lot of work for the reviewers. While the first issue is not a huge concern there, it is the fact that many of these articles only pass through VG editor's hands before hitting FAC (Peer reviewed via VG's PR system, and passing GA from a VG-based editor), such that they have been edited in a vacuum of the VG project compared to the rest of WP. This is not to say VG articles can't be FACs, just that editors should look to better quality control before taking them to FAC, and we should probably resort to larger WP-wide help , such as the common PR system, to avoid this. --MASEM 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My little idea to solve this is discussed here. User:Krator (t c) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem may also run to (or perhaps arise from) the GA articles as well. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Grand_Theft_Auto_IV. - X201 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried standard peer review a couple of times, all I got out of it was an automated message - absolutely no responses from any editors. The non-VG reviewers need to be prepared to help out in those areas if they don't want under quality work coming to them at FAC. -- Sabre (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what Krator said. I haven't fully read through this discussion of the GA process but I think Krator's suggestion is probably the easiest solution to implement. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure how much we could give back to Miltary, as those generally are of good quality with their own peer reviewing process. --Izno (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think both groups can provide a fresh perspective to each other's articles. Besides, the more we review different type of articles, the better our editing skills will become. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Not to really burst the bubble, but why would someone who generally edits video game articles be in any way interested in suddenly editing military history articles. When I saw the proposal, the first thing I thought was "Video games and military history are about as alike as cats and dogs," and I'm sure the main editor bases are just as different. The main difference here is that video games are fictional constructs, while military history is rooted in reality; it would make more sense for WP:VG to work with WP:NOVEL or something else rooted in fiction; hell, even WP:ANIME is becoming more active (although again I don't know how many VG editors would be interested in reading and copyediting articles like Fullmetal Alchemist [which, admittedly, is quite close to becoming at least a GA]).--十八 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The aim is not to edit unfamiliar articles, but provide an outside perspective for peer reviews purposes. Both parties will benefit as their articles will get some fresh eyes and editors will get more experience reviewing.

Though, you do bring up a good point, there are plenty of other Projects that this could work with too. Something to definitely explore after this initiative gets up and going. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

十八: I think the very point of the suggestion is that the main editor bases are different; part of the problem that Krator was addressing is that VG editors (regardless of whatever other projects they participate in) are the only ones seeing VG articles before they get to FAC and so the articles aren't prepared (and their Support votes at FAC are premature) because the reviewers are familiar with the editors and article, as well as the subject, so stuff slips by them more easily. From looking over recent FA/GA noms, it appears that our greatest weaknesses are jargon and grammar. Fixing this doesn't require interest or experience in fictional constructs—just less knowledge about the subject and a good understanding of English. I have a few fears about working with the novel or anime WPs: 1) the considerable userbase overlap means that the problem might not be solved. 2) Novel isn't that active, looking at its PR process; I'm not sure they could handle us 3) Do they have cool uniforms? See, cuz, I don't think they do. I think we need some editors who are firmly rooted in reality and have a good shouting voice (and uniform) to whip our articles into shape. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, but I still doubt participation on a large scale. Like Guyinblack said, I think getting other active wikiprojects involved may be a good idea, and might be what this process needs to jump start it rather than start out slow and gradually pick up pace.--十八 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see WP Anime being asked in addition to Military History and others too, but I just wouldn't want the collaboration to end up with only people who are interested in the topic (and therefore probably familiar with the article and its editors) doing the reviewing. If there were multiple WPs involved, maybe we'd need some sort of 'rule' to ensure an article gets reviewed by at least one member of an opposite kind of WP. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST is the most active wikiproject on Wikipedia by far, and are similar to us in focussing on quality (lots of FA). Anime has considerable userbase overlap, and suffers from the same issues. Let's first see how this works out with milhist. Besides milhist and us, I'm not familiar with wikiprojects that do a lot of review-like things. That is necessary for this to work, as you're essentially exchanging review. User:Krator (t c) 01:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) FWIW, I think this is an outstanding idea. I hope it works out. I'd love to be able to read every video game FAC and write "Hell yes, next." --Laser brain (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it really that bad? I don't know as I don't review FACs outside WP:VG, but most are far from perfect, including my own. I'd also say that Krator's suggestion is an excellent one—it's not like most candidates hadn't undergone PR previously, it's just that issues relating to intended audience/jargon and prose aren't eliminated comprehensively. I don't know, maybe it's because most editors to the project edit it exclusively, and it may be difficult to realise how or why a non-gamer may be confused. Hopefully, all of our skills can be sharpened by observation of MILHIST, and even vice versa. Nice to see a positive and constructive response to criticism too. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The overall feeling from responses seems to be accepting of the idea. The military discussion seems to be geared more towards the logistics of how this would work, but members seem a little split on the idea.

Krator, can you go into more detail on the implementation you had in mind so we can be prepared to get this up and running when and if the MILHIST Project agrees. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

I agree with the above that this is a great idea. I would go out on a limb to say that most people at MILHIST have rarely if ever reviewed a video game article, and this is a nice way to resolve copy-editing problems that are not immediate to a VG writer. That said, per Guyinblack, more details on what this would actually involve would be nice. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, but just keep in mind that this needs to be mutually beneficial. If you put up an article for PR to MILHIST, you should spend a few minutes to PR one of their articles. --MASEM 02:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem's right. Though I'd hate to suggest a requirement of the process to be "review one if you list one", but I can see how it might become lopsided if such a practice is not enforced. At the very least, an statement should be include that explains the process will not work if editors do not give as well as take. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Seems like a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the Team Fortress 2 topic up higher in this page, I took a look at the Team Fortress Classic article and I'm rather appalled by the quality of the article. It's full of game guide material, has perhaps too much information on the various custom content available for the game and in general is pretty embarassing for an article about the predecessor to the topic of a Good Article. I've started cleaning up the article, but I could use a few more project members (and maybe some folks who worked on the TF2 article) to help out and clean up this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing exams at the moment, but I'll have a lookie at what I can do. I'd recommend getting a structure in order pronto - the article lacks a reception section, one of the most important parts going on video game articles. The article isn't tagged for the WikiProject, so I'll come along and add the tag and do an assessment for you. -- Sabre (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted an assessment and made some minor changes to the article to sort some quick issues. I've rated it as Start-class, Mid-importance, but I'm wondering whether it should be High - my (perhaps misinformed) view was that TFC was one of the key games in development of multiplayer and online gaming, if that's correct then perhaps it should be High. Any thoughts on that from other WikiProject members who have a better idea of assessing importance than I do? -- Sabre (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say TFC was not as influential as the original TF. TF basically invented class-based online gaming and lead the way for games like Battlefield 1942. TFC was a popular game (mainly because it was bundled with HL) but I don't see that it had any innovations like the first game. The current status as all three TF games are Mid-importance is acceptable but I wouldn't mind see the first one as High-importance. --Mika1h (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I request someone here runs a copyedit of the class section of the article. NeoChaosX reduced the game-guide ridden mess into a list, and I've just converted the list into prose. However, for the sake of clarity and comprehensiveness, can someone copyedit it to make it roll naturally, it feels a bit "forced" at the moment. Its probably because it lacks the categorisation that's present in TF2, with the distinct offence, defence and support classes. -- Sabre (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In a seemingly obscure choice long ago I started a page for Dementium: The Ward, a game developed by Renegade Kid. Well since then others have added a page for RK and their new Nintendo DS game Moon.

All three of these pages need contributors. Anyone who has played Dementium and can contribute (especially to the Plot section) would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragman52 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some have brought up the issue of the reliability of these sites again recently, and it needs a proper discussion. My argument is as follows:

• The reliability of the sites does not depend on the medium they use, it depends on how the content that's on there gets on there, and which phases of expert-oversight and what editorial checks it goes through.
• The reason we discard most blogs is that blogs have a tendency to be written by random people who are not experts, without editorial involvement.
• Joystiq and Kotaku, on the other hand, are run by respectable companies, have a long history of reliability, and the writers show a good degree of expert knowledge that is no less than any IGN or GameSpot writer.
• The general inference we make about blogs doesn't hold for these two.
• I conclude they are reliable.

Discuss. User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree --8bitJake (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Additionally I know both sites have interviewed company figures (additionally so has insertcredit on that subject), and Kotaku had an editor recently interviewed on Attack of the Show.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Joystiq is a reputable site but they do, from time to time, base their news stories on forum postings. As such, the certain particular story (not the publication) might not satisfy RS. xenocidic (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If the purpose of using a Joystiq-based-on-forum story to establish a critical fact by itself without any other discussion, I would strongly warn against this. However, these types of posts, which often summarize user response, are generally good when they are next to company responses to fan complaints or the like. Same for Kotaku or any other gaming forum (eg for the upcoming Ace Attorney game, all we have is fan-based Japanese translations, but at least using reputable sources that site the fan translations helps to give some creditability to it.) --MASEM 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree (such as the GTA IV PS3 resolution issue). Reliable publications can publish unreliable information directly from a forum or open wiki, with no sign of fact checking. In these cases the information should either be written in the article in a way that it is clear is not confirmed, or left out completely, which is what I prefer. I'm going off on a tangent here, so I'll say that I'd agree that Joystiq and Kotaku are reliable. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had this issue brought up in several recent FACs- I've also found many of Kotaku/Joystiq's writers have published work elsewhere on the net, so proving the reliability of the authors is not as hard as one might think as well, independent of the publication. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the comments can be summed up in the general notion that being labelled 'reliable' is not a carte blanche to source the most outrageous statements to these sites. All sources, how reliable they might be, should be evaluated, from Science to the New York Times to Joystiq. User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see how Wikipedia is in any position to criticize the reliability of Joystiq.com or Kotaku. --8bitJake (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much criticism, it's just that most editors outside the VG Project don't know whether they are reliable or not. Just part of the lengthy and sometimes harsh quality assurance process. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Considering Wikipedia does not currently use Wikipedia as a reliable source, I don't see the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Krator (or someone else), could you please put together the notes listed above, and anything else of relevance in relation to these sites, to a standalone page (eg. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reliable blogs), so that these can easily be cited in FAC discussions, etc. It's sometimes annoying having to keep searching to try to prove the sites meet WP:V, as is requested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on break honest, ahem. We need to discuss a lot of these sources and expand that list, The Escapist wasn't even listed till recently, sites like Rock Paper Shotgun are springing up and might not get listed at all. On AFD debates often commentators will list major sites like IGN and GameSpot, saying that they can't find any details on them. Well that's all well and good, but for indie, casual and freeware games that's the equivalent of looking for reviews of the latest caravan in fast car magazine. A section for freeware/flash/indie/casual would be useful, as would a list of magazines which cover each format (IE Crash for ZX Spectrum). Basically, there's a lot of work needed to make the sources list all it could be. Someoneanother 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful doing this: simply noting that some sources need to be treated as reliable to improve coverage of casual games may rub very wrong with certain people, since you are basically creating what are reliable sources to show notability. As a project, if someone would like us to evaluate a set of sources as to be considered reliable and thus appropriate, we should do that as best we can do within our bounds. There will be editors not involved with video games that will question the sources, but if we do our diligence as a project to make sure the Sources list is filled out, then we can simply point to that when sites are questioned. --MASEM 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion isn't that we just slap sites in there, but weigh them on their merits. Gamezebo, for instance, might not be a site the average viewer is familiar with, but looking at personal picks from 2007, I see we have articles on two of the writers: Marc Saltzman and Erin Bell. The site is one of five game websites in the running for a Webby award. These guys aren't amateurs, and a strong argument can be put forward for this site to be deemed reliable, yet it focuses exclusively on casual games and indie games, that's what I'm talking about. Someoneanother 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would use another reference if possible. If it is breaking news that need to be included in the article, it may be fine, but there are much more reliable sites around. Kotaku is known to exaggerate news to drive more traffic (since editors there are paid according to the amount of views each article generates). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that from? (The pay to hits notion) John.n-IRL 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole Gawker network (which Kotaku is on) pays its editors based on the traffic that is driven to the site. See this article on pbs.org. This is probably the same for Joystiq.

I think Kotaku/Joystiq as a source of aggregate news is good. Both sites also have decent interviews with developers about upcoming games. But if the story they are covering comes from say the PlayStation Blog, then the PlayStation Blog article should be the one linked to and not Kotaku/Joystiq. Kotaku and Joystiq also have several posts where it is more of the "editor's" opinion than plain jane news reporting so those articles should be carefully used. Strongsauce (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is something that pertains to all sites: if you have several sites which you can use as references for a statement in a Wikipedia article, always choose the one which is the most neutral (except if you're dealing with previews or reviews, obviously). Kariteh (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(I don't read Kotaku and therefore have no opinion on it.) I consider Joystiq to be reputable for a blog, but they do frequently publish rumors and subsequent corrective updates. So using them as a source must come with the caveat that they should not be used to source unconfirmed rumors -- and the wiki's content guidelines discourage posting rumors anyway. Additionally, Joystiq is mainly a news aggregation site, and individual stories typically link to a more in-depth, more direct source higher up the chain that should be used instead whenever possible. However, if there are cases where the Joystiq post itself needs to be referenced, I think they are suitable for sourcing factual content (e.g. "Activision merges with Vivendi"), but not for editorial comments (e.g. praise or criticism of a game). Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this and wanted to add to the discussion, given my experience in the industry as a writer and former gaming site director. There was a previous discussion on this matter over at Talk:UWink (see the RFC discussion at the bottom). The main justifiability as to whether or not Kotaku is (and ultimately other sites are) a valid reference is the presence of editorial oversight. If its just a personal blog, there's no editorial oversight and reliability is suspect. If its a site that has actual editorial oversight but simply displays its content in a blog "style" (as is popular now), the latter should not discount the former. In general, sites whose content is simply thrown up at the discretion of the author should be suspect (there are always exceptions of course). Sites that have a verified editorial oversight (anything put on the site has to go through a review process that involves fact checking and approval by editors and senior staff, just like at any major periodical or newspaper) should be acceptable. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Small update. Joystiq and Kotaku have again been challenged in the Orange Box FAQ here. I've directed the reviewer at this discussion in order to reach a resolution. In addition, Shacknews is being questioned as a reliable source. While I'm attempting to resolve these concerns, any support would be hugely appreciated . Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is needed would be proof that Kotaku and Joystiq have an editorial process in place, but as far as I know, none of it is available. Note that a lot of articles on Kotaku and Joystiq are opinion pieces of primary news sources, i.e. the bloggers extracted news from another source and add in their "flavored thoughts". In those cases, it would be wiser to go straight to the source instead of quoting the blogs. Furthermore it is debatable all writers on Kotaku or Joystiq have the same degree of expert knowledge as any IGN or GameSpot writer (I doubt we are good judges of these). Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that the auto archive time be changed from 10 days to 7 days. This page is ridiculously long. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Though I worry some postings may get archived before members respond to them, but having the page this long doesn't help either. I guess we can always change it back too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

I am also a member of WP:PW and its a highly active project, with many posts, but the talk page still operates well with a 7 day archive time, so I think 7 days would work here. This page is just too long, eventually it will be too long, and it wont load.--~SRX~ 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to 7 days. Gosh, I think it was more than 20 days at some stage...how did we live? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We were less active back then. But besides that, this page is still over 200KB, quite the problem for people with slower bandwidths; should we manually remove some threads to make it manageable for the time being?--十八 08:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a few hours for the bot to run, it should take more threads out this time...after that we can reduce to, say, 5 days if there are still issues. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of your comment H2O, but 5 days is a small amount of days for threads, for such an active project, I think 7 is good enough for the time being.--~SRX~ 14:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Question, would it be appropriate to manually archive (move the thread to the most recent archive page and add an entry on the archive index) some quick discussion, like this one for instance? I doubt this thread will see any more discussion after today. Or will that mess up the bot? Or is that opening a door that could lead to disaster? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

It is mostly unnecessary. Some pages like WP:DRV add a show/hide box around closed discussions. User:Krator (t c) 16:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that won't help with the bytesize of the page, but it would make scrolling the page a lot easier. What are the templates they use? JACOPLANE • 2008-05-12 21:42

I created {{Sectionhide}} and used it here as an example. Feel free to use it. Note that it requires editing the section header too, which was a thing I disliked about the DRV hide system. Therefore, you'll need to edit the whole page rather than just the section to apply this to a section. User:Krator (t c) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume MiszaBot would archive it with the sectionhide template. Will that have any major effects to ::the archived discussion. For instance, if we wanted to link to an archived discussion, would it work the same way as before (WT:VG/Archive 41#Discssion), or would something special need to be done in the link? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

I think this hidden section thing is bad. There are too many problems that could be associated with it (the bot, editing just the section, linking to it in the archive...), and it's not that much of a problem to scroll down. I personally use the TOC anyways. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree with that. You can't even edit sections that have been "hidden" directly. Surely there must be a better way. Whatever happened to having Mediawiki talk pages turn more into forum discussions? JACOPLANE • 2008-05-12 23:12

I removed the hide template so the discussion could be archived like the others. Feel free to add it back though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

I have been looking and looking on Google News and the like, but I can't seem to find much info on Taito as a company since the buy-out by Square Enix, and that's where the article trails off. This would make sense if Taito was fully absorbed, but it doesn't seem that way, as they've released several games that were not even published by SE (LostMagic), and even published third-party games themselves (Cooking Mama). Can anyone find any info on Taito since the acquisition, or what SE's plans are in that regard? I can understand keeping the Taito name around as far as development, but publishing under multiple names doesn't make a ton of sense for brand-recognition, not to mention using third-party publishers when SE is already a major player. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several interviews with Taito on Gamasutra. Kariteh (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Taito is in the midst of their "rebranding" excercise, especially with their 30th anniversary in mind.[2][3] (in Japanese) If you have Japanese translators on hand, just search for "タイトー" on Google. It is possible that with the decline of the Japanese video game industry (in terms of development, and compared with the West), smaller firms are being left out of the spotlight. Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW. The writer at Gamasutra had the same questions I did, but better. That's why they get paid to do that, I guess... The Japanese one I can't use just because Firefox seems to think ???? is Japanese. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of a recent discussion over at Pac-Man regarding the In Pop Culture section there getting to large, I'm putting up the following addendums for the current guidelines to help with the problem across the board:

1) Entries have to be directly related to the brand and/or character. I.E. some sports figure naming themselves Pac-Man as a nickname because people feel he shares similar qualities to the character is not directly related. An officially sponsored Pac-Man area in a theme park is, as is a Pac-Man Cereal and cartoon show. 2) If there are multiple notable appearances (greater than 3?) in a specific medium, they should be combined and summarized. The way all the Family Guy appearances are currently summarized in to a single paragraph is a good example.

I'll give this through the weekend then add these in to the current guidelines.

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Those sound reasonable and should hopefully help keep trivia in check. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

These seem sane enough. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's apparently been some debate as to whether HUNK should be split off into an article, or kept as part of a list. Articles in question are:

• Characters in Resident Evil 2 -- lengthy previous debate on talk page
• HUNK Resident Evil -- currently up for proposed rename, but should it even stay?

Additionally, I note that there are other lists dealing in similar topics, some of which seem redundant, and I wonder if all these articles could be better organized somehow, such as in a master RE fiction list.

• List of Resident Evil characters
• Characters in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles
• Viruses in the Resident Evil series
• any number of individual character articles

I am posting notices to these articles' talk pages to point discussion here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well truth be told putting HUNK on the list of RE2 characters seems a strange move given they imply readily he's at least been involved in the behind-the-scenes events of the whole T-Virus saga, don't they? Yet then again, RE2 is his game of "origin". Whatever the case, the older article would probably be a lot easier to salvage than that one. You just have to contend with finding third party reactions towards the character after fixing the mess to make some editors that come to mind happy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bit from EDGE magazine for Umbrella Chronicles, very minor but does have a tiny reception bit on Hunk that could be cited. Might as well offer that to help out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is previous discussion in Talk:HUNK Resident Evil.
  • I have reverted HUNK (Resident Evil) back to its last edit which is not a redirect :: it seems to be the fullest description of the Hunk character.
  • HUNK Resident Evil was created on 14 March 2008 and it seems to be expanded from bits copy-&-pasted from HUNK (Resident Evil), which was started on 24 July 2005; i.e. HUNK Resident Evil is a content forking. I recommend redirecting HUNK Resident Evil to HUNK (Resident Evil). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently copy-edited the HUNK Resident Evil article, so that in complies with WP:WAF and WP:A. However I would suggest using the HUNK (Resident Evil) since it looks... more encyclopedic "Wikipedic". ;) Also, I feel that there are several other "loose" articles that should be merged into Characters in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, such as Ozwell Spencer, James Marcus (Resident Evil), and Sergei Vladimir. Two first two are well cited, but all three cannot seem to assess proper notability and will just end up becoming fodder for deletionists. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay here's something we should probably rethink, looking at it strictly in a logical sense:

• The goal of every article on WP should be to get the subject to a FA format of some sort.
• Character articles have no exclusion from the above statement.

Now as things have gone on, articles that have "failed" WP:N (I say that in quotes because I've seen WP:V rules used liberally instead for verified subjects, or similar events) tend to get shoved on a character list for that respective series. That list ends up the fallback for arguments to keep the article separate. But look at it this way:

• Almost never do these lists actually pass the same WP:N arguments that originally got characters placed there.
• Entries on lists tend to get 'stagnant' and not improved, size issues for larger titles kicks in as well.
• In order for said list to become a FA, *all* characters on it must be improved to the relative level in order to possibly pass an AfD. In many cases that just isn't going to happen, i.e. the Pokemon lists.

So really in a lot of cases these lists seem to become quicker AfDs of a sort: the information is shoved there, but has no real weight with WP projects overall, just characters that didn't "cut the mustard." And not saying this here to say that all articles shoved there should get individual ones...but maybe we should rethink a policy or two, and think about just what should be able to still be standalone compared to listed?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your right, this aspect of policy needs to be rethought, because even if some are notable, most are not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what either of you are advocating, other than a review of guidelines. How would you suggest to change them? Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

It is not the goal to get every article to FA. It is well accepted that there are topics that do need to be covered in its own article and are notable, but the volume of information is very small as to not make a good in-depth article. If we go by the criteria for Featured Topics, as long as articles pass Peer Review and up to all other policies, they're acceptable.

WP:FICT allows for character lists which lack any notability, understanding these are commonly used as supporting information for published worked. Again, these are the types of articles that likely can't make FA, but still are acceptable to include. --MASEM 05:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Masem. The grand majority of character lists will never reach featured status simply due to a lack of sufficient coverage (our four FA/FL character lists to the contrary, but they're quite the exception), but in character-intensive series, these lists serve as acceptable articles under WP:SS. And if there's ever a featured topic created for the series, they do fall under the exception built into the criteria, and can be audited (which I suppose means getting a peer review if I'm not mistaken) to become part of the topic. Now, having excessive amounts of lists (for enemies, items, or the like) is the problem I think needs to be addressed, along with individual character articles that carry much more scrutiny since they must match WP:N on their own merits. I think we have to draw a line between the character lists that are mostly acceptable under summary style, and lists that are being created for enemies, tertiary characters, and the like. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Character A is opted to fail guidelines, despite having real world information from third party sources, just isn't considered 'enough', even if the article can be salvaged. So a majority of the information is chopped apart and reduced to a smaller, mostly in-universe section to conserve space on the larger lists in many cases on List A (there are notable exceptions, but few. The Pokemon ones are not in that variety). So the solution should probably go two ways:

• Not every article for a character is going to have the same notability as central protagonists, but some degree of notability should support it as well. This can reduce the whole massive list problem. I really do think too significant usage in various titles should warrant for some level of notability too. Not the only one of course, but a means to buffer the other notability factors.
• Better handling of the lists, and doing away with some that just offer nothing (List of Rumble Roses characters for example seems confusing as heck]]). The lists need better quality control. They've become a dumping ground for far too many character articles, which results in the creme mixed with the crap. In many cases this is just counterproductive, and I really don't think WP:FICT counted on it.

One last thing to close: I've seen WP:SELFPUB used often as a notability factor. But it seems to be more a bit for verifiability, possibly due to construing the first line of it. That could be looked into. I hope all this made sense btw, it's 9 AM, and the coffee is still just kicking in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is a major conflict between two editing camps over all fiction articles (including VGs) : the inclusionists who want to include articles on every fictional character and the like, and the deletionists that would want to strongly enforce notability and if not limit fiction coverage more. I've spent the past year trying to get WP:FICT to a point that it meets the middle ground between these, but the issue is still largely debated (see the discussion in WT:NOT over the WP:PLOT clause). List of characters are a middle ground instead of having several character articles or no character articles at all, but they still should be aimed to be written well. If you see bad lists, they shouldn't be deleted but instead tagged for cleanup, and I wonder if it is worthwhile to consider to have a VG project list of character articles that need cleaning up. --MASEM 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an easy solution to this problem: stop voting merge in deletion debates. Simply put, that there is some kind of role for the subject within the list article doesn't mean the actual text should be merged. Individual treatment of character is usually not the best way to write an article on characters in a game. In the long term, if we compare high quality articles, that shows. Let's start doing it the right way right away. Two excellent character articles, List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance (a pure character list) [[Characters of StarCraft

]] (a character list with encyclopaedic discussion) show this problem. User:Krator (t c) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the article mentioned, it is GA and an A class article of which upon asking others doesn't require anyoverhall in order to achieve FA. Instead of nominating it, I would like others to take a look, cheers. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor things...

• It could be argued there are too many images. Ask Black Kite before FACing.
• Last external link probably isn't necessary.
• Development section seems rather short for a recent game.
• Lead should probably have 3 paragraphs (see VG newsletter essay on the matter).

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but can I point out the following:

• It could be argued there are too many images. - Shadow of the Colossus (7 images), Half Life 2 (10), Halo 2 (6), Okami (8).
• Lead should probably have 3 paragraphs. - Shadow of the Colossus (2 paragraphs), Golden Sun (2).

Now I will look into those points, but just saying due to the above FA articles (that I know of). Also what should I expand upon in the development section? EDIT: I've expanded the development section alittle by including how the PC version of the add-on was released and extr ainfo on the PS3 version. Plus it seems the intro needed a split to make it 3. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you get it peer reviewed. Ask for a non-VG editor to review the article for language and MoS compliance before submitting it to FA. This will catch a lot of potential issues.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight problem, I would of asked for a peer review awhile ago if I knew who to ask. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Beware of making such arguments (which is similar to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). There are reviewers pushing to enforce the standards of FAs after seeing what they believed were articles passed with lax standards. Hence, judgement is likely to be stricter for this point in time. Most of the FA articles raised above are promoted in 2006–2007 and one can easily say the requirements are stricter now than before.

1. Do follow H2O's advice and ask for the advice of an "image consultant". Black Kite is at the moment an active judge on image issues in FAC. If image concerns are likely, he will raise it up. Keep in mind that images are to illustrate a point if the text is inadequate. From a strict view, that means any pictures such as "The overlord in his splendor" would not pass.
2. Get rid of the two Game Ranking external links. They are already used as references and serve no greater purpose.
3. Avoid GameFAQs. Release dates can be found on GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, etc.
4. Go to the WP:LOCE or WP:FAT to request for a copyedit.

Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot uses the same user-submitted data as GameFAQs for release dates, so please avoid it too. Kariteh (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

re. "if I knew who to ask" - WP:PRV is useful! Of course, I'd be happy to take a look (I imagine others here would too), but that's a good place to find non-VG people interested in helping out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the mntioned articles need a re-review then? Because it seems somewhat impossible to get higher at that rate. Anyway I already contacted Kite, although I'm somewhat confused over what to do about what was said given he singled out 2 pics yet they seem the same as all the others. Plus I don't know this "The overlord in his splendor" image. Cheers for feedback BTW. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my "the overlord in his splendor" comment. What I mean is that images must be used for more than purely decorative purposes (as would befit an image with a "the overlord in his splendor" caption). What the FA reviewers are watching out for are images that exist purely to make the article look "pretty". Images are there to help readers get to know more of what is stated in the article. One way to establish context is through the captions and placement. The caption should relate the image to the article's text, or the image should be placed directly next to the text describing its contents. Note that contents readily imaginable by text alone would not need images. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

At spore (video game), JAF1970 is deleting references to reliable resources. Admittedly, one (and maybe more) of the references are not reliable. But JAF1970 is using a criticism of one resource as the justification for deleting more than a dozen resources. I have already used up two reverts on this, and would appreciate some assistance here.

I should note that JAF1970 has deleted references in the past to justify pushing a POV from a self-published source. Past behavior shouldn't be determinative of what's going on here and this more recent behavior should be judged on its own merits. But I am concerned that this is JAF1970's first step to repeat another POV push. Randomran (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

...I disagree with your assessment of both the user and the edits in question. The article suffers from classic pre-release problems, particularly collating every single possible source available. However, I wouldn't worry too much about the article; everything will resolve in a moderately neat fashion come September. Nifboy (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a task force for Gears of War. Can anyone give me a reason why no one's joined? JayJ47 (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...did you discuss it here before creating it to see if there was any interest and if the project felt such a task force would be a beneficial addition to the project. If not, no one in the project may even know about it (and you didn't link to it in your message). It is not listed in the "official" list of VG project task forces either. Hard for anyone to consider joining if they don't know it exists ;)AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Was I meant to discuss it here first? Oops! I'm sorry I didn't know! Well if users here don't think its beneficial then please delete it. JayJ47 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here's the link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Gears of War. JayJ47 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well for one, you dont have it listed on the WPVG box under taskforce so no one even knew the force existed.Gears Of War 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

doneGears Of War 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally would be opposed to a task force for a single game. All of the task forces we currently have are about series that have multiple articles and thus benefit from a centralised point of discussion. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-20 00:08

You are mistaken. The taskforce is not about the single game: Gears of War. It is about the series. Also there is a second installment to be released in mid-2008. Also, there are multiple articles for the series, but I agree that not enough to make a good one. i would suggest moving the task force to your Sandbox or something until the articles are better.Gears Of War 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The series with one released game. I count five articles within the scope of this task force, one of which is proposed to be merged. This simply isn't large enough for a task force. Pagrashtak 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a major problem with the dates in Crash 3. Some sources say it was released in October 31st in North America, while other sources state that the game was released as far as November 4th in North America. Also other dates are contradicting in the Japanese and PAL release (see list).

I checked the official website of Crash 3, but it did not specify a release date (correct me if I'm wrong). That is why I put those {{fact}} tags on the release dates. Can anyone take a look at this? PrestonH 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Straight from SECA's mouth says Nov 3 98. --MASEM 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the Japanese and European release dates, Naughty Dog's website says they were in December 1998. The days aren't specified but this at least discount the IGN source. Kariteh (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the Naughty Dog website says November 1998 for the North American release date, not October as in your table. Kariteh (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarifying that. Just got one more question, How come the dates are different from each of the sources I listed out from the tables? PrestonH 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems they simply make mistakes, sometimes. IGN especially tends to neglect non-North American release dates; showing wrong dates, omitting them, or simply having uninformative stuff like "Australia: Released". They even claim that Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers has already been released (on the curious date of December 31 nonetheless), even though it clearly hasn't yet. Overall IGN is still a very valuable and reliable source, but I'd rather cite official press releases for release dates than that site. As for GameSpot, its data are based on GameFAQs (which is user-submited content) so it's definitely less reliable than other sources. Kariteh (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been having similar problems to this with Team Fortress Classic. I've had some sources claim April 1999, the Steam page for some bizarre reason puts it as December 1969 (although the entry in search results for TFC on the Steam site put it as April 30 1999), and IGN/GameSpy claim 30 May 1999. GameSpot just says 1999. One source even claimed May 2000. Which should I use? I'd use the one from Valve, but I can't reference a search page. At the moment its 30 May because that's the only one I can reference to a "reliable" source with a day. -- Sabre (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not every game actually has a "true" release date, one that is dictated and coordinated across a territory. In most cases, a game goes gold, and from there, it's a matter of manufacturing and distribution timetables (not always in the hands of the publisher) that determine when and where a copy first goes on sale. So aside from spectacular "launch days" (which are coordinated between publishers and retailers with built-in lag time for the other processes mentioned), a release date is an approximation anyway, the publisher's or retailer's (or whoever was used as a source) "best guess" based on the estimate they were given by their partners. As long as you have a good source and it's not obviously wrong then you can use it and not worry about specifics. It's correct for someone somewhere. :) Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See here for the previous discussion (which didn't achieve much): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_41#Weapons_of_Resident_Evil_4. Since that discussion, only a weapon section (which was game guide content) has been removed. A merge proposal was placed weeks ago with very little response. That discussion can be found here: Talk:Resident_Evil_4#Merger_proposal. The article is small, and only a little of the information needs to be merged into the Resident Evil 4 article. So size isn't a big issue here. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request for help. With a few people checking in, we could easily justify a merge. I put in the merge proposal after the clean-up attempt a week or so ago. Randomran (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

... and the clean-up has just been reverted to the garbage version from a few weeks ago. Randomran (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted it back to the cleaned up version. That table's game guide content, it doesn't belong here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I like how he just states 'some fixes'.Bridies (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We could put this issue to rest by putting together a consensus for a merge. The article is short enough (the cleaned up version) that it would be relatively easy. Check in at the discussion page. Randomran (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article looks better and is far more informative and complete with the material included as many others have argued and in good faith worked to put there. Material can be merged from it without having to tear down the weapons article as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing will be "torn down" if it meets wikipedia standards. A merge is not a deletion, just moving information to where it is more suitable. John.n-IRL 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that we cannot do/have both. The substance of many articles overlap, but that is not a problem for encyclopedias. Waterloo, Napoleon, Wellington, Blucher, etc. all will repeat some of the same material as relates to the battle of Waterloo, but it does not mean any one of those articles should not exist or should not elaborate on certain things not covered in the others. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

99% of the information in the cleaned up article will be incorporated into the main article through the merge. Nobody is advocating deletion. This is just a question of organization. Merging the smaller article into the larger one will improve both. Randomran (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I, along with all the others who have been contributing to the table of weapons, do not regard it is a a mere game guide, nor are tables unencyclopedic. A table of weapons can be worded in a manner that does not make a how to, just like a periodic table of elements does not reveal how to do anything with those elements. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand, I'm sure you mean well in your efforts to keep this article as it is, but content like weapons lists provide very little to average reader. In fact, excessive amounts of such details can detract from other more encyclopedic sections. The consensus is in favor of this as there are multiple editors that believe this and are not just voting on it, but providing a justifiable rationales behind their decisions.

We've all had an article(s) that we created or spent a lot of time on end up getting merged or deleted. But more often than not, there was a very good reason for that. It's just one of Wikipedia's rougher lessons we all have to learn in what is appropriate encyclopedic content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, there are editors who oppose the section who have participated in some of these discussions and I do not doubt that some of them also mean well in their efforts; however, someone else suggested the table before I started working on it and others have added to and worked on the table as well. I am not the lone person who sees value in it; our community extends beyond this project's talk page and beyond the same editors who have posted here and in the other discussions. If we assume good faith and believe that the editor who originally proposed the table (it was not me) or for that matter originally created the article in list fashion (again, not me) and those who have continued to develop it coupled with anyone other than myself who argued for it in any of these discussions, the consensus one way or other is made a little less clear. In an article titled "Weapons of Resident Evil 4", a weapons list is somewhat central to the article just as a list of Academy Award winners is relevant to our coverage on the Oscars or a table of elements in our coverage on elements. Britannica has a good deal of tables and almanacs have lots of lists. An alphabetized table of weapons indicates what kinds of weapons are used in the game, how they differ, why they might be different from other games, why they may or may not be controversial, what kind of game is being described, etc. The table included both playable and non-playable weapons. It was not arranged chronologically, i.e. in walkthrough fashion, and was fairly straight forward, i.e. did not contain any cheat codes or anything of that kind of blatant game guide matter. Contrary to what some have suggested, I am NOT opposed to removing any material inserted that becomes "how to" in nature. Moreover, the aspects of the table contained references and blanket deleting the table also removed additional not even game guide references particularly to the chainsaw weapon that unquestionably could have been salvaged elsewhere in the article. And just to be clear, I do not think Wikipedia is a "how to guide", nor do I think it is an indiscriminate collection of video game content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I muddled my intended message. First, I'd like to say that I in no way meant to imply that you had created the article or the list in it. I stated the last part as examples of how we as editors can get invested in content on Wikipedia. The more time we spend on something, the more invested we become. The more invested we are, the more we defend the content, because we don't want to have wasted our time. I know I'm like that, and I'm sure everyone else here is to some degree.

Nor did I mean to imply you will not listen to reason or are unreasonable in your edits. Like many other editors on here, you have proven yourself to be an asset to the Project and Wikipedia.

And while there are plenty of examples of lists in certain articles, most that I—and I'm sure others—can think of are real-life people and/or objects. Because we are dealing with fictional content, we have to deal with stricter guidelines. Fictional content will almost never have the same weight as real-world content.

Regarding the how-to content, how-to is not the the only criteria of WP:NOTHOWTO. It states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook." Multiple editors are calling the content game guide material because that is the type of content the average gamer would expect to find in a game guide. And while there are multiple editors that feel the content should be kept in, that does not make a consensus. The rationales for keeping the content in or even separate from the main game article do not comply with the policy and guidelines. I'm sure there are those that disagree, but I do not personally feel they have made a strong enough case. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Rather than revisit last week's debate about cleaning up the weapons article, I took the liberty of copying all the information in the weapons article into the main Resident Evil 4 article. All of the information was placed in the "Weapons" section about gameplay, with the exception of the criticism of RE4 which seemed to have nothing to do with weapons and more to do with sexism anyway. The criticism was put in the more suitable "Reception" section. I think it looks pretty good. The only thing left to do is redirect the old page to the main article. I think the main article is better off for it. Take a look and give it a copyedit, if you find a minute. Randomran (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected the page. Policy clearly supports a move, and while I understand some editors wish to see both articles exists this is not a suitable article for duplication of information. John.n-IRL 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the rest of the merchandise info, was that transfered over? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Most of it's there. It was only three sentences. One about the chainsaw controller, and two about action figures with weapons fro the game. I turned those two into one sentence since they seemed to be redundant. I figure other editors can edit/add/remove information on its own merits. Randomran (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the response. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC))