Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: I am also beginning to be concerned that SharkD is targeting edits I have made at other pages maliciously. But it is impossible to prove that. I am trying my best to assume good faith. ] (]) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
: I am also beginning to be concerned that SharkD is targeting edits I have made at other pages maliciously. But it is impossible to prove that. I am trying my best to assume good faith. ] (]) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "artillery strategy" redundant, because an artillery game simply is a strategy game? By the way, Randomran, I can assure you SharkD is not "evil". Judge the edits, not the editor. ] (] ]) 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "artillery strategy" redundant, because an artillery game simply is a strategy game? By the way, Randomran, I can assure you SharkD is not "evil". Judge the edits, not the editor. ] (] ]) 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:: I've seen SharkD act constructively in the past. I am only talking about his current behavior.
:: I respect that you are trying to help by honoring the WP:SYN policy. But let me tell you, if we do that, then the entire Video Game wikiproject is in big trouble. You won't find a single article that says what genre an artillery game belongs to. You will, however, find an article that lists several "artillery clones", and then find that each game in the list is overwhelmingly listed as strategy games .
:: What's worse, you won't find a single article that says "these are a subgenre of strategy game", or even a "shooter game". You'll see articles with a number of adjectives "this is a ballistics-oriented strategic artillery-shooting game". What is the genre? Is it "BOSAS"? Is it artillery-shooting? Is it ballistics-oriented strategy? Would it be violating WP:SYN to say that shooting means it's a "shooter"? Would it be violating WP:SYN to say that strategic indicates it's a strategy game? Could someone come along and argue that it's WP:SYN to have a genre at all
:: I should also point out that in your effort to delete all research supporting that artillery games were strategy games, you left in the WP:SYN about shooter games. I wish you would be consistent. But I'd prefer it if you didn't take all the references taken away, because that would lead this back to a "my word against your word" edit war.
:: The only way to stop an edit war of two conflicting viewpoints is with reliable references and research. '''But perfect video game references are often impossible to find!''' You have to make small but reasonable inferences about genre, or technology. I believe that allowing these references would be in the spirit of wikipedia, even if it's not in the letter. Otherwise, we'd have to start deleting articles and sections of video games en masse. Again, that would honor the letter of WP, but not the spirit. In essence, deleting the *only* references we can find would be violating ] and ]. ] (]) 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont know if this is the right place to ask,but do you guys accept the Moddb site as a Reliable source?.I recently Edited the C&C Renegade page,and added a mod section bout 3 Renegade mods,but where removed by a user,who says i need a notable source,and not the main site of the Mod itself.So do you guys consider www.moddb.com as a notable source??user:Theta123
The editor-written content on that site is reliable, the user-submitted content is not. Which specific article where you using? User:Krator (tc) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Moddb is reliable to establish facts about those mods, but is wholly unsuitable for establishing the notability of said mods. In order to justify including a mod you'd need some kind of third-party independent coverage (such as mentions in a gaming magazine) or the mod winning an award. (Moddb awards count) -- Y|yukichigai (rambleargue) 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I can't find any use of anything other than pseudonyms on the part of their writers, and their staff page seems not to be implemented. Are you sure they're reliable? SharkD (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Their article sections all have "Add New" links in their site map, suggesting all their content is user-submitted. How do you tell editorials apart? SharkD (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As with user-submitted content, often you can't. However, since a number of the users are the mod creators themselves, it is permissible to consider information from mod creators about the facts of the mod reliable. -- Y|yukichigai (rambleargue) 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for ur time.I hope this suits the person well,who noticed me of the Problem.If u want to see what i was talking about,check the Command and Conquer Renegade page,where i adda small line of these mods.-Theta123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theta123 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
EL's should be included only if the material at the site would normally be included in the article if it were featured, but otherwise not included due to technical or copyright reasons. Game guide materials should not be included due to this if all the link is doing is providing info on how to play the game. --MASEM02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. EL's should be included only if the material at the site would normally not be included if the article were featured, because the material would contradict WP:NOT. These are then subject to all the criteria in WP:EL. Rule of thumb: fansites are always, always, always not to be included. User:Krator (tc) 13:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think MASEM is right. Material not included if it were a featured article is already covered by the disclaimer, "but otherwise not included due to technical or copyright reasons." Also, the statement, "Any material not included if it were a featured article", is too broad as it embraces a lot of junk material that would normally be excluded. Please, let's clear this up, as I would like to add the text to a WPVG policy article. SharkD (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
I think that one of the guidelines for Wikiproject: Video games should be to refer to products released in the northern portion of the Western Hemisphere as "North American" rather the "U.S.", "US", or "United States". I have nothing against the US (heck, I live here), but I feel it is inaccurate to refer to the whole North American market as the "US" and I have noticed many pages within the scope of this Wikiproject that do that very thing. Does anyone object to this guideline being added? Thingg (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with certain exceptions. The game Rock Band for example, is being relesed in Canada almost one month after the US version so it would make more sense in that case not to use North America and to mention the two countries sepertaly. In most cases though I don't see a problem with this idea. --70.48.108.72 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant to say that if there are differences between the countries of North America, then obviously use the term "US". However, I think that in most cases, it is safe to use North America because most games/accessories release in the US/Canada/Latin America at the same time Thingg (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I proposed this standard alongside Template:vgrelease almost a year ago, and I actually did it for many articles (back when everything just used a U.S. flag). I also proposed this: There needs to be "PAL region" instead of just Europe. PAL region includes Australia and New Zealand, who often release games on the same date as Europe. If this isn't the case, then "Australasia" should be used instead of just Australia, as Australia and New Zealand ALWAYS release the games on the same date. --Teggles (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
To tag along, what is the recommendation for NTSC/J releases outside of Japan? NTSC/J in Japan are purely Japanese products (in interface, contents and language). However South East Asia also utilizes NTSC/J while possibly having Chinese or English languages, as well as different contents and release dates. Are there any recommendations on the branding of South East Asia NTSC/J? Jappalang (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I agree with using the term "North America" as opposed to "The United States" or "The Americas". Second, as for Asia, I'm fairly sure that most countries have different release dates then Japan, but I always thought that was because, aside from maybe Korea, possibly, most countries in Asia are in the PAL or SECAM region (If there is a SECAM in Gaming). As for PAL, I think we should probably separate those countries only by Europe/Australia. Australia usually gets stuff shortly after Europe, and most Europe releases are done simultaneously in every country. Theres also the issue of some of the PAL/NTSC Countries in South America and Africa, but I know nothing about those. Dengarde ► Complaints 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Even better piece of advice: the only time a non-primarily-English-speaking-country's release date should be mentioned is when the game came out first for that country (this follows what the Films project does for movie release dates), unless there some other notable aspect to itself release in a different country. If anything, this needs to be applied to the infobox to keep the infobox short, it is not as important in the prose to follow this, but we don't want to basically have a long list of release dates for every country in the world. --MASEM14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem I tend to have is that the sources use "US", and whether they are actually referring to US or they really mean "North America" is unclear. Anomie⚔13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Video game controversy template
I think {{Video game controversy}} could use some help. Why does it list so many rating boards? Valtion elokuvatarkastamo is linked, but I don't see anything on that article about controversy. Joe Lieberman is linked, presumably for his role with the Family Entertainment Protection Act, but his article doesn't have anything about controversy in this area, just that he is critical of the entertainment media, and he denounces video game violence. That's not really controversial. Even the article about the act itself (the first link on the template) doesn't cover any controversy. The closest thing I see to controversy there is "This bill did not become law".
I created it a while back, and as you can see from the original version, it was really a "video game rating and regulation" template, and you're correct that perhaps "controversy" is a misnomer. Perhaps we should create two separate templates? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-13 16:14
Does this need to be a navbox? Unlike a video game series, what are we "navigating" through? Would this box not be better served by a category called (possibly) "Controversial video game topics"? (Just a thought...) --MASEM16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A category would make much more sense and is a good idea, the main article for it is obviously Video game controversy. At the moment the template appears to be more to do with ratings and regulations than actual controversy. Maybe a template for one thing and a catgory for another? .:Alex:.16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the category would be that useful. I think a large part of the problem here is that only sections of these articles are applicable to the navbox/category. I think the best option would be to turn this template into a "Video game rating" template, and skip a controversy template altogether. Pagrashtak16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that the navbox is currently title-linked to Video game controversy, which gives a good overview of the subjects involved (and can go more beyond just ratings, and should/does include issues such as Columbine, Jeff Gerstmann/biasing in video game reviews, etc.) and that the subject is not necessary a finite set, a navbox just feels wrong, as it suggests that what you present is the end-all, be-all of video game controversies. As I see it, while it does break down the articles into sub topics, it still looks like a random collection of links and there's no suggestion of how they are all connected (though as noted, the bulk of these are simply about ratings of video games and issues thereof). I still strongly recommend that a category be created (with possibly sub-cats for "ratings controversies", "influence controversies", etc.) since categories can be infinitely large without any problem. --MASEM16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the category would just get deleted. I like the idea of a template of some sort, even if it doesn't currently cover all the topics it should. Also, with a template you can (potentially) link to specific portions of articles in cases where the entire article isn't relevant. SharkD (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well this dispute needs some outside intervention and so far this hasn't happened, so I've decided to alert the project about it. See the discussion here. .:Alex:.16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster in that discussion. Images should be excluded from lists, unless the copyright holder has created a montage of characters. Images are OK in articles about the character. SharkD (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Page redesign
Well I thought we could reorganise the page in a similar manner to some of the other Wikiprojects, such as WP:ZELDA and WP:FF for example. You can see my proposed template here. Please note that this is a first draft and by no means the final proposed redesign. There will likely be many additions and refinements to make and maybe some problems to fix too. I just wondered if it is worth considering making a new, more user friendly and asthetically pleasing layout. .:Alex:.21:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks better than what is currently used. However, I personally think a 50/50 split design isn't that functional as a webpage. All in all I think it's a step in the right direction though. Mind if I come up with an alternative? Maybe we could find a happy medium. (Guyinblack2522:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
Go ahead. That one was just an experimentation of what we could do to the page. In fact, feel free to use the actual sandbox page. It would make an ideal testing ground. .:Alex:.08:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's my go at a proposed layout on my sandbox. It took the overall look you came up with, which I like and think looks good, and tweaked the layout some. The right side bar has some room for special announcements or for extra deletion/new articles/promotion type of announcements. Some of the headings are slightly different sizes mainly as different examples of what they could look like.
Regardless of which layout is use, I think the FA and GA should be included at the bottom in collapsible tables. When I tried to add them in the "Example articles" section I had some trouble. When I put the FA and GA part via transclusion, the collapsible option didn't work properly. It either added the show/hide to the shortcut box or to the assessment status box. I basically had to copy the content from the separate FA and GA pages and paste them into my sandbox. If anyone else has a better solution to this, I'm all ears.
It can be added back in. I left it off my design because it seemed partially redundant with the "Project structure" there. I'll add it back in to see how it looks. (Guyinblack2521:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
I created the sidebar because I felt we needed something to tie all the different pages within the WikiProject together. I feel that it should be present on most pages, but if the main project page can display the information in a more efficient manner I would not object to its removal. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-14 23:02
How does it look added back in? I'm up for either way. But it does include more links than the main page presents, so I can definitely see the plus of having it there. I had to include the wiki code for it instead of transcluding it as its position floats. That was a common issue I encountered in my sandbox, transcluding everything in their current state didn't work out too well. Any suggestions? (Guyinblack2523:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
The added sidebar aesthetically seems a bit too wide to me, plus its titlebar is misaligned (in terms of width) with the frame it is in. Jappalang (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is quite pleasing. Is it possible to work the total number of FA/GA into their titles such that when 'hidden', it will be displayed ala "Featured articles: xxx", "Good articles: yyy"?
Could "Articles for Deletion" be changed to include articles up for renaming as well? Basically articles, categories, templates which are up for status-changing concensus would be listed to bring them to attention of the project members.
Would a section stating how to create a video game article, the templates used (navbox, infobox, project template), the guidelines one should follow (both Wiki-general and VG-specific), and the assessment procedure (internal Stub -> A, and the GA/FA process) be useful? There are likely people who want to quickly get into the article creation/editing process and would appreciate a central plan to follow. Jappalang (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I added in the FA/GA numbers, though I don't know of a way display it only while hidden. For your second point, do you mean renaming it to "Article changes" or something like that? I guess we can. To be honest, I didn't really know of other consensus processes besides the AfD. For your third point, I assume you mean something like Misplaced Pages:Tutorial; is that correct? (Guyinblack2522:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
Yes, the FA/GA numbers look great. I doubt it would matter if it displays while fully shown. For the second point, Renaming has consensus process too. Regarding the third point, yes, it could be like the Tutorial, but named more like something new game article editors (or regulars) should remember. In other words, the Tutorial (renamed to something more like "best practices for editing game articles" with specific content/pointers/links to VG guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have written up a completely different redesign in my own sandbox (Link). The design considerations were everything but aesthetics itself, though a certain minimalist approach can be detected. In list form:
Remove redundancies with Portal:Video games, such as the transcluded FA list and the related projects list. Some things overlap, but should not be transcluded on the project page. A link is sufficient.
Remove the fragmented stub-sections and change the list-like appearance.
Reduce the "boxcruft" at the top. The TOC, the redundant lead section and the redundant WikiProject box took up a large amount of valuable space.
Introduce the to-do list on the main page per suggestions.
That is completely different. I have to say that I really like too. It's straight, to the point, and gets the job done. I do however think the departments should still be listed instead in prose, if only for the sake easier readability. The only other suggestion I have would some kind of announcement sections. If not for new articles and AfD, then at least for article promotions and delistings. Nice job Krator. (Guyinblack2501:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC))
After a process of trial and error I managed to fit the sidebar in without the page looking deformed. I'm also trying out a new design as well, so bear with me on that one. See it here. .:Alex:.11:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've come up with a new design which may still need work, but it involves two vertical panels rather than two panels running horizontally next to each other. Take a look. .:Alex:.18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Circlestrafing had the prod tag on for over 5 days, and the tag was removed while I was considering pulling the trigger. It does have no sources that support it's inclusion as an article, and I don't feel it should remain an article without reliable sources. The other articles linked in the above template are in the same situation except one, Rocket jumping which appears it may have two reliable sources, but they're not easily accessible. Without enough reliable sources to support all of the content in these articles, they should be trimmed of original research which would result in no article for all of them but one. Of the rest, they have all had the unreferenced template for over 6 months. So my inclination is to AFD all the unreferenced articles. At best I believe enough reliable sources could be found to merge them all into one article on "Specialized movements in first-person shooter computer games" or something similar. I'm posting notice here to see if people are willing to find the necessary reliable sources to support that, or if they should proceed to AFD. Since they've all been unreferenced for so long, I kind of view this as their last chance. :) Have fun all. - Taxman23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. I fail to see how the articles are even remotely notable (I'm using that term loosely here)in the first place. The articles themselves are poorly written and seem to mainly be a list of games that the particular "jump" has been in. .:Alex:.16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Has there ever been a proposed guideline for the notability of computer and video games? When I created My Hero (video game) my article was slapped with a speedy deletion tag, A7, although it clearly didn't meet any of those criteria for being a video game. Not only that, it was a widely distributed game for a widely distributed games console. Still this led me to wonder - are all video games that have been released to the world at large on a major platform notable? I think they should be in theory, but there is a lack of online reliable sources in this case.--h i sr e s e a r c h19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I would argue there are some cases where it's not so much the individual game that is notable but the series that is more so or that grouping the games into the series would provide a better article. I did suggest this with Crazy Taxi (series) though there was consensus against it. Swordquest is an example of 3 separate games (Atari 2600 games to wit, but still...) where one article makes much more sense than three. It's a rare, but not impossible, case. --MASEM20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Rule of thumb: If a video game has actually been on the shelf of a shop, there's a 99.9% chance it's notable. That's the way the industry works. User:Krator (tc) 22:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Potential issue with GameRankings/MetaCritic -- add language to guidelines?
I mentioned a part of the issue before with Super Mario Galaxy in that people were rushing to place what ranking the game had on GameRankings or MetaCritic. Since that point, SMG and LoZ:OOT have been jumping back and forth between 1 and 2, and someone has suggested some evidence that the webmaster is intentionally adding or ignoring reviews to put one or the other at the top. One can argue MetaCritic does the same.
I don't believe that there's any issue with sourcing either to state what the aggregate scores are, as both provide many more links to reviews than we can reasonably provide. However, I believe we need to state in guidelines that stating a game's relative position from GR/MC lists should not be included in an article since 1) these are absolute averages (no consideration if a site averages games at 7 or at 5), and 2) there is bias on these sites for these ratings. If a game is good, it will be at worst nominated for Game of the Year type awards, which is a good representation of how good the game is, and may later be included in the Top X games of all time-type lists for relative comparison across console/pc generations.
I don't see why you would exclude GameRankings or MetaCritic for any reason at all. It's no different than listing any other review site - there's no such thing as "reliability" when it comes to reviews. Everyone is "biased." They're reviews. And both aggregate sites have ALWAYS failed to include many professional reviews in their averages. At their very core, the nature of reviews is subjective, and so too are these sites. As an encyclopedia, it's not our job to tell people which reviewers or web sites are more sreliable in our personal opinion; it's our job to link to notable reviews or aggregate sites that give a general concept of the reception the game received. Readers can decide for themselves, at that point, what they agree with. In the end, I absolutely feel these sites should still be utilized here. They give a better sense than linking to individual reviews could ever hope to do, and the very minor skewing their editors can create by excluding three or four reviews doesn't change the sense of overall opinion they provide. And again, the key word is OPINION. Because they're reviews. That's what they do. Keep 'em. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe Masem was suggesting adding some guidelines for to restrict the usage of GameRankings and MetaCritic as sources, not their outright removal as acceptable sources. I agree with the idea and suggest that also some kind of recommended time frame or minimum number of total reviews in the aggregate score should be included in the usage. (Guyinblack2520:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
Let me clarify: I am not saying we ban those (as the link provided suggest, for exactly Bishop2's reasons); I'm just saying that we should include in our GLs that one should not use language stating "Such-and-such game was ranked #X at GR/MC" particularly to emphasis how "good" a game is, letting the reader determine that for themselves. --MASEM20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I see them as a useful link for the overall reaction since we list the major publications and their views but also provide the reader with a link for a mor euniversal view on things. And most articles say that the average score is based on a certain number so its not claiming to have it all and finally I think the debate comes from "rankings" as Masem has mentioned. If we don't mention these rankings WITH GR and MC then I see alot of the problem gone already. Keep them listed and mention the avaerge score but thats it, no ranks. Of cource this is just one look on the situation though. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MASEM. The additional guidelines should be added. On a different note, can I take this discussion as supporting GR as a reliable source (in general, ignoring the above issue)? I notice it's not listed in the Sources policy page.SharkD (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
For clarity, I am cross-posting my note I wrote in a previous discussion now in WT:VG archive 33:
Including GR and MC rankings should not be done, because video game ratings given in reviews are not measured according to relative standards, but absolute standards. Though this follows from common sense, it can be illustrated by looking at the rating of 10/10. A perfect game will have that rating, not the best game. Use notable awards instead if you must - they compare different games.
I think there are at least 4 cases under discussion here:
Including GR or MC scores in something like {{VG Reviews}}
Including the GR or MC ranking in something like {{VG Reviews}}
Including GR or MC scores in the article text
Including the GR or MC ranking in the article text
My opinion is that #1 is certainly acceptable, and #3 depends on the article, but #2 and #4 are not useful for the many reasons given above (lack of correction for bias, bias in review selection, and so on). Anomie⚔00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There are two main reasons why I think putting ANY mention of MC/GR is a bad idea:
#1) "Even if we just put the MC/GR metascores and not the ranks, when people compare across two different articles and see that one game has a higher metascore than the other, they might be inclined to believe that it is better. However, this may not actually be the case for reasons discussed above. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)"
#2) It's highly redundant. Why? All of the notable media outlets (IGN, Famitsu, etc.) are already listed individually. What's left are the amateur "average-Joe" reviews that make up probably 60-80% of MC and GR. The issues with amateur reviews are
a. It enables the GR webmaster to easily tweak the results to his liking (as has already happened), by including or excluding certain reviews that may impact the averages.
b. Any average Joe can write those reviews. Many of the amateur reviews are only 300 words long and not up to professional standards. Look at IGN's 3-page review versus The Onion's. They are nowhere near the same level of detail and quality, yet they account for the same weight in the critic average.
c. It doesn't make sense for amateur reviews to be weighted the same as professional ones written by hired staff in offices.
d. Many of these average-Joe amateur websites do not review every game, but rather, only the games Joe himself is interested in (to award high scores to) or UNinterested in (to hurt their averages with low scores). IGN has adequate staff to review every game that's released to the market, and generally assign staff based on their genre preferences to cut down on bias. (For example, have staff writers who are genuinely interested in shooters review shooting games.)
e. Given all these reasons, why does it matter what the amateurs think? While we're at it, why not include the GameFAQs reader review average under the reception section? In fact, most of the "detailed reviews" I've been reading on GameFAQs, such as this one, are at least of comparable quality to the amateur ones on GR. The amateur reviewers are only one step above the GameFAQs reviewers in that they know how to create their own websites. That's it! Many of them have no formal, professional writing experience as is required to get into IGN or any other gaming media company.
If readers will only look into high profile reviews then they will and will ignore GR and MC and of course not everyone does that. And of course you will have to take up the same issue with film aritlces that list MC and Rotton Tomatoes if you want to make this guidelne stick here. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Frankly I don't think any kind of label is a good idea because it's going to smack too much of personal opinion. Just because one person sees bias or flaws doesn't mean everyone will agree with such a statement. A simplistic link that allows readers to decide for themselves how much stock to place in these sites is still best. --Bishop2 (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
1) They might be led to believe that one game is better than another, but it is not guaranteeed.
2) Reviews only need to meet reliability reqs when determining if they get listed, not notability. I'm not sure that reviews should be given additional weight based on the notability of the site. The reader can determine this by visiting the site where the review is hosted.
a) This is indeed a great risk. I hope what you're saying isn't true.
b) I don't think the length of reviews need necessarily be taken into account (barring an absolute lower limit of at least several paragraphs). IGN is perfectly capable of writing 3 pages of crap.
c) I'm not sure what you mean by amateur. Lots of smaller sites have staffs that get paid. If they're reliable, then they're reliable. E.g., if they meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements, then no other issues need be taken into account.
d) IGN does not, in fact, review every game.
e) Again, the only requirement that needs to be met is reliability. GameFaqs is not generally considered a reliable site.
(←) While we link to a lot of top sites, there are still more that sometimes get missed in such a review table (I'm beginning to see a review table as being a crutch for writing a well-written prose reception section, but that's not a pressing issue nor the one at point). While GR/MC may list a lot of blog-ish type reviews, they still list the top sites. Basically, they are like a directory for reviews, something we can't do on WP due to WP:NOT#DIR. As long as we present these links as being aggregate review scores, the reader can proceed to determine what reviews are important and how well the scoring works out if they consider other factors. --MASEM14:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
We have some incredibly poorly thought out arguments above. I use Metacritic, and I use separate sources. I value the prose of the reception section alongside the scores boxout. Generally, the only score I will provide in the prose itself is the Metacritic score, after that, I'll use quotes detailing the gameplay, graphics, audio etc. from separate review sources, such as Edge, Eurogamer, PC Gamer. I will not include those separate scores in the prose because it doesn't flow well and clutters up the text, Ballistics (video game) is an example of my work. Here are a few counter-points to the arguments above:
I agree that Metacritic's biggest flaw is that it considers schlock reviews such as Deeko, Armchair Empire, ZTGameEmpire(?), Da Gameboyz(?). I would kill them all with one fell swipe, but Metacritic does not give equal weightings to each source, this article may give you some more insight. Yes, of course the webmaster can alter the weightings, but that's their call, how else can they keep up with the ever shifting sands of internet media? Magazine editors and webmasters can alter scores on their own publications, it's the same thing.
You cannot possibly list every notable or substantial review source in the reviews boxout, there are dozens and dozens.
Metacritic does give a good indication of a game's critical reception. It cannot be skewed by singular anomalous reviews, and its impression of a game's overall feedback is a heck of a lot less subjective than an average reader.
We're not telling the reader what to think, we're telling them what Metacritic says, it's up to the reader to draw his own conclusions.
Addressing Wikipedian06's two concerns: #1) When people compare across two different articles and see that one game has a higher score than the other, they might be inclined to believe that it is better. However, this may not actually be the case. Therefore, let us not mention any reviews at all, since it may give people a false impression that one game is better than another?? After all, a game with a lower metascore will either have a wider range of scores or a lower median score. Either way, just looking at the raw scores for a game and not showing its lower metascore may still prejudice a person against the game, either by the scores being uniformly lower than another game's scores or not as homogenous in their evaluation. Therefore, though this is a valid point, it is not a practical one upon which to base policy.
#2) Not all major reviewers can be listed individually as the table gets too long. This is especially true for non-exclusive games. In such cases, one can really only pick three or four reviewers to list for each or else the article gets too long. Additionally, writing in 'prose' about the reviews in the critical reception section can become redundant and wordy, taking up space that could better be used to describe controversy or awards, and needlessly lengthens articles. To address your sub-points:
a. Do the principles behind assuming good faith, verifying your claims, and maintaining neutrality not also apply to discussions and content here? This point relies completely on the assumption that GR's web-master tweaks "results to his liking", which, as far as I can see, is assuming bad faith, is not verifiable, and is not a neutral perspective on this source. Besides, every reviewer tweaks marks to their liking! GR's web-master can only choose to consistently ignore certain sites.
b. You said, "They are nowhere near the same level of detail and quality, yet they account for the same weight in the critic average." However, this is a false statement. Please take a second look at the list. The Onion is not in bold. This means that it is not counted towards the total score. Presumably, the reason why the web-master decided to not include it is precisely reason you mentioned: it is an amateur review and does not have the requisite level of detail and quality. Seeing as the web-master of GR has already addressed your concerns expressed in this point and in the subsequent three points by his decision to not include amateur reviews in calculating the total score, I feel no need to address either this point or the next ones (c, d, and e) here.
I hope you do not find my reply too dismissive. I think your concerns are valid. However, they are either 1) not practical, because they could be reasonably applied to scores in addition to metascores upon the same logic, or, 2) already accounted for in the way GR calculates its metascores. I see no reason to object to the use of GameRankings in articles, and defy anyone to provide a verifiable and practical reason why it shouldn't be. clicketyclickyaketyyak22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I notice also that MobyGames features aggregate review scores. I don't see why these can't be cited if GR's and MC's are. Sure, they're user-submitted; but an editor exists to filter these submissions. SharkD (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Theoretically, I suppose there wouldn't be a problem with this. Practically, however, it seems like overkill to list yet another score aggregator. It's not nearly as notable as GameRankings and Metacritic are; hahnchen posted this article above, which, to summarise, explains that GR and MC are used by game publishers and developers. MG does not seem to have achieved that level of notability, so including it would just seem redundant. Though I don't think any formal policy should be made against it.
The only real policy about review aggregators I support is one that puts a minimum on the length of time a game must be out for before MC and GR refs are added to its article. That way, it is less likely that the ranking of the game will change, since, after a certain length of time, most of the major sites will have written their reviews. clicketyclickyaketyyak02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There will be small inconsistencies between MC scores if one game gets 7 reviews, and another game gets 7 different reviews from "tougher" sources. But ratings aren't an exact science in the first place. There's still a lot of value to having them there. I think we can trust readers to make a fair judgment call. They know that the difference between a 86% and 88% won't be scientific. But it's still extremely useful and notable information. I'd support the use of these ratings. Music has ratings. I don't think it's a question of if we should have ratings for games, but which rating we should use. 65.95.157.129 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the evidence that the GR webmaster tweaked the rankings
1. Today, Mario Galaxy got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time once more. The averages for both games were at 97.6%, with ties broken by the total number of reviews. Since Mario Galaxy had 52 reviews vs. Ocarina's 31, Mario Galaxy came out on top. The webmaster then proceeded to expand the decimal precision to three decimal places to change the ranking. Pictorial evidence here
2. In addition, the webmaster also DEACTIVATED a 10/10 GameTap review so that Mario Galaxy wouldn't rank above Ocarina with the new three-digit decimal precision. Notice how it's no longer in bold on this page, meaning it's no longer counted into the composite score.
3. A few years ago, the default cutoff for minimum reviews was 10. Then, Metal Gear Solid (GBC) got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time. The webmaster then changed the default cutoff to 20.
Keep in mind that these kinds of ties are NOT new. For example, Tekken 3 and Resident Evil 4 had been tied at 95.8% for over two years. Both games are in the top 10. Previously, RE4 ranked higher because it has 104 reviews versus Tekken's 23. It seems more than coincidental that the webmaster would change the decimal precision just today, considering how many similar ties existed in the past. If he had truly been interested in etablishing a more accurate ranking methodology, he would have done so the first time this occurred, not when another title is threatening to overtake the game that he personally believes to be #1.
Also, keep in mind how much freedom the webmaster has to bend the rankings to his personal likings:
which reviews to include (these are denoted in bold)
the ranking methodology
the default cutoff for a game to appear in the rankings
the decimal precision
and more.
I think the best way to resolve this would be to STOP citing GameRankings entirely in the reception sections. It's not reliable, since the webmaster has shown clear evidence of bending numbers and rankings to match his own bias. Plus, this isn't the first time in the site's history that something fishy like this has happened.
(You might argue that Mario Galaxy was once #1 on GameRankings, so why didn't the webmaster tweak the results back then? First, the difference was way too high at that point for him to tweak -- 98.3% vs. 97.6% -- and from big-name publications, too. Plus, as the webmaster, he'd know that as more reviews from amateur sites begin to pour in, group polarization starts to kick in and the averages go down. This has become increasingly true over the past half-decade or so due to the exploding popularity of the Internet. Nowadays, any random Joe can start his own review site.)
1. This does not prove the mens rea, if you will. He may very well have expanded the accuracy in order to determine which one actually deserves the position because it was a great point of controversy, and greater controversy calls for greater accuracy. There is no way you can prove a causal link between Galaxy attaining the #1 position and expanding the decimal precision. More precise decimal places aren't innately anti-Galaxy. You have established not causal link and not intent. And certainly not "clear evidence of bending numbers and rankings to match his own bias".
Learn to read.
Keep in mind that these kinds of ties are NOT new. For example, Tekken 3 and Resident Evil 4 had been tied at 95.8% for over two years. Previously, RE4 ranked higher because it has 104 reviews versus Tekken's 23. It seems more than coincidental that the webmaster would change the decimal precision just today , considering how many similar ties existed in the past. If he had truly been interested in etablishing a more accurate ranking methodology, he would have done so the first time this occurred, not when another title is threatening to overtake the game that he personally believes to be #1.Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Tekken 3/RE4 have not been a recent source of controversy. With internet news sites reporting the twiddling back and forth of OoT and SMG, 'op! it's #1! op! It's back to #2! Op! #1, etc.' it became suddenly of pressing urgency to list to more decimal places. Considering that there was at one point only a difference of 0.062% between SMG and OoT, it became of utmost importance to show all the worked up Ninty fans why it was that OoT ranks above SMG though they appear to have the same mark. You make a false conclusion that the WM would have necessarily moved to three decimals before "if he had truly been interested in establishing a more accurate ranking methodology," and your assertion that "he personally believes to be #1" is completely unfounded. In any case, since you admit it is a more accurate ranking methodology, why are you complaining that it knocks SMG out of #1? clicketyclickyaketyyak10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Because for who knows how many years, ties had always been broken by the number of reviews. Pressing urgency and utmost importance? Give me a freaking break. Metroid Prime and Soul Calibur had been tied as #3 and #4 (formerly #2 and #3, before SMG came in) with 96.3% for years, and he didn't do jack about it. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Have they been broken by the number of reviews? MP is 96.304% and SC is 96.259%. Rounded to 1 decimal, they look the same, but MP was always ranked above SC. Hey, here's a thought; maybe they were always ranked by score alone, only, we couldn't see those two extra decimal places that made the difference. clicketyclickyaketyyak13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
2. When did he 'deactivate' GameTap's review? It was most definitely before you posted this (December 12) In fact, it must have been before Galaxy was even released! Here is a google cache of Ratchet & Clank's game page on GR from October 27 (before SMG was released) and as you can see, GameTap is not in bold lettering, and as GR says, "Only Sites in Bold are used to calculate the Average Score used in the Rankings". (link) My question to you is, how can the web-master have deactivated GameTap in anticipation of Galaxy getting a higher score than OoT before Galaxy was even released in order to preemptively knock it out of first place?
It was there before on the page for SMG. Maybe it had become a "counted" website after Ratchet & Clank and October 27? In any case, it was shortly deactivated (re-deactivated?) after SMG regained the #1 spot. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hahah, but why would he reactivate it if it would boost up SMG's score? I mean, isn't the point of your accusation that he deactivated it in order to demote SMG? Well, anyway, sorry but I checked Google's cache from the beginning and end of November as well as December 4, 5, 10, and 11 I believe and it was always listed deactivated. If you really want the links to each cache I can provide them, but rather than wasting (more of) my time, let's just leave it at this: you imagined it. clicketyclickyaketyyak10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No my dear, that is not how it works. Rather than me providing a million links to disprove your statements, you must provide one single link to prove your allegations. Not only is it a more logically efficient solution, but it is the only fair one. You don't get to make unsupported accusations that it is the responsibility of others to refute. clicketyclickyaketyyak13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
3. I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. The minimum number of reviews a game needs to make it into the top/bottom 20 lists is 8 reviews, not 10, and certainly not 20. (link)
Let me get this straight... the reason you're proposing to place a ban on using GR is because they provide you with the option of using a minimum number of reviews of 0,5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45, or 50 in searching for games, and they just placed the default at the approximate middle of all those options: 20?! clicketyclickyaketyyak10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) the numerical rankings you see on GameRankings (such as together their reviews have resulted in an average ratio of 97.4%. That ratio has resulted in this title becoming the 2nd best game of all time and the 1st best game on the Wii.) are based off of the default cutoff (which at the moment is 20). (2) the media sites don't bother to dispute it, either -- whenever I've seen -ANY- external site report figures from GR, they're always based off of the default 20-review rankings. (3) it's a known fact that he once changed it from 10 to 20 after Metal Gear Solid (GBC) placed higher than Ocarina of Time. Just how like he tweaked the decimal places after Mario Galaxy overtook OoT. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Prove your statements. I've seen links to this instead. Also, prove when he switched it over. Also, explain why Misplaced Pages should care about this when news sites don't. I highly doubt your story about MGS, since it only has an average of 95.9% while OoT has an average of 97.6%. And in any case, it doesn't prove a thing. There is a difference between causation, correlation, and coincidence. clicketyclickyaketyyak13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see here, you have made unsupported accusations of malicious intent (qualifying as libel) that certainly goes against the spirit of assuming good faith, you have twice made false claims about what/when GR counts and does not count (1. you previously maintained it counts The Onion's reviews; it does not 2. you maintained it stopped counting GameTap because of Galaxy's ranking, but it didn't count GameTap since before Galaxy was ever released), and you have referred to GR with clearly biased and offensive language ("granking's faggotry"). At this point in the debate, I'm past assuming good faith on your part. Stop making up false accusations and lies to support your campaign to make a policy vilifying GR. Or, if the lies and false accusations aren't you're own, then stop repeating them and start checking your facts, please. What do others think; can we end this discussion now? clicketyclickyaketyyak06:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems already established in this discussion that it is fine to cite GR and MC in articles. What is at issue is whether rankings ought to be used.
The basis for Masem's proposal that there should be a policy against using GR's rankings was that GR's "webmaster is intentionally adding or ignoring reviews" and is 'tweaking' results based on personal bias. (The other point Masem made about absolute vs. relative was addressed early on by users and the discussion moved on to hinge around the points of misleading a reader as to the quality of the game — a point which was strongly rebutted by multiple users — and accusations of 'intentional tweaking' to alter rankings and 'obvious bias'.
Neither Masem nor Wikipedian06 have provided definitive, conclusive proof of these accusations upon prompting. In fact, two 'proofs' were disproved (the 'proof' that there is bias in review selection in that The Onion is given equal weight as IGN though they are not of the same quality of reviews was shown to be false as The Onion is not counted towards GR's average; the 'proof' that GameTap's review scores were deactivated — not counted — in order to knock SMG out of the top spot in favour of OoT was disproved with evidence that GameTap's review scores have been deactivated since before SMG was released. The accusers have yet to provide proof that there was any time that GameTap's review scores were activated and counted on GR.)
The other 'proofs' offered depend on speculation (i.e. if GR's web-master was actually interested in using three decimal places, he would have instituted it sooner. Therefore, the fact that he has instituted an "accurate ranking methodology" at this point in time proves that he is biased!!!), assumptions (i.e. that previous to the 3-decimal places, ties were broken by the number of reviews), and confusion of causation and coincidence (i.e. that providing more options for minimum number of reviews in searching and viewing game lists was done in order to knock Metal Gear Solid out of the top ranking in favour of OoT — and that's despite the fact that MGS is a good 1.7% lower than OoT and was never ranked against any other games to date.)
Since accusers of GR have been unwilling or unable to substantiate their claims of its bias, which is the only basis left in this discussion's proposal for a policy against using GR/MC's rankings, and since one accuser admits that "the media sites don't bother to dispute it", I move to disregard the proposal and not have a policy of excluding rankings, since the very basis upon which such a policy is justified is comprised solely of unsubstantiated, fabricated, and untrue claims. Further attempts at 'proving' these claims that have been demonstrated to be baseless can only lead to violations of WP:POINT and WP:SOAP — a concern Krator expressed (see side-discussion). clicketyclickyaketyyak22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I should point out that while I did point to someone else's claims of bias, that itself wasn't the crux of my argument, nor do I believe it necessary to be true - it just hilighted what the end of result of using GR/MC rankings as "fact" in Misplaced Pages articles. That basically the "averages" that they calculate do not consider the relative differences between gaming review sties, and, particularly when comparing games published several years apart. Stating the average is fine, but we should allow the relative quality of the game should be judged by the reader. Additionally, what may be the #x game today could easily change after a new game is released tomorrow - its too much of a transient piece of data to include --MASEM22:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons there is an edit button is to update information. As a game develops, all kinds of information are liable to change. If we were to make a policy of excluding potentially transient information, then game articles really ought not be created until the games have been released. And even then, it might be safer to only make the article five years after release. I support your original proposal to put a minimum time policy before any kind of GR/MC reference can be included to guard against incessant change though.
Hahnchen already addressed your point that "we should allow the relative quality of the game should be judged by the reader". Said Hahnchen, "We're not telling the reader what to think, we're telling them what Metacritic says, it's up to the reader to draw his own conclusions."
Hahnchen also addressed your point that rankings "do not consider the relative differences between gaming review sties". Said Hahnchen, "Metacritic does give a good indication of a game's critical reception. It cannot be skewed by singular anomalous reviews, and its impression of a game's overall feedback is a heck of a lot less subjective than an average reader."
Once objections to rankings based on allegations of bias are put aside, the remaining reasons are weak, or, to quote Hahnchen again, "incredibly poorly thought out arguments". Misplaced Pages is not censored, and unless you can come up with an explanation of how rankings — properly indicated as being listed by review aggregator site GameRankings as # in their all-time best reviewed list, rather than "this game is the best" cited with GR (which should not be done as it violates WP:NPOV) — violates policy, then there is no justification for making a policy against using rankings from GR/MC, and in fact, making such a policy would violate policy. clicketyclickyaketyyak00:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much "censorship" as the fact that we don't need to include those numbers (especially rankings) because they're not needed here. Wikipedian06 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Policies forbidding the insertion of things shouldn't be made upon the premise a person's POV that they're "not needed". The criterion for inclusion is notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." By your own admission, GR's rankings are widely quoted by "media sites". It meets the notability threshold for inclusion and unless you can show how it violates policy, it is a violation of WP:CENSOR to not allow it. clicketyclickyaketyyak01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Proof
Proof that ties used to be broken by the number of reviews: See here. (Archive dated 5/29/07)
Proof that the webmaster changed the default minimum review count (from 10 to 20) when Metal Gear Solid (GBC) was threatening to overtake OoT: BeforeAfter
Your first 'proof' does not demonstrate anything more than a correlation, since GR weighs review sites differently. Additionally, what does it matter? Even if you could prove that it used to be sorted by number of reviews and that they switched over to purely ranked by average, that does not show intent to tweak with the ranks in order to place a certain game at the top. You accuse GR of bias for setting the default number of reviews to a higher number, requiring games to get more reviews to be ranked by default, and then you also accuse GR of bias for deciding to not require games to get more reviews to get ranked! Damned if GR does, damned if GR doesn't in your eyes, eh?
Your second 'proof' is not even a correlation because it does not show a trend; it's only a coincidence — and MGS wasn't even in first place! You have first imagine that MGS was "threatening to overtake OoT" and then you have to imagine that the web-master cared, and then you have to imagine that he changed to default listing to foil MGS! Your explanations tend to require a large amount of assumption. Occam's razor dictates that my explanation is better.
You failed to provide evidence for the things I asked for, most notably, proof that GameTap was ever activated in between October and December such that it could be deactivated again. What you have just provided, though I appreciate the effort you put in, is inconclusive. Certainly not rigourous enough upon which to base policy. clicketyclickyaketyyak01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
GR does NOT weigh review sites differently. All sites are given equal weight; it even specifically says so at the end of the FAQ. You can confirm this for yourself using Excel or a calculator. Averaging all 54 bolded review scores for SMG gives you exactly 97.441%.
I only accused him of bias because he happened to change the cutoff RIGHT when MGS' critic average was going on an upward trend, instead of deciding that in the beginning or when there's no apparent battle for the #1 spot.
So the MGS thing was a coincidence and the recent decimal precision expansion was also a coincidence? Are you just being thick-headed or can you honestly say with 100% certainty that nothing fishy was going on in both of these instances?
As for the deactivated 10/10 reviews, I'm still trying to look for cached pages. It's a bit difficult to find cached versions from EVERY single day. I can try to prove the rest of the accusations, but it seems that no matter how much evidence I provide, you'll always twist it in GameRankings' favor and call it a "coincidence" or say my evidence is insufficient to prove anything. It almost seems as if you already had your mind set from the beginning, so no amount of proof will change your beliefs.
P.S. Why don't you hold off for a bit on the debate, clickety? I'd like to hear what other people think about this (especially the evidence I presented), since hearing exclusively from you results in a very one-sided argument. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki6, you mention MGS there but on another occasion you have protested that they don't list sites like Game Tap... thats abit of a controdiction on your argument. You complain that they increased the reviews needed for the rankings then complain that they take reviews away, meaning theres not enough so which is it? Plus your link never shows MGS being number 1, if it was number 1 once then that might be better proof but... Stabby Joe (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read my arguments once again (as usual). I don't have a problem with GameTap not being counted. THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING ALL ALONG IS THAT THEY NEED TO STAY CONSISTENT. If GameTap was once counted in the average, it counts FOREVER, or the webmaster should have a darn good reason explaining why it was deactivated. Same for the default minimum number of reviews, or the decimal precision. When you run a site like that (which is supposed to be as objective as possible), you don't change those settings whenever you feel like it. (And yes, reviews themselves are subjective, but aggregator sites are meant to be as free of bias as possible.) Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Sites like Metacritic can and will change their weightings in the same way Google tweak their algorithms. I've already made my points above as to why I feel Metacritic scores are relevant to Misplaced Pages articles. Having them change every so often does not matter, it does not make them any less notable, reliable or influential. - hahnchen02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read my arguments once again (as usual). I feel your need to insult me to make your case despite me NOT insulting or provoking you in anyway and openly stating I am open for both arguments, is not only pointless and problematic but very unhelful to the debate proccess which I'm very open to for both sides. And now I will make my case again. I'm putting whether the webmaster is being biased or not to one side, forget about that point you're making for now. I just want to know why exaclly do you mention Game Tap, then complain about using less known sources and increased the cap at one point since those to arguments are kind of contradictory. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Replaced this thread here because it's not on the topic below
Wikipedian06, while I agree that the recent changes you have brought up are cause for concern and seem fishy, they technically do not definitively prove the actions and intents of the webmaster making these changes for their own agenda. While the scenario you've proposed is possible, other scenarios have been proposed that fit the facts as well.
However, after looking at the rankings page, I feel that perhaps we may have misinterpreted the original intent of this page, or at least its current use. It looks to be more of a searchable database rather than a definitive list of best games. The fact there is filter control with several different options on what to filter and how means that the list is variable and gives different results depending on the criteria. For instance setting the "Minimum Reviews / Votes" to zero lists "Christmas NiGHTS" as #1, while the default settings list The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time as #1.
Given this, I believe that including statements about the rankings on GR in the prose of reception sections does not provide accurate and verifiable information. I still feel that listing the aggregate score along with other scores in a table is neutral enough and adds something to the overall reception. (Guyinblack2516:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
The thing is, when external media sites cite GameRankings, they usually just report data straight off of that page without disputing it or tweaking with the options. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
And if you look above, that's exactly my argument for why GameRankings should not be cited as a source on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't meet WP:RS. Why exaclly do you we have to not list GR at all when in many cases it has the most reviews listed, even more than MC? And it actually DOES still list those reviews not in the final average unlike MC. Not listing the rankings at all and just the basic reception seems to me like a perfectly good source to mention in reception. If we are even going to consider such a move by not listing a well known and well visited site, we're going to need more reason that this SMG case, which is just one example of something POSSIBLE that only affects the RANKINGS, which we're not thinking of even listing now? It seems like a very neutral option, and many think so. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
On rankings specifically
This is a specific response to User:Clicketyclick, written in this space because I think that is the best thing. (I even have a user page on that.) First of all, the goal of this response is to show that rankings should not be included, for different reasons than reliability. Or, if you wish, a different kind of reliability aggregate review sites can do nothing about. Because the below will inevitably result in the above soapbox ranting if I do not include a little disclaimer, I have a little disclaimer below. I also encourage the users Clicketyclick and Wikipedian06 to abide to WP:ETIQUETTE and keep the use of (borderline) personal attacks to a minimum. Finally, I must say that I find it a great loss of rationality and sensibility that this fringe discussion needs A) such a large amount of attention and B) such a structured "bit by bit" and "OMG proof" approach. You'll find it on WP:LAME after the discussion is over.
This subsection does not consider any kind of intervention by any webmaster whatsoever. If you want to discuss that point, go to the section above.
This subsection does not consider any kind of information but the actual ranking (i.e. using aggregate review sites to compare games with each other). If you want to discuss other kinds of information, such as the use of average scores without comparison with other games, go to the section above.
My actual argument has appeared twice before on this page, but I feel a third repetition is necessary to avoid 10kb more. I'll rephrase it, too. Gaming reviews always award absolute scores, not relative scores. This means that a game is not rated according to its position relative to other games out there, but simply how close to perfect it is. This means that scores between games are incomparable, by any method. This includes all aggregate review sites. This is actually just mathematics, and follows clearly from the methods used. Grading/rating methods that would make this work are, for example, the elo rating system and Bell curve grading. These would make aggregate rankings work - in theory. This is practically impossible because one cannot rate all video games at once, nor can one re-rate every game every time another game is rated.
User:Krator (tc) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Personally, I don't care one bit whether GR manipulates their rankings or not. The aggregate score is potentially useful, but a ranking based on unweighted or possibly-poorly-weighted averages of semi-arbitrarily chosen reviews that may not even be from all the same sources is IMO not worth mentioning.
but a ranking based on unweighted or possibly-poorly-weighted averages of semi-arbitrarily chosen reviews that may not even be from all the same sources is IMO not worth mentioning. And if you look above, that's exactly my argument for why GameRankings should not be cited as a source on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't meet WP:RS. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please go to the above section to make this point. Semi-arbitrarily here doesn't mean: webmasters selecting reviews (if you want it to, go to the section above). It means: one can never possibly include all reviews, nor can it include all significant reviews. Local newspapers etc. are simply overlooked because of the enormous amount of reviews out there. That's kind of the point of this section: GR should not be used, regardless of any unreliable webmasters, because its methods are inherently flawed. Note that "flawed methods" are not in WP:RS. User:Krator (tc) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If thats the case we shouldn't use Metacritic either nor it or Rotton Tomotoes for film articles. Then that also means we can't make any statment like "upon release X was generally well recieved" since GR and MC are the best sources to back that up. Seriously, we will nee lots of reason and support to rule out future use. Also it should be mentioned that when mentioning GR and MC most state its based on a number of reviews so its not saying it has all which seems to be the problem for most against using it. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I would like to point out that this is not WP:LAME. This is an extremely important point. Revert wars are going on in a number of articles on whether or not to include rankings, so even though you (and I) think the debate is silly, it's still relevant in order to stop WP:LAME editing.
Addressing Krator's point: I shall attempt to rebut this two ways —
1) Basing policy on your argument would violate WP:NOR; Misplaced Pages doesn't publish material based on original thought, so it should also not exclude material based on it. Only WP:NOTE is relevant, and GR rankings meets it; reliable media outlets and game publishers use the verifiable rankings, so what violation of policy justifies not showing those rankings on Wiki too?
2) While each game may be graded according to different expectations of its console's limitations, all are graded with the same sort of criteria in mind and an excellent game (regardless of time or platform) will receive a mark reflecting that, i.e. marks don't inflate as technology get more impressive. Besides tech/graphics, other aspects of the game are largely comparable between platforms and generations. Good plots/gameplay are good regardless of time or platform. Therefore, games are comparable. Also, my philosophy classes don't bell-curve though marks are based on essay-writing with a subjective marking scale (no concept of a "perfect" essay since there's no correct answer.) Yet the class average is published by the University. This dichotomy you paint between absolute & relative scores is not reflective of how subjective scaled averages are treated by academia and by the media.
Addressing this point: "semi-arbitrarily chosen reviews that may not even be from all the same sources is IMO not worth mentioning" —
1) Whether it is worth mentioning or not in your opinion is not what is at issue but whether we can form a policy of it ("no use of rankings from GR"). Being "not worth mentioning" (and that's indeed strictly your own opinion, as rankings are quoted by media outlets and other users) is not sufficient grounds upon which to make policy forbidding the use of something. That would be a violation of WP:CENSOR.
2) Local newspapers' reviews are not significant reviews. The inclusion criteria of GR is restricted so only mags and sites with a sizable catalogue of reviews are counted. And why is it that GR "can never possibly include all ... significant reviews"? That's an assumption.
Basically, you cannot exclude rankings because there is no policy that they violate. The rankings conform to Wiki policy and making a policy to exclude them is a violation of WP:CENSOR unless it can be proven that GR is not a reliable source. That's why discussion has been dominated by attempts to prove that GR is not a reliable source (on account of bias influencing rankings.) There is no other way to justify a policy of excluding rankings, and all attempts to show evidence that GR is not reliable have either ended in being disproved or have been inconclusive. Therefore, any attempt to formulate a policy against GR's rankings is indeed a violation of policy. clicketyclickyaketyyak00:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
More fishy business
December 19 - GameAlmighty's 9/10 factored into the critic average (note bold)
December 13 - GameAlmighty's 9/10 NOT factored into the critic average (note not bold)
I feel the same way. Seriously, what gives? Have you not listened to a single thing that others have said?
"Sites like Metacritic can and will change their weightings in the same way Google tweak their algorithms." — hahnchen
Proof is something that demonstrates the truth of a statement.
Inconclusive is an attempted proof that does not lead to a single inevitable conclusion.
A url is not proof. You have not shown the key thing here: the link between this activation and SMG. I could claim that the sudden activation had to do with any one of the number of other games that site reviewed. Hell, you haven't even shown that GR's webmaster is even remotely interested in SMG's score. You persist with these baseless accusations which may be okay for a blog but do not belong on wikipedia discussion pages. Seriously, stop it. This is libel. clicketyclickyaketyyak00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Responding to your previous argument:
"GR does NOT weigh review sites differently. All sites are given equal weight"
No they weren't. Whip out your calculator and calculate the pure (un-weighted) averages (to three decimal places) of HL2, Halo, and Tekken in this link you cited as "proof that ties used to be broken by the number of reviews". They do not all come out to 95.6%. Therefore, review sites at least used to be weighted differently.
On that subject of being broken by the number of reviews... in the same post, you cited this link as some sort of proof about a vendetta against MGS and how it was threatening OoT's #1 spot. Look at the bottom of that list. Notice how SM64 and Halo are tied at 95.6%? Tell me, which one of the two has the larger amount of reviews, the one that wins the tie and comes in #9, or the one that comes in #10? In light of this information, tell me, how is it that ties were broken then? clicketyclickyaketyyak01:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
How about the consensus of views above that assert sites like Metacritic as being reliable sources, and accurate in gauging responses. You're sounding like a broken record, repeating your conspiracy theories again and again ad infinitum without anything else to add. - hahnchen02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe the ranking system was different back then? Especially considering that there's a critic score and a "main score," whatever that is? Keep in mind that this archive was taken over two years ago. I know for a fact that ties were broken by number of reviews at least as of last month, since I expanded the rankings to the to 100. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you set out to prove that the ranking system was different back then and failed, recall? You set out to prove "that ties used to be broken by the number of reviews". In actuality, you showed that they didn't used to be broken by number of reviews. Why were you trying to prove this? Because I asked you to back up this statement of yours: "for who knows how many years, ties had always been broken by the number of reviews." You made this statement in order to assert that, before GR elected to display to 3 decimal places, ties were broken by number of reviews while I asserted that you had no proof of this and that they were broken by the average score alone — it's just that the other 2 decimal places weren't shown. It appears that I was correct; for who knows how many years, ties have always been broken by average score, not number of reviews. Displaying 3 decimal places could then not possibly be construed as an attempt to knock SMG out of #1, but only as an effort to show suspicious viewers why it is that they were switching back and forth.
Ah, but "for many years" was key, as it was meant to show that the only possible reason why it switched over at this point in time was because of SMG. But quite clearly, it has been ranking by mark since long before SMG came out. Even if it did at some intervening point use number of reviews to break ties and switched back to the pure mark system, it was not malicious or calculated. In fact, you (unwittingly?) admitted yourself that it was a superior system. Surely you should applaud GR that it's become more accurate. Yet you take it as a reason why it shouldn't be used...?! (And also, as you pointed out repeatedly, new review sites were added and old ones deactivated. So it can't be concluded that merely because it says "52" reviews in both shots that they are the same 52 reviews.) clicketyclickyaketyyak16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Your main concern, I take it, is that GR is anti-SMG because of a desire to keep OoT in the top position. They will stop at nothing — deactivating reviews, changing the way ties are broken — to accomplish this. Though you have not been able to prove this (and in fact you and I have even disproved a few of those claims), I am going to preemptively end all such speculation by going through the sites that are deactivated for SMG and explaining why they are:
Maxi Consolas(Portugal) (score given: 100%). Only has 65 reviews. Needs 300 for activation
Wham Gaming (score given: 100%). Only has 254 reviews. Needs 300. Additionally: they didn't even write the review. It is republished from a newspaper (sun media).
GameTap (score given: 100%). Only has 170 reviews. Needs 300.
Wii Advanced (score given: 96%). Only has 58 reviews. Needs 100.
The Onion (score given: 90%). As you pointed out quite rightly, not exactly professional review material. Good thing GR agrees with you.
Those are all the reviews that do not count towards SMG's score. They were all done so on policy. Do you see any bias there? No? So can we put the argument of bias to rest now? Yes? (Also, note that, even with only one decimal place, OoT ranks higher than SMG.) clicketyclickyaketyyak02:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Really I find it quite amusing that you still haven't learned through all this that you should check your facts before posting. Go to their bloody site. Now what does it say in the top left corner of that list of reviews? "Showing 20 of 322".
Look, SMG is a fantastic game. And so is OoT. Interestingly enough, the rankings reflect many opinions expressed in the reviews (i.e. that it was almost as good as OoT.) What does it matter really that OoT comes in first? They're both shown to be excellent games. Let me put it to you another way. Read this short, hilariously clueless review from Variety magazine of SMG. Now tell me, which would be the best succinct rebuttal to it? 1) "look you tard, Eurogamer gave this a 100% and so did 20 other major review sites!" 2) "look you flunky, the average rating this game has received is 97.4%." 3) "look you moron, based on this game's ratings, it ranks as the 2 best-reviewed game of all-time." Seems to me that the first response fails because, while it shows that some other people loved the game, it doesn't explain why everyone else should think the same or risk being considered idiosyncratic idiots. The second response is definitely an improvement (showing that the praise was quite universal for the game), but then, maybe reviewers are always going gaga over games and that kind of mark is standard. And maybe, as the reviewer suggests, they're just marking it as the best that can be done (which is not very good at all, according to him) with the Wii, whereas other games he mentioned have similar high scores reflecting much loftier achievements. At which point, the third response silences the outspoken cretin, as it shows that achieving such a high rating (reflective of universal praise) is incredibly hard to do in the game industry and in fact the only game that has surpassed it is the undeniable classic OoT.
Rankings aren't interpreted as being "oh, this game is better than that one," as I'm sure everyone in their right mind (and all gamers are) understands that a few points (or even fractions of a point) difference is not necessarily significant. It's not so much the number of the ranking that matters but the mere fact that it ranks so impressively, which is why rankings are important. And as I mentioned before, the reason why the aggregate average is important is because it gives an indication of how universal the praise is (since it's too cumbersome to list all reviews and listing them selectively can be misleading about how universal and what the level of the praise (in high marks) — or criticism (in low marks) — was. Like if I only displayed the reviewers who gave SMG a 90%.) Together, aggregate reviews and rankings provide two very important clues about the critical reception of the game and for that reason, are invaluable information in the corresponding section of the heavyweight titles! clicketyclickyaketyyak16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the points I feel it's necessary to restate now:
We will not discourage (and in fact, still encourage) the use of GR/MC as both being good repositories for game review links that we as Misplaced Pages cannot provide (per WP:DIR) and to state their aggregate scores as a rough measure of the game's review score averages. While Wikipedian06 may be correct that at least one site is biasing the average to change rankings, we're talking small changes that affect the score no more than 1 percentage point. At least to me, there is very little difference in game quality if a game got 84% and 85% for these aggregate sites, so if the webmasters are playing such games, they're not affecting the general category they fall into.
There is the question of the ranking inclusion. Again, Wikipedian06 may be right on the biasing going on, but here are reasons I would not include rankings:
What Krator has stated about absolute vs relative ratings.
Comparing reviews of two games with a significant span of time between them (more than two-three years, considering console lifetimes) is like comparing apples and oranges - the expectations for gameplay, graphics, and sound change with each console generation. Within the same generation, its certainly reasonable, but 10 years (SMG vs OoT) is a 2 generation split. GR/MC provides these rankings regardless of this concern.
Rankings are transient data. This is not to say that WP can't have transient info, but there's a logistical nightmare if we allowed GR/MC rankings on articles. Say, today, the top 50 games as ranked by GR have their position listed in their articles. If a new game comes along that gets into the top #50, then someone would need to "bump" all the other games that fall after it; that means if a game gets to #1, 50 other game articles have to be bumped. I do not want to be that person with how fast new games enter the top tier. We could use the "accessdate" of the {{cite web}} template to say "oh, but it was #x on such-and-such a date" but because these ranking pages are completely dynamic, there is no way to "fix' that version of the page nor will it be captured by internet archiving sites.
Now specifically for this, if GR has a feature each year where, in a static content page, they stated "Here's the top 100 games based on GR rankings as of such-and-such date", and that page would always be accessible and would not change ever again, then we can use that type of information. It is in stone, so the rankings can't be biased, and its always there as a reference. We certainly have no problem if IGN or another big site lists their top 100 games of all time, this would be the same thing. But again, the key here is that the information is no longer subject to change by the webmaster and that a user can always go back to review that page. (Best of my knowledge, GR/MC do not do such features, but that doesn't mean they won't in the future).
My opinion is that providing aggregate scores and links to GR/MC is more than sufficient to give the reader an impression of how well a game was received, and we provide them with the tool to , if they want, determine how the game fares to others, but let them make the distinction of how the rankings are used. --MASEM15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for summarising this long thread that not everyone wants to read through. It's because of posts like this that I supported Masem's RfA. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-19 15:49
Indeed it is easy to agree with Masem when you do not read the discussion and miss the rebuttals to the points that he is restating. Hearing only one side of the argument always goes far in promoting consensus. clicketyclickyaketyyak16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Would any of you who are in agreement with him care to address the rebuttals to his points? From what I've seen of how Wiki operates, mere "I agree" statements without explanation hold little weight in determining consensus. clicketyclickyaketyyak16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Fragland review
GameRankings added a Fragland.net review today. The 92% score wasn't bad by any standard, but Fragland is clearly a site geared towards fans of shooting games (Bioshock: 96% Halo 3: 96%), as its name suggests.
Nintendo's PR department issued an announcement today. Apparently, Nintendo still cites GameRankings as a source, despite how unreliable it may be.
Now its Fragland? Its one conspiricy after another with you lol! And by the way I checked in to some of those sites not added like the Onion, they're a joke publication yet MC lists them so why haven't you bashed them? Stabby Joe (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That may be so (that it's geared towards shooting games), however, GR must maintain neutrality and not take these things into consideration when qualifying/disqualifying sites. As Fragland has 1127 reviews on file, it has clearly surpassed the needed 300 to qualify. Thus, maintaining its neutrality, GR added the site. The great thing about GR is that, by averaging all these sites together, the bias that one site may possess is compensated for and neutralised. You're far more likely to get a real concept of what mark a game deserves from GR's aggregate scores rather than just listing 10 or so review sites. 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Because it doesn't pass GameRanking's inclusion guidelines. What's more likely, that the GameRankings editorial staff, accountable to CNET suits, piss about with the rankings to get their favourite games to the top. Or that you're looking for any possible way to promote Super Mario Galaxy, because you've somehow tied your ego to a product. How else can you explain edits like this, and this. I mean, why are you even pointing out Happy Puppy? A source no one has ever heard of, let alone trying to include it into the LoZ reviews box? That's a egregious example of WP:POINT. - hahnchen11:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, get your facts straight: GameRankings has no full-fledged "editorial staff," only one webmaster, Lee Alessi. It's sort of like how CNET acquired GameFAQs, but to this date, it is still mostly run by a single editor (first, site creator CJayC and now SB Allen, CJayC's appointed successor.) Wikipedian06 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason it's not up is because it doesn't exist. You can't cite websites that don't exist. You can't even do that in wiki articles. That edit history that Hahnchen brought up makes me very suspicious. Now why on earth would you remove a line on Famitsu's review? Before you go to accusing other sites of bias, explain your edit. Is Famitsu not reliable? If Famitsu had given Galaxy a 40 instead of 38 and GR had removed it, wouldn't you be up in arms? (By the way, please try not to split my replies in half.) clicketyclickyaketyyak18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not "less known." It was a major review site back in the N64 days, which is why Metacritic, Game Ratio, et al. all have it listed. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Was? Hmmmm... never heard of it. Plus it should be noted that GR has MORE reviews than those other sites mentioned, including Metacritic. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that Nintendo cited it. Nintendo said:
" Super Mario Galaxy was lauded for its presentation, design and gameplay, averaging a 97% on GameRankings.com."
"currently, GameRankings.com shows it is one of the highest rated games ever"
The first quotation is based upon GR's aggregate scores. The second is based upon GR's rankings. You have already established that many reputable news sites use GR's scores and rankings and Hahnchen established that game producers and developers and developers use it too. And now you have established that Nintendo itself uses it. Therefore, as I have maintained all along GR (its scores and rankings) is notable and any attempt to institute policy barring the use of GR's aggregate scores or rankings qualifies as a breach of WP:NOTCENSORED. clicketyclickyaketyyak17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Most media sites just report things at face value without bothering to dispute them. They're way too busy. Now, if there were only another site like GameRankings, except run by an unbiased webmaster, who knows if they'd still continue to cite GR? Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, you sound like a bad broken record, repeating your conspiracy theories to an audience which has entirely dismissed them. What's more likely, CNET altering their ranking algorithm to improve its accuracy and relevance, or CNET altering their ranking algorithm to promote a game that was released in 1998? Your argument is crap, it's the same as saying global warming is caused by a reduction of pirates, correlation does not imply cause. Every game is affected by the changes, heck, CNET did this so that Mario Kart Double Dash would be considered the greatest game in the Mario Kart series. But wait, Occam's Razor cuts through that argument, as it cuts through yours. Read up on WP:FRINGE, the fact that we're even considering that this is true is a farce. This argument is dead. - hahnchen11:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There are Ocarina fanboys who will continue to deny the evidence no matter how much of it I've presented. Of course, there's no formal "proof" that the editor is biased unless he personally admits it, but he'll never do so because he wouldn't want to lose his job. Wikipedian06 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not an Ocarina fanboy (I haven't even played the blasted game) and neither is Hahnchen. When Occam's razor is mentioned twice in a discussion and two people have to stress the difference between causation and correlation, you know it's time to stop. Regardless of why they reported them (you cannot prove your accusations), the fact remains that they reported them. Therefore, GR's rankings and scores are notable.
So far, not a single person in this entire discussion has even attempted to respond to me on this point and justify censorship of the rankings/scores. You have simply proposed numerous spurious and speculative things to question GR's reliability and others' arguments came down to 'I don't feel that it's needed'. Yet others in this discussion merely said 'I agree' without even bothering to propose any reasons. No one has provided a sufficiently robust reason for why there should be a policy censoring GR's rankings or scores. There is no way that any bureaucrat would be able to find consensus out of this mess and no way that anyone could institute this policy that contravenes Wiki policy. Considering that there were a few admins (and admins-to-be) involved in this discussion, I'm surprised that they didn't recognise this. clicketyclickyaketyyak18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I myself am a huge fan of SMG and think its better than OoT... but that is my personal opinion and that shouldn't have sway when editting and I fail to see any reason to not use GR entirely as many above have already said. And Masam is a universal edittor so no bias there either. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I brought this up a while back when the rehaul of the template was being done, but it was on the tail end of it and got overlooked/ignored. Its only a minor change, but I want to bring it up anyway. When the rehaul got done, we lost most of the (s) on the column headings. Considering that some games are developed by multiple companies (eg, StarCraft: Ghost, Supreme Commander or Left 4 Dead), are often published by more than one company in various locations across the world or for different formats (eg, Half-Life 2, Max Payne, Freespace or Final Fantasy VIII), and manygame articleshereput morethan one person in thedesigner section, can we change these three columns to reflect this? Going by the film equivalent template, they should be changed to "Developed by", "Published by" and "Designed by", so that either one or more can comfortably be accomodated, and in my view that looks better than sticking a (s) at the end. Simply having it as "Developer", "Publisher" and "Designer" is ignorant of the potential for multiple necessary entries to these columns and should be addressed. -- Sabre (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer having the (s) at the end. Having "Developed by" makes it look like you're trying to complete a sentence, which conflicts with the table-like format. SharkD (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
He means that if there is a single entry, it won't display an "s" a the end, but if there is more than one it will. Seems like a nice idea, but probably too much work for too little gain - I certainly don't know how to implement something like that. But we need to work something out, whether its a conditional syntax, adding (s) to the end of appropriate columns or changing it to "Developed by" etc. -- Sabre (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The question is "conditional on what?" We could add additional parameters for "plural developers", "plural designers", and so on, or parameters for "number of delevopers", etc., or we could change it to have "developer1", "developer2", "developer3", and so on. But as it stands, there is nothing we can do to determine whether the 's' should be included or not. Anomie⚔15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm definately starting to think that a conditional parameter would be far too much trouble. The same problem could be solved by a minimum of adding 9 characters into the code (ie, 3 "(s)"). -- Sabre (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There are no current software mechanisms that would be able to detect the presence of <br> tag or anything else that would indicate multiple people for the same parameter. The easiest solution is to make the fields read "developer(s)" etc., similar to what is done at Template:Infobox Officeholder. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Do we have enough consensus for a change? Judging by the comments here putting in "(s)" to the publisher, developer and designer fields is more preferable than the "developed by" style, so shall we go for that? -- Sabre (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A sandbox version is here. Its based on the current coding and shouldn't have any effect on how the template operates: I only changed the labels. I've added "Distributor(s)" to the columns being changed as well - I forgot about it earlier, probably because its not used much, but where it is used its usually got more than one entry. -- Sabre (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have recreated this article and given it a real-world context. There is much more potential, showing that Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List of enemies in Doom was a bad decision (User:TTN again! Why am I not surprised?). The problem is that I don't have the original article, and so I can't write anything about the enemies. Is anyone able to access the original article so I can use the information on the enemies? --Teggles (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I like process, and think you should have gone to WP:DRV first after working on the article in your userspace to show that such a list can exist. But that's beside the point now; it exists. I've already denied G4 and asked Pharmboy to hold off on AFDing for a few days, which puts considerable pressure to get it up and going to survive the deletion process.
I seriously wouldn't recommend the deleted article. Full of cruft and lavish detail, and the only reference is a strategy guide. Pharmboy already thinks it's cruft and the article just consists of a list of enemies. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll start going to WP:DRV when User:TTN starts discussing pages before listing them for deletion. I have shown that the enemies in Doom are clearly notable, I do not need to go through WP:DRV to prove that. The sources are there. --Teggles (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that I'm not attempting to take a hostile approach, just a stern one. People are constantly getting away with deleting articles without even searching for notability themselves. If they are to be so careless, then when I create an article clearly establishing notability, I should not have to go through meaningless processes. --Teggles (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO, it seems like dangerously thin skating on ice. The sources shown only talk about the enemies as a whole, and not individually (then again, same deal-o with the every Pokemon character sans Pikachu). I think the information could be merged into Doom (series)#Enemies – wait. Apparently there isn't a series article devoted to the Doom series. Why is that? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The sources talk about enemies as a whole, and the topic is about enemies as a whole. While the article does discuss individiaul enemies, each bit of content is not under WP:NOTABILITY, only the topic. This is why World of Final Fantasy VIII is allowed but something like Lunatic Pandora is not. I also have no idea why the series does not have an article devoted to it. I don't edit the Doom articles. --Teggles (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if listing enemies is kosher or not (in the case of Guild Wars that was deleted outright), but I was just imagining, if we removed all of that and only left the sourced information, it owuld amount to a stub-class article that probably couldn't be ever expanded. I see that as a problem, and think that upmerging the 3-4 paragraphs to a general series article would be better. The world of FF8 article discusses a wide number of things - its history, creatures and races, and concept and design. Merging this Doom enemies article would be like moving it under the equivlant of the FF88 world's creatures and races section. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has a lot more potential than you are assuming there is. What I wrote was the result of very little searching. I'm sure we can stuff the "design" section full of information, and since Doom's satanic imagery was so controversial, the "reception" section could be huge too. If you really think I'm wrong, I'll leave it up to you or someone else to create the Doom (series) article. I have no obligation to do it. --Teggles (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that users were allowed to recreate deleted material. Can someone inform me about the correct policies here? AshnardTalk09:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questoning whether it's possible, just if users are permitted to do so. I'm sure a user was once blocked for recreating deleted material. AshnardTalk12:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That article really doesn't establish anything on its own, so it would be best to just redirect it and place it in a sandbox until it can actually be its own subtopic. It could also just be merged to the proposed series page. TTN (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If memory serves, there's no policy against recreating deleted material, but norms dictate that if you are going to do so, at least to try and address the concerns that lead to deletion in the first place. Common sense would also dictate that as well, since otherwise the material just gets deleted again. But as TTN said, might have been better to create the article in a sandbox first, then asked here for a look over. That way you can be sure that your precious article isn't going to be suddenly deleted. But I suppose I must give props for attempting to address the reasons for its deletion in the first place. Ong elvin (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I also think that if you truly think a topic is notable and that the sources exist to prove its notability, then it is your responsibility as a contributor to source it, not whoever is claiming deletion under WP:N. Well, not exactly like that, but that's the best way I can think of to describe it, especially if just describing game articles. I also concede that there are a bunch of articles which should always be given benefit of the doubt with respect to notability. Things such as real scientific or mathematic theories. Or other things which are so common that everyone knows it. (eg, Origami, even if no sources were provided to establish notability, should always be regarded as notable nonetheless.) But generally speaking, I don't think individual aspects of games should have their own article unless it's the game universe, which is excepted under WP:FICTION. Ong elvin (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored the old revisions so editors can salvage anything for the new article. Seems reasonable enough. --- RockMFR22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
At the end of Ong elvin's comment that: But generally speaking, I don't think individual aspects of games should have their own article unless it's the game universe, which is excepted under WP:FICTION.
Well Doom is a well known game SERIES, with multiple games and even books with sources about them, themselves. Seems to me like a fictional universe large enough to have an article listing the enemies even when most other games with less games have them. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:FICT doesn't make exceptions for game universes; they are bound by the same restrictions as everything else. I don't know where that came from, unless it was in one of the many recent revisions that has since been reverted. But until people have finished arguing over whether or not WP:FICT should allow, and indeed encourage, in-universe articles with no real-world context or not, I'd take anything it says with a pinch of salt. Miremare20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, we're considering cases of character and other fictional lists without notability as being acceptable as long as it is written in a way to support minimal plot information and the real-world notability of the work of fiction; we have yet to come to a consensus on that. However, this is for key plot elements. In the case for monsters of Doom, none of them (beyond that they exist and possibly the final bosses) are necessary to under the plot of Doom and are otherwise non-notable themselves and thus should not have an article. --MASEM20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded a bit cynical but, personally, I don't like the direction it seems to be heading - I see such non-notable articles or lists as you mention as being completely unnecessary and undesirable for an encyclopedia. Given that the requirement for notability is not to gauge the popularity of a subject, but to make sure that the article can be reliably sourced and thereby not fall foul of the verifiability, OR, and NPOV policies, and has at least some real-world info to pass WP:NOT, I very much believe that if something deserves an article it will have the sources and if it doesn't it won't. I've yet to see a convincing argument against this, and I would be very wary of starting out on the slippery slope of exceptions. Just my opinion. :) Miremare21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We're being careful on all sides - we want to encourage the inclusion of real-world content and discourage pure fancruft. There's more on WT:FICT if you wish to participate but the general idea is that 1) topics or lists that can be shown to be notable are, by no doubt, allowed, but 2) in cases of longer/serial works, for purposes of meeting MOS and summary style, a carefully crafted list that briefly summarizes characters, items, or other aspects as to help to support the plot and the work's real-world notability can be appropriate. In the case of video games, for example and barring what exists there, it would logically follow to have a "List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters" that all Sonic games can refer to to avoid repeating common details. On the other hand, it does not make sense to have a "List of characters in BioShock" simply because it's a single shot game and if you can't talk about all the characters in the game within the plot, you need to cut some out - there's no need to provide more than just was is needed there. But these refer to specific elements that relate to the plot. "List of Monsters in Doom", as I note above, would have no impact on understanding Doom's plot, and thus is more cruft than useful information, unless notability of the monsters themselves can be demonstrated. Similarly, most of what we call Gamecruft falls in the same line.
I don't think we're trying to allow exceptions, but just that the list articles need to be very carefully approached and make sense. Anything more details then high level plot details would not be appropriate in such lists. But again, we haven't settled on a form yet for the guideline and are still working towards consensus, so additional input is appreciated. --MASEM21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You're calling it gamecruft because it's not central to the plot. I hate to be harsh, but you're an idiot. The article is notable because the enemies caused great controversy, that has been made VERY clear. --Teggles (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If there is significant notable information on the topic, then there's no question about including it. However, without seeing what the controversy is (as the present list does not seem to include this) there is likely a better way to combine information. I do not know what the pre-deleted article looked like, and though TTN is a bit heavy with his AfDs, he's generally correct on the lack of demonstrated notability. --MASEM22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Teggles: if you hate to be harsh, don't be. As far as I remember it, it was as much the image of the game as a whole, rather than the enemies specifically, that caused the controversy. After all, the Doom enemies are nothing particularly special in that respect - games have featured demons as enemies since time immemorial.
Masem: I can see where you're coming from, I just don't think any possible benefits this might have can outweigh the potential drawbacks. I think there's rarely going to be much to say, or repeat through several articles, about such characters - to use the cited List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog as an example, all of the characters without their own articles have very little that can be said about them, so any mentions of them can easily include the basic details each time (IMO this is true of many of the ones that do have their own articles too, but that's probably because they shouldn't), and as you point out, why would we need to go further than the basics for non-notable characters anyway? What seems to be being proposed is a system of "exceptions sometimes" which is going to be difficult to enforce, and will muddy the waters and thus be taken advantage of - I mean, the fiction situation is bad enough as it is, without ostensibly sanctioning it... The intention that these articles should only be allowed if they significantly add to the understanding of the parent subject is all well and good, but this could be said, with varying degrees of believability, of practically any crufty/gameguidey article. Whether or not this is viewed as an exception by those thrashing out the details, it's going to be viewed as an exception by most everyone else, and as I'm sure we've all seen, when exceptions are allowed, everyone thinks they should be that exception. Anyway, I'd be much in favour of simplifying and tightening up the fiction guideline rather than complicating and loosening it, but I'd even more rather not get involved! Good luck with it. :) Miremare22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll make sure (and I'm sure at the Pump as well) that when we want a consensus after we've done internal edits, we'll ask for input from here (since VGs are affected by it). And yes, we've run through those cases and know that there's lots of people that can wikilaywer around it. We know what the potential pitfalls are in that issue, which is why I say it's not yet in the guideline. --MASEM22:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course - I'm not trying to imply that no one realises this, merely that this is a particular concern of mine. Miremare23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a summary of my views, because I'm really not interested enough to debate it: the article is WP:NOTABLE as shown by the sources already in the article. That means the article has every right to be an article. The suggestion is that it should be merged into Doom (series) due to a lack of information. While I disagree that there is a lack of information (only current information), it's unlikely that anyone will further expand the article unless I do it. This is why I agree with the suggestion that it be merged into Doom (series), but that doesn't mean I will do it, because it doesn't need to be done. As for being harsh, "idiot" was the only appropriate word. When I make a case very clear and it is completely ignored, there is no better word. --Teggles (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If the current article is as you plan to leave it stand or contains all that you have for reception, it's not that its not notable, but it really would be much better written as part of the Doom (video game) or a possible Doom (series) article. That is, what you have is while talking a bit about the notability of the enemies is moreso on the graphics and satanic aspects of the game -- which is already part of the main Doom (video game) article. (I do not know what the pre-deletion article looked like so I cannot compare to this version). If you have more material to include, then we'll wait and see, but I'd think for style purposes that article, as it stands now, doesn't work well by itself. --MASEM01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What you currently see if the result of literally 2 minutes research. I went to Metacritic, I went to Making of Doom, and I did a basic Google search. If I did an expansive Google search, or did REAL research - books, magazines and newspapers! - the article could easily become large and comprehensive. I don't plan on expanding it, but the point is that there is clearly enough information for to be expanded. As I said, it's unlikely that anyone will bother, which is why Doom (series) is a good idea. I wouldn't disagree. --Teggles (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Teggles here, a position I advanced in the original AFD. Doom contains some of the most recognisable enemies in computer gaming, if there are no sources for the List of enemies in Doom article, then to fix it, would be to find references. Not to delete it. good articles such as Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series show that in game information makes up 80% of the article anyway. We should not be deleting 80% of a good article, because it lacks some rather simple sourcing. - hahnchen19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone would be willing to create a version of this template that displays the boxart by default. {{Infobox VG}} takes up too much space in some cases, but the hidden version hides the boxart. SharkD (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
MMOGChart.com
Is this site reliable? The BBC has cited some of the site's ratings in some of their reports. Just thought I'd ask. SharkD (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
At a glance I'd say no based on the statement "Mmogchart.com is dedicated to my research in tracking the growth of Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs)". I'm sure you could cite the BBC... —Dihydrogen Monoxide06:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the source of their data is MMOGChart.com. They say "According to MMOGChart.com..." Here is an article (there's supposedly a radio report, as well). SharkD (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
I'd say: do what the BBC does. "According to MMOGChart.com ..." - This source is far to valuable not to use, and attribution inside the text means that we're somewhat careful. User:Krator (tc) 12:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I did. I'm still tempted to remove it completely, despite the BBC coverage. It raises the issue of whether journalism articles should be used as sources when their own sources aren't considered reliable. Normally, you can't tell what a newspaper article's sources are; but in this case it's pretty explicit (maybe because they aren't entirely confident in the source's reliability and want to flag the reader that this is the case?). However, stating that MMOGChart.com is the topic/source of the article is probably sufficient safeguard to the reader. SharkD (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, the reason I'm discussing this is because I'm criticizing various NPOV issues in RuneScape. Maybe you'd like to jump into the discussion there. SharkD (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say yes unless (as usual) some of them are mentioned in external publications etc. Seems unlikely - and thus these tables are usually removed. —Dihydrogen Monoxide06:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
False. WP:GAMEGUIDE means that instructional material is not allowed, and listing guns and their features is not instructional. However, I don't think the list is exactly necessary. In other words, you can get away with having it there, but the folks at WP:GA and WP:FA probably won't be happy. --Teggles (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Within the WP:VG project, we've got a bit more detailed guideline at WP:GAMECRUFT - basically if the information is only of use to someone that plays or will plays the game, its not appropriate to include. Much of the CS article is in bad shape (shouldn't have map lists (map types, fine) as well). --MASEM08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"Only of use to someone that plays or will play the game" is completely subjective, and frankly, it doesn't need to apply to this list. Let's say one is researching what the most common guns used in violent games are. That list will be useful. --Teggles (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A list of weapons is not "excessive". That guideline (not policy) does say exceptions are possible, and considering guns are a central part of Counter-Strike, it wouldn't be uncalled for. As I said, it's unnecessary and I suggest removing it, but you could make a case if it's really wanted. --Teggles (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, there are exceptions I guess... but they're not "exceptions" unless they're few and far between. Besides, saying that guns are central to Counter-Strike is like saying guns are central to INSERT ANY FPS HERE, so I always consider such arguments to have no point. As I see it, such arguments should never be taken into consideration. Related arguments which should also be ignored since they are central to the genre rather than the game: Monster lists since monsters are central to an RPG (or any game really); and descriptions of the elaborate Rock/Paper/Scissors system, especially in RTS or Tactical games. Ong elvin (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Though there are guidelines to exclude and include content in articles, these guidelines have some loopholes in their wording as we all know. I think the underlining question to all the guidelines is "Is the information encyclopedic?" To the uninformed reader, the list may not provide that much information, and the phrase, "there are different types of weapons that provide various ways to attack opponents. Examples include... (short listing)" may provide the same amount of information as the table. Though the list is up to interpretation as to whether it falls under a specific guideline/policy for inclusion or exclusion, in the end we must think of the average reader and what they expect from an encyclopedic article on a video game. My two cents. (Guyinblack2516:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
Yeah, my response was going to go somewhere along the lines of Guyinblack's did: to the average reader, this info is somewhat unnecessary and would only benefit readers actually interested in the game material, such as gamers. In the end, this list should be removed. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Previous discussions on weapon lists (including several relating to Counter-Strike weapon lists) have established the consensus that lists of items and weapons -- unless established to be notable in their own right -- do not belong in game articles. Specific guns may be central to the game, but they are not central to encyclopedia articles. Lists and tables serve no purpose to the casual reader, and only benefit readers who have actually played the game. That alone should be sufficient reasoning to remove such lists. --Scottie_theNerd18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Links to WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, speculation regarding what the "average reader" or "casual reader" wants, subjective measurements of "excessiveness", and what is an "encyclopedia article" are completely useless. Blanket restrictions on lists (in this case, weapon lists) have no consensus whatsoever. I don't care about this particular issue at all, but I really take issue to this pointless discussion. Focus on violations of WP:V and WP:NOR. Once that is done, everything else should fall into place. Is the information in this list actually correct? Is any of it original research? For example, does some source (the game, a magazine, the developer, some halfway decent website) say that the "9x19 mm Sidearm" is a Glock 18? Where are these nicknames from? --- RockMFR22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It is important to recognise the status of links such as WP:GAMECRUFT. To use this example here, it should not be understood as "Thou shallt not write weapon lists". Rather, it's more like "Weapon lists have proven to be deleted over and over again for the same reason, so let's put that reason here to warn people and make sure we don't waste our time". User:Krator (tc) 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT should be considered here. By adding more content that is exclusively known to actual players, we shift the tone of the article away from the NPOV needed to make it accessible to all readers. Do any reliable sources document every single weapon in the game, and if so, do the sources establish enough prominence for the article to dedicate a whole section to list every single item in the game? If the information does -- in exceptional cases -- meet WP:V and WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT is still a significant factor into sorting out what is "excessive" for articles. --Scottie_theNerd00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
1080p HD games category
Category:720p HD games
Category:1080i HD games
Category:1080p HD games
These seem like unneeded categories to me. All next-gen games run in 720p, and only a handful actually run in 1080p. Currently all of these categories are completely empty aside from the 1080p one, which has false information in it anyway (three of the four games listed on the 1080p category are NOT native 1080p (only Virtua Tennis 3 is). SeanMooney (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, they're excessive, unnecessary. Even if the categories were being used on all applicable games, games have never been (and never will be) classified by their resolution. Ong elvin (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I find the categories useful (in theory), if not notable. The problem of overlap can be solved by making one category a sub-category of another. SharkD (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Archive bot
Would it be worth setting up automated archive for this talk page (specifically MiszaBot II as it is best suited for our needs)? I just noticed that the page is archive quite often and it is probably better to set up a bot to archive inactive discussions and such, some of the archives are also very small. .:Alex:.20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this would be a great idea - I haven't used the bot before so I wouldn't know how to do it (and would inevitably screw up), but I think someone should. —Dihydrogen Monoxide09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've brought this up in the past, and I think it's a good idea, but I hope that the archive topics page would still be updated. Of course, if we could automate that as well, that would be fantastic. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 23:12
Indeed it may be worthwhile to eventually create our own bot to assist with this Wikiproject. It could be programmed to add all section headings to the archive topics box. For now we might just have to do that one by hand. EDIT: I've added MiszaBot II for now just to test things out. Creating a bot that we can adapt to our needs would be incredibly useful though and is definitely something we need to look into. .:Alex:.15:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Our article guidelines used to say to avoid surprise links whenever possible, but they don't seem to have that now. Who removed that? Pagrashtak17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Some merging comments requested
Due to some ever so fun wikilawyering, I am in need of some comments in order to establish a number consensus. The articles in question are Meta Knight and others are within the merge tag within this revision of List of Mega Man characters. Even if you don't really care about the issue, can anybody that reads this just comment, so I don't have to do this five more times? Just to keep it together, please just comment here. TTN (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't really say anything about the Mega Man characters as I'm not particulary interested in that series but Meta Knight is kind of pointless, I can really see this getting any kind of significant development detail, the character itself its obscure at best and its only a secondary character in most entries (exept for one in wich he was the main antagonist) in a series that while popular its not prominent enought as to having enough out of universe information when dealing with secondary characters, a simmilar situation to what we encountered while trying to source secondary Devil May Cry characters, all of wich are now merged. - Caribbean~H.Q.20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there some policy about listing mods which don't seem to have any notability? I'm talking about in particular List of Might and Magic titles. There's some users insisting to add mods to the list that don't have any outside sources. Have I been wrong or right? --Mika1h (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. Per Misplaced Pages:Notability, “These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Misplaced Pages is not, and Biographies of living persons.” Thus, as long as the list is notable, then the user can include the mods in the list, as long as that user can citepublished, reliable sources. The user may cite the work itself, but if you challenge the source as unreliable, which you are totally allowed to do (you can the {{vc}} template), then the user must provide outside sources. (Another Wiki or some Geocities cite is not reliable. A book or magazine is.) These principals are non–negotiable and override local consensus. In other words, the user may get plenty of other users on the same side and argue consensus until blue in the face, but consensus is worthless if that user does not cite published, reliable sources. Taric25 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Do cows exist?It doesn't make any sense at all to try to say that a link to the work itself is not reliable enough to prove that the work exists. As the image to the right implies, there is no need for a secondary source for something that is blindingly obvious from the primary source.
I wasn't saying that a link to the work itself is not reliable enough to prove that the work exists, however, you do make a good point, that it is better to cite WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists) rather than WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CITE for inclusion within a list. Taric25 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The name of the article makes it pretty obvious that mods should not be included. "Title" in this case is understood to mean a standalone work made by the copyright holder. It would be more fitting for mods to be added to List of Might and Magic modifications, which doesn't exist. That said, notability would still have to be met. SharkD (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if the article itself was about only Might and Magic mods, then the Wikipedian starting the article would have to prove its notability. Inclusion of something in an article in which we do not dispute the article's notability as a whole falls within other policies and guidelines. Taric25 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone was wondering, I added the RSS feed for the 500 newest articles, and told feedrinse to filter out any articles that do not either include "video game", "computer game" or "Infobox VG". JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 21:55
Sounds good. You might want to add "Infobox CVG", in case that's a still-popular redirect, as well as "videogame-stub" or the sub-stubs thereof. Pagrashtak22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, added "Infobox CVG" and "videogame", which should catch all video game stubs, e.g. {{adventure-videogame-stub}} contains "videogame" so the filter catches it. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 22:10
I guess because it's filtering a rather large feed. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-19 08:12
Proposing renaming category
I was thinking that perhaps we should rename "Category:Xbox 360-only games" to something along the lines of "Games exclusive to the Xbox 360". The current title just seems somewhat unencyclopedic, and it is not cohesive. So what is everybody's opinion concerning this issue? - Caribbean~H.Q.08:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Caribbean - you're correct about the naming, it is clunky and could do with something more intuitive. Please stick at it because there is support for changing to a "better" name. I'm fully in favour of your suggestion but as HB mentioned above, name changes of "only" categories doesn't seem to have gathered enough momentum to make the change happen at the moment. - - X201 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer something a little more formal like Category:Xbox 360 exclusive games or Video games exclusive to Xbox 360 but anything would be better than the current name - X201 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
hahah, ya, Pagra is grammatically correct. Better use the hyphenated version. I can't believe I missed that... Does it need to go up for CfD? Can't the page just be moved? I quickly looked over CfD and it seems to be about renaming articles that have inappropriate names. clicketyclickyaketyyak17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Future-class article?
Over at WP:FILM, I noticed that they have a Future-class designation for all future-release films. Perhaps we could employ this designation here and other as-of-yet-unreleased video games? --Son (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Why, though? The Class rating is for how good the article is- a Stub-class article is a stub, a Start-class article rates a start, etc. "Future" isn't a measure of article quality. --PresN (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur. It's especially unnecessary considering that future video games are tagged with {{future game}} in any case. "Future" does not indicate whether the article is at Stub, Start, or B-class, and thus is not indicative of the article's current status. Sephiroth BCR06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree..."Future-Class" is not a measure of article quality, but how can an article be given a proper assessment if the product hasn't been released yet? --Son (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it can't be GA or FA (fail the comprehensiveness requirement), but there's really nothing stopping it from being Start or B class. So no, no need for a Future-class, IMO. --VPeric (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the GA commentary, (back in early this year), technically the article was stable - no media had come out about the game since 2001, and back then, DNF was still to be done "when it's done". That all changed yesterday, so I'm actually going to put this up for GA delisting. --MASEM19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I would presume that to be an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. For now, the rating system appears to be sufficient.--CM (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone here believe that Characters of Chrono Trigger is a suitable split off article? Barring the inclusion of notability establishing real world information, the article has no reason to exist. It is mostly plot and character information that is covered within the main article, and it has one development reference which I believe is already present in two other articles. It is currently being defended by people that seem to be stuck in the "It's been this way, so why change it?" mentality and others like the "Every Final Fantasy has a character list." mentality that a lot of people seem to have. Am I off base, or am I correct in this assertion? TTN (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The influence of Chrono Trigger on the genre is quite big in general. I wouldn't oppose such an article in principle, though it has some problems at the moment. The main topic of my response regards the "other stuff exists" argument. Please keep in mind there are two sides to that:
Article x is like article y, why are you deleting/merging/redirecting this, and not that?
This subject x belongs in category of subjects y, which generally has enough to it for an article.
The second thing applies here: computer role playing games released by a major publisher and developed by a major developer, typically receive enough coverage for a character list with good real world information. Chrono Trigger certainly fits that bill, and this is a strong indication that WP:PROBLEM applies. (By the way, TTN, if you'd look back at the AFDs you have started on topics like this, you'd see the above trend - use it to avoid unnecessary drama and predict outcomes.) User:Krator (tc) 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Going through the article, I noticed its sources can be boiled down to only two. Chrono Compendium, a fansite, and the character popularity polls at GameFAQs. You might want to investigate how reliable are these two sources considered by Misplaced Pages's policies. Despite the 18 references, they are only used for 6 of the 14 "notable" characters, and none for the 18 "non-notable" characters (included here for reference on length of article). Jappalang (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Even going by how we're rethinking WP:FICT, the list is bad. Chrono Trigger is a single game so should not need a separate non-notable character list (and personally, I think that the main article plot can be significantly trimmed and replaced with more character details), and there's no notability demonstrated for the characters alone. This is not to say that such notability does not exist - for a game as popular as CTrigger, I would think there would be more information as to their development and the like, so I would not be rushing to merge this quickly, but a bit of prodding to help identify if there really is a need for this list article is appropriate. --MASEM —Preceding comment was added at 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, most of the sources cited at the Chrono Compendium are archives of actual interviews with the creators of the series from other sources, usually ones that fall under WP:RS. --Sir Crazyswordsman16:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how pages entitled after the characters like these Ozzie, Flea, and Slash are archived interviews with the creators. Where are the official sources stating the contents of Chrono Compendium are as such? The sole interview on the Characters page is originally on Gamepro which is still available, hence rendering Chrono Compendium's copy of it redundant. Jappalang (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That's because you aren't looking at the right pages. I'll admit the article is poorly sourced, but that doesn't mean good sources aren't available. --Sir Crazyswordsman19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is the responsibility of the article's editors to properly source the presented material. Telling me I am looking at the wrong pages when the article points me in that direction is not helping the article at all in the context of Misplaced Pages's policies. The current article is telling people its contents are based on those sources. Would its current contents tally with the "the right pages"? If "the right pages" can salvage the article, then by all means rewrite the character page to be an example of how such pages should be written. Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, and I said the article is poorly sourced. However, TTN has no intention of merging the encyclopedic information. Many of the recent merges are merges in name only, and really are deletions. Because the information that is encyclopedic is NOT KEPT from the merge, TTN will not acknowledge that, and there are a lot of editors who claim that text that has some encyclopedic merit is outweighed by the cruft, and thus destroy the content that DOES belong here because the rest of it doesn't. --Sir Crazyswordsman03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
TTN's usual practice is not the main point here. The main point should be what contents here are notable which is tied to reliable sourcing. Now if there is a belief the merger is going to delete everything, then those who propose there is "encyclopedic content" worth keeping should be the ones writing those information with sourcing into the merger. According to the guidelines, the merger would either only copy over the text which is "encyclopedic" or the whole thing. The current Characters page is seriously lacking in terms of being compliant with WP:FICT. As such, one can hardly blame the merger if the bulk of the contents are not copied over. In other words, make the contents of Characters of Chrono Trigger "encyclopedic" or have them deleted during the merge. If the contents have been made "encyclopedic" (abiding by policy/guidelines) and were left out during the merge, then insert them back into the article. Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
We should take TTN's usual practice into consideration, not simply discard it. If User:Crazyswordsman argues that TTN has no intention of merging the encyclopedic information, then we should not place the weight of finding reliable sources and citing all encyclopedic information entirely on whoever TTN opposes. If TTN believes that he can merge, rather than delete, encyclopedic information from the article, then we should see if he can actually cite published sources using citation templates and incorporate them into the main article. Until he does so, I would take TTN's argument with a grain of salt, because his usual practice suggests otherwise. If TTN can show us that he can do some writing on his own and has an interest in the article with regards to improving it by citing published, reliable sources using citation templates, then we can consider his argument to merge. Else, we should only consider his usual practices, because that is what he is demonstrating. Taric25 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an assumption of significant "encyclopedic" material in Characters of Chrono Trigger. However based on the presented information above, there is little or none. Why should someone merging the articles find and write out Misplaced Pages-compliant material where there is none in it? It does not matter who is merging the article. The fact is the article concerned in its current status has little to be preserved, and it seems people are trying to avoid making the article compliant with policy. Constantly harping on another user's past practice is not helping the article in question at all. Jappalang (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Upon inspection of the article, I say it would be fine if it has an out-of-universe section that is sufficiently sourced about maybe the origin and development of the characters or something to that effect. Currently, I don't feel that it should have it's own article. Should probably be shaved down to important characters only and merged. Note that I have not read all of the responses or dialogue in this discussion. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 00:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There are other interviews and material available for the characters for both Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross. They merely haven't been translated to English yet, no matter how hard we've tried to find a voluntary translator. Zeality (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wellll, can't someone get down on that then? I'm sure something on the Internet can be used to translate it, if that doesn't violate a policy or something, which I doubt it would. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 04:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Read Misplaced Pages's policy on foreign sources, WP:RSUE. Editors are still required to ensure the content is suitable for Misplaced Pages with appropriate sources. Jappalang (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I wanted to know about. I figured there was some way of getting that done within "Wiki-regulations" or whatever. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 06:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, these are things like Ultimania, art books, etc. published by Square with developer commentary. They aren't on Japanese Misplaced Pages or anything. I've had an ad on my website for a year concerning a translator, but despite the popularity of the Chrono series, we just can't find a volunteer. The articles would allow expansion of development sections for both Trigger and Cross, among other things, like art direction commentary. Zeality (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
List of video games: X-X
I just noticed there are five articles which are listings of video games under this Wiki project, basically "List of video games: X-X" where X is an alphabet (e.g. List of video games: D-H). Why are there such lists which require manual maintenance when a Category would do a much better job? Jappalang (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories only show articles that already exist. Lists allow the addition of entries that don't have articles and need creating. - X201 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject VG welcome message
I was thinking that it might be a good idea to create a welcome message that was specific to this WikiProject. Here's what I've come up with so far, see User:Jacoplane/Welcome VG:
Hi WikiProject Video games! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on Video game-related articles. We need your help at the Video games WikiProject! There is much work to do, so please head over to the project page and help us enhance and increase the coverage of Video game related articles on Misplaced Pages!
Something to promote interactions with new users has been on my mind lately, and this idea is a great start. I'll be editing your sandbox a bit. User:Krator (tc) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
After thinking about it for a bit, I think two different welcome messages are needed. One for new editors, which may also include elements of WP:WC. Specific advice on how to deal with fair use bots spamming their talk page, how to avoid gamecruft and other common problems may be good to address there. A shorter version for "old" editors containing only an invitation to participate would be the second one.
Secondly, the message may need some work, because I think WP:VG has a different direction (and use) than it portrays. To head over to the project page to do some of the "work there is to do" is not what is mostly happening here. The video games WikiProject is mostly about people who edit the articles about games they like coming together to discuss common problems and ask for help. So, I propose the core message contained would not be "Go here and participate in the project", but rather (schematic, informal) "Go on with writing about video games - if you need any guidance: WP:VG/GL. If you encounter problems, ask for help (WT:VG). If you need feedback: (WP:VG/A). Good luck writing!" The best advertisement you can get is a positive experience with what we do. That's how most of us came here. User:Krator (tc) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: Is it possible to include a yes/no parameter labeled something like "new", that will display the appropriate message for a new or experienced editor like Krator mentioned? That way we'd only have a single template. (Guyinblack2516:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
Technically yes, there's a parser #if directive that can put out different text depending on the value of a parameter. --MASEM16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could get a bot that scans articles with the {{vgproj}} template and if it detects users that have made a few edits to VG articles then it sends the message and adds the username to a list. On this list is the name of every user that has recieved the message and the bot is programmed to ignore users who are on the list. Surely this system would be possible? .:Alex:.20:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject banner
Is anyone else aware that after {{Vgproj}} was moved to {{WikiProject Video games}}, it was recreated through cut-and-paste? Since it's been six days without anyone saying anything, I just wanted to check before doing anything about it. Pagrashtak17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This move is kind of annoying for me. I've traditionally added the talk page template using AWB, but if there are too many iterations it becomes complicated. We now have "cvgproj", "vgproj", and "WikiProject Video games". Can we get a bot to ensure that there are no redirects? I had been planning to add a couple of thousand talk page tags, but I won't be able to do so until this issue is resolved. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-25 01:39
Personally, I don't see any problem with the existing redirects in use that needs urgent de-redirectifying (and flooding watchlists with the change). Just use the "new" name for your new tagging. Anomie⚔03:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I've been working on Super Smash Bros Melee for a while now, and have done everything I need to do except cite the in-universe information. I should be ready to nominate it for FA soon, but I was just wondering whether an experienced editor—or any editor—would copy edit and give it the clean-up and direction it needs before it should go for FA. I know I could request a copy-edit officially, but I wanted a more reliable response and a user who is familar with gaming articles. So... any offers? Thanks. AshnardTalk21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Dude the do-it-yourself is all here. I know that may sound dumb, but Tony's guide works really well. You can up the level of your own writing just by doing the whole thing and applying it to your article. If you do it well, it makes the overall prose a lot tighter. To be honest, there really aren't many copyeditors left around here, just sort of do your best and and take care of inconsistencies brought up at the FAC.--CM (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that page out. I know Tony is probably the best copy editor on Misplaced Pages, and he's all over FAC, but personally I'd never seen that page before. Still, some of us will never be great writers and will always need some help, so spare us the irony :) JACOPLANE • 2007-12-22 00:04
After reading through Tony's page and referencing the rest of the text, I have decided to be bold and nominate it for FA. AshnardTalk15:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
My only suggestion was that you can remove extra words, change passive to active voice, remove any misplaced formality, things like that. It never substitutes for a copyeditor, but it certainly improves the prose to the point where you will receive fewer complaints about it at the FAC. And yes, I know continuing to advocate self copyediting is just pouring more irony syrup onto the pancakes of this discussion, but these days, there aren't many other places to turn.--CM (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse guys, but I want to bring this up for special reasons. I request for maybe a policy to prohibit special mentions of a game's ranking and percentage on Gamerankings, because the webmaster manipulates the scores so a certain (or should I say favorite game "TLoZ: Ocarina of Time") game would be on top. I have proof. If you go and see Super Mario Galaxy's page's history, we can see he makes 100% scores from famous groups, such as Gametap, not value and put as many low scores as he can, in order to put Galaxy under Ocarina of Time. He didn't even putted EGM's score and he switched high scores for lower scores to lower the decimal percentage. Also, there are many missing reviews from games such as SM64 and others. In other words, the games that receive higher scores than OoT would not have all reviews and have most lower reviews, so the webmaster would be satisfied with OoT on top. I don't know, but this was already discussed on the SMG article, told to someone to bring this up, and I think this is the right thing to bring up. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
See here - the consensus seems to be that including GR/MC rankings are not appropriate (GR and MC overall averages and links are fine). --MASEM06:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, since they are not appropriate, then we should delete them, am I right??? And these aren't conspiracy theories, these are true facts. GHo check the history of site. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Character Articles
Has anyone else noticed the recent deletion and merging of Character articles? Sora (Kingdom Hearts), Frank West (Dead Rising), Freddi Fish, and many others.
I feel as though the game industry's notable fictional universes/characters are being treated as though they were less important than those of other medias; TV, Movies, and Books.
Frank West was the lead protagonist of Dead Rising, a critically acclaimed and best selling title, and the character himself left a great impression on many gamers. Keiji Inafune mentined in an interview that he wanted to see the character return. He even made a cameo appearence in Lost Planet.
Freddi Fish was in quite a large list of childrens edutainment games, and there's alot more to be said about that character than a paragraph.
Misplaced Pages is meant to be an online encyclopedia, a place where someone should be able to find out alot about a subject, and/or be pointed in the proper direction to find it. I do agree that many characters don't deserve an article. But, I would think that lead protagonists in top selling games would deserve it, especially if it's impacted a community as original as the gaming community. Smile Lee (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP's notability guideline, which is the key requirement for any topic; Wikipeida is not meant to be all encompassing. A fictional character (from any media) must have significant coverage about it's real-world aspects (popularity, creation, influence, etc.) in reliable sources to have its own article: even if that character has been in multiple best-selling games, if that is the character's only claim to fame, then we cannot have an article on it. We can certainly move information into a character list article or the main article (Character lists for a game are acceptable in general as long as they don't get too long in [[WP:PLOT|plot), or we can move that info to an offsite wiki where more details can be given.
Remember that we are writing articles for the general reader who many have never played the game and may never play it, but need to learn why the game is important. The details of the plot have to be secondary to real-world info. --MASEM06:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll just write this in bold, because many seem to forget this: It is not all or nothing. Judge the individual subject's merit. You wrote it yourself: Frank West himself was critically acclaimed, as in, the chracter was subject of nontrivial commentary. That makes him notable, and suitable for an article; and that's why the article was kept. Yet, Sora from Kingdom Hearts only seems notable for the games she appears in. This is a fallacy, as notability is not inherited. We cannot make a rule about "the lead protagonist in series which X amount of games", as it differs from game to game. User:Krator (tc) 19:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Would somebody who knows what they're doing take a look at the deletion page? I updated the closed AFDs and between my edit and the last one a massive chunk of deletion information has suddenly appeared slap-bang in the middle of it. I'm assuming that this is part of the WP:FICT discussions about how deletion should be the last option and alternatives should be explored first, but it doesn't seem to be hooked up in the right place. Someone another (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, someone left part of {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/}} floating around (either adding an article to wrong place or copying and not completing it) and caused the AFD instructions to be transwiki'ed instead. --MASEM14:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was looking at the diff but couldn't see how I'd clipped anything except the closed AFDs which were moved, I thought that information might have belonged on the page since the project's various departments seem to be being clarified/moved/updated. Someone another (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wurm Online
I have greatly improved the Wurm Online page and I believe it is due for reassement, please take a look. There is still no section for combat as I am awaiting infomation on that subject. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Further to this discussion a while ago that kind of ground to a halt, can we reach a decision now? To summarise, the current preferred way of displaying a release date in the VG infobox is by using Template:vgrelease, which produces the familiar July 51996 style. The way consensus was heading (according to X201's recap) was towards three-letter country codes where appropriate, which helps avoid these problems:
EU is a political entity, European Union, rather than the geographical one, Europe, that is intended.
Personally I'd still be in favour of spelling out the names in full for clarity's sake, especially for North America, for which I can't think of a good three letter abbreviation (besides NAM which is also a country code for Namibia), and to avoid possible Australia/Australasia confusion. Thoughts? Miremare23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed from the VG-GA list an article which had been merged to a Pokemon list. At least three on the ex-GA list have also been merged. should some sort of new section be added to it to list these articles? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that there had already been discussions on this, but I see new articles popping up with platform listed as "PC". I do agree that the PC is not a platform. Rather, the relevant OS is. Shouldn't we users discuss this and agree on a consensus so that it can be established as a guideline? speaksrohith. 15:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, PC tends to go hand in hand with Windows, thanks to IBM. Its only recently with this Games for Windows malarkey that "Windows" is becoming more the focus of the platform than the PC. However, look on the side of games boxes: they mostly all say "PC CD" or "PC DVD ROM", putting the platform as the PC, not Windows. -- Sabre (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the meaning of "Platform"? It's something on which the game runs. There are PCs around the world that run on countless OSes and they are all PCs. But will the game run on each and every one of them? No. Most probably on Windows. Some might even run on Linux. This is why I say that Windows or whatever OS it runs on must be the platform, not PC. See also: WP:VG/PC game. speaksrohith. 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I actually agree with you. You just asked for a discussion on it, I'm (failing at) playing Devil's advocate. -- Sabre (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, PC is really generic and doesn't specify a platform. PC just means that the game has been released for computers, it doesn't give the reader any information on what exactly it was released for (Windows? Mac? Linux even?). Come to think of it, PC isn't even a platform in the first place, it's just a machine that happens to run Operating Systems. .:Alex:.20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Table
Some lists have a table with 7 columns
Title | Developer | Publisher | Release date | OS (Operating System) | Engine | License | Notes List of free first-person shooters
Others have a table with 5 columns
Title | Release date | Console(s) | Developer | Publisher List of american football games
Hi everybody. I've been working on the rewrite of Speedrun on and off for about a year now. Lately I've given it a last push to try and finish up the last few remaining sections. Now I need some help: I'm not sure whether it needs a "history" section at all. You see, the history of speedrunning is pretty much covered entirely by the "notable speedrun communities" section. I feel I'd just be repeating the same stuff. What do you think would be best for the article? I thought of modifying the "notable speedrun communities" section into a history section, but I'm not sure whether I should. Some thoughts would be appreciated! I believe that once this issue is resolved, it won't be very difficult to clean up the rest of the article. —msikma (user, talk)20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The references are a mess. I expect links to reliable, third party publications, not to mostly consist of notes that read like WP:NOR. Notes like that belong in the text of the article and cited by reliable sources, not used as references, some examples being #41, #6, and #2. Among notable items, #14 and related are a huge no-no: WIkipedia is never a reliable source, and things are likely to break (this happens a lot on the Saw articles because people change the names on the traps without changing the wikilinks, for example).
Primary sourcing needs to be taken very carefully. I've been owned too much on thisdebate, so I'll leave it to be experts to evaluate how good the sources are.
Finally, nothing from me. I got my fingers smashed in the door quite hard the last time I tried to edit, and Misplaced Pages is supposed to be fun. I'm not up to the rather unpleasant experience I got when nominating two images for deletion, which is the antithesis of fun. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware that some of the cited resources aren't perfect. Some of them are added in with me fully knowing that they could be seen as controversial. That is actually not the point of me asking here. I'm able to fix those last few things myself (for example, in case anyone feels that #14, which you mentioned, is unreliable, I'm sure we can find the official release date for Doom somewhere else too).
The main point of me asking for help is that "history" section. What to do with it?
As for your complaint that editing Misplaced Pages isn't fun anymore, well, I've been there myself, and I've found that quietly retreating to do some original work on some article that doesn't have any other regular editor is nice. I did it with this article, and restructured it completely. Give it a try! You're probably just sick of everything surrounding the actual editing work. —msikma (user, talk)10:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rename "notable speedrun communities" as "History", and then include any other information related to history, as well as the speed runs. I always feel that a generic heading is preferable to an article-specific one, too. As for editing, I don't think most people would find writing an encyclopaedia fun in the first place. Personally, I love it—especially when an article reaches GA, or maybeFA*coughSuper Smash Bros. Melee FAC*cough*. Just make sure that you don't get too deflated about criticisms of your editing. I'm going off-topic here though. AshnardTalk10:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, criticism is definitely discouraging, and I think that contributors to this wikiproject get criticized more often than contributors to other projects. The main reason for this is probably the fact that publications that deal with video games are usually shallow, making them less usable. Original research is more widespread. This is actually why I prefer working on computer science-related articles, since then at least everything can be traced back to scholarly resources. But yeah, going off-topic here... —msikma (user, talk)13:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This is getting a bit off topic, but I think it's more that many people are annoyed at the systemic bias that happens because the percentage of people who have the DRIVE to edit WP a lot tend to lean toward those who like geeky topics. Many people have a simple problem with the fact that people choose to work on what the like, instead of what's 'important', especially people who might only casually edit if at all (how many times has there been a complaint that the featured article is worthless, and instead X-which-has-a-crappy-article should be instead?). When you combine it when the general youth of video games, the fact that for the most part it's a solo artivity and thus seen by many as basically a time waster compared to movies, music, and even stuff like board games...well there's a general stigma.
As for the whole fun thing (to go OT in a different direction), I think what Hbdragon88 means is that editing should be rewarding and stimulating, and when you get yelled at for trying to help, it's a real downer. I for one am fed up with a lot of the crap that goes on, and can't help wonder how much we've lost because of stuff like the picture issue and stuff like the whole TTN thing, where a little discussion and perhaps a bit more good faith would have caused far far less lameness. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll second Ashnard's suggestion of having a single "History" section. Arrange it roughly chronologically (as you currently have the communities section), but don't be afraid to go out-of-order somewhat if topical coherence demands it. On and off, I've been rewriting the article on machinima, which used to spend the majority of its space enumerating examples by game/engine (see this revision). I still have a lot of work to do, but I completely rewrote the History section from scratch and integrated examples where relevant (what remains of the laundry list of examples is basically a to-do list of material that still needs to be investigated for integration or removal). The situation with speedruns is a little different, since there is more focus on fewer communities, but the point that I'm trying to make is that an integrated History section could help to put everything into a bigger context more clearly, and will more readily accommodate secondary-source material that shows how things evolved over time, from community to community.
I guess that refactoring the section to become more like a real "history" section is indeed the best way to go. I use the word "refactoring" because I don't think it'll be that difficult anyway. The order is already roughly chronological as it is right now, but the "SDA" and "Metroid 2002" sections will probably end up being just one section.
Oh, and I was aware that some scholarly publications mention speedrunning, but I remember checking it out a long time ago and not being very impressed with what's there. But I guess that lots more publications have been added to Google Scholar since then, so I'll definitely check it out again. Thanks for the link. —msikma (user, talk)16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Page redesign 2
I just boldly put my own suggestion for a redesign in place. Note that I in no way want to force this look upon you guys, but from experience actions like this are quite effective in generating consensus and improvements. It's not a big departure from the previous design (it only includes the to do list, and excludes lots of transclusions) in terms of design. Feel free to edit, but I do have a request: keep the length of the page below or equal to the length of the infobox. User:Krator (tc) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's too short and doesn't include all the necessary information and links. Yet is also too wordy due to the layout of the text. I'd much rather prefer something along the lines of User:Guyinblack25/Sandbox, but don't really see any inherent problem in the current (previous) layout. - hahnchen19:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well as I mentioned in the previous PR discussion, I've come up with another new layout idea, which you can see here. Feedback would be much appreciated and useful. .:Alex:.21:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just boldly merged Alex's and Krator's versions together as it seemed too empty. There are still some syntax errors, like how the subheading bars are underlapping the sidebar, but I think it's more useful this way. I like GuyinBlack's version even more, but I'm trying to throw other ideas at the wall to get more people to edit the page, rather than just wholesale changing it. --PresN (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the mix between Alex's and Krator's designs look good. It provides the necessary information without overloading a reader with too much information. One suggestion comes to mind though, maybe adding in a heading in the main intro space just to improve readability. I'll add it in and see what it looks like. If you guys don't like it we'll get rid of it. My one complaint is the statistics box at the bottom. I don't really think it's necessary and it looks a bit out of place with it in it's own section like that. But that's just me. (Guyinblack2515:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
Actually I don't like the mix, it looks too wordy and parts of it seem out of place. I believe we should revert to the original version and continue sorting this out here first. .:Alex:.15:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I am unclear as to whether (or not) this topic would be improved by adding information on | Gamebrix which is a new Web 2.0 online toolset for the easy creation of animations and casual games, both as individuals, and collaboratively in teams. As a Web 2.0 technology, there are no downloads, plugins, DVDs or CDs required; Gamebrix technology is entirely server-side; only a browser is required. Games can be exported. No traditional programming is required, i.e. no Java, PHP, ActionScript or C++.
I am sorry that other people have to read this. This is a conflict that is a clear spillover from SharkD's problem with the Artillery game article. SharkD is using unreliable research and out-of-context quotes to support the statement that Artillery games are Shooter games and Action games. They clearly aren't. SharkD has taken it upon himself to extend this debate to the Artillery Duel article.
Before I arrived, the Artillery Duel article called the game a strategy game (see Infobox):
Trying to be helpful, I turned the "external link" into a reference. I also added a second reference. Then I clarified that this game was both a strategy game AND an artillery game.
And I have come to realize that I have been the victim of an edit war.
Trying to be helpful, I re-added the research that came from that reference. SharkD deleted it again. Confused as to what else I should do, I reverted the article back to its state before I got there, which stated that it was a strategy game. I did, however, keep the original reference (from the external link). I recently added back the second reference.
This is silliness. The research says this is a strategy game. And while there is no research to support it, it's also clearly an artillery game. But I am not sure what SharkD is trying to accomplish by removing my research. Ideally, I would revert the article back to where it was when I edited it, which said it's both a strategy game and an artillery game (see: MY EDITS). But I would clean up and improve the references, with proper form, as I have in the latest revision.
I am also beginning to be concerned that SharkD is targeting edits I have made at other pages maliciously. But it is impossible to prove that. I am trying my best to assume good faith. Randomran (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "artillery strategy" redundant, because an artillery game simply is a strategy game? By the way, Randomran, I can assure you SharkD is not "evil". Judge the edits, not the editor. User:Krator (tc) 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've seen SharkD act constructively in the past. I am only talking about his current behavior.
I respect that you are trying to help by honoring the WP:SYN policy. But let me tell you, if we do that, then the entire Video Game wikiproject is in big trouble. You won't find a single article that says what genre an artillery game belongs to. You will, however, find an article that lists several "artillery clones", and then find that each game in the list is overwhelmingly listed as strategy games .
What's worse, you won't find a single article that says "these are a subgenre of strategy game", or even a "shooter game". You'll see articles with a number of adjectives "this is a ballistics-oriented strategic artillery-shooting game". What is the genre? Is it "BOSAS"? Is it artillery-shooting? Is it ballistics-oriented strategy? Would it be violating WP:SYN to say that shooting means it's a "shooter"? Would it be violating WP:SYN to say that strategic indicates it's a strategy game? Could someone come along and argue that it's WP:SYN to have a genre at all
I should also point out that in your effort to delete all research supporting that artillery games were strategy games, you left in the WP:SYN about shooter games. I wish you would be consistent. But I'd prefer it if you didn't take all the references taken away, because that would lead this back to a "my word against your word" edit war.
The only way to stop an edit war of two conflicting viewpoints is with reliable references and research. But perfect video game references are often impossible to find! You have to make small but reasonable inferences about genre, or technology. I believe that allowing these references would be in the spirit of wikipedia, even if it's not in the letter. Otherwise, we'd have to start deleting articles and sections of video games en masse. Again, that would honor the letter of WP, but not the spirit. In essence, deleting the *only* references we can find would be violating WP:LAWYER and WP:IGNORE. Randomran (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Should different types of sports be listed under Sports games in the template? It seems to me they shouldn't be listed, as they're about different sports, rather than video game genres. I think it would be better to list games where they differ widely in gameplay, such as (I'm more or less making these up, as I'm not that familiar with sports games) sports games where you control the players, games where you only determine the playbook, and sports management games. I notice that the Sports game article groups them in a similar manner (e.g., based on gameplay differences). What do you think? SharkD (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sports_game#Notable_sports_games_by_type definitely groups the different sports by gameplay. Baseball, football, and golf all have wide gameplay differences. If you see the subcategories within the Sports_video_games category, it reinforces these groupings by gameplay. This is consistent with the current template.
I would not object to adding a "sports RPG" link in the template -- for games like Final Lap Twin. Just that nobody has created a sports RPG article yet. But assuming the article meets basic standards of notability and reliability, it would definitely be a subgenre of sports game, and would belong in the genres template. Randomran (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Metal Gear Solid FAR
Metal Gear Solid has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
