Deryck Chan (talk | contribs) →Dream Chronicles: The Book of Air: new section |
|||
Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
A [[Talk:Silent_Hill_(video_game)#Request for comment|recent discussion]] suggests a compromise that the house fire and fake death from the plot section of the [[Silent Hill (video game)]] article should be moved to [[List of Silent Hill characters]], but a possibly disruptive user seems to disagree with others. I believe moving it to the characters article should be a good idea. Can someone look into this issue please? Thanks, [[Darth]] [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 01:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
A [[Talk:Silent_Hill_(video_game)#Request for comment|recent discussion]] suggests a compromise that the house fire and fake death from the plot section of the [[Silent Hill (video game)]] article should be moved to [[List of Silent Hill characters]], but a possibly disruptive user seems to disagree with others. I believe moving it to the characters article should be a good idea. Can someone look into this issue please? Thanks, [[Darth]] [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 01:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
This is absolutely insane. First of all, I'm not a disruptive user. I added, literally, about three or four words to this article. Another editor,GoldenSugarplum, went crazy about it, because my additions were not sourced. She flat-out admitted knowing the information I added was true, yet repeatedly undid my edits anyway. As it is, the article is so cluttered with sources, it's near impossible to read or edit. Due to this and her repeatedly harassing me and acting superior by "notifying" me and acting like I'd done something wrong, I found myself repeatedly asking her to stop harassing me. She did not, and I finally accused her of vandalism, since she was undoing edits she knew to be legit, simply because she could. She has not only harassed me repeatedly on my talk page, but on the article's talk page as well. She's also reported me. And now this. There is no reason to keep doing this. A Request For Comment was opened ages ago, and the matter was discussed. Golden has lied repeatedly about what people have said any what has happened, and she'll no doubt do it here as soon as she learns about this. Both the house fire and the resulting death are mentioned in the prologue of the game, in the manual, and both are fairly important. That the child is not actually dead, that her death was faked by another main character, and that her mother is the one responsible for the fire, are all relevant. It's also quite important to make it clear that she was not hospitalized in the hospital she was hidden away in for seven years, but imprisoned. Officially, she was reported dead. She was kept locked bedridden in the basement and essentially tortured. You can't even call that forced hospitalization.[[User:Yomiel|Yomiel]] ([[User talk:Yomiel|talk]]) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Anachronox]] mutual copyedit invitation == |
== [[Anachronox]] mutual copyedit invitation == |
Revision as of 15:47, 24 April 2011
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Are the 7 generations fiction? If not, where are the sources?
Moved section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/RfC on video game console grouping. Please participate there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- So this is still going on at WP:OR/N. I guess this will end up being yet another community-wide discussion with no resolution? *sigh* ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at WP:OR/N finished and is archived here. - X201 (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Patrolling recent changes in whole project
Is there any tool for checking recent changes in video games category, or can one use CatScan for it ? Sir Lothar (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Bumping up the question, Sir Lothar (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- You can view related changes for categories: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Video games. But it will only pull from articles that are directly in that category. Is that what you were looking for? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
- I use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and the toolserver app. I put them in my user page for easy use. --Teancum (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've meant something like Catscan (crawling deeper in subcategories), like Teancum wrote. Thanks for hints :), Sir Lothar (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- You can view related changes for categories: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Video games. But it will only pull from articles that are directly in that category. Is that what you were looking for? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
Template:WikiProject Music Video Games
So whats happening with the template now that the Wikiproject has been deleted. Is it to be removed? Or is it turning into a task force like the PlayStation project? Just a query so I know to remove it or similar if I come across it. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- The project was deleted, not taskforce-ified, so the template should be deleted on sight. --PresN 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. Ill get my gun. Salavat (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Done, but keep the gun nearby just in case we are able to cleanup any other projects. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. Ill get my gun. Salavat (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sonic Generations
See Sonic Generations. There has been a trailer for a new Sonic game, but the name has not been announced yet. All the information is speculation minus the fact that a trailer was in fact shown, and that the game would be for ps3/360. Obviously needs to be deleted, but I not an expert as far as which avenue to take, or how to go about setting that up. So here's a heads up in hopes that someone here can do it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think simply listing the article for WP:AfD would be fine, as the name is speculation and hence not to be a redirect we would want to have. --Izno (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Prod removed. Listing for afd. I honestly didn't know prod is now a week, instead of 5 days. What's the point in it existing anymore? « ₣M₣ » 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the game was formally announced today, so the article's existence is no longer an issue. Thanks for the help though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
FAC, GAN and PR backlog update
Currently, the project has:
- Ten articles at GAN;
- Five articles at FAC; and
- Nineteen articles at PR.
Only one of our nine GANs is being reviewed. At FAC, Lara Croft has been up since March 28, but has received no significant commentary. Resident Evil 2 and Cloud have been up at FAC since the 18th and 20th, respectively, and could use a few more reviews in the near future. At PR, Valkyria Chronicles has been up since September 2010, Tommy Refenes and MUD since November 2010, and Neotopia since January 2011. Archiving these might be the best course of action. The other, more recent ones should be examined; several have been given significant or minor reviews, but a few have received no attention whatsoever. Review/archival should be done as needed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Go ahead and delete the DQ PR since its at FAC and i've gotten no comments (no need to archive it).陣内Jinnai 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Done MrKIA11 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fast work. I hope others are willing to help out; the backlog is starting to get out of hand. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure i placed my input in Dragon Quest not too long ago, including Valkyria Chronicles...oh well.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I made sure there were no comments before I deleted it. I'm trying to get back into editing, but this week is busy, so next week I plan to help with the backlogs. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll do my best to pop in, but right now getting a new job takes precedence :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I made sure there were no comments before I deleted it. I'm trying to get back into editing, but this week is busy, so next week I plan to help with the backlogs. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure i placed my input in Dragon Quest not too long ago, including Valkyria Chronicles...oh well.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fast work. I hope others are willing to help out; the backlog is starting to get out of hand. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Backlogs are a recurring problem for us, and I urge our newer members to help out with these. If you're new to reviewing articles, peer review is a good starting point. You just provide suggestions that you think will be helpful. The reviews have no bearing at GAN or FAC. Participating benefits you in turn:
- The more you help out, the more likely people here are to help you out.
- The more you review, the better editor you become, making the writing of your own articles easier.
- (Guyinblack25 talk 20:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
Great work on the PR backlog, KIA. It's looking much better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can't take that much credit, all I did was archive the PRs that were over a month old. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- We now have a FLC for The Appy Awards. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- lolwat. This is a stub article, not a featurable list. Lol-kitas (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you even call that a list. –MuZemike 00:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- lolwat. This is a stub article, not a featurable list. Lol-kitas (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- We now have a FLC for The Appy Awards. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Are Sys Reqs, Content Ratings, and Distribution Media appropriate?
The infobox for video games can contain a lot of information, and while some of it is clearly notable (like developer, publisher, series, genre, etc.), I have questions about some categories. System requirements are highly technical, highly debated, verbose, and seemingly only useful for people who are trying to play the game, so I have trouble understanding how they can be generally considered as neutral and notable and succinct enough to belong in an infobox. The number of content rating systems is numerable, and they don't generally seem to be individually notable, as they are only useful for parenting in a specific region (they may give some insight to the themes of a game, but why not list those themes instead?). And the distribution media gives no useful insight to the game itself, and there is already a section for platforms. Any thoughts on this? Pyroguy (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- For the last several years, my standard practice has been to remove system requirements from infoboxes whenever I start working on an article. I don't think they're at all necessary. Distribution media can be useful, though—particularly on old DOS games, which were often released on both CD and floppy disc. Content ratings are also fairly notable; I don't think they need to be removed, either. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Distribution media may be useful to collectors, but that's about it. Style manuals for music, movies, and film all mark these kinds of sections as unnecessary, so I wonder why it's not the same for video games. --Pyroguy (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've always thought that we should in general be adhering to the principle that if it's not mentioned in the body, it's not really important for the infobox. By that metric, I'd say in most cases a rating isn't really important (there are of course exceptions; content in Turok: Dinosaur Hunter specifically mentions that it was a risky enterprise given its high price and Mature ESRB rating.) I realize I'm in the minority on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that
{{Infobox video game}}
is needlessly bloated. System requirements seem pointless to me.{{Infobox software}}
doesn't have them, and I see little reason for us to include them as well. My biggest gripe, however, is how we handle release dates in the infobox. Though I imagine that getting anything removed would require a lengthy discussion. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 14:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC))- Depends upon your definition of lengthy - X201 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I know we don't vote, but what if we create somewhat of a poll for each parameter in the infobox to see whether people think it is necessary, and from there we can see which ones need to be discussed and/or removed. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- What do you not like about release dates? I know they get a bit lengthy, but I tend to used a collapsed list when there's more than, say, 3 lines. --PresN 18:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- A straw poll sounds like a good idea to get the ball rolling.
- My complaint deals with exhaustive lists of release dates. The collapsed option fixes the bloating, but the [Hide] link often runs into the default date listed, obscuring the text. I also wonder whether or not the default date should be bolded or not. With exhaustive lists, the platform list becomes redundant because each platform is used as label for the different dates.
- And since we're airing grievances, the ratings encounter hiccups as well. Like when an older game that was rated with a depreciated label gets re-rated because of a re-release. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
- Could you give an example of what you think to be "exhaustive lists"? The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has a list of 12 dates through 5 platforms.(one of those is the 3DS remake) Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy has a whopping 17 dates under 7 platform headers, most of which seem to be similar, but are reproduced due to slightly differing release countries. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those are both good examples. Another one that comes to mind is Mega Man 2. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
- Awww, that barely beat out the one in Ninja Gaiden (NES) for length. –MuZemike 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Mega Man? Please. A mere blip in the box compared to Final Fantasy . 21 dates in 10 systems! It's longer than most infoboxes! --PresN 08:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm really not following why this is an issue when the information is collapsed. It's probably just me but I feel like all to often we nitpick on things that in the end are debatable as to their helping or hurting the cause while we could be working on bringing more articles up to the current standard. I guess my point is if the standard is changing rapidly there's just no way to keep up, let alone help articles that suffer from lack/poor quality content. --Teancum (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Disabled(visual and/or physical) users of Wikipedia rely on screenreaders and specialised browsers that may not (fully) support Java or CSS. Hidden lists are outlawed in prose but are allowed in Infoboxes(see MOS:COLLAPSE). But I think MOS:Collapse is working on the supposition that Infobox content is always repeated in the prose section. Obviously every VG re-release date/format is not repeated in most articles, opening up the possibility of information being inaccessible to certain users. - X201 (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Which is why I rarely bring it up unless I get into an edit war in an article I'm working on.
- I just feel that the obscured text defeats the purpose, and that the list of platforms is redundant when they are listed with the release dates. Such issues make me think that brevity is the best course here, especially for a template that is suppose to provide a quick summary.
- I've taken that approach on older games. The infobox and article focuses on the game and its original release. I treat everything else, like re-releases and later ports, as derivative and omit it from the infobox. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC))
- I'm really not following why this is an issue when the information is collapsed. It's probably just me but I feel like all to often we nitpick on things that in the end are debatable as to their helping or hurting the cause while we could be working on bringing more articles up to the current standard. I guess my point is if the standard is changing rapidly there's just no way to keep up, let alone help articles that suffer from lack/poor quality content. --Teancum (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Mega Man? Please. A mere blip in the box compared to Final Fantasy . 21 dates in 10 systems! It's longer than most infoboxes! --PresN 08:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Awww, that barely beat out the one in Ninja Gaiden (NES) for length. –MuZemike 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those are both good examples. Another one that comes to mind is Mega Man 2. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
- Could you give an example of what you think to be "exhaustive lists"? The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has a list of 12 dates through 5 platforms.(one of those is the 3DS remake) Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy has a whopping 17 dates under 7 platform headers, most of which seem to be similar, but are reproduced due to slightly differing release countries. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Depends upon your definition of lengthy - X201 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that
- I've always thought that we should in general be adhering to the principle that if it's not mentioned in the body, it's not really important for the infobox. By that metric, I'd say in most cases a rating isn't really important (there are of course exceptions; content in Turok: Dinosaur Hunter specifically mentions that it was a risky enterprise given its high price and Mature ESRB rating.) I realize I'm in the minority on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Distribution media may be useful to collectors, but that's about it. Style manuals for music, movies, and film all mark these kinds of sections as unnecessary, so I wonder why it's not the same for video games. --Pyroguy (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I believe infoboxes shouldn't be a repository for everything, I believe that content rating typically isn't covered in the prose body, unless coupled with controversy so you'd practically be removing the information altogether if it is removed from the infobox. Release dates also aren't covered to an extent, ex.: Halo 3, The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. System requirements are in the same boat, and really only apply to a development or gameplay section. We could make a few modifications to the WP:VG/MOS to require that information be switched over to prose. My 2 cents. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a discussion on the system requirements field before, though nothing too strict came of it because of a lack of participation. The (lax) outcome was that the field was restricted only to be used for the original version (say, if a console game was later ported to PC, the PC requirements would not be listed). The "media" field is only used "for games where at least one of the platforms it was released on uses several types of media (e.g. Windows, MSX), or leaves the method of distribution ambiguous". So a Game Boy game should not use the field, for example. Can't say I care much about exhaustive release dates as long as they're collapsed. The "ratings" field looks like the most arbitrary, currently. It can get pretty confusing with port-happy games. Prime Blue (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ratings however are something you would expect to be listed along with the title and developer; they have been since their introduction core elements of what is essential info when describing a video game. Just because we don't list something in the prose doesn't mean that it isn't essential and expected info.
- As to system requirements, I'd not be too upset if it went away.陣内Jinnai 18:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on why parental ratings are so important? They aren't included for other forms of media on WP (neither films nor music). --Nicholas Davidowicz (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Few extra eyes today on Portal 2
In about 2 hrs as I write this, the Aperture Science countdown timer hits zero. Whether that's an early release of Portal 2, or something less exciting, no one knows. Either way, the fandom will react, and there may be a high degree of nonsense editing on Portal 2 today. I expect to be able to watch it, but just in case...
Also, and only because it was hinted during the ARG (I have no inside knowledge if there is a connection), we also may want to watch our various Half-Life pages. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, Valve, way to completely thread that needle. Crisis averted :D --MASEM (t) 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
consensus at AFD to merge "virtues of ultima"
Dear wikiproject video games...
There was a recent AFD where the consensus was to merge the Virtues of Ultima article into the main series article, in accordance with your WP:VGSCOPE guidelines and WP:NOT. A few of us have undertaken the hard work of completing the merge, and it should more or less be done now.
User:Dream Focus has taken the position that "there is seldom such a thing as a good merge". I don't expect him to full on revert the AFD consensus. But I'd ask for people to keep an eye on the talk page discussion just in case, and keep us focused on consensus instead of heated rhetoric.
- See the AFD closed as merge: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtues_of_Ultima_(2nd_nomination)
- See the merge discussion: Talk:Virtues of Ultima#Merge completed
- See the merge: [1]
Thanks for your assistance. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, not to disrespect him, is known to have a fairly inclusionist standpoint. The merge looks consistent with WP:VGSCOPE. Good work. --Izno (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
P:VG DYK
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why most of the months of DYK on P:VG have some events commented out as 'Extras for variety'? Why not include them? MrKIA11 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I added those for two reasons:
- Some extra tidbits to occasionally switch things up during the month and the following year to avoid repetition.
- Some extra items to extend the length of the section depending on the length of the Current events section above it.
- Feel free to make changes. I thought of switching it to something more dynamic, but never had the time. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC))
{{Infobox video game series}}: order of spinoffs
In the infobox {{Infobox video game series}}, should the entries in the "Spinoffs" field be listed in chronological or alphabetical order. See [2] and User talk:Jonathan Hardin'#Final Fantasy. Also was I "dishonest" here when I changed two stuff but explained only one of these two stuff in my edit summary. Thanks. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no hard and fast rule that I know of, so I guess its back to a combination of boring old WP:COMMON and WP:CON. - X201 (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could give input on this deletion discussion over the article Somari. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Member purge
Anyone else think that it's time for another member purge? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Probably for the best to. I think some users may be either inactive or banned on the list. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC))
- I have already gotten a start by removing all indef-blocked users as well as corrected all user renames. –MuZemike 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hey how long does an editor have to be inactive to move them to Inactive? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- 6-9 months? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hey how long does an editor have to be inactive to move them to Inactive? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
as title says, the article list of djax track listings has been nominated for deletion.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Your contributions to this would be greatly appreciated.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Dragon Warrior as TOP rated
Bringing this up here rather than assement because TOP rated video games/video game series have had contentious history.
I would like this one to be bumped up as TOP because its been credited by several sources as being a singular game that is a notable point in video game history one can point to and say "This is when the industry fundimentally changed". Multiple sources back up this claimed directly (by stating such) or indirectly by stating how its influence has had a tolkien-like grasp on the RPG genre.
Note: I will note if someone can come up with other games with similar impact, I'd be fine with listing them as TOP rated games. I'm sure there are others.陣内Jinnai 01:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- To be quite honest. I don't think that single video game articles should be rated TOP (though I don't under why Elite (video game) is). Though, in my opinion, Dragon Quest should be TOP. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that Dragon Warrior should definitely be Top-rated. It's the progenitor of the JRPG genre, among other things. To this day, a large portion of Japanese games are based directly on its concepts. As for the principle that articles about single games should not be Top-rated, I must disagree. I think that's an old, out-dated idea that needs to be rethought. Articles about games that fundamentally altered the industry and/or had a huge effect on the world at large (read: Doom (video game)) should be Top importance. I've always found it ridiculous that our only Top articles are on game consoles, people, genres, programs--everything besides actual video games. Also, for the record, I'm the one who set Elite to Top. Basically every Western game takes from it in some way, particularly over in the UK. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not too keen on putting the games themselves as top-importance because it puts them on par with the people and concepts behind the game itself. What you described is, to my understanding, what "high" priority should consist of, and everything major that sprang forth from that mid priority and beyond that low-priority for what's left. In that way importance becomes a tree-like structure where you can make a clear distinction of the core ideas, the games that set those in place, the major works inspired by such, and the minor works that were in turn inspired by them. I don't see why high-importance would not suffice in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- What's the problem with people, their ideas and their creations having the same importance rating? It seems to work just fine when it concerns, for example, Peter Molyneux, God game and Populous. (I disagree with Molyneux's rating, by the way, but that's an argument for another day.) Importance ratings aren't value judgments; they deal with a subject's importance in terms of Wikipedia's coverage. For example, until Mario is Featured, the Video games WikiProject, and Wikipedia overall, will have a gaping hole in its coverage. The same goes for many video game articles. When a game changes the world, its article should be Top-rated, right alongside the elements behind its creation. I mean, seriously, who's going to argue that John Carmack (Top) is more important to the Video games WikiProject's coverage than Doom (High)? They're clear equals. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's exactly why imo DW should be top-rated. Some other examples given here, notably Doom, I'd agree with. The Legend of Zelda (video game) would probably qualify too. Those that have impacted the industry or become central to the culture to a phenomenal extent should be highly rated. Will there be disagreements as to what is Top/High? Of course; there are disagreements now (FE I'd say Super Mario Bros. and Dragon Quest wouldn't be Top unless we included cultural impact because for the former it just further popularized the platformer game and DQ hasn't had the same impact with all of its games (although some of the other earlier titles might be top rated); however both have had huge cultural impacts.陣内Jinnai 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- What's the problem with people, their ideas and their creations having the same importance rating? It seems to work just fine when it concerns, for example, Peter Molyneux, God game and Populous. (I disagree with Molyneux's rating, by the way, but that's an argument for another day.) Importance ratings aren't value judgments; they deal with a subject's importance in terms of Wikipedia's coverage. For example, until Mario is Featured, the Video games WikiProject, and Wikipedia overall, will have a gaping hole in its coverage. The same goes for many video game articles. When a game changes the world, its article should be Top-rated, right alongside the elements behind its creation. I mean, seriously, who's going to argue that John Carmack (Top) is more important to the Video games WikiProject's coverage than Doom (High)? They're clear equals. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not too keen on putting the games themselves as top-importance because it puts them on par with the people and concepts behind the game itself. What you described is, to my understanding, what "high" priority should consist of, and everything major that sprang forth from that mid priority and beyond that low-priority for what's left. In that way importance becomes a tree-like structure where you can make a clear distinction of the core ideas, the games that set those in place, the major works inspired by such, and the minor works that were in turn inspired by them. I don't see why high-importance would not suffice in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that Dragon Warrior should definitely be Top-rated. It's the progenitor of the JRPG genre, among other things. To this day, a large portion of Japanese games are based directly on its concepts. As for the principle that articles about single games should not be Top-rated, I must disagree. I think that's an old, out-dated idea that needs to be rethought. Articles about games that fundamentally altered the industry and/or had a huge effect on the world at large (read: Doom (video game)) should be Top importance. I've always found it ridiculous that our only Top articles are on game consoles, people, genres, programs--everything besides actual video games. Also, for the record, I'm the one who set Elite to Top. Basically every Western game takes from it in some way, particularly over in the UK. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject PlayStation
Template:WikiProject PlayStation has been depreciated and so is ready for an admin to do as they will. Salavat (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also meaning that this category and all its subcategories are empty: Category:PlayStation articles by importance. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Done and
Done. Shouldn't Category:PlayStation articles by quality be deleted as well? MrKIA11 (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeh, i guess anything like that to do with the PlayStation project would now be redundant. Salavat (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. MrKIA11 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Salavat (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeh, i guess anything like that to do with the PlayStation project would now be redundant. Salavat (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Flag burner required
I'm currently on my second run through every VG article that uses the infobox; in order to remove flag icons and to tidy up formatting and refs. I've come across this - Granado Espada and could do with someone who understands what should and shouldn't be included - regarding publishers and version numbers- to tackle this one. Thanks. ps, Safety goggles are not supplied. - X201 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That was one way to solve it :D - Thanks - X201 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I started going through it, but then I realized it was unreferenced anyhow and so I might as well take my patented GordianKnotTM technique. : ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Before you go too far check and see if they are also under other WikiProjects. I know Anime and Manga WikiProject prefers the use of flags in their articles and there's enough crossover titles that we'd be stepping on a huge toe there.陣内Jinnai 16:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- They should have a read of MOS:FLAG. Infobox flags are a virtual no-no now. - X201 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well its not an absolute no-no, merely "avoid" and the anime project has WP:MOS-AM, so they are both equal-level MOS guidelines. My point being, its just best to steer clear of removing flags from those articles without getting local consensus.陣内Jinnai 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- They should have a read of MOS:FLAG. Infobox flags are a virtual no-no now. - X201 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Before you go too far check and see if they are also under other WikiProjects. I know Anime and Manga WikiProject prefers the use of flags in their articles and there's enough crossover titles that we'd be stepping on a huge toe there.陣内Jinnai 16:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I started going through it, but then I realized it was unreferenced anyhow and so I might as well take my patented GordianKnotTM technique. : ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Project Cafe
Please come comment on Project Cafe and it's AFD. It'd be nice to hear more input from people who know more about Wikipedia policy. There's an awful lot of "It's useful" and "It's probably true" type arguments going on right now, rather than about it's actual notability... Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Opinion sought for creating an article
Those that have followed the Portal 2 news likely know it was all preceded by an alternate reality game, which we'll call the "Potato Sack ARG" for now.
Many sources covered its progress, moreso when it appeared that it would end on 4/15 with the release of P2 (instead going to spoof GLADOS@Home). It has been critically praised and panned in RS's, and possibly tied to the low MC user scores. Edge magazine promises a behind-the-scenes featurette tomorrow on how it was created.
Effectively, I've got a who, what, when, how, and why, all the elements for an article, and I'm thinking that this can be split off into an article on its own given how long Portal 2's article is without the 3-4 para of reviewing information yet. I'm looking for any opinions mostly if there's any problems with this, because frankly I cannot see anything that would prevent this from occurring. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like general notability is met. The only question in a case like this is whether the topic presents better separately or together with the game or the whole marketing campaign. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
- Well, I have considered if the first ARG (the one that involved the SSTV images) could be mentioned as well, but that itself had less coverage though we now know the hows due to an easter egg in P2. The other publicity, the TV shots and ad campaign, really were a separate facet for the regular John Q Public, with only two ARG hints embedded in the last two videos (which otherwise were meaningless for the non-ARG player). So really just focusing on the Potato Sack ARG seems right. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
List of Dance Dance Revolution lists has been AfD
Another list AfD. I think this list will be cleared up right away. i doubt there will be any trouble.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Idea about future video games
Now, there;s a new a page for Future Films. Reading through it, I thought that there should be one for video games, called Wikipedia:Future Video Games. Any thoughts on it? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Pokémon Black and White setting image
A discussion is being held at Talk:Pokémon Black and White over whether an overworld map of the game's region should be used. Anyone interested should please participate in the discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the use of images at the above mentioned talk page. Anyone interested please participate in the discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
COD:MW3 up for afd
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is up at AFD, thought you all might want to weigh in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- (not to harang on this specific AFD, but to instead make a general comment with regards to the last few AFD notices here) We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion for a reason, and that's where project members should be observing for deletion discussions. IMO such AFD notices ideally should not be mentioned here for that reason, plus it wouldn't be fair for those lesser-known VG-related deletion discussions, as they don't get mentioned here at all. –MuZemike 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to say a similar thing. Unless the AfD didn't get mention from many of our established editors, and it is going in an undesirable direction, it doesn't need posting here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Silent Hill issues
A recent discussion suggests a compromise that the house fire and fake death from the plot section of the Silent Hill (video game) article should be moved to List of Silent Hill characters, but a possibly disruptive user seems to disagree with others. I believe moving it to the characters article should be a good idea. Can someone look into this issue please? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This is absolutely insane. First of all, I'm not a disruptive user. I added, literally, about three or four words to this article. Another editor,GoldenSugarplum, went crazy about it, because my additions were not sourced. She flat-out admitted knowing the information I added was true, yet repeatedly undid my edits anyway. As it is, the article is so cluttered with sources, it's near impossible to read or edit. Due to this and her repeatedly harassing me and acting superior by "notifying" me and acting like I'd done something wrong, I found myself repeatedly asking her to stop harassing me. She did not, and I finally accused her of vandalism, since she was undoing edits she knew to be legit, simply because she could. She has not only harassed me repeatedly on my talk page, but on the article's talk page as well. She's also reported me. And now this. There is no reason to keep doing this. A Request For Comment was opened ages ago, and the matter was discussed. Golden has lied repeatedly about what people have said any what has happened, and she'll no doubt do it here as soon as she learns about this. Both the house fire and the resulting death are mentioned in the prologue of the game, in the manual, and both are fairly important. That the child is not actually dead, that her death was faked by another main character, and that her mother is the one responsible for the fire, are all relevant. It's also quite important to make it clear that she was not hospitalized in the hospital she was hidden away in for seven years, but imprisoned. Officially, she was reported dead. She was kept locked bedridden in the basement and essentially tortured. You can't even call that forced hospitalization.Yomiel (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Anachronox mutual copyedit invitation
I'm ready to push Anachronox for FA. Its 10 year anniversary is at the end of June, and I want to try and DO THE IMPOSSIBLE and get it to FA and on the main page in time (I know; I probably won't be able to get the request approved, but it's worth a shot). The most consistent crippler of FACs is copyedit concerns, and so I want to obliterate the very chance of that happening. Like The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest, I want to offer my services in copyediting 5 articles requested by other editors, if they'll take a look at Anachronox. I'll print out the article you request and do an actual hardcopy review of it, which always seems to produce more tight results than copyediting a computer. This worked out great last time; TRAJQ flew past FA with great prose. So if you'd like me to copyedit your article in exchange for taking a look at Anachronox, give me a reply here and I'd be glad to do it! I'm going to limit the number to 5 to prevent complete loss of my free time and sanity. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're editing Wikipedia and you think you have sanity to begin with? Oh my. --Izno (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, this AfD has been open since the 2nd of April. It's awaiting further comment, so I invite you to do so. Thanks! Marasmusine (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the Good Article nomination for this article, and would like expert second opinion on issues specifically relating to the style of video games-related articles. Please discuss the review here. I would like to draw expert attention to three specific issues:
- Whether the Gameplay and Synopsis sections are likely to be challenged as original research, and therefore need additional inline citations;
- Whether the tone of the article, in particular for content regarding Gameplay and Synopsis, is appropriate;
- and whether all the cited sources qualify as reliable independent sources. --Deryck C. 14:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)