Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:29, 10 July 2013 editX201 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors119,674 edits →Metal Gear Solid (film)← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:08, 10 July 2013 edit undoBOZ (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users127,447 edits →Datormagazin: going to ask at sv-wikiNext edit →
Line 306:		Line 306:
	:Apparently, you'll have to go by "Rating 0/5 -- Reviewer Markus Dahlberg -- Page a13", unless you can find a page scan and a translator. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 11:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)		:Apparently, you'll have to go by "Rating 0/5 -- Reviewer Markus Dahlberg -- Page a13", unless you can find a page scan and a translator. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 11:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	::Right, that's what I'm looking for. ] (]) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)		::Right, that's what I'm looking for. ] (]) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
			::I'll go straight to the source and ask the horse - maybe someone on sv-wiki both speaks English and has a copy of the mag? ] (]) 23:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	== '']'' ==		== '']'' ==

Revision as of 23:08, 10 July 2013

Shortcut

WT:VG

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2014-05-29

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Edi Birsan (2 participants)
Task Force: Ghost Team (4 participants)
Jack Manifold (2 participants)
Gameplay of World of Warcraft (5 participants)
Pokémon Trading Figure Game (3 participants)
Buff Technologies (3 participants)
Imakuni? (3 participants)
Tetr.io (7 participants)
Benedikt Johannes Hofer (6 participants)
Double Fine Comics (3 participants; relisted)
Westballz (4 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

Sun Haven

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Archives

Index 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 page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

WikiProject
Video games

Main page

talk

Emulator Notability

There's some emulators that clearly have enough notability to have pages, many that clearly don't, and a lot in the middle. What should be done? I fear that if you strictly apply the 3rd party notability standard, then a lot of pages for emulators would simply be turned into redirects.

Also, what would classify as a reliable third party source to give notability to emulators? Most of them might not get much more press than a few blog posts, or an article on an emulation news site. They will largely be ignored by the main stream media. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We have List of emulators which can be verified by third-parties but may not have their own page, so we can document them but just not give them a full page. The sources at WP:VG/S are those that, at minimum, should be used for third-party sources. If all we have are blog posts, they aren't considered meeting even the third-party standard. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Video_game_platform_emulators has a lot of them. Project64 ended its AFD with a redirect, despite being a major thing with a lot of content in its article. Meanwhile TR64 still has its article which is only three sentences long, two of which tell you why it isn't any good and not worth bothering with. Dream Focus 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've nominated TR64 for deletion based on those grounds. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And just as a note: if there are third-party sources but not enough for notability, don't delete the article - add the line to List of emulators and redirect the article to the list, as we can still search on the term. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of emulation and find these to be somewhat informative, personally, but I'll agree I was very surprised when I saw the plethora of articles on what appears to be non-notable emulators. Most can probably be merged into something like a "list of emulators"; I can only think of very few notable exceptions (Dolphin, VBA & NO$GBA, maybe SNES9x & zSNES, Project64, definitely MAME) for which significant coverage might be found in reliable sources. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RetroArch

So far I've made the pages for Mednafen and RetroArch redirect to the List of video game emulators. A developer for Retroarch left a very strongly worded reply on my talk page, and then reverted it. Now, there is a few sources for that. There is a link from the Guardian which recommends Retroarch. Guardian is a reliable source that can establish notability. Lifehacker I think is a blog thing, I'm not really sure if it counts. What do you guys think? I think it's a borderline case. If there were a few more sources, I say it should stay for sure. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That reply was more than unwarranted, you acting in good faith. Frankly, I'm still amazed users would go to such incivility while not even being familiar with our guidelines. The page wasn't deleted, and while there are sources enough to pass it over GNG, it takes one knowledgeable in the field to come up with those. I suggest searches like our RS search in the future though. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What a nasty response to receive. Please don't be discouraged by their attempts to bully you. Also FWIW, I find the new sources added to the article really weak, and the emulator doesn't show any non-comment hits in the custom WPVG RS search. czar · · 14:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You find the new sources 'really weak'? What are you looking for instead? Linking to oneself like Desmume does? Or bsnes? Or SNES9x? How about you go and delete all those pages while you're at it - you wouldn't have anything left by the time you finish.84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice that the topic of this section is redirecting and deleting non-notable emulators. As WPedians often say in Articles for Deletion, other stuff exists. It's quite possible that DeSmuME will be deleted or merged once someone takes a look at it. (E.g., see Project64's mention above.) Please also mind what WP says about conflicts of interest and how we are expected to handle editors found to have one. As for sources, I'm looking for dedicated coverage from reliable sources (WP:42), not brief Guardian or Lifehacker mentions or CrackBerry.com install tutorials (though it's a start). It has to be enough reporting to sustain an article, however brief, and the current sources just say "I like it", at best. And any removed page can always be restored once supporting sources later appear. Also, we expect civility here, and I highly recommend apologizing for threatening to "come after" another editor once you've cooled off. czar · · 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I notice you have given 'deleting subject matter that facilitates copyright infringement' a clever euphemistic name such as 'removing non-notable things'. I only apologize BTW when I think it's called for. I don't care about your pathetic Misplaced Pages 'rules' or your pathetic 'song and dance' - go ahead and have every single emulator page removed for all I care - as well as removing a 'page' that isn't even part of the subject matter you're trying to *mass-delete*. It is just great sound logic and reasoning after all coming from Misplaced Pages tards like your own. "Assume good faith" my ass. Start doing something that is of use to this world rather than being a failed journalistic hack that didn't have the chops to land a job at the major newspapers and now has to resort to gutter trash side jobs like this.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, just because you guys have decided you want to launch this witchhunt does not mean the burden of proof suddenly is on me to give you lots of reasons as to why a page should or should not be deleted. Really, if those are the amount of hoops I have to jump through to get a little 'page' on your encyclopedia then fuck it - I have better things to do.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't have gotten such a reply if instead of being familiar with the 'rules' of this great and dandy Misplaced Pages place you would actually start becoming informed about the subject matter which you deem 'not notable enough'. First of all - RetroArch is not an emulator - if you don't understand that part then you know nothing about it. Learn what an API is, learn what a frontend is - learn that there are already a couple of game engine ports and a media player port and that engineers from every major company are sending me e-mails telling me how much they love the project. I'd wager that is quite 'notable' enough.84.26.108.111 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Its rather ironic that you're lecturing him on this, when you seem to be defining notability as "engineers giving you praise". Please read the WP:GNG. That's how Misplaced Pages defines it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's ass about these political dickwaving contests. Go ahead and launch your little crusade and have it deleted for all I care. Do continue 'editing' and 'removing' subject matter you know jack all about. Really makes your 'encyclopedia' seem credible and all that. BTW - you really do have to explain to me how 'The Guardian' qualifies as 'engineers giving you praise'. Seems to me you don't know what kind of nonsense you can think of in your effort to get this page removed.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not "politics", its the basic premise and policy of the website. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That talk page note seems to indicate a pretty clear COI for that IP editor.... -- ferret (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How so? I am just trying to educate you people what our project is and what it is NOT - it is NOT a 'videogame emulator' - it is far more than that and that is why it has gained the popularity it has. If you don't understand the part about it not being an 'emulator', then frankly you don't have the qualifications to be even editing any pages.84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire, 84.26, you should read about all the things Misplaced Pages is not. Among other things, Misplaced Pages is not an advertising platform. And as for your project: If it's not an emulator, then why is it full of emulator cores? Sounds an awful lot like a multi-platform system emulator to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. By that same rationale, if the Internet is not a 'porn platform' then why is it full of porn, right?84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you know, if I were the leader of a project like this, I certainly wouldn't compare it to a "porn platform" if I wanted people to take it seriously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the editor has very directly identified himself as lead developer of the article subject... Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, don't think emulators apply for any special GNG treatment. They should have reliable independent sources and be the subject of several, such as WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I do agree, however I think if you applied those standards to emulators, something like 75% of them would fail. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, we should be treating emulators like we would with any other video game. And in that sense, most of them would not be notable- we can say they exist, but we have no reception, development (sourced to third-parties), etc. I know a lot of these are pet projects, but that's exactly the reason that we shouldn't have articles on them but fairly list those that at least have a tiny bit of coverage on a table. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and get the 'mass delete' button out then - because the kind of 'reliable sources' you're looking for that plug this stuff just don't exist. Really, Misplaced Pages grows more stupid by the day.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Its the foundation of the project, and while things have gotten stricter over the years, it's largely stayed the same. If you don't like it, then this is not the place for you. If we didn't have rules set up like this, the project would be swamped with all sorts of crap. Every teenager who makes a web game would have an article, and it would be one giant medium for advertising. If you could separate yourself from your "outrage" regarding the questioning of your own personal project, I think you'd see that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

On the civility front, I believe I've made a little progress with this editor over on Talk:RetroArch - if nothing else, I hope I've convinced him that Harizotoh9 isn't (likely to be) one of his rivals, and that maybe he can take a more constructive approach to improving the article than he chose at first. Here's hoping the effort was worth it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you see his response to Czar, a little over an hour before your wrote that? He just about broke every sort of AGF/CIVILITY/NPA guideline we have. I'm giving him a final warning. It's pretty apparent he's not here to build an encyclopedia... Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

IP editor apologized to Harizotoh9, so I'm fine with this resolution. I don't think any other warnings are necessary, personally. Back on topic, many of the emulators should likely be merged into a single list. I'm not sure it's worth bringing them to AfD individually so maybe we can decide on some action on the lot here instead. czar · · 19:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not bothered/offended, but as an Admin, I really have to speak up and warn someone who, for example, uses "tard" in a derogatory manner. (And I already warned him before you wrote that anyways.) Also, I agree, I think it would just be good to do some merger discussions for most of these, rather than a ton of AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm an admin too, and believe me, I was awfully tempted to just block him after seeing the response to Harizotoh. But IMO, when someone is convinced that the world is out to get them, it's better to convince them otherwise than to just block them and make them feel like their point's been proven. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I take that route plenty myself, but so far all I've interpreted is a WP:SPA who refuses to listen about the most basic of policy, and had above gone into more over personal attacks. I guess I'm less tolerant when it doesn't appear they have interest in ever contributing to the project. (How many times has he said "I don't care" or threaten to leave because he's not willing to learn how things work here? Like ten?) Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And each time he's done that while I've been talking to him, I've told him to just see how long he lasts here. Unfortunately, now that we're discussing sources there, it looks like he's reverting, so a trip to WP:ANI might be in order soon. (Since you and I are both involved now, we can no longer do the blocking since it would be seen as retaliation.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In any case, there's a Wikia devoted entirely to emulation. This is probably the most appropriate place for most emulation articles, especially the ones that fail to meet notability standards.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussions

Just in case anyone's interest, this IP editor finally got himself blocked yesterday after apparently going completely insane. As of now, his block expires in a week, so I expect that sometime next weekend, we'll be hearing from him again. But in the meantime, I think we can get back to actually working on this section of articles - both RetroArch and Higan (emulator) either need some serious help with sources and notability, or should be merged to the main list article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual merge discussion for RetroArch is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:RetroArch#Merge_Discussion:_List_of_video_game_emulators for those interested, since that talk page is pretty chaotic. Input is welcome. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at the proposed merge: Talk:List of video game emulators#2013 merge discussion czar · · 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Modern Combat 4: Zero Hour Meltdown Update

I'd like someone to update the Modern Combat 4: Zero Hour article to cope with the Meltdown Update, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzkrieg99 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Eggplant Wizard

I'm a bit unhappy with Eggplant Wizard, which redirects to a section of Kid Icarus that doesn't mention him at all. I was thinking of retargeting it to List of Kid Icarus characters#Underworld Army, where he's a list item, but the character is also well known as an antagonist from Captain N: The Game Master. So retarget to Captain N: The Game Master#Major villains? So maybe it would be best to follow King Hippo and convert it to a standalone article. Think he would meet WP:FICT? I could take a stab at this, but I thought someone at this project might be better qualified. There's an older version of the article as a stub, but it's not much to go by. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying this out of policy, but personally I'm of the opinion that if a topic seems to be at least somewhat notable in regards to a number of other articles, perhaps it might be notable enough for a standalone article? I know very little of Eggplant Wizard. I'd recommend drafting it first to see just how much meat there is. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 19:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't searched, so I'm not sure, but I know we hold individual character articles to a pretty high standard, and this enemy isn't exactly up there with Dr. Robotnik or Bowser. I would think he should be be redirected to the series he originates from, Kid Icarus, rather than Captain N, which was a crossover type thing, right? Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to #Underworld Army. Not mentioned in the Kid Icarus article, better off as the list mention with the other characters. Not independently notable enough for its own article via search engine test, better known for Kid Icarus association than Captain N appearance so shouldn't be redirected to the latter. Redirect to the character list and add a single line about Captain N appearance, which can be linked for more info on the show. Captain N's character section is looking a bit too large, too. czar · · 20:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that sounds like the best solution. Someone's always free to boldly try a standalone article, of course. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

IP user changing dates

User:69.122.114.246 is changing the dates on a vast number of articles. Can't see any evidence of references, they leave no edit summary, they're also editing List of PlayStation 2 games. Don't think its vandalism, but have no idea where they're getting the dates from either. - X201 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've strong reasons to believe this user, and other IP addresses before, are User:Controls007, which is indef'ed for similarly disruptive editing. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

For DUCK reasons, I'm quite confident that Controls007 is just another sockpuppet of a much older date vandal I've been aware of since April 2012. He targets childrens cartoons (I've noticed the Nickelodeon cartoons are a particular favorite for this guy) and doesn't ever respond to talk page notes. My guess is that he targets these because we have to AGF and children really like to edit these articles as well so even blatantly false info could be taken under AGF as a child's good-faith errors.

I've spoken at length about this guy with User:Shadowjams who knows him from well prior to April 2012. We both became suspicious that there may be an automated element to this guy's edits - which may explain the lack of response to talk page posts. I've seen him warned while date changing was ongoing and it didn't slow him up in the least. I've also seen suggestions that this may be a new phase of WP:LTA's Bambifan101 (though I don't see very much evidence for this). He usually uses IPs, but the IP above doesn't seem to have done much related to cartoons. Some of the games he's edited, though, like the Tiny Toon Adventures games might be the crossover point.

If this guy has switched to targeting video game articles (Note: A topic that some associate with children), then major vigilance is needed. He's been doing this for years with no signs of stopping. The cartoon articles (especially episode lists with broadcast dates) are really a shambles these days. This is relatively subtle vandalism and the only way to catch it is to review the edit history of every editor that modifies a date on an article you have watchlisted. If they are exclusively or primarily changing dates on multiple articles without sources or edit summaries, and they do not respond to talk page warnings then they are very likely the same vandal. I'd recommend rollbacking everything where he's the most recent editor. -Thibbs (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I've had run-ins with at least one user on at least 3 IPs who did nothing but fuck up release dates of video games, without summary, without responding, and explicitely against sources. Perhaps a single individual is being it all, but as far as I am concerned, history or not, it's disruption and it's blockable. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And they're adding Flagicons to List of PlayStation 2 games, NOOOOO! - X201 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That most certainly needs to be curtailed. The IP in question has no idea how cumbersome that becomes when loading a page, regardless on how good your browser or computer are (especially since each and every image results in a separate HTTP request to the hosting servers, especially with thousands of them at once). That's also not mentioning significantly slowing down all end users' own ability to load a page with that many separate images, as it takes more time and resources to load such a page. --MuZemike 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

They need to go asap. Right now for me the article is uneditable, returning an error. There are too many templates.. Яehevkor ✉ 10:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems it's just an issue with the visual editor - but it's still an issue. Яehevkor ✉ 10:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Article requests backlog

Over the past week I've been attempting to clear out the article requests page which is severely backlogged. I've been through and checked every article, removing those I am sure wouldn't make a full article after searching for sources. It would be a big help towards the clearing if other other editors could help me take a closer look at the requests I've left, and help create the articles which have sufficient sources. I have left some possible sources next to most entries left on the requests page to help. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to countersign this suggestion. I think it would be great for WP:VG to have a fully responsive request board where outsiders can get quick service on their requests. Sadly, with the backlog in place it is rather daunting for anybody interested in wading in. I say we make a real effort to ensure that the backlog extends only 1 year back at the most. I'm busy through July, myself, but I should be able to start making a dent in August. The more involvement the merrier -Thibbs (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Innocent_Until_Caught_2:_Presumed_Guilty

This game is called "Guilty". I can't find any proof of the existence of the titles "Innocent Until Caught 2: Presumed Guilty" or "Innocent Until Caught 2: Guilty". --93.217.213.158 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved the article. --Muchness (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sega v. Accolade Featured Article candidacy

Sega v. Accolade has been at WP:FAC for a couple of weeks now, with next to no support or even opposition except from one person who's since become a contributor to the article. This is one of the most influential cases in video game history, and the right to reverse engineer. Would anyone like to help me out by reading over the article and offering some feedback or maybe support? Thank you very much, and I do believe in reciprocity and would be glad to help out any other editor in return with their project reviews, including peer review, good article nom., featured article and list candidacy, etc. Red Phoenix _{remember the past...} 22:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned is at FAC

I have revamped the game above and taken it to FAC. Comments are very welcome about it at the nom page. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ 02:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Need a consensus

Hey, everyone. While looking over Characters of God of War to review it for GA status at WP:GAN, a discussion came up as to whether or not this is a list, and should simply be closed as such. As the reviewer who put my name on it before this discussion came up, I'd like to ask for consensus on whether or not it should be treated as a list here before I make a decision. Thanks, Red Phoenix _{remember the past...} 17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

List of video game emulators: AfDs underway

Partly as a result of the recent dispute over RetroArch, I decided to start looking through the other emulator pages we have categorized or templated, and I'm seeing a lot of cruft. I've started exhaustively nominating numerous emulator articles for merge to List of video game emulators. I could use your help. :)

To be clear, I'm only nominating articles that clearly don't have proper sources in them. Most of them have been tagged for years for needing citations or not meeting notability criteria, so for them it's mostly cleanup. In a couple isolated cases, articles do appear to be pretty complete and just need sources, so I'm not tagging those yet. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What are the articles proposed for merge? They don't have merge banners posted at the link. Also I recommend not taking it to AfD unless you think a merge and redirect would be inappropriate. I'd say most of the non-notable emulators should be redirected so as to avoid putting out the same fires in the future. czar · · 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that nominating, I appreciate it. I'll comment on the AFD's once I do some searching on them... Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling you're going to get a lot of negative responses because if the plan was to merge them into the list, AFD is the wrong venue for that. Just as a warning. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Czar already mentioned that and, if I read him correctly, offered to help get these to the correct merge venue. Sorry about the confusion. The articles I nominated earlier were Sixtyforce, Nestopia, NESticle, Jnes, Nintendulator and Ensata. They should all be redone as merge discussions, but I don't have time at the moment to relist them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

All but two AfDs have been moved to proposed merges, continue discussion here: Talk:List of video game emulators#2013 merge discussion czar · · 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Did You Know nomination for The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia

Hi everyone! Hope you're doing well. Some of you may be familiar with The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia, a book on The Legend of Zelda series. I recently changed the page from a redirect into a full article and expanded it out. I would very much appreciate your help in improving the article further.

Since I recently created the article and I think it's a topic worthy of broad recognition, I have nominated a snippet from the article for Did You Know? If you would like to contribute, here's what you can do:

Take a look at the reviewing guide at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Reviewing guide, if you are not already familiar
Review the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia

I appreciate your help on this! CaseyPenk (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

These are usually handled by DYK regulars within a week tops czar · · 17:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If a regular can get to it that's great, but it would also be nice to get input from someone within the community. And in any case, I'd like everyone to know this is making the rounds so they can look out for it. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Im glad you're enthusiastic about the topic, but the DYK you submitted is lacking in hook. Its best to actually consider whether broad audience will consider it interesting. in this case, I dont think even Zelda fans see it as interesting. If you mentioned the fictional chronology, then maybe, but I guess thats more fan oriented too.Lucia Black (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

MAME

I think that I fixed the biggest problems with MAME. It had been highlighted as a poor article in a few places (such as talk:RetroArch and WP:ANI). It could still use some attention, but it at least establishes notability and cites a few non-primary sources now. I was quite surprised that it had been rated B-class (self-evaluated by a seemingly retired editor), so I downgraded it to C-class. If someone wants to reevaluate it to B-class, that's fine with me (just revert my last edit to the talk page), but I'm not convinced that it's quite at that level yet. There are some more comments on the talk page, but it's mostly just me talking to myself. Mostly, I just wanted to give a heads-up that I changed the rating and did some emergency policy compliance work so that other people don't race to the page and try to do the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions inconsistency

At first I mentioned Machinima.com knly being known as just "Machinima" in both its site and rights reserved, but then I also noticed GameRankings in which the site presents itself as "GameRankings.com" I find this inconsistency very important as we have dozens of articles referring to "GameRankings.com" as just "GameRankings" and im unsure of how many times Machinima has been used but it could be bigger than what I imagine. Point is: how many sites do we present them innacurately? Im sure there are more sites that dont refer themselves by their website url and some that do and we dont have a proper naming convention for these to name them properly.Lucia Black (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

GameRankings shouldn't stop being referred to GameRankings just because their logo includes the .com ending. It still overwhelmingly refers to itself as GameRankings. Perhaps I should rename my account Salvidrim.net ? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

My point is we should add a more distinct naming convention for these sites if there isnt one already. And salvidrim.net doesn't really apply unless it linked to a site with the logo "Salvidrim.net" lets not add vague inacurate hypothetical examples for the sake of sarcasm. And Machinima still an issue too. So it would be great if the discussion wasnt shot down so quickly.Lucia Black (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Salvidrim. I never add the ".com", except for with 1UP.com, which I use just to be less confusing with the obvious video game term. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That and its plastered over the site aswell. Still, missing the point. Can we not focus on just GameRankings(.com) (which is what you implied by simply agreeing with salvidrim). Im trying to find or create a rule so that it doesnt seem so inconsistent.Lucia Black (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The point I think has been made - that while GameRankings and GameRankings.com are synonymous and refer to the same and both used regularly by third-party sources (unlike the 1UP/1UP.com issue), we should use the simpler case to read , that being without the .com. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Even 1UP is being referred to as 1UP predominantly on their own website. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know they do do that, but if I said "1UP" without context, that has potential for meaning two things (the game term, and the website). We don't have that issue with GameRankings. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure a blanket rule is necessary, though I believe it's customary to use WP's title for the source. (E.g., Machinima.com, GameRankings, Polygon.) This said, if "Machinima.com" is best retitled to "Machinima (website)", that's a discussion for its talk page. czar · · 03:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If I say "missing the point" then your missing the point. It was made clear, but not adressed is what im referring to. And even then I think its unanimous that any site known as X.com/.net/.org etc. Will obviously use it without the ".com" but we dont know if its easier or just they would like to be known with the link. Which would seem why they have their logo with a ".com" relevant.Lucia Black (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're trying to solve a problem no one sees as a problem here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, is the general point of your post: "company/person/website X calls themselves Y, Misplaced Pages should call them Y as well?"? - X201 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Serge, the problem no ine addresses it. Regardless if one weretto disagree if it was an issue, the disagreement isnt based on the entire issue, its based on nitpicking specific examples (initially).

@X201, my point is we need more consistent naming conventions. Machinima.com doesnt really promote itself as machinima.com and gamerankings does. Whether they call themselves is different if they are known as something else.Lucia Black (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you actually concerned about though? That people will be confused whether or not IGN and IGN.com are the same thing? That IGN is going to be outraged that we're slandering them by excluding the .com part of the name? What do you actually fear here? Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Im concerned about things being inconsistent when it comes to naming conventions of articles relating to websites. If two articles share the same situation but one can use the ".com" while the other doesnt. I'm not going to delve into the IGN example because it just makes it sound like theres something else. Im more concerned on how accurate consistent we xan make a naming conventions for website articles so that moving articles xan be done more quickly or dismissed more quickly. It all seems to be done at a case by case pace.Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, feel free to push forward, but I see no issue here, and I feel like standardizing little details just make things needlessly complicated for newcomers to get up to speed, and "fixing" stuff like this just keeps more experienced editors from doing something more constructive... Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm requesting anyone from this thread to join in the discussion of the RfC in the GameCube talk page since the official name is Nintendo GameCube. Thank you.--Arkhandar (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Jack

We are having some difficulty determining what to do with {{Jack}}. Most importantly, we are trying to determine whether Jack the Giant Killer and Jack and the Beanstalk should have separate templates. Please comment at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Template:Jack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here a gaming magazine expert?

While going through Sega Game Gear, which I'm thinking about making my next project, I found this source on the article: http://www.play-asia.com/image/content/gameplan5.pdf . It's a magazine scan, but not a lot of information is provided and I can't figure out what gaming magazine this might be from. Does anyone recognize it, by any chance? Red Phoenix _{remember the past...} 00:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That'd be the Encyclopedia of Game.Machines. It's actually a full book! Nall (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, beat me to it. (Amazon, YouTube link) czar · · 01:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks, guys. Red Phoenix _{remember the past...} 02:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If you need more readable scans of specific pages for some reason, the uploader of the Youtube video czar linked to above will provide them upon request, just send him a message. I remember asking for a copy of the page on sales figures for some SEGA consoles to help resolve a dispute a while ago. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

G-Zay sockpuppet on the loose

I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but apparently the banned user G-Zay (talk · contribs) is back, this time as ArchadianJudge (talk · contribs). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI'ed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I just wanted to make WP:VG aware of the most recent events, that's all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

God of War II FAC

If anybody has some spare time, God of War II is at FAC. It currently has 3 supports and no opposes, but the last comment was on July 1. I don't want this nomination to be archived for lack of interest. --JDC808 ♫ 04:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Bomber - 1989 Macintosh game

I was looking for possible sources for retro flight-sim game Bomber, but they are not so easy to find. I initially wrote this stub using just the review from Dragon magazine a few years ago, with the intent to (eventually) come back and flesh it out more. I know from the review that it was published by Inline Design for the Macintosh, and uses a system called HyperCard. I looked around on Google and found a page at VideoGameGeek which shows that it was developed by a company called Deadly Games, which also released the game in 1995 as part of a 4-pack CD ROM, and released a related/retitled/sequel/not sure what called "Bomber III: Flak Alley" in 1997. There is also apparently a Datormagazin review, but I don't know how to make use of that (and I also don't speak Swedish). Anyone have any other help for this one? BOZ (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone out there with retro computer game knowledge/experience? BOZ (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a good look myself before I put it up for PROD. Do you remember any past coverage? It's possible that the game's just doesn't have the coverage required. As an alternative, you can userfy the page and work on it at your own pace. czar · · 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is pretty significant coverage; it guess it might also support a repurposing of the article as being about Inline Design, mentioning Bomber and Darryl Peck. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that would count towards significant coverage or reliable sourcing, though the author looks okay. (Original story) czar · · 00:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I just added everything I had from the Dragon review. If I can find someone who has the Datormagazin review, and add some of the other things we found, that should be a big improvement. If I can't get it into decent shape before the deadline, I will userfy it. BOZ (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Globalize

Is these okay for GA or FA:

For a Japan video game, article only contains western reviews without any Japanese points, just because there are no English sources mention that. (But the fact is Japanese reviews are exist.)
For a Japanese-only game, the whole article is support by Japanese language references because no English sources; and thus, the article don't have western point of view.
Too much info about English version with a little JP info; or too much JP info because "it's a Japanese game".
Lack of some details that Japanese think it's important but was not mentioned by English media.--Wcwcwcwcwccwwcwcwc (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Since its hard for vast majority of English-language editors to get ahold of Japanese-language sources, I didn't think they were required. I don't usually see many Japanese reviews in articles outside of Famitsu. I don't think they're purposely avoided, I think there's just very few English Wikipedians that know Japanese... Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

At the FA level, generally you need at least 1 or 2 Japanese reviews (aka Famitsu and Dengeki) for a Japanese-produced game, just to get a sense of what the reception was there. Outside of the Reception section, it usually doesn't matter what language the sources are in, in either direction- lots of Japanese sources are rare, but facts are facts. Is there a specific article(s) that you are concerned about? --Pres N 16:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if it is Japan-published game, the Famitsu review if it exists is necessary. It's not impossible to get these scores. Any other Japanese-based review source is iffy, unless for some reason there is a vast difference in reception of a game from Western release (but if such existed, there likely would be English sources to document this). --MASEM (t) 17:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle system designer for first Final Fantasy?

I read this 1UP.com interview with Hiroyuki Ito before but G-Zay's newest editing spree got me thinking about the battle system designer of FF1 (1987) again. The article's introductory paragraph says "Ito has been involved with nearly the full span of the series, helping to design the combat system for the very first game 25 years ago." Later, the interview asks the following questions:

1UP: You say you're a jack-of-all-trades, but what trade did you practice with Final Fantasy?

HI: I dealt mostly with the battle system.

1UP: So did you create the battle system, or work on balancing it...?

HI: I actually created the battle system, yes.

Now I'm just not sure if Ito is talking about the first game or rather the series in general as he also mentions that he was inspired by the NFL when he designed the battle system he's referring to in his answer. Some things just don't add up if he's talking about FF1:

He specifically mentioned the NFL as an inspiration for the Active Time Battle system of FF4 in an earlier interview, his explanation about the pre-planned monster strategies also seems to apply to the FF4 battle system much better than to FF1's
Akitoshi Kawazu said that he was mainly in charge of the battle system and sequences of FF1 and that it was inspired by Ultima and Dungeons & Dragons, not professional sports or the NFL in particular
For what it's worth, Ito is not listed among the NES version's developers, implying more of a minor support role
The Ito interview in the FF9 Ultimania book details Ito's early involvement with the FF series and says that he was responsible for the battle systems starting from FF4. The interviewer asked "There aren't many people at Square that have been involved with the series since as early as FF I, are there?" and Ito replied "I did the debugging for FF I and FF II, but I first became seriously involved with development with FF III. For FF III, I was allowed to create sound effects."

All this makes me believe that in the 1UP.com interview, Ito was talking about the Active Time Battle system and his great influence on the series' battle systems since FF4. I'm rather split on the issue, but leaning more towards Kawazu as battle system designer of FF1. Any other opinions?Xiomicronpi (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been going into it a little, and I think it's Kawazu too. Ito famously created IV's ATB system, but I don't think he was in much if at all on the first game's system. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like something was lost in translation with that particular question. The question asks about "Final Fantasy" without distinguishing between "Final Fantasy" (the first game) and "Final Fantasy" (the series in general) and Ito may have been answering with the latter in mind. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Console wars needs some help

Hi everyone. Console wars has been tagged with possible original research since 2007, and being outdated since 2009. It either needs some serious love, or its major content sections should be merged into more appropriate individual articles. I understand the general idea behind having a central article on the concept of console marketing battles, but (a) this approach needs constant maintenance, (b) it doesn't correspond to a specific topic or event, and (c) as it is right now, the article is in pretty bad shape. Any recommendations on what we should do with it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The whole article is both useless and a fountain of WP:OR. The sooner it gets deleted the better.--Arkhandar (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, KieferSkunk. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There are chunks of it that I can use as the starting point for something that I've been planning, but never got around to. I've taken a copy of the article and put it here (User:X201/Console wars) - X201 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If it ends up being redirected/deleted I'll histmerge the article into your draft to preserve attribution of edits. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

World of Tanks

As this game now has over 60 million users and has set some records for multiple simultaneous participation:

It should probably be ranked higher than "low" on importance scale.
It is now improved beyond "start" on the quality scale. It has been improved significantly with most of the vendor perspective removed from the article, e.g. "features" replaced with "featured", and some minor controversies (like the general weakening of artillery in the game with the 8.6 release) mentioned in terms that are not those the vendor used.

It is starting to become obvious that an in-game economy article explaining how these internal-to-game economies work may be useful.

World of Tanks' game economy, particularly the use of experience, free experience, credits or 'silver' and (generally real money) 'gold' in the game, has been widely emulated by other freemium games.

Accordingly, this key notable feature of WoT is now carefully elaborated so that it's clear to game designers, cultural observers, economists, addictive game psychologists, as well as potential players, just what you can do for free and what you can't. That covers almost everyone who might want to read this article.

Sections on features only of interest to endgame players such as Clan Wars have been cut back. That and version history could be cut back a lot more. The main reason to keep a version history is to elaborate the reasons for the changes, in terms other than those used by the game vendor.

More references could be added but the material is all very easily verifiable.

A player of this game would find it instantly obvious what was and what was not instantly verifiable, so best if someone with a little familiarity with the game has a look for that purpose. And to double check if a casual player or observer would find the gold economy detail interesting.

Someone with no interest in the game should assess the Clan Wars, version history and other elements that seem to be of little interest to casual readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.174 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You can request a reassessment here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests (note that the argument should really be against the importance scale, not personal opinion) czar · · 19:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The article you're looking for about economies can be found at Virtual economy! Samwalton9 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon: Epic of Time

Hi, I recently stumbled upon Pokemon-Epic of Time. Beside its inconsistent naming, the content of the article seems rather dubious. Doing a (very) quick search, I didn't find any results on the new game. The only reference to the game has been created by the author of the "Epic of Time" article referencing to it as a rumour . Getting to the point: how to proceed? Since I'm not really into Pokémon and its game releases (...and the deletion process here), I don't know whether it "obviously" falls under the G3 criterion for speedy deletion or should be treated in a different way. Moritz37 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I say it fits the WP:G3 criteria as obvious (especially with absolutely absolutely no search engine hits, even in Japanese), but the mod patrolling the beat will make that final call. Otherwise, the next step would be AfD. czar · · 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of. If there was a legit Pokémon game like this announced, we wouldn't have to "search for proof of its existence". (Just like no one questions if Super Mario 3D World is a real game or not, or if they do, a simple google search clears it up really quickly... Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to both of you! Moritz37 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for pointing that out. Someone tell me if I somehow goofed and it wasn't a hoax. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Datormagazin

There is apparently a review in Datormagazin for Bomber, but I don't know how to make use of that (and I also don't speak Swedish). Can anyone please help out with that? BOZ (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you'll have to go by "Rating 0/5 -- Reviewer Markus Dahlberg -- Page a13", unless you can find a page scan and a translator. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 11:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, that's what I'm looking for. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll go straight to the source and ask the horse - maybe someone on sv-wiki both speaks English and has a copy of the mag? BOZ (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid (film)

While I've not got much inclination to do it myself, this article needs work. The references are a shambles, and the article seems a little...well, unfinished for something around this long, even for an unreleased film. I think it comes under the scope of this project, but if it doesn't could someone redirect this to the appropriate project. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Have fixed broken references and formatted the others. - X201 (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories: