Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 55

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season" What does this mean as regards a real date? (I've got a rough idea that it might mean Thanksgiving to Christmas but not being a North American resident means I'm not sure. I've never heard anyone in the UK use the phrase "holiday season" - except for bad American adverts that can't be bothered to... (truncated rant)). - X201 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying he/she/it means sometime around 27 November? - X201 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Christmas and holiday season. Probably sometime in Nov/Dec. Evaunit♥666♥ 14:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article selection will be frozen about mid-October, though, so keep that in mind. Nifboy (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is deletion review stuff, because it looks like a technical error. But I looked at this old AFD:

• Legends of Kesmai with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legends of Kesmai

It looks like it was closed as a merge/redirect, but never actually merged and redirected. I'd do it myself, but then I'm concerned that someone might simply revert it.

I also don't know what to make of this AFD:

• Albion (Fable) with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion (Fable)

I'm thinking about bringing it back up at AFD to have a real discussion, but then it's possible it never should have been nominated in the first place. Randomran (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging does not require AfD - I'd say don't worry about a new AfD for either unless the situation becomes contentious. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm that Fable one is a bit weird, dont no what Gears of War was thinking. Salavat (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It quite simply looks like he changed his mind to me. :) --Izno (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say Gears changed his mind and withdrew, and I'm going to assume Black Kite made a mistake. From the way it was closed, it looks like BK was under the impression that the article had already been merged and thus the close was putting a formal end to the process that had in effect already been decided by action. I'd ask for clarification on that one. Pagrashtak 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I followed through on the merge, based on the Legends of Kesmai AFD. As for the withdrawn Albion (Fable) AFD (which was a little confusing), I think it was probably smart of Gears of War to drop the AFD here. I have no plans of deleting Albion (Fable) because on a gut level, I think there's probably some coverage out there. But if someone wanted to actually test that assumption, I think that would be perfectly reasonable. Randomran (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of an admin who sometimes have closed AFDs, let me tell you that actually carrying executing a "merge" result can be a nightmare for the closer, so it is common to call the result a "merge", and then leave the actual merging up to someone else who might be better at it. With a simple "keep" it's easy, just remove the AFD tag and leave a note on the talkpage, a simple "delete" is also easy, just delete the page. "Merge" results though involve copying the text, pasting it somewhere in another article, and removing redundancies (things which are already present in the host article for the merged stuff). Furthermore, links and references may need to be moved around in the article, and some doctoring of the paragraphs may be in order to make the article flow better. Then go back and redirect making sure to mention the host article in the edit summary. In addition to all this work, we have the added difficulty that the closer is making a major change to an article on a topic they may know nothing about. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have templates like {{Afd-mergeto}}. Pagrashtak 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Linktothepast merged content from Call of Duty: World at War (DS) to the main article at Call of Duty: World at War this morning. I disagreed with the merge and reverted back - his reasoning is the DS article doesn't have much content (which I admit). Anyway, Call of Duty 4 (DS) has its own article, which is the logic I was going by. Should it be merged, or stay as it is? Thanks! Fin©™ 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Every article requires their own separate logic for why it should be an article. Whatever logic used for Call of Duty 4 DS applies to Call of Duty 4 DS, and the logic used for that article cannot be used for a separate article if it does not apply. The main article is not very large, and at present, hardly anything about it is unique, only trivial mentions of that the DS version adds online that the previous DS version lacked. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For a past precedent on this, see Over the Hedge (video game) vs Over the Hedge (handheld game), the latter, while released in the same type of multi-console release as the first game, was developed by a different developer and had very significant gameplay as the other versions. I don't know and can't tell easily if this is the case here. (Adoption of the same basic game to touchscreen or Wii-waggle controls are not what I would consider as "significant", thus ports of games like RE4 and Okami to the Wii from PS2 or other systems don't immediately merit an article). --MASEM 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See this: Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare_(Nintendo_DS)#Unique_DS_features, it's small and doesn't show the DS version is much different than the console version. Unless that section is expanded to show the DS version by itself is notable, I think the DS article should be merged into the main article. The main article might be a little long, but a small section on the DS version wont harm the article. As for Call of Duty: World at War, I don't think it needs a DS page at this time. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey people. I'm the primary contributor for the System Shock 2 article, but I'm having trouble with the prose. I need some fresh eyes to go over it and really help scrub the article for prose, grammar and any other outstanding issues. I have addressed the concerns listed in the FAC, but Tony1 suggested I get some help. I do not believe the issues are huge, but I'm having a hell of a time copy-editing it for some reason. Not required, but greatly appreciated. Cheers. -- Noj r (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is not a message board. This talk page is for improving articles related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and for improving the project as a whole, but I thought to ask here. I'm not apart of this project but I wanted to ask members of this project as a whole. I'm apart of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, recently a small relatively known company called Total Nonstop Action Wrestling released its first video game titled TNA Impact! (video game). I have plans to get it to FA status. I know nothing about expanding video game articles. So I thought to come here and ask if a experienced editor would like to work in this article with me? Your help will be appreciated at a very high level.--WillC 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Start with WP:VG/GL and work from there. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much.--WillC 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created a work page and a draft workflow to help us prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. Hopefully it will be useful to help us keep track of what we've done and how much remains to do. Please take a look and let me know (on the talk page there) if you have any additions. Thanks, Pagrashtak 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume it would be ok for us to review the quality of articles we've worked on substantially for that list, picking out the right id to use and so on? Otherwise, this could take quite a while. -- Sabre (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right. A good place to start is to have the principal authors of FAs and GAs give their articles a check to fix up recent edits, then provide an oldid to the 0.7 team and mark it done. I don't expect every single VG article to have an oldid identified at the end of this, but I'd like to get as many as possible. Pagrashtak 18:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between that page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles? 85.5.187.219 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Essential Articles is a project list for the project. 0.7 is going to be a optical media release/free download and has no internal bearings. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, new questions. Day of Defeat: Source is on the works page, and the original selection page for 0.7 but its not on User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3. It is ok for me to simply add DoDS into the list on the bot page at the appropriate point to provide them with the oldid? Secondly, StarCraft: Brood War isn't on the list, although the other games in the series are: a rather odd omission seeing as how neither Ghost and SC2 are released but Brood War is. How would one add Brood War to that list? -- Sabre (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, mind if I propose/add some entries? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think we should start getting into political choices. If anything, we should be removing the crappy entries and ones that aren't that important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see adding one article that makes far more sense than the two others of the same series as "political" though. Its roughly equivalent of adding Halo 1, Halo 3 and Halo Wars, but not having Halo 2. Either way, that doesn't address the issue of DoDS. As I said, its on the original one which this work page is based on, so its not adding anything. Its just not on the bot list for ids, which just strikes me as a clerical error. -- Sabre (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with DoDS. Looking at it, there seems to be several inconsistencies. Another one I noticed is that our list and the original list use Counter-Strike and Counter-Strike: Source, while the bot list only uses Counter-Strike. -- Sabre (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Best to worry about removing the bad ones first as stated. For a start, I move that Lara Croft and FF13 get off of there, given the first article needs plenty of work (I ended up downgrading it to Start given what was there) and FF13's not out yet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggested removal of FFXIII at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. Please feel free to add Lara Croft as well. I didn't only because I haven't looked at the article. Pagrashtak 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Bond girl be on our list? Besides the fact it doesn't look to be in very good shape, it only has a very short, unsourced list relevant to video games near the bottom of the page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Sure doesn't look it; the film project would have been a better bet for them instead. Either way axed our template from their talk page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Workshop talk page is still blank, I assume we should keep discussion here about things. Any thoughts on the removal of these:

• Assassin's Creed: C-class and in not too good of shape, but it is mid-importance.
• Fiscal year: Start-class, mid-importance, but seems more like a business topic. Just because video game companies use something doesn't automatically make it under our umbrella. (I'm probably going to remove our template from the talk page.)
• Lucky Star (manga): B-class, low-importance, and only a few short sections of some video game adaptations.
• Medieval II: Total War: B-class, mid-importance, not comprehensive, and reads somewhat like a game guide. (I'm probably going to rerate it c-class.)
• Pokémon game mechanics: C-class, low-importance, and not really needed to understand the main subject.
• Rome: Total War: B-class, mid-importance, not comprehensive, and reads somewhat like a game guide. (Same as Medieval II.)
• Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords: B-Class, low-importance, short, not comprehensive, and in need of much work. (Same as Medieval II.)

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

I'm going to copy this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop and reply there. It will be good to keep these removal discussion in one centralized location. Pagrashtak 15:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd quite like to see at least one Total War title representing the series on this DVD release, as although it hasn't broken the US market very well, its a high profile strategy series on the international market. (Americans don't relate to medieval and ancient Europe as well as Europeans do.) But if none of them are up to scratch and are unlikely to reach that standard anytime soon, we'll just have to do without. I'll put the series on my long term to-do list, but I'm a tad busy with other articles in my scope to give them the attention needed for the release at the present time. Same goes for Assassins Creed, if it can't be brought to a respectible standard any time soon, take it out. -- Sabre (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Assassin's Creed - I can't say if it's of great importance, but it was fairly successful.
• Fiscal year is related to games, but I don't think things that aren't based in video games should be included.
• Lucky Star (manga) - ^
• Medieval II: Total War - Not sure on this one.
• Pokémon game mechanics - I believe that this is kind of an off-shoot of the individual articles and the main series article, so it's useful to help people understand the series' gameplay.
• Rome: Total War - Not sure.
• Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords - Not sure if this is very important - sequel to a famous game, but was not famous by itself.

Now, my suggestions:

• Yoda - Not a video game subject, merely has appeared in games.
• Mark Hammil - Not even sure why he's on the list.
• Musical Instrument Digital Interface - A term that exists in many mediums.
• Final Fantasy XIII - Unreleased, could turn out to be very minor for all we know.
• Marvel: Ultimate Alliance - A good game, but nothing more honestly. (the last two were based on their removals suggested, but I'm agreeing on them) - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is everyone OK with removing the WPVG banner from articles like Yoda and Mark Hamill that are much more strongly known for their non-VG roles? I think it's a good idea. There are video games with Yoda, and Mark Hamill has done voice work, but that is far overshadowed by their non-VG notability. Similarly, MIDI is used for much more than games. Pagrashtak 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd weakly argue that Mark Hamil's voice work in numerous games and his appearance in the Wing Commander series would warrant the VG tag, though with low-importance. But, an article like Yoda and Ian McKellen that only has a few video game appearances shouldn't have the tag.(Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

He's also involved in anime though, most recently Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and Castle in the Sky. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To keep everything simple let's just use the workshop talk page and avoid forking. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, I see some heavy cruft in that template down there at the bottom. --Izno (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. Cruft. Whatever shall we do. Sound the alarm, sound the alarm. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The cruft can be dealt with by merging, as done with StarCraft characters, Halo characters, Final Fantasy characters and so on: a simple case of no notability separately, but sufficient notability together, although I imagine one or two characters (G-Man, Alyx) may warrant separate articles. Masem and I constructed a locations article in my sandbox a few months back, I'm going to get round to finishing that by adding some proper real-world info on design and reception to that. As for the species, Vortigaunt's been cleaned up, it just needs some design information. I'm confident that both the Combine and headcrabs can go through a similar cleanup. I wouldn't open any AfDs on the cruft, its all surmountable stuff. -- Sabre (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It used to look so much worse... once the locations have been merged, the only real concern is pooling the non-notable characters together and then fragging Seven Hour War... it's a lot better than it was, when there was an article for every creature seen in the game, including the one that appears as an easter egg, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I need an opinion on these articles, Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit) and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (8-bit). They have very few differences, most minor, but people are opposing a merge to their main articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Both articles contain a bit of game guide information, especially in describing where the Chaos Emeralds are and how to get to them. That needs to be removed. Purge the unencyclopedic content from both articles, and you may have a stronger case for merging. MuZemike (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been a spike in the number of AFDs over the past few days. (Which is itself problematic: not to say whether I agree or disagree with all or any of them, but it makes things a little difficult to sort through. But hey, we play the hand we're dealt.)

Because of that, participation has been spread out between a lot of AFDs, making it harder to develop a consensus. Arguably, AFDs like these are getting closed before we can be certain that a consensus will or won't be formed.

Not to re-open closed debates. But perhaps an administrator could go through the September 14th deletion discussions and see if some of the more contentious ones could get a re-list for a few days before someone closes them as no consensus? This is a case where we should expect more feedback.

Please and thanks. Randomran (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I added some comments to about 3 of them, all delete comments, i hope i helped. Salavat (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, they don't necessarily have to be all delete ;), but still users should make their way over there and give your input on those articles so that there is a better consensus of what's going on. Then we don't have to keep relisting discussions or prematurely close them as well as having the some old people chiming in. I also think you can ask an admin to revert a close if it was obviously done early or in bad faith without re-nomination or sending it to DRV; I have seen it done at least once this past week. MuZemike (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to avoid closing these as "no consensus" before we've given people time to react to the sheer volume of AFDs. This is an especially good time to err towards re-listing. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish TTN would have some patience, remember that there's no deadline for this project whether to create articles or remove invalid content, and just slow down. 14 nominations over the last three days on VG topics alone is just burying the system. This level of deletionist activity can be just as unproductive, no matter how unintentional, as the filibustering techniques of the extreme inclusionists. Its really damn difficult to keep up with the deletion nomination log when he's filling it at an average five a day. I've no problem with the nominations, just the rate that they're appearing. -- Sabre (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said. But the cat is out of the bag. In the short-term, I'm hoping we can keep these AFDs open a little longer and re-list them. In the long-term, maybe we'll think twice before taking this many articles to AFD at once. We need to have reasonable respect for peoples' time. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actively suggesting this, but I am throwing out this idea for consideration.

There are effective uses of our review tables for this project, but they can also often be used as crutches (I'm guilty of this as well) by replace good prose-line describing the reviews with, say, two more review lines in the table to make the reception section look large. Or people indiscriminately add reviews to such tables and then you suddenly have 15 entries there. When you compare what we do to movies (which also have a large body of reliable reviews), there's a vast difference, and I'm finding that reception sections are more engaging when there is no review table listed.

I am suggesting we discourage the use of tables (templated or otherwise) for game reception sections save for a few select cases: one where a game has more than 2 platform releases that have merited significantly different scores, and one for game series articles (where there's more than 2 games) to summarize reviews of the games of the series; in both cases, such review tables should be limited to sourcing one or two of the aggregrate ratings site (MC and GR). This allows a quick overview of review scores for "many" games that otherwise is not easy to do in text. With two game/consoles, its easy to compare in text, and obviously with one game, no table is needed.

Replacing the table with prose would obviously be necessary; general guidelines that I'd use include:

• GR and MC scores (if not in a table) should be given, and as early as possible in discussing critical reception.
• Listing of specific review scores should be avoided, except as noted in the following:
• While we should aim to cover the positive and negative points that are hit on by multiple reviews, we should strive to get any key points for strong reliable sources that give a review far from the norm, giving its score as well. For example, Okami for the Wii averages around 90% at MC, but Nintendo Power gave it a 7/10 - this (and why) should be explicitly mentioned.
• We should strive more to say "(review) at (site) stated that ..."; when you read some of the movie receptions, which use this format, this is more personal, as the site itself didn't give the review, that person (though vetted by the site) did. I don't think we need paragraph-long analysis from each review as is sometimes done, but when we are quoting a review, it is good to credit that person.
• Award sections are tricky; we should not be listing all awards from a source if there's more than a handful, as likely we can link to the overall awards page for the source and let the reader find the rest. We don't need to be exhaustive, just sufficiently representative of the reception through awards the game has gotten.

Again, this is only food for thought, but I think we can really make a lot of headway in reducing the stigma that VG articles tend to have by helping to make the article more prose-based and normalizing it with other media that gets reviewed. I would say it would be a grandfathered-approach; older articles don't need to be updated, but if we do go this way and cement it to guidelines, further GA/FA and the like need to heed it; only as volunteers work them or they come up for review should older articles be changed. --MASEM 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. In my video game FAs, I stick the MC, GR rankings to the site and important, quoted video game publications from the receptions prose in the box. I don't discuss the scores, rather I either split it into positive/negative aspects or (if there's enough content) talk about what reviewers thought about gameplay/multiplayer/graphics/misc. Are you saying that you would want the scores noted in the prose by abolishing the reviews bar, Mas? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe not giving out explicit review scores outside of the MC/GR summary, but a good review section will consider that average score and making that sig. notable sources that are well outside it should be included. Maybe that's more better advice on how to section off a reception section, but still, again, its an aim to get away from falling back on review scores unless them themselves are significantly discussed (Space Giraffes reception comes to mind). --MASEM 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems rather similar to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 48#Metacritic and GR scores in both table and prose. Jappalang (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of discouraging the use of the templates. To me, reception sections are more engaging when there's somewhere to convienantly shove the review scores out of the way, so that the prose can discuss the reception of the game in real terms, not in statistics. By discouraging the use of the template, these review scores will just find their way into the prose. The template is a good compromise for those who want review scores in the article, and those who want to keep the prose of the reception clear of unexplained and contextless statistics, in favour of focusing on what the reviews actually praised and criticised about a game. -- Sabre (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the review tables serve a useful purpose, but often times they are perceived as having more weight than they should. Like most things on Wikipedia, we just have to watch over their use to make sure they don't get abused. I do like some of the guidelines you brought up and think we should adopt them, like the "We should strive more to say '(reviewer) at (site) stated that...'" (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Is this image free use? [1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd guess so but what in the nine hells would you use it for? o_O--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a "bubble Kirby" made by Nintendo at a few Kirby-related events, and it would demonstrate Nintendo's advertising of him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The image may be able to fall under free use, but to really do so I believe you'd need the consent of the photographer too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

I can't see this image meeting WP:NFCC#8A if it is non-free. There's enough images of Kirby that what he looks like is known, and even the quality of this image is questionable - it is not immediately recognizable as what it is. If you are going with a non-free image for Nintendo's promotion, a photo of a Kirby toy or doll is going to be better demonstrated. However, I will note that if this bubble kirby is a significantly notable aspect of Nintendo's promotion, then ok, I can see it being used. --MASEM 15:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A Kirby event across four different areas with Kirby in its name had Nintendo creating these bubble Kirbys. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't question the notability of the event, but I don't see how this picture is really necessary to describe it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, it'd be nice to have something to compare the size of the Kirby bubble to. How big is it? Gary King (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Can be used freely if the photographer releases it under a Wikipedia-compatible license. See here. Giggy (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I found an interview on the site Kikizo, [2], that contains an interview w/ a Namco-Bandai dev on the Ace Combat series. I'm looking to improve the Ace Combat article, so I'm wondering if the site is a relible enough source to do so. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

At a glance at its WP article, it seems to be something that we would consider reliable. The interview wouldn't load so I couldn't take a closer look. Giggy (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have obtained copies of the following sources from my local library: Game On edited by Lucien King and The Ultimate History of Video Games by Steven Kent. I am going to try to put as much encyclopedic information from those two books as I can. If anyone has any other knowledge of these books and can direct to other good sources especially for these old games and consoles, let me know. MuZemike (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello i would like to talk about an edit which does concentrate on the less successful consoles in the fifth generation, like the Amiga CD32, 3DO and Atari Jaguar because i am 100 % sure that for one in North America and Europe the Amiga CD32 was the world's first 32 bit game console, and i have many sources to say that the Amiga CD32 was indeed releaced in September 1993, then the 3do was releaced in October 1993 not September 1993 and there for is not the first in Europe and North America but the Second, and as for the Atari Jaguar there are no problems as it was releaced on 18th November 1993, but the next problem is that the best selling game on the Amiga CD32 was the console's best selling game was Simon the Sorrceror but was removed along with Return Fire on the 3do and Alien VS Predator on the Atari Jaguar, these are the best selling games on these platforms but have instead been re-edited as unknown also it is good that the 3do is known as selling 2 million which it did but also it needs to be known that the Atari Jaguar sold 500,000 units and Amiga CD32 100,000 units also for the acutal worlds first 32 bit game console the FM Towns Marty it needs a picture to represent it i am also concerned that the Phillips CD-i and Amiga CDTV are not well represented enough as the first consoles to use CDs and that the Bally Astrocade has been deleted from Second Generation even though it was cleary a game console. These consoles are not represented enough in general so it would be good if they could be on wikipedia. P.S I am having problems geting in to wiki game, because of an admin accusing me of cross wiki even though i have not hacked (which this admin i will not name is accusing me of even though i have not) is i to do with another user who has please help me. Thankyou Mcjakeqcool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I couldn't read all that—it sounds like you have a content dispute. If so, you should generally discuss it on the talk page of the article in question first. It looks like your edits are being undone because you did not provide sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources if you haven't seen those yet—they are integral to becoming a Wikipedia contributor—then find some reliable sources to back up your challenged edits. Pagrashtak 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, i will get a list of sources to back my evidence up altough i do have some evidence already. But basically i found WikiProject Video games from an eMail on my talk page and since i signed in just under a month ago, i have been trying to improve some wiki pages around games mostly, by adding historical infomation instead of infomation slighty inaccurate infomation something that happens alot around these obscure consoles i consentrate on. Basically there is alot of infomation about these computers that are left out in a lot of cases even though some sources do state them so i am trying to edit some of these articles for that reason. I have also refreshed my knowledge on wiki edit policies, which i have done before so i am clear on it. Thanks Mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This reply was put in over a month ago and no one has relplyed, im concerned the I may get no answer, though I have edited a lot around the fifth gen. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sure this has been discussed before, but why can't we cite VG Charts' numbers? I can understand why we'd want to use primary source numbers first, but in the absence of that, why not use the info: It is verifiable and objective.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Long story short, unreliability. Case in point they list two very different groups of sales numbers for the game "Wario Land 2".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See the sources page for a link about it. Basically, their measurements are often amalgamation of sources and lots of guesstimation science, ie. unreliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also discussed in depth a while back at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_18#VGCharts --Oscarthecat (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Given how the bot for the 0.7 DVD is handling the parameter for Wikipedia, I think it's handling it less as "this is an importance subject" and more "how does the wikiproject regard this article's need to be in the book." By this extension though, some articles of FA quality get bypassed while Start-class articles get scarfed up. So would it work out better to re-assess the articles with importance reflecting their quality just as much, rather than only a subject's weight?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No—importance is completely separate from quality. It makes sense to choose a short article on a vital subject over a well-written article on a trivial subject. Pagrashtak 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Caught this article from GameSetWatch (itself reliable) for sales up to 1989 for all the text-based Infocom games. --MASEM 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just added it to Zork I. A filled in cite web template for anyone who feels like going through the rest:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/09/great_scott_infocoms_alltime_s.php
 |title=Great Scott: Infocom's All-Time Sales Numbers Revealed
 |date=20 September 2008|accessdate=21 September 2008
 |publisher=GameSetWatch|author=[[Simon Carless]]}}</ref>

User:Krator (t c) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For a while now since VU Games (Sierra) terminated ARC a new copy of it has surfaced under the name of Spark . It has it's own community and website and written under a name of Codemullet Entertainment as the developer. However I am not sure on the rules if it is acceptable to write anything about it in the ARC article, if there should be a new article or non at all. I would like some advice on which way to manage the situation. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are enough reliable sources about the subject to merit a lengthy article, spin it out. Otherwise keep it in the main article (or if no sources exist, don't have it, period.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[3] - Can I get some comments on whether this image would be appropriate for detailing the visuals and style of Hotel Dusk: Room 215 (assuming a section on its visuals is created)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Would a static image suffice, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size, "Inline animations should be used sparingly" ? --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't think the image is terribly big in its size. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this one? It's only about 18kb. Though I'd like an image that shows more movement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Both images (300kb, 18kb) are reasonable sizes in my opinion. I just wondered whether animated was required in this case. Perhaps animated are required here, to capture the pencil-shading style of the game's graphics? --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think a still image captures it well enough. It was cool seeing the animation, but I don't see how it adds much to the article. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

A still image should suffice (you'll need a better source than tinypic when you upload, though). Giggy (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was far more impressed by the visuals in motion than still. It shows the paper-style in a still image, but the animation style is pretty significant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think in a case like this an animated image is reasonable and suitable, as it's harder to describe a key visual effect like that for a game with just a still image.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this style is used elsewhere (it's not Dr. Katz/Home Movies squigglevision, but it is similar to the style in "Take On Me") but never seen a name for it. I think the smaller animation is appropriate, but only if we can substantiate with commentary from reviews that praise/critique it or talk about why that style was used from development sources. --18:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rotoscoping. And please try using --~~~~, per WP:SIGNATURE to sign your postings. Thx. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. If the animation style has been deemed noteworthy, then it makes sense to include the gif.
And I think Masem may have accidentally added an extra "~", as five (~~~~~) gives the time stamp. Common and honest mistake. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Anybody seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom Hearts yet? I don't remember seeing any discussion about it—should be a task force at best. Pagrashtak 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thinking Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat probably should get the same fate: it seems to be dead at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

News to me. Looks like it was made today. There's already a small number of editors working on keep the KH articles in shape and work on the three new games. Most discussions have been on the talk pages. I don't think a task force page is necessary as there's very little work to be done right now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

I left a note on KH's talk page just now at #Inactive?.
Viewing the history, it was made yesterday. However, the editor didn't get very far before giving up on making it a nice looking page, so I'm wondering if maybe that could be folded quickly into VG, as we do have KH editors currently. --Izno (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, look here. He started a task force page, which looks like it was substed from WP:VG/CNC. He also created a Portal:Konami. I would suggest a redirect for the WPKH page, or possibly a Housekeeping speedy. --Izno (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On a more general note, this should probably have been brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. :) <shameless plug/> --Izno (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI- KH Project page up for deletion at MfD. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

I have started a section over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Date-linking regarding the very recent change at WP:MOSNUM deprecating date-linking solely for the purpose of date autoformatting; since we do a lot of date-linking, this is very pertinent to us. Please discuss over there. MuZemike (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of splitting the Street Fighter: The Movie article into two. The arcade game and the console game released for the PlayStation and Saturn are really nothing alike aside from using the same digitized footage from the film and are considered separate games by Capcom. Even All About Capcom Head-to-Head Fighting Games makes this point a few times. On the other hand, I don't think there's enough real-world coverage to justify covering the two games separately. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you could cover the arcade game as the primary and the port solely as secondary, since it can be condensed to about a paragraph as it was just SF2 with those sprites, right?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's the point I'm trying to bring up. Its NOT a port. Its a separately produced game that also happened to use digitized footage of the film. The reason why its mistaken for a port is because the console version was given the same title for its American release. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A split may be a good idea then, especially since both games do tend to have been received differently (the arcade game getting a lot of the bad rap the home ports got). Go for it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither article is terribly large, so I think a merge is in order. Discuss here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be better to keep them separate...I can see the main article possibly getting improved to have more body to it, and the list to be much bigger as time goes on. A merge at this point could just end up causing problems down the line.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the images at Black Mesa (game mod). Some of the screenshots used are labelled as being in the public domain, some have even managed to find their way onto the Commons. My concern is that these are not images in the public domain and the uploader believes that as the game is free and because the images have been put out for free viewing, that equates to being in the public domain. But as we all know, publishing on the Internet does not automatically put something into the public domain. I also cannot find any evidence of the team saying that the images are in the public domain, and the fact each image has legalese down the side of it that says "respective trademarks copyright (c) Valve Corporation", it strikes me that we've got a case of copyright breach here. Thoughts? Other images state that the uploader is the copyright holder, which is believable as I've known at least one other mod team releasing images for free use. However, it could be worth emailing or forum PM-ing the team to ensure that one of them did indeed upload the images. -- Sabre (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Using Half-Life assets (wall textures at bare minimum)? Then we've got derivative works and regardless of what massaging the Black Mesa team has done, they are non-free images. These need to be deleted from commons and all but a couple deleted from WP, the remaining corrected with licensing. --MASEM 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The following are on enwp and are tagged as PD:

Image:Black Mesa (Mod) Screenshot1.jpg, Image:Black Mesa (Mod) Screenshot2.jpg, Image:Black Mesa (Mod) Screenshot3.jpg, Image:Black Mesa (Mod) Screenshot4.jpg, Image:Anomalous tc 01.jpg, Image:Blastpit 002.jpg, Image:C2a4 mediarelease 004.jpg, Image:C3a2 mediarelease 001.jpg, Image:C3a2 mediarelease 004.jpg, Image:Gargantua beauty.jpg

I deleted the one Commons image ([4]). Anyone want to create a mass IFD for the rest (or just delete them)? Giggy (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to delete them wholesale if there's no opposition here (in the case an image might be useful, etc.). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone were to add critical commentary (ya know, the usual routine) we could keep one. But it may just be easier to reupload when someone does that. (Not objecting.) Giggy (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I support deletion. Although the project said on its site that "Levels will be faithful to the original Half-Life concept and built from scratch"[5]), the products are still derivative art (using the game's engine to render textures and models that are faithful to the originals). Furthermore, the screenshots are all water-marked and mostly uploaded by the project's own members.[6] The effort frankly smacks of trying to advertise their site and get around the no galleries of non-free images ruling. Jappalang (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the bunch. Feel free to send a message if one of them ever needs to be restored or similar. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Over the last few hours, an anomynous IP (in good faith I might add, there's nothing vandalistic about it) has been adding gameguide-esque information on in-game strategies. It's unreferenced, generally requires the reader to have played the game and is pretty much all original research, and as such I removed it, as a brief overview of in-game strategies that a reader who has not played the game has been included. However, I think that the IP may persist on re-adding the information, and as I can't revert again without breaching 3RR. The article is currently at GAN, and such content disputes can be taken as instability, which will affect the article's chances, so can I ask for one or two people to keep an eye on it to make sure that further game guide information doesn't creep in. -- Sabre (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd start by leaving a message on the user's talk page. People new to Wikipedia might not know about edit summaries but would find it hard to miss a big orange banner at the top of the page. :) ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Our project has been fortunate enough to have a large number of articles selected for inclusion in Wikipedia 0.7. If you have been involved in a FA or GA under our scope, please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop to see if your article has been selected for inclusion. If so, please follow the instructions there to select an oldid of the article that is in good shape and vandalism-free—this shouldn't take too much time and will ensure that your work enters Wikipedia 0.7 in good condition. Thanks to those that have already been helping out with this effort to improve the contribution of our project. Pagrashtak 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• In what looks to be a potential rehash of a MedCab debate from way back when, Mr.bonus (talk · contribs) is repeatedly moving the articles for the Street Fighter characters Ken and Sakura to locations that don't use their full names, and Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) moves them back. While I don't care much either way, this back and forth moving is disruptive, and the MedCab appears that the decision reached was to have them at Ken Masters and Sakura Kasugano because those names have been used in merchandising. Another RfC would surely be pointless, but neither side appears willing to back down. What to do? JuJube (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I know this is a third-party game, but for the record the official site of Namco X Capcom list both of those characters by their full names too (see here). Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I read of the mediation, it seems to have been closed without reaching a compromise. According to the dispute resolution process, either start another mediation session or escalate the war to the edit warring noticeboard. The final option is to go for arbitration. An unoffered (and unrecommended) route is to request admin attention at WP:AN/I... Jappalang (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration would probably be a waste of time again. Bonus is more interested in being "right", and his attitude is very...antagonistic. His stance is that the name can only be used if it appeared on the in-match lifebars or select screen, with little compromise (the original brought up the matter that Tekken 5 stated the full name audibly when a character was selected; his response was that someone might not hear it). It's a bit too early in the morning for me to argue effectively atm, but I don't think a disambig title for an article is necessary when the name is presented in the game and supported manuals in a very clear format to the extent a person new to the subject wouldn't have to dig around to find it out (a la Rolento). But I'm not going to edit war with him either. There has to be a better option.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the full names should be used, not necessarily because of merchandising, but because this is a convenient way to disambiguate these from other "Ken" and "Sakura" articles. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I been having a mild edit war in the Street Fighter IV with another editor who insists to use an unfinished cover artwork of a yet-to-be-released console version of the game over the original arcade version's poster, which is already out. His rationale is that arcade game posters are not "true cover arts" (even though Infobox VG guidelines does allow for promotional fliers of arcade games) and that a cover artwork for a home version (even an unreleased one) are preferred. Personally, I think original versions should take precedence over any subsequent port and arcade games are no different from theatrically-released films in this case. Having the cover of a console port over the arcade game poster seems to undermine the importance of the original arcade version, as if the arcade version of the game was not important enough. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I need some help here. I initially posted the issue on the FF wikiproject talk page, but no one replied. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The Prince (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not exactly citeable by Wikipedia, but it's definitely worth a look and I'm sure some article somewhere can use it somehow: link. --VPeric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.87.60 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's already a section on this, see #Infocom sales date, if anyone needs it.... --Silver Edge (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So, I've basically gone and rewrittten this in the last week (if that), going from here to its current status. This is one of our high importance Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop articles (hence my sudden motivation to work on it). I'd like to take this one to FAC before the 0.7 thing is finalised, so if anyone could give it a quick copyedit (or point out any glaring issues they could find), that'd be great.

Thanks! Giggy (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, are you going to submit it for GA first or go straight to FA? Someoneanother 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably straight for FA, thought it does depend how bold I'm feeling. Pagrashtak left some useful feedback here. Giggy (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings for the record. Giggy (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how many of the Mario articles are in no good shape, I propose that there be a task force made for Mario, and that an effort to promote every main game in the series to GA be made. On that note, we should go in order of the games' releases, so we would start with Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, then move onto Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, then Super Mario World, then Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, then Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, then New Super Mario Bros., and finally, Super Mario Galaxy - just to get into order. Anyone interested? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You might add Super Mario Land to that list as well: it's currently GA, but in all honesty it feels more like a B-class article given the lack of some citations and information in other areas.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We can make Mario the current primary focus on the Nintendo task force if need be. MuZemike (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like MuZe's idea. :) --Izno (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already added a message to the task force's to-do list (as well as updating it with the 0.7 Nintendo articles that need cleanup). The biggest ones are

• Mario (B-Class)
• Mario Bros. (Start-Class)
• Super Mario Bros. (GA-Class)
• Super Mario Bros. 3 (B-Class)
• Super Mario Kart (Start-Class)
• Super Mario RPG (GA-Class)

All of those abovementioned Mario articles are High- or Top-importance. MuZemike (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to mention that I barely have any time for writing articles or doing much besides reverting edits now on Wikipedia. I'd help with this as I've already taken several of the Mario articles to GA (and one FA), but there just isn't enough time since I've started college. The most I could muster is a review on a weekend, but that's abou it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I started work on Mario Bros. with some basic reformatting and rewrites. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reassessed Super Mario Bros. 2 as high, per the fact that it was very well-known, and very significant to the industry.

Also, I think Mario Bros. should be semi-protected - most of the edits are vandalism lately, and it would help to not have to sift through them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of a case for semi-protection given the sporadicity of the vandalism. (There was only one such edit the past six days.) I'll watch it, though and see if it picks up any. MuZemike (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on some Mario articles, removing content, adding content, and merging content. Specifically, I've merged Super Mario All-Stars to Mario (series), Super Mario Bros. Deluxe to Super Mario Bros., Mario's Picross 2 to Mario's Picross, and Mario Kart Arcade GP 2 to Mario Kart Arcade GP - the first because nothing but development and reception is not redundant, the second for almost the same reasons (though it has more unique features), the third because MP2 has little to say about it, and the fourth for the same reason as MP2. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A thought has occurred to me. While I know that many of the FAs and GAs and such are watchlisted by many people, perhaps it might be a good idea to set up a subpage of the project (probably to be listed under the "project" heading in the WPVG template) where those people can collaborate on maintaining the FA and GA status of those article which fall under the project scope. Something along the lines of WP:WikiProject Video games/Maintenance. This obviously has a lot of crossover with the current set of TFs, but it might be the place for task forces to be redirected to which have achieved their goal of featuring their topic, such as the Super Smash Bros. task force. While I think that particular task force's domain is smaller than many of the others on that list, it would be defeating the purpose of the inactive project cleanup task force to leave it lying around (while I know the editors of those articles aren't going to suddenly go inactive, its usefulness, I would judge, is significantly lessened now by the fact there's little to work on regarding its topic).

As well, I would say it opens up a pathway for contributors who don't really want to take the route of writing content, but rather to keep it at status quo, at worst. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that Catassing is in need of a serious fix:
(1) The article has a couple of cites, but none which establishes that the term "catassing" itself is actually in use. (Re Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) (The article does cite http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/06.01.00/cover/onlinegames1-0022.html , but although that article uses the expression "cat ass", the term "catassing" itself does not appear there. If anybody can provide a good cite for the use of this term, please add it to the article.)
(2) The whole article should probably be trimmed down, merged into Video game addiction, and the term Catassing be made a redirect to that article.
- Comments? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My first impulse is to redirect it to Video game addiction without merging anything, since what's there is mostly first-hand speculation. Nifboy (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Just straight up redirect, I think. It would be difficult to cite such an article. --Izno (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is a non-playable characters list necessary? I see it as both trivial and listcruft information. I didn't post this at the talk page for the article: as the regular editors of that article have a history of adding trivia to Sonic articles, as well as edit warring because they don't understand how Wikipedia works. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I count myself a regular contributor to the article. I do my best to revert unsourced or rubbish statements out of this and several upcoming Sonic games, and to make sure they are up-to-date and referenced; in no way do I contribute trivia to any Sonic articles. Sweeping statements about editors aside, I've already recommended working the non-playable characters into the plot section as more details emerge and can be sourced, so that's the course I recommend. SynergyBlades (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok to correct my previous statement: a majority of the regular editors have had issues with Sonic articles in the past. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rob, there was no need for you to bring this here. WP talk pages are for big things, not trivial matters such as this. This can be easily dealt with on the Sonic Chronicles talk page.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rob, you and AMIB go about acting as though your opinions over-rules everything, and you can do whatever you want without even saying anything, or reaching a slightest bit of a compromise if you do, and yet somehow, SLJ me, Unknown, etc. are always labeled as the "Bad Guys", and get in trouble. What really ticks me off is you take action without any form of notification.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for ANYTHING, so don't tell me where or where not to post. If I had just posted on the talk page of the Sonic article: you and your friends would've just made rude remarks there. Instead I get rude remarks here by you. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The truth is the truth. Like you coming here to avoid the consensus by the people who have put all their hard work into this article. If it's not going against policy, you discuss it before taking action. Many edit-wars have been fought because someone decided to go in all guns blazing before taking the peaceful approach. Real wars have been fought that way as well.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply by applying the tried and true method of whether someone who knows nothing about the series finds that information useful, I can say it isn't needed. All I see is a bunch of bolded names, referenced though they may be, but with no explanation of who these characters are, what their role is or indeed anything else other than their names. They are contextless for readers who don't know anything about the title, and so are useless. -- Sabre (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Save the NPCs, and probably the PCs too, for the prose plot summary when it comes out. Nifboy (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're talking about. Soon we shall add important details like the classes of the characters in the game. So they stay? Good.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Write the plot summary as prose, i.e. not a list. I generally subscribe to the school of thought that says a good plot summary negates the need for a list of characters. Nifboy (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Add details that actually explain who these characters are if (and a very big if) it can be confirmed in reliable sources. I would also convert the lists into prose, for a more effective summary approach. The classes of the character is irrelevant, the role of the characters is not. If you can't produce something that actually makes sense to readers who have not played the game, and may never play the game (ie me), then remove the lists. There's no middle ground here, contextless stuff like you have at the moment should be removed, or properly dealt with, not left at the level of detail that only Sonic fans know what is being talked about. -- Sabre (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sabre. Also FFF: you don't decide when the discussion is over. This discussion has been active for about a day, so it's not just going to close based on a few people agreeing with you. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but don't the links to the articles already provide that? And I don't remember saying "discussion over" to anybody.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You posted "So they stay? Good", which implied the discussion was over. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye...We go again...Let's take a breath here Rob, and Triple F. Instead of constantly bickering like I used to (And still ocassionaly do...) let's wait a few days. The game JUST cae out in a FEW countries yesterday, and today, and will be released in NA on Tue, and a later point everywhere else. We should be getting a bunch of reliable sources within the week. That's good. We can tell the role of the major characters whe we get these sources. Only the majr characters though, since, it'd be a pain, and rather useless to go on, and on about characters who only have a few minute role. Alot of RPG's have characters like that. Take the Mario RPG's for example. Though, I must ask Rob (No offence, and not trying to start a fight, here, or anything. Just a little curious.) Why bother bringing it up here? I mean, it isn't a huge editwarr trouble making issue...Yet...And why this specific game? Hundreds of game articles have lists of it's cast. Why only go after this one, and not any of the many others as well? It just seems rather odd to me...And remember, when you removed them without notice you said that they didn't have any reliable sources, when the clearly reliable sources attached to them, to back up their existance. So, what's next? Voice Acting isn't notable next, right? _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FFF, I'm not really referring to the linked articles. Its the names in the non-player character list, where no links are provided and there is literally nothing but a name, where the problem lies. -- Sabre (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's cause reliable sources are yet to reveal their role, but, they seem to play a major role in the game. We'll clean ut what is, an isn't notable once we get some more reliable sources. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I explained above why I brought it up here. Next time, please read the whole discussion before you post. My edit summary of the removal was clear: If they actually are important (other than just being in the game): post information with a reliable source., information about the character with a reliable source. Not just a reliable source showing they are in the game. As for this comment: So, what's next? Voice Acting isn't notable next, right?, get over it I never said that, so stop with your assumptions. Many game articles have lists of characters: but most of them don't have useless non-playable lists. Wikipedia isn't the place to post every character in each game. They either need to be notable: or should be removed. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Interjection: Notability follows WP:GNG, which states topic of article must be comprehensively covered by reliable secondary sources. The games themselves (and the game guides) cannot back up notability. These primary sources are only usable for verification of data. Do not confuse the ways in which reliable sources are used. In other words, a verified item is not necessarily notable, especially when it is only backed by a primary source. Jappalang (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly question: How did this become an argument about big-N Notability? Are people making articles on these NPCs or a list thereof? Nifboy (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, silly me... with all the previous arguments over list articles of Sega characters, I jumped into the conclusion that this again was another discussion about Lists (as articles). Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a really useless list. A link to a flash site to confirm that Giant Worm is going to be in the game serves little purpose. If any of this info is important, it'll be mentioned in the plot summary when the game actually comes out. Until then, I don't think we're doing anyone a disservice by not properly informing them that Gizoids are present in this game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, remember that the eople who read the article, and know nothing about it may want to know who's in the game. And it seems Gizoids are playing a large part, tieing up plotholes from Sonic Battle, and Sonic Advance 3, as well as more of Knuckles the Echidna's, and [[Shadow the Hedgehog]'s backstories. Still, why this game in general? There's plenty of game articles with character lists. Why is it wrong for only this game in general? Anyways, how about once we get more sources, under the "Characters" section, we have a subsection for each character who has a major role in the game? For example:

• Characters
  • Sonic the Hedgehog (Gives summary of Sonic's role)
  • G.U.N. (Gives summary of role)
    • Commander (Summary of role)
  • etc., etc., etc.

Just, instead of bullets, they'd be sections. Though, if we do that, I'd recommend doing this with all game articles. If you don't, some readers may come to the conclusion of "Oh, Wikipedia hates Sonc, so they're screwing up more Sonic articles." I'm not saying that's my opinion, but, I've seen a couple of fourms with people complaining about everything that's going on. Just pointing it out. Aren't we supossed to make the articles the more presentable, and conclusive as we can? Most readers don't understand what's going on here. That's why they just read the articles, instead of trying to work on them. The readers don't care about what is, and isn't encyclopedic by your understanding of policy/guideline, they want to know what the game's about, who's in it, does it have an products, who does the voicing, etc. Does't that count for something? And I don't want that "Our understanding of policy trumps everything, even consenus" bullcrap that I've been given before. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a proper plot summary of the game completely negate the need for any kind of per-character retellings of the plot? That's my pet peeve with character sections, is the plot summary already says "Sonic does X, Y, and Z" and it's 100% redundant to have a "Sonic" section saying he does X, Y, and Z. Nifboy (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't have a proper plot summary just yet. All of the above seems to stem from the fact that, right now, we don't have enough information. It'll happen, just give it time. SynergyBlades (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Game articles contain Gameplay, Story, Development, and Reception section. Gameplay describes the manner the game is played in layman terms and out-of-universe manner. The Story section is a brief retelling of the game's plot, focusing only on major events. The Development section contains real-world information on the game's creation. Reception takes a look at the industry's and public's reaction to the game and its contents from reliable secondary sources. If a character appears in the Gameplay section (as a key accesory to the gaming experience) or Story section (as a key participant in the major events), or is prominent in the Development section (character conception mentioned or development direction) or Reception section (mascot, memorable figure, etc), then he or she could be mentioned in a Character section (which tends to be a subsection of Story). Any other figures whose only mention is trivial to the game (i.e., do not even possess attributes as afore-mentioned) should not be considered. Jappalang (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's why I think we need a character section. If we put all the characters in the story section we'd be using a considerable amount of plot, thus going against WP:PLOT. And even if we did, characters who had important roles but didn't do anything in major events would be left out. Take this article for example: Shadow the Hedgehog (game). The character list is very long and they all have important roles, but because most of them don't have any major effect on the story-line, they're put into character sections.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe the same amount of information violates WP:PLOT when it's in one section, but doesn't when it's in two. Nifboy (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's just a list of names then.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still the same information regardless of whether it's in list or prose form. And generally speaking, prose is the preferred method of conveying information (see Wikipedia:Embedded list). Nifboy (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict.) Yes, but if we do it in prose for all characters we'll be using alot of plot, but if do it the way it is now we won't be using as much plot and won't be going against policy. It's strictly a matter of opinion that these lists shouldn't be there, or I'm assuming that. Rob hasn't shown any policy to back up his claims.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

See, that's what I don't understand, is how putting it in list form makes it better. Nifboy (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If we put it into a list we're just putting down names, but if we put all the PCs into the story section, we'll need to use unneeded plot information to mention the characters with minor roles who don't have much impact on the story.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So why are you mentioning characters without putting them into context, or explaining anything about them? Or if they're so minor, why are they in a list in the first place? Nifboy (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. If we just use a list of characters we won't be using too much plot, and if we just stick them in the story section we'll be going against policy by using too much. Now we can just list the needed amount of plot and not go against policy.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) What I'm trying to get at is this: If the character isn't major enough to justify a prose mention in the plot (because it'll take up "too much plot") then I don't see the need to make a list of characters just so we can include those minor characters that didn't get mentioned in the plot. To me, saying "Cream the Rabbit happens to show up in one level in Shadow the Hedgehog" already is too much plot. Nifboy (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any plot, just telling people that a character stars in it. Let me make an example of what I'm getting at; Big the Cat is a PC in Sonic Chronicles, but he doesn't have any effect on the story. He's still worth mentioning, and we have to bring up trivial things in the plot section to do so, when we could just put him into a list.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just it: It's trivial. Why, exactly, is Big the Cat as a PC worth mentioning, if no other information about Big the Cat being in the game is? Nifboy (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because he has a major role as a PC, but hes little effect on the story. Because he has a major role he should be mentioned.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Major role as a PC" is really vague. It sounds like listing PCs for the sake of listing PCs. Usually when I see a list of characters like this, my first question as a critical reader is always "Why are you telling me this?", because the article has no guidance or context as to why this information is here, except as an infodump. Nifboy (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think of a few reasons to list this. 1: so fans can see what characters are coming up, and 2: so non-fans can find out more about the characters by looking up the game and finding out about them, which can happen by either playing the game or watching a trailer, and the link you just added has given me an idea. We could make a character list like that showing their individual class along with a few attacks moves. How does that sound?Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I linked that particular version of Gain Ground as an egregious example of what not to do, so no. Nifboy (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the reasons to write, you've basically narrowed it down to two small, distinct groups: Fans (whom we explicitly don't write for) and people who are looking up the game in order to get to a separate, distinct, and only marginally related topic. I don't really feel it contributes to an overall understanding of Sonic Chronicles, which is what the article is (supposed to be) about. Nifboy (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nifboy, let's not forget that we should also make articles to a way that's most pleaseable to the readers. A spot between "Policy" (Still not noticing any policy against character lists), and "What the readers want". As an example, Big didn't play into the main plot of Sonic Adventure, but, still had a major role in the game. Same for Johnny in Sonic Rush Adventure. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What major role? You basically just said "He's not important, but he's important!" which is it? Nifboy (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In an RPG like this, if the characters are important enough to be mentioned, they'll be mentioned in the plot summary. If they're not important enough to be mentioned in the plot summary, they aren't important enough to be mentioned at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that true of the featured article, Final Fantasy XII, which also has a reception box like the one you removed from the Chronicles article? Anyway, I think the characters section served a purpose when the game was upcoming, but now that it's out - and because it's a smaller game than FFXII - it probably could be folded into plot quite succinctly. We just need a game transcript or set of reviews to be able to outline the plot, but until then the characters section will at least suffice. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Synergy. AMIB, what was the point in removing the reception box? There was nothing wrong with it. Rob, I don't think it was the appropiate time for this. By next week we should be good. I having feeling that once it comes out here in NA on Tuesday, we'll get some good info to add. And with all of the exclusives, and what not, we can add alot of good realworld info. We just need to find more sources that that won't remove it within the next few days, like EB did. Triple F, you need to calm down alot, bud. Back on topic, what we have now is sufficient, I guess...Though, at the moment, we're kinda completely ignoring some NPC's like Gizoid, and Zoah, who have major roles. Ah well. But, I do have a question now, are they even notable enough now for the index? And if so, it'll be rather confusing to the readers if we have a bunch of other characters for a specific game listed in the index, and not even mentioned in that specific game's article, won't it? That's another reason why I feel a list of characters is important to a game article. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 02:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated issue, let's talk about this on talk and not here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It's completely related. Stop trying to get out of the mess like that. It's completely related to the game's character list. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 02:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood#Review grid - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I replyed, but, I think I may have gotten a little out of hand... _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am interjecting and saying that this needs to be on the article's talk page and not here. It shouldn't matter of the record of the users, which is why you're supposed to AGF in the first place. If nothing gets resolved there, then up you go on the dispute resolution ladder, in which I am considering doing in order to put closure to this. MuZemike (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell these people that an illustration card is NOT proper for the infobox? They claim that a poster or card supersedes a gameplay screenshot or, now that it's available, a box shot of the home release. I don't know ANY, repeat, ANY VG articles that use some promotional card in the infobox. JAF1970 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the record, Half-Life 2: Episode Two uses a promotional poster for the infobox instead of box art, although thats more because a proper box art isn't available. -- Sabre (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Captain Commando (video game)

Final Fight

Gradius

Parodius

Soul Edge

Street Fighter III

Tekken 2

Tekken 3

Tekken Tag Tournament

Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection

Tekken 6

And that's just getting started. Plenty of arcade game related articles make use of these, despite home ports.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, Donkey Kong uses the arcade title screen, as an example for some games that do use them, i guess it would depend on the significance of the arcade game over the home system. Salavat (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, in case you haven't noticed, I already brought up the subject two or three sub-sections ago. You should've post there instead of making a new sub-section. Secondly Template:Infobox VG guidelines disagree with you stating "a promotional flier, in the case of an arcade game". And finally, SF IV is an ARCADE game being ported to the Xbox 360. The original platforms should be give preference/priority over a port. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970 - haven't you already had (and lost) this argument at Talk:Street_Fighter_IV#Image_in_the_infobox.? --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are dealing with arcade games, which do not come with nice little box covers like the old NES, SNES, or even Sega Mega Drive games, for instance. I would like to mention that the WPVG guidelines also do not specify on what to use in the infobox for arcade games. MuZemike (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of merging most of the Mario Party articles into the series article, but I would like to improve them, and see how many of them have the strength to be their own articles. Mario Party 4 and 5 look in good shape, though I'd like to see their development sections larger, and MPDS, Advance, and 8 have room to grow all over their articles, thanks to their unusual game mechanics. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I couldn't find any more development info than what is there for MP 4 and 5. If anyone has any published sources or other forms of access to development info on these games, then please let me know. I personally don't see how the other game have less notability than 4 and 5, it's just that nobody's renovated them yet. Admittedly, these games are quite similar to each other, but as long as they have independent development and reception info, then each is potentially GA-worthy. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that a planned-but-never-put-forward merge of the Crazy Taxi games into a single article lead to the series article eventually becoming featured, I would say that a series article for MP will likely be good to have anyway, but with callouts to the individual games for a potential merge later. --MASEM 12:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we have to do is establish that the gameplay for each title is different enough that it's not redundant and couldn't just have the article link to the series article. Also, for instance, the Controversy for the first game is already covered in the series article, as is the Sequels section. We need to boost up the other sections as much as possible. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some opinions on lists of Robot Masters appearing in Mega Man games? On the one hand, giving a list of the robot masters that appear in the game does no harm, but on the other hand it adds nothing meaningful to the article. Weapons, Robot Master persona, and stages all fall under fancruft and are against the guidelines of WP:VG, but what about the robot masters themselves? Lumaga (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Describe them with prose, it shouldn't be hard. For example, this sucks, but this doesn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

People are going to the pages to find out more about the game they are interested in, the Robot Masters are an important aspect of the game. Even it's a small summary, it's still encyclopedic content that people are looking for. --Reploidof20xx ^(TALK) 13:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, provided it is encyclopedic and not something that would be considered WP:GAMEGUIDE material or something you could get on StrategyWiki or GameFAQs. The concept of the Robot Masters is very important as far as the Mega Man series is concerned, but for WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE concerns, that portion would need to be limited in the game articles. MuZemike (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Link. Cutting to the chase need opinions one way or another if GA should stay or not for the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if Mario Bros. has sufficient information about it for GA, but I believe it can be pushed to B at this point with a little digging. I decided to make a separate section for this so people are more aware. I've taken the liberty of merging three Mario Bros. sequels/ports into it, but Reception and Development are empty. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's honestly little more than a stub at the moment though. Organization needs work, and those two sections fleshed out before I would really say it's worth even C class right now. Also I seriously think merging Mario Clash into it might have been a mistake...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can Mario Clash work on its own? I doubt you'd find many reviews of it besides ScrewAttack really hating it, and general information is difficult to find. It's kind of like Pokémon Card GB2 - it's merged into the first article because little can be said about it, and the first game's article could use some growth. I just feel that making Mario Bros. larger is more important than several small articles about ports and follow-ups to it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but that pokemon card game was a sequel in the sense. Mario Clash was rather stand-alone. While I'm not sure it'll guarantee a massive article, Mario Clash does have it's own design and reception due to being notoriously bad, such as IGN's statements on it for example (and I'd recommend never using ScrewAttack as a resource; they don't do a great job of checking their statements beyond what's right in their face). The fact it got a re-release of some form (and was the only VB game to do so) helps.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we can grow Mario Bros. to an acceptable size, we'll split. How's that sound? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly still don't like it; mentioning Mario Clash in the article is a good move, but unlike the other two titles it is very recognizable and cited as either one of the best or one of the worst games for the system. And for something like the virual boy with the games it had...that's saying something.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But like I said, separate mechanics don't make for a significant article. As it stands, Mario Bros. is way too small, and splitting Mario Clash back to an article will only serve to further shorten it and create a short article with little room for expansion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, I believe Mario Bros. should be like Tetris - it should be about Mario Bros. as a whole, rather than the arcade/NES version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say I've expanded it quite a bit. Comments now? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have recently proposed here that both articles in the headline should be merged, as both articles are excessively short and have little to no references to verify their notability. Assuming that neither of them would reach an acceptable level of quality by themselves, I proposed merging the two articles, only to be met with disapproval by minor Users and IP addresses, so I came here to consult some experienced Users on what should be done. So what should be done? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I take offense to being called a minor editor. Why are you disregarding the opinions of you fellow Wikipedians just because they are "minor" editors and IP users? --Eruhildo (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping 2 articles. I had a quick look on google and there's a bunch of reviews on various sites so I think there's potential to build Zero Wing up. The Mean Machines review is useful. There's even more sources out there for All Your Base. I'd suggest improving the 2 articles instead of merging. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first statement. Please try to assume good faith and refrain from pigeonholing users as minor or major (with anons you really can't help because they actually are anonymous in our context), no matter how tempting it may be to bite their heads off. MuZemike (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been browsing various video game locations articles. In most of these articles, there are no reliable third-party sources. Some don't have any sources at all. They're all in pretty rough shape, and as of now violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies: from WP:N to WP:V to WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:GAMEGUIDE to WP:GAMECRUFT.

Myst series (Blanket AfD)

• Ages of Myst III: Exile
• Ages of Myst V: End of Ages
• Ages of Uru
• Myst Online: Uru Live (Ages)

Final Fantasy series

• Gaia (Final Fantasy VII)
• World of Final Fantasy VIII (GA)
• Spira (Final Fantasy)
• Ivalice (GA)

Grand Theft Auto series

• Vice City
• Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto)

Pokemon: see merge discussion

• Pokémon regions
• Johto (kept at afd in June)
• Kanto (Pokémon)
• Pokémon Center
• Sinnoh

Half Life series: WP:BOLDly merged to Locations in the Half-Life series by Sabre

• Nova Prospekt
• Ravenholm
• City 17
• The Coast (Half-Life 2)
• Xen (Half-Life)
• Black Mesa Research Facility (no consensus to delete in May)

Others:

• Universe of The Legend of Zelda series
• Albion (Fable)
• Glorianna (See AfD)
• List of Legend of Legaia locations
• List of locations in Jak and Daxter (See AfD)
• Nosgoth
• Novistrana
• List of Silent Hill locations
• Twinsun
• World of Monkey Island
• Tamriel (no consensus to delete last December)

But to be more optimistic, an article like Universe of Kingdom Hearts shows that a GA quality article is possible with a few solid references for notability, and a bunch of primary or officially licensed sources to offer more detail. By that measure, an article like Ivalice or Black Mesa Research Facility might be on their way to something. But with other articles, even a merge might get into undue coverage and WP:NOT#PLOT. Some of these are candidates for deletion. But I wanted to get a little bit of feedback before getting too WP:BOLD. Randomran (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Added Tamriel to the list for similar problems, though The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind handles the setting section pretty well. Also noted GA status and any previous AfDs. Nifboy (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A full merger of all Half-Life locations is in progress here. I just need to get around to actually adding the real-world information, which I will do sometime soon. -- Sabre (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to plug in a bit of critical / real-world perspective to a few of the locations in Half-Life. (Although it probably needs a copy-edit, and some fixes to the references.) I think the list collectively passes the threshold now. It needs work, but you're better off putting it out there for everyone else to contribute than tucking it away in a sandbox. Good work, BTW. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have a slug through reviews tomorrow, to pick out extra critical reception bits, to bolster the reception section, then I'll shove it out. Having a dedicated design section doesn't seem to work in this case, it seems to be easier to mingle the design information in the appropriate location's section. Then I just need to finish up my rewrite of the Combine... -- Sabre (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am and always have been fine with fragging the Ages of for the Myst articles; that's why none of the Myst FA's reference the articles at all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a straight redirect for those (and crossed them off here). I'm guessing though someone is going to come completely out of the blue and argue "No this article is totally relevant how dare you do this blah blah blah" so someone might keep an eye out for that. As for the Pokemon articles, there was a previous discussion to merge them into one that ended well as far as I know.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As to some of the others: Albion keeps getting recreated, so if we redirect it again it should be protected. As to the Half-Life crap... I've tried deletion and they pop out of the woodwork to flood with keeps. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm merging them. The Half-Life cruft is crap... at the moment. A lot of the Half-Life universe stuff is notable, just in the wrong format at the moment. AfD is the wrong way to go with them, they're all surmountable stuff if merged and otherwise cleaned up. -- Sabre (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm guessing though someone is going to come completely out of the blue and argue "No this article is totally relevant how dare you do this blah blah blah""' - nope, someone's going to come completely out of the blue and argue that articles should never be deleted (which, to avoid a semantics-war, redirecting to another page basically is) without the correct policies and guidelines being followed, in this case WP:AFD. You've discussed this (briefly) here, without making anyone interested in those articles aware of your discussions. If you wish to delete those article, fine, they might well deserve it, but make certain you go through the correct channels - start deletion discussions. Bear in mind that Ages of Myst V: End of Ages was fairly recently nominated for deletion, the result of which was no consensus. _TalkIslander 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all nice and dandy on paper, but if you're just creating articles to be a directory and leaving them unfixed for months at a time then you should really start reading policies. Stating an article should remain because the subject is notable and showing evidence to that fact is one thing; saying it must be here just because is another. That AfD was, forgive my language, a clusterfuck of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and bad faith, and December '07 is hardly recent. All that served to show is if an AfD is fired up, people will crawl out of the woodwork to defend a subject they have no intention on improving.

It's game guide and directory material, not subject matter actually discussing the real-world relevance. In fact it's hard to tell just how it fits relevant even to this project: many of these articles are written as if they were real locations, rather than spots in a game. When you boil the game guide content out, how much is left? Is there significant discussion to the weight in the series? Conception and creation? Reception by the public?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point entirely. I haven't looked properly at the articles - for all I know, they could be prime deletion material. My point is that you cannot, ever, delete any article without making interested parties aware and giving them the chance to voice their opinions. If you feel strongly that these articles should not be here, that's fine, but you propose them for deletion, and then if contested create deletion discussions. You do not hold limited discussion on a talk page that is, quite probably, not read by anyone interested in the articles, and then proceed to delete said articles with the consensus of very few actually interested in the articles. You state that "... if an AfD is fired up, people will crawl out of the woodwork to defend a subject they have no intention on improving" - so what, you plan to inform as few people as possible that you wish these articles to be deleted, so as to gain as little opposition as possible? Not on. There are proper procedures to be followed - go follow them. _TalkIslander 08:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say this is proper procedure? bridies (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To add to Bridies' query...you claim here you never actually looked at the articles, but voted keep in that AfD you cited?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DELETE. As for the AfD, I voted in that one with regard to the article's state back then. I haven't looked properly at it since, nor have I looked at the other articles. _TalkIslander 10:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Also, I know you retracted the comment, but bad faith? If you feel my comments above were in bad faith, then I appologise, I didn't mean to give that impression. I realise that you acted in good faith, and sorry for not mentioning that earlier. I'm just pointing out that, however much good faith is involved, you cannot go down this route. _TalkIslander 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything saying one must to go through AFD to redirect something. Care to make it explicit? bridies (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not going into a semantics war over this. If you're going to blank a page, and replace it with a redirect, without merging the removed content into the redirection target, that's deletion, plain and simple. In doing this, you delete the article, there are no two ways about it. _TalkIslander 10:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject matter in question had no place in the parent game articles beyond what was there, and the rest from them was just gameguide material. It's one thing to understand a setting, but that was another. Whatever the case, I've nominated them all in one group AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ages of Myst III: Exile. Let's see if this plays out like I expect.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, do let's talk about the 'semantics' here. Redirecting something preserves the articles history and can be easily reverted, as you have demonstrated. You have been citing policies that don't exist. bridies (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, deleting something preserves the articles history and can be easily reverted by a sysop, and yet the same rules apply there aas they do here. _TalkIslander 10:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

By 'easily' I meant by anyone; 'sysop' isn't 'anyone' (ah, semantics again). I'd really love to see the 'rules' that state redirects must go through AFD first, as I said. bridies (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. Enough with trying to use precise wordings to your advantage. WP:DELETE makes it clear what processeses have to be followed to delete an article. Deleting all content within an article and replacing it with a redirect is deleting it. Even if we assume for one moment that it's not, you cannot just redirect the article if someone objects, and I for one object, not because of the content, but because I realise that certain procedures must be followed, and here they're being ignored. _TalkIslander 11:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? You are inventing 'rules' and 'policies' that don't exist. There's nothing about redirects in any of the stuff you linked. This isn't me using 'precise wordings' to my advantage, I haven't even quoted anything. I am asking for something that resembles evidence supporting the points you are making. It would be helpful if you stopped waxing lyrical about 'semantics' and 'logic' and just quote the rules you are referring to. From WP:MERGE: 'Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place.' Redirecting is part of merging, rather than a deletion as far as I can see (unless you can point me to the policy/guideline that says otherwise?). Again, from WP:MERGE: 'Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed.' If you disagree with the redirect, fine, revert it and it can AFD'd (not that you even looked at it). But don't come spouting all these condescending, bolded arguments backed up by policies that don't exist ('but hey, we don't want to get bogged down in semantics here').bridies (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a more proper application of procedure is WP:BOLD. I'd also like to point out our WP:PROD process which functions a heck of a lot like WP:BRD. AfD is overkill in the absence of opposition. Opposing a redirect on procedural grounds is needless bureaucracy WP:CREEP. Nifboy (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone take a deep breath and calm down. WP:BOLDly redirecting is done all the time on Wikipedia, just as WP:BOLDly reverting that is perfectly within someone's right. The process is working. Someone made an editorial decision, someone disputed it, and so now the articles are being taken to AFD for further discussion. This is just a natural part of the dispute resolution process, and developing consensus. Randomran (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Randomram speaks wisely. Giggy (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am calm. I am merely taking issue firstly with the claim that boldly redirecting is not allowed and secondly all this condescension. bridies (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're calm. Nobody has done anything wrong thus far, so let's stop focusing on what everyone did/didn't do. Let's focus on the articles themselves, in particular the AFD for the Ages of Myst. Randomran (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. As far as I can see, everything has been covered, so there is nothing I can contribute without parroting other editors. With regard to certain other matters, I have responded on your talk page. Thanks, bridies (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The majority of these articles will definitely never amount to anything. I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Jak and Daxter if anyone cares. TTN (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of these are really, really weak OR constructs; I'm looking at the "Universe of Legend of Zelda" in particular. We can probably dynamite a few, merge a few, and redirect a few. The Final Fantasy project is doing a great job of setting the standard for this sort of thing, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that something can be made of World of Monkey Island, messy though it may be, even if it doesn't extend past a merge into the series article, so I'd hold back the AfD horses on that one. -- Sabre (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AMiB on the Final Fantasy location articles: they're a good build, and worth keeping. Btw, Glorianna has been nominated for AfD. TTN seems to have pointed the pokemon region articles at their respective games, which I guess makes sense though I'm a bit iffy with the first as some recognizability should be there for it (as opposed to later regions where I'm pretty sure even the fans would go "where?")--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, after Randomran's additions and my expansion of the reception section, Masem reckons that this merger of the Half-Life series can be safely put out into the mainspace, which per WP:BOLD I've done. Its not entirely perfect: a few prose issues, probably needs some more design info, and is missing a few references, but it should address the bulk of the problems coming out of the individual articles. The in-universe stuff that is generally only of interest to fans is happily sitting over at Combine Overwiki in very similar forms to what we had here. I am, however, somewhat concerned about recreation though, normally the fans don't take kindly to cleanups like this. -- Sabre (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way to prevent a revert war is to weigh in at the article talk page. Good job, Sabre! Randomran (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering merging the NES Nintendo sports games (ie Golf, Baseball, Tennis, etc.), but can't think of a good name. I was thinking of "Sports games by Nintendo for the NES", but that seems way too wordy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a bit of them. (I know Golf, Baseball, Tennis, Volleyball, Soccer, Slalom, Excitebike, 10-yard Fight, Badminton, Pro Wrestling, NES Play Action Football, NES Championship Golf, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! (though that would definitely stand alone), and a few Famicom sports games made by Nintendo, such as F-1 Race.) This bunch of games are not as bad as far as independent notability is concerned compared to, say, the Power Pad games or all games made by American Video Entertainment in which I merged all the game articles a while back; 95% of them had no context at all and very easily could have been deleted. I certainly understand the rationale, and I don't think there is going to be too much out there for good sources for these games. It'd much harder to find sources for old NES and Atari games than, say, Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum games during that same timeframe because of the differences in media coverage.

I would be tempted to word it "List of NES sports games by Nintendo," but that is stretching it, as well. MuZemike (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm just going to utterly oppose that on the grounds of "really unnecessary overkill?" There's the variety at the very least to consider. Is there blanketing reception for all of the games of a magnitude to warrant this? Is development info covering all of them one shot in existence? I understand where you're coming from with this, but I just really have to oppose this up front at least until some real serious discussion goes down.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not similar reception, but little to say about them. Merging encourages (some) people to work harder to make them worth splitting, however, though I don't think some of them will ever be more than a few paragraphs. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well on the flipside merging may just as well discourage people from expanding an article, giving the wrong impression that a search for sufficient material may have been done with no results. I know reviews of the games were done at the very least with unique feedback for each sport title (especially given the NES/Game Boy coverage of the titles), so that's a building block to start with. Would be better to make an effort to improve them first with material, then go this route if resources end up in failure, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I also think work should be done on establishing that being a video game released to retail or as a legitimate downloadable game is not sufficient enough notability. Ice Hockey may be notable because of the high quality of the release, however. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure actually that it's generally accepted a retail video game has notability assumed. Even users like AMiB have stated such. o_O--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My statement was clearly not saying that it does not contribute to notability. But "retail release" is not and should never be sufficient notability to exist - if a merge can be done, it should be done unless notability can be shown. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That really seems like an extreme deletionist view on things given the facts on a lot of these articles. It gets compounded by the fact that if the subject does get its article improved and split off, in cases like this one it can lead to serious problems when the material to split off into another article already. Cleanup is cleanup, but you're taking it a bit too far.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Too far? These are generic sports games with little importance. It would be reverted anyway, and in the end, the person who reverted it would usually not even bother doing one single thing to improve the article's notability because they cling to "it was released, it's notable enough!". So like I said, most editors who oppose merges of this fashion don't care enough to fix the problem. If no one is going to fix it, I fail to see why the articles should remain. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The D-word? We're talking about merging, not deletion. My main concern would be the lack of parity in the articles' notabilities, as you can compare Volleyball, for instance, with Ice Hockey as mentioned above. That's why I recommended going the list route as mentioned above. Those articles that have established notability per the guidelines will get to keep their own articles while the others would be merged into the list. MuZemike (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an idea. I mean, I remember that one Rollercoaster game, that old one, that got nommed for deletion, but it was expanded significantly. If Baseball, Golf, Ice Hockey, etc. can be expanded, that's fine, but the smaller articles should be merged pending some expansion. I've been working on Ice Hockey, anyone want to help? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea of merging dissimilar games not in a series into list articles. I cannot, however, put my finger on why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not that dissimilar that merging them is out of the question. However, like I said, I'm working on expanding the articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dissimilar in the sense that they're not in any sense the same game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And that's been a legitimate argument at what point in the history of Wikipedia? With the exception of Ice Hockey, most of Nintendo's sports games are mentioned in the same breath as being "those bunch of sports games on the Nintendo". If they can't have any adequate sources regarding their notability and can't grow to an appropriate size, they could be merged. The CD-i Zeldas are dissimilar, only sharing the reception and development. If Baseball, Ice Hockey, and the rest can't be expanded enough, their notability is better served for making one stronger article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of Ice Hockey, most of Nintendo's sports games are mentioned in the same breath as being "those bunch of sports games on the Nintendo".

By whom? This is what I have trouble with; Golf is no more related to Tennis than it is to Pinball or Mario Bros. I fear that you're synthesizing a series where none exists.

You compare them to the CD-i Zeldas, which are generally referred to collectively, are (at least artistically) similar, developed by the same developers, and in the same series.

I have less issue with merging them than with the way they are merged. Making the case that they should be merged doesn't change the fact that I'm unhappy with the merge target. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The FAC for Concerned seems to be stalling. Just to prevent it from dying from lack of interest (with one support and three comments), can I request a few peeps head over there and leave some comments whether for support or opposition of the article in question? -- Sabre (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahnchen refuses to accept he is the only one that strongly wants the list. I believe the consensus to not have a list exists, but he refuses to admit it. So anytime I add the list back, he just removes it. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_53#List_of_Olympic_events (as well as the FAC page which is linked in that discussion) for more on this matter. Hahnchen needs to handle this issue better, instead of assuming consensus means everyone has to be for (or against) something. Consensus is the majority, not everyone. If you read past discussions, most people don't want the list. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's getting reverted by multiple people, he can be blocked for 3RR... I don't see what else needs to be done if you have strong consensus on your side. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think multiple people are reverting him. But the discussions about the list show there isn't a consensus to keep the list. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the FAC closed with comments from User:SandyGeorgia, an impartial user, stating that no consensus was formed, and that the majority of users said they had no preference over the inclusion of the list, that's pretty much the definition of no consensus. - hahnchen 15:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page -

Hahnchen is just being difficult and needs to stop. The consensus is clear. The nonsense about "non-commital" is wrong. Do you expect all of them to edit war with you? Is that considered non-commital to you? Then will you finally stop? I somehow doubt even that, will stop you. The list belongs off, it's game guide content at best. Olympics are an actual event, but so is MLB and NFL: but we certainly don't have game guide lists at articles for those games. RobJ1981 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You need consensus to delete information from Wikipedia. In a discussion when the majority of users suggest that either way is OK, that's a non-committal response, it certainly isn't the consensus view that the events are outside of Wikipedia's scope. Points such as why exclusive events are covered in explicit detail, yet shared events are not have still not been resolved. Why are the categories of events listed, even when athletics and aquatics are so vague compared to table tennis? The reason that there's an "Events" section in the article, is because they're an integral part of the gameplay, and they define the game in the same way that List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock does. And MLB? I'm pretty sure in all the MLB articles, we state what sport it's based on. - hahnchen 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahnchen, I don't think the Guitar Hero analogies are completely applicable in this case. Such music video games normally have specially designed controllers for a specific type of gameplay that is heavily integrated into the song. That's why the song lists become more notable than something like the Mario & Sonic events.

After looking through the past discussions, even though a number of people were indifferent, there were more that felt the list should be excluded. I'd argue that consensus was in favor of it's exclusion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

So you ignore those who are non-committal? That's how you'd close an afd? If the majority of users are indifferent, we just gloss over them? That's not it's done, the non-committal users define the no-consensus.

And how is a specially designed controller even relevant? Think your argument through, the fact that there's a single controller, and single method of gameplay, detracts from the importance of the individual song. Whether you're playing Aerosmith or Dragonforce, your gameplay experience is going to differ less than if you're participating in the 100m or the hammer throw. Yet without the list, you don't even know the hammer throw exists. The reason "song lists become more notable", is because of the precedent that soundtracks are fine in list form, but apparently, everything else regarding gameplay isn't, because as specified in the previous discussion - it'll inevitably lead to spell lists and character lists etc. That's a baseless prediction.

The Events are obviously important to the gameplay, or else there wouldn't be the section dedicated to them in the article. Without the full list of events, you list the vague categories, and you list the exclusive events as if events that differ are more notable than events that are similar. The events were announced prior to the games release, and reported on by reliable sources[7][8], because unlike WarioWare minigames, they have real world relevance and aren't just trivial skins. - hahnchen 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say the list should be omitted. Slippery slope, notability, and non-paragraph info all pushes me to say it should be deleted.LedRush (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see anything especially notable about the games as a whole, no more than I did when the Lists of mini-games in the Mario Party series were on the AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a list of sports featured in an official Olympics video game and the contextless and meaningless flailing of WarioWare. "What sports are featured in a sports video game?" is a question that can be answered succinctly, comprehensively, and with sufficient context using a list. Even in other sports video game articles such as Hyper Sports and Beijing 2008 (video game), I'd be surprised if editors believed that merely suggesting "a range of sports" to be a sufficient answer. Yet that is what is being suggested here, more likely due to unfounded fears such as quoted "slippery slope" and "non-paragraph info", as if the only way video games articles can convey information is through paragraphs. The stigma surrounding lists must be removed. - hahnchen 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hanhchen- We're not talking about an AfD, we're talking about an embedded list in an article. The non-committals were not on a fence and couldn't decide, they almost all said it was a non-issue for the FAC. They chose to not let the event list be a factor in their voting decision.

While the reader may not know there was a hammer throw event in the game, do they really need to? Is it cool to know? Yes, but does it really further my understanding of the game? Jappalang said it best, "the issue might be a mismatch in our expectations of 'comprehensiveness'". We just have different definitions of what the reader "needs" to know to understand the topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

If the non-committals are saying that the inclusion of the list does not affect their support for the article, that goes against a consensus view to delete.

Maybe I'd buy that "need to know" argument if it weren't so arbitrarily applied. I can say exactly the same thing for "dream canoeing", or rowing, and yet that event is explicitly mentioned. They're more important than the events we haven't mentioned? How does the list of events contribute less to the article than a track listing for Guitar Hero? - hahnchen 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-committals were not against a consensus to delete. They were neither for nor against it, and considered it a non-issue for the FAC.

In regard to the arbitrary application, that is an unavoidable effect of people writing articles. When writing the articles for the Kingdom Hearts games, several of us had to deal with editors trying to add in their favorite voice actors or Disney characters from the games. We just arbitrarily pick some we thought would be suitable for the article because including every single one was infeasible. Getting into a discussion about which one is more important, more notable, and more famous would have taken a long time and gone nowhere because it would have been mainly based on personal perception. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

It should be noted: Hahnchen has once again re-added the list to the article, which I reverted. This discussion (as well as the edit history of the article) shows he is currently the only one pushing for the list. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the list should be included on the grounds that it makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. IMO the article is better for the reader with it than without. But what do I know :-) Jw6aa (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)