Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 66

I'm proposign that we set-up an article to discuss the "lesser" Pac-Man games, as most of them don't have enough content about them to warrant an article, such as Pac-Man Carnival, Ms. Pac-Man Maze Madness, and Mr. & Mrs. Pac-Man. Comments? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would cover most things like those in a "Remakes and sequels" section of the original game. Probably just need to merge and redirect to the section. See Space Invaders#Remakes and sequels and Pong#Sequels and remakes.

PS- I don't know why the sections are named differently. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

One thing is that a lot of Pac-Man games are in worse shape than they should be. Ms. Pac-Man, for instance, is very famous, but definitely needs more work. Also, should Ms. Pac-Man articles that are merged be merged into Ms. Pac-Man? Perhaps Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man could be separate series-like articles - mostly covering their original titles, but also covering the legacy they've created? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question... I think it's safe to say that a remake or sequel of Ms. Pac Man is also one of Pac Man, just as Ms. Pac Man itself is. I would be for including Ms. Pac Man in a remake and sequel section of the original game (with the rest), with a "main article" link. I would be very interested to see what others think about this, though. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnny- Normally I'd agree with you, but I think Ms. Pac-Man has a good chunk of its own development and impact content. I haven't researched them, but I remember getting that impression from the bits I randomly came across. Of course, this doesn't mean merging them all into Pac-Man wouldn't still work or be the best solution. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

I think wasn't clear, Ms. Pac Man would be mentioned in relation to Pac Man, with a Main Article link back to the article, and not be merged. The others would be. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I see now. My mistake. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Just as an FYI, I proposed a merge of Pac-Man Plus into Pac-Man a while back, and the consensus through discussion there was to leave the Plus article separate, as people expressed a strong preference for it being notable in its own right. I still believe that Plus is noteworthy hack of the original game (noteworthy mainly because, unlike most bootlegs, it was one of the "official" games that got Midway in trouble with Namco), but its differences from the original game were almost entirely cosmetic. So there's a previous consensus on this type of merge, but with some mixed feelings on my part. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt that such articles (Pac-Man Plus) needed a decent amount of reliable sources to stay separate. But I must admit that it is a grey area. I left most of the Space Invaders spin-offs alone because I just wasn't sure what was out there at the time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi! The VGproj guidelines state that:

Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used, unless this is not English-language in which case the first-available English-language cover should be used.

However, it is unclear what "first-available English-language cover" means. Out of context it seems to mean the English-language cover that literally was first made available. So for instance, if a game is released in PAL regions first but had its NA cover art made available before the PAL cover art (in press kits, or on Amazon, etc.), then the NA cover should be used in the article rather than the PAL one. That's what the guidelines say, but the discussion that led to this wording (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 53#Box art from different regions) was quite more unclear. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems the contributors in the discussion overlooked cases where the "first-available" cover art differs from the actual first country of release. What do you think? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that we tried to codify something into the guidelines. It doesn't really matter, I stick with first valid uploaded english box art. General rule of thumb is - don't change it. - hahnchen 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that creating a policy on the issue might not be workable. individual disputes can always be brought up here. SharkD (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But the guideline is there. You're saying to ignore it?? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ignore all rules is policy, soooo.... Nifboy (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR isn't there just so you can ignore rules when you want to. However, if it's clear consensus has changed, that's different. IMO it should be the first commercially released cover, ie when the game is released for sale. Cover art before then is still subject to change.じんない 04:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sticking with the first available English language cover, ignoring pre-release art or marketing materials, sounds good with me. Using pukka release dates this way avoids a peeing contest over who released what artwork when. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to games in the rest of the world nearly always being released after North America, that is virtually the same as saying "Use North American cover art". - X201 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not always. I actually created this discussion due a small incident on File:The World Ends With You.jpg. If Jinnai's suggestion is adopted, the European cover would be used for that game. That's an example right there. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification question: Just for clarification, is the "the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used" section being disputed as well? or just the "first-available English-language cover" section? - X201 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't dispute the first part you cited; it makes sense. I think the situation that's more unclear is when the developer is not from an English-speaking country. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood and thought the whole of it was being disputed. In that case something along the lines of "Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." Am I right in thinking the above is the wording that we are generally heading towards? - X201 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Marionophotopicart.jpg Besides an obviously unfree image with a dubious upload history. Hmm? Be quick, I've listed it for deletion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

TinEye says it can be found on Nintendo's official website, which, in turn, leads to some very generic-looking photo-gallery type something-or-other. Seems to be related to the camera listed in Nintendo 64 accessories. Nifboy (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Mario no Photopi. Nifboy (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't place it under the featured images in Portal:Nintendo. MuZemike 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well played! After searching the internets, I can't find another picture of this thing. Perhaps we should undelete File:Marionophotopicart.jpg (the original local version) and tag it as fair use. It is more informative than the box art. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how this works with commons, but I've put a "please move to en.wiki" request there in the xFD for the image to make sure it's retained. --MASEM 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We have had it locally (at File:Marionophotopicart.jpg), any admin *ahemMasem* can just undelete it here and put a fair use tag on it. It was deleted here because it was moved to Commons. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost every reliable source indicates that Street Fighter II established the conventions for the fighting game genre as we know it today. A few people have said they'd like to see an image from Street Fighter II in the fighting game article, and I think it would be inappropriate to have an article on the genre without such an image. But the closest thing I can find already on Wikipedia is File:Street Fighter II comparison.PNG, which includes three images combined. I don't think it would pass the fair use guidelines for the purposes of fighting game.

Would someone be willing to either chop this image, or provide their own image of Street Fighter II (something that shows off the actual gameplay)? If they can upload it with a scant fair use rationale, I can help fill in the details and take care of the rest. Please and thank you. Randomran (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done - Its the top image from the group of three. File:Street Fighter II.png - X201 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it around, and filled in the FUR. Thanks a lot for working on it and uploading it! Randomran (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this article? I'd rather not take it to AFD and get flamed at for no reason, but this article kinda has always bugged me. It's been basically stangnent for a while, and there's embedded ELs all over the place. Maybe it just needs cleanup but...eh. Whatever the case, I'm sure some of you more ambitious editors might want to either fix it or scrap it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I might take a look at it when I get the chance. From the surface, it looks like establishes minimal notability for inclusion. Cleanup? Yes. Deletion? I say no. MuZemike 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks notable to me, though it needs expansion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, a better idea would be to merge it into Variations of the Sega Mega Drive.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Make sense. Can't think of a better place to merge it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Edit war started on 10/11 Feb this year, here or thereabouts, centres around a bit of info sourced from 1UP who are reporting on an article in a magazine. Anon IP 137.99.151.100 has come up with various reasons as to why it should be removed, info incorrect, questionable source, etc. Accusations of vandalism going back and forth. Feel free to intervene anyone who can help! Geoff B (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Have asked user 137.99.151.100 what's particularly questionable about 1up.com and have reverted the edit again. User runs the risk of vandalism accusations and potential blocking, if continues to revert such edits without valid reason. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, the only thing that could reasonable be objected to with 1up is that their reviews for more popular items tend to give passes on defects, unless they are serious defects whereas for less popular ones they are more critical of similarly less serious defects. It's pretty much the same though with most companies though and that has nothing to do with characters.じんない 07:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will frown harshly on any one who describes a dispute over the quality of a source as "vandalism." 07:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I'd recommend this article be protected until the dispute is sorted out. All I'm seeing is bickering, bad-faith accusations, personal attacks and a talk page which hasn't been updated since May 2008. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 07:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just had to revert again, I'd be happy to look at everyone's thoughts on the talk page, but continued bulldozing without discussion is plain unacceptable, it's been highlighted as a bone of contention so we need to look at it properly. If it continues then it should be dealt with via semi-protection or a short block, though hopefully that won't be necessary. Someoneanother 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NM, the article's been semi'd while I was typing, perhaps we can at least discuss it now. Someoneanother 19:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad, a new editor is continuing to edit war and still isn't discussing on the talk page - what now? Someoneanother 20:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it sockpuppetry if this anon IP and Daymeee are the same person? Daymeee's edits are almost solely concerned with the article. Geoff B (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone - Actually the article is full-protected.じんない 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit war now continues with the same problematic editors at Resident Evil 5. MuZemike 00:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe those editors need a cooling off period?じんない 00:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some eyes would be useful here as there is some disagreement over how to accurately position the median model of the Xbox 360. Opinions seem to be evenly divided at the moment. cheers, –xeno (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We previously kept an archive of collaborations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the week/History. Now that the collaboration is active again perhaps it would be good to update that page with the current collaborations. JACOPLANE • 2009-02-15 02:51

Quick suggestion- The current history page lists the newest collabs at the bottom. Should it be the other way around; ascending order rather than descending? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Work in progress, intended for the bottom of listed pages.

Comments? Playclever (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I feel I should note this is very much at the concept stage ;) Playclever (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Way too broad for a navigation template. I'm not fond of kitchen sink templates that try to incorporate everything. Can't we do this with a category structure? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible, of course. I'm not a huge fan of categories for navigation myself as they tend to be hidden and go unedited / gather anomalies. I acknowledge that this is broad though! I'd be interested in whether you think a navbox with any particular smaller scope might be useful, for example gameplay modes. IMO finding your way around these pages is a struggle at the moment and a lot of the pages get lost. Playclever (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is not with our presentation of the topic, but with the topic itself. Game design terminology is not well organized or well codified, in the rare cases where it is well-defined. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed! I am interested in whether you see any virtue in attempting to organize the content in this manner? If you think this is a fools errand then I shall give up ;) Playclever (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• The problem is this list doesn't discriminate between those items that are key to game design/mechanics and those that are superfluous and many games do not have them or aren't core concepts of the afore-mentioned ideas.じんない 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I see, but can you give an example? Do you think there is a way to trim the information or present it with a clear distinction? Playclever (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • One example? Win quote. Not necessary and at most all it does is very minor character development (very minor). However, AI is essential for almost every game out there.じんない 03:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. As I think you can probably tell, the template is based on the category "video game gameplay" and there are some unusual entries (some of which I already deleted). With the specific example of "win quote" that would probably be the path to take, since it's not gameplay. I see your wider point though. Playclever (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps core concepts could benefit from being fleshed out and placed on a separate template? I'm tempted to chalk this up as a failed experiment and delete the template (and possibly add subcategories to the "video game gameplay" template), but please let me know if you think anything can be salvaged. Playclever (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is... interesting at least to see all these miscellaneous terms in one place. Surely some of those could be merged together; there's loads of unreferenced stubs. bridies (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm already mentally preparing some merges, the "unwinnable" stuff for example... Playclever (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • This stuff is massive. I'm not sure we can put it all into one template, and we might want to split it into 3 or 4 different classes. That said, maybe we'd have a better shot at organizing this if we started doing some merges. If you're looking for help with that, please, please, please contact me. I have some good sources on game design, and have a decent amount of experience with some of these kinds of articles. I might be the rare person on Wikipedia who enjoys working on these articles more than an article about a game. Randomran (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• You should definitely keep the template collapsed by default. SharkD (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Game theory doesn't belong btw; it's a maths/economics thing. bridies (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's some mergers I suggest:

• Game designer to Game design
• Game programmer to Game programming
• Game tester to Game testing
• Level designer to Level design
• Game artist and Video game art to Game art
• Video game developer to Game development

I think that having several articles in this case is superfluous. SharkD (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All these articles are separate subjects. Merging them was discussed some time ago and it was determined that keeping them separate was the best course of action. For example, a game programmer is a person, but game programming is what they do. At first glance, I'm sure they look like they overlap, but if you read the articles carefully, you'll see that they don't overlap much at all. For example, game programmer talks about the different kinds of game programmers, the work environment and compensation. Game programming talks about the activity of game programming, languages, techniques and such. I'll oppose any such attempted mergers. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can sort of see why a separation would be desirable. It would mess up the categorization (for instance, Cooking and Cook (profession) are separate articles and are categorized separately). However, I feel this is a failing of the categorization system rather than vise versa. Also, the intersection is so narrow and the jobs so similar that it seems silly to keep them separate. There are myriad types of cooks and chefs, on the other hand, each with possibly different skill sets and job duties entirely. SharkD (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support merging them; most of them anyway. They clearly do overlap, as well as being largely comprised of of unsourced crap. Game tester, for example, begins with a lead full of uncited POV content, then goes on to describe the process of how games are tested; in game testing, there is a section on "as a career". Game designer basically says "a guy who designs games" then goes on to give a potted "history of video game designers". It would easily fit into game design even as is, never mind if they were both cleaned up and sourced. bridies (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "their job" the same thing as "what they do?" A game designer works to design games. They're the same thing. I support the merges.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All except Game artist seem fine. Game artist does somewhat deal it seems with non-video games as well so that would have to be sorted out.じんない 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I suggested moving both articles to a neutral title. SharkD (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, tabletop games and video games can be consolidated into the game art article. With the current video game art article, you'd have to have a separate tabletop game art article as well...not every efficient.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still don't support the mergers. But since I wrote most of the original versions of these articles, I'm obviously biased (game design started out okay, then got jumped on by thousands of teenagers who thought they knew everything about game design and quickly destroyed it). Merging game programmer and game programming would lead to a huge article that would be unwieldy, but if everyone says "merge!", merge we must. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also have to say game tester and possibly game designer might also cover non-video games. I know Magic: The Gathering has game testers for card balance for example.じんない 01:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the logical split there is between video game testing/design and non-video game testing/design, rather than design/testing and designer/tester. bridies (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but what do you do with all the overlapping content? SharkD (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there isn't any. It's pretty much video games exclusively. Someone could make a "board game design" article or whatever, if they wanted to talk about that. bridies (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest merging Jumping puzzle to Puzzle video game, the reasoning being that, while not necessarily part of the genre as a whole, jumping puzzles represent an important example of puzzle gameplay found in video games, and are thus sufficiently warranted to be mentioned in that article and not in another. SharkD (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know I already voiced my disagreement at Talk:Puzzle_video_game#Merge_proposal, but I wanted to reiterate why this doesn't make sense. Every game with a puzzle in it != a puzzle game. It would be akin to merging "video game music" into "music video game", because not every game with music in it is a music video game. If anything, a more appropriate merge target for jumping puzzles would be the platform game article, since most jumping puzzles are a part of those games. (And even then, it occurs in other non-platform games, including Half-Life.) Randomran (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's unsourced, but as Randomran said it's a particular type of puzzle found in multiple types of game. Platform game would be a better target, or a general "environment" article. or something... bridies (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that jumping puzzles do not in and of themselves represent puzzle games. Unless the game's sole purpose is to solve puzzles by jumping, it seems that jumping is merely an action within a game, and a jumping puzzle is just one example of how a platform, shooter, etc. game can present puzzles to solve. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a jumping puzzle is not a puzzle video game. However, that doesn't mean that jumping puzzle doesn't deserve a merge. Maybe it should be combined with game design?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not game design - there are many gameplay elements, and many puzzle types, of which a jumping puzzle is just one. For example the dialog tree gameplay element, or the mechanical puzzle type. We could merge the article with Puzzle, but that has many links to different puzzle types, of which a jumping puzzle is just one. Personally, I like the idea of working towards an environmental puzzle page, that might include a discussion of all puzzles using the environment (though we don't have the content yet..) Playclever (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging to Puzzle does not appear to be a good idea unless it is clarified that these are jumping puzzles in video games. In an attempt to find references, I noticed a standard Google search shows video games billed as jumping puzzles and related sites as the top results. When moving to a Google Books search, "jumping puzzle" has many top results using the term for real-life games such as peg solitaire and for various puzzles such as the Tower of Hanoi—e.g., The Greatest Puzzles of All Time (pages 138 - 141). A notable exception is Jumping: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases, but this book's source is wikipedia. —Ost (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

edit: I see that SharkD has already made this distinction in the Puzzle article's navbox. The jumping puzzle article or section resulting from this discussion should also disambiguate the term. 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ost316 (talk • contribs)

Game design is too broad of a topic for Jumping puzzle to be merged there. SharkD (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! :) Over at the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, we have been feverishly working to improve our articles and increase our stable of Good Articles. As yet, none of the over 50 D&D video games articles is rated any better than a C (well, except for Minsc), and we'd like to change that. Video game articles are usually among our highest traffic articles, so obviously there's some popularity, so we owe those readers some quality! The articles we'd like to consider starting with are Neverwinter Nights 2 and Planescape: Torment, so I'm looking to see if anyone would like to collaborate with us in this effort, or at least point us in the right direction? You can reply here, or join in on our talk page. BOZ (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have commented so far, or made constructive edits. We have decided, I think, to begin a focus on Planescape: Torment; you can discuss on the article's talk page, and some additional discussion has begun here. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not stuff like E3, but stuff like Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man, Corrupted Blood, and Hot Coffee minigame controversy. I think that we could definitely be well-served if we get some work done on articles such as these. On top of all of that, does anyone have any ideas for similar events that could be strong stand-alone articles? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Manhunt_(video_game)#The_murder_of_Stefan_Pakeerah - The trial judge and Scotland Yard agreed that the game had no bearing on the case, despite this Keith Vaz MP still appears on TV and in parliament stating the oposite. Also the victim rather than the murderer owned the game, but this fact was reported the otherway around by most of the press.

A list of things here Video game controversy

- X201 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In general I follow NOTNEWS pretty strictly in regards to "controversy" sections; for example, people blamed Halo 3 (or the desire to play the game) for a murder, but this doesn't have much bearing on coverage of the game itself. In comparison Super Columbine Massacre RPG mentions the shooting supposedly influenced by it because it's much more important to the game's scope and was commented upon by other publications (of course, the shooting has its own article anyhow). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with the Manhunt controversy is that the article is too small to be able to split off without being damaged. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hot coffee has been on my list of articles I'd like to work on. But with my schedule, I doubt I'd ever have the time for it. :-(

I'd be happy to give such an article a peer review though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

I was gonna say to give the Resistance article a peer review, but realized you already did! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Need a bit of help in prose cleanup at the GH3 article while in FAC. Gary King's done a good job but still getting some issues with it. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

When I begin to read this to decide where to start the question comes to me, "What part of this article is about cassettes and what is about cartridge?" I believe this article is in serious need of splitting since cassettes and cartridges are not the same.じんない 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are separate articles on types of cassettes, but not on the subject of cassettes, generally. But aren't cassettes a type of cartridge, or does having electronics inside make it strictly different from having tape inside?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cassettes aren't cartridges anymore than hard disc drives are sold state. Both are similar and do similar things, but they do so in completely different ways.じんない 02:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article on cassette storage: Magnetic tape data storage. Maybe move the relevant content to that article. Regardless, Cartridge (electronics) is more of a general technology topic not tied down to just video games. I understand why our banner is on the talk page, but I question if it should really be "high-importance". A more important/relevant topic might be ROM cartridge. It's also a general technology article, but I think it has stronger ties to video games than cartridges. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes we should move relevant information to that section. I'm not sure our tag should be on there really. I think it's best left to the WikiProject Computing and/or WikiProject Electronics. Since it's on our list though we can improve it, but I'd say after this we should give it to those groups and just link ROM cartridge to it.じんない 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How about moving the collaboration to ROM cartridge instead?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the disambig page for cassette says that it is a small cartridge. What do you say to that?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would actually contest that claim. I'd want some verifable evidence that it's common practice.じんない 03:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the Random House Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language sources that meet WP:V? Both have definitions for cartridges describing them as cassettes. Neither list definitions for cartridge specifically describing a ROM cartridge, although it would probably fall under the category of A small modular unit designed to be inserted into a larger piece of equipment. Merriam-Webster does specifically reference a video game cartridge, but it too includes a magnetic tape definition. —Ost (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That at least verifies that it somewhat used. However both of them are near, or at, the bottom which tend to indicate the less-oft used meanings. So it does show it is used interchangeably by some, but it also shows it's not the most common use of cartridge.じんない 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a less frequent use of cartridge, but it also more commonly listed in the dictionaries than one describing a ROM cartridge. The dictionary pages tend to agree on cartridges being primarily defined as for weapons, with varying orders for the other definitions.

From my experience, I've hard people refer to 8-track cartridges, as its article says. If audio cassettes fall under the category of electronics, I think it's hard to justify removal from the cartridge (electronics). The tape drive article (which redirects from tape cartridge) also mentions cartridges with tape, so perhaps it would be better to merge the tape cartridge information to that article. This would leave little information on the cartridge (electronics) page that wasn't ROM cartridge, and the two articles could be merged after the washing machine example and ink cartridges find appropriate articles. This would remove the 'big section, little article' disparity that you mention below, but I don't know if it's what should be done. —Ost (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine.じんない 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Something seems wrong when the section is larger than the article it's linked to. A lot of the information, FE Nintendo's history, is better served in the ROM Cartridge article rather than the Cartridge (electronics) article which is suppose to be an overview.じんない 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I get some peer review of the Corrupted Blood article here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin (DrKiernan) recently brought to my attention that WikiProjects without a formal A-class review procedure (like ours) need to nominate articles for A-class on that article's talk page. This includes articles like Rock Band and Super Mario Kart, which were recently agreed upon as A-class within the Project's assessment page. So I guess step 1 is to nominate articles for A-class on their own talk pages and use our assessments page to notify other Project members of the nomination; and step 2 is to consider if we need to re-activate our defunct A-class review procedure. Thoughts? — Levi van Tine ^(talk) 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think that admin is overstepping himself here a bit, to be honest. In this event we could just as easily have the editor that nominated it on our Assessment page contact both reviewer, write up a quick nomination proposal and then have them say the very same things said on the Assessment page. Effectively we might as well copy and paste the assessment from the archive into each of these article talk pages and the results would remain the same. So it's kinda...a nitpick?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that our current system is not broken. But I think some more formality/transparency wouldn't hurt. It would decentralize the discussion from the assessment page, but it would also give others a better chance to chime in on the review.

Of course, I'm not an assessor, so I wouldn't really have to deal with it. :-/ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

The interest isn't there to kick-start a full-blown process, but our current haphazard method doesn't give any indication the article has been combed through. A workable compromise would be something like: i) Actual nomination and discussion takes place on the article talk page, with a link from the assessments page. ii) Articles should only be nominated by a contributor who has invested heavily in the article and/or is prepared to deal with any problems highlighted. iii) Assessors should have a set of criteria, and respond to each themselves within the nomination on the talk page. and finally iv) Three assessors, as a minimum, should green-light the article before it is promoted, and there should be nobody objecting to it.

In general it would be a Good Thing to keep all chatter on talk pages rather than on the assessment request lists, and to also request that any assessment is only asked for if the nominator has any intention of using the advice given. If our assessments were literally a case of changing the rating without offering advice it would be one thing, but a lot of nominators are seeking help and shouldn't be delayed because unwanted advice is being formulated on abandoned articles' talk pages. Someoneanother 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it be a simple discussion on the talk page or something transcluded like GAN? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Would suggest rubbing the entire process down with the KISS principle, having the discussion on the talk page and leaving the assessment list uncluttered. The more bells and whistles it has the more time needs to be spent messing around instead of just assessing the thing. Someoneanother 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A request for an assessment should still be made on the assessment page. It is there as a central location for anyone interested in assing articles in general to know what is being requested.じんない 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant, just without transclusion of the discussion. Someoneanother 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that Good Articles should be eliminated and all existing GA's changed to A-class. It makes a lot more sense that way, since there are few articles that are "better" than GA criteria but not featured articles. If someone worked on them that much, they'd usually just try for a FA. The line between GA's and A class is thin, and it sticks out like a sore thumb between B and A. I also think that all review discussions should be transcluded on the talk page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well...GA is a universal Wikipedia policy and so I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon. As for our A-class process, I generally agree with what Kung Fu Man, Guyinblack25 and Someone another have said. Whenever an article's active editor(s) feels the article is ready for A-class (ideally, after a peer review and successful GA nomination, I would think), they can open a "formal" nomination on the article's talk page per the A-class criteria instructions and alert WPVG folks on our assessments page. The admin who swooped in on us probably was being nitpicky, but maybe we can use this as an opportunity to get our GAs to FA consideration by using the A-class process in a more transparent, available manner. Specifically, by raising the profile of our articles and exposing them to a wider range of editors. — Levi van Tine ^(talk) 05:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should check on some of the older GA articles to see if they should be nominated. I know this is out-of-the-ordinary, but the inclusion of a more thorough A-class is also out-of-the-ordinary.

On another issue, if we find that an article is A-class, will we just rate it for games or for all others, specifically ones that don't have a formal A-class?じんない 02:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean for other WikiProjects? Hmm...good question. I would say that if an editor feels an article is A-class, maybe all other pertinent WikiProjects should be notifed on their talk pages so they can participate. If the article is subsequently confirmed as A-class, those other Projects can change their banner's rating accordingly. In general, I would say that editors not involved with a Project should leave that Project's tags alone. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What about those that are active members? FE: I am an active participant in WP:ANIME. If I assessed an article for WP:VG that also falls under the Anime and Manga WikiProject does not have a formal A-class review, should I go ahead and upgrade the rating? Leave it alone and notify someone else or what?じんない 07:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would think it's OK for you to go ahead and do that, since you're an active representative of the other project. Ideally, someone from that project (potentially you, in this case) would also be involved in the A-class procedure itself, and all involved projects could agree jointly on an article's A-class status. Or conversely, if the Anime project did a big overhaul on a joint article and you were notified, you could just change our rating as well. Just so that someone in the project is in the loop. Of course, this is all my personal opinion - I hardly speak for our entire project. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How about creating an official Wikiproject Special:Book, possibly starting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles? The book would be located at Wikipedia:Books/Video games (see also, Wikipedia:Books), categorized in Category:Wikipedia:Books. JACOPLANE • 2009-02-28 17:52

Because our essential articles suck? :P I mean, I could make a slam-dunk awesome one on the Halo series or Myst, but... :D --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One could possibly be written on character articles (been mulling that over) if more people were readily interested in helping there, but there aren't. What David said regarding the project's essential articles is dead right however.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One day... (far off look). The books feature is killer, however. It even has nonfree images and lists of contributors... If only you could shunt all the refs into a single section and control formatting, though. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the essential articles aren't up to standard yet. We could perhaps create books about all the featured topics and list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Books. JACOPLANE • 2009-02-28 18:14

I agree a mash-up "best of" might be cool. I've been working on a few of the genre articles recently, most of the essentials still suck though; I'm not sure why people aren't interested in them. bridies (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've created Category:Wikipedia:Books about video games, please place any books you create in there. JACOPLANE • 2009-03-1 10:30

Currently there have been talks over whether or not to split all three Myth games into their own article. While it seems to be supported due to all three having their own stories, gameplay tweaks, recpetion etc like any other game series, no one has stepped up to the task, a large one granted. I would help, notably the Myth II more info on it. Should I go ahead and if I do what would be done about the current article on all three games? Stabby Joe (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just model it like any of the series articles; Myst (series), StarCraft (series), Halo (series), et al. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And to your initial question which I realized I didn't particularly answer: if you're willing to take on the burden of writing it, there's no problem spinning off. Contact me via email if you want some print sources for it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started with Myth II: Soulblighter, thus far having a very basic written set up and text but I have written large amounts on content in the past so don't worry about its state now. It should becoming expanded and better sourced in the next few days (without deletion). Stabby Joe (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be a tangential topic, but since WP Computing is more dead than alive, I'm coming here to raise the issue. Currently, (many) articles like GeForce 9 Series are completely lacking in real-world context; they are just lists upon lists of features, specifications, and other technical/marketing speak. At minimum they need things like a "Reception" section that would include, but is not limited to, reviews, sales, etc. -- the routine stuff that you would find in any B-class WPVG article. (As an example, check out Wii Remote#Reception.) Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hammy here. These articles are totally wrapped up in numbers and are verging on just lists of specs which I'm pretty sure violates WP:NOT somehow. A reception section and maybe reviews/performance benchmarks would be helpfull -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is VGChartz still blacklisted? And what about Kotaku, if it's claiming to report from SE financial presentations but doesn't actually link to the primary source? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, nevermind. I found the financials. They're not up to date with European sales, so if anyone still wants to comment... ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so there it is. CTRL+F, why did you fail me before? Consider this closed. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

VGChartz is still to be avoided. Kotaku depends on the reporter but if they are reporting from a business' data, that data's bound to be other places too. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Both are basically the same game, just with a different skin. If merged, what should the title be? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the one released later should be merged into the earlier one under its own section.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's only a one-day different in their release, so they were basically developed alongside each other, so we can't really play favorites. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How about GODS Engine games? Either that or just leave them separate.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't feel they should be merged. I understand where you're coming from with the idea, but the subject matter and the overall look of the two games is far different despite the identical engine. Should we merge all of the games with the unreal engine? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not like they're very unique - they didn't make unique levels based on the same gameplay engine, they basically took one game model and multiplied it by two. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but these were still very separate games. I'd be more in favor of a merge if we could find articles that compare the two games and show their totally obvious similarities. Could make an interesting article "Data Design Interactive Wii Games" or something of the like. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Much of the reception for Anubis II was based on the similarity between the two. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Anubis II's IGN review, the game was originally released as a PS2 game two years before its Wii release; the review also makes no note of its similarity to Anubis II in perticular... it only mentions that it has the same engine as many of the other Data Interactive games. I can't seem to find any evidence of Ninjabread Man being released as a total re-hash at IGN, but then, I'm only looking at one site. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'd be more in favor of a merge if we could find articles that compare the two games and show their totally obvious similarities." -- Should be merged per articles like Pokemon Red and Blue as well asThe Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Agesじんない 12:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But the problem is that the games have 2 completely different plots despite the fact that they are clones of each other. Pokemon Red and Blue, as well as the Zelda games, are in the same series and have similar plots and gameplay.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Zelda games don't have the same plot, but it's a special case. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai, I see where your coming from with the Pokemon example, but those games (even ignoring the fact that they were almost the same game) were from the same series. Anubis II and Ninjabread Man were very different games from each other despite the similarities between them. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could the Persona games be considered roguelike? I know that Persona 4 has randomly generated dungeon crawls, limited action RPG gameplay, treasure chests and monsters. However, it doesn't have permanent death or action combat. It might be a stretch, though.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rougelike? No, but rougelike elements, yes.じんない 08:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not unless sources are specifically grouping it as part of that genre. Dungeon crawling is the crux of roguelikes, but not many dungeon crawlers are roguelikes. Someoneanother 12:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Random dungeon crawler would be the most appropriate. I know a few similar games that were given that or a very similar name.じんない 11:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Balaclava, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[pf] 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

)

On some of the Syphon Filter and Resident Evil articles, several anon IPs (86.148.109.115, 86.165.82.109, 81.157.88.230) which I would hazard a guess are the same person, keep adding overlong plot sections, labelling content disputes as vandalism, edit warring, etc. The targeted articles include Resident Evil 2 (happened a while ago, Nov 2008), Resident Evil 3, Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow, and Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror. The anon IPs do not seem to have bothered with communication at any point, apart from edit summaries, and their editing appears (difficult to say as their addresses are slightly different) to be confined to articles with short, concise plot sections. The anon IPs immediately resume when any article protection ends. Geoff B (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Then request for an IP block?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not all that easy sometimes. Given the varied IP's used it could be someone with a dynamic IP (meaning you can't just ban one). I had to deal with a similar thing last night on Sophitia with someone grabbing a chunk of info from a wikia and trying to shove it in. Hell for the most part with video game articles IPs generally don't actually assist with the articles. Perhaps it would be a good idea to push for permanent semi-protection on some of these?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Any assistance or advice is appreciated, because quite frankly I don't have a clue. Geoff B (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't just ban IPs, even though they do vandalize, because there are others that don't. The only options are A.block the IPs anyway, or B.semi-protect the article being added to. Otherwise, it can be handled by reverting edits.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Except this IP appears to plough on, and eventually persevere, because IPs don't get banned and editors don't respond. I've rv'd him twice on three articles, so once more in then ext 24 hours then I can't do it any more as his edits are not technically vandalism, the anon IPs (judging from their edit history) will quite happily rv for hours. Geoff B (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Request semiprot. It's not vandalism, necessarily but it is unhelpful editing if they aren't communicating. --MASEM 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, I think. Geoff B (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a happy medium between the pared-down plots and the exhaustive ones being added, couldn't we use the information being added to form a more complete plot for each but remove the excessive navel-gazing? Someoneanother 11:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My review of the differences in the plots with what I know of the stories tells me there's really no good middle ground between the two versions, that is, once you've started to talk about the plot with certain details, the rest of the plot needs to expand in a similar fashion. --MASEM 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Though there's a lot of irrelevant "went there, did this" in the expanded RE3, it does highlight a couple of lapses in the condensed version. The second paragraph of the old version was literally the very end of the game, the first paragraph mentions Nemesis in a "oh and by the way, there's a bio-weapon called Nemesis" kind of way at the end, which is hardly placing due emphasis on the thing which appears very early in the game. It also bothers to mention the Lt. who's a minor character yet doesn't mention anything about Nikolai's betrayal which, like Nemesis, is a plot-strand that weaves through a lot of the game. Nemesis' destruction of the evac. chopper marks a watershed in the game, and again isn't mentioned at all. Aiming at three medium sized paragraphs would cover the plot properly and leave some wiggle-room to condense further. I understand exactly what you mean when you say expanding it would open the door to all the minor characters and happenings, but what was there left out details which should be in, particularly what happened during and after the evac. chopper's destruction. Someoneanother 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-prot on RE3, but the two Syphon Filter articles were not due to the lack of recent edits. However, that anon IP is still at it. What's the threshold for semi-protection? Is there one? Geoff B (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had it with the Syphon Filter articles already. Request for semi-protection turned down, can't go to AIV because A) The anon IP keeps swapping IPs so has no warnings B) No one takes any notice (only user I can see is Dibol, who is also that IP address starting 64., and he's in favour of overlong plot summaries, justifying it with "Other articles have them!") and C) The edits are not technically vandalism so AIV is no good. Geoff B (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Those plot summaries are ridiculous, but you should probably at least put a note on the talk page(s). That way you're in the right if they continue to revert as "vandalism". bridies (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wish I knew how! A vandalism warning note? Where do I find those? Also, the anon IP has swapped IPs again to 81.152.6.140 and is now including the Characters in Resident Evil 4 article (see here). Geoff B (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Not knowing any of the history, I just submitted this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kevin7557. Belasted (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean put a note on the talk page explaining that the plot summaries are too long. It's unlikely to do any good of course but that way you have at least tried to solve the dispute by discussion and makes the IP look worse if they ignore that and continue to revert you.bridies (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Righto, will get to it. Geoff B (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That anon IP is branching out. I think he's watching my contributions and reverting to long plot sections on articles I edit. None of the IPs have edited that article before, and I have edited it recently. Also, here.Geoff B (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV won't protect the articles. The user is not technically a sockpuppet, only using one IP at a time. The user doesn't qualify for IP-reporting as that needs a number of blocks, and no-one has bothered to block the IP. I am stumped. Geoff B (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone, Gamerankings is back on! Now articles can get references from the website. Don't believe me? Go on it. Or here. http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html GamerPro64 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, did it always look like GameFAQs?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's never looked this bad. It also now randomly lists its reviews on the games' pages. It is pretty bad. However, since GR now does a top 30 instead of a top 10, I reckon we should expand the range of notable rankings on GR to that, and we have to fix some listings, since the threshold is now five reviews. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They are owned by the same company...じんない 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the existing links have also changed, I've had to update a few. However, most don't seem affected. Its also now the allegedly more trendy "GameRankings" rather than "Game Rankings", a point to bear in mind when writing. -- Sabre (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are they considered reliable sources? I am not sure because they seem to be run by general users.じんない 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they can be. They're pretty much isolated sub-forums created by users that have been around GameSpot for awhile. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, they are user generated content with no editorial oversight from GameSpot's staff. It is best to think of them as a regular fansite in Wikipedia's terms. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Well, I was wondering, what is the verdict on such an article as Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man's importance? While it seems like a minor issue, it received worldwide attention and resulted in a proposed "sacred digital guidelines" that would serve to prevent the usage of religious institutions in video games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd still say it's Low-importance, since it's a minor squabble that resulted from a single game versus a single church. Plus, it probably won't stop people from using churches in games, just from using exact duplicates of real churches without permission.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem unimportant, but at the same time Mid seems a bit too high. :-\

I would keep it low for now and see if its impact increases over time. If it does we can change it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

The only incidents that I would consider of at least mid-importance would be ones that received significant public attention, such as the seizure pokemon episode (the event doesn't have an article best I can tell), the burger king toy recall that New Age just recently created, and the like - where the gaming culture intersects with public consciousness. The Resistant/Catherdral got news coverage and thus notable, but didn't really affect the public at large, thus a low-importance article. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Still low importance, but certainly worthy of inclusion. Not often that a story about a VG makes headlines and gets discussed in parliament by the prime minister. WP:VG is, or should be, so much more than just a games catalogue. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would put the Burger King Pokemon toy article at Low-importance within gaming, since it doesn't involve the game series but involves toys designed by Burger King. Pokemon influenced the design but did not actually design or distribute the toy.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a situation I haven't ran into before. I prodded the article (after adding in the other tags first, of course) when the author userfied it into his namespace (see User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel). Before the mainspace redirect could be deleted, however, someone else started creating another version of the article which has virtually the same problems as before. Would this be an issue for dispute resolution, or could AFD address this? MuZemike 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just speedy it by "recreation of deleted material". Or create an AFD and delete it separately, but mention the userfication.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken to AFD after a declined speedy. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

...and Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs) has moved User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel back to Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA), which was just deleted. I'm requesting help here before I start on RFC into the matter. MuZemike 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

G4'd the page (it didn't seem that much different from the one 7 hrs before). Also the editor has been making incorrect (possibly in good faith, but still wrong informatin) edits to the various other R&C pages. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should an "unnamed future sequel" even have an article...?Anyway!--Michael X the White (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to open a can of worms, but it's all about being notable and having significant coverage. For example, if the unnamed future sequel didn't discuss it much as a game as it does its development or opinions on a future sequel to a previous game, it could sustain itself. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then stop flicking the ring-pull :O Someoneanother 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cutting straight to the chase, both are long time series sidekicks appearing in massive amounts of media across the board, so in terms of what they are and why we're covering them, they're equal. But Luigi is ranked High priority while Tails is Mid. Should Luigi be downgraded, or Tails upgraded in this case? It seems odd to not use the same priority in this case.

Along those same lines, Princess Peach is also rated High, but seems better suited for Mid. Any thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Luigi, who has been the starring character of multiple games, is of higher priority than Tails. Peach has also been the starring character of at least one game. But I would say that all of them should be downgraded one category from where they are. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Luigi was one of the "stars" of the GameCube launch, for one. The most prolific main character in any released game at its launch. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So it's a general consensus to downgrade all three articles then? (Though to quickly note, Tails did get his two standalone games on the Game Gear and one for the Sega Pico, just tossing that out there)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they should all be Mid-priority, since while they are notable characters with multiple games, they didn't make a huge impact. It's clear that Tails is more famous than, say, Klonoa, though.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that they should all be Mid-priority (at the most). — Levi van Tine ^(talk) 06:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, set all three to Mid. How's that look now?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with the character ratings and we probably need a wholsale "tag and (re-)assaement" of all video game articles. Vincent Valentine who has 1 game where is the main character is rated lower than Tifa Lockhart FE.じんない 07:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because you're the main character of a game does not automatically give you higher importance. The characters have to have real-world notability on a massive scale to get high importance, such as Mario, Pikachu, Zelda, Master Chief. They're usually part of a franchise rather than confined to one game. Characters like Cloud, confined to a single game and also famous, get Mid importance. Vincent Valentine, who is a supporting character in a single game and a main character in a spin off, are low importance.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is, Tifa Lockheart is by thar definition low importance, yet she is rated mid. It was not that Vincent Valentine should be raised to mid, but that the two are disjointed despite the real-world importance. My second point is if I can go to a random article I selected (the FF7 characters) and find problems even within that page's character profile links, there is a serious need for a wholesale re-assement.じんない 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm is right though: the difference in rating is due to the cultural impact of the characters. Appearing as a "pin up" in the New York Times and cited as an example in other books, combined with a healthy share of reception from various reliable sources, tends to lend Tifa some credence in that department. So it'd be easier to argue she is Mid priority. Despite the one game, what's the cultural impact of Vincent, and ultimately is there enough notability for him to have his own article?

I don't think a grand-scale redo on assessments will get us anywhere: they'd need to be done case by case as this is showing here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think there are two basic principles we should be aware of when doing importance-assessment work:

1. We're going to have disagreements about it, and in most cases we should agree to disagree, and
2. In an ideal world the article content will drive the importance assessment.

I think, simply by looking at both articles Vincent falls squarely into Low despite main-character status while Tifa has a more significant claim. Nifboy (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Off just what is presented there, yes. However it appears to me it's more a fact Vincent is a victim of WP:IMPERFECT rather than Tifa being more notable since I can also cite reliable sources claiming Vincent Valentine's importance. In addition, he has also made it to the protagonist of a major console game which is more than Tifa has. That also is a sign of notability since not every character gets their own spinoff. Aeris certainly didn't.じんない 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's only one way to work this out: FIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Heh, personally I'd stick them both into 'low', it's not like Valentine's standalone set the world on fire (Fallout 3 soundtrack starts playing on mental radio, arg) and female characters with big erm.. glands always get that kind of attention anyway. Someoneanother 12:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who works heavily on character articles...I kinda have to say that's actually just a general misconception people seem to have about female characters. Having breasts does not automatically equal attention, and in some cases having them only nets the occasional throwaway comment (notice how many of the DoA girls still have articles at this point? I rest my case there). Thing is too with the reception a lot of reliable media sources cite the character as a favorite for more than "she has boobs" and was named one of the PlayStation's best characters of all time, and that's just going by what's already in the reception section for the article. Not to mention plenty of spinoff appearances over other members of the FF7 cast. Add in a few scholarary studies on the character and it's hard not to aruge there wasn't some degree of an impact, no?

By contrast Vincent is in all honesty a completely optional character. At most, Vincent adds a few key plot bits to why Sephiroth is the way he is. Ultimately though, many players may have never even have found him. In additional while he was the main character in Dirge, the game was both a spinoff of a larger series and generally disliked. Tingle has starred in his own games but I don't think anyone's going to shout how he's obviously mid priority. Not to mention Zack Fair and the Turks have also had their own games but neither are very important. If Vincent had appeared as the protag of a game that developed a new franchise I'd agree he's important. But as it stands, I'm actually wondering if the article wouldn't be better off merged at this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget that Tingle's games were better. :D - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're happy for Tifa to remain Mid then that's good enough for me. Nice work on that naughty old Nemesis BTW, he's such a tinker. Someoneanother 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a slight change for the use of PSP cover images in the infobox.

Most game covers have an aspect ratio of ~ 5:6 to 5:7 width to height, but the average PSP box is 5:8.5. As a result, when you set the width to 252px, the cover comes out 425px (roughly), while other covers will generally be about 350px tall. This additional 75px can really make the PSP covers look much more opposing on a page, while also extending the infobox at least that many.

I propose that for PSP covers (or any other game system where the aspect ratio of the cover falls significantly outside of 5:7) that we aim to have the height to be kept around 350 px to match most other game covers. For the PSP, this would make the width set to 200px, giving an acceptable amount of whitespace in the infobox without making the image look imposing. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What would cropping the PSP wrappertext have on game covers? (Or is that without it already?) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That would probably take out 35-40 px at the 250px width, but I'm not a big fan of stripping the wrappertext off if the game is unique for that system (few covers take that into account, but its still a quick visual clue that the game is specifically for that system) --MASEM (t) 22:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think it matters either way, I'd say just leave it to whatever the local editors decide (I'm a fan of leaving the width as is, but then again I don't edit PSP games so I really shouldn't care either way.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just tried it on Dead Head Fred...made it kind of huge. I don't know, I think the current size is fine. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, a maximum height can also be specified in image tags, not just the width. You can write [[Image:something.jpg|256x350px]] for instance. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been getting this article set-up, and would like some input on it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, if a little short. Could use more dates, especially in the lead. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a WIP for the moment - I've only been working on for a bit. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you should find a picture of the Pokémon container. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been a disagreement over the importance level of Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss on its talk page. Comments would be appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Per our previous discussion, there's a big discussion of the A-class process going on here. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is a mess to read, and took some time for me to wade through it all. In the end though I'm not seeing any reason for them to even argue that the system is fundamentally broken: you have GA, then you have A which is a notch above GA, then you have FA which is obviously the top. People are not nominating stub-class articles with the expectation of them being upgraded to A-class: assessment discussion does occur if need be, and in cases where an article is clearly not prepared it gets shot down in flames. The way they're talking however, it's as if stubs are getting tossed up to A-class left and right (when I think the only case this has really ever happened was when the article was formerly a stub but massively improved in relatively short time, and even then I've only seen a jump to B-class).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the stub thing. I kind of like the idea of "drive-by reviewing". You drop an A-class review template onto an article's talk page, and interested editors from any corner of Wikipedia can give their thoughts. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

After awhile my head started throbbing.. if they can decide exactly what it is they're trying to do, why they're doing it and then get on with it then that's dandy, particularly if it involves a more uniform and transparent method of assessing A-class articles. In the meantime they're welcome to it, perhaps we could implement a simple system for this project to tide us over? Someoneanother 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose that until this thing blows over, we go through the recommended process of nominating an article to A-class by starting a discussion on the article's talk page (like the recently nominated Super Mario Bros. 3, for instance). Reviewers can leave comments as they see fit, and the article is promoted when two uninvolved editors support the nomination (with no significant opposes). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Overhauls of process are fine and usual but they cause a lot of uncertainty, trying to plug-in to something unformed makes life difficult. Someoneanother 19:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm back. Before I left I mainly focused on making requested articles and articles requesting grades. So I wanted to know if maybe we could get a taskforce togther to focus on those to fields. Gears of War 2 06:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

By "articles requesting grades" do you mean requests for assessment? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Gears of War 2 12:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was wondering about that myself. I was looking at WP:MILHIST the other day and they have a pretty active/thorough assessment department (not a taskforce), so I'm wondering if we can do the same thing? Especially with all this A-class stuff going on, maybe we should flesh it out a little more. I also like the idea of a "B-class checklist". Anyways these are just thoughts, but ya I'm ready to help out with whatever we decide to do on assessment. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That is, not discussing the games so much as the controversy surrounding them. I'm working on a user subpage for a potential article here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How about calling the page Video game resale controversy? Either that, or make it Used video game to conform with Used book and Used car.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be merged or redirected to Used goods, or a whole new article should be made not just for used games but for used media (vhs, dvd, etc.) including games. I'm no expert, just putting my 2 cents! Belasted (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a final name, I just couldn't think of anything good. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an idea, but I think that the controversy over used games has received significant enough coverage that it could be covered. We've also got significant coverage of reactions etc. from developers, industry analysts, and the sellers of used games (like, for example, some people arguing that developers should receive a commission). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of press on the issue and believe there should be plenty for a standalone article, what to call it is another matter. Working on the article in your userspace is a good idea until it's cited to the gussets so it isn't tagged for merge right away. Someoneanother 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There have been lots of personalities in the industry and out who have opinions on resold games that varies dramatically from other media, for example the furor that resulted over Martin O'Donnell's comments on the matter[1] I'm sure there's enough to do a decent article, but I agree with someone that drafting it in userspace is the way to go. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Used video game market"? This allows you to both have a history and then the controversy section. It's both the impact of the market and controversy that makes the topic useful. --MASEM (t)

Speak of the devil, another source to use: [2] --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Great article, BTW. It perfectly echoes my sentiments about game trading. But, uh, wouldn't an article about used games be inherently biased against Gamestop, which makes a huge profit off of traded games?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's what the sources portray, then it's not really a biased point of view. So long as all majority and minority views are adequately conveyed, it's technically NPOV. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

I came across this article, Screaming mantis (a Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots character), whilst checking CAT:CSD. This project would be most adept at deciding what to do with it. Seraphim♥ 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be redirected to the MGS4 article. It's a plausible search term but a minor aspect. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok - will do that now. Thanks :). Seraphim♥ 16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason we have lists like List of games supporting force feedback which seem more apt as a category since they are just a list with no information beyond a title?じんない 04:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can help create a category for this so that the article wouldn't be necessary. MuZemike 07:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the category will last long. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are DVD TV games under the VG project's scope? The main article isn't tagged but Little Britain: The Game is. --Mika1h (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tagged. :D Someoneanother 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay me and Masem have put in a sugar load of work into Guitar Hero: Aerosmith and it's looking really good. All the problems have been fixed and I think it's ready for FA status. Or should I open a new peer review? Either way, give me some feedback so I can know how to improve this article or if it's ready to be promoted to at least A class. King Rock (Gears of War) 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 04:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC

Dude, This does look like an A-article. You should try to get it an A-class, and if it does, nominate it for FA. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The only real point I have is that there's not much about the Les Paul it's bundled with...is it the same one bundled with Guitar Hero III? Is it wireless? How was it received, independently of the game? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As you all know, it will be less then 10 months till the 2010s start. I created the article 2010s in video gaming seeing the decade is about to start, now i redirected the Near future in video gaming to that artice as the latter article is pretty much about 2010s at the moment and the title is pretty much vague and could confuse. since then two editors reverted my edits and redirected the "2010s in video gaming" to the vague title "Near furture......" without explaination. I wanna hear everyone on this wikiproject thoughts, hopefully you guys would agree with me :). Pro66 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article on 2010 should only be made next year. All years up to the present one should have their own article, but anything after it hasn't happened yet and should be lumped in with "near future".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A "List of Video Games in Development" article or something like that, but an article about the "near future" or the next decade is mostly speculative. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you Nomader. But in response to zxcvbnm there are many accepted articles about future years and furute decades i.e. 2010s, 2010 and 2050 detailing scheduled/planned events into the right and appriate subject/article title rather then something that doesnt sound enclopedic like for example; the next u.s presidential election in the "near future of the U.S.A" article. The reason i think that the near future article needs to be redirected is coz its title its too vague and the 2010s is coming up fast and we got planned or schedule games releases coming out in tht decade (mainly the year 2010) which fits its appriatness (excuss my spelling).Pro66 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You have some valid comments, I think it should be moved to List of video games in development, and the 2010s article not created until 2010.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough i be ok with that title. :) Pro66 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been working alot on HAWX but I need help writing the development section. All help is welcome with the lead and reception sections too. Cheers. Gears of War 2 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you found suitable sources about the development yet? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Not yet, still looking, I'm trying IGN first. That's why I need help because I don't know where to find that information.N.G.G. 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Try Gamasutra, a quick google shows a few interesting hits.[3] Other quick googles show the existence of a developer diary which may be useful.[4] Just pull out the most relevant pieces of information from previews, interviews and such. - hahnchen 01:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll be starting the development section now.N.G.G. 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They were also at E3 for 2008, so that will probably add a bit if you need it. --Izno (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Over at Sailor Moon#Video games, we're citing a fansite when we talk about the various Japanese-release-only Sailor Moon video games. However, since we're trying to improve the article's status, it's become particularly important to get a real, reliable source in there. I've been searching high and low, but I can't find anything that isn't a fansite. Do you guys have any magic sources where I can find the release history and so forth for games that were never exported? :) Thanks! --Masamage ♫ 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You could try something like RPGamer or GameFAQs, they have Japan only games too. GameFAQs is only useable as a reference for release info.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about Japanese sites, but we've got a list of reliable sources at this sources page. There might be a few Japanese sites on there. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! This is perfect, thank you. I had no idea we could use GameFAQs (I just need to verify their publishers and things), and there's a huge list there. :) Thanks! --Masamage ♫ 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would use GameSpot instead of GameFAQs. They use the same database for release dates so most of the basic info should be on GameSpot as well. I've used them for a couple "List of X games" before, many which needed Japanese release dates.

When I look for sources, Japanese or otherwise, I normally do google searches of specific sites. Like "site:famitsu.com セーラームーン" or "site:dengeki.com セーラームーン". The only problem with that is you still have to dredge through pages of worthless content before finding a couple pages of useful articles. Dengeki would probably be very difficult to find sources on because they cover anime, manga, and hobbies in addition to video games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

I have nominated Final Fantasy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, it's been on the shelves for a week now, and to subscribers for even longer. The latest edition of Edge - Issue 199, March 2009 - has a multi-page feature on the archiving and history preservation of video games. It talks with people such as Iain Simmons from the National Videogame Archive, Richard Bartle, and our very own User:KieferSkunk.

Although by no means the only focus, the article discusses Wikipedia at length, calling it "by far the best of a bad bunch" in terms of being a video games repository. Although it praises Wikipedia in certain aspects, pointing out that a great deal of its videogame content is the most complete starting point you could wish for, and using our featured article on the SNES as an example.

But the general tone of the article is critical of Wikipedia. The article uses the recent deletion, and subsequent undeletion of Threshold (online game) to frame a worthwhile analysis of our notability and reliable sourcing guidelines. I wasn't familiar with the discussions revolving this MUD, but looking through some archives, there was a lot of ill will generated:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game) - Delete - Discussion itself OTRS history deleted.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 7 - Closed - New article started
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game) (2nd nomination) - Keep
• Outside of Wikipedia, it drew commentary from MUD luminaries such as Richard Bartle[5] and Raph Koster[6].

The Edge article questions Wikipedia's strict adherence to narrowly defined "reliable sources". It asks whether mailing lists such as MUDdev would be considered reliable, given that major figures in MUD history contributed to it, and that any serious research into MUDs would require access to MUDdev. It also criticises the fact The Mud Connector and Top Mud Sites were both considered invalid sources.

It's an interesting read, and there are no easy answers regarding notability and sourcing. Hopefully, Edge online will mirror the piece some point this month. If not, I can provide scans. - hahnchen 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's sad when we have a higher standard of accountability and sourcing than a print magazine. And yeah, if notable individuals contributed to a mailing list it could be used per WP:SPS, so what kind of question is that (in other words, the press doesn't understand our polices... again...) Interesting mention though, thanks for bringing it to our attention. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, apparently they didn't realize that it's not merely restricted to being published in reliable sources, but if you are an established expert posting in a usually unreliable source, it can still be used.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not sad, because print magazines have staff they can trust, whereas Wikipedia is founded on contributions from untrusted contributors. Our rules are stricter because we cannot count on our contributors' expertise the way a traditional publication can. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The "byzantine jungle of policies" as Koster would have it... bridies (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but AMiB I can trust my contributors and writers without trusting their sources... the proliferation of republished content from sites such as VG Chartz is just one indication that many writers will simply use a figure they find on the internet without applying common sense checks that we have codified. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't fire an anon editor who puts an incorrect fact into an article. The only thing you can do is verify it, and remove it if it's incorrect. The people who work for magazines/newspapers, on the other hand, usually follow strict guidelines.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The person writing that article said he sent me a couple copies of the magazine for my contribution, but since it's coming from the UK, they haven't arrived here yet, so I haven't seen what he used from the rather lengthy discourse I gave him. I hope he kept the same balance in the final printing as I tried to give him in answering his questions - I had both positive and negative comments about the Wikipedia "experience", if you will. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What I learned from that AFD and ensuing DRV (since the DRV was moot, the 2nd AFD didn't serve any purpose besides venting uncivil hot air) was that outside users can bully, filibuster, and basically their way, not to mention climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, to getting their article kept (as especially known by the blatant disregard to policy with comments such as notability isn't a reason for deletion.) To be clear, I am more dismayed on the conduct during the AFD and DRV as opposed to the end result, and my patience especially with newbies during that same timeframe (there were a few other AFDs I recall at the same time that were experiencing votestacking due to off-wiki canvassing) was growing exceedingly thin and probably resorted to me lashing back with a couple uncivil remarks. If there was anything in my still rather short time editing that has caused me any stress, it would probably be the Threshold incident. But as I said before, since Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the world, everybody wants a piece of pie, even if it resorts to climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to get it.

P.S. Not to say that I am not happy with the end result (as I was more than glad to favor keeping in the 2nd AFD as a result of the DRV). It's the fallout that bothered me and had me questioning a lot of things. MuZemike 16:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Edge magazine is not alone in its harsh criticism of Wikipedia deletion and notability policies, in fact journalists universally condemn these policies. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists I have yet to have an editor quote a positive article about these policies, despite quoting these journalists repeatedly on some of the most popular policy talk pages.

As just a sample of the journalist's opinion of wikipedia deletion policies, PC Pro editor Pountain decided to test the complaints of another journalist who said that Wikipedia is "ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight", by creating a The Political Quarterly stub. The Political Quarterly is a distingushed journal. The stub was speedy deleted from Wikipedia within an hour. Pountain also reviewed the web 2.0 most popular webpages. After describing how tolerant Flickr, Digg and Facebook are, Pountain wrote that wikipedia is the "dark side running out of control [of Web 2.0]" and that "...It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire..."

Hahnchen, Thank you for another article. Ikip (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What a load of shit. My majority contributions are improving articles; same with plenty of editors here. Keep your hysterical rhetoric for your own userpage. bridies (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

refactored. If your extensive contrbutions are any guide, then my assumption was wrong. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is not as negative as you've imagined, it doesn't go into the nitty gritty, or the atmosphere of AFD. That's not something that even we can go into, as it was handily OTRS deleted, although the DRV linked above seems reasonably pissy. The article (and I've provided you with images) recognises that in this particular instance, the MUD scene did not have a culture of preservation via "reliable" third party sources. And it questions whether Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources, and thus notability are too strict. - hahnchen 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking a step back here to look this over, it goes two ways. A lot of people look at Wikipedia and come for articles on a whole slew of subjects, but in some cases those subjects have the real world importance of a hill of beans. Sure you can argue Rock (Soulcalibur) has importance in his own game: most fighting game characters tend to. But then you start to expand that to cover aspects beyond the game you run into issues. How is it important to people? What was the development process that led to the character's creation? Etc, etc, etc. Notability in this case serves as a limiter: sure the subject can and should be discussed, but in a full fledged article? Probably not.

On the flip side are the subject of sources, and to an extent I do think we exclude some sources we shouldn't. Kotaku for example came under fire for the reliability of some of its articles: that's one thing. But that same fire seems to cover when an editor's opinion is cited in reception or similar, or to a lesser extent when they're reporting something easily verifiable in the link attached to the article. What makes IGN's thoughts on a subject more important than RPGFan's if editorial handling of a subject can be proven? Now I'm not saying any average joe with an opinion should be cited for reception, but when someone works under an editor and has reviewed over fifty articles related to a subject, it's reasonable to deduce their opinion is worth noting.

In many cases, it's that opinion that can make or break an article and make a subject satisfy our policies. So why impede that effort?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If this article criticizes Wikipedia for being too strict, other people criticize us for not being strict enough. Case in point: this satirical image of Wikipedia's topic distribution. SharkD (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pshaw...those journalists are just looking for chances to criticize Wikipedia. The very fact that people are keeping a close eye on articles that are created is good, not bad. If Pountain really wanted to create a useful article, he would have removed the deletion notice and contested it. But he didn't, which just shows that he doesn't understand the so-called "Wikipedia vigilantes".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a terrible attitude to take Zxcvbnm. They have just as much a right to an opinion as the next guy (and there have been worse criticisms of wikipedia, like the people that think word count equates to article significance). Besides he couldn't just outright remove a deletion notice: those things get discussed and all that good jazz.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I forgot that you have to use the template...same difference. Either way, he should have contested it instead of letting it get deleted and then crying foul. Not that I think you're not entitled to an opinion, but too many people jump to conclusions.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake for either party to take an "holier than thou" attitude. Wikipedians aren't infallible, and neither are they. SharkD (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In either case (i.e. either inclusionist or deletionist) critics will cry foul over Wikipedians cherry-picking when and when not to apply policies, and therefore demonstrating an agenda. This criticism is fair since Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is not truth, and ultimately any contest over inclusion of material will be decided by consensus. A more important question (since agendas exist outside of Wikipedia as well as within it, and since the issue of agendas within Wikipedia cannot be resolved) might be whether Wikipedians' actions improve the quality of the encyclopedia, and whether this quality is improving at a measurable rate. SharkD (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add "...with respect to other available encyclopedias" to the end of the paragraph above. SharkD (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat loathe to prolong this, but the article is on edge's site now, in abridged form. bridies (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I really was curious about it.

Kiefer- Kudos on the interview. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks! I just took a look at the abridged version on the site - seems pretty fair. If you're interested in seeing the entirety of my interview with the magazine editor, I'll dig it up and post it on a subpage of my user page. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to head over to my local Borders to pick up the latest issues of Edge and RetroGamer, so hopefully it'll be there. If not, then yes please. I'd like to read the full article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

I also wouldn't mind a look at the whole article. bridies (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify: I'm offering to post my interview with the editor, not the whole article. Edge Magazine has a copyright to the article, so it would be wrong of me to post a copy here. But I never signed an agreement that my contribution became their property, so I'm offering to copy up what I sent to them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That would probably be more interesting. :) bridies (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I posted it. Read if you're curious. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

More interesting read than the abridged version :) May I ask how they ever wrangled you, anyhow? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was just a random email, as far as I could tell. I think he liked my contributions. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kiefer, although by admitting you're a furry, I'll probably subconsciously start treating you like some kind of leper. You also got the nomenclature of the Super Nintendo wrong, so that's another -1 point to you :) - hahnchen 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was resisting the temptation to point out the the Famicom thing :) bridies (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, duh. My bad. :) Guess it's a good thing he didn't quote that, huh? ... And I thought you all knew I was a furry already? I mean, wasn't my username obvious enough? ;) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but now that you've said that I will forever mentally associated your user name with an image of Keifer Sutherland in a Pepé Le Pew costume. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

I've certainly had far worse connotations applied to my name. :) ... and if it makes any difference, I'm not very active in the furry community anymore. Haven't been for some time - just like the art. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to separate video game infobox's genre field into Genre (gameplay) & Genre (setting). As these are works of fiction, I think it makes sense. WP:COMICS uses a similar Format and Genre (see Simon du Fleuve). So Fallout 3 would be Action role-playing and Post-apocalyptic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense. I support it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, although I can see some original research and the like seeping in occasionally for the setting part. I hope that some better names can be produced though, "genre (gameplay)" and "genre (setting)" would be exceedingly poor infobox labels. -- Sabre (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why not just have a field for "Genre" and a field for "Setting"? Using genre twice is confusing. Randomran (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • On second thought, maybe this isn't a good idea. For games like Chrono Trigger, would we write setting as "Post Apocalyptic/Fantasy/Prehistoric" ? Shouldn't these things go in the "plot" section instead? The infobox is just about technical aspects.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I too would ask for better labels before implementing this. If we have to use the word "genre" twice, I would suggest losing the parentheticals (e.g. Gameplay genre instead of Genre (gameplay)). In preference to "setting", perhaps a word like "theme" would be more appropriate. Then again maybe "theme" would be confused with the soundtrack. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just as persuaded that we should leave plot information out of the infobox. But if we're going to incorporate anything of the sort, we'd have "setting". But even then, it's probably better to err on the side of simplicity. What's the genre/setting/theme for Pac-Man? Let games be games. Randomran (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I'm overjoyed at the idea of another infobox aspect for everyone to argue about, and anything remotely related to genre has potential to generate global-warming levels of heat and zero light. Some commentators regularly or constantly throw in settings as game genres (or apply film/TV/fiction genres to games) which can play absolute havoc with how we classify games if we're not careful. Rather than trying to pigeon-hole articles within a handful of genres/settings within the confines of the infobox, IMO it's better to let the game genre(s) do the talking in the infobox and save general fiction genres/settings (horror/Western/post-apocowotsit) for the article body and categories. All games boil down to a basic genre, even if it's just action-game, and really that's what the pigeon-hole in the infobox covers, but we're never going to fit every way of categorizing a game into an infobox and there seems little to actually gain by trying. There are scads of fiction categories which games can be added to, some specifically for games and several more which are general fiction. There's one for video games set in schools, there's another for fiction set in ancient Rome (chucked a game in there the other day), would a focus on populating the categories/lists and creating more not do the same thing but better? Someoneanother 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to this. Only a minority of commentators use theme/setting as part of a genre definition and the standard action/FPS/fighting/RPG is much more prevalent IMO. As it stands, defining genres causes enough subjectivity headaches and disagreements as it is. bridies (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If it were to be added, I would suggest merely calling it "theme" or "setting" rather than "genre". bridies (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also opposed. As Zxcvbnm said above, most RPGs fit into virtually any genre you can think of, so it's not a particularly useful classification. Some themes are too much prone to debates too (some people think Final Fantasy VIII is futuristic, some think it's modern, etc.). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

TimeSplitters (series) would be fun also. bridies (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would call FFVII steampunk. Also, I agree with Randomran that having two fields, "Genre" and "Setting", would be optimal. SharkD (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting comment over at Talk:Nintendo 64#Merger proposal regarding a merger of three other articles. It was reopened and evenything reverted after, having no comment made after five days, I closed it redirected all three when I found that nearly everything was a duplicate of what was in Nintendo 64 accessories. MuZemike 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments there. Nothing was reverted, and reopening isn't applicable in this case since nothing was "closed." Andre (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

While short and about a game that is not close to done, in my opinion the Mass Effect 2 page is doing fairly well, though I am no authority on the matter. Anyway, there is currently an edit war developing between another editor and I, which is hinging on two areas of the article. The first is the release date. Multiple reliable sources (quoting EA) have the release date as coming in the fiscal fourth quarter of 2009, which is between January 2010 and March 2010. I listed it as Q4 2009 and another editor keeps changing it to TBA 2010. While both are correct, Q4 2009 appears more specific to me. Maybe I am wrong? The second area is in the "Marketing" section of the article. BioWare announced that they would be holding a seminar-esque presentation at the 2009 GDC explaining the details on how they changed level design from ME1 to ME2, and how it has made them more effective and efficient as well as providing higher quality. The same editor that keeps changing the release date keeps copy-pasting sections of an entire article found on IGN, and then creating a new reference for it (with just the web page, no other info like date published or accessed, etc.) even though we already reference that IGN article earlier in the ME2 article. I have approached the editor on his/her talk page twice, but they seem to have ignored me for the most part (they stopped deleting general prose from the article, which was making it more readable, after I asked but that is it). I am looking for an outside perspective. I don't care if I am right or wrong, I just want what is best for the article. Naturally I think that my stance is best, but I accept that I could be wrong. Any general advice on the article is welcome as well. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Q4 2009 is ambiguous in this case because their fiscal does not adhere to the calendar year. –xeno (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the calendar year should be used, or maybe even "Early 2010" instead. The copy pasting is disruptive editing though, if they intend to keep doing it then they should be reported to be blocked.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Any other opinions on how to word the release date? If they continue to copy-paste I will report them, thanks for the advice. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Early 2010 or TBA 2010 is probably best. –xeno (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Barnet, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[pf] 17:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating a category for commercial video games that can now be downloaded/distributed for free. I was wondering, however, what the category should be named, and what text should appear in the lead. SharkD (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is created, perhaps the name "abandonware" would fit. guitarhero777777 (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No...... I meant games whose licenses were legally made free by the original copyright holders, not pirated software. SharkD (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

One example is The Elder Scrolls: Arena, which was made freely available to promote the release of The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. SharkD (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

NeoFree? :D. Seriously, I do think there's an actual word for this, but I can't remember what it is. A category, though, could be something like 'Commerical games released into the public domain'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of commercial games released as freeware already exists. Nifboy (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. SharkD (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at this article and found that it's in pretty rough shape. Really, it's just a list that offers a TV guide style synopsis of a few MMOFPSes. If you remove this, you realize the article has almost no substance.

I might be tempted to suggest an improvement to this article. But really, I don't think there's a lot to say that isn't already covered in the lead: MMOFPSes are first-person shooters in a massively multiplayer persistent world. I think a merge to FPS might actually be the best course of action, with a healthy mention in the massively multiplayer online game article as well.

(I should note that everything I've said is also true of MMORTS.) Randomran (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose they could all be merged with massively multiplayer online game, but due to the highly developed state of MMORPG (it is the most popular type of MMO by a long shot), I'd say it's possible to clean up those articles rather than merging them.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the different between MMORTS/MMOFPS and the well-written MMORPG isn't just effort. It's that MMORPGs have been pretty successful, and have truly splintered off from conventional RPGs with their own history and so on. MMORTSes and MMOFPSes are few and far between, relatively unsuccessful, with no real set of conventions other than they're an MMO and an FPS/RTS at the same time. Randomran (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I've been thinking the same thing. There isn't much to say because only a few have ever been released. Right now it's just a list of games, most of which are still in development. Maybe it should be moved to "List of MMOFPS games", with MMOFPS redirecting to the main FPS article (which should have the general info covered anyway). bridies (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, Tactical shooter is another one to think about merging. It's another poor quality article with a big embedded list; what little referenced information there is is already covered in first person shooter. I would be inclined to merge the bit about "soldier sims" (seemingly the only info not covered by the FPS article) and redirect to First person shooter. bridies (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose APB (video game) isn't on the list because it's third person, but perhaps we should include 3PS's on MMOFPS as well. . . –xeno (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm kind of scratching my head about third-person shooters. But I think there's hope for tactical shooters. I pulled a lot together in two short hours. But I have very little hope for MMOFPS. Believe me, I've tried. Randomran (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, third person shooter is another one that might warrant a merge (with shooter game). I would have thought this a big genre, but I can find little more than trivial mentions of the term i.e. "this game is a third person shooter, now on with the review". I can't really find any information that could be put towards a history section. bridies (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, Gears of War is a Third Person Shooter. There has to be some kind of reference that can be used to expand it. Plus, every other sub-genre has its own article, why should this be the exception?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There are loads of sources about third person shooters, if you are talking individual games and reviews. But so what if Gears of War is a third person shooter? All that gives you is a load of reviews saying how great Gears of Wars is, at most something like [7] ("In 2006, Gears of War made the third-person shooter more grimy and depressing than ever before"). Without at least one or two sources talking about the general history of the genre it isn't possible to write a decent genre article. I agree it's feasible that someone may have written such a source but it's useless saying "references must exist". Find some. I also disagree that every sub-genre has it's own article. All the various types of 2D shooters are in Shoot 'em up, which is one of only a few genre areas to which anyone has given any attention. bridies (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I share bridies feelings about third-person shooter. I've tried to find sources. But there isn't really a strong detailed genre here. It seems to be "3D shooters that aren't FPSes", like all these leftover games. It's the kind of thing that can be written up in one paragraph. Even with graphic adventure games versus poitn and click adventure games, the difference is so minor that having two articles would be redundant. ... However, I'd hold off on merging this. Some common sense tells me that *something* will come up. This is sort of a last ditch effort. Randomran (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is it safe to merge MMOFPS? Randomran (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're not finding strong sources which dictate that it needs an article then go for it. MMORPGs have several different aspects compared to standard RPGs and they're well-documented. With FPS games.. well most are designed to be played online with numerous players anyway, can't see any real difference between FPS with multiplayer and MMOFPS. Someoneanother 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be true that the boundary between Online FPS and MMOFPS is thin. While most RPGs don't have online multiplayer and MMORPGs are based entirely online, many regular FPS games keep track of stats, unlockables, allow you to play with friends, etc., the only difference is that the world is persistent and not played in matches.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is an important distinction! Statistics over (several) matches is one thing, but a persistant world that you can have a real effect on is something else entirely. If anything, a RPG is much closer to a MMORPG than a FPS is to a MMOFPS (for example, Oblivion/Morrowind is like a MMORPG with no other players, while Call of Duty is just a series of linear levels, not a full map of WW2 Europe with moving frontlines and all). Of course, it is a pity no decent sources can be found, so going by that logic: yes, a merge is probably justified. Assuming a MMOFPS is too similar to a classical FPS is just false. --VPeric (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a couple more days. It should go without saying, but a MMOFPS is definitely not the same as an FPS. But what makes the MMORPG article possible is that there is a *culture* around MMORPGs, with role-playing, and social interaction, and even their own history. MMOFPSes are too few and far between, so you can only talk about the culture or history of individual games. At least, that's what the research seems to show. Like I said, I'll give it a couple more days and see if people find any more research. But worst case, we're still going to end up with a good couple of paragraphs about the development and design of MMOFPSes included in another article. Randomran (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think merging them into MMOG would be OK. SharkD (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, even though a persistent world is an "important distinction", it's still an in-game element. The actual real world history of the genre is still largely entwined with that of FPS games and other MMOs. A genre with only four released games can't really be expected to have a big enough history to sustain an independent article. I'm not in a hurry to merge anything but at some point I want to tackle the shooter game article and perhaps make a good topic out of shooter/action game genres. In order to do that, this will all need tidied up at some point. bridies (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly: without more than a handfull of titles, it really is just a "high concept" a game genre adapted to fit a persistent world with a lot of players. There's not much to write about until there are a bunch of titles with huge impact, because nobody is going to write anything outside of reviewing a few individual games. Randomran (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy and Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter. Do me a favor and keep an eye on these, even watchlist them, just in case someone tries to undo without addressing the underlying verifiability issues. Randomran (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)