Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 23 May 2007

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2014-05-29 Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Buff Technologies (2 participants) Imakuni? (3 participants) Tetr.io (7 participants) Benedikt Johannes Hofer (6 participants) Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor (22 participants) RealFlight (2 participants) Gameplay of Dragon Quest (7 participants) Rainbow Computing (2 participants) Nebulae (video game) (2 participants) Double Fine Comics (3 participants; relisted) Westballz (2 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Chris Redfield (nom) List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Good article nominations Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (nom) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Cry of Fear (nom) Moida Mansion (nom) Aperture Desk Job (nom) A Space for the Unbound (start) The Sims: Livin' Large (nom) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (252) screenshots (9,023) photos (72) translation from japan (187) creation merging

WPCVG Talk Archives

01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30

How to archive a talk page

Template:WPCVG Sidebar

Video game peer reviews needed

If someone has the time, Wild Arms (series) and Mana (series) have been listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Peer review since late March with no comments. Pagrashtak 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to StrategyWiki from game articles

As there is nothing in the VG guidelines regarding linking to external sites, I wish to raise an issue covered in this brief discussion. I would be interested in hearing comments from other project members and possibly include a clause in the guidelines that addresses this point. --Scottie_theNerd 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Read over the guidelines at WP:EL. Do these links meet those guidelines? -- MisterHand 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, linking to open wikis is not advised unless it contains a large number of contributors and is proven to be stable. Whether or not SW is stable is up to debate. I have little experience with SW, but my understanding is that there is no authoritative source on what SW puts up. --Scottie_theNerd 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• We NEED to link to other Wikis. It gives fans a clear place to go to dump their cruft. — Deckiller 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of External links. We link to StrategyWiki and other game Wikis from WP:VG. Should be link to every article on SW, considering that SW lacks the coverage that other sites have? --Scottie_theNerd 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I know the purpose of external links. One such purpose is "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". My comment was not necessarily geared toward StrategyWiki, but Wikias in general. For instance, an article on Star Wars vehicles can have an external link to the Vehicles category at Wookieepedia; Misplaced Pages should not have individual entires for each vehicle, so an external link to the place that covers such information in greater detail should be provided. As for StrategyWiki, I think it should only be used if it is has a database larger than any Wikia on the topic. — Deckiller 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Command: Revolution

I wasn't sure whether or not to put this under "New Articles," since it's not a new article, although if you check the history, it wasn't much of an article before I edited it today. So I won't put it there for now. Also, I'd appreciate any help I could get on this article, especially as the game has essentially been forgotten... --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

PC

I have been working on disambiguating links pointing to PC and was wondering how it should be handled on video games. Should they point to Personal_computer, IBM_PC_compatible or Windows. I think Windows is the best option, but wanted get some feedback. -- pb30<talk> 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the game. Some games described as running on PCs run on MS-DOS, for example. Nifboy 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT Game Guide

I've been citing the game guide part of WP:NOT as an argument in various assessments and discussions for a long time now, and I know a lot of others do.

The sentence "Misplaced Pages is not a game guide" is explained only by two words in a list in WP:NOT - "Game guide". This seems a bit light for something very important to WikiProject Video Games. Has anyone written an essay explaining the ambiguity of "not a game guide" a bit? If not, is there interest in writing such an essay, whether in WP:VG space or elsewhere? (List of names!)

• --User:Krator (t c) 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I just googled it, and I found Misplaced Pages:Game guide, which attempted to explain it. hbdragon88 19:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:CVG/GL#Scope of information. JACOPLANE • 2007-05-10 19:51

Zelda Oracle merge discussion

Should The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages be merged? Discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Pagrashtak 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems they have already been merged. Kariteh 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to bring this up here as well, but until this is sorted out the FAC process is probably going to be on hold. I'll just summarise the arguments here:

Merge - The development history is the same. The plots are interlinked. Gameplay mechanics are largely the same. Reception is very similar. Merging would reduce redundant sections yet still present all the relevant information. The differences that would justify a merge are possibly cruft that should not be included. The merged article can contrast the games by presenting information on both side-by-side.

Don't Merge - While the plots are interlinked, they can also standalone. Unlike Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow, the locations, characters, items are completely different. One game focuses more on action, the other on puzzles. Some assert that merging would obfuscate information on the separate games.

- hahnchen 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging doesn't obfuscate anything. If anything, if facilitates contrasting the two games. Pagrashtak 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not championing any particular argument, just stating the arguments that have been made. - hahnchen 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was stated as a fact. Changed the wording. Pagrashtak 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the background for those who don't know: I started working on these articles because I hadn't done any work for a featured article in quite a while, and these two were in poor shape. I started with the Development section first, since these two have a very interesting history. As I was writing, I realized that since the two games were developed simultaneously, their development histories would be identical. I considered merging, but the articles were in such an early stage that it was hard to say for sure if it would be the best option. I worked everything in parallel; the plot section was the only section with significant differences. I submitted to GA and peer review; the articles passed GA, reviewed by two different editors at two different times, but the peer review got little to no response. I decided to proceed with FAC. I received objections based on the redundancy between the two articles. I left the comments alone for a little while, then proceeded to merge. The merged article got several supports, then A Link to the Past reverted the merge and we're discussing it now. Pagrashtak 20:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the FAC discussion and the developments to the article(s). At first I thought that a merge wouldn't be a good idea (due to the differences between the games), but the result seems to have been a good one. --- RockMFR 20:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the same thing. Together, the content is much stronger, succinct, and even more comprehensive in some ways. Just because technically the articles "deserve" seperate articles doesn't mean we have to give it to them. After all, we aren't a shrine to notability and things "deserving an article"; Misplaced Pages is meant to provide a succinct and general overview of topics. — Deckiller 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oracle of Ages/Seasons appears to be just like the regular Pokémon games, and those articles are always been togther; i.e. Pokémon Red and Blue, Diamond and Pearl. I see that Kicking222 feels the same way. hbdragon88 22:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not like the Pokemon games, in the sense that they have different (but connected) storylines, whereas the plot in Pokemon games is the same. The argument for merging the two articles together though, is presented at the FAC or above. - hahnchen 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge - The plots may not be identical, but they are incredibly similar. We have plenty of articles on Misplaced Pages that include games and their multiple sequels in lieu of separate articles when there's not enough unique information about each one, and I think that applies for two games with identical or very similar developments, plot, gameplay, and reception. The merged article is excellent, and in no way is confusing about having 2 games in one article. --PresN 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging seems the most sensible solution. Why have two articles that say practically the same thing simply because Nintendo wanted to make an extra buck? Let's not make things any more complicated for ourselves than they need to be. The arguments above and on the FAC page for merging are far more convincing than those for keeping the articles separate. — Brian (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra buck? They made two original games using the same gameplay mechanics. Also, don't merge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. The gameplay is the same, they were developed alongside, were released alongside, and were received similarly. Because of these things, it is very easy to discuss them alongside. Having them separate creates great redundancy - gameplay, development and reception sections would be repeated twice over. --Teggles 05:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On a slight tangent Alttp, those sentences about assigning items to buttons is fine. On the FAC, I thought you were going to include item lists like "The Switch Hook, Magnetic Gloves etc." - hahnchen 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge. While I don't agree with comparing this to Pokémon—which only alters the exclusive Pokémon and the name of Team Whatever—the merged article has come out very nicely. The problem is that since the games were developed as a pair separate articles would inevitably be repeating each other as far as information on development and password linking goes. While I agree the games are popular enough to earn separate articles, the high level of redundancy is a strong point against this unless those sections were to be transcluded (which generally isn't used for non-template purposes). Garrett 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the discussion favors the merge. If anyone else has anything to add, please speak up. Pagrashtak 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion here has been strongly in favor of merging, I've resubmitted to FAC. Thanks, everyone. Pagrashtak 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Donkey Kong infobox image

What is the appropriate infobox image for an article on a game that began life as an arcade game? Specifically, I'm asking about Doney Kong. User:Salavat seems to prefer the NES box art, but that seems misleading to me, since the game was originally an arcade title and has been ported all over the place since. I've replaced the box art there with the arcade title screen a couple of times already (since that's what's been in the article for a very long time), offering my explanations in the edit summaries, but I'm wary about doing so again without some outside input. What's the best practice in this situation? Thanks, — Brian (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the game is primarily an arcade game, the title screen is appropriate. Pagrashtak 04:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Arcade game so title screen is the norm. - X201 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand, please.

• Ultimate Brain Games (Game Boy Advance)
• Ultimate Card Games (Game Boy Advance)
• Ultimate Card Games (Nintendo DS)
• Ultimate Brain Games (Nintendo DS)

I have no knowledge of the games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be more intuitive to move the DS titles to Ultimate Card Games DS and Ultimate Brain Games DS respectively? And place the GBA games in Ultimate Card Games and Ultimate Brain Games? Note that I know absolutely nothing about the games. - hahnchen 14:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that those are the titles, though. There's also a PlayStation version, so we couldn't give the GBA games the main articles. Anyway, I know about as much as you about how they play. I only know little details, like that the DS games are supposedly online and that they've been delayed time after time after time. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could be some scope for merging articles here, so I've placed merge tags on the respective articles. --Oscarthecat 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We should do it Namco Museum style - merge all versions into one article. I'd keep the "Brain" and "Card" ones separate for now. hbdragon88 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Update - Ultimate Brain Games article now contains merged articles, covering DS+GBA. --Oscarthecat 07:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Update - Ultimate Card Games article now contains merged articles, covering DS+GBA. --Oscarthecat 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

STATION Magazine

I'm looking for some info on a UK PlayStation magazine called STATION. I can't find any info about it anywhere (except for the editors own web page - and I want an unbiased source). Did anyone here buy it? In actual fact has anyone here EVEN seen a copy of it? Did it really exist? For a magazine that the editor claims had the highest ABC figures of any PlayStation magazine it's presence is conspicuous by it's absence. - X201 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, the only source I can find is at Dave Perry's site which I'm guess you're alluding to above. But the Playstation era is 10 years back, and people have very short memories in regards to the magazine industry. A google found that it did exist, here's one on eBay. - hahnchen 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the Dave Perry article I'm referring to. Just trying to get some cast iron facts into an article that is looking like a self-PR piece. Could someone do me a favour and go over the most recent page of edit histories and just tell me what opinion (if any) they form about those edits. Thanks. - X201 09:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of issues are for sale on RetroTrader, see issues here and here. --Oscarthecat 09:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For more magazine editor/former games show personality self-aggrandising, see Martin Mathers. - hahnchen 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the ebay link, I actually owned several Station magazines at some point in time. Can't remember what happened to them... --Mika1h 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings up for deletion

Should we have spoiler warnings in articles or not? Discussion on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion at the provided link, but... I don't understand why anyone would want to delete a tag whose only purpose is to try and prevent the user from inadvertently ruining their experience of a given fictional work. Of course, I never cease to be surprised by how lame Misplaced Pages policy can be. -- Slordak 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The rationale is that since Misplaced Pages is not censored (see autofellatio for a very NSFW example, although it now has partial censorship in the form of the photograph being collapsed) it does not make sense for less contentious information (i.e. spoilers) to be "censored" via the large warnings. Garrett 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Egad, MFD is not the correct forum for policy pages (WP:SK). The censorship argument is nonsense, as it isn't removing the data from view, just warning people what's up ahead. "Not censored" is usually for debates on whether to show graphic pictures of nudity or not, in which total removal would be censorhip.hbdragon88 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, good news, it has been moved to WP:RfC. Secondly - "The censorship argument is nonsense, as it isn't removing the data from view, just warning people what's up ahead" - it's not nonsense. It's the primary argument as to why users are not warned about nudity, profanity, violence, and anything else people might find objectionable (except plot details and magic tricks... heh). --Teggles 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, in that context (no warning for nudity and such), that makes sense. hbdragon88 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedruns

Category:Speedruns and it's only article: Quake done Quick. How exactly is an article talking about speedruns of Quake notable? I can understand the Speedrun article being kept, but articles talking about/listing speedruns for a certain game, don't seem worthy for a Misplaced Pages article. As for the category: as I read the speedrun article, there is a few other related speedrun articles, but not alot. So I'm not sure if the category is worth keeping for a few things. There is Category:Competitive video gaming, which the speedrun articles could go into I guess. RobJ1981 05:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you could put that into competitive gaming, but I do feel that both the "Speedrun" category and "Quake done Quick" should be deleted. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Quake done Quick. Go for it. I find such coverage to be problematic, espeically in the main Speedrun article; some information of which only has a primary source (the site itself) rather than third-party sources. hbdragon88 06:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of computer and video game collector and limited editions

This was recently kept: and I was never even informed that my nomination was done in error. I think that's wrong. It was listed at several deletion lists: but not everyone always checks those (or should have to). People from the original vote should've been notified about a new one. So a new vote happened: and everyone almost voted to keep this garbage. This is proof the AFD process fails at times here on Misplaced Pages. In June or July this needs to be re-nominated with everyone actually knowing about the debate this time. Listcruft (much of which is unsourced, and I see no attempts by anyone to source it) articles don't belong: imagine if a DVD collector/limited edition list happened; it would be even worse I bet. RobJ1981 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was listed on WP:CVG/D, which is good reading for any member of the CVG project. hbdragon88 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rob, yeah you WERE informed. Directly. By me. On your own talk page! So you had your chance to have your say and YOU failed your own cause, not Misplaced Pages process. And stop being so idiotic with comparisons to other imaginary lists that this one is not. "IMAGINE THIS IS A LIST OF ANTS LIVING IN MY BACKYARD IT WOULD BE WORSE" - Great Rob, but that does not matter because this ISNT a list of that! Your arguments are terrible and full of fallacies, and between them and your failure to tag the AfD, makes me wonder if you even understand the AfD "process" much less value it. Both times the article was tagged properly (and process was in check) the article was voted overwhelmingly to be kept. The only time it failed was when YOU disregarded process. It should be clear that users feel it should stay so leave it alone and find some other article to crusade against. Deusfaux 04:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I just saw it now, so I missed it before. Telling me to "stop being idiotic" is just rude, and not needed. All the other editors that voted keep before: should've been notified about the new afd (and I somehow bet they weren't). I don't have to "leave it alone" as you put it. In a month's time or so, I have every right to nominate it, and actually notify people that a new vote is going to take place. RobJ1981 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I retract "stop being so idiotic with..." and replace it with "stop providing illogical and invalid arguments with..." And I removed your tag from the article. Seriously, find something productive to do if you are capable. Deusfaux 08:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop being uncivil, Seriously, find something productive to do if you are capable wasn't needed. I have every right to my own opinion, just because you don't agree with it, doesn't give you the right to attack me and/or be rude about it. RobJ1981 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Deusfaux, can you read WP:CIVIL please, thanks. Marasmusine 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all been noted by now, I learned things there like how Rob shouldnt have opened things by insulting the work of other editors! yippee! Deusfaux 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

High Scores : Fancruft?

Hi - am having a discussion on Talk:Space_Invaders#deleting_space_invaders_high_scores about whether the Space Invaders article ought to have high scores on there, and if so to what degree of detail. Eager to involve other folk on the project, to get a range of views. If we can get some consensus on this, updating the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines with what is and isn't fancruft may be worth doing. Thanks, --Oscarthecat 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, high scores and speedruns are forms of cruft that have no place in a general-purpose encyclopedia. At the very most, I think an article on a game can report the highest score and the fastest speedrun, provided both facts can be attributed to reliable, verifiable sources (i.e., not a blog or a fanpage). — Brian (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say its importance is just as relevant as including who the record holder for high jumping, or drinking records or other world records that are common to include in encyclopedic article entries. The job of an encyclopedic entry is to inform the reader, who may not be aware of the entire spectrum of facts (i.e. not useless tidbits of trivia) surrounding an entry. And as someone who writes and works in the video game industry, I can honestly say that such records are not trivialized. --Marty Goldberg 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of scope; I hardly think the "beer drinking record" belongs on the beer page. But, like I said, such records can have a place in an article so long as they are sourced to reliable, verifiable sources. And I don't think 30-year-old records (as are being added to the Space Invaders page) are pertinent, nor are detailed histories of who held the record when over time. Report the current record and drop it. — Brian (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold in updating the guidelines page... If people disagree with your changes I can assure you that all hell will break loose :) This is a good thing on a wiki!! JACOPLANE • 2007-05-21 01:04

StarCraft articles

A few more sets of eyes on articles related to Starcraft would be appreciated. Edits related to StarCraft II are being placed in articles other than the obvious one and often include speculation, OR, and POV comments and assertions. For example, I've reverted a few edits to StarCraft: Ghost‎ and I'd appreciate some help there. Thank! --ElKevbo 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GCOTW

I don't think that I'll have the time to prune or update the GCOTW in the next three weeks... could someone here volunteer to take care of it for a while, I'd be more than happy to explain exactly what needs to be done. Thanks in advance. JACOPLANE • 2007-05-21 01:09

Template:Infobox CVG footnotes

On April 1, 2007 at 15:58 (UTC) we came to consensus in Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (archived here) to add information to the infobox of its article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, however, unlike other the other infobox templates, {{Infobox CVG}} did not support foonotes, so I edited the template to support footnotes and discused the change on Template talk:Infobox CVG § Footnotes on April 1, 2007 at 17:19 (UTC). On 23 April 2007 at 11:53, Combination reverted my edit without discussing the change on the talk page. I explained I do not support Combination removing footnotes, because it is not an unused field, and the purpose of this field and why it is necessary. Articles such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use footnotes in their infobox. Other infoboxes use footnotes, such as {{Infobox Country or territory}}. (See United Kingdom for an example.) They are not redundant, and they do not belong at the end of an article. Combination continued to revert without discussing it on the talk page. Long story short, we've been in an edit war. I want Combination to talk about this. I have given my reason for adding footnotes, and video game articles, such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use them. We have come to a consensus to move the information from a different section in the article to the footnotes of the infobox, just like {{Infobox Country or territory}} does with United Kingdom, on the talk page. Combination continues to revert without discussing it here. When I go to edit videogame articles that use Infobox footnotes, I see they are gone, and the information is lost and reduces the quality of the article. In addition, the footnotes have citations, and removing the footnotes deletes the linkback to them. In essence, the reader wonders something like, "Um, I see reference 4 in the References section, but it doesn't exist in the article? Why is it here?". Combination finally discusses the issue,

I'm tired of this. Can we just have footnotes like other civilized templates? Thanks in advance! ☺ Taric25 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you need a footnote in the infobox itself. Is there something wrong with having the footnote at the bottom of the article just like almost every other one that uses them? You say that they do not belong at the end of an article, but why? You give no reason for that. It seems to me that you changed the template (which I'm shocked isn't fully protected), then used that change in one article, then claimed that a reversion was unjustified because that change was now being used. I know that it's a small change that's being used in one article, but you really should have discussed it here first before you messed with a template used in 16000+ articles. --PresN 06:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the template to its original (no footnotes) state and protected it, while we discuss on the talk page. --Oscarthecat 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories for arcade games by years

Do these even need to exist? Arcade games are video games: so the should only have the video game year category, right? Category:Video games by year is where the arcade years are listed now: 1971 to 1999. RobJ1981 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to see them eliminated, personally. There's a discussion going on here: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22#Category:Arcade games by year

Brain Age 2

There's a dispute over the title of the sequel - whether it should be Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day or More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain?. While the first game was indeed titled in accordance with the NA version based on it being released there first, the fact that the EU version is coming first should trump consistency. On top of that, Iwata recently criticized NoA because Brain Training (the EU version of the first game) has been selling 30,000 on average per week in EU, while Brain Age only did 10,000 per week on average. Additionally, most Chart-Track charts in EU and the Australian chart show Brain Training to be a strong contender week after week, and a press release from at least two months ago say that Brain Training has sold 2 million in Europe (comparing that with New SMB which was 2 million + the fact that Brain Training has been beating New SMB regularly in EU = 2nd best-selling EU DS game behind Nintendogs), while by the end of March it hasn't broken 1.5 million in NA. Fact of the matter is that the series is so much more popular and well-known in Europe and Australia, and Nintendo acknowledged that by the fact that Europe is getting preference with the release of the sequel. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The more notable one seems appropiate. Sephiroth BCR 06:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to clarify that so I know which way you stand for definite - I have a strong feeling that I know which way you lean, but I want to be sure. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The latter title. If it truly is as popular as you say it is, and was specifically marketed to a European clientele, then that title is preferred, as it is the one that most gamers will know it as. Sephiroth BCR 06:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this should really be handled on the talk page for that article.

However, until then, the fact remains that both the north american and european titles are very much well-known. This isn't a case of one obscure title, and one very prevalent title. How well they did relative other games is irrelevant. Even if you wish to talk numbers, what are the precise numbers in both markets? (That is, precisely how many were sold in europe, and anywhere else where it's called "brain training", and how many were sold in the US, Canada, and anywhere else it's called "brain age"?) Of course, I don't think those numbers would be entirely relevant anyways, since I don't get the impression there's a huge margin. (If it is, indeed, 2 million to 1.5 million, then, no, that isn't enough of a difference to break the article titles.)

I think that naming consistency is significant. Having Brain Age for one title, and "Brain Training" for the sequel is needlessly complicated. (Especially considering the fact that there are already so many other similar titles in the market) From a very quick glance, if one were to see "Brain Age", "Big Brain Academy", and "More Brain Training", there would be nothing in the title to indicate which two were from the same series.

Also, do you have any information to cite one title being better-known than the other? Or any reason to have two games within the same series follow entirely different naming conventions, beyond simply, "Brain Training sold marginally better than Brain Age"?

But, again, this really should be handled here. Bladestorm 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Template edit war

Could I request that project members who have an interest in the CVG Infobox please go to the project talk page and read the Footnotes discussion between the disputing parties and add a bit of practical advise to move the discussion on from the constant revert revert revert that has been going on over the past weeks. - X201 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the template to its original (no footnotes) state and protected it, while we discuss on the talk page. --Oscarthecat 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Strategy Games Stub Template

What does everyone think about the image of a tank on {{Strategy-videogame-stub}}. Could we get something appropriate for this? G1ggy! 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's one thing trawling the CGW archives has taught me, it's that wargames (particularly WWII) essentially defined the strategy genre years ago. Therefore, I think it's wholly appropriate. See also: Crimson Fields, the game the image comes from. Nifboy 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That image is actually quite hard to pick out with its dark greens and blacks. I don't think there's anything wrong with a tank image, but something a little bolder and iconic would do. Although to be honest, I really wouldn't mind just standardising all cvg stubs with the cvg controller image. Consistency rocks. - hahnchen 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Video game download prices (again)

The previous discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/archive26#Wii_Points:_to_list_or_to_not_list.3F. There is also an active discussion here about it: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_sales_catalogue_or_price_guide. To summarize it: in my opinion (and others) download prices for the newest consoles (Wii, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360) shouldn't be listed. Prices are listed on the official sites for the downloads and many other gaming sites, an encyclopedia shouldn't be a price guide...period. RobJ1981 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclpedic" is defined by Webster's as being comprehensive on a branch of knowledge. In the interest of being comprehensive, naturally we would list prices that are completely standardized - these aren't prices that change from store to store, like most products that might go on "sale" at any time. A copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles downloaded off of the Wii Shop Channel is going to cost the same in North Pole, Alaska as it is when downloaded in Enid, Oklahoma. And what do we want to be as an encyclopedia? We want to be informative. Useful. That's the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. So again, to be informative and useful... we list the prices, because that is both. I also notice that the "Misplaced Pages is not a price guide," they're a general good guideline, is not actually something you have linked as real policy. It's just something that's being DEBATED as policy. That's not the same as something we can take a hardline stance on. And even if we could, something that is a standard flat charge without concern of taxes or sales would be a natural exception. So again, Keep. In truth, I'm amazed this debate is still going. --Bishop2 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If Capcom sets an MSRP for a game, wouldn't that mean that it's the official price and that we must include the price? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, I could swear that, in the interest of being informative and useful, that would mean including game guide information. You're also absolutely wrong about the price changing in different areas, there's a thing called an "MSRP". --Teggles 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and do you know what the "S" stands for? SUGGESTED. That's why, today, I walked into Best Buy and saw 'Spider-Man: Battle for New York' for $19.99. Then I went into GameCo 10 minutes later and saw the same game for $29.99. It's also why I can find the DVD of Pirates of the Caribbean: CotBP at Best Buy for $14.99, and then see it in Target for $13.77. Prices are different based on what the store opts to set them at. Prices of Xbox Live Arcade or Wii Shop Channel games don't change anywhere in the continent, no matter where you shop from. --Bishop2 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate the opinion that unless it deviates from Virtual Console#Pricing, it's not worth mentioning for each of the twenty-some articles it's in. Certainly, there are days where context can be worthwhile (e.g. a reviewer saying "Alex Kidd isn't worth $8"), but that's an actual reason to mention the price. Nifboy 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out (in the case of Virtual Console games for the Wii at least): games are a constant price, with only a few exceptions. The table at the list page for the games: doesn't need a special box to list the redundant price. I've suggested a compromise of just listing the overall price (per group of games), in each section...but no one seems to even agree with that. So this matter seems to be an "all or nothing" deal. In that case: prices shouldn't be listed. I try to compromise, but people don't want to listen. RobJ1981 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists