Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:31, 21 June 2008

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 (0 participants) Imakuni? (2 participants) Tetr.io (7 participants) Benedikt Johannes Hofer (5 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) Star Wars Republic Commando (series) (2 participants) Clare Siobhan (1 participant) 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 Dendy (nom) 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 (start) 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 (2) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (253) screenshots (9,024) photos (72) translation from japan (187) creation merging

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 176, 177 This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:WPCVG Sidebar

Template Addition?

edit: nevermind, already on there. 71.188.7.49 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft

There's a motherload of articles that really need a lot of work.

Lots of items of questionable notability:

• Minor power objects in Sonic the Hedgehog
• Minor technology in Sonic the Hedgehog
• Roboticizer
• Chaos Emeralds
• List of Items in Sonic the Hedgehog
• Super transformation (other media) - I added this one. Red Phoenix 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of locations of questionable notability:

• Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog)
• Earth (Sonic the Hedgehog)
• Hidden Palace Zone
• Knothole
• Minor locations in Sonic the Hedgehog
• Mobius (Sonic the Hedgehog)
• Mobotropolis
• Nameless Zone
• Shanazar
• Special Stage (Sonic the Hedgehog)
• Special Zone (Sonic the Comic)
• The Void (Sonic the Hedgehog)

And don't even get me started on the characters: Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters

This is such a tangled mess I hardly want to deal with it. I know it's probably intimidating for other editors too. But I figure I could flag it, if only for someone to tackle it at a later date. If anyone has a manageable solution rather than dealing with each article one-by-one, I'm sure we'd all benefit from it. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck there. Even on the grounds they need major improvement, a lot of it would face royal hell done en masse. The character ones would be the hardest problem...possibly merging the "zones" together though with care to keep content loss at near nill would be a good place to start for anyone tackling it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They're definitely going to need some work. Anything relating to the single items or locations of the series should just redirect to the series article at this point. I don't believe there are any worthwhile topics there. As for the characters, I have proposed before that only seven articles (Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Miles "Tails" Prower, Knuckles the Echidna, Doctor Eggman, Shadow the Hedgehog, Metal Sonic, and Amy Rose) and seven character lists (List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Sonic the Hedgehog (comic book) characters, Sonic the Comic characters, List of characters from Sonic X, List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series), List of characters in Sonic Underground, and Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog characters) be kept, give or take one or two. That would be a good goal to start off with. TTN (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A good step forward in this cleanup process would be to talk some sense into the Sonic fans at WikiProject Sega. User:Krator (t c) 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Krator). Apparently, I think TTN and Krator misunderstood me every time we've had a discussion, so please allow me to clarify. I think TTN's idea in this case is a good one, because this really is a lot of cruft (and you're getting that comment from the most active member of WikiProject Sega). However, I would like to extend the amount of articles (for characters) to eleven; adding Cream the Rabbit, Blaze the Cat, Silver the Hedgehog, and Rouge the Bat, which I think are more notable than the rest and if the correct information can be sifted out from all the fancruft that's out there on the internet, these four would make decent articles, as well. The others, I don't even see a snowball's chance in hell about finding the correct information. The zone articles, and I mean all of them should be either deleted or redirected, since those are obvious non-notable parts of the series. The only article I'm questioning on that list is Chaos Emeralds because the merger I set up hasn't done much good and I'm still not sure what to do with it. I've also added Super transformation (other media) to this list, as it's all full of fancruft and we didn't merge that into Chaos Emeralds, since I had a toss-up over merging or deleting and I still haven't decided. If TTN would be willing to flex with me on these last four articles—seeing as how we've had our debates before—then I'll be happy to support TTN's plan and I'll even help him get it done. The only user you have to worry about is User:Fairfieldfencer, a very rash inclusionist and the only other real active part of the project. Red Phoenix 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone just do me a favor and inform either WikiProject Sega or the Sonic Task Force (under construction) for me about this setup? Most of the project is full of extreme inclusionists (I consider myself a moderate eventualist and slight inclusionist) and I'd rather not incur the wrath of the people I work with. By the way, the Sonic Task Force is part of WikiProject Sega that is under construction because Sonic articles constitute a good chunk (but not more than 25%) of the project's articles and I, along with others, felt it necessary to have. We're still building it and making it active, but what we're talking about here would be a good step forward for both WikiProject Sega and the Sonic Task Force, to have major cleanup done. Red Phoenix 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, once the guideline discussion wraps up, I think they're going to have a hard time stopping us from merging as its a pretty obvious case of non-notable fictional elements... I'd rather they come quietly, but... *shrug* I'm busy cleaning up Myst cruft, so I'll recuse myself from another odious task this time around. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who isn't part of WikiProject Sega, who enjoyed the first three games in the series and who thought most of the rest of them really sucked, I would suggest the following:

• Delete and/or merge the vast majority of character articles. Leave articles for truly notable characters (Sonic, Knuckles, Rouge, Cream, Robotnik, etc.) only if sources support them.
• Delete all of the locations articles. All of the ones I've looked at so far (a) are in-universe only, and (b) have no specific meaning or notability outside of the game.
• Delete all of the technology articles and condense only the most notable material into a general article about the series. It is absolutely fine to talk about the general (and repeated) concept of turning animals/living beings into robots - that defined the series. But we don't need details or even summaries of all the various ways in which this is done - just mentioning the existence of a variety of machines should be sufficient.
• In notable character articles, more out-of-universe information is needed. The articles seem rather heavy on in-universe info and character evolution, as well as semi-unrelated details about other characters that were considered (Robotnik's article suffers heavily from this).
• I would suggest that common themes and items (like Chaos Emeralds, Power Rings, etc.) should be mentioned in brief prose in a series article, and as appropriate within individual game articles. Again, it's a question of what's needed to get the average non-gaming reader to understand the game (or series, or individual character) as a whole, and what that reader would really care about if they didn't already know a lot about the game.

I know I'm kinda beating the same drum here, but these are my thoughts after reviewing about half the articles in the above list. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tend to be an eventualist too. I don't think we have to deal with the whole mess right now and I think it would be enough to even put a dent in some of this. For that reason, I think it's better to focus on whatever we agree with than to pick fights over the few things that we disagree over.
I'd be willing to initiate talks with wikiproject sega. I presume at their usual talk page? My only question is what you'd want me to say. I know a lot of people are resistant to change, and I want people to understand that I'm doing this to improve the wikipedia, not as an uptight power trip. Randomran (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't other trying to split this between here and the Sega project. They only have a few active members (I would personally call it dead), and one of them has already commented here. Leave a note for sure, but the ones that haven't commented here will have little to add to the discussion. They'll only add to the need to play the number consensus game. TTN (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the video game characters, this revision of the main list would be a good start. It contains the important recurring characters, while the one game characters on the two remaining lists should redirect to their game of origin. TTN (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad revision, TTN. I would agree with starting with that. It's pretty clean-cut, covers the most important bases, and it is much improved compared to all the cruft. Not to mention, of course, that it leaves the four articles I mentioned intact. I will have to get started finding sources and out-of-universe information, but it's going to take a little time to sift through the cruft, not to mention I'm a little busy right now off Misplaced Pages.

Oh, and what's with all this discrimination on WikiProject Sega? I've been trying to steer it away from the leech-bed of problems that it was (including getting its founder, Gaogier, indefinitely blocked and forcing him to leave) and make it a more active, less one-sided affair. That's why I invited members like Bridies, who categorized himself as an exclusionist and immediatist (in direct contrast to views of others like Fairfieldfencer, the only other continuously active member). We've got 40 members, but no one else uses the pages, which is a fact that bothers me about this project I've put a lot of time into. Sorry for the off-topic discussion, just my rant for the day. Red Phoenix 01:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what's been said. There's even more extraneous articles than I was aware of. Bridies (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think Blaze, Cream etc are notable. All I can find is a single source each on IGN (maybe 2 for blaze). Team Dark, Team Rose, blaze. Bridies (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I say this, let me note that I know that popularity does not equal notability. However, of the characters I listed, Rouge has appeared in at least ten games as of now, Cream has been in at least four as a major character and appeared in many more as a playable, Blaze has been a major character in three games, and Silver was major in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game) but has also appeared in several later games, such as Sonic Battle and its sequel. That said, I think we can establish notability for these characters. I'll start taking a look for sources tomorrow, I'm too tired to do it tonight and I have things to do. Red Phoenix 04:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, would anybody mind if I started off with the TV series characters? I mean character articles such as Chris Thorndyke, Cosmo, Metarex, Mania, etc. As many agree here, they do not have enough nobility to warrant their own articles. The same goes with Sonic comic characters, there is over 12 character articles on this subject, and as mentioned, do not warrant enough nobility to keep as articles. Magiciandude (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At least the comic character articles have to go. Most of those are filled with excessive plot summaries and are generally not notable. For these articles, I favor deletion because I doubt that even in a list format it will have any notability or As for the TV series, I'm not exactly sure what the standard is for TV character articles in terms of notability, but in this case I favor a merge. Red Phoenix 04:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure no problem, I had already placing merge tages for the TV character series. I wanted to start with the TV series. Magiciandude (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start with the locations. I know these tend to be messy, but I think a blanket AFD is the best way to deal with all of these articles. Not one of them is notable and getting rid of them together will make the process much easier. Red Phoenix 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the AFD on the locations. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog)

First, I'd like to see if there is a Wiki(a) we can transwiki those articles to which are not notable. They look fairly detailed even for cruft, which I'm sure would be welcome on a Sonic Wikia. I would claim I'm a precisionist leaning inclusionist... As for the others, redirects to a list of minor / major characters of a series is an option, or as has already been done, redirects to the games which the most minor of characters are present in I would feel appropriate. --Izno (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here, this Sonic Wiki is part of Wikia. Magiciandude (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added info on what it would take to transwiki the articles to the AFD page. Red Phoenix 13:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job everyone. Thanks for taking this on. Now, what are we gonna do about the non-notable items? (Roboticizer and the like?) Randomran (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you can put together items and power objects and whatever else that is relevant into one list. Redirect anything else that can be redirected (like Chaos Emeralds into the series article section, yes, I've given up on that article), and delete anything else in separate AFD's. I don't think we can blanket these like we could the others. I'm going to go ahead and put up the AFD for Super transformation (other media) since it's the wastes of other articles anyway. It will be at the link below. (link should turn from red to blue after I put up the AFD here in a few minutes.)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Super transformation (other media)

That's just my opinion, of course, but I think it's the best action. Red Phoenix 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(long sigh) Well, getting accused of being a sockpuppeteer by an IP address in the Angel Island AFD is a little disheartening. Anyway, I'm going to propose a redirect: Chaos Emeralds to Sonic the Hedgehog (series)#Emeralds per a suggestion by TTN a few weeks ago. I seriously doubt the article would survive an AFD anyway and there's really nowhere else to put it (I think Minor power objects in Sonic the Hedgehog is probably a little inappropriate for such a redirect). It's kind of weird to be proposing all these deletions and redirects and merges; I certainly hope this doesn't mean my eventualist-incrementalist philosophy is changing. Red Phoenix 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Most of us go through phases. I've been on a cleanup binge lately because I'm waiting for a few resources/editors to get back to me on improving some other articles. Don't let the accusations get you down. It looks like that person was just a single purpose account. We have your back if things get out of hand. Randomran (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't let it get me down. Just the first time that's happened to me, that's all. As long as I know I'm not a sockpuppeteer, nothing's wrong. Red Phoenix 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like E-123 Omega to be kept.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would like to say that I am entirely against this merge!! But since I'm the only one that is: I guess I have no choice but to stand aside and let you guys get on with it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like someone's appinion on whether or not E-123 Omega falls under the keep category.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please give me their appinion on the article being kept?!Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProjects/task force may also want to look closer to home, if Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) only has a small number of sources (in particular for the 16-bit Genesis/Mega Drive release) to verify notability of what should be one of the most famous video games ever released in my opinion, then something is badly wrong (an article that should of course never be deleted in my opinion). A lot of the game articles have no sources to meet notability, strange considering Sonic's long and well known legacy in video gaming - Sonic the Hedgehog CD only has two and has a lot of citation needed tags on it. Knuckles Chaotix has two sources, one is no longer available and the other is for a forum, which goes against WP:RS. I would suggest this should be next after the "cruft" is dealt with, either by fixing or transwiki/AfD these articles. --tgheretford (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain the game articles do have the notability to be kept, but we really need to start cleaning these articles up. Red Phoenix 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't just delete badly written articles (unless it REALLY is just a long personal opinion essay or something really off). We delete things for a lack of notability not just because they have no references, but because a quick search reveals that there are no references that meet the general notability guideline. The actual games may be badly written, but I'm sure there are references out there and a delete is not the best way to deal with them. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Now, let's get on to the next order of business. What about the items? Red Phoenix 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)r

Most video game items just aren't notable. Maybe references can show otherwise, but I don't think so. By our guidelines, a list of every item in the game isn't appropriate for articles. I would argue that these should all be deleted or redirected to a main article on the series. But if someone wants to assert that a few of these items (perhaps the rings?) are notable, then we can start the discussion there. Just my understanding of the notability requirement and the quality of these items. Randomran (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that if any item is notable in the series, it's the Chaos Emeralds, and that article is such a shambles that it's not even funny. I guess we need to redirect/delete/whatever it takes to rectify this. Red Phoenix 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And its ironic that that article was nominated for deletion in January, but kept on the condition that it is cleaned up. Clearly that hasn't happened. --tgheretford (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That was before the Sega Project or the Sonic Task Force was set up. And it's been tagged for clean up on the Sega Project To-Do list for ages. And the article has recently been merged with other articles and is still incomplete. It's not RP's fault that users are too lazy to help out an article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(long sigh) It's a shame the Sega Project has forty members but only two are active. That's probably part of why we have this problem in the first place, the project doesn't have enough actives to do its job and control the fancruft while cleaning up notable articles. Red Phoenix 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I share your frustration. The same thing happens with television and radio articles that I mostly get involved with, and appears to be a Misplaced Pages wide problem. I suppose its like regular housework, people are happy to edit but housekeeping isn't as enticing or motivating. --tgheretford (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we're doing some decent work right now with this. Hopefully that will help us catch up a bit. Red Phoenix 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why merge tags haven't been put on the articles? (Not including the Sonic X ones.)Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I just put them up myself.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Minor technology in Sonic the Hedgehog

What do we do with the video game characters?

We can discuss the comic characters elsewhere, and Magiciandude is dealing with the TV series characters (at least Sonic X, I think) by merging them. But now I'd like to bring up an important issue: What do we do with the video game characters?

TTN and Bridies have suggested seven character articles (Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Shadow, Doctor Eggman, and Metal Sonic). I have suggested eleven (adding Silver, Rouge, Cream, and Blaze). Fairfieldfencer has suggested also keeping E-123 Omega in addition to my proposal, and I think this could be possible. For everything else, we already have List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog, and Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) (which themselves need to be sorted out and cleaned up.) So anything that we decide not to keep as an article can be merged into that list. TTN has suggested this revision for the list; but notice that he leaves intact the four articles I suggested to be kept. For a guide to all of the Sonic characters articles and lists, we can use this template: {{Sonic characters}}

Okay, so any opinions? Red Phoenix 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me, with Omega as well. Only one that worries me a little is Cream, but that's more my unfamiliarity with the character really. You might dig around for design notes and prototype states etc for non-central characters to bolster their notability: Sega guys seem to like talking a lot more than a lot of corporate figures, so there's bound to be citable information. Reception is an important factor, but you might have trouble like I said with the less central and spotlighted characters. Just remember you can utilize merchandising to this end as well somewhat. I hope that helps you, I'd lend you a hand with the work on the articles but I'm busy with about 6 myself and held up on top of that with matters in life :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and to be honest I'm not an expert with writing fiction articles. Usually I work with the nonfiction side of the Sega world (such as consoles and companies), though I don't mind slipping in the occasional edit with Sonic the Hedgehog articles. I do, however, have an understanding of WP:FICT, and I'd say the twelve we have listed above would be fine. To be honest, the one that's worried me some is Silver, but I think there's enough there to make a case (plus he has some creation info, one of the few "iffy" characters with out-of-universe context). Red Phoenix 05:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the very least, that revision should be used for now, and those two other lists should redirect there. The single characters can always wait until the comic and television characters are all set. TTN (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can use it as a concept, but not an exact model. For starters, where are the pictures? I know we have a few on the article as it is now. It also seems that a bunch of minor characters were stripped from the article, though that may just be my eyes and I might be sorely mistaken. That's probably because there's so many lists here that everything's jumbled up. For example, is Marine the Raccoon (from the other character's list) any less notable than Bark and Bean? Stuff like this needs to be sorted out, but that revision is a good start. Let's discuss this further, this is probably going to be a very messy merge to perform. Red Phoenix 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There will need to be a large group image instead of any single images in order to comply with policy. Only characters that appear in multiple games belong on the list. While those two aren't really that important, they've been a part of a few games. If Marine is added to more games, there can be an entry added for it. TTN (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just thought I'd ask since Bark and Bean have been kind of like "bonus characters" without any real purpose while Marine has actually had a purpose in the storyline of the game she is in. As for the images, well, maybe we can find a group image with a few of them and we'll see what we can do with the rest. Red Phoenix 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we've had enough characters categorized as "minor" as is. Cream I understand somewhat, what with her lack of recent appearances and all (Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games notwithstanding,) but Blaze?!? And if Rouge the Bat is more important than Cream, then why wasn't she in Sonic and the Secret Rings or the aforementioned Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games? --Luigifan (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, as much as Garcia would hate it (don't ask,) I think that Marine is definitely a minor character. Storyline significance notwithstanding (about all she did was annoy Sonic, Tails, and Blaze to no end, with her only significant contribution to the heroes' cause being her hydrokinetic attack on the Egg Wizard at the end of the game,) Marine has only been in one game. Until she makes more appearances (which the end of Sonic Rush Adventure implies as a strong possibility,) I think she's stuck in "minor character" status. --Luigifan (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular character articles should really include Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Shadow, Doctor Eggman, Metal Sonic, Rouge the Bat, Cream the Rabbit, and E-123 Omega. The article Cream the Rabbit has over 15 references and does include real world information such as her voice actress (All of which are also referenced in the article). Cream has appeared in a multitude of games and establishes as much notability as a character like Metal Sonic, in fact the article on Cream the Rabbit has more references than both Metal Sonic and Shadow the Hedgehog. The E-123 Omega article also has a multitude of references as well and should be looked at carefully. As for articles on teams and some lists such as Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), this article should be kept in its current sate as the List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) would remove from the detail in this article. This article is far more notable than any articles on a single character as it contains 20 characters nearly all of whom establish notability. Providing more direct links from List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) to this article would greatly improve both. And on the suggested merge of Chaotix, this article is focused on a team that spans over 13 unique characters. Merging this article into List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) would be like merging an article like Avengers (comics) or the X-Men into List of Marvel Comics characters. These characters have made an appearance in multiple games, comics, and television show, it establishes notability as its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Luigifan, I never said Marine wasn't a minor character. But TTN is talking about not even including her in the list. Which would make sense, I guess (since she's a one-game character for now, a section in the Sonic Rush Adventure article makes more sense until she appears in more games, if she appears.) We should sort this with others, like moving the section about Ray the Flying Squirrel to SegaSonic the Hedgehog. I was just a little confused about Bark and Bean, since they're not even really Sonic characters, save for appearances in Sonic the Fighters. As for the articles, Silver the Hedgehog also has some real-world info (and I'll have to look into making the creation stuff more clear), so I think that one can be kept. Of the 12 FFF and I suggested, Blaze is probably the weakest, but I'll look into it when I have the time. Red Phoenix 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder, be careful not to get too hung up in major/minor character vs. notable character. A major character in a video game (or even a whole series) may still not warrant more than a brief mention in the series article because he/she doesn't have real-world notability. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One character that hasn't been mentioned is Sally. She is not only involved as a main character in a popular comic series, but she is also the co-main character in Sonic the Hedgehog, she plays a major role in Sonic Christmas Blast (Even though she has no speaking lines), she appears in Sonic Spinball, she was intended to be in Sonic X-Treme, and even made a cameo in the Stay Sonic guidebook. She even has a full concept and creation section, detailing her original look as "Princess Acorn" and including her development into what became known as "Pink Sally". Not to mention the fact that there are currently 3 outside sources, and as I work on the article the list of references will grow, along with adding full comic citations, and a Reception section that I'm trying to get going. Currently, I am also working on Mina and Sonic's Archie articles, but Mina is a comic-only character and Sonic already has his own character article. Please, let me finish my work on the Sally page. I've been working on it since December!! I can add a main article link to Sally's page on the comic character list. On the topic of merging the game characters, I agree with merging everyone that's not Sonic, Tails, Amy, Eggman, Knuckles, Shadow, Rouge, Cream, Blaze, Silver, or the Chaotix. These are main characters in the series and should be kept. I'm iffy on E-123 Omega, as he only made a major role in Sonic Heroes, and then he basically got forgotten about, except for a small role in Sonic '06. As for TV characters, I propose merging each show's characters in a respective list. For example: Move Queen Aleena to List of characters in Sonic Underground. Again, Sally's section in the "SatAM" character list could provide a link to her main article. As for comic characters, ugg. The comic characters are probably the articles I've been the most attached to on Misplaced Pages. It's gonna be really hard for me to take it in. However, it must be done. I suggest merging all of the characters on the comic (except Sally) into List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series), which I have just created. Sadly, it must be done. However, I will put all of the comic character articles (except minor ones) under my username in order to work on them behind the scenes, much like Fairfieldfencer who is working on Julie-Su's article "behind-the-scenes", only mine involves ALL major characters. I'll begin transferring the articles, and building the List page. Once that's done, I'll ask for the final call to redirect the pages. The only problem is Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series). This page is HUGE as it is, and merging it with the Main characters in one big list, presents a problem, as there are nearly 100 main and secondary characters in the comic. Should we keep 2 seperate lists, one being minor and one being major? This may be a better solution than making an already long list even longer. It's sort of like merging every single character in the Simpsons into one super-list. It'll be hard to manage and will be a mess. Please consider these ideas. Thank you.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help feel free to ask me and I'll try my best.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed up my comment. I've added a few things to it and merged them.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I have to keep saying KEEP SALLY'S PAGE ALONE!!! You keep thinking you can merge her simply into the comic character list. You can't. I'm trying to get the point across that she is notable in 2 different medias and is semi-notable in like, 4 other things. Plus, her article has references. It's not like all she has is comic references. The last thing that is really pissing me off is that no one will listen to this statement, "I'm not finished." Plain and simple. Don't put up merge tags until I'm done and you've checked it to see if it can qualify as a full article, THEN may you put up merge tags if it does not qualify.  Dylanlip  (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, relax Dylanlip. Just because there's a merge tag there doesn't mean she's instantly getting merged. It's a suggestion, not a mandate. If it is the case that you're fixing this article, then we'll wait, no questions asked. Everyone here will wait, the Sega Project will wait, and we'll see what you can do. That's part of Misplaced Pages, repair and not just straight-up write and merge. Just contact us when you're done and leave the merge tag up for discussion purposes only, that it has been suggested. Red Phoenix 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, plus with the merge tag up: it might bring more protestors to the merge of Sally.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I was starting to get worried. Just to tell everyone, I have created the comic character list already, and I have begun adding the full comic citations for Sally's article. I've found that there are just so many characters in the comic. I can't even count how many characters there are! I'm wondering if we should split Main characters from Minor characters, as the amount of characters in total is astounding. Just pondering the thought.  Dylanlip  (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We could do it alphabetically, too, like the Pokemon lists. Do an A-M and N-Z list or something like that. Just a suggestion. Red Phoenix 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, if we have all reached a consensus, can we remove the merger tags on some of the pages?Rogue Commander (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The "relationship/interactions with other characters" crap really needs to removed/trimmed badly. Just take a look at Shadow the Hedgehog. That's too much cruft right there. Oh and btw, think you can add Echidnas (Sonic the Hedgehog) and Mobians to the AfD or do you not mind if I do it? While skimming around for Sonic TV characters, I came across these. Magiciandude (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

fgsfds

Would "Burn them with fire" be too harsh an answer to the question? I read through Metal Sonic, for example, and it's dreadful. These articles are full of speculation and just plain made up bullshit. To share an example:

This creates a mental paradox: How could Metal Sonic truly believe himself to be the original Sonic whilst also believing that he was created for the purpose of destroying Sonic? Such a logical contradiction could probably be considered insane. Another possibility is that he believes himself to have been created first, as a precaution to the real Sonic's existence. More likely, however, is that these quotes suggest that his goal is to defeat Sonic and thus become the "true" (only living) Sonic by doing so. Also during this final battle, Metal Sonic reveals a tormented side to his personality, explaining that when he could not even succeed in what he was designed to do (defeat Sonic) he was left with no purpose.

ARGLBPHARGLE. This would be low-quality nonsense on a fanpage, and it's well below Misplaced Pages's standards. They're currently worse than the Pokemon articles were, and those were dire. There isn't any reason that all of these articles could not be cut down to three paragraphs tops, in their current form, and that includes Sonic the Hedgehog (character). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, A Man In Black, but seriously, you're overreacting. Part of Misplaced Pages is cleanup, not just merger. By the way, here's something you might be interested in in terms of that Metal Sonic "paradox". This quote is from Sonic Heroes:

I am the ultimate overlord, Metal Sonic! I am the real Sonic!

— Metal Sonic, end boss fight of Sonic Heroes

That's where that comes from. By the way, we don't delete articles and stuff based on how poorly they're written right now. We do it based on if it can be done. While we're dealing with this fancruft, we'll start cleanup efforts. Red Phoenix 20:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay. I want to clean up these articles. With a chainsaw. Aomeone took a SINGLE SENTENCE OF DIALOGUE and wrote a WHOLE PARAGRAPH OF SPECULATION based on it. That's the kind of nonsense these awful articles attract.

There's precious little to save in their current form, and no body of sources to use to turn them into something worth having. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

• Can I just ask what the significance of "fgsfds" is? --.:Alex:. 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's about as significant as "asklbgail" or "eibgaubgq3589" - just some random fat-fingering to express frustration. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically A Man in Black needs to lay off the caffeine it would seem. Anyway to argue for a merge is a stretch, the article is bad but salvageable, though by that that'd mean stripping down the old articles, rewriting them, and replacing them. But as long as WP:N and WP:V can be proven, "burn and merge" is a step in the wrong direction.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I still question whether anyone other than Sonic and Dr. Robotnik/Eggman can really successfully fulfill notability requirements at all. Perhaps a few of the secondary characters. Sonic stands the best chance because in addition to being the main character of all the games, he's also been Sega's mascot for years. Dr. Robotnik is probably also notable enough since he's the primary villain of the series, though even then, it might be a stretch if all the sources talk about is his role within the series.

I do think that if we have a consensus to allow lists of characters, that those articles should be reduced to one (maybe two) paragraphs of only the most essential information about each character. But I do NOT agree that there's any reason for Mecha Sonic to have his own article (nor for most of the other characters being discussed).

If you guys want a good Nintendo parallel, take a look at List of characters in the Star Fox series. The only character in this list to have his own article is Fox McCloud, and even the highly notable Andross and Krystal characters are just paragraphs in the list. While the Star Fox series isn't as synonymous with Nintendo as the Mario series, it's still one of their best-known series, and I think the work that was done on that characters article would serve as a good example for the Sonic characters as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with the above there (adding Tails into that as a trio given he's not always been strictly a support character). My point was to at least look intensely before razing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The main characters with with a chance of actual potential definitely need to be gutted and given the basic blank real world sections. The rest just need to be reduced to a paragraph or two. As I said before, this revision of the main game list is a good starting point at least. Revert to that and redirect Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), and besides merging some more secondary characters, the video game ones will be all set. TTN (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the character articles are just an utter mess, and we need to deal with them. I have already stated my opinion about TTN's proposal: while I don't agree with all of it, it's a good start, definitely, and we can go from there. The biggest problem with a lot of the character articles are violations of WP:PLOT. Red Phoenix 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with TTN. Cleanse these with fire. They're honeypots for the most awful useless fannish garbage.

Also, fgsfds = left fist applied to keyboard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonic should not be merged, because he's basically the mascot of Sega. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made my opinion known, but I'm just going to back out of arguing for it, because I'm not a major person when it comes to fiction. I work more with nonfiction stuff. But I will say this: if Mario deserves his own article, so does Sonic the Hedgehog (character). Red Phoenix 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Red Phoenix. This is the discussion as it currently stands:

Requires clean up, must keep no matter what:

• Sonic the Hedgehog

Requires clean up, strong keep:

• Dr. Robotnik
• Miles "Tails" Prower
• Knuckles the Echidna
• Shadow the Hedgehog

Requires clean up,keep:

• Metal Sonic
• Amy Rose
• Rouge the Bat
• E-123 Omega

Requires clean up, weak keep:

• Cream the Rabbit
• Blaze the Cat
• Silver the Hedgehog
• Chaos, God of Destuction
• Eggman Nega

Requires clean up, future uncertain:

• GUN
• Chaotix
• Babylon Rogues
• Chao
• Echidnas

I think this sums it up. Rogue Commander (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Requires serious cleanup, merge if no reliable sources that aren't the games/comics/TV shows/PRIMARY SOURCES can be found:

All of them

That's summing it up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe everyone reading this whole subsection got this point already through your sheer eloquence. To be perfectly blunt though and while still assuming good faith...you're behaving like a perfect ass in a calm discussion on fixing the articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a tendency to overcomplicate, and a distinct lack of outside perspective. What matters is not how many games a character has been in, or how important their role in those games are, or what color they are. What matters is the ability to write a well-sourced, comprehensive article. Right now, these (sometimes shockingly old) articles have not yet shown any potential to become well-sourced, and have long overstayed their welcome. The articles are bad and we should feel bad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, I agree with merging most of the characters, except for Sonic. He's one of the most iconic characters in video games - he's the mascot for Sega; his impact during the 16-bit era, both as character and and through his rivalry with Mario, was undeniable; and he's even on the inaugural Walk of Game. His article is salvageable (reducing the amount of story details and adding a proper reception section would certainly help) - "three paragraphs", as you claim, wouldn't do the character justice considering the impact and legacy the character has left. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, as I look at the Sonic article, I notice it already has a a pretty decent reception section and well-sourced section about the character's creation, both the kind of real-world information that should be in a good fiction article. Hell, it even points out that the character was the inspiration for the naming of a protein! You can't get me to believe you can summarize all the information in the entire article down to a handful of paragraphs on a list. Might as well suggest to summarize the Mario article down to two or three paragraphs and merge it into List of Mario series characters as well. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sonic article can be saved. Nonsense like the #Character section, though, inspires ARGLEPHBARGLE and the desire to purge with fire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Agree with the Character section, though; that and the music section of the article should be whittled down, if not outright eliminated. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters: can you quit it with the burn with fire thing. You sound like some sort of fictional power mad dictator. And these articles are salvageable, as the head of the Sonic Task Force I will see to it that these articles are fixed in the proper way.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

May I make a recommendation that, should you decide to just annihilate all of the character articles, that you first look to transwiki the content to http://sonic.wikia.org in case they could use the content? Also, I agree with Fairfieldfencer, WikiProject Sega and the Sonic Task Force are currently working to remove all the fancruft and clean this up. By the way, FFF, in case you haven't seen it yet, I think A Man In Black is even more deletionist than TTN, something I never thought I'd see. Oh well, his opinion. Red Phoenix 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling AMIB a "power mad dictator" isn't really a nice thing to do, though I don't think he'd mind.  ;) User:Krator (t c) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to point out that he's being a little over dramatic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

MWAHAHAHAHAHA-er. Power man dictator, I like that.

Sometimes, it's easy to get lost in "notability" and "appropriateness" and the sort of Wikispeak and stilted politeness, and lose track of why we're here: to make an encyclopedia that doesn't suck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To briefly drop in here, I think AMIB is right on every account. There's not much else to be said; a dramatic decrease in size for all of these articles, followed by a merge, would be the best option. From experience with this kind of issue (which we all share here), I think it is safe to conclude that when discussions end with results like "keep but cleanup" or "the topic is good, the article is not", the chance that nothing happens is colossal. Getting rid of the parts that should never return in whatever fashion should be the first step (speculation, plot repetition), and I think it's better to do that with the parts that need a lot of rewriting too. Editing an existing (bad) paragraph is much harder than creating a new (good) one. User:Krator (t c) 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think a problem that's kinda the culprit here is after the articles like Sonic were made and dubbed good, Misplaced Pages shifted gears drastically and said articles were now written 'wrong'. This resulted in two problems: editors that had been writing articles that way all this time now told they don't know what they're doing, and a slew that didn't follow the guideline anymore that would've been better just "rebooted" and written over completely. So one can't jump up and down shouting hellfire too much in a case like this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'groups/organisations' articles should just be AFD'd IMO, as they're duplicative of the other character articles. Many of them are fictional races, not even specific named characters. I'm going to prod tag the Mobians article briefly mentioned above, that article is so obscure it's ridiculous. Bridies (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, those are just some horrible article. And I think Kung Fu Man has a point, and the articles just haven't been able to make the shift. No one wants to do the cleanup. For example, I recently requested a GAR on Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and it was delisted. I looked through the history at what it was when it passed (February 2006 or so) and it completely violated WP:PLOT. So I definitely would say that has happened. Red Phoenix 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of more eccentric articles: Evolution of the Sonic Universe and Roboticization (not just about sonic). Not sure if these are legit or not. Bridies (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just say prod or AFD the roboticization article because Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As for the Evolution article, I'm not sure. Maybe it could be merged into the series article, but then again it concerns all of the aspects of the series, including the comics and TV shows. Not sure what to do with that one. Red Phoenix 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I put a PROD tag for Roboticizer, but it had one already...three years ago. Don't know what to do with the article though. Can anyone help? Magiciandude (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Roboticization is, I think, original research. I'll check for sources, if there's none I'll prod it. Evolution of the Sonic Universe I think is pretty much duplicative of other articles. Bridies (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Magiciandude, your prod was removed. I have made an AFD for it, though. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roboticizer (2nd nomination). Red Phoenix 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not with the merging again!?! realyy people just keep it as it is, Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy and Blaze should stick for the heroes...Shadow,Rouge, Omega and Chaos for netual...Eggman, metal Sonic and Nega for villains...and all of the lists shoould be left alone, why is it so important to merge they are all gonna have more infomation for them as the years go by so whats the point!? Behellmorph (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2008

Because these articles suck and cannot be made to not suck, basically. There aren't any references to use to make these into encyclopedia articles about the real world, so at best they'll be excessive plot summary and at worst they'll be full of speculation and fanon and fanfiction and just plain made up bullshit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with AMIB (much as this surprises me). Sonic should stay, Tails, Knuckles, Shadow, and Robotnik should stay. The others should be merged unless someone finds some good sourcing. giggy _(:O) 02:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so my position is clear, I think that we should merge unless someone finds reliable sources to create a standalone article. This is for all characters up to and including Sonic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Including Sonic?!? I think even TTN would be against that one.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm attacking the idea that "Sonic is a main character! We can't merge him!" Sure we can. Now, Sonic is a subject of commentary in reliable sources, but we need to be dogged about demanding those sources, not accepting "Well, he's important!" But it may turn out that that commentary is best organized in an article on the series as a whole, or on the cast as a whole, or in some other way.

We need to find sources and then follow those sources where they lead, and until then we need to clean the crap out of these articles with an eye to getting them to merge length. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you suggest the same for the Sonic games in the same way you suggest for even Sonic? As I mentioned earlier on in this section, the game articles are badly lacking third party sources to establish notability, or in many cases, are non-existent. Though I am sure no-one here would even suggest the idea of Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) being AfD'd (surely?)? ----tgheretford (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone pretty much agrees what the game articles should look like and how they could be improved and more or less where we can find sources to improve those articles.

I don't think we're going to fix all of the broken Sonic character articles as a result of this discussion. But, we can break the "Pokemon test" complacency of "This has always been this way, so it's okay." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MIB, but I doubt there will be difficulty in establishing notability for Sonic. Here's a start: History of Sonic. I'd look for more but I'm off out, it'll have to wait. Bridies (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) another one: SEGA Reinvents Sonic The Hedgehog Experience. Bridies (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would it be worth tagging the articles to, as they say, shake things up and start getting editors to add sources to articles? Maybe a tough love approach to the articles (even using {{notability}}) might be worth it? --tgheretford (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I'll be slowly running through and cutting down the comic characters. If someone feels like it, they can be moved over to List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic). I've started with Tails (comic character) so far. TTN (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, thanks for taking care of that, TTN. No matter what we do to the VG characters (and I've already voiced my opinion), the comic characters are absolutely massive amounts of fancruft. Can we at least try to see if we can transwiki as much as possible to http://sonic.wikia.org ? I'm sure they could use all this cruft that we have here. Red Phoenix 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather opposed to transwikiing. It feels too much like shoving the stuff under the rug, and it'd be better to just toast the articles if that's the case. It too readily sends the wrong message anyway: "we don't want your info here" rather than "the info is not handled in an encyclopedic form".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have to support Red Phoenix's stance. Where possible, it would be best to transwiki articles to at least keep things of interest to the Sonic community somewhere (keeping within the licensing requirements on the Sonic Wiki). Otherwise, I think it may be best to take this out to the wider community, be bold and start taking articles to AfD (even en masse if needs be). --tgheretford (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think I've been doing? I've put up four AFDs, including one large blanket AFD, about unnotable articles like this while dealing with the cruft. And Kung Fu Man, remember that Wikia is the perfect place for all this fancruft. These sites could use the info more than we can. Red Phoenix 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The AfD process really doesn't work way to well with this kind of thing. Some characters would go through and be all set, but many would just get caught up in over the top inclusionist snares all over the place or the FICT argument crossfires that erupt in them sometimes. Just as a general comment, never mind about the trimming. I have a semi-stalker that'll keep me from actually trimming them down to the basics. Whether they're merged in the end or not, it's a waste of time with that going on. If anyone actually starts this sometime soon, and they don't want to trim the articles themselves, copy over chunks of articles at a time or something. I'll get them at that point. TTN (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with TTN here about the AFDs. While WP:FICT isn't a policy yet (and seems to lack consensus), WP:PLOT is a guideline that must be followed that does have consensus (as part of WP:NOT). Inclusionists can make such arguments about WP:FICT, so I recomment we make WP:PLOT and WP:N (or WP:V) our primary arguments in these AFDs. We'll probably have to do separate AFDs for everything that ends up having to go. As for the merge, I'm a little too busy to help, sorry. Red Phoenix 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a question: who is going to do all the merging and still supply the important content? Users are too lazy to fix up articles and probably too lazy to merge them. Chances are even after this has been settled the articles will stay as they are!!!!!Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested the tough love approach earlier. I have done this approach twice, once for articles on station identifications for UK television channels and again for television and radio masts and towers articles in the UK. I gave notice that there were major problems with the articles concerned and it was ignored. So I took the tough love approach and nominated them for AfD. The articles were not deleted but it was the thing that started to get editors to look up and take notice and fix the articles to the point where they could be kept and stay within policies and guidelines. Sadly, the tough line may be the only line to take to get people to notice and fix these articles. --tgheretford (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no way I'm letting you go through with that. There's been a surge of some certain users voting for deletion lately. The articles wouldn't be kept and salvaged they'd be deleted.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fairfieldfencer in this case. AFD is not the place to take some of these articles. I've been doing it with items and other features, but I disagree about AFDing the characters. Red Phoenix 19:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's several sources in the sonic article currently and as such notability is demonstrated. The article itself isn't that bad, there just needs to be some curbing of the thinly disguised plot regurgitations and some bad prose. I also think, after looking for sources, that sonic is really the only notable character and we should be looking at merging the others (including tails, robotnik) unless someone can come up with the necessary sources. Side note: the Mobians article is now gone. Bridies (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sources will be a pain in the butt to come up with. And by the way, good riddance to that Mobians article, that was horrid. Red Phoenix 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, some other admin saw fit to restore the Mobians article, AFD I guess.Bridies (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's your AFD. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mobians. Red Phoenix 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ahead and merge the TV characters since no one has bothered responding in the talk pages for weeks now. Just giving you all a heads up. Magiciandude (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

When you do, can you show us the list article? Red Phoenix 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually Magiciandude, I'd like to have a crack at fixing up the articles before you merge them.08:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

At what point to create new articles/redirects for sequels?

New game franchises are usually not a problem in this area, as in only a few cases, the franchise is officially announced by the company at some large event (E3) or press release; the few cases involve special "code name" projects and the like.

However, when you have a series, people are always looking for words of sequels and expansions, so the sources for these can become less authoritative or reliable. The case in point is "Guitar Hero: Metallica" which was listed in Activision's SEC filings, but otherwise has not been officially announced by the company or any other source that doesn't ultimately point here. I'll also add in "Beyond Good & Evil 2" as another, but different, data point: Ubisoft announced this themselves but all we have is there announcement and a trailer.

My take is that when there's a reliable source that says a sequels coming, we obviously create the article, but the content will vary depending on the source. If the announcement is from the company /developer directly (BG&E2), a new page with content is warrented. If the information is secondary, such as for GH:M, it is worth mention on a series or previous game page, but the page should be redirected until more concrete information can be provided. If any less than two sources exist (considering the ultimate source of any source), the redirection should be in place.

That's my take, any other opinions? --MASEM 14:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Amending to add in another data point GTA V. Here's a case for redirection to the series article. --MASEM 16:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To structure the discussion a bit, there's three basic possibilities here:

• Just some rumours, e.g. random forum posts and blogs. Per WP:V, created articles should be deleted.
• Established sources, but no official announcements. This is the grey area. I'm inclined to say that there's no difference between this and the last option, see WP:VG/S. This is up for debate though. Your suggestion about a note on a series article as all we should do has merit as well.
• Established sources and an official announcements. Usually warrants an article.

User:Krator (t c) 15:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All this sounds very reasonable, however, I don't know if we'll actually be able to enforce it. There are plenty of editors wanting to create articles for every new game announced regardless of sources available. Some just don't realize that a stub doesn't always offer much to interested readers. (Guyinblack25 15:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Mostly agree with Krator;

• Just rumours/blogs; delete per WP:V.
• Sources but no announcement; mention in series/previous game's article, and create redirect.
• Sources and official announcement; create article.

giggy _(:O) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is concerning GH: Metallica. I have looked deeper into reaerach on the subject and found out that there will be a Rock Band Metallica. Now it kinda sounds like you guys are saying that the announcement on Gamespot is not considered a reliable source, I would like to beg to differ. Okay so we'll wait on creating a Metallica article, but what about a Rock Band Metallica. I will supply a source to Gamespot talking about Rock Band Metallica in a few seconds. But if im wrong about anything I said please tell me.Gears Of War 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

follow this link for more on Rock Band Metallica. When should we make that article.Gears Of War 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read it carefully and looked at the trailer, it is a 5 year old announcement of a game that would be inspired by the music of Metallica. The trailer hinted at what seemed like an action (or driving game), rather than anything remotely resembling Rock Band. In addition, it's an announcement from VU Games; Rock Band is published by MTV Games, not VU Games. Unfortunate (or maybe very fortunate, if going by the trailer) vapourware. Chan Yin Keen | Talk _Contribs 05:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Music of Super Smash Bros. Brawl article?

User:A Link to the Past/List of songs in Super Smash Bros. Brawl - I believe that SSBB has received a lot of reception and has a ton of development information to speak of, and a ton of songs with 38 different composers involved. Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for some sort of SSB music article or even section today, and sadly I obviously found nothing. I say go for it! --.:Alex:. 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's well received, and has a large number of composers does not mean the music should have it's own page. As well as having questionable notability (is the fact it contains "Jungle Level Ver.2" actually notable?), it could be argued as being under what wikipedia isn't (a list of indiscriminate information/game guide). Fin©™ 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Being well-received does a LOT to say it should have its own page. And having a development history, a development history more in depth than most games in the history of the industry. There were sites covering every single update on the Dojo, for Heaven's sake. The music is one of the most highly-reported aspect of SSBB.
2. I don't see why SSBB's music list would be less notable than all of the Final Fantasy soundtracks.
3. Jungle Level Ver.2 is a different song, with different composition, with a different style. If you heard them, you would only notice a vague resemblance between the two.
4. If the article was expanded to be all three games, then it would be a ton more notable - SSBM has its own soundtrack, is orchestrated, and has had its own live orchestra. The listing may be much, but I could easily establish that the list is not only notable, but is a list that people would consider very helpful, and do not teach the reader how to play the game, so it doesn't even qualify as guide content (anymore so than Rock Band's or GHIII's lists). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Em, no, just because a game is good doesn't mean it deserves more article space. Sure if people like it they'll add to it more, but that doesn't mean it's deserving of it.
2. I don't think the Final Fantasy soundtracks are notable either.
3. I picked Jungle Level Ver.2 as a random track in all the music as the title does not inspire much. It's of no interest to the average reader, where, say, the inclusion of a soundtrack with popular artists within a game article may be (though I'm not endorsing that either).
4. There are lots of things in game guides, not just stuff that teach the player how to play the game. For example, the credits of games are not listed on article pages, simply as the majority of the time it's not useful or notable. A list of music from the Smash Brothers series (indeed, I remember how good the music was in Melee) may just appear as a list of random names, with no significance (such as Jungle Level Ver.2) to the average reader. Also, it's unfair to compare Rock Band's or any Guitar Hero's list of songs, as in their case, it's an integral part of the game, just as the characters (but not, I would argue, the music) of Smash Brothers.

But anyway, we need more input. Fin©™ 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment: Rock Band and Guitar Hero games revolve around music, while Brawl doesn't. Brawl has an official soundtrack, doesn't it? That should be an article (as it's a verifiable music CD), but nothing else needs to be made. The songs (on the soundtrack only) should be listed there, and it should remain watched in my view. Otherwise fans will come along and add every little bit of trivia they can to each track. Things such as "this song was used in all these games, but was removed from this one" and so on, I don't see as useful to a soundtrack article. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Em, no, it certainly does. If you look at any discussion on, say, a discussion on giving a character an article, a notable amount of reception for the character is necessary. SSBB fulfills that, and its soundtrack receives more reception than most games, with the obvious exception of rhythm games.
2. It's certainly a legitimate song - Hell, looking at a lot of soundtrack articles, this is way more notable, because there's actually history to these songs - all but most of the original, SSBB music are actual songs (albeit gaming songs), so there's history that other soundtracks lack. The history of the songs is what people want the list for.
3. But like I've said, SSBB is no less notable than most soundtrack articles that exist, including all of the GA FF music articles. And just because you find them non-notable, it still sets precedence, because those articles reached GA.
4. And right, Rob, this is one of those articles that should be monitored at all times. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Smashing...Live! was an article that was merged into SSBM about 3-4 months ago as a non-notable. I think you'll be hard pressed to find reliable secondary sources on the subject of the music in the series. Nintendo Power is obviously out of the equation in the case of Smashing...Live! itself. Just noting. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinions (Edit conflict):

1. I think the reception for the game itself is notable with respect to the game, and if the game's extensive soundtrack contributed to that, it warrants mention in the game article. ("SSBB has been well-received due in part to its extensive soundtrack, which includes close to 200 songs by 38 different composers spanning multiple generations of Nintendo and third-party games.") I don't think it would need to go into any more detail than that, since the vast majority of songs are either remixes or re-releases of songs from earlier games, or variations on the SSBB and SSBM theme songs. In short, the songs themselves aren't necessarily notable.
2. You could feasibly create a section in the SSBB article that describes the game's music from a general standpoint. Since most of the video-game music does have a history, it's worth elaborating on how some songs have had multiple remixes, based on various styles, while other songs have been included verbatim from their original games, and still others are completely original. BUT: I don't think you need to call out specific songs, except in maybe just one or two examples, because then you risk having to elaborate on all of them. By talking about the whole set of songs in an abstract sense, you address the notability of the game's soundtrack without stepping into the more questionable notability of the songs themselves. And if you keep it abstract, it doesn't need to be very long and wouldn't warrant its own article.
3. My personal opinion is that if the FF games have their own, officially released soundtracks, and so does SSBB, then SSBB should have a corresponding soundtrack article that talks about the soundtrack itself and how it was released as a complement to the game. That article should follow the format of the previous FF articles. Any FF soundtrack articles that don't correspond to officially-released products should be carefully examined to verify that they really belong on WP - just because they were once promoted to GA or FA status doesn't necessarily mean they comply with the policies or guidelines.
4. Totally agree that a soundtrack article should be monitored to keep out the cruft. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I never proposed an article on Smashing... Live! - however, an article on the music of the series, which is very notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point was Smashing...Live! was consider to be non-notable, even though it was related to Smash Bros. Also, it'll be difficult to find reliable secondary sources on the subject of Smash Bros music. Just because something is well-received and/or has a large amount of critical reception does not mean it should have its own article - there's no companion cube article, for example. Essentially my point is the same as Kiefer's above. Fin©™ 11:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me here, but I do kinda have to voice my objection to that reasoning on the grounds of Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists: just because one article doesn't exist doesn't mean another shouldn't. Also to add, looking at the history for companion cube shows it was never an article, but always an outright redirect.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was just making the point that a game being well-received etc is not a good enough reason to create an article about a sub-topic of it, the sub-topic must also be notable etcetc. Companion cube's never had its own article?!?! Heresy!! =( Fin©™ 14:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no? SSBB's music, like I've already stated, is well-sourced. Many web sites were covering the music and the updates, and the sources are stronger than many game articles'. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(reindenting)

Maybe the sources are ok, but that does not mean the subject is notable enough for inclusion! Also, you've no sources or references on your example page. I think the current bit in the Brawl article is fine: "The game's musical score was composed through the collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers.", no need to expand it to a whole page. Fin©™ 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I also don't have categories, does that mean the finished article will lack categories? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

... I was merely commenting that you asserted, and I quote, SSBB's music...is well-sourced. For you to say this, but not include sources in your example, seemed strange to me. I just thought I'd make you aware of it (in case you thought you had sourced it). Also, I'd a quick google for Smash Bros music, the only reputable, verifiable link in the first three pages (excluding the Dojo) was a slashdot article. Anyway, I think I've contributed enough to this discussion. Fin©™ 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, your point is invalid - you're essentially asserting that because the article is not sourced now, that is proof that it cannot be sourced. There is also no development info, reception info, or a lead. And doing a two minute Google search doesn't matter for anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And you're talking about sources? , a three page interview with Sakurai about the music. , official information about the music. That's me spending three minutes Goggling for sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there would be two ways to get there. The reviews specifically make a big deal about the music, and another article would expand reader comprehension or edification on the subject. This is probably unlikely. There has been an official OST release. I disagree with the above and hold that you could probably use this article as a way to talk about songs not included on the OST; for instance, Music of the Chrono series discusses certain unreleased material or beta content. What concerns me is how well that could be presented for SSBB. ZeaLitY 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the subject is fairly recent, and Nintendo isn't known to release soundtracks in a timely manner (or at all in many cases). It may also present a problem with the size.

And I've seen several reviews that give it amazing praise. Not necessarily its own section, but they praised it nonetheless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From GameSpy, "The most worthwhile thing you'll collect is the unlockable music strewn throughout the game. There are many different unlockable tracks that are added to your playlist when you snatch up a music CD during gameplay. The soundtrack is a wonderful compilation of original tunes based on classic game anthems, composed and directed by some of the industry's most talented musicians. It's a remarkable collection, and one that you'll definitely want to give a listen to." From GameSpot, "Equally impressive is the game's soundtrack, which boasts more than 100 songs from all over the Nintendo universe and beyond. Each of these tracks is arranged specifically for Brawl by a star-studded lineup of composers that includes notables Koji Kondo (Super Mario Bros.), Yasunori Mitsuda (Chrono Trigger), Yoko Shimomura (Kingdom Hearts), and more." From IGN, "Sakurai has enlisted the aid of the industry's greatest musicians to record a largely orchestrated soundtrack for his fighter." From IGN again, "One of the best soundtracks ever created." It seems that there are plenty of people who are praising the soundtrack. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for DLC

This started as a disagreement at List of songs in Rock Band where I am now trying to get some input at the articles talk page. The basic question is, what counts as a reliable source for inclusion in DLC lists? THe basic problem here is a section of this article contains an unreliable leaked list. I think there should be some general level of standards for what DLC information is contained in its respective article and at what point it gets added to the article (when it is leaked? When it is officially announced? When it is officially released?) Any input on this would be greatly appreciated, and if discussion could be directed ], that would be great. Thanks! Chrislk02 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good question, and something that I've always wondered myself. Most commonly I see the issue in music game articles (but that's only because those are the ones I frequent more than others). In the case of a music game DLC article, here are the common causes for people including a song that has not been confirmed by the game creators.

• Artist/Group announces inclusion. This is especially popular right now with Guitar Hero: World Tour, as a number of artists have come forward and said they will have songs included in "future titles". There was some contention in mid-May when Disturbed's website annouced that two songs would be offered as DLC, but the two tracks it listed differed from the Best Buy annoucement. My opinion is that the artist or group would be considered the ultimate authority on their music, and thus should be considered reliable.
• Magazine reports inclusion. Most noteably in List of songs in Rock Band, a debate started regarding the validitiy of OXM's list of songs to be released in March. The list was included when first found in Febuary. Not all content from the list was released. It wasn't until June when the content was finally removed. This is one that would apply to more than just music games, as magazines continually post updates and rumors regarding upcoming content. Here too, I feel that a magazine should be considered reliable until proven otherwise. A gaming magazine such as OXM, PSM, NP, or EGM is not going to make up information and run with it. A story that's made it to publishing, they felt they had a reliable source for it. I feel it's acting in bad faith to assume that a magazine article is unreliable (provided it's sources are good).
• Ads. This is probably the final "motivator" for this discussion. A few days ago an MTV2 commericial aired for a new song pack for Rock Band, it included screencaps which contained song titles not currently available. Of these, three included the words: "NOT READY FOR TEST" or something of that nature. There has been no official statement either way as there was when the original list of DLC was leaked in February. Here is where I don't understand the reluctance. An advertisement is constructed in partnership with the creators. Any footage included is pulled directly from resources provided to the team that assmebles the ad. In the gaming world, promotional videos are constantly referred to as reliable sources for the inclusion of new characters, levels, and content in general. Case in point: Guitar Hero: World Tour, which cites the use of songs in advertisements. While it happens on occasion that content not meant to be revealed slips out, this is different from a leak as it's not being dug out or "stolen" by a sly observer, but rather distributed nationally by the creator's themselves. Whatever info included (intentional or not) should be considered fair game.
• "Leaks". This is probably most noteable in the Rock Band list again. A DLC file was found to contain a number of song titles that were both in and not-in the game. Since the discovery, a number of songs have been released that were on the list. Here I can see the argument for disclusion (is that even a word). People can claim "leaks" and sources are usually not very reliable. But here I feel that a "leak" should be treated in a manner befitting it's nature. If I claim to have learned of a new XBLA game being released because I have a friend who works at MSFT, that's hardly anything reliable. But if I can point to a document that was discovered (and is confirmed to exist by the source itself) than my claim does become reliable in that instance. Though in the future I shouldn't get a pass because I was right that one time previously.

This is all just my personal opinion on the overall issue of what is reliable and what isn't. Because in the past I have noticed some inconsistencies which cause confusion amoung regular editors as well as casual passersby. -- TRTX 19:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If a leak gets onto a news page, of a commonly accepted gaming source, then the source establishes that the leak occurred and was notable enough to be published. This is distinct from speculation about whether or not the list is accurate. Thus, it is acceptable to discuss the leak but not necessarily to use the leak as a source to verify itself. Say for example a book's author does an interview, and in the interview he says that his book has received perfect reviews (on e.g. Metacritic). Assuming the interview is reliable (did not make up or misrepresent the author's comments), then it is verifiably true that the author made this statement. However, it does not necessarily mean that the content of his statement is true. That would require independent verification. The article can say "these songs are expected to be in the DLC, according to a leaked song list" but not "these songs will be in the DLC". As long as the reader is sufficiently informed about the status of these songs. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can speak specifically for the Rock Band list. All three examples (leaked list, OXM, MTV2 commercial) have been reported on by reliable sources. For the two that have been included so far, we only say what the reliable sources do: that there was a leak, etc. regarding this content. That is not the same as saying that the content will be coming out. I don't see any sort of RS or OR issue if we only report as the sources do. This is especially true in the case of the leaked list, which is made more reliable by Harmonix's press release regarding it and the fact that it has been remarkably accurate to date. Oren0 (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was scouting through the GH articles this morning and came across multiple edits made to Guitar Hero: World Tour based on information found here. This is material sourced from a "leaked" survey, which has been included in the World Tour article under no contest from other editors. This is the kind of inconsistancy which leads to much confusion and conflict between editors. How is this leak (a supposed survey) any more noteable/reliable than an actual commericial? -- TRTX 12:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox bot

Just thought I'd hash it out here before going to bot requests, but what would people think of a bot that did the following:

• Added articles within certain categories like Category:2001 video games to without infoboxes Category:Articles needing a VG infobox or somesuch
• Added a {{vgproj}} to the talkpage of any article that was in a video game-related category, or had a vg infobox/stub template/etc.

Does this sound useful/feasible? JohnnyMrNinja 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you're going to parse through on infoboxes, then you should also have the bot reformat the wikicode (won't affect the screen) as to have clean formatting for each parameter (line up equal signs). --MASEM 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps make it so it changes all variations of {{vgproj}} and the infobox to a standard, consistent name? --.:Alex:. 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Video games}} please, I get annoyed that people keep changing the actual template link to one of the redirects. And I do hope that you don't reformat the infoboxen with wasteful space characters, I'd re-edit those right out of every article I touch. The code is not difficult to read. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem about the space characters. It doesn't really "cost" anything to have spaces, so I'm not sure what is being wasted, along the lines that WP is not paper and a few dozen bytes won't change the feasible article size, which is measured in thousand-byte units. The improvement in readability is well worth any perceived cost in wastefulness. If the fields become long enough, e.g. multiple release dates, multiple platforms, ref tags with URLs, etc. it makes a huge difference. The thing about the banner template is that I don't think anyone really enjoys typing out the whole name, which is why the redirects are more common. Although it is strange if they are going out of their way to change the template name as that is just extra work for no reason. However, I'd recommend that the canonical name be changed (shortened) so that people manually adding the banner will be more likely to use that instead of a redirect. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with using space characters to line up the equal signs. Just because someone who has been on Misplaced Pages since 2007 has no problem with reading the code doesn't mean newcomers can't have problems. Editing articles should be as (new-)user-friendly as possible. Kariteh (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but for obvious reason you want to make a page as lean as possible. I agree that removing -most- spaces from code is a good thing. I do not agree in removing spaces or code, or changing the way code is laid out if there's a visible change to the article doing so, if the only reason is to lean the code. The article itself comes first and the optimization of that article directly second. It's also more than acceptable to ask editors to have some understanding of HTML and wiki code before they start changing it... that's just common sense, if someone is unwilling to learn how the code works enough to read it as source then they're not going to be much help. Nevertheless the community is available for any technical shortcomings if someone wants to contribute but doesn't know how. And how does my having been here a year make me some kind of elite? I still get called a newbie. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of all predefined reviews in Template:VG Reviews

I'm not a fan of the VG Reviews template, although I like the idea of a standardised format across all review boxes, I think the implementation is greatly flawed. I made my thoughts known when the review box was originally suggested, where I mentioned that having to look up codes would be a stumbling block, and that we should use something dynamic. There are also concerns over the bias having a predefined list of reviews as mentioned in this discussion.

I'm chasing this up now, because I've just come first hand over one of the problems, and I think we can do this better. Take a look at this edit. A new user has tried to add the GameSpot score to the table, by adding |GameSpot = 10/10, that doesn't work, as GameSpot is in the VG Reviews list as GSpot. Why? I don't know, but its confusing, and there isn't a set rule for abbreviating sources.

Right now, with the reviews box, we have to type in a review source, score and reference. Which is exactly what we had to do without the template. Instead of using codes, we should just be able to type in the source and link it from within the table. I'm hoping we can have a format which works like so:

{{VG Reviews
|]|A+
|]|9/10
|]|8/10
|Compilations
|]| 64
|]| 80
}}

You would use a for loop to cycle through the reviews, putting them into a table, until you hit the field "Compilations", where you generate the Compilations header, and then you use another for loop to cycle to the end. Is this possible in wikicode? There is a problem in that 300 pages already link to the VG Reviews template, which creates quite a lot of overhead, but this is why hard coding in sources is bad anyway. If we can get a dynamic system in, I think it'd make it easier for all editors. - hahnchen 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible in wikicode? I think so. You couldn't have any nifty features (like converting Metacritic's 64 to a 64%, etc. etc.), but for a basic layout it could be done, I think. And I'd like to see it happen, so put me down as a support of a simplification. giggy _(:O) 11:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeeeeeees, but it is painful to code (says the person that coded the alternating color variable row table we're using for the infobox).

A much easier solution is that we simply include code that catches additional variations of the basic names. There's no reason we can't catch "GS" or "Gamespot" or "GameSpot" or "gamespot" (I can't remember if param names are case sensitive, I think they are) to all mean the GameSpot score, so the example of what the user would add would work. --MASEM 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If it really is a bitch to code, and Help:Template seems to give no satisfactory way to use loops, how about a system like:

{{VG Reviews Top}}

|]|A+

|]|9/10

|]|8/10

{{VG Compilations}}

|]| 64

|]| 80

{{VG Reviews Botton}}

The main point is, I don't think review sources should be predefined. I don't think editors should have to look up a review in the VG Reviews template. - hahnchen 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate: The easy way to fix it that I refer to would make the code look like this:

{{VG Reviews

|GameSpot=9/10

|metacritic=89%

|Gamerankings=88%

|GSpy=8/10

}}

In that it is (I believe it is) easy to add multiple alternative names to catch including varied cases, in addition to the abbreviations, so that as you said, there's no need to look at the table. We still have predefined sources, but the naming can be more intuitive. --MASEM 14:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with the first solution, Masem? I've just created a rough template at User:Kariteh/Sandbox and it seems to work fine:

Mobile games

References

1. ^ Justing Calvert (2004-07-08). "Square Enix going mobile in Europe". GameSpot. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
2. Levi Buchanan (2004-02-18). "Brave Shot". IGN. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
3. Takakazu Kitamura (2004-02-02). "スクウェア・エニックス、VフォンとEZwebにて" (in Japanese). Game Watch. Retrieved 2008-07-17.
4. Anoop Gantayat (2004-08-30). "Final Fantasy: Date Set". IGN. Retrieved 2008-07-12.
5. "Musashi Mobile Samurai". RPGamer. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
6. "Final Fantasy VII Snowboarding". RPGamer. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
7. Buchanan, Levi (2005-08-29). "Brave Shot 2 Preview". IGN. News Corporation. Retrieved 2008-04-21.
8. Anoop Gantayat (2007-03-02). "Final Fantasy Agito XIII Goes Next Gen". IGN. Retrieved 2008-07-09.
9. Cite error: The named reference birth coded was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

{{User:Kariteh/Sandbox

|]|A+

|]|9/10

|]|8/10

}}

Some tweaking is needed to make unused rows not appear, but I don't think there's a problem concerning that (Template:Tracklist does it fine). The only difficult thing I can see is the "Compilations" row; I'm not sure how to code it, but it's not impossible, is it? Kariteh (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the predefined commands would simply butcher every article that uses the template, and that's quite unnecessary. If people want to add reviews not on the list, they can, but I've never seen any problem with having a supply of standard sources that we can go by. Plus, it helps ensure consistent styles and correct formatting of publications' names - how many different entries will we get across the articles for IGN? ign.com, IGN.com, IGN, ign, there's a lot to be said for keeping it all consistent by making every IGN entry appear as IGN, every 1UP entry appear as 1UP.com and every PC Zone entry appear as PC Zone. The point made about the names of the predefined reviews is another matter, can we bind multiple names to one entry, so that GSpot, Gspot, GameSpot and any other variation of that all link to the one GameSpot entry? -- Sabre (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying, Sabre. See my example code above. --MASEM 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry. Managed to miss that particular bit somehow. -- Sabre (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The only minor issue I can see with this is that the custom reviews aren't alphabetized and appear below the predefined rows. Kariteh (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think having multiple references to one source, as suggested by MASEM is very clumsy and inelegant. We're trying to capture all the different permutations of rendering a source in a review? How about for PC Gamer UK? There are lots of ways people could write that. The best solution would be one where users can add there own scores and sources, and I think my second example is a good way of doing that. Because it uses two templates to book end the scores, we would not instantly break 300 odd articles either.

I don't think that different links to IGN as cited above is a big issue. The vast majority of links point the right way, and these issues are easily dealt with by semi-automated editing tools. I also don't think that this is as important a benefit to having a reviews template, as the standardised colours and formatting. - hahnchen 15:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The biggest concern with the suggested method is that it works like the episode list template, which, while the row contents are simple, explaining you need a header template, and then table rows, and then a closure, is confusing , as opposed to "fill in these values in this template here." As to iterating possible values for something like "PC Gamer UK", the annoying part is that parameter names are case sensitive, so we'd have to catch reasonable lowercase versions of them all. --MASEM 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise between the first example and the current template? The code for reviews need to be flexible, but it's not necessary for aggregate reviews since their number is much more limited (it's basically always Metacritic and GameRankings, plus a few others).

{{VG reviews

| ] | A+

| ] | 9/10

| ] | 8/10

| ... | ...

| Metacritic = 89%

| Gamerankings = 88%

}}

The point about breaking current articles is moot in my opinion since we can easily have two templates co-exist for some time (just call the new one Template:VG reviews for instance. Kariteh (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I'm not a big fan of my second suggestion either, I'd much prefer the first if its possible. But I'm just throwing out some ideas here, I don't have the time or knowledge to actually implement the change. My problem with the codes is that they're too restrictive, and I don't think the sources should be hard coded. If you're writing an article from prior to the mid-nineties, most of the predefined sources are going to be useless, so you're going to typing in your own sources anyway in the "rev 1" fields. And if you're doing this, then the benefit of having sources in alphabetical order is also lost. - hahnchen 18:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

These boxes are still unsightly, place undue emphasis on numeric reviews despite the lack of a community consensus on what the bellweathers are, attract advertisements, cause edit wars over which region's version of a given publication we'll use, and just plain suck.

Just putting that out there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few featured articles don't have reception tables at all, so yeah, that whole table stuff is kind of iffy. Kariteh (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Either a {{#if:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}|x|xy|xyz}}}}}} could be used, or a {{#if:{{lc:{{{3|{{{2|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}}}}. No comment on anything else. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OpenAL: Wrong WikiProject?

See: Talk:OpenAL#Wrong WikiProject?

"Why is this in the VideoGames WikiProject?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielPharos (talk • contribs) 11:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From a quick glance over that should be obvious: for its usage in games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but that's also true for OpenGL and DirectX, and even PhysX: they're mainly (NOT exclusively) used in games, but that doesn't mean they're video game material. You can easily use OpenAL for media players or something like that. --DanielPharos (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All the other articles you mention are in the scope of video games. That doesn't mean they are necessarily of top importance as video game articles, but if it were me, I'd go ahead and tag them as well unless they already have a laundry list of more relevant projects. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Also true, but what about Visual Studio? It's used a lot in the development of video games, so should it be tagged too? But in that case, Windows itself... Photoshop... Where do we draw the line? I'd say: since OpenAL isn't SPECIFICALLY geared towards video game development, let the Computing Wikiproject deal with it. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a false dilemma. Nobody is suggesting that completely generalized computing topics be placed under the auspices of VG. OpenAL was created by a gaming studio for the purpose of easing game development, and gaming is still the foremost application where it is used. OpenGL was created as a general graphics package but it has gained mainstream recognition due to its role in gaming (i.e. lots of people use the driver, few program with the API). DirectX and PhysX are designed for games. Neither Windows nor Visual Basic nor Photoshop can make any similar claim to being focused on games. I mean, you're really stretching for technicalities here. As is, the computing project is actually very generalized, and individual APIs are not of particularly high importance to it. Articles like keyboard (computing) are. As such I could even argue that topics like OpenGL are better suited to VG than the computing project. I think that a gaming-oriented editor would be more interested in OpenGL than the average computer user. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally tagged the article. The reason I did so is because it is in Category:Video game development. I used AWB to tag all the articles found in that category. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-14 17:36

There is such a thing as having multiple WikiProject tags on one page, if that's an issue... ---Izno (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of sales figures and comprehensiveness

A good thought was brought up over at Portal (video game)'s talk page about the lack of sales figures for the game and if due to that, should the article fail Featured Article Criteria's comprehensiveness requirements. Now, for Portal, that's a special case (and that said, there are figures for the Orange Box's sales), but let's consider the main question: Is the lack of sales figures for any game a failure of being comprehensiveness?

My argument really depends on the game. If it is top-tier, highly visible game (ala Halo 3, COD4, etc.) and there's no sales figures, I would call it a failure, because of just the amount of media attention on these. But your average release, non-top tier games or the like, I would expect to try to find this information but it simply just might not be available without paying NPD for it, which makes that a questionable source for the information. And even then, data for games are not always available. Mind you, I would assume that a good faith effort was made to find references for sales figures, but sometimes this information is just not available. --MASEM 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Alleyway is at FAC now without any sales figures, so perhaps we can draw from there a confirmation on whether sales numbers are a must for comprehensiveness. Jappalang (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For most titles, I believe that sales data is a must. Portal is slightly different in that it's part of the Orange Box, available separately, and across Steam (of which Valve have not released figures for). If the rest of the article is top notch, and it can be explained why there doesn't seem to be sufficient sales data, I'd be OK with it.

NPD is not a questionable source for North American retail sales data, it is a reliable one. If the data is available on NPD, and the reason we don't have it, is that no one has been willing to pay for it, then the article is not comprehensive. For Alleyway, I can't be sure as I do not know when games sales tracking started in various markets, were NPD figures available then? What about ELSPA? What was happening in Japan? Alleyway isn't of a featured standard for other reasons though, so I've not pushed the sales figures point over that game. - hahnchen 15:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Someone's willingness to fork over serious money to get sales data shouldn't be a measure of an article's comprehensiveness: if the data isn't readily available to the public in one form or another the verifiability of any sales figures gotten through such means can be brought into question, no?

Additionally what do you mean by "Alleyway isn't of a featured standard for other reasons"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Alleyway's reception section is up to scratch. If there is important data, such as sales information, available to the public, and we choose not to pay for it, then the article is not comprehensive. I wrote Kingpin: Life of Crime ages ago, it's not that great an article, but I emailed Chart-Track over sales data, they said it was available for a price. I chose not to pay for it, but the data is available, and without it, the article is not comprehensive. A review from a 1990 Famitsu review might not be easily accessible, but if it exists and would add significantly to the article, and is not there, then it's not comprehensive. - hahnchen 16:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, Retromags has the EGM you wanted a while back. - hahnchen 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it already actually, and cited the information within the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Firstly, I'd say that an absence of reference by reviewers at a FAC is not evidence for a lack of sales, and would probably be putting too much faith at that FAC's reviewers. I'd have to disagree with Kung Fu: if the information is out there then there cannot be any exuses. FAs are supposed to represent Misplaced Pages's best work. Of course, this doesn't mean that there is an onus on the top contributor to fork over some cash, only that they're at an unlucky handicap if they want to pursue a higher status. The problem is how we can be totally sure that the info doesn't exits, as in whether they may exist within published sources that the top contributor isn't aware of. Generally, I consider sales to be a must, and preferably with a range of locations to represent a comprehensive account.

If that info isn't available, then you need to judge it on the merit of other content in the article. In this case, I would expect coverage of reception beyond the critical, such as cultural impact, etc. There has be a limit by which "it doesn't exist" simply is not good enough. Sadly, it's the reason why some articles can never become FAs. But again, this is only my interpretation of what comprehensiveness entails. Ashnard _Talk 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And may I add that NPD sales are not, for the most part, available? NPD is very protective of its sales, so even if you paid for the sales, you could NOT add the information to the article, because NPD would be all over you for leaking it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, that nobody has questioned a lack of sales at FAC is a cause for concern. Reagrdless of the impact you feel it has on the FAC's chances, there still needs to be confirmation that that info doesn't exist, and is not merely a mistake in the article. Ashnard _Talk 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To Link, I don't have a clue about NPD. I was arguing theoretically on the basis that the information doesn't qualify because it has to be paid for, which it does not. Ashnard _Talk 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking to you on that, hence the same number of indentations. But I know NPD - if NPD does not intentionally release it, you releasing such information could get you in trouble with them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that would be the case, but I'm also assuming that if you paid them even more, you could. This discussion is largely academic, because no one will be willing to pay the market prices for this data. - hahnchen 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about money, it's about privacy. NPD doesn't want this information public besides the top ten sales. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, are you really going to be such bitches at FAC because of crap like "I need to know how many units this sold" when all other elements are there? That's utter bullshit. It it's not available by looking through businesswire, proquest, newspaper and web searches, I don't want to hear crap from reviewers that "you should pay money to find this". I include the info when I can find it; if I cant, it's up to the reviewer who is being a whiner to find out if there is anything or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...Are you being serious? It is the responsibility of the nominator to ensure that their article is comprehensive. Available sales figures fall within this if no other sales have been released. If nominators don't feel like obtaining it, then that's fine. If they don't but want to portray it as comprehensive, then that really is just tough. I'm concerned at your attitude towards users who expect high standards at FAC—half-arsed reviewing may make the moninator's job easier but it doesn't help the project as a whole. Ashnard _Talk 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's terribly absurd. Are you asking the nominator to spend more than $10,000 just for one source, which he cannot cite because there's no way to include NPD as a credible secondary source because he cannot prove that NPD gave him the information, and he is completely unable to post the information without NPD denying him access to the content that he paid $10,000 for. Portal should not be punished for CIRCUMSTANCES. The sales figures CAN'T be sourced, and because it was released in a collection, only the sales of the collection are relevant. Just use those. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Portal should be punished, and I discussed matters relating to circumstance above. I think I made it explicitly clear above that there should be no expectations or onus on the nominator to do this, but they must realise the limitations when they're declaring that something meets the FA criteria when it clearly doesn't. Unsurprisingly, my words are being twisted. Ashnard _Talk 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also say it's telling that FACs can coast through without getting questioned on its absence of sources, yet nobody seems to cares too much, yet when things are made more stringent people begin to take issue. Ashnard _Talk 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying, Ash, is that you would oppose any video game at FAC where there were no sales figures, even if as we discussed above the only possible way to get them would be to spend $10000? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would depend on circumstances as stated above as to whether the absence of data hurts the article. I personally didn't think the sum would be close to that figure, but my stance hasn't really changed. I wouldn't really expect any person to hand over the cash—I certainly wouldn't. But the information still exists out there in the public, regardless of the conditions. Conclusively, that would mean that highly relevant information has been witheld, thus not making it comprehensive. You know what, I may be right, I may not be. After all, it's only my take on things, which I've expressed as my interpretation. It may be best to take it at WP: FAC to get more insight. Ashnard _Talk 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not public information. We should not assume that privately owned information is available somewhere. Do you have ANY evidence that would suggest the sales info exists? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It began talking about the scenario in general. Then as it went on, it went into specifics about NPD, which I admittedly don't know anything about. I'm talking in general about sales information that can be accessed but is not for whatever reasons, which stops it from being comprehensiveness. Ashnard _Talk 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Instead of sales figures, can we replace such expectations with the state of its commercial reception? If there are no sources for numbers, but there are reliable sources stating that the game "sold poorly with the effect that ..." or "was a tremendous hit among gamers such that ...", would it not be reasonable to say these statements are enough to replace "34,589 units sold"?

Sales would be preferable, but I personally don't see any problem with that as it would be accounting for reception besides the critical. Ashnard _Talk 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

NPD is the only source of North American sales figures, and even in PAL regions, it's very difficult to find numbers - in both regions, the best you can get for non-top ten content are from the publishers themselves. There's no expectation that it IS accessible. It costs a lot of money to get it, it can't be used as a source (since the editor can't use NPD as a source, since there's no way to establish NPD gave him the info), and posting the information would get the editor in trouble and he wouldn't get the information (or he would be unable to post it). NPD is the only source of NA sales, so if you can't get them from them, how is it available? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this was originally based on sales in general. I've stated how I would judge the situation if an FAC didn't have the sales information. I think I've already expressed my views on how accessibility affects it. About NPD in particular, I tried not talk about it specifically too much as I know nothing about NPD. If you what you've said about how NPD works invalidates what I've said in relation to NPD, then that's an honest mistake. Ashnard _Talk 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How? You admit that you know nothing about NPD, and yet you declare that the facts don't invalidate your opinion. It is literally an impossible standard that not one Wikipedian could ever hope to reach, because it CANNOT BE SOURCED because the only reliable sources that get the information wouldn't POST it. The only way to get sales for Portal is through a press release from the company, and they never made one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As in multiple times before in discussions, you fail to read what I'm saying and then twist my words to your benefit. I'm sorry to say this but discussing anything with you is hard work, so I won't waste my time if you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying. Ashnard _Talk 07:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is, if sales information is not be publicly available (NPD or no, but lets assume totally unrelated to NPD), will that still be a mark against against the article in question should it go up for WP:FAC, and if so, how would we be expected to rectify it? Chan Yin Keen | Talk _Contribs 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be, but the severity would depend on the rest of the "Reception" section. I feel that's on the same scale as not having a "Development" section, because the information is not accessible. Unfortunately, as I've seen with articles without "Development" sections, nothing could be done to rectify this, besides looking for alternative information that would cover reception besides the critical. However, may it be unjust of me to oppose anything at FAC on what is justifiably a grey area by looking at the mixes of responses here, so I'd probably raise it at WP: FAC or FA criteria page. Ashnard _Talk 08:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've raised this at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article criteria#Criteria 1b, comprehensiveness. Ashnard _Talk 08:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Chrono Cross

Could someone come to the article's talk page to discuss the implementation of a "reception" section for this article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added my thoughts.Gears Of War 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon

Blue Dragon is in really hrrible condition. Its all over the place. Please help out.Gears Of War 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean it up a bit. The Prince (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is now under peer review, everyone please help out.Gears Of War 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Post about Cheat Code Central

First of all, I hope this is the right place to ask for help. Anyone could help me to "clean up" this page about Cheat Code Central if it's necessary? Someone made it a candidate for deletion, but I'm not sure what's wrong with it...I tried to find as many references as possible, but I'm sure there are more out there.

I tried to make it similar to Gamespot's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Gamespot

Also, I don't know how to insert images exactly, but you're welcome to add the logo and a screenshot of the site if you think would help.

Mmccc (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Mmccc(talk)

Japanese original vs. 4Kids dub

Here's a bit of something I'm questioning. I'm working on an article for a character that was featured in Nintendo's pokemon anime material, but the character's handling ends up completely different between the Japanese and dubbed versions of Mewtwo Strikes Back. Said original though ties into other Japan-only material that can be used for information. But the kicker comes that much of the reception section is attributed to the 4Kids dubbing.

So the question is do I stick with the Japanese presentation, the dub, or the Japanese one with an explaination about the different handling in the dub? (Can't omit entirely as it does relate to the fictional character's growth and presentation).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can, both. Because 4Kids isn't perfect - remember, a lot of the content is censored content (like, for instance, Ash got many Tauros, but we never know this because 4Kids did not release an episode because of the presence of fire arms). It is a very confusing situation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tournament winners

You might remember there was an afd a while back for Chris Chike, which resulted in a merge to the game he became famous for playing. Uniquely, though, his performance was actually documented by secondary sources. What happens if that's not the case, and the only sources are either from the game companies or tournament organizers, both of which could be considered primary/promotional sources? Is every person who won a World Cyber Games tournament worthy of mention in a game article by virtue that the WCG has a verifiable record of it? Or would we need additional coverage in the press? Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Franchises

What do you guys think of List of video game franchises and Category:Video game franchises? I'm a little concerned about how one decides what constitutes a franchise, and if this bears any reasonable significance -- all successful games (and even many that aren't) tend to become what someone would call a franchise, so this is invariably going to be a huge, aimless list unless it can be reworked somehow. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I share your concerns. I've had a similar issue with List of Sega video game franchises, a list I put some work into after salvaging it from an article that was indiscriminate information. But now I don't like it because of this same issue. Anyone else have any comment? Red Phoenix 03:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If the media or the company calls it a franchise, then it should be considered a franchise. You can use the {{dynamic list}} template to indicate that the list may grow indefinitely, which is not something bad as long as you keep the inclusion criteria. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed

This article is in poor shape. It has very bad grammar, it's sloppily written, it cites no references, it seems to be full of Fancruft, and it could also use a bit of restructuring, or rewriting. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 04:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cheat Code Central

Is anyone able to offer an opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cheat Code Central; there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to whether it's signigicant enough to warrant its own page. – iridescent 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

New Task Force

I think we should start a Madden NFL Taskforce. I would be willing to coordinate this. Madden is an extremely popular game that has a couple of articles under it's scope.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for 11th Airborne Division (United States) now open

The peer review for 11th Airborne Division (United States), an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Websites

The discussion about Cheat Code Central brings up some points. The author of that article based his writing on premier game sites like GameSpot (see also IGN, Gamefaqs). However, on examining these articles it looks like they have some serious issues with cruft: needless detail in explaining each site's specific implementation of generic features (news, reviews, forums, etc), lists of non-notable staff, and lists of awards handed out by the site. These all seem questionable to me. WP:NOTGUIDE has a pretty good summary of how to approach these items. Would anyone object to cleaning this stuff out of the aforementioned articles? Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug Bell article up for deletion

He's listed as part of this project so I thought I'd give a heads up Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Doug_Bell_(2nd_nomination)replacing notice removed by the person trying to have the article deletedLegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is "gameography" a word?

It has a significant number of google hits, but they're entirely from gaming-oriented sources (Moby, IGDA, GameFAQs, to name some). As such, this seems to be more of a jargon word than a part of English vocabulary, so I'm on the fence. Is this the preferred phrase to describe a list of games that a person has worked on? (If not, what is?) Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for "published works" instead. User:Krator (t c) 10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "ludography" is used for a list of game of a particular designer, but I've seen it used generally in the context of board games. It's probably safest to use "published works" as suggested (or something similar). --Craw-daddy | T | 10:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gameography is not a word. It's just a made-up word resembling "filmography" and "bibliography". I remember changing it to "games" instead: , but "published works" works well too. The Prince (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To be exact, it is a word. Anything is a word. But it's recent and not commonly used compared to more established terms. "Published works" is good; the introduction and context is enough for the reader to know that we're talking about video games. Kariteh (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not in any dictionary, so no it's not a word. The Prince (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is spoken or written is a word. Even invented words like, say, "shmurpal", can be considered a word (an invented word, precisely). Dictionaries describe established words though. Note that this is just a comment; I'm not trying to start a huge debate or something. "Published works" is fine. Kariteh (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this from, but the bottom line is that "gameography" should not be used in articles. The Prince (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Case settled. It's an invented word, a neologism of questionable significance or even importance. Published works is fine, moving on. Chan Yin Keen | Talk _Contribs 09:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple WikiProject Video Games

Could people from this project consider helping out on the simple.wiki to expand the articles, as well as create a couple templates for the project (or simply confirm if I can just take the code for the Template:vgproj and the vguserbox? Thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to reuse the templates etc under the GFDL. Let me know if you need a hand with template work. Gazimoff _Read 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Under that license wouldn't history have to be copied as well? JohnnyMrNinja 10:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tons of Tecmo lawsuits

While it's not terribly relevant on the project, the pile of lawsuits they've been receiving may result in some significant damages, perhaps they may even go the way of 3D0.

1. Itagaki's lawsuit's been known for a while - unpaid bonuses for Dead or Alive 4.
2. According to 1UP, more than three-dozen Team Ninja employees left, and joined the class action lawsuit for unpaid bonuses.
3. And most recently, the two top executives of Tecmo's labor union are joining suit for unpaid wages, claiming they falsified documents and accounting procedures in regards to employment statuses, overtime pay, and more. Famitsu added that Tecmo's violated a "ton" of employment contracts and regulations, and did not pay employees for working on public holidays or working overtime.

So, just thought it was a matter of significance that Tecmo may become belly up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... it's possible that we could expand on the information already in the Tecmo article, but per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't speculate about what'll happen to the company. Still, interesting to note - thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Age of Empires on the Main Page

Age of Empires will be appearing on the Main Page on 19 June. If some people could watchlist it and help fight the inevitable vandalism (as well as any other cleanup needed between now and then, etc.) it'd be appreciated. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 10:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got it watchlisted now. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk 11:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Best of luck! Gazimoff _Read 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Native Game Resolutions

The user Cliché Online is currently going through a large number of articles, adding resolutions to them. However, a problem arose when he edited the Haze (video game) article - the creative lead has stated the native resolution is 576p, but the PS3 upscales it to 720p. I pointed this out to Cliché, and the discussion both on (Talk:Haze and his talk page) remained civil (despite him completely misunderstanding the concept of native resolution), until he started accusing me and another user of being sockpuppets.
Anyway, my point is, shouldn't the original, native, resolution be included on articles, if there's a source about it? (this is currently true for Halo 3 and GTA IV). Much Thanks! Fin©™ 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I'm just after seeing that the resolution field in the infobox expands to "Native resolution". Cool. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning for Cliche and a message on the Haze talk with my own take on the situation. He's clearly stepping over the line in his responses, but he also seems to be confusing the issue as you mentioned. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a subtle but important note - the resolution field refers to the native resolution the game runs at, not the resolution that the console upscales to before video output. Were this to be the case, there would be little point in including the resolution field. I will have a look at the {{infobox vg}} template and see if the documentation can be improved to clarify this point. Many thanks, Gazimoff _Read 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gazimoff. I just pointed out in the article talk that it would be impractical for us to list every possible display resolution for every game on every console, because at least on the 360 (and I think it's true for the PS3 as well, but not sure), the game will display at whatever resolution you've selected as your output mode - it'll always upscale or downscale as necessary, and the only major difference in most games is whether it needs to display in 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. The supported resolutions should be listed (if they're important) in the article on the console itself, and we shouldn't be repeating them in each game. If there's a notable reason to list the native, pre-display resolution (like with Halo 3), then it should be included - otherwise, I say we just axe the field altogether for most games. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've identified a deficiency in the documentation for {{infobox VG}} and provided additional information. I agree that the resolution is only critical if it adds further information about how the game engine renders the scene. If it doesn't, or if the engine can adapt to handle different native resolutions (as most PC games do), then it's unimportant. Hope this helps.Gazimoff _Read 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarified it somewhat - you had 16:10 for wide-screen TVs and computer monitors. For wide TVs it's 16:9 (1920x1080), 16:10 for wide computer monitors (1920x1200). :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ach, so close! Gazimoff _Read 01:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See Zlatko Kartal and Misplaced Pages:AN#Are_my_eyes_deceiving_me.3F

This article will probably get deleted, I'm just not sure if it deserves some mention in the Football Manager 2008 article. xenocidic (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Video game controversy

{{Video game controversy}}, List of controversial video games - Is it just me or is this an impossibly huge scope? JohnnyMrNinja 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's impossibly huge, but it sure could use cleanup. Individual games and genres should definitely not be listed in the navbox, as controversy spans the entire domain of VG at some level. At least for the time being, I'd remove those and replace it with a link to the list article. This at least limits the POV to one article and reduces the navbox to a more reasonable size. There also needs to be a review on the "Major figures" listed in the navbox, as potentially every notable politician has made some sort of statement directed at or affecting video games as an entertainment medium. The list article for the games, if well-defined, could work, but based on other lists of (insert broad criteria) games, I also share some skepticism there, especially since the main video game controversy article is in need of improvement. Finally, I'd consider renaming the navbox to "Video game regulation", as the only topic that is necessarily about controversy is the controversy article itself. A "video game controversy" navbox should reference actual controversies like the ones listed at Video game controversy#Publicized incidents, but these would need their own articles first. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article needs deletion?

I'm quite sure this article shouldn't even be on Misplaced Pages in the first place: DSO Clan --DanielPharos (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

it was speedily deleted per WP:CSD criterion A7. Gazimoff _Read 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I guess speedy does indeed mean speedy around here! Thanks! :D --DanielPharos (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trade simulation games

Randomran is trying to delete Category:Trading simulator video games. He argues that the category is small and shows no room for growth. First of all, many of the articles are about series of games of multiple titles. Secondly, there is a sub-category with 48 games. I would hardly call that small. Thirdly, I have a list of games(,,,,,,,) that could get added to the category once articles have been written for them. Finally, there's no reason that the category could not show any growth. Developers could release games within the genre at any time. SharkD (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for soliciting more discussion. I'm proposing a merge, since most of this small category qualifies under business simulation games. Check out the discussion page. Randomran (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Found some more: 18 Wheels of Steel series (5 games total). Also: ,,, and two (,) more sites besides MobyGames) which categorize games in this fashion. SharkD (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't notability or research. The problem is overcategorization, overlap, and the size of the category. Randomran (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

CoD_4#Criticism

Validity of the 'criticism' not being the issue, I believe that it has been stated both here and in general (including Godking Jimbo, I believe) that we should avoid separate criticism sections, no? What content is there (besides being given undue weight) can be placed with the other paragraph of "negative" reviews in the reception section. There's no need for a seperate section, but I've been reverted, so I'm taking it here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although WP:CRIT is an essay, it contains a large amount of information, particularly on biographies. On the whole, criticism sections are discouraged. Content should be merged with the relevant in order to provide a balanced and neutral viewpoint. In the case of reception, both favourable and unfavourable criticisms should be shown together to allow the reader to compare and contrast viewpoints. Anything else risks affecting the neutrality of the article and could be demonstrating a point of view. Hope this helps, Gazimoff _Read 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Negative criticism of the game (ignoring significant, notable technical issues) should be worked in with the normal discussion of the game's reception. It might be a separate paragraph but should not be a separate section. Technical issues and legal complications are the only cases where a separate section is called for, and that's assuming these are significant (eg, BioShock's section) and sourced. --MASEM 00:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The reception section's main prose already contains criticism. I would just cut and paste the criticism section onto the end of that, but it appears to be sourced to a blog, which means its information may not be suitable for inclusion anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth keeping it in the article in some form as opposed to removing it (presumably merged with the reception), as that blog happens to be by the Community Manager for Infinity Ward. If someone would be kind enough to quote a policy on blogs and reputable people that'd be great, as I think quoting that blog is pretty much like getting information straight out of IW. Chan Yin Keen | Talk _Contribs 12:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS. If the guy is in fact the developer from IW, then I'm not doubting it fits, but my point is the organization of a 'criticism' section needs to go. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourzerotwo is indeed the Community Manager of Infinity Ward, Robert Bowling (see here). Agree about the criticism section though, that paragraph seems more appropriate for the Multiplayer section. SeanMooney (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, my FA is going down the drain... Gary King (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Separately criticism sections are frowned upon. In this case, the paragraph should just be deleted. It's trivial, the netcode change in a platform specific patch is not something notable to include in the article. The only source is from the IW community manager whose blog is teeming with reams and reams of trivia that we wouldn't include, we shouldn't be including this. - hahnchen 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the original source quoted in this diff, was a forum post by User:MrWorthless. - hahnchen 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing it was the right thing to do. Gary King (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? It is a valid section on how the online experience is usually negative for non-American players because Infinity Ward implemented netcode to favour Americans. Sure it is a "robust QoS test" according to them. They don't see a problem with it. Why? Because they are American and its not like they ever lag. They have no idea what it is like for us Australians playing online in Call of Duty 4 at the moment. It is a valid section and should stay primarily because it affects people wanting to buy the game and it affects people that already own the game. The people need to know about what the online multi-player is like. If it is negative OR positive then it is Misplaced Pages's job to tell people how the online multi-player is for everyone that has or is going to get the game. The section needs to stay either in its own sub-section or mixed into Multiplayer (as it is now). I am strongly AGAINST removing it because it is a valid section and informs people about how bad the multiplayer is in countries other than the United States. ~ User:MrWorthless —Preceding comment was added at 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Its now part of the multiplayer section. Its been kept yet we've regained our neutral article presentation. Job done methinks. -- Sabre (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not job done. It's a trivial issue that has an entire paragraph devoted to it in the multiplayer section. There's more on the QoS issue, which has only been noted in the community manager's blog, than the entirety of the DLC or any other patch. It's not Misplaced Pages's job to notify readers of every single issue with the game, the blog lists hundreds of issues and talking points. Yet somehow, the only one we're singling out is the QoS issue, this is undue weight. - hahnchen 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure not EVERY issue but this issue is very important. It affects everyone that isn't American (probably more than 60% of CoD4 players). Please refrain from deleting important parts of the article just because YOU think it isn't accurate. ~ User:MrWorthless

Furthermore, we need to retain a neutral article stance. You are trying to set out Call of Duty 4 as having no problems at all, which is not true. We need both sides of the story. This is one paragraph of a very important problem with online multi-player which most Call of Duty 4 players agree is a big problem at the moment. ~ User:MrWorthless —Preceding comment was added at 05:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We aren't trying to say CoD 4 has no problems, that's why there's already criticism in the reception section. -- Sabre (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is criticism that has emerged only recently. It is NOT an unreliable source because the owner of the blog is an INFINITY WARD STAFF MEMBER. You know, the people that make the game in the first place?! MrWorthless (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't give a shit about the sourcing, you showed that when you originally sourced it to your own forum post. Your agenda has been to place this piece of criticism in at all costs, even though it only has a single source, and is not notable enough to be mentioned by third parties. You've not included anything else in the patch, you've not tried to include anything else in the community blog. Just this single piece of criticism that affects you personally. You've not convinced anyone that this issue is more important than all the other unencyclopedic trivia in the blog. I would appreciate if others could watch this article. - hahnchen 11:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article was already featured. We should not be discussing whether we should remove a new piece of contentious material, but whether it should be added. - hahnchen 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Business simulation game to Economic simulation game

I suggest renaming Business simulation game to Economic simulation game. Economic simulation games encompass games where you control the economy of a state or faction. I don't think these can really be thought of as "businesses". It also encompasses games where you trade as a free-lance trader or privateer. The term is quite common, probably as common as business simulation game if you don't take into account academic or professional sources. SharkD (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The article and category were recently renamed based on reliable research and consensus. Economic simulation game led to government simulation games and city-building games being thrown in, and it became an indiscriminate category. You should also wait to see if "trading simulation game" is merged into business simulation before you start proposing a change in scope. Randomran (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the consensus for the category move was arrived at without significant discussion and only one source was provided for the naming of the article/genre. Are we sure that the sourced name is actually dealing with the same scope as we would like to approach the article from? Do we want to maintain separate articles for government simulations, city building, etc. and are those sub-genres also distinguished/given by the same source? If not, it may be that we are relying too heavily on a source that does not accommodate our needs and it is not just re-wording but re-defining the context of various articles. I'm not saying it's the wrong move, necessarily. I do agree that there is a lot of sprawl with regard to the various flavors of sim/tycoon game, and the effort to reorganize is well-founded, but I think we would benefit from hearing more suggestions about what to do with these articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The only other discussion of the move can be found here and here where the user expresses reservation regarding the move, citing some of the reasons I mentioned. Further, in the second link Randomran goes on about some gobbledygook, saying that there are zero references to the term "Economic simulation". Let's take a look at the sources listed in Business simulation game:

1. Review - IGN: Trevor Chan's Capitalism II - The author uses the terms "business sim" and "economic sim" interchangeably.
2. IGN: Joan of Arc Interview - First of all, a first-party source (the devloper) on a single game can't be used as an authority on an entire genre. Secondly, the author of the article (the reviewer) uses the term "economic gaming".
3. IGN: Air Bucks - IGN specifically lists this game under the genre "Economic Simulation".
4. Review - IGN: The Movies - Once again, the game is listed under the genre "Economic Simulation" by IGN.
5. IGN: Big Biz Tycoon Ships - same genre as above.

So, of the seven references Randomran himself provided, five of them are examples of where the term "Economic simulation" is used. Four of them catagorize them in this way, giving them larger scope. This hardly backs up his assertion that there are "zero references". I hate to see Randomran beguiling and misleading people with the voice of authority on a subject like he mislead User:Sven Eberhardt. This isn't the first time Randomran has made bold claims without backing them up with sources,,. --SharkD (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit: And another one here: . SharkD (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, assume a little good faith? Why are you so intently focused on me, instead of the discussion we're having? The business simulation article is supported by the most reliable of sources. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but your habit of blowing things out of proportion is exasperating. SharkD (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a funny way of demonstrating proportion. ^^^^^^^^^ Just saying. Randomran (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's stay constructive and focus on where to go from here. First, I think addressing this on an article-by-article basis is a mistake, as that will only encourage inconsistencies in how the topic is approached, leading to both content redundancy and content forking. So first let's determine which articles are related. These are the articles/genres that I think need to be reviewed. For reference, see List of simulation video games.

• Business simulation game (formerly Economic simulation game)
• City-building game
• Construction and management simulation
• God game
• Government simulation game
• Life simulation game
• Social simulation game
• Space combat simulator (merged Space trading and combat simulator)

Categories:

• Category:Biological simulation video games
• Category:Business simulation games
• Category:City building games
• Category:God games
• Category:Government simulation video games
• Category:Life simulation games
• Category:Social simulation video games
• Category:Space trading and combat simulators
• Category:Trading simulator video games

Additions? Subtractions? The immediate problem that I can see is that words like "business", "city", "god", "government", "life", "society" and "space" are nouns that describe themes, not gameplay. On the other hand, "build/construct", "manage", and "trade" are verbs that describe what the player does in-game. IMO, we should structure these articles by determining how construction, management, and trade are related and unrelated. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that the list of genres is not mutually-exclusive. Looking at Template:Video game genre as well as the categories you listed one sees that the genres are nested. I don't have a particular problem with the way this nesting is done, as long as the it is done consistently across the different namespaces (i.e. template, article, category). I don't have a problem with creating sub-categories, as long as the sub-categories belong to the proper parent categories. SharkD (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A significant problem with the video game genre articles is that they end up being a two or three sentence dictionary definitions followed by a list of games. It's easy to find someone who says "Galactic Muderers is a space shooter game" and make a new "space shooter" article, or "Home on the range is a cowboy simulator" and make a new "cowboy simulator" article. But there's often no reliable research that can go into detail about the genre. Why? Because it's just a term to define a narrow theme, not a genre. Really, it's the kind of information that should be merged into an existing, synonymous article. "There are many different kinds of shooters, and some take place in space such as Galactic Murderers." "There are also city-building simulators that take place in the old west, such as Home On The Range".

Terms like "city-building game", "business simulation game", and "government simulation game" are used in reliable research to describe types of Construction and management simulations. There is reliable research that these are the names of different types of construction and management simulations. That said, the gameplay is often fundamentally the same, with each type determined by a change in focus. If you wanted to call for a merge, I'd be okay with that. It's a thin line between a new genre and simply a variation in theme on an existing genre. Terms like trade simulation and economic simulation should be regarded as synonyms or slight variations on this theme, and ought to be listed under within the business simulation article/section. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to quote myself from the CfD for Trading simulation games as to my rational for renaming the page to "Economic simulation game":

"Actually, you got that backwards : business is an aspect of economics, ergo business simulations are a sub-category of economic simulators. Other aspects, besides "legitimate business" include state interference and crime."

SharkD (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an original argument, but wikipedia isn't a place for original research. The actual research reveals a lot of people tossing around terms like "economic simulation" and "business simulation", and they're often used interchangeably to describe the same games. The two major reasons that "business simulation" makes more sense is because: (1) the references that describe the actual game mechanics in more detail refer to these as "business simulations" (and "management simulations", actually). (2) when this article was called "economic simulation", nearly any game with an economy was included in the list: city-building games, RTSs, wargames... even RPGs. Business simulation is used interchangeably with economic simulation game, and has clearer boundaries for the purposes of wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are throwing around statements, like "lack of proper research" and " research here" without providing any references. If you don't cite any sources, it makes your position look very weak. SharkD (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how my position looks, the research is there. I'm talking about the Ernest Adams source, which goes into detail about the game genre. It's a wealth of information and I've only thrown out a few nuggets. A lot of the other references out there only use the terminology, but never describe it in detail. Worse still, there's a lot of references that talk about simulations that aren't games and more training exercises and so on. That's in addition to the other reason I listed above. Randomran (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You've just provided a single source. You said there were multiple sources. I don't see how you can place so much undue weight on a single source. There are people with varying opinions, and you can't just use a single source to override many sources. SharkD (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There aren't really varying opinions. We've established that economic simulations and business simulations are used interchangeably. All other things being equal, it's a coin toss. There's a few arguments that tip the balance towards business simulation. As far as describing what they actually are (rather than simply reciting the term), Adams one goes into the most detail by a landslide. That's in addition to the problem with "economic simulation" sounding like it includes any game that simulates an economy, and encouraging miscategorization. Randomran (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Any game that simulates an economy" is exactly what the term is used for. The term is meant for games that simulate a real economy with multiple entities acting and reacting to one another in a dynamical system. It's not just for a simple sim where you control a single business and worry about profit margins and production output in isolation. SharkD (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Virtually any game has a simulated economy. The economic simulation article and category had the same problems as "list of physics based games": virtually anything qualifies, and it's usually some weird gut reaction that decides what makes the list or not. You're going to see RTSs and even RPGs in there. It's hard to stop the flow of original research of "oh, this is an economic simulation". Like I said, reliable resources use economic simulation and business simulation interchangeably. All other things being equal, we have one pretty good source and one high quality source that go into detail about business simulations (rather than economic simulations), and a more clear name to prevent miscategorization. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:FFspinoff

Should this template be renamed like Template:VGtitle, or perhaps merged? Kariteh (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, and shouldn't be that hard to change as there's only a handful of articles that use {{FFspinoff}}. I would suggest raising it at WP:FF first though, just to make sure. Gazimoff _Read 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Last time I asked WP:FF about Template:FFtitle no one answered, so I assume these kind of changes are okay. Kariteh (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest going for it. Once done, please raise a TfD for the unused template, explaining that it is now redundant. Best of luck, Gazimoff _Read 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased games

Should we put a limit on the creation of articles for unreleased games? For example, Black Mesa (game mod)'s only possible claims to notability are 'unreleased mod' awards for three years running from one web site; so it's clear not much has happened besides a bunch of screenshots (might want to check the NFCC about those anyhow...) So my question is, like unreleased films, should we redirect articles which are currently in development but which fail the GNG as well? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes i agree. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Black Mesa mod's notability goes a bit further than a few unrelease awards, it has received some significant coverage in from the magazine journalists. They've scanned some of it onto their site. Its coverage should mean its able to build a half-decent unreleased game article, although I don't know how much can be said for online coverage pass ModDB though. However, when an article's unreleased status means it cannot grow much beyond something like what is currently in the Black Mesa mod's article (although as I've said, I think the Black Mesa article can improve beyond what it is at the moment), redirection is probably a good idea. -- Sabre (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

SimCity 4

Is anyone interested in working together to bring SimCity 4 to Featured Article status? Gary King (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Go on what are the things should be improved also i wish even articles like Company of Heroes, The Sims 2, World in Conflict and Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword to be FL as well. Any help GK?. Iam doing my best to improve but my writing skills is terrible which iam working on.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've played and beaten all of those games, and I'd like to improve them, too. I'd like to see Civilization 4 to FA after SC4 is done. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Would like to help, I'll give the page a look through to get an idea of how it is and what may be lacking. On a side note, how does one beat The Sims 2?? Chan Yin Keen | Talk _Contribs 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man (video game)

The user PlayFreebirdNow has been constantly adding a list of unlockable armours to the Iron Man (video game) for the past two days. He has been reverted by myself and two other users, after which he became uncivil, despite being given reasons (wp not a gameguide and wp:gametrivia), resulting in his blocking yesterday. Anyway, once unblocked today, he continued on his merry way, readding the info to the article. I'm currently at my 3R limit (I think), and he has consistently ignored warnings and explanations given on his talk page. What's next? Thanks! Fin©™ 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say take it to WP:ANI or at least what's next on the list in dispute resolution. Chan Yin Keen | Talk _Contribs 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this user has been blocked for edit warring for a week. If the problem persists post block, come back and let us know. Gazimoff _Read 11:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Madden NFL New Task Force

I think we should start a Madden NFL Taskforce. I would be willing to coordinate this. Madden is an extremely popular game that has a couple of articles under it's scope. It is probably the most popular current sports game. And besides, I love it.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  10:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have about five people who feel the same, and you need some space (read: project page) to coordinate, go for it. It's the people that matter, not the topic per se. User:Krator (t c) 10:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Video Game Project Bot

Following up on the (far) above thread, would there be anyone within the project that would be willing/interested to make a Video Game Project bot? It would mostly be adding/maintaining/formatting project templates, but I'm certain anal-retentive vgproj editors can come up with lists of tasks that would be easier for a bot to do. If not, I'll bring it to bot requests. JohnnyMrNinja 08:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to do random AWB tasks relating to the project (Giggabot) on request, for what it's worth. giggy _(:O) 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! I've brought it to User talk:Giggabot. JohnnyMrNinja 09:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I think the mistake I've made is clear. Apologies. I'll take the talk to User_talk:Giggy instead. JohnnyMrNinja 09:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now tagging stuff in User:JohnnyMrNinja/vgcats, feel free to add to it. giggy _(:O) 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources quoting from unreliable sources

There's an interesting case of reliable sources quoting from unreliable sources at Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Versus XIII. Basically, the timeline of events is:

• Famitsu publishes an interview with Tetsuya Nomura -> reliable
• Someone called Duckroll posts an erroneous translation of the interview on the NeoGAF forums, stating that Versus XIII has been put on hold -> unreliable
• Fansites like report Duckroll's erroneous information -> unreliable
• Reputable sources like GameSpot and IGN also report the information -> ???
• Square Enix issues an official statement to debunk the false information -> reliable
• Reputable sources and fansites alike report Square Enix's press release

So in the end, is the event worth mentioning in Misplaced Pages since Square Enix issued a statement to debunk the false information, or is it not worth mentioning since it started as a mere mistranslated quote in a forum and since GameSpot and IGN reported it but apparently didn't check to see if the translation was correct? Kariteh (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would delete the whole mess and write from Famitsu (or whatever correct information it had from a reliable site). Reliable sources do make mistakes and we do not have to hold them to it. Jappalang (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Video games

Would someone wise in the way of templates please take a look at my question on Template talk:WikiProject Video games? Thanks. JohnnyMrNinja 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The New Assesment Scale

Support

1. Support.I think we should accept the class because it will make grading much easier.Gears Of War 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally unrelated, the word you're looking for is accept, not except. Inner grammar-nazi at work. Chan Yin Keen | T_C 13:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Support: A start class article is more than a stub, and a B class article is something that has some decent references and information but a lot of OR too. A C class article, to me, is an article that has gone some way to include useful information, but might lack the research or organization to be taken seriously. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Recently, C has been added to the scale(the first change in 3 years), that update needs to be added here. Thanks.Gears Of War 13:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. Is it possible for specific WikiProjects to dissent? User:Krator (t c) 14:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, it's opt-in (or something like that). See also Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 7. giggy _(:O) 14:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, the editorial team did decide that no project had to except the C class. Should we have a vote just like the editorial team to decide wether or not the project embraces the C class. We could use the traditional Support, Oppose, and Netrual vote.Gears Of War 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think we should go for it. I think many VG articles in particular are highly subject to the "not quite B, not quite Start" situation. --.:Alex:. 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go for it too. There are a lot of articles that don't really qualify as start articles, but not B either. Is there anywhere I read more about this? We should put this to a discussion in the near future. Randomran (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You can read the entire page for details but look here for the main discussion.Gears Of War 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Adopting the grade would allow us to reserve B class for articles which are genuine future GA candidates without requiring a complete overhaul and gaps in coverage. Start class doesn't actually ask for much at all, yet when assessing I often find it necessary to keep an article at start rather than promoting to B because of a range of problems. Another notch would also act as positive reinforcement for editors with little time or experience who are trying to improve a particular stub or start class article. Someoneanother 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to embrace the new class.Gears Of War 16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to set up a poll, but we need one. There is currently work being done on the project template to incorporate new classes (cat, dab, & template), so if C should be added too, it'd be nice to know. JohnnyMrNinja 08:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If we do embrace C-class, how to define the approach then?

• Stub - One, two paragraphs about the topic, typically unreferenced but notable
• Start - More than a stub, but not well organized and referenced - The basic information we expect to see in VG articles is there, but may not be all complete, sections are off, etc. Most commonly the gameplay and plot and story have been written (the "easy" sections) but nothing on development or reception. (example: Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil)
• C-Class - Article is organized decently, but missing one or more sections generally considered appropriate; referencing may not be completely there, but there is some. This would be the class I would use for a well built "future game" article since it will lack any reception section, a necessity for more VG articles. I would also say that the bulk of our articles on games from this and the last console generations are probably around this class. (eg Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time is a C-class to me as it's got most key sections, so its beyond start-class)
• B-Class - Pretty much a good copyedit and cleanup away from being a GA; all sections necessary are present, all referencing appears to be done, and so forth.
• A-Class - An article destined for FA that just hasn't been put through FA. Prose is super-tight, references are perfect, etc. Should be assessed that way by two VG assessment reviewers. --MASEM 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the link I left they had ideas for the discription. Note that the conclussion was to make a C class. To get some examples, there is indeed already a new cat called list of c-class articles. But though the class has not officially been added to the scheme, it will be soon, maybe we should vote now and then see the discription for all of Misplaced Pages and then incpoperate it into our own style.Gears Of War 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil. User:Krator (t c) 14:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Expansion on the Blue Dragon Universe

Alright, the universe of Blue Dragon is huge. I want to know if I should add some more info on the universe. Would it be okay if I make a List of Blue Dragon Monsters article or anything like that?Gears Of War 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly recommend not creating a list of monsters. Blue Dragon may be "huge" but it's not yet at Pokemon/Zelda/Mario levels of franchise that would necessitate the possibility of a common enemies list. If there isn't one already, you can start a separate wiki (at Wikia for free or elsewhere) for this type of information. --MASEM 16:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Taglines

Should taglines be aloud in VG articles?Gears Of War 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why they would be needed. They don't really add anything. -- Sabre (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me state my opinion this way: if allowing taglines in the article body reduces the compulsion to add it as a subtitle in the article name, I'm all for it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case I have added a tagline to Soulcalibur IV.Gears Of War 13:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe we should add tagline to the infobox.Gears Of War 13:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Toad (nintendo)'s merging

Toad should not be merged with List_of_Mario_series_characters. Toad has played a notable role in too many Mario games to be fit into one section of an article. Ghost109 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Source? Kariteh (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, source? Anyone who's played a good number of Mario games should know that Toad has played a number of roles, most of them helpful in some way. Ghost109 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A topic is 'notable' if it has been covered in multiple, reliable, third party sources (WP:N. Bridies (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One important point in this is if Toad has notability outside of the games themselves (out-of-universe information), then he may be deserving of his own article. However, I doubt this is the case - aside from being a significant character in a variety of Nintendo games, he doesn't likely have much real-world coverage, in the same vein as Mario or Samus Aran. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

←Took a quick glance at the article, and it definitely looks like something that would be much better suited for a gaming wiki. The other characters mentioned in the article are not nearly as notable as the main Toad character - the article is confused with trying to distinguish between the character and the race. I think a little more expansion in the List of Characters would suffice, and the main article should be merged or deleted. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Toad has about as much real-world coverage as Princess Peach, who has her own article. Peach is a playable character in the Mario Kart, Mario Party, and Mario Sports series. So is Toad. Peach was playable in Super Mario Bros. 2, so was Toad. Peach did have one side scroller for the DS, which is one of the only games where she is playable and Toad is not. To the guy who wanted me to find a coverage on Toad or something-http://uk.stars.ign.com/objects/960/960455.html...Ghost109 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem was while the required notability info exists, nobody went around and dug for it and the article wasn't cleaned up. A Toad article would be good enough to have on WP...but not in the form that one was.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I linked that source the last time this was discussed. There needs to be more than one, with enough info to actually write an article. Bridies (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

MGS peer review

Just letting you know that Metal Gear Solid is currently having a Peer review and I would love some more feedback on it (it's also needs a copy edit) as I'm trying to get it back to FA status. Thanks for any help. Buc (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a full review up probably by tomorrow. Since you're looking at FA, I'll review as if it were an FAC. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this too short?

I've been working a bit on Midtown Madness of late. I know it needs a screenshot, lead expansion, and other minor cleanup. Anyways, my question is if there is enough gameplay information, or if I should add more (and if yes, what more can be said?).

And on that note, are there are any places to look for information that I may have overlooked? giggy _(:O) 04:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason there needs to be any more lengthy of a gameplay section. Heck, get rid of the vehicle lists and it willprobably be better :-) --MASEM 04:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See Iridion 3D for an example of a short, featured, game article. If you're asking yourself what more can be said, as opposed to what more needs to be said, you've probably said enough. Nifboy (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good example, thanks for that. I meant to ask what more needs to be said, though I imagine there isn't any of that either. giggy _(:O) 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Video game vandalism

Administrators be advised, the article is undergoing repeated vandalism by a couple of IPs. What's strange is that there was a semi-protection icon on the page but no actual protection. Is this article suppose to be protected or was it revoked? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no protection on the article; it expired on June 18. (The template that puts up the protection lock icon is only that, a template - but itself not responsible for protection). --MASEM 04:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a bot that removes that template, but it's sometimes slow, I think. In any case, reprotection may be warranted, but in the meantime I've watchlisted. giggy _(:O) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

List class

So, we apparently have 73 current list-class pages, despite my honest belief that the previous discussion, at the very least, did not achieve consensus. I think list-class is a really bad idea and will lead to a decrease in the quality of lists in this project. That's why I'm appalled that without clear consensus, some decided to implement this on 73 pages, and now it's on the assessment page again too (diff).

No bad feelings to those who did this in good faith and thought that a consensus existed, or to those who are just excited by a new 'class' in general. So, can we find a consensus here? In order to summarise the previous discussion (probably biased to my POV):

• The main argument in favour seems to be that it allows further classification of things, which some believe to be an inherently awesome thing. I beg to differ, and think that you should only classify things if there's a good reason to.
• A smaller argument in favour is that it allows people to see earlier whether this or that page would be "FA" or "FL". I differ here too, because we currently have (just) 13 featured lists, and I think that any controversy surrounding which featured status a page should attain is best solved on a case-by-case basis, if it happens more than once in a year at all.
• My main argument against is that people writing lists now have no way to fit into the assessment system, which is mainly about feedback, criticism, and achieving goals, because their article will always stay list-class.
• A middle way argument offered by Masem was to allow Lists to be 'upgraded' to one of the article classes. Though this would work, I don't see the need for it at all, as it would negate any benefit List-class would have (see the first two points), and would be reason for confusion ("My list just because start class! Is this an improvement or not?").

Flame away. User:Krator (t c) 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to use the list class effectively we have to differentiate between navigational lists (eg List of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis games) and sub-articles which deal with specific elements of a game or series (eg Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which a lot of 'character lists' actually resemble). Navigational lists do not require re-assessment using the full breadth of article classes - they're either complete and adequately cited (FL class) or not (list class). Discussion on what data they should contain and how it should be organized would take place on the talk page or be brought up here for wider consensus. 'Lists' which contain substantial prose are articles, and would benefit from access to the full assessment scale and article assessments. If one of these should be considered for FL rather than FA status at the final hurdle, the assessment scale has already been used to its full affect.

So in short, why don't we call pure navigational lists 'list class' and use the full assessment scale in all other cases? Someoneanother 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do a separate List classing? "Incomplete list", "Starting list", "C list", "B list", "Good list", "A list", and "Featured list"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this kind of ghettoizes the lists, and prevents people from really know what to work on and how far to improve. I think the most useful and elegant solution is to make the list class into a list "tag", which can be put on any article of any class. Randomran (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists