Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:51, 12 May 2008 editTruco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,625 edits →Archives: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:23, 17 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,671 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 177) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|WT:VG}}
{{to do}}<!--
{{WikiProject banner shell|
Archive Bot
{{WikiProject Video games}}
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
{{WPVG announcements}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
{{WPVG sidebar|shortcut=WT:VG|showarchives=yes}}<!--
|counter = 41
Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(10d)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 177
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!-- }}
Archive Bot
--><!--
Archive topic Bot
-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no|template=}}<!--
Archive topic Bot
-->{{archive box|box-width=180px|image=]|<center>{{archive list|links=5}}<hr /><small>This talk page is '''automatically ]''' by ].
Any sections older than '''10''' days are automatically archived. An archive index is available ''']'''.</small></center>}}
{{WPCVG Sidebar}}


== List of games question == == Page for ]? ==


Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ] (]) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I was going to create an article for the list of ] games, like ] and I'm just wondering if I should put the US/PAL dates in there at all. The SE lists only use the original date, so should I just follow that? <font color="#fd8af6"><b>]</b>]</font> 02:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. ] (]) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd just follow that example, if the game has been released stateside then chances are it will have an article, which in turn will have the US release date (or should). Since Atlus have very little to do with PAL territories, it'd mostly be Japanese and American release dates anyway. Even then, there will be several Japanese only releases. ]] 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
:Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. ] (]) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? ] (]) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise '']'' and '']'' basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus '']'', which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that '']'' is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in ''Elden Ring'' and ''then'' decide on a split. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The other factor to keep in mind is that per ], just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) ] (]) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{xt|"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split."}} I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, ''then'' we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on ], ], ], and concepts like ] that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, agreed, the ''Souls'' area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. ] ] 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. ] ] 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Now ] was just created. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Bloated and ] to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. ] ] 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. ] (]) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while ] for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. ] ] 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘<br/>Another new one today ]<span id="Masem:1735066253435:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::{{Ping|PrimalMustelid}} I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm only making two ''Dark Souls'' locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. ] (]) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by ''NME'' and ''Goomba Stomp Magazine'' primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with ''Arcade Sushi'' communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main ''Dark Souls'' articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the ''Dark Souls'' series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. ] (]) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... ] ] 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. ] (]) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Sure, but looking at their page, I think it'll be a short discussion... ] ] 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. ] (]) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Discussion started ]. ] ] 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
:::::::::::I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like ] passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. ] (]) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. ] (]) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding ''any'' of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on ] from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. ] (]) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yeah, I'm always surprised by that. I personally always try to link to my article creations as much as I can (within the realms of being appropriate) to help the odds of people actually viewing/reading it. ] ] 17:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:You haven't really advanced any argument for it. ''"more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability"'' is just a long way of saying "]". ] ] 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::If it's something to the scale of '']'' and '']'', I don't see how a separate page for the ''Elden Ring'' expansion would hurt. '']'' may be notable on its own, but idk if the '']'' expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. ] (]) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. ] (]) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was ''notable'', which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
::As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about ] or ] despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than ] or ]. ] (]) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. ] ] 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what ] is all about. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a ]. ] (]) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree. @], I might have a crack at drafting too to help and see if in that process I can generate good sourcing. The ] argument is a little funny to me because we're talking about a very well-covered, award-nominated expansion to one of the biggest games of the past decade. If we're honestly saying the copious amount of coverage out there in terms of its gameplay additions, potential development history, reviews and discourse around its award eligibility is not independently notable or preferable, I would honestly say that the vast majority of expansion articles in this WP should be merged immediately. ] (]) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution ==
Well since List of Square Enix games is mentioned I'll post here instead of creating a new section: I would like some input from the project on ] (it's not complete yet):
]
*Do you think the layout is good, or is it confusing?
I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who ''doesn't'' love an icebreaker? I don't!
*Should the budget range releases be excluded (PS One Books, ], ], etc.)?
*There's a lot of Japan-exclusive games. Should the list be split in two articles (Japan, NA/PAL), or maybe just two sections in the same article, so that readers can look for Western games more easily?
*Should mobile phone games be in their own section? There are lot of Japan-exclusive mobile games I haven't put in the list yet.
*In the cases of ], ] and ], should only the versions published by Square Enix be listed, or all the versions?
That's a lot to deal with but hopefully the list can be completed and eventually sent to Featured List. ] (]) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:Anyone? ] (]) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::After a quick glance, I'd say remove the "Greatest Hist"/"Ultimate Hits" labels. The "Games published in Japan by Square" sections is a bit confusing. Something like seems like it would be better served as a note in a table or at least at the bottom of the list. For EverQuest II, Odin Sphere, and Space Invaders Extreme, I would only list versions published by SE. And this is more of a personal preference comment, but I'm not a big fan of sortable tables in lists. That's just me though.
::Overall, it is shaping up nicely and has FL potential. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC))


What's your Misplaced Pages-related resolution for 2025? '''What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year?''' Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.
== Reminder: Next newsletter ==


* 2024 was a pretty lame work year for me. I'm going to get ] to GA in 2025, I promise. I'm certain one year is enough cushion for me to actually do something. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 04:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a reminder to active participants to this WikiProject: please submit and comment on ideas for the ]. We can make this as much of a success as the ] has been if enough participants contribute. So please take a look and lend a hand! <small><font color="AE1C28">]</font><font color="#21468B">]</font> &bull; 2008-04-23 23:06</small>
* I'm hoping to finally get '']'' to GA this year. ] (]) 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* Outside real-world stuff, finish bringing the '']/Project Zero'' series and its entries to GA status (don't think I'll try for a GT as my last two GTs were very neatly stalled by the sudden creation of an article with insisted inclusion) --] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* I don't have nearly as much time as I had during the pandemic. But I'd like to take a couple more articles to GA or FA. Areas I'm still interested in: historic games, historic game developers/studios, and anything related to the ] task force. ] is next on my docket. I'd also like to keep encouraging other peoples' good work, and continue discussions about how to adapt to the collapse of quality video game journalism. ] (]) 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Keep expanding the quality coverage of ], both by removing and merging superfluous content, and by improving the quality of pre-existing articles and bringing them to Good and Featured status. Hoping to get at least one or two more of the species lists up to FL this year, though I'll hopefully complete more than that. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* The music world hasn't been holding my interest lately, so I'm planning on continuing to focus on WP:VG related stuff. I plan on splitting my time between more retro stuff (90s ] stuff like the ] games) and new stuff (like everything ] once that's finally revealed.) ] ] 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* I know I'm late to the party, but it would be nice if '']'' passed FAC; I'm planning to take it to TFA for its 10th anniversary. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 11:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] == == Gameplay of Pokemon ==


I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at ]. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at ]. With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about ] or ]. ] (]) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, i just did a major revamp on the ] article and was wondering if anyone would like to help with the remaining citations that are needed, or have a check over it and tell me if ive stuffed up on anything (its the first time ive done anything major). The article went from to ] and it is based on the ] article. Also if anyone knows anything about japanese titles can they take a look, because im clueless to it all and don't know if ive done them right. Thanks, ] (]) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
:I've sourced a majority of places where their where <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> tags, but good job on the rest of the article.--'''''~]]]~''''' 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
::Is "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" an official title? The guidelines in the VG project are to use official titles only, no literal translations. ] (]) 15:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


:I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the ''Pokemon'' was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... ] ] 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeh i wondered that too, but that was its title on GameSpot, it can always be changed if it doesnt apply. thanks for the sourcing Truco-X. also would someone be able to rate the importance of this article, thanks ] (]) 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
::At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the ''gameplay'' of a game is notable ''independent'' of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into ]-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in ''WoW'', for example. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I rated the importance the same as ], you can always have it ] later. It is definitely a vast improvement and could probably pass FL after you're done. (] <sup>]</sup> 16:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
:::Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the ''Dragon Quest'' spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, ] type games. ] ] 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::When you say "after you're done", do you mean finish adding all the references or am i missing something more then that? Also, in regards to the "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" being an official title, i went to the site and translated the page for Poem of Happiness with babel fish and got "Ranch story happy poem", so im still not sure as to what title should be used. ] (]) 02:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --''']]''' 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah, pretty much that. I would add in the Japanese characters in the names "Known in Japan as..." part like in the Castlevania list, but that may or may not be necessary. And as far as games that have not been released outside Japan, I believe the romaji title is suppose to be used unless there is some kind of source that calls it by an English name. I could be wrong about this, so someone else may want to chime in. (] <sup>]</sup> 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
:I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::From the ]: "''Always use the original official title of the game, and prefer English titles over foreign ones. Unofficial titles (e.g. "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn") are not allowed.''" So basically, use only the official title even if an English literal translation is more well-known than the official title. This goes against most Misplaced Pages-wide guidelines, but that's the consensus for this wikiproject. ] (]) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
:] devotes a ton of space/text to covering every expansion. The rest of it is a more detailed version of ]. It's possible to retool the former as a ] if we decide that's something we want. Otherwise, it seems to suffer the same issues as the rest of the articles at ]. ] (]) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


It kind of echoes my feelings on ]. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at ], and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - ] (]) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, so theres a couple of games that have only been released in Japan. I would change "Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness" to "Bokujou Monogatari: Shiawase no Uta" (should i put in a note saying "Also known as Harvest Moon: Poem of Happiness").
:Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of ''Pokémon''" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of ''Dragon Quest''" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least ''Pokémon'' has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~] (]) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Also "Harvest Moon: Shining Sun and Friends" has only been released in Japan, but there is already an article for it, should i move the page to the japanese title and lastly should i move Rune Factory 2 to the japanese title? Thanks, ] (]) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, indicating what the Japanese name means in English is always useful. Shining Sun and Friends should be moved but not Rune Factory 2 since it's the same name in Japanese (written in katakana, but katakana is a phonetical alphabet for foreign words). ] (]) 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
::Ok so ive switched the names for ''Poem of Happiness'' and ''Shining Sun and Friends'', can someone take a look make sure ive done what was asked of. Also the japanese name for '']'' already has an article for it (]), so that has now been merged. Also second question for the japan only games, what do i put in the notes instead of "known in japan", maybe something like, "full japanese title" or something like that?] (]) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


*I'll defend ] as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to ] which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think ] is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). ] (]) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok ive now found sources for all the "citation needed" parts, ive added in japanese text for all the games, apart from Puzzle De Harvest Moon, which i cannot seem to find a japanese version of. Do you think its worthy of being a Featured list now? ] (]) 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:It looks real good. I would combine that first sentence into the rest of the lead. It just looks a little unbalanced, and I don't believe a paragraph can be a single sentence. I'd also recommend adding ] to the lead, but it really isn't the best graphic. If you could fine a better logo, then it'd help flesh out the page. Any other problems that might be there are probably minor and will be brought up at the FLC. Nice job Salavat. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC))


=== Live service games ===
Ok, ive now added a logo, and noticed that ] went ahead and fixed up the lead, so now it is a featured list candidate. ] (]) 02:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I decided to take ] to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more ] detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more ] than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release.
== Importance ==


TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? ] (]) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Why is it that on the '''cvgproj''' banner it says ''This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority within gaming for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 1.0.''? What the hell is Misplaced Pages 1.0? What does it have to do with WP:VG in particular? Why doesn't the banner say ''This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority within wikiproject video games.''? This is the standard text for most other wikiprojects. Why are you judging the importance of each article by what a ''different'' wikiproject thinks of it? It's your projects article, therefore it is up to you what importance it warrants. --] ] 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:In my mind, the main and perhaps only reason one would ever write a "gameplay of X" article, is when that game or series is played competitively. In such cases, the gameplay is very important separately from the games as commercial products or pieces of art on their own. Graphics and music, development and reception, it all falls away as irrelevant in that field, and you get a fairly separate topic to describe. I don't know if this really makes sense with live-service games. I wouldn't create "Gameplay of Fortnite", I think I would create "History of Fortnite" instead, as this would still be about the product as a whole, not just about its gameplay. ~] (]) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::It really depends on the live-service game. I don't think that in terms of any specific mode of Fortnite like Battle Royale has changed significantly over the years, but that there are gameplay elements that come and go during its seasons, so an article here like ] makes sense (in addition to the fact this is also documented in reliable sources). Whereas with Destiny 2, there are significant lasting changes with most of its expansions (also covered by sources) so in that case, the individual expansions serve this (Though in that case, most of those due need a trim).
::Separately, because of how Fortnite transitioned from a single idea to Battle Royale to a metaverse platform, the main Fortnite article is more a history of the product and less about the gameplay changes. ] (]) 13:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::My first reaction to @] and @] is that we might have a separate article for long-standing games with lots of post-release support. I agree that "History of Fortnite" or "Fortnite seasonal events" is a better article/scope than Gameplay of Fortnite. Maplestrip focuses more on competitive games, which is a valid point. I'd say there's a big overlap between competitive games and games-as-service, or other forms of post-release support.
:::I still feel strongly that "Gameplay of X" is too redundant in scope. But a game with lots of post-release support over many years, like Fortnite or even WoW, might still deserve an additional article to document its evolution. Maybe "List of X expansions" or "List of X updates" or "List of X special events"? I'd be a little nervous about ] here, but for a game with a decade of history and lots of discourse about balance and updates, it's in the right direction. The spirit of my suggestion is supposed to be similar to ], without setting a precedent that every game gets such a list. ] (]) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Key is how reliable sources treat the live service aspect of the game. WOW, Destiny 2, Fortnite, Overwatch -- all have gotten reasonably good coverage of how the game changes, whereas Apex Legends or Valorant may have had that at the start but has significantly waned relative to these.<span id="Masem:1736024145240:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::What do you think is a better title for these types of articles? The problem with ] is nearly any notable game would also have secondary sources that cover the gameplay of the game, making it really subjective if we should have one article or two. ] (]) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::"List of X seasons", "List of X seasonal events", or "X seasons" or "X seasonal events", the latter if there are sources that broadly discuss the games seasonal structure. ] (]) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Translation help ==
:My understanding of Misplaced Pages 1.0 is that it is an effort to create a more-or-less authoritative source of information on a permanent medium, such as CD/DVD. As such, the amount of content must be limited, so it's important to find the most important and notable pieces of content to include in that effort. The importance/priority rating in that template has nothing to do with VGProj in particular. I think most/all WikiProjects are making that assessment. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I am writing here to request help with some source title translations. I am currently working on implementing the suggestion on the ] for ] and one of the suggestions is for the non-English sources to have translated titles. I currently have all the non-English sources on ]; containing 28 Japanese sources, 3 Spanish sources, 1 Finnish source, 1 French source, 1 Brazilian Portuguese source and 1 Indonesian source. If anyone is able to provide help with this that would be very much appreciated. Hope to hear back, ]] 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Simpsons, you may have glossed over this part: "This article is on a subject of (whatever) priority '''''within gaming''''' for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 1.0". The way I understand it, the importance is still importance within the VG project. We're identifying the articles that we would most want to include in Misplaced Pages 1.0 if quality was not an issue. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 17:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


== ] source question. ==
:::If it is in fact within WP:VG, then what is with ] and ]? These (were) of low importance! Frontlines: Fuel of War doesn't even have an importance rating. Each of these games boasts a revolutionary new gameplay mechanic, completly refining the genre, shouldn't they be of high importance, or at least medium importance? --] ] 02:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi. So, I want some confirmation and possible discussion regarding edits made last year to ], ], and the ]. A LOT of wordy information was added by {{u|ERAGON}} citing a book called "''The Making of Tomb Raider''" by someone called Daryl Baxter. IMO, it seemed to me to simply repeat stuff that was already present. I did edits on the OG game's article to incorporate the info on an assumption of good faith (I was in a bad mood that day, explanation for some edits that appeared on TR2's article).
:::: You seem to be pushing a point here. What is revolutionary about them? How is it so revolutionary? That notability should be asserted on the article pages, with reliable (secondary) sources to back them up; is it so? How can we be sure? A game that truly "redefined" the genre would be ], as it is the first game to begin the use of the "worker" to gather sources; can RA3 and Tiberium measure up to that? Who says? The rating on Warcraft is indeed High, as I thought it was.
:::: Really, for WP 1.0, I would agree with the ratings for the time being. I would probably say that ] would be of a higher priority than either of them, as it started the series the first two are based off of. And so it is, with a rating of '''High'''. The series article is the same. Should Tiberium and RA3 be? I don't think so, based on the fact that neither are even out yet. WP 1.0 needs articles which sufficiently cover the items on which they're about, and neither of those 2 can say for the moment that they qualify. I'm sure someone could persuade me otherwise, but that seems to me how it goes. --] (]) 03:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


My questions are: is this book a reliable source of development information, and if so could the information be incorporated into the articles in a less wordy way? I don't want to do anything on my own beyond what I already did on the OG game. ] (]) 17:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Just to add to this, I'd like to point out that importance ratings are somewhat difficult to determine, since each person has a different POV on what's an important game and what's not. For the most part, the ratings on the various articles are based on the game's overall relevance to the industry and that industry's culture, as a whole. Games that have more press coverage and more ] to contribute information will likely be given a higher importance rating. In any case, all ratings should be based on ]. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::As Kiefer pointed out, the importance rating is based on a scale determined by the consensus of various points of view. And while Red Alert 3 and Tiberium are highly anticipated games, can you really say they are more important to video culture and history than say ], ], or ]? So just because an article has a "low" rating of importance, it doesn't mean the game has no importance at all. It simply means there are other games that have had a greater impact on society and the industry. (] <sup>]</sup> 04:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
:::::::Also, in specific to RA3 and Tiberium, I'd say that it probably doesn't make sense to give a high level of importance to a game that hasn't been released yet. If it turns out that, once the games are released, they've had a significant cultural or technical impact on the industry, the importance rating may be increased then. See '']'' for what I'd consider a decent candidate for this sort of treatment (though that's my personal opinion) - a number of reviewers have said that ''Corruption'' is the first serious game to show that the ] is "ready for primetime", and that seems significant to me at least. So if RA3 and/or Tiberium have the same sort of impact, it would be well worth considering increasing its importance rating at that time. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Good points everyone, I conceed. Sorry for any inconveniences. --] ] 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Not at all, it's a valid question. This is what the project page is for. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC))


:Hi ProtoDrake. I would say that the book is a reliable source; it is a series of interview transcripts between Baxter and former Core Design staffers. Outside of the book he has interviewed people from the team before for podcasts; there's one of those available . If things are too wordy we can of course edit down. ] (]) 10:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== What is an Engine? ==


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
We've now come to a point in video game development where the "Game Engine" is no longer one whole piece of software handling all aspects of a game (Graphics/Physics/Sound), now game engines tend to be a main game engine that fuses together the processed outputs from other middleware (Physics, Facial Expression, Speech, etc).
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Unofficially dead Nicalis game ==
The nub of the question is: Do we list them in the Engine section of the infobox? If yes, do we list all regardless of how big a part they played, or do we only list the major middleware? In fact should we have a middleware section in the infobox? I'm stuck between two camps, yes we should because it's part of the "Game Engine" but on the other hand should we list the fact that my car has got Lucas Fuses in it and Bosch Headlamps? They do the same job as middleware, they are a component part that goes to make up the whole. Opinions? - ] (]) 09:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
On the ] page, we've had ''90s Super GP'' listed for twelve years. There has been no official word from Nicalis since 2015, with only subtle changes, (like the title itself), made. It's still listed on the Nicalis website, but having been in the industry myself, I can attest that the creator is no longer involved and the last expo presence or even rumored stages of development were made in 2019. Do we even list this vaporware at this juncture? ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


:Only if a reliable source calls it vaporware (or cancelled.) I understand your concern in this instance, but if we let editors make this call personally, then we get these overzealous/pessimistic editors declaring games like '']'' or '']'' as vaporware or cancelled games. ] ] 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:When I hear "game engine", I think graphics engine. That defines a heck of a lot about how the game operates, as it sets the actual coding structure of the game. Other bits, such as physics engines, are subsidary techologies tacked on to that and should not be in the infobox, although they should be mentioned in development. -- ] (]) 10:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


::{{Reply|Sergecross73}} It's good to see you again, Sergecross73. We have a bunch of articles like that pragmatically ask the question, "What the hell happened to '90s Super GP," but none that explicitly calling it "vaporware" or "cancelled". I'd compare it to Half-Life 2: Episode Three, except Valve recently acknowledged that it wasn't going to happen. ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 02:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Meh. The Fallout engine isn't really a "graphics engine". Nor is ]. I rather fancy that "physics engines" are more like generic software libraries than engines. It should still be possible to identify the core game engine in any given game at this stage. ] - ] 10:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:::This intrigued me, so I made the article at ].
:::From what I saw, it's indeed vaporware but not officially cancelled. Such games can resurrect at any point, and the game was even referenced in a subsequent game by that developer. Unless it sees a full cancellation it should be listed as such. BTW, the Nintendo Life article does say it is in "development hell", akin to vaporware. ] (]) 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{Reply|Zxcvbnm}} Wow, great work! It certainly is one of the most infamous cases of both predatory indie publisher practices and development hell. There's nothing saying it won't ever be released, so maybe we'll eventually see it pushed out eventually? ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 20:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::after all, we got ]... ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
:Ok, graphics engine is perhaps the wrong term to use, but the engine that defines the game's code structure and performance (which generally includes graphics capabilities), whether Source, Essence, Fallout, SCUMM or whatever, is what should be listed. -- ] (])
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== Can anyone finish this draft about a Chinese video game franchise? ==
:: Indeed. I don't think we're going to run into any particular problems here. One area of contention is whether a game ''system'' counts as an engine: ] uses the ] for its game mechanics, but it isn't the game engine so to speak. I think it's straightforward which one we'd pick though. ] - ] 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


]. Abandoned by the student creator, since the course finished. We have three very bad, AfD-asking, articles on related media (animated films) that may be deleted without redirecting if there is no main article for this to be redirected to: ], ] and ]. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 05:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Not really an issue at all. "Engine" in this context always refers to a software construct. A "rules system" is just another way of describing game mechanics, which the engine implements. But one is not the other. For example, ] is distinct from "D&D rules". ] (]) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


:It's going to probably need a Chinese speaker. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
: This is actually a good point. I don't think we can easily play this question off. If we mean graphics engine, then use the graphics engine. But if we mean more than that -- the core gameplay -- we're going to have to start listing multiple components. ] (]) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
::Likely; I've also posted to WT:CHINA. Sadly, I don't speak Chinese, but the topic seems quite important - it seems like a rather big franchise, with many games, movies, etc. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Eh, I'd say it's of low importance to the video games articles scope as a whole. In ] it seems to have a moderately low number of incoming links. There's also an article in Korean that is pretty short. Though, that may just be the article on the first Roco Kingdom game. Tencent is a big company but a lot of this looks like mobile/web games which don't really interest the English-speaking world quite as much. And there are films at the Chinese box office, but I can't find anything about an international release. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Fair, but considering how big China is, even a China-only franchise, that is reasonably big there but has little international impact, is probably mid-importance for the world. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 06:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::China being so big means there are a lot of game franchises, some of which may have a bafflingly large interest inside China and little impact outside of China, which makes it hard to write about them because there aren't a lot of English sources that are reliable. Especially Chinese web/mobile games made by Chinese companies with few products or customers overseas. Also, keep in mind the video games project covers not only all the video and computer games ever but all of the people, companies, and in many cases fictional things inside the games. That's a pretty large scope. And since the nature of many web/mobile games in terms of the content and the quality of the material, especially ones made by large Chinese companies such as Tencent, is that they're probably of limited interest for the mainstream ], ] or ] communities in the Anglosphere. For example, I checked out the and I noticed the following badly translated text, "Rock Kingdom is a web game. Come and complete the task, chat with friends, and upgrade for your pets." These ] games are a dime a dozen. It might be of interest to the ] community. It doesn't even have a public subreddit, and it seems that the game itself might not even work outside of China. Yet the film ] grossed 10 million yuan in presale making it the top domestic animation ever in pre-sale. That's pretty crazy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 07:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It is Tencent after all, indispensable to the lives of literally E-V-E-R-Y single one Chinese from the young to the elderly. It will be a surprise if the spin-offs become box office bombs. ]] 14:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I forgot to mention the popularity of Tencent games among Chinese people especially those young (should I mention ]?). It is not hard to imagine children, during their summer breaks, begging their parents to bring them to theatres for the film. ]] 14:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hello, your fellow Chinese speaker is always available. ]] 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


==New Articles (January 2 to January 12)==
:Even in the DOS days you had the ] which appeared in many titles. Game engines have always allowed for the possibility of utilizing existing code modules. This is only new in the sense that they are even more prevalent today. None of them really qualify as "game engines" however since, by themselves, they don't produce an actual ''game''. ] (]) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


{{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}}
So regarding the question in my initial post ''"Do we list middleware in the Engine section of the infobox?"'' Is there a consensus on yes or no?


<small>A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --''']]''' 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
Personally I think that it may differ on a case by case basis, at times there will be a good case for the primary engine plus secondary engines that contribute a major amount to a games style/look. While at other times only the primary engine should be listed. Either way the secondary engines can (and should) be listed in the article text. - ] (]) 08:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


*'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
:I'm in favor of just axing the Engine parameter from the infobox entirely - I see this as too much of a grey area to really enforce consistently between games. Compare middleware "engines" like Havok (for physics) and sound engines, vs. games that either have their own custom game engines or use a commercial engine, like the Unreal engine or the Quake engine. We'd really have to go through and determine which "engines" can be used to create a real game, vs. ones that just provide some essential service (like physics or sound processing). And because things like the Unreal engine have become so complex (and often utilize other service engines themselves), it's really difficult to write a real guideline for this sort of thing. If a particular game is notable for using or creating a certain engine, it can be included in the body of the article. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Drafts deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
::A good point. It would remove the question about what should and shouldn't go there, which nowadays is usually more than one entry and it would reduce the size of the infobox a little. I think you've persuaded me. - ] (]) 11:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Articles redirected:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*'''Categories deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ]
*'''New categories:''' ] <small>— {{u|Vinnylospo}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mochgamen1}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 months ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|MagicMason1000}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 months ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|MagicMason1000}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 months ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>
*'''New templates:''' {{tl|Psyonix}} <small>— {{u|WikiPediaAid}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 28 days ago)</small>, {{tl|Dofus}} <small>— {{u|Nall}}</small>


<div style="line-height:1.4em !important">
:I'd disagree. Axeing it isn't the answer, we just need to better define it. The primary engine used is often obvious, the other technologies are tacked onto that. An Unreal engine with or without other secondary engines on it is still the Unreal engine and is the base of the program. -- ] (]) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
'''January 2'''
*{{Article status|Start|Evo 2023|Thepatrick01}}
*{{Article status|Start|Evo 2024|Thepatrick01}}
*{{Article status|C|Julia Voth|Kiwipat}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 15 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Pokémon Box: Ruby and Sapphire|Daniel Lawrence}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 19 years ago)</small>


'''January 3'''
: (Considering Grand Theft Auto: 4) In the most neutral way, I think that the engine Euphoria is apart of the motion. Therefore it has been in my opinion that we have reached a compremise. We (or someone) already tagged the engine under the motion engine. We will keep both engines. However, as RAGE is the main engine, Euphoria has been tagged as a motion engine. Thank you, g'day. ] (]) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Unassessed|Pinball FX (2023 video game)|Wilbers}} <small>(previously a draft: accepted ] submission)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|KayPea|Samsmachado}}
*{{Article status|Start|Nobody Wants to Die|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Stub|Ocean Trader (video game)|Liandrei}}
*{{Article status|Stub|Yu-Gi-Oh! Legacy of the Duelist|Timur9008}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>


'''January 4'''
== The end of reviews. ==
*{{Article status|C|Canvas: Sepia-iro no Motif|Eggunogguchan}}
*{{Article status|Start|Nex Playground|MrKaraRocks}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>


'''January 5'''
Dumb question? Is this over? That you don't need to put in reviews anymore? If that's the case then why? Please answer that as soon as you can. ] (]) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Frogger in Toy Town|Eagowl}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
:I'm sorry, but can you elaborate a bit more? By "don't need to put in reviews", do you mean not using them as sources or not including review scores? (] <sup>]</sup> 15:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
*{{Article status|List|List of Brian Blessed performances|Mika1h}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
Yes. What if that is becoming a trend? If that happens then it will ease a lot of editors? Will it end their stress level? I'm still not certain. What does everyone think? ] (]) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
*{{Article status|B|Duolingo|Huyzin}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 13 years ago)</small>
:We still don't know what you're talking about. Could you please specify if you're talking about whether reviews are considered reliable sources, or if we don't need to put the review scores in the articles? These are two separate issues governed by different policies, so to answer your question, we need to know which one you're talking about. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|GeoGuessr World Cup|TomasVial}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 months ago)</small>
I'm talking about the game Medal of Honor Vanguard. I now recently saw just game facts and that's about it. It's like there's a review nazis somewhere in the system. ] (]) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Screaming Wings|Griggorio2}}
:Is that the only example you have? I don't consider that the end of reviews (if that is indeed the only article that has no review that you've seen personally). Also, don't call people nazis, that's a bit rude. Were there reviews on the article that were removed, or does the article just have no reviews? Perhaps no one has added a review link yet. ] (]) 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:: A vandal deleted the Reception section and those reverting his changes missed it. I have restored the section. ] (]) 08:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Right now I'm relived. For your sake, I wouldn't be this hypercritical. If I was asking in general about receptions, you could've say no, this is not the end of it. But if I had to be specific, I could end up wasting your time. So for the time being, let's rest it on that. ] (]) 14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


'''January 6'''
== ] Featured Topic? ==
*{{Article status|C|Seymour Guado|138.89.131.227}} <small>(previously a draft: accepted ] submission)</small>


'''January 7'''
Well, it's not a Featured Topic of course, but I think a topic would be great. A lot of great articles exist under the Touch! Generations label, and I would like to see them featured. Anyone interested? If so, here's a list of articles that will need to be featured/GA'd:
*{{Article status|Start|Shujinkou|Julian Michael Rice}}
*{{Article status|Start|Volcano (1985 video game)|Zoq-Fot-Pik}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Cat Cafe Manager|QuicoleJR}}
*{{Article status|C|HMV|195.172.233.18}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 20 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|C|The Prince (1984 game)|Zoq-Fot-Pik}}


'''January 8'''
#]
*{{Article status|Start|Love and Deepspace|EleniXDD}}
#]
*{{Article status|Stub|AYSO Soccer '97|Timur9008}}
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#] (which is already FA'd!)


'''January 9'''
Not too many games, right? Also, I excluded any Japan-only games because of the difficulty that would be presented in collecting information. - ] ] 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Italian Video Game Awards|Tanonero}}
:That's a lot of articles for a topic, but then again, there's a lot in the ]. Wouldn't we need the Japanese games to satisfy 1(d) ''No obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together.''
:] is on my list of articles I'd like to get to FA, after ] is done, I'd be happy to work with someone else to improve it. (] <sup>]</sup> 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
::I only own ''Wii Sports'', which is already taken, so I won't be of any use here. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:::#It is true that it's a lot, but I think it's a reasonable FTC.
:;:#Well, it is true that several FTs make several omissions - for instance, the Zelda FTC excludes all titles except for the primary 12 games and the series article, excluding ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Perhaps it could be English Touch! Generations titles?
:::#Well, Ashnard, any help is welcome, even cleanup or references. - ] ] 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
::::If it's too difficult to find information for the Japan-only releases, just merge them in sections of the main article, or a "List of Japan exclusive Touch! Generations games". ] (]) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's a great idea, Kariteh. Although some articles I think should stay separate - For instance, Common Sense Training is ''fairly'' notable, and could manage to be a fairly sizable article. Also, Cooking Navigator should as well, as it is coming out in English. - ] ] 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do, although I've kind of put a curfew on myself from contributing until I've finished my exams. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


'''January 10'''
Great. Now, here's what I think the hierarchy of focus should be:
*{{Article status|Start|Archeblade|Angelfencer}}


'''January 11'''
#Nintendogs
*{{Article status|List|28th Annual D.I.C.E. Awards|MR.RockGamer17}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
#Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!
*{{Article status|Start|Farbrausch|139.165.203.195}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 20 years ago)</small>
#Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!
*{{Article status|Start|Skydance's Behemoth|OceanHok}}
#Wii Fit
#Tetris DS
#Big Brain Academy
#English Training: Have Fun Improving Your Skills!
#Clubhouse Games
#Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree
#Planet Puzzle League
#Elite Beat Agents
#Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method
#Master of Illusion
#Endless Ocean
#Flash Focus: Vision Training in Minutes a Day
#Sudoku Gridmaster
#Magnetica
#Electroplankton
#True Swing Golf
#Wii Chess
#Touch! Generations (eh, I think featuring the games should come first)


'''January 12'''
Of course, GAing everything comes before FAing. - ] ] 18:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|2025 LCK season|Swishpav25}}
*{{Article status|Unassessed|Cross Tantei Monogatari|Everythingwii}} <small>(previously a draft: accepted ] submission)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|'90s Super GP|Zxcvbnm}}
*{{Article status|Start|2025 LPL season|Swishpav25}}
</div>
----
I'm back! --''']]''' 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:Thank you for continuing to maintain this! ] ] 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I honestly have no idea how to expand CHG. Development section...what is there to say? A google search yields that IGN criticizes them for not fleshing out Texas hold 'em really well, so is it appropriate to say that the developers didn't do that? Or do we really need to find information from the mysterious developer known as (that has an) Agenda themselves? ] (]) 02:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::At this point, CHG can only be expanded in the Gameplay and Reception. It probably won't become FA, but that we've still got many more easily FA-able games, such as Planet Puzzle League, Big Brain Academy, Electroplankton, Elite Beat Agents, Brain Age, Brain Age 2, Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Tetris DS. So, if we were to go for this, how many of the articles would have to be featured? - ] ] 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Development section doesn't have to be on the developers only. Information about the English localization can help expand it too. See ] for instance. ] (]) 07:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Criteria 3(a) states 20% (rounded up). So 20% of 22 articles would be 5 FAs. And even though there are several aspects of development that can be expanded, sometimes the necessary basic information just isn't out there. Like the poor little '']'' which will probably remain B-class forever. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
:::::Well, it's a shame that I found a comment from an NoA translator about how they wrote the text in Clubhouse Games from scratch instead of actually translating, but it was on a fan-site. - ] ] 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Also, a problem presented is I have no idea who was the lead designer for Clubhouse Games, so I can't do a Google search for an interview with him on the game. - ] ] 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


== '']'' ==
I don't mean to sound condenscending or anything (I was one of the major forces in building it to its current state), but CHG isn't the most ideal game to begin with. It's just a collection of other previously-released games. It's not going to boast the same kind of information you could on a game built from the ground up. That doesn't mean FA is impossible, but I'm wary about it. ] (]) 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have to FA it, I just have to GA it. - ] ] 23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:Well, I made a list of games. I know it's fairly unconventional how it's done, but I think it could be expanded to an FL. - ] ]


Hey there, I'm currently preparing the article above for FAC; its subject's 10th anniversary is coming up in September. The reviewers at the PR strongly recommended me to look for academic analysis, but I'm unsure if the papers I found (''listed below'') will be sufficient to write enough content for a hypothetical scholarly/academic analysis section. Any help is appreciated. Thank you. <br/><ul><li>{{cite journal |last1=Travers |first1=Sean |title=Nihilism, Violence, and Popular Culture: The Postmodern Psychopath in Toby Fox’s ''Undertale'' |journal=] |date=April 2022 |volume=55 |issue=2 |pages=411–431 |doi=10.1111/jpcu.13120 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpcu.13120 |publisher=]}}</li><li>{{cite journal |last1=Veale |first1=Kevin |title='If anyone’s going to ruin your night, it should be you': Responsibility and affective materiality in ''Undertale'' and ''Night in the Woods'' |journal=] |publisher=]|date=1 April 2022 |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=451–467 |doi=10.1177/13548565211014434 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/13548565211014434 |access-date=9 January 2025 |language=en |issn=1354-8565}}</li><li>{{cite journal |last1=Cayari |first1=Christopher |title=The Music of ''Undertale'': Participatory Culture, Video Game Music, and Creating Covers for YouTube |journal=International Journal of Education & the Arts |date=2023 |volume=24 |issue=22 |doi=10.26209/ijea24n22}}</li><li>{{cite journal |publisher=]|last1=Elvery |first1=Gabriel |title=Undertale’s Loveable Monsters: Investigating Parasocial Relationships with Non-Player Characters |journal=] |date=June 2023 |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=475–497 |doi=10.1177/15554120221105464 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15554120221105464 |access-date=11 January 2025}}</li></ul><span id="LunaEclipse:1737060623463:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt">—&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
== 20 Stub Articles: Mahjong ==

I just stumbled upon the ] and it's pretty atrocious. Virtually all the articles are lousy stubs, many of them have been that way for years and many of them are orphans.

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] (an author. is this even notable?)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

There are only two non-stubs in the entire category. ] and ] which are both in rough shape. That's a whole other story.

I'd like to merge these all together in a ], unless someone else has another solution. I'd appreciate some help too. ] (]) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:The only issue I see with that the list may never be comprehensive as the number of mahjong video games is too large to keep track of. So Featured status may be out of the question for it down the road. But I can't really think of an alternative. (] <sup>]</sup> 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
:: I can live with that. At this point, it's nice just to avoid a bunch of barely notable, orphaned stubs. ] (]) 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Mahjong video games are all the same... just consider them all the same game, and merge them in ], mentioning any specific game when needed. This way it doesn't have to be comprehensive. The number of mahjong games is large, but that doesn't mean they're all notable. ] (]) 07:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:Making a genre article would be a good idea in any case. For most of these particular articles, however, I would just prod them rather than put them in a list. ] (]) 09:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

: I PROD'ed a few. I'll wait a few days and try to mention these individually in some kind of ] article, with a bunch of redirects. ] (]) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the deletions of the clearly non-notable stuff have come through, with the exception of ]. If someone wanted to do a formal AFD because the sources found are not notable enough, I'd support it. Otherwise, I'm going to do a merge of the remaining articles. The information is all going to be essentially for the same game(play). ] (]) 15:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

== Newsletter update ==

FYI- Next week, the second edition of the newsletter will be going out to members that have signed up on the ] of the project page. Some of the details are still being ironed, like format and delivery automation. Questions, comments, and suggestions can be left on the ]. Any input is welcome and would be appreciated. (] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
:I got one today; what'supwiththat? '']'' <small>(])</small> 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:I have one minor concern, '']'' was promoted to GA in April, but was omitted. I've added it to the draft, but it makes me wonder if we have missed any others. How do we keep track of GAs? They don't get quite the same coverage as FACs. There's also the issue of presentation, the GA list looks rather horrible because there are so many of them - that wasn't an issue last month. Perhaps it would look better in a bulleted list, if it doesn't make the newsletter too long vertically. -- ] (]) 11:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::On that note, '']'' got FA yesterday (yay! :). '']'' <small>(])</small> 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::Added missing SimCity. --] (]) 12:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not entirely sure what to do getting the GAs more attention. To be honest, I think it might be good to remove the "Featured Articles, Lists, and Topics Candidates and Reviews" section because it basically repeats what's in the todo list. Maybe that will get people looking at the todo list more, which now also lists GANs.
:::As far as missing entries, I look at the edit history of ] to see what was added and removed. I did it about a week ago (4/25/08) and was going to do it again this weekend. That's why some GAs were missing. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
::: Umm... SimCity was delisted as a GA, not promoted as one... ] (]) 03:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

== What's our policy on lists of developers within an article? ==

* ].

* ].

* ].

I want to know if this is just considered original research, trivial detail, or what. It strikes me as messy. But if people think this is just legit info that hasn't been referenced, I'm okay with that too.

Feel free to go in and clean-up / delete these lists. I will back thee. But please explain if you feel otherwise. ] (]) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:Its trivia. Developers engage in all sorts of genres, although some only go for certain genres. Get rid of them. They simply are not necessary. -- ] (]) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:: I removed them. Do me a favor and check in again later, just in case this sparks an edit war. ] (]) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of developers/publishers/organisations 'of note' in articles are usually the sign of an underdeveloped article which needs wikifying. If they are of note then chances are that their games would be linked within a 'history' section of the article if it was fully developed. Besides which, they're just edit wars or bloat-lists waiting to happen. Support removal. ]] 08:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== Video game genres page ==

There's currently an edit war going on at ] page. Someone ('wolfpup7') keeps merging two of the sections together, despite there being sources proving they should be distict. Hopefully more sources can be added for further evidence, but they are refusing to discuss on the talk page and citing original research as the reasons for the edits. It would be nice if other users could take a look at intervene/contribute to discussion if necessary. ] (]) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to help out here too. We'd appreciate further assistance. The editor (wolfpup7) is not getting the idea after half a dozen or so reverts. ] (]) 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:It's probably worth leaving a note on the user's talk page inviting him to use the article page to generate consensus for articles that have disputed content, instead of just reverting. That way, everyone ends up working together. If it turns out that there is consensus, which one editor refuses to follow, then it's worth pursuing other options. I've stuck the article on my watch page in the meantime. '''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

::: Good point. The discussion began on the talk page, but the user may not know where it is or may have their attention diverted for whatever reason. I'd appreciate you checking in now and then. ] (]) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Also, keep an eye on 3RR. You may have good intentions, but it's a good idea not to get caught out by it. '''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

::::: Good point. I just hit 2 reverts. I'll have to lean back for a bit. I'd appreciate it if anyone else might be able to check in if the user deletes/contradicts the referenced information. I know this is just a big misunderstanding, but this is starting to verge on vandalism. ] (]) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

::: Randomran seems to have left a message on his user page, to which he replied that GameSpot and IGN are not 'authorative' and again cited his own knowledge of the subject (if you look back over the edit summaries as well, he keeps claiming that other editors are not 'familiar with the genre' as he is). He is aware of the discussion on the talk page has instead chosen to wilfully ignore it: if you check back over the edit history there is a summary where he actually told us to stop the discussion on the talk page... I tried leaving another message on his talk page regarding original research etc. He has changed the video game genre page again. ] (]) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:::: I just spent a bit of time 'reverting' it manually. ] (]) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::::: Thanks for your help with this Bridies. If he continues to remove the referenced information rather than engage in discussion, we'll take it from there. ] (]) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== 200+ Good articles ==

Here's something I think is very note worthy. April has been a crazy month for Good article promotions, well over twenty I believe. On April 30th, our number of Good articles broke 200. The article to do so was '']'', and was followed shortly after by '']'' and ]. Also, our number of Featured articles is approaching 100, currently 85.

Anyway, these are amazing signs of growth and quality, and are indicators of the hard work members pour into their articles. There are very few WikiProjects that have numbers like this, and it is something to be proud of. (] <sup>]</sup> 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
:Don't forget seven featured topics, with two more currently nominated. Kudos to everyone who's helped make this project so successful. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== Future of Task Forces ==

I was looking over our Task Forces and I noticed something. Sure, in these areas, we will have high coverage, but then again what about the other games that may have been produced by Capcom rather than just the Devil May Cry series. So i thought that for area like DMC Task Force, there should be a Capcom task force to give coverage on all games by Capcom. Or instead of just Warcraft all of the games produced by Warcraft's publisher.What do ya guys think]]<sup> Go ] </sup> 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:I've been thinking over this, actually. Tbh, I think the set of articles (say, for Blizzard, who published Warcraft) would be large enough for a new WikiProject. I ''do'' think, however, that ''Starcraft'' and ''Warcraft'' could probably have their task forces merged; while they are distinct genres, Blizzard has developed each by learning from the other, as well as ''Diablo''.
:In the end, I'm not real sure, however. It's an interesting path to go down if Task Forces are set up the name of the publishers, rather than the Series, as is the case atm for most task forces. --] (]) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::But another thing is say there were a Kingdom hearts task force(just example). That would be great because every freakin KH article would be a FA. BVut then think of a Square Enix Task Force, then KH and Final Fantasy both will have like a thousand FA giving huge coverage of both, just a thought. Also a Blizzard project ''actually'' would be a awesome idea.]]<sup> Go ] </sup> 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Kingrock may be onto something here. Taskforces are usually created to make a cleanup drive or large FA/GA push more effective, but once the project has "done its job", so to speak, and the articles under its scope are of a high quality, it can start to die out. Expanding the scope of successful taskforces to closely related categories might be a way of keeping up their long-term effectiveness. --] <small>]</small> 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Right, so then what can we do to actually put this idea into form?]]<sup> Go ] </sup> 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::As I described it? It would simply consist of convincing the key editors of a taskforce reaching the end of its lifecycle to transform their project into a wider or differently focused one. Nothing earth-shattering here, I'm afraid. --] <small>]</small> 02:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::Or possibly to rename the current task forces to more expanded forms, and then let the users in each decide on what to focus on? --] (]) 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Leave to the editors in each task force to decide. Once you actually have a task force get a big chunk of the articles in its scope to GA/FA status, then you want such a group to stay together for future projects. In the context of the ''Devil May Cry'' and ''Kingdom Hearts'' task forces (which have been our most successful I would say), I think they should just be left as is. There's certainly more games coming out for each franchise, but if they want to be merged into a more inclusive task force, then it's up to them. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 05:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) In the case of Warcraft/Starcraft, we both have a large backlog of articles to try and push to GA and FA status. I'd suggest that once we've managed to improve the articles to high quality and stability we look at future rationalisation. Also, considering that both these taskforces have recently come down from being seperate WikiProjects, it's currently early days. '''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 09:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:As the guy who has been pushing a lot of StarCraft articles forward and the guy who turned the SC wikiproject into a task force, merging it with Warcraft is a bad idea. The two are developed by Blizzard and techniques in making them have rubbed off to later products, but the simularities end there. We're talking about two very distinct series, and merging the two task forces could cause complications. I for one know absolutely nothing about Warcraft, and I imagine a significant proportion of Warcraft editors don't know anything about StarCraft. The development of the articles of the two series has been separate since day one to my knowledge, and so have probably taken different approaches. I'm sure Diablo editors also have taken a different direction. To merge the task forces suddenly into one simply is not efficient. I'd agree with Gazimoff here, perhaps after both task forces have completed a lot of their work and its primarily a maintenance job, a collective Blizzard task force would make sense. But until that point, its better to let editors develop the individual franchises separately and independently from the other series. -- ] (]) 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::This is certainly an interesting alternative to letting a task force go inactive. Though I think it could go both ways. Expanding the scope could make participation dwindle because of a less focused scope, or it could could encourage the push for more articles of greater quality. Either way, it's better than letting it sit there for a year, waiting for a single sequel to come out. Ultimately though, I think it should be left up to the major contributors of the task force. If they are unwilling to keep the effort going, it makes little difference what form the task forces is. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

To phrase my opinion on the issue in one easily quotable line: the success of a task force does not depend on the topic it deals with, but on the effort of the editors involved. ] (] ]) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:::There was something along these lines discussed ], where we planned to consider getting rid of dead task forces/projects or expand their scope ect. but we never got around to it. I suppose we could actually put the idea into practice now though. Some task forces could easily encompass more article subjects into their scope and actually become projects in their own right. What do you think? Should we go ahead with a refined "WikiProject Video games project consolidation"? --''']]]''' 10:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

:The Warcraft and StarCraft task forces were a result of that proposal, so it was got around to, at least to an extent. -- ] (])

::I have looked over all the acomplishments of the Task Force's and all that can be added is CRUFT, so sooner or later I'm gonna kick this plan into gear.]]<sup> Go ] </sup> 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

== Ubisoft and free images on Commons ==

came to my attention... apparently some guy on commons is arguing the OTRS ticket allowing us to use Ubisoft images is not actually allowing us to use Ubisoft images. Read on. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
:Closed the DR (Jacoplane, where art thou?), dealing with backlash. '']'' <small>(])</small> 09:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

== Filefront spammers ==

I've noticed a lot of brand new editors (quite possibly the same person with different usernames) who do nothing but add ] links to the "External links" section of articles recently. If you look at their "contributions" you can tell it's clearly spam. First there was . Exactly one week after came (account was also only used for one week). Two new "editors" popped up today, and .

An administrator or someone else might want to look into/report this stuff. I caught on to this because I created many of the pages that are being spammed. Who knows how many other accounts they've got. ] (]) 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
:You want to report this over at ]. They may be able to help you out there. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::I've reverted all the changes these accounts have done and raised it at AN/I. Probably going too far, but we'll see.'''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Another account registered today, dedicated to filefront spamming: - spamming some of the same articles. The additions have been reverted but hopefully something else can be done about this. ] (]) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

A second opinion request has been made at ] suggesting that this should be a FLC rather than a GAN. Any thoughts? '']'' <small>(])</small> 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
: It certainly qualifies as a list of weapons. However, on a notability standpoint, what differentiates this page from a "List of Weapons in Turok", or "List of Weapons in Time Crisis 4"? Disregarding this aspect of notability, the list of weapons there contain gameguide materials; "Its initial firepower level is 13.0. When completely modified, its firepower reaches 50.", "Unlocked upon beating the Separate Ways assignment, the Chicago Typewriter has a maximum firepower level of 10.", "The rocket launcher is a one-use weapon that can be bought from the Merchant for 30,000 pesetas. ", etc, are certainly not statements for the average reader and of use only to players of the game. The Creation section is a whole chunk of quote. I do not think the article in this state qualifies as a GA or FL. ] (]) 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

:I do not think the article even warrants existance, the development, merchandise and reception information probably is better suited in the Resident Evil 4 article, while the rest is just a breach of ]... -- ] (]) 10:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

: Yeah, I have a hard time seeing why such an article should exist. Are the weapons of Resident Evil notable in of themselves, or is this article free-riding on the notability of the game in general? ] (]) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

: While I agree that that article is notable, I think that there is a likelihood of better quality by merging (removing some duplication) of the Weapons article with the main RE4 article which is in need of significant cleanup and improvements, as to reduce its size to accommodate the notable aspects of the weapons. Right now, the weapons article uses the notability as a wrapper to justify a typical gameguide weapons list, and thus feels like it is gaming the system. Take away the gameguide table, and you're left with details I'd expect to find in a development and reception section. Maybe if the RE4 development section is too large, it can be moved per summary style to a separate article (which would include the bulk of this article). --] 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

:It's a list but I see it failing spectacularly at soon as it hits ]. Per above, there's no reason this article should exist, and a merge back to ] would be appropriate. The table in particular is a complete breach of ]. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

:The article is well-referenced and presented and in no manner resembles actual game guides (I have a game guide for ''Resident Evil 4''; the article is NOT a how-to whatsoever. The weapons are themselves notable in that a special controller was made for them, they appear highlightened in marketing for the game and even with action figures. The article definitely deserves to exist. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::Being well-sourced is not a reason for an article to exist. Do any of those sources establish any disconnect whatsoever from RE4? Any need for it to exist separately from RE4? - ] ] 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, they help support it as a sub or spinoff article with notability on its own and sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Again, whether it's notable is irrelevant. The issue is whether it's better presented as part of the main article, and seeing as the notability is on the fence, and there's not that much material here, merging is better. To justify splitting, you need a serious argument that ] and other factors are present, say in ] and ], which are far larger than this article. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::The article is of a sufficient length to stand on its own, but if some of it is also helpful for improving the main article, there's no problem in having some overlap or duplicate material, just as an article on Napoleon is going to overlap with an article on the Consulate. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::The article is a table that everyone here agrees is superfluous and unnecessary and a giant pile of quotes that are better placed in the context of the main article. There's really nothing else that can be placed in the article sans more game guide material, and without the table, there isn't much of an article left. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The article contains images and quotations from reliable sources that are absolutely non-game guide in nature. If you and others think aspects of the article can also be used in ], that is perfectly fine by me as well, but just because something is merged from one article to another does not automatically mean it cannot still appear and continue to develop in the original articles, too. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I never referred to the quotes or images as game guide, and stop trying to not address the point. In any case, as soon as the material is merged into the main article, this article loses its reason for existence, as the table will be removed, and there's no point to keeping a redundant article. You keep additional articles to express information that cannot be adequately summarized in the main article (], ]), not to exist solely for the sake of existing, even if it is notable. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Not per the GFDL, i.e. ]. If anything is emerged, then we must keep the contribution history public. The table should not be removed anyway. Any concerns in writing style can easily be addressed be rewording. There's plenty of value in having a redudant article when the article focuses on one particularly notable aspect of a game in a focused manner just as an article on Alexander the Great, which will have duplicate material with articles on Macedon and Darius III, focused on that particular figure. Something that is notable does indeed have justification existing on a paperless encyclopedia that combines general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::We're not deleting the article, we're redirecting it. As for the table, there's nothing you can do concerning the game guide material save its wholesale removal, and there's overwhelming consensus here that this is the case. In any case, your examples are fallacious - you are mentioning multiple topics that are not derived from one another and are independently notable (] is not, as if ] was not notable, the former would not be as well). The issue at hand is whether summary style can adequately represent the subject in the main article, which it can, making this article unnecessary. ] and ] cannot be adequately represented by summary style, and as they are notable, they have articles by extension. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, just rewording it would be sufficient. There's no advantage in "wholesale removal". There's numbers here, but a democracy is different from consensus. Weapons of Resident Evil 4 is independently notable in form of action figures and a special controller that exist beyond just the games. Splinter or sub-articles are indeed valid even if they are related and complement each other. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::Per Jappalang, the grand majority of the material in the table is game guide material. Telling how much damage something does, how much ammo it has, or how many shots it takes to kill things are definitely game guide material. Anyhow, in the context of the discussion here, it is irrelevant whether the subject is notable, we're determining whether it would be better presented in the main article as part of the development/reception sections there, and there appears to be relative consensus in that regard. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Simply stating facts in a larger context is definitely not game guide. Some of the material can be duplicated in the main article, but there's no reason to not also have this article separate as it works well as a stand alone article. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I am going to have to agree with the many users here that once this article hits FLC, it will fail per its existence. A list of weapons is kinda trivial, and falls under list cruft, as its similar to a list of cars in a ] game, or a list of weapons/cars/glitches in a ] game, and serves no point or notability.--'''''<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::"" is never a valid reason for anything. It is dissimilar to those examples in that these weapons appear as toys, as a special controller, and a specific focus of marketing. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Facts in a larger context? The context is in the game entirely. The gun has so much ammo, it takes so many shots to kill this, it turns slowly and it's difficult to kill fast things with it. What about that is not in context of the game? And per above, merging is preferred. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::A merge would be the way to go from here, as most of this information would be better fitted at ].'''''<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::I strongly agree with the merge. This information belongs with the game articles. Take away the game guide list and you're left with information about the game. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 03:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::The table is quite diverse as it includes weapons from both playable and non-playable characters. I am not opposed to utilizing some content to beef up the main article further, but I see no detriment in not also having the separate article. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::That the table includes weapons from playable and non-playable character is totally irrelevant. And per above, there's nothing you can put into the article except more game guide material in the table that everyone here says should be removed. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::That the table includes weapons from playable and non-playable characters is totally relevant as non-playable information cannot be "how to" in nature. Additional references and quotations from sources can reasonably still be added to the article, which can not justifiably be called "game guide." Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Whether it's "how-to" is irrelevant. It's telling details about the game that make zero sense to someone not familiar with the game (hence, "game guide," information only accessible to those who are knowledgeable about the game) and are simply not encyclopedic. And again, no one here ever referred to anything outside the table as game guide material. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::That it's not all "how to" is relevant, because that is what the game guide guidelines caution against. Every article has something that makes zero sense to someone among our diverse community of readers, but what makes Misplaced Pages fun and worthwhile is that with internal links and many articles, readers will be enticed to continue reading further and familiarize themselves with what they don't already know. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Stop jumping around the point. Go look at any of our FAs. Is there anything in ] telling you that you can deal more than 9,999 damage when you have the "Break Damage Limit" ability or where you can obtain the legendary weapons? Is there anything in ] telling you that it's not recommended to use an axe against fast enemies since it's slow? Why not? It's material that is only valuable to someone playing the game and serves as nothing more than "game guide" advice. The overwhelming consensus above should indicate as such to you. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Consensus is not numbers. The article as a whole is valuable to people interested in aspects of video games. Weapons are a major aspect of video games and especially of this particular game. Articles on different subjects by their different nature contain material that one would not find in articles other articles. For video games, this kind of material is particularly relevant and so fits in an article of this nature. As a sub or splinter article, it cannot be compared to Final Fantasy X or the Castlevania article. Resident Evil 4 could, but not Weapons of Resident Evil 4. It's apples and oranges. Weapons of Final Fantasy X (if we have such an article) could be compared. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::(deindent) But it's clear you're bailing out a tide. We don't have such an article about Final Fantasy because it has very little real world notability outside of the game &mdash; merging to content is overwhelmingly a better option. What is good here is only good in the context of the game, and makes more sense in an article about the game design. The majority of the article is extremely game-guide-y because it tries to go beyond this and... can't. So you've got a really bipolar article, with good content that isn't in a proper context since it's disconnected from the game design (for instance, one section talks about the game's design but is totally isolated from any discussion of it) and lots of game-guidey content to try and hold it together. It doesn't work, and makes much more sense merged. --] (]) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Maybe in the case of Final Fantasy as I am not as familiar with those games, but here we're are talking about a unique weapon peripheral and action figure weapons that go beyon the game. I am not incidentally opposed to expanding the article to be about weapons in the whole series. Nor am I opposed to essentially duplicating some material over both articles. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::There's only two reasons I would consider that the ''weapons'' need to be treated separately from the rest of RE4:
:::::The weapons, as a whole, are considered notable. This is not the case
:::::The majority of individual weapons are each notable, and thus presented along with the remaining non-notable ones. This is not the case, as only a couple really have stood out.
::::It is not the case this article lacks demonstration of notability, but it is a case where the topic of the article is inappropriate and not shown to be notable by that notable information. Most of what's given in sources is material for development and reception, and thus all that can be kept and merged to RE4, with the only loss being the table of game stats itself. If RE4 is too large after this, then the development section of RE4 can likely be separated to its own article, but I doubt that this will need to be done. --] 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::The topic is appropriate enough for an article on ''Misplaced Pages'' and I see no reason why not to have some of the material on both the main article and the sub-article. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::If you remove the giant quote, the list, and the non-content (ie references and external links making the article look bigger), the content is far more manageable. I cannot see why this article needs to be apart from RE4, when RE4 isn't very big, and this article isn't big at all. - ] ] 17:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect that allows for the redirect to be overturned when/if additional sources and content are found that could be added to the article. What's weird is that I actually had a dream last night about this discussion... Maybe that falls under a "You know you're" category! Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Definitely, definitely does :P --] (]) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

===Arbitrary section break===
Anyone against a merge at this point? This has become a one-sided argument - everyone here sans Le Roi - and everyone here either has problems with the notability of the article or agrees that it should be merged. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

*Material from this notable article can reasonably be duplicated in ] without having to also closed down the weapons article. Plus, previous discussions reveal a more obvious lack of consensus: , , , etc., i.e. there are more editors and arguments beyond those in this particular discussion who either oppose a merge or who agree with me that both articles can coexist. The material is in fact not game guide content. Being sourced makes it acceptable. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:I want to point out that: ] is in fact, game guide content. Being sourced doesn't make it acceptable either. ] (]) 10:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

* I support a merge/redirect. RobJ1981 is also right, though. This is game guide content. (Not in the "how to play" sense, but in the sense that it just lists stuff in the game without making any real point.) If the list of weapons isn't evidence enough in of itself, then you only need to look at the sources that are used to support the list of weapons. (e.g.: references 9 through 33.) With the exception of the research about the unique chainsaw controller, most of the research simply lifts information from Resident Evil 4 game guides. This is pretty flagrant. <BR> When doing a merge, I would recommend summarizing this list really quickly to make whatever point it's supposed to serve. If the point is that resident evil has a lot of weapons, say that. If the point is that resident evil made some big innovation with a few key weapons, say that. But you don't list every single weapon and describe its significance to the game. Not in wikipedia, anyway. <BR> If you have trouble accomplishing a merge due to one or two people reverting, feel free to post again to the WP:VG talk page. I'm sure some of us can help you out. ] (]) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

*Besides agreeing with a merger, I would like to point out that the large quote in creation has no relevance to the section. It's just some quote from some non-notable development blog by some random guy without any sort of credentials that would allow such a quote to be placed in any article. That's just in case someone would object or be iffy about a merger because they think it would be hard to merge that section into the main article. ] (]) 13:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

*I support a merge of this article into the main. Yes, it is nicely written, but that alone does not mean it should stay as a standalone article. The recently removed weapons table is very much "game guide" content. It is often one of the selling points of a video game guide "complete weapons information" and every game guide I've ever seen has tables of weapons. It is part of the broad scope of "how to play" in showing you what weapons are available and what they do. With the table gone, the weapons article is much smaller and easily mergeable. The quote in the creation section is very long, and I'm concerned it may pass the ] limits. I also agree with TTN that it has no clear relevance to the section. Cleaned up that section would be a nice addition the production section in the main ], which has been unsourced since August 2007. The chainsaw controller is already covered in the main article, but I think the paragraph here, which is sourced, should replace what's in the main. The merchandise is not specific to the weapons, but to the game and should be moved into the main. The reception section, tweaked, would also improve the main article, which really needs some cleaning up. ] (]) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

*You've got my support for a merge, the game controller and reception details can easily be merged into the main article. I'd tend to agree with the views expressed on the development section, it does not display any clear relevance and may hinge on copyright violation as Collectonian stated. -- ] (]) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
*Picked this up off AN - why on earth it showed up there I have no idea. Anyway, upon review this absolutely should be merged back per the overwhelming consensus that has formed above. ] (]) 18:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
*It should be noted: only a few hours after I removed the weapons section of ], Le Grand went to it and seemingly reverted my edit. His edit summary was "fixed" and nothing else. Let's look at a few things in the weapons list. Shotgun, bowgun (to name a few): list where to find the weapon. That's telling the reader what to do, in other words: '''instructions/how-to-guide'''. Broken Butterfly, Handcannon (to name a few): list their firepower. Also '''game guide''' content that helps the reader play the game. For the various rifles: it states an additional scope can be purchased. More '''game guide''' content. It's pretty clear to everyone except for Le Grand, that the section is game guide content. The attitude of "it's sourced, so it must be kept" doesn't apply here. ] (]) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
**If I may quote from ]: "Lists of gameplay items or concepts. The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." If this isn't a description of that section, I don't know what it is. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Other NN / WP:NOT lists... ===

Just a quick glance reveals ] and ] and a good chunk of the ] category. ... Not that I claim to know what to do with any of these one way or the other, but I wanted to put them out there for discussion. ] (]) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:Well if we are doing this, I saw in the above discussion that a list of things in articles in game guide content, not in how-to sense, but just there not proving a point, so would that be the case in wrestling games, that list the people available to play in the game?--'''''<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:: Sports games are kind of a special case where you kind of want to know what major personality rights they've secured. It's arguably pretty notable information, as opposed to just any old list of characters or items. I don't know. It really depends. There's not a bright line test on this. ] (]) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I believe there's a split among members as to whether a list of real-life players count as game guide content. I personally see it as a list of voice actors; a full list is not necessary to convey that a game has notable voice actors. But that's just me. (] <sup>]</sup> 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
::::Well they do provide voice over, and there was always an edit war over whether to add a roster list or not, and it ] to the page. I always felt neutral to the addition of it, as it does seem different to a list of character and cars/weapons, but then again it may fall under game-guide (proving no point), but that's just me.'''''<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Something like that could be potentially be solved by using a table on the series page similar to ] and ]. ] (]) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::The thing is, in wrestling games, the characters are based off of actual superstars from ] and that company every year loses wrestlers and sign new wrestlers, and they then are taken out/put in the coming games, and WWE releases a video game every year, so if we use that table it will become a hassle.'''''<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Would it be possible to work each section into decent prose? That would be the next best step as long as it just wouldn't be the list in a paragraph format. ] (]) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::That was discussed before, and people thought it looked "ugly", others thought if we are to list only 5, we should just list the whole roster. Also, in ], their are platform differences, so not all characters are on the same systems.'''''<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Is the only form of prose that was tried or were there versions that tried to work in the entire cast? It seems like it should be possible to do something with all of them. ] (]) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::That was the best prose that other users came up with, and then it was decided that roster lists would work better since, it looked neater and was more organized. This would be the only exception of a roster list, because previous games would work better with prose because they don't have version differences, but '08 does.'''''<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

===Clarification article vs. list===
I was the user who requested the second opinion in the first place, but I'm still fuzzy on the consensus here. I think most people can agree that this is a list rather than an article, so it should be removed from ]. If not for that reason, than it should be removed for lack of stability per this on-going conversation and the very high possibility that it will eventually be merged back into the main article. I am correct in this assumption? ]] 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:That sounds pretty accurate to me. -- ] (]) 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::Removed from GAN list. '']'' <small>(])</small> 10:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

== Driv3rgate ==

I am short on time and editing resources right now, but if anyone is interested in cleaning up a rather dismal article, please head over to ]. If anyone is interested in exploring the underhanded marketing techniques employed by Atari to promote the game, please see my comment at ]. Cheers. ~ ] 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

== NPA attacks and intentional unsigning ==

There's a user on the talk page of ] who's arguing about the neutrality of the article. I know criticism articles are to be avoided, and the warcraft taskforce are working on that, but his response in the past has been to blank content. He's now making personal attacks and marking his discussion entries "intentionally unsigned". COuld I get a sanity check on this behaviour? Many thanks,'''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 08:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
: He may not sign his posts but his IP ] is evident from the History page. If he keeps up his personal attacks, you can bring the case up to the admins. ] (]) 09:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
::Just to note, the harrasment is continuing. I've now been accused of wikilawyering. The contributor is also now attacking the Warcraft taskforce as well. I'd appreciate some support in responding to this individual, as right now it's just making me want to give up all together.'''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

== Some lend a copyedit for ]? ==

I'd like to get a quick copyedit of ] prior to nominating it for FAC, if someone could be able to help. --] 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
:As always mate, poke me after a few others have taken a look if it's changed significantly, and I'd be happy to. '']'' <small>(])</small> 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

== ER ==

Check out my ] please and thank you!]]<sup> Go ] </sup> 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:WikiProjects aren't the best place to advertise stuff like this. You certainly can ask other users to comment via their talk pages, but this talk page is solely for matters pertinent to the WikiProject. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 04:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

== Stats update? ==

Back from my Wikibreak, I'm sure everyone missed me :) Anyway, I was wondering if there is interest in me updating the ] to include April. I'll do it if people think it's worthwhile. When I first created that page it was more of a novelty thing for me, so I'm not sure if we want this to be a regular beat. Thoughts? <small><font color="AE1C28">]</font><font color="#21468B">]</font> &bull; 2008-05-4 21:27</small>
:I missed you greatly. :) Sure, update it, I'm sure some will find it useful...(that's if you have the time and patience). '']'' <small>(])</small> 09:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::All right, I've included the data for April in the table and the graphs. <small><font color="AE1C28">]</font><font color="#21468B">]</font> &bull; 2008-05-5 12:00</small>
:::Wow, the project page broke 4000 and the portal broke 6000. Thanks for doing the stats update Jaco. (] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
::::It's appreciated :) Also, I just added the new Warcraft & Starcraft task-forces to the table, as well as the Newsletter page. No point in updating the graphs since there is only one data point. <small><font color="AE1C28">]</font><font color="#21468B">]</font> &bull; 2008-05-5 14:47</small>

== Quake Army Knife article ==

After reading this WikiProject's guidelines and looking at some related articles (mainly other level editor articles), I realise the ] article doesn't fall under this project's scope. So I guess it should be removed from the VG-project (but NOT deleted from WikiPedia!). Since I'm not a member of this project, I didn't think it was appropriate if I did this myself. --] (]) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:I'd argue it does fall into it, if not also falling into other projects as well. the VG project not only includes video games, but the hardware for them, the people that develop and design them, and, by nature of extent, the software used to create them, particularly if tailored towards video games. --] 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::But in that case, all those other articles (], ], etc.) should also be included. That's fine with me, though. :) --] (]) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Absolutely, all those examples directly pertain to video games. (] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
::::Then I'll go and add all those pages too. What code should I use for that? videogame-software-stub? And should all Infobox Software's be upgraded to Infobox VG? --] (]) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Their current setup is fine. All they really need is the Project banner {{tl|WikiProject Video games}} on the talk page, which is already on there. (] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
::::::Ah, I see, it's on the TALK-page (] I should have known that!). I'll add it when I see one that doesn't have it. And what about the Infoboxes? Should they be changed? --] (]) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Since they are software for developing and editing video games rather than video games, {{tl|Infobox Software}} is the best infobox. (] <sup>]</sup> 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
SmackBot just removed the videogame-software-stub from the article. Why? Did anybody trigger this? Or does a Primarysources or Importance tag trigger this? --] (]) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:That's a very good question that I have no answer for. :-p The stub tag can always be added back in, but to be honest the article looks like it has enough to be Start-class. Maybe it's time to get it ]. (] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
::About the assessment: That's what I've been working towards (see the article history). I'd rather add one more source before doing that, but I'm getting really close now. --] (]) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the sudden flood of questions, but I want to get this all right before I ask for a re-assessment. The redirect page QuArK originally was the main page. However, it still contains the history (and discussion). What's the best way of transfering it from that redirect-page to the 'new' main article-page? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=QuArK&redirect=no --] (]) 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:Unfortunately that may not be possible now. Normally, to do that you'd have to ]. That will rename it, carry over any edit history, and turn the old page into a redirect. But the new page already has edits made to it, so the two edit histories can't really be combined, as far as I'm aware of. It's fine the way it is though. You may want to leave an "FYI" as the first discussion on the talk page mentioning the edit history of the previous page and provide a link. (] <sup>]</sup> 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
::OK, I'll do that. Thanks for your help! --] (]) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:You can put in a request for a ]. ] (]) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::Wow, that is very cool. Learn something new every day. (] <sup>]</sup> 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
:: Oh sweet! I've added the request to the page. Thanks! --] (]) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

== Gamestooge.com ==

I noticed that Betacommand has removed all links to Gamestooge.com as spam, or something, the edit summaries are vague. Most of these links were in the form of references supporting points in articles, so is gamestooge.com an unreliable source? There doesn't seem to have been any consensus decision on this anywhere, at least as far as I can see. ''''']''''' 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:According to ] , "spammed by a contributor to the site, self published source being used to justify an edit war" sometime in May 08. --] 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

: It was revealed in one wikipedia mediation session that it's being used by one wikipedia editor to push their POV. Disputes originate in an article, and the "journalist" then publishes an article on gamestooge that "resolves" the dispute. <s>As such, it has been added to the list of unreliable sources as far as I know.</s> That makes it the definition of a ], which are generally unacceptable on wikipedia. It's been blacklisted as unreliable. ] (]) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

::Ah, I didn't realise that the site was all user contributions. Thanks, ''''']''''' 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

::Weird. I noticed yesterday that Betacommand was doing that, and even tried reverting (but the spamfilter prevented that). And yeah, it's unfortunate that his edit summaries are close to dishonest -- I even asked him to change and he said "no it's ok" as if it was <.<. But if it's all user-content, then I can see why it's not an RS (one of the two pages was ] and was used because there was a side mention of an X-Box Live release, of which the developer had no knowledge of. Seeing that it was a totally unofficial review gives it a bit more sense...) ] (]) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm actually following up on this with another admin at the moment - I've put forth a case that I don't believe the site should be blacklisted solely for self-publishing concerns. The user doing the self-published sourcing has been indefinitely blocked (]), but I believe there are other authors on the Gamestooge site, and the site itself does not appear to be harmful. Also, self-published sourcing isn't a problem if the person who wrote the article is not also the person adding that site as a source to a WP article - in other words, JAF would get in trouble for SPS if he adds his own article as a source, but if I were to add the same article, SPS is not an issue. (] and ] might be other issues, but neither of those are a reason for blacklisting either.) &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Also, I should add that JAF was not blocked for SPS, but for gross incivility and other unacceptable behavior toward other editors, as well as POV pushing. The blocking admin was ], in case you're interested. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::And now the follow-up: The site was blacklisted because all but one of its uses were self-published - JAF had added them (and often removed other reliable sources) to promote his particular viewpoint. There were almost no instances of other editors using Gamestooge.com for any purpose seen as legitimate by the reviewing admins. Quick discussion took place here: ] . &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::: So far it's mostly been used for POV pushing. I think it's safe to keep it on the blacklist for now. There's other more reliable sources out there. While I think there's probably some good info on there that's reliable and NPOV, I wouldn't want to open the floodgates. Maybe in time the site can cultivate its reputation and get itself back in the good books. ] (]) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) Question/suggestion, should we add a list of both blacklisted sites as well as those that should never be used for reliable sources at the VG Sources guideline page? We have acceptable sites, but we should also add unacceptable sites that we know of. (For example, one should avoid using Home of the Underdogs save for talking about the site itself, or if a free(Beer) game's only home is there. --] 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:Sounds like a good idea. Though, I'm sure there may be some backlash from others that believe a particular site shouldn't be blacklisted. (] <sup>]</sup> 20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

:Gamestooge.com is absolutely not a reliable source. It is a blog run by a Usenet persona who posts under the name "Jonah Falcon" (probably the user "JAF1970" mentioned above) and his friends. To my knowledge, though I could be wrong about this, his site does not have any sort of press credentials, so it is unlike real news sites like IGN, Gamespot, etc. So as with all blogs, the site's stories are all tertiary sources (see ]). In the newsgroups that he posts in, he has a reputation for carrying his own personal bias into every post he makes, and in addition his opinions are usually out-of-touch with the community and industry as a whole, as reflected by his POV-pushing in edits. Using the site as a source is against Misplaced Pages's guidelines on ] and self-publishing ]. I wholly agree with the blacklisting of the site. ] (]) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Gamespot" as a credible news source? Ha! I give that an 11 out of 10 and a big branded page design! --] (]) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why does ] redirect to ]? ] (]) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:EDIT: ] mentions "GameStooge Awards" (with piped link to the ] article) and it's currently an FAC, so we might need to look into that question. ] (]) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::I'v removed the link, since the link was to a sister/parent site. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 17:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::My guess is that JAF1970 couldn't get his own site on the wiki so he redirected his site name to the only other site on the internet that linked to him. Basically his way of circumventing WP:N. Same reason for the pipe, it was the only way to get the word "GameStooge" into an article. Awards from that site are void because they're picked and self-published by him. ] (]) 18:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::Guys, I think you should back away a little before you go on a witch-hunt. ''I'' added the gamestooge mention, ''I'' added the gamestooge link and ''I'' piped in in the '']'' article; I redirected it to 2old2play because I though that Gamestooge was an affiliate (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered adding in the award in the first place.) Please, let's not get carried away. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:::It's tough to continue to assume good faith when so much bad faith has occurred in the past. ] (]) 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't doubt it, but we don't have to peg anyone who adds a Gamestooge link as colluding in nefarious activity. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Anyone noticed that ] has been blacklisted too? (Try editing the article's page.) Given this fact, should the article be sent to Articles for deletion and all mentions of "GameStooge Awards" removed from other articles? ] (]) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Didn't notice 2old2play.com being blacklisted as well, but I'd support an AFD for that - it's a pretty tiny article with little to no notability at this point. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It's been profiled in '']'' and Xbox.com; it's got the independent sources required. It does need expansion. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:::But you apparently didn't create the redirect unless that was a previously deleted version. JAF was the one who created the current redirect. Which does leave some lingering questions as to how these sites are connected, if they are connected. ] (]) 01:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am a self publisher of a videogame blog and a Wikipedian. I don’t directly link to my articles but others have in the past. But I’ve never gotten any signifigant traffic from it. I’ve gotten a hundred times the traffic from one article on Digg or Google News than years of Misplaced Pages. It is a nebulous line between self publishing and so called “Real” news sites. I’ve broken some stories and am getting some treatment from Videogame PR folks but it is not as simple as that. Some independent sites do some real work and some “Pros” do nothing but regurgitate PR spin. --] (]) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

: Yeah, for practical purposes the pros can get it wrong while the masses have it right. But if we argued about that every time, wikipedia would fall apart. That's why we have a strong rule against self-published sources (although it is not a hard rule). See ], and keep in mind that the standard for inclusion in Misplaced Pages isn't truth... it's verifiability. So yeah, maybe we might end up getting it wrong by ignoring some self-published sources and preferring the pros. But we prevent much more damage than if we opened the floodgates. ] (]) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right that is why I don't ever link to my own stuff and treat it as equally as a others sites. There is no universal "press pass" and I have gotten some "Press Credidentials" to some events. the real world is not as cut and dry Clark Kent with his big old press badge.--] (]) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

: That's good, and that's how we should all behave. But I was trying to raise the point that it makes only a marginal difference if someone else links to your site because they happen to agree with what you say. If you're a reliable source, you're a reliable source. If not, no single editor can give it credibility. Maybe we lose some good information by treating some sites as unreliable, but it also protects us from bad information. ] (]) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::How can the 2old article be expanded, no one can edit it while it contains a link to that site. No one wanted to make a witch hunt. <strike>however it may be a good idea to put it forward for deletion to seek consensus and opinion concerning ].</strike> Site seems notably enough, however page needs alot of expansion. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 00:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

===2old2play===
<strike>If I'm understanding the discussion above correctly, ] was ''mistakenly'' associated with GameStooge. If that is the case, let's head over to ] and get it taken back off. Even if the article is deleted for other reasons, the URL should not remain blacklisted from Misplaced Pages.</strike> And let's get the ] redirect deleted since it shouldn't be pointing anywhere. ] (]) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Striking previous comments because this interview gives first-party confirmation that the sites are run by the same people. So that puts us in a pretty weird place since 2old2play is blacklisted and yet appears notable enough to have an article which can't be edited because it is blacklisted. My head is going to asplode. ] (]) 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
: It's questionable whether it's notable enough to have an article. It's claim to notability is one interview on xbox.com. ] says 'multiple sources are generally prefered' but doesn't definitively say what should be done in the event of one source (it does suggest merging with a broader article; though I can't really see how that can be done in this case). ] (]) 02:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::I've gone ahead and sent it to AfD, since it fails ]. Of course, with it being blacklisted, I can't even add the AfD header to the article. *doh* ] (]) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

== Some character articles ==

I can't redirect articles myself, but hopefully I'm able to just leave the following list here. The following articles should be redirected, but it's up to the people here to do so if they want. They are: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].

Olimar was nicely merged to ] for a while. Toad was merged with ]; it has never shown any sort of improvement. Charmander was merged close to a year ago and only brought back last month. The Pac-Man one is just a badly formatted stub. The six Mario enemies were merged per a long discussion a while ago. Starman is just a minor enemy. ] (]) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:I've reverted the Captain Olimar and Charmander re-creations as their cases were obvious. The Mario enemies have been reverted too for the same reasons. The remaining articles do need a proper discussion though: ], ], and ]. ] (]) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::For reference, Toad was part of ]. It doesn't really show much, but the article lasted as a redirect from July 07 until March (with two reverts in September and January). ] (]) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I redirected Pac-Man to ]. The coverage of the character in the game article was better than that of the character article, so I didn't see much of an argument for it. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anyone feels like dealing with them, ] and ] should also be merged with the rest of the Pokémon. It was always assumed that they would be merged, but they were brought back for some reason. They have no chance of asserting notability. ] (]) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:I disagree with you on those two easily. Both articles can be improved and referenced, Meowth at least is recognizable and notable via the anime counterpart, and Jigglypuff gains notability due to similar anime appearances (it was one of the show's running gags), Smash Bros. (appeared in every friggin game), and some design mention. Slap a tag to get the articles improved? Yes. Nuke them for some perceived notion they can't have notability though? Eh...--] (]) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::Please remember that notability is not defined by personal opinions. Show how those help the articles gain substantial creation and reception that cannot fit on the lists, and I'll then agree with you. Until then, anime appearances can be covered on the anime character list that is slowly forming, and the rest can be covered within the list entries. ] (]) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I fail to see your utter dependance on reception points given that it's nigh impossible to reference such factors due to wikipedia's own standards for any non-protagonist character. Does that make it unimportant? No. Also I fail to see the reasoning that what makes up a character's design history and appearances should be split into game and anime factors as that effectively negates the point of having any character article (should ] have all non-game appearances shoved on some list for example?). Long story short you're arguing notability knowing it'll get articles removed, but failing to understand that not only is notability the only factor, but it isn't as narrow as you make it to be. If it was there would be little reason for anyone to attemp any articles unless it was a primary protagonist or antagonist character.--] (]) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

::::By the sentiment of your first sentence, you're pursuing policies aginst Misplaced Pages's, and limitations defined by yourself. By this alone, there can't be any credibility in what you're saying unless you put them in accordance with ]. I feel that you'd be better off finding/identifying those sources that do express notability, per the above policy. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::You mean like the very fact reception is not made mention of in the notability guidelines? Take a look, it isn't listed as a must-have point. Notability factors are one thing, but stating that an article must have reception when there may not always be enough (Misplaced Pages) citable material to cover such a subsection is asking a bit much all around.--] (]) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Reception and development information are not requirements for being notable, only for comprehensiveness. However, they are excellent ways to establish notability. (] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
:::::::It's technically the only way a character can assert notability. Everything can be lumped into those two categories (i.e. popular culture and controversy fit into reception depending on the format). They don't actually have to be called development and reception, but they have to be in that line of information. ] (]) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Interesting way to see that then, though it brings up a few questions regarding some of your actions, but I won't go into that here. Regardless a search in blogs and other subjects bring up stuff that can count towards it with just simple searching, like for example which may count to Jigglypuff's behalf, or ] on X-Play making several comments towards the little runt on the show's "Top 10 video game monsters" segment, and that's just barely digging. Meowth you can say the same: dig through official sites and you'll find information to cover reception of that sort. What's really troubling through is your whole argument that they "can't" be notable period and should be merged, even though discussio hasn't really taken place in full.--] (]) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Blogs are generally not reliable sources (you're not going to find anything decent relating to reception on them, for sure) and things written by single users of GameFaqs are not reliable sources, so those are out of the picture. If you can build the sections out of reliable sources, '''do it'''. Don't just say that it can be done. Just '''do it'''. I cannot put more emphasis on the bold statement. ] (]) 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Gamefaqs can be such a pain in the butt to be a reliable source it seems...anyway, regarding your second point, I'm a bit too busy with ] and ] to really sit and start hammering on other articles yet. The point of this discussion is opposing your merge statement and statement that they "can't be notable" (after all if you've made up your mind anyway, little point to modify it as you'll just push this again. So let's square this away first, hm?)--] (]) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Actually, my point of view is that they currently do not assert notability, and it is unlikely that they will. I'm always open to be proven wrong. If that happens, then we just have more strong fiction articles. The problem is that people don't try to prove me wrong; they just try to work around it. If you can prove me wrong, please do so, but do not talk about how there is a definite possibility that the information exists without providing it. ] (]) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Under what circumstances would a fictional characters ever be given "significant coverage" from multiple, independent sources, with none of them linking to "reception" or being subjective in tone? ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::It's more a case that Misplaced Pages's own guidelines about online resources can effectively be difficult to work with. Despite sites like Kotaku, Joystik and insertcredit all interviewing corporate leaders in the game industry and being referenced and interviewed themselves (Kotaku immediately comes to mind there with a recent appearance by one of their editors on Attack of the Show), I've had people argue how they do not count as valid references because they're "online blogs". In other words as far as notability goes what is and isn't valid isn't fully worked out on the reference front when it comes to things online.--] (]) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't know of them cases in particular, but I know that both Joystiq and Kotaku are listed as reliable sources on this wikiproject. But again, without knowing of these cases, this shouldn't be a problem as the article shouldn't be reliant on a single source if it was notable. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:(un-indent) Just to play devil's advocate. Wouldn't a description of a character from a reliable source fall under the definition of "worthy of note"?
:Also TTN, I think there may be a slight discrepancy in our definitions of terms. For instance, I personally look at out-of-universe information as one of three types: Development, the process in which it was created; Reception, how the commercially and critically successful it was; and Impact, the ripple effects (normally a direct result of the reception, but different from it in my mind). (] <sup>]</sup> 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
::I wouldn't think so. You're just talking about if some news article describes the personality of, say, a Grand Theft Auto character, to provide context to the readers, right? If it is only a overall description based on the in-game character with no outside views, no it wouldn't. It would have to show some kind of impact, as you describe it. I'm the same as you, but I view impact (In popular culture, ect) as reception unless it takes up a lot of weight. ] (]) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, while I do think reception, impact, and development info are the best ways to establish notability, ] states "Notability is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity', although these may positively correlate with it." I think a plain description would fall within that statement, as fame, importance, and popularity all relate to reception and impact. At least my interpretation of it anyway. (] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
::::The problem is that guidelines don't take into account that many VG characters don't have significant coverage mostly because they don't take video game characters seriously, save for the absolutely most significant ones, and even then, a lot don't care. The lack of sources to substantiate notability should not be indicative of low notability, but rather, low interest among non-gaming publications. - ] ] 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Then they can be put in a 'list of'. But the sources determine notability either way. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::This "list of" rubbish is a bad idea in it's own, because then you basically have a massive page of character info that drops a lot of the more relevant and encyclopedic information (sometimes reducing the article to 6-8 lines) to try and keep the list from getting too large. I'm really not sure ever how removing information in that form that is encyclopedic is ever a good idea.--] (]) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Additionally going with the logic that "list of" articles are meant to be the dumping grounds for character information that fails "notability", why did TTN mark ] as one that needed notability proven? How can something that's a mass of character info that failed in notability other than the whole is notable supposed to prove it is indeed notable? Basically the thinking fails under scrutiny.--] (]) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Lists allow for nice, concise writing (when well managed). While you find plot information to be encyclopedic, it has no place here without notability establishing information to back it up. No matter how large the summary, it can always be condensed and covered elsewhere. If you find the details lacking, you can add them to another wiki. As for Samurai Shodown, it is just a list full of trivial and pointless characters that have trivial and pointless details written about them. As it stands, it should be transwikied and the character information should be split throughout the games. It's not like a character list for a series that actually needs the characters summed up on a list for better organization. ] (]) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah I mean nobody in their right mind is going to come to wikipedia to ever look up information on SamSho characters, especially since SNK doesn't use them anymore, right? ...yeah, "trivial". You're infusing your own personal opinion into this mess. Additionally I was referencing items such as design and appearances material and reception that tends to get lost when someone goes and reduces a whole article to a few sentences. Really to be blunt, arguing something is unnotable because you don't feel it is without anything concise to back it up is poor judgement (you might as well argue against something on the grounds that "you never heard of it"), and I don't see the reason to resort to transwikiing when the information can be made perfectly fine here. The material has every right to remain here in a cited form.--] (]) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I have to doubt that many people are going to come here to look up the specific characters. I'm talking about you average non-fan, mind you. Now, someone may want to look up the series in general, and view how the characters relate to the single games. In this case, there is no need for someone to jump between the games and a character list. All of the important base information can be placed within the series article, and the specific plot information can be summed up within each game. Now, maybe in this case, the ten most important characters can be placed on a list, but the average character should be fine. This is different for say, the Mario series, where someone would want to jump to a list because it would be fairly hard to describe the characters over and over again for each game. ] (]) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh, and if important, ''sourced'' development and reception is lost, that is just bad merging. I've seen plenty of design and reception information for these characters, but there isn't one source to back it. ] (]) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Going along with all this further, tidied up the ] article somewhat, though it still has a long ways to go. However, I'm really curious: how does something that got voted second most popular, a running gag in the related anime, plastered on the nose of a Boeing 747, mention by name in an article in the New York Times on an article related to pokemon (I haven't worked that ref in yet), and had a guy friggin sing its song, *with voice*, during an American Idol audition, fail notability?--] (]) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

:Completely ignoring notability and relevance for a minute, all of that can easily fit within the list entry. After trimming that whole article down, it would be no longer than the list entry, minus the lead and anything else that needs to be merged over. Now, looking at those specifics: Being second most popular in one single poll (that doesn't even include all of them)isn't really anything to specifically note. It could fit after a sentence stating that it is popular, but it doesn't really scream "I'm notable."

:The anime appearance warrants mention, but it has nothing to do with notability. Unless you have a quote talking about how they chose Jigglypuff specifically because its popular, there are also various others featured on thejets. It doesn't show notability for any of them. Unless it's a specific and in-depth overview of the specific Pokemon, I fail to see how a brief mention shows any notability. That last bit is just pure and pointless trivia that has no place anywhere (especially when it was less than five seconds). It would be no different were someone to sing something related to an internet meme. ] (]) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sighs* Why did I think reasoning with you would work out especially after the "they can't be notable" comment? You made up your mind before I started, and bloating a list with an entry with all that would as a result make someone trim it down to make room. In all honesty you seem more ravenously content that if a video game character does not have a damn bible written about it, it should go on a list or be deleted. We're done talking, and I'll stick to improving the articles as possible. You or your cronies attempt merging, I'll be more than happy to object as far as it takes. But your attitude is a negative factor to this project in my very honest opinion. Do what you will from here.--] (]) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::: There's a difference between scant, arguably trivial coverage (and the article on the boeing just mentions pokemon in general, nothing about jigglypuff) and not having 'a damn bible written about it'. ] (]) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::: A search of IGN and Gamespot reveals one article: (nothing on Gamespot). ] (]) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Said it still needed work. But what point is there to bother looking up any information when you can run and shout "this should be merged because it isn't notable!" I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but effectively every pokemon character has been merged onto a list save for those two and Pikachu. Kirby's a similar case: everyone BUT Kirby is on a list at this point, even the series antagonist. We might as well wonder what makes the games themselves notable in the end. Of course we start doing that, and we're going to land up with a very limited list of articles to work with with such a narrowminded handling regarding "notability".--] (]) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: Oh god, are you serious? If there is significant coverage in secondary sources that kind of proves it's notable, so it makes sense to look them up. If no coverage is demonstrated, it leads other editors to believe there is no coverage. The reason the game itself is notable, is because there are tonnes of reviews written about them, not so with the characters themselves (except maybe pikachu). It's not a narrowminded handling at all, it's according to the guideline on notability: ]. ] (]) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Let's get back to business, people! I merged ] into Earthbound's main series article. Anymore I can do here? ] (]) 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

== Game cleanup template ==

These templates are currently overlapping: ] and ]. Both have a fair amount of usage. For consistency we should pick one to use and redirect the other. ] (]) 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:I think we should keep ], just makes more sense to me.]]<sup> Go ] </sup> 02:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::Gamecleanup is for any type of cleanup needed for a video game article. Gameguide is for an article that has game guide information that needs to be cleaned. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 05:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:::If that's the case, the templates and their documentation need to reflect this. Otherwise people are just going to use the first one they find. A lot of articles are probably miscategorized. ] (]) 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I added a basic description of the two templates on the other's instructions and linked them. Hope that will clear things up at least a little bit. Feel free expand it. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

: I think we need both, to be honest. There's a special place in hell for articles that have lots of game guide type stuff and need to be summarized and scrubbed. That's compared to other game articles that just need copy-editing, organization, etc. I'd prefer to keep both, and create a more clear distinction between the two. ] (]) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should Gameguide be expanded to include not just gameplay but also excessive story detail? The article I'm looking at is ]. ] (]) 00:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

== GameFAQs template ==

What do you guys think of ] with respect to the fact that this is something that could go on just about every game article? Unlike the Moby template, where one could exercise judgment about whether a given Moby page offers useful information, a GameFAQs link seems more black-and-white: either you think game articles should have a link to a game guide, or not. Do we consider game guide links to be useful external links? A possible advantage to including these links will be as a tool to cut down on gamecruft in articles. You can just point to the link and say "go there if you want that info". The disadvantage, of course, is that it may induce spam from game guide sites or individuals that want to advertise themselves on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:A lot of its usage, I think, depends on the person writing the article (if they're for or against GameFAQs). Despite having contributed to the site, I don't think I've ever used the template...I just don't find it that useful (odd, I guess). And of course, not every game is covered equally well by GameFAQs. '']'' <small>(])</small> 09:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::I agree, the number of pages that won't offer additional info is much bigger than those that would. GameFAQs is normally the first site I go to if I'm stuck in a game, but the guides aren't that user friendly. The only thing I can think would be a useful is if the GameFAQs page had a game script or some in-depth bestiary. (] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
:::I don't know, if every article has links to GameFAQs and StrategyWiki, then we soon end up with a lot of clutter. I guess it's mainly up to the editors of the article, but I would definitely be against mass-spamming all VG-related articles with GameFAQs templates. <small><font color="AE1C28">]</font><font color="#21468B">]</font> &bull; 2008-05-6 21:49</small>
::::Absolutely; I would suggest GameFAQs links only used where the article's editors have agreed that the GameFAQs coverage of the game is exceptional. '']'' <small>(])</small> 08:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

== GamePlasma.com linkspam ==

While looking over Patapon I noticed that one of the reviews was from a GamePlasma.com. A site I had never heard of before. Upon finding out that an IP editor added in this review (along with that fact that it was the IPs only edit and the IP came from Virginia, where the website is supposedly based in . I reverted the edit.

Then I did a quick Google search for the domain on wikipedia and found these IPs whose only edits have been to include GamePlasma.com links: ], ] culminating in this user ] who has been adding reviews of GamePlasma in mass who in his bio (before he blanked it) admits to working at GamePlasma.com and attempted to create a article about GamePlasma before it was subsequently deleted.

I just wanted to let other VG editors know to be on the lookout for links from this website. I will be removing these links that have been added (since they are not appropriate for the EL section anyways).<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:If he continues adding, give the appropriate escalating warnings so he can be blocked. Seems to just be here to promote his own site. ] (]) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::You may want to request it be blocked as link spam ]. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

== FAR ==

] is under ]. ] (]) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

== Rumble Pak article ==

This article needs to be completely changed; as it stands, I don't see any article about the rumble technology, while this article focuses exclusively on only two Rumble Paks, ignoring any rumble on any other system, including the Wii. - ] ] 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:So you're proposing changing ] into something like "Rumble technology"? Currently, the closest thing I could find was ], which redirects to "Haptic#Games", so we technically don't have an article on the subject. Honestly, though I think it may be kinda hard to flesh out and is a daunting idea. It'd need sections on technology and history, which can be hard to do for gaming technology that started over a decade ago. If you can do though, go for it. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
:The name "Rumble Pak" is a specific product name, and as such, is not the generic term for force feedback or vibration-enabled controllers. Thus, the article on "Rumble Pak" should not focus on things which aren't actually referred to using this name. It certainly can and should link to an article on such technology in general, though. --] (]) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::Because one piece of rumble technology does not a separate article make? - ] ] 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Eh? This is like saying that a popular cell phone can't have its own separate article because cell phones can generically be covered in a single article. I think there's a valid reason to have both, i.e., specific articles about a certain implementation of the technology, and an article about the technology in general. --] (]) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::::One may as well say that info on rumble outside of external rumble packs is nigh nonexistent. And no, an article this short doesn't need to be separate by DEFAULT. One barely different type of rumble =/= different. - ] ] 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

== Joystiq and Kotaku ==

Some have brought up the issue of the reliability of these sites again recently, and it needs a proper discussion. My argument is as follows:
*The reliability of the sites does not depend on the medium they use, it depends on how the content that's on there gets on there, and which phases of expert-oversight and what editorial checks it goes through.
*The reason we discard most blogs is that blogs have a tendency to be written by random people who are not experts, without editorial involvement.
*Joystiq and Kotaku, on the other hand, are run by respectable companies, have a long history of reliability, and the writers show a good degree of expert knowledge that is no less than any IGN or GameSpot writer.
*The general inference we make about blogs doesn't hold for these two.
*I conclude they are reliable.
Discuss. ] (] ]) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree --] (]) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Additionally I know both sites have interviewed company figures (additionally so has insertcredit on that subject), and Kotaku had an editor recently interviewed on Attack of the Show.--] (]) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:Joystiq is a reputable site but they do, from time to time, base their news stories on forum postings. As such, the certain particular story (not the publication) might not satisfy RS. ] (]) 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::If the purpose of using a Joystiq-based-on-forum story to establish a critical fact by itself without any other discussion, I would strongly warn against this. However, these types of posts, which often summarize user response, are generally good when they are next to company responses to fan complaints or the like. Same for Kotaku or any other gaming forum (eg for the upcoming Ace Attorney game, all we have is fan-based Japanese translations, but at least using reputable sources that site the fan translations helps to give some creditability to it.) --] 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
::I agree (such as the GTA IV PS3 resolution issue). Reliable publications can publish unreliable information directly from a forum or open wiki, with no sign of fact checking. In these cases the information should either be written in the article in a way that it is clear is not confirmed, or left out completely, which is what I prefer. I'm going off on a tangent here, so I'll say that I'd agree that Joystiq and Kotaku are reliable. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I've had this issue brought up in several recent FACs- I've also found many of Kotaku/Joystiq's writers have published work elsewhere on the net, so proving the reliability of the authors is not as hard as one might think as well, independent of the publication. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:I think most of the comments can be summed up in the general notion that being labelled 'reliable' is not a carte blanche to source the most outrageous statements to these sites. All sources, how reliable they might be, should be evaluated, from ''Science'' to the ''New York Times'' to ''Joystiq''. ] (] ]) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see how Misplaced Pages is in any position to criticize the reliability of Joystiq.com or Kotaku. --] (]) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:It's not so much criticism, it's just that most editors outside the VG Project don't know whether they are reliable or not. Just part of the lengthy and sometimes harsh quality assurance process. (] <sup>]</sup> 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
:Considering Misplaced Pages does not currently use Misplaced Pages as a reliable source, I don't see the problem. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 10:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Krator (or someone else), could you please put together the notes listed above, and anything else of relevance in relation to these sites, to a standalone page (eg. ]), so that these can easily be cited in FAC discussions, etc. It's sometimes annoying having to keep searching to try to prove the sites meet WP:V, as is requested. '']'' <small>(])</small> 10:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on break honest, ahem. We need to discuss a lot of these sources and expand that list, ] wasn't even listed till recently, sites like are springing up and might not get listed at all. On AFD debates often commentators will list major sites like IGN and GameSpot, saying that they can't find any details on them. Well that's all well and good, but for indie, casual and freeware games that's the equivalent of looking for reviews of the latest caravan in fast car magazine. A section for freeware/flash/indie/casual would be useful, as would a list of magazines which cover each format (IE Crash for ZX Spectrum). Basically, there's a lot of work needed to make the sources list all it could be. ]] 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:We need to be careful doing this: simply noting that some sources need to be treated as reliable to improve coverage of casual games may rub very wrong with certain people, since you are basically creating what are reliable sources to show notability. As a project, if someone would like us to evaluate a set of sources as to be considered reliable and thus appropriate, we should do that as best we can do within our bounds. There will be editors not involved with video games that will question the sources, but if we do our diligence as a project to make sure the Sources list is filled out, then we can simply point to that when sites are questioned. --] 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::The suggestion isn't that we just slap sites in there, but weigh them on their merits. Gamezebo, for instance, might not be a site the average viewer is familiar with, but , I see we have articles on two of the writers: ] and ]. The site is one of five game websites in the running for a Webby award. These guys aren't amateurs, and a strong argument can be put forward for this site to be deemed reliable, yet it focuses exclusively on casual games and indie games, that's what I'm talking about. ]] 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would use another reference if possible. If it is breaking news that need to be included in the article, it may be fine, but there are much more reliable sites around. Kotaku is known to exaggerate news to drive more traffic (since editors there are paid according to the amount of views each article generates). -- ] (]) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:Where do you get that from? (The pay to hits notion) <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:: The whole Gawker network (which Kotaku is on) pays its editors based on the traffic that is driven to the site. See . This is probably the same for Joystiq.
::I think Kotaku/Joystiq as a source of aggregate news is good. Both sites also have decent interviews with developers about upcoming games. But if the story they are covering comes from say the PlayStation Blog, then the PlayStation Blog article should be the one linked to and not Kotaku/Joystiq. Kotaku and Joystiq also have several posts where it is more of the "editor's" opinion than plain jane news reporting so those articles should be carefully used. ] (]) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, I think this is something that pertains to all sites: if you have several sites which you can use as references for a statement in a Misplaced Pages article, always choose the one which is the most neutral (except if you're dealing with previews or reviews, obviously). ] (]) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(I don't read Kotaku and therefore have no opinion on it.) I consider Joystiq to be reputable for a blog, but they do frequently publish rumors and subsequent corrective updates. So using them as a source must come with the caveat that they should not be used to source unconfirmed rumors -- and the wiki's content guidelines discourage posting rumors anyway. Additionally, Joystiq is mainly a news aggregation site, and individual stories typically link to a more in-depth, more direct source higher up the chain that should be used instead whenever possible. However, if there are cases where the Joystiq post itself needs to be referenced, I think they are suitable for sourcing factual content (e.g. "Activision merges with Vivendi"), but not for editorial comments (e.g. praise or criticism of a game). ] (]) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

This needs a lot of formatting, sourcing and cleanup. ] (]) 07:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I'm having some trouble over at the Team Fortress 2 article. An anomalous IP (which has previous for vandalism), keeps removing the rewrite of the class section, reverting it to an earlier version that is excessively detailed and falls foul of ]. The article has only just passed GA status on the back of a partial rewrite, but the reverts reduce the article to a quality that is less than GA, and therefore at risk of GA delisting. Can I have some help dealing with this please? I'm in danger of hitting the three RV rule. -- ] (]) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:I've asked him to bring it up on the talk page. Now either he'll do it, or he'll revert for the fourth time, or he'll stop caring. ] (]) 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

: So far it looks like you guys have been able to deal with him. But I'll keep an eye on it. ] (]) 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::I've reported him for reverting a 4th time. ] (]) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Added to my watchlist now as well. '''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

The Devil May Cry topic needs to have this game added to it as a GA since it has been over three months since the game came out. If not, it may be nominated for removal at any time. ] (]) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I revamped the whole article and I plan to nominate it for FLC soon, but before I can do that, may the community tell me what you think of it, and if you have any comments please feel free to tell me here, thanks =)--'''''<font size="3"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:I think it's pretty good.]]<sup> Go ] </sup> 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::Video game series are articles, so should go to GAN/FAC. That article is not ready yet; take a look at ] for a recently featured VG series article. '']'' <small>(])</small> 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::But I based it off of ], a FLC.--'''''<font size="3"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::::This is not really what a series article should be like. As H2O pointed out, see ], ], ], ], and ] for examples.
::::However, it would make a very good list. In fact, you should copy the content over to "List of WWE SmackDown! video games", as it could make FL with a little tweaking. For starters, the game covers will have to be removed, we ran into a similar thing for ]. (] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
:::::Okay, I will work on it later. And Present it again here, but one question, if I make the move, what do I do with the series page?'''''<font size="3"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 00:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::A series article should mimic a regular video game article to an extent. The prominent and common elements are highlighted in an overview section. This can include common gameplay, recurring characters, any story, etc. The games should be mentioned in a separate section. A development section is needed to show the series' history and how it has evolved since it began. A reception section is needed to show how the series has been been received; this should also be the last section. Other sections can include audio, merchandise, and impact. But those can vary by the series.
::::::A few more suggestions to get it ready for FL. I would move the release dates back under the title, and I would move the content in the "Features" section up top to expand the lead. But all that can be taken care of after the move. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

== Citing Video Games and their Manuals ==

How does one correctly add a reference/footnote/citation for a video game or a video game manual? I'd like to use both such materials as a source in an article but not sure how to correctly do so. Thank you. --] (]) 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:I'm assuming that you know how to add a citation but want clarity on the specific type of citation you mentioned. Manuals can be cited with ] and games themselves by using ]. If you need help with how to add a citation to an article just ask and someone will help. - ] (]) 08:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::To cite a manual, you can just write it manually if there isn't a good template for it. <tt>''GAME TITLE''. GAME PUBLISHER, YEAR. ''Game manual''; p. ###</tt> should do it, I think. '']'' <small>(])</small> 09:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't know if this was what you asking about specifically, but for citing video game dialog, we have an example in the upcoming writing guide. See ].
:::For instruction manuals, I normally use either {{tl|Cite book}} or {{tl|Citation}}. They both have parameters that work well enough with an instruction manual. For example, <nowiki>{{cite book|year=200X|title= Game Name instruction manual|publisher= |page= |chapter= }}</nowiki>.(] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

That's great help. Thanks. The next question I have (and it should have occurred to me in the first place!) is...Is it appropriate in the article of a video game to cite the very game the article is about? --] (]) 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::The answer (I think) is "It depends." If you're quoting something from design notes included in the game (e.g. why something was done in a way it was, for example) I think that's fine. If you're starting to use these citations for actual gameplay, it's likely not going to be okay (e.g. "press this sequence of buttons to make your character hop on one foot" or similar things). If you're (briefly) describing the plot or story of the game, and this is described in the game manual, it's probably okay too (but keep it brief). ] | ] | 13:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Generally, the only thing we use the video game for when citing itself, is dialog for the plot. Though technically, an information screen or extras section with special information can be used too. I remember ''God of War'' had some great making of extras. But we generally try to get that information from articles. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

== Bloody Roar ==

Hi. If any of you guys are interested, I proposed a merger of ALL Bloody Roar fighters. Feel free to discuss this ] if you want. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

== Wavedashing ==

I need a third opinion on Wavedashing's inclusion in '']'', on the grounds that two reliable published sources verify its notability (namely Nintendo Power and Major League Gaming). - ] ] 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:Okay, I'll establish some context here. ALttP provided a source which says that ''Nintendo Power'' asked the game's producer, Masahiro Sakurai, about the inclusion (or exclusion) of wavedashing in ''Brawl''. Wavedashing is an advanced technique in the game. Link claims that it should be included in the article based on the source&mdash;I strongly disagree. Long story short, I feel it is of no use to anybody beyond the hardcore, and is of no encyclopaedic value. Anywho, I won't dwell on details&mdash;just look at the lengthy the talk page dispute for that. So...any thoughts? ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. It is already a long article with tons of references. This is not a FAQ or game guide. Plus I am getting a little sick of reading about Smash Bros Brawl.--] (]) 21:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Given it's a significant gameplay technique, a note about it can't hurt the article in any way when handled properly. It should have mention to some degree.--] (]) 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:With all due respect, "it won't hurt"&mdash;which I here all the time&mdash;is among the weakest arguments going, and one which should be discarded when debating the inclusion of content here. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:Jake, I've already established that it can be written without teaching the player how to perform the technique in any scenario, so how is it game guide content? - ] ] 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::And Ashnard, the argument DOES hold weight - it wouldn't hurt. There's no real reason to exclude, and there's been sources that give the technique notability, and it's relevant by the fact that, by one reliable source's words, is "known by competitive and casual players alike". - ] ] 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I've heard it all before and too many times. People use that "argument" as a top trump to put whatever they want into the article without question, as long as it fits their interpretation of things. Let's debate what it does contribute, which is virtually nil to anybody beyond the hardcore. It does not establish anything about gameplay. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::To be more direct (sorry I'm busy with trying to get a render done for college too atm) it won't have a negative impact on the article, only a positive one. Additionally it is relevant to gameplay becuase it in effect changes how the game is played significantly even in casual gameplay given it's readily available to those beyond the "hardcore".--] (]) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ashnard, on what basis do you say it contributes nothing to anyone except for the hardcore? I have a source that casts doubt on the idea that only hardcore gamers would care about it. - ] ] 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::I would use the article on ] as an example. They talk about the game play but do not break down every single technique and strategy. “Blitzing”, “turtling”, “supering” --] (]) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I have a question, where in the article is it being considered to be included? (] <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

::::::::By undestanding of the phrase "advanced technique", I'd say that would define it as an aspect beyond the average scope of gameplay. Within Misplaced Pages articles, "Gameplay" sections establish the fundamental elements of gameplay, and specifically, noting deviations from predecessors or games from the same genre. The articles should not and mostly do not delve into elements beyond this, such as minor techniques or very specific aspects, except as examples to establish a broader concept. Of course, the limitations to what does and doesn't fall into these categories is a kind of subjective one, but I think I'm pretty safe in saying that an "advanced technique" falls outside of this, and thus not within the purpose of the section. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::@Guy, Link's pretty ambiguous about this. There's been references to inclusion in either "tournaments" or "gameplay". ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:(un-indent) Well, given we write for the average reader, and not the average gaming reader, I'm inclined to not include it in either "Gameplay" or "Tournaments". However, it sounds like it could be included with the right wording in the development section. Just a thought. (] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
::Ashnard, your reasoning has one flaw - it would entail that it cannot be notable, under any circumstances, even if it somehow gained notoriety to the average reader. Being advanced does not constitute being "too advanced". What it is does not matter, so long as it is notable, and I've established notability with two sources used in the article already. - ] ] 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:::It is ] of high significance (to Melee anyway; it was removed from Brawl with the removal of L-canceling), and was presumed to be a flaw in the game engine. I could conceivably see it used in the development section to point out that the engine does (did) have flaws, or something to that effect. --] (]) 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that if it's an advanced technique, the only mention it should have in the article is if it's provably of major significance to the industry or culture as a whole. (For example, '']'' has a cheat technique known as "lurking" that enables players to safely play indefinitely and score huge points. That could arguably be called an advanced technique, but it is mentioned there because it's also a very significant point about the game, and more importantly, its impact on the industry.) However, as described, this "wavedashing" technique does not sound like it has that sort of impact, especially since it had already been introduced in earlier games. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::#It's mentioned in ], the biggest tournament host in the industry, and they described it as the most advanced technique in the game. They say it's known to casual gamers and competitive gamers alike, and NP found it of interest to ask Sakurai about. I don't see why lurking is so much more important.
:::#Also, it is not a game flaw; it was not intended, but Sakurai did not consider it a flaw. He stated it was removed to balance the game out more. I mean, if Sakurai considers it significant enough to unbalance the game enough to remove it in the sequel, it seems like it's pretty notable. - ] ] 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::While I can't argue that two mentions in interviews help establish its notability, the placement of such information is what makes this awkward. Unless the technique has in some way change industry standards and/or the practice of tournaments, I don't see it garnering anything more than a brief mention with little to no details. But depending on the wording, it could fit into the "Development section. (] <sup>]</sup> 22:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
:::::It's done pretty well to change Tournaments - in fact, the source used to say that it's known outside of hardcore circles also says that it's "changed the face of tournaments". - ] ] 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Did they say more than just that? Like how it's changed tournaments? (] <sup>]</sup> 22:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
:::::::But again, as with whole Ken Hoang fiasco, this is not the point of the tournaments section. That section is a very brief one discussing the impact of Melee's tournaments. To discuss it would be going on off on a tangent. By reference to "development", I don't see how that could work, especially since the source in question is actually talking about ''Brawl''. Besides that, what does it actually have to do with "development"? ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It does not say how it changed them. It merely stated that it was "so influential to competitive play that even Nintendo Power acknowledged it". However, I see no reason to assume that they would pull our legs about it being influential, since they seem to be a reliable published source.
:::::::So, you want to actually provide a reason why tournaments have to only discuss the impact of Melee tournaments? At what point does probably the most defining aspect of tournament play in Melee's history not have any relevance to its impact? I have a source that states that it defines tournament play, and yet it's irrelevant to tournament play's impact?
:::::::And at what point is it not about Melee? They said that they were aware of wavedashing during the development. Are you saying that that wasn't about Melee? - ] ] 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone actually define Wavedashing real quick? I read the brief version in the Wavedashing "article" that existed before it was changed into a redirect to SSBM, so if I were to base my recommendation on that alone, I'd say it's totally insignificant and doesn't even impact gameplay in a major way. The conversation above seems to say otherwise, so could someone point me to someplace that actually talks about this technique and what its impact on gaming as a whole is? Thanks. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Is anyting of interest in the Nintendo mag response beyond the fact that its mentioned? Does Sakurai comment on it anymore, if you could expand upon the impact of the move as opposed to the move itself, like why it was removed. I dont think saying "balancing" is enough, since its a sequel and lots of balancing probably took place. Otherwise I dont think its ] enough and probably ]. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 22:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Ashnard- Ok, I think I'm getting up to speed now. If it isn't mentioned in regard to ''Melee''{{'}}s development, then no, I don't see a reason why it should be included in ''Melee''. Any mention in development should be confined to ''Brawl''. Unless there's a strong impact to the tournaments, then I'm still on the fence until I get more info. (] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
::::::::::Thanks. One note, by mentioning things beyond the very general impact between ''Melee'' an tournaments, then that would be opening the flood gates to the inclusion of every notable, player, highscore, event and development of the tournaments scene. Again, this is not the purpose of the section. Thanks. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sakurai stated that it was removed for balancing - he didn't reference anything else besides that. Wavedashing being mentioned in particular as unbalancing the game makes it more notable than any other unbalancing.
:::::::::::And this here explains what Wavedashing is: . It doesn't have to impact gaming itself, only the game in question. - ] ] 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::And Ashnard, I am still curious as to how it's not referencing Melee. Sakurai knew of it during development? You either were simply not telling the truth, or you're saying that he's talking about Brawl's development.
:::::::::::And since when are you the judge of what's "too much"? Arguably, 100% of all content that we knew, know, and ever will know "opens the flood gates for more information to be added". Why do you get to draw the line and say "tournaments are fine, but the #1. defining element of tournaments is not!"? - ] ] 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::No one here can define what the number one element of a tournament is, however if you had a reference that said something like that...all it needs is more out of universe information. Impact it had on reception maybe? <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be short, but i'm getting tired of linking to MLG constantly because no one is reading my messages when I link to it, where I link to it almost right above your post, and I've constantly mentioned MLG having said it. - ] ] 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You linked it saying its an explanation of what Wavedashing is...so I didnt read it since I know. Sorry. and having looked at it, that in my opinion actually supports the idea that it mite be ], despite its mention (not exactly extensive coverage) in articles. But thats just my opinion. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Why? Because it has a guide? If IGN made a guide and, for some reason, mentioned the game's sales figures, does what it is prevent it from being used? And it doesn't HAVE to be extensive coverage to be adequate coverage. One sentence that asserts enough notability as directed by all relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines can and will not be denied because of not being "extensive". You're basically excluding it because "the coverage of its notability wasn't big enough". I've proven that it wasn't a game flaw, or unintended, or trivial, so what makes it fancruft? - ] ] 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I dont believe that this satisfies ], more precisely, the source does not "address the subject directly in detail". No problem with the general topic of the source being a gameguide by the way. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Saying it's the most influential subject in something that is apparently notable is probably notable. Can you provide any reason, any reason whatsoever, why Nintendo Power would ask about something not notable? Tournaments are important to SSBM, so why doesn't something that defines tournaments get to be called important? - ] ] 23:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

===Un-indent break===
(unindent) Im not saying its not notable, im saying its coverage is. Notability is derived from coverage(here anyway), and I do not feel the league site (the nature of which detracts from its own coverage since they host the tournaments in question I believe.) and Nintendo Power alone provide enough. And yes, magazines are full of things which could be considered ], even in interviews. By there nature they are appealing to gamers, to whome this is of more interest. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:It's not my burden to establish that what these reliable published sources are saying isn't fancruft - that'd be your burden, to establish that it is fancruft. There's no reason to assume, by default, that it's fancruft. Why is this content fancruft now? This content was mentioned by NP and Sakurai and Major League Gaming in a context of importance. Sakurai was aware that the ability to do this was in the game during development, was aware of what it was called. NP thought it important to mention, and MLG, the #1. host of tournaments in gaming and a notable source, said that it was the most influential aspect of competitive play. And do you have any sources that would establish that something said by NP is likely to be guide content? - ] ] 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::I would have thought it is your burden to prove ] though? Concerning NP, no, nor do i need to in this case. Im not saying the fact that magazines generally do only have info which would be of interest to fans is the reason it shouldnt be included, just saying that I do not believe it is sufficient. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 00:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::Also, cant see where it says it is the most influential aspect of tournaments. I think you are extrapolating from the source. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 00:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:::"This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Are you saying it's not covered by reliable secondary source?
:::And if by extrapolating, you mean reading, then yes, I am totally doing that. "Wavedashing has become so influential in defining competitive play that even the writers at Nintendo Power know of its existence. Given this, Wavedashing seems to be the appropriate place to start." It's not the exact same wording, but if it wasn't the most influential aspect of tournament play, then why would they cover it before every other aspect of tournament play, citing the reason for doing so how influential it is? - ] ] 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::::The fact that you need to explain how it is the '''most''' influential based upon this article indicates extrapolation. And read more of the ] page, where it goes into specifics. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Wow. Ok, this is getting out of hand and we're debating finer details while many involved (myself for example) don't know why. Link, what exactly do you want included in the article, where, and in what capacity? (] <sup>]</sup> 00:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
::::::Yeah I got the feeling we were starting to move in circles...ah I love wikipedia. :) Concerning the issue, I'd say it could be added, just more sources on effect(or is it affect...I never know), in tournaments or something. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (Oh...and damn you guy, I was enjoying my nice healthy debate at two in the morning! :p ) <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, just so you know, they don't make the nutshell template so that people can read a false statement about the guideline. There is nothing at any point that ever suggests I should not use the reasoning in the nutshell. Why should we not presume it's notable when it says we should? And fine, you win - I'll ammend MY statement - it's one of the most influential, with no other technique in the entire series' history having as much documentation or assertion of notability as this. I hope you feel like you just won the battle of the century - because correcting something, resulting in no change whatsoever in the argument, is such a big deal. That doesn't change the fact that MLG ranked it higher than any other aspect of tournaments in the article. I have gone head over heels to establish notability. You say to read into WP:N more, and I find "it's presumed notable unless it violates WP:NOT." Wanna say what it violates? And detail? At what point is there no detail in the interview? That establishes NP's knowledge of the technique and the developer's knowledge of the technique. MLG adds to this, establishing how important the technique is to the game. Reliable? If NP and MLG aren't reliable, does that mean that Ashnard found them notable when featuring SSBM, but not notable in this one case? Just because NP didn't do some mega-blow out article about Wavedashing doesn't mean the coverage wasn't "substantial." The fact of the matter is that both of the reliable published sources cover it in detail. Both articles assert notability.
::::::Now, do you have any reason not to include? I'm pretty sure some difference of opinion of what is substantial enough to warrant being called substantial - and that being the ONLY reasoning you have to not include, is not much to say that those sources are not "objective evidence" to assume notability. - ] ] 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, maybe if you stopped making fake guidelines to support your case, we'd be done by now, huh? And why the Hell do we need more sources? Why is MLG not enough? You have never ever '''EVER''' gave any reason why we should have multiple GOOD SOURCES. As in, they could say the same thing, but apparently, the best source for tournament information isn't a good enough source for tournament information? - ] ] 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Mate, was just discussing it with you and saying what I thought, sorry if you thought I went to far, at no point did I say or mean I was gonna go in there and change it. As for the nutshell part, just referring to "sources address the subject directly in detail". Anyway, happy editing. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:(un-indent) I still feel in the dark about this. I don't want to throw around opinions and policies without fully knowing what is to be included and in what section. Also, if we're going to go into details, perhaps this should move back to the article talk page. (] <sup>]</sup> 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Wow, I cannot believe I read all that. I'll summarise the main objections to its inclusion and respond to them. Then I will provide my only concern about its inclusion.<br/>
• Objection 1: <sub><i>"it is of no use to anybody beyond the hardcore"</sub></i>
Misplaced Pages is ]; just because casual players don't use it does not mean it should be excluded, because the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to teach those who wish to know how to play a game, but inform them about various aspects of it. Therefore, its utility to the general population is irrelevant.

• Objection 2: <sub><i>"Let's debate what it does contribute, which is virtually nil to anybody beyond the hardcore."</i></sub>
The mistake here is the presumption that people who do not use or do something are necessarily not interested in it. I, for example, have only played SSBM casually and yet I was interested enough in reading about this technique that I googled and read other wikis.

• Objection 3: <sub><i>"we write for the average reader, and not the average gaming reader, I'm inclined to not include it in either "Gameplay" or "Tournaments"."</sub></i>
If "advanced techniques" are of no interest, then neither are the groups that use them, so the Tournaments section should be removed too. But you're writing to those who would be your audience. For a game article, that's people who own or are interested in the game—probably gamers. The non-gamer who has only a passing interest can read the lead section and go along their way because the rest of the article will be of little interest anyway.

• Objection 4: <sub><i>"by mentioning things beyond the very general impact between Melee an tournaments, then that would be opening the flood gates to the inclusion of every notable, player, highscore, event and development of the tournaments scene."</sub></i>
Its importance to tournaments is that it's become a must-know move if you enter tournies. Knowing players, high scores, past tournies dates, etc. is not required to be competitive. No slippery slope.

• Objection 5: <sub><i>].</sub></i>
Fancruft is not a guideline or policy, so it can't be an argument for exclusion. It's a good thing it isn't a guideline, because it would have very negative implications across Wiki and undermine the entire purpose of it! There are a lot of underrated video games that very few people know about, let alone have played. Only serious fans of the company or genre, or professionals in the industry have played them. But the articles on them shouldn't be deleted because Wik was founded for the very purpose of allowing the inclusion of more specialised and detailed info than could be included in print encyclopedias.

• Objection 6: <sub><i>].</sub></i>
Sakurai noted that it needed to be removed to balance the gameplay. And a cursory google search turns up bitter arguments between players, some alleging that it is exploitation of a glitch and is therefore cheating, some alleging that it ruins the fun for less hardcore players... suffice it to say, in was generally perceived to unbalance gameplay and even if a casual player was not interested in learning the technique, they're very likely to have been affected by others using it while playing with them, given the technique's popularity and contentiousness.

As for addressing the subject directly in detail, the notability page is written to determine whether a "topic" should be included on Wiki. The threshold for "in detail" is a lot lower for a mention within an article on a topic than it is for the topic itself. It's a good thing that elements for inclusion in an article do not require too much detail, or else it would be impossible to include anything within an article unless it required an article of its own! That it is addressed succinctly by NP is all the more reason to include it, because it means it can be dealt with swiftly in the article, without seriously lengthening it or getting too much weight.

• My concern: I would like to see what text is being considered for inclusion. As long as it is not too long, I am absolutely for its inclusion as I can see no reasonable objections to it. ]<sub>]</sub> 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

:After having read about the technique, I agree as well: It seems notable and important enough to warrant a mention with respect to tournaments. I don't think including it necessarily means we have to mention all other techniques as well, but it may be worth mentioning in a general sense that players have discovered ways to exploit the game's engine to gain a competitive advantage. In a way, this is similar to '']''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> speedruns. I think mentioning the term "wavedashing" specifically might cause some issues with "too much detail / gameguide / slippery slope", as it will probably require a considerable amount of explanation either directly or via a link. But I'd recommend a more general statement along the lines of this:

:{{cquote|While ''Melee'' has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, advanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's engine, often giving them a competitive advantage in tournaments. (Possible: Some of these exploits, such as "wavedashing", have been removed in ''Brawl''.)}}

:This is just a preliminary suggestion, but I think it would allow us to mention "advanced techniques" in a way that is interesting to the casual reader. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

::Yikes. Time to address some misconceptions. Here we go:
*Notability&mdash;please, this applies to the article's topic only, and does not dictate content. Perhaps the relevant links would be ], ] and ].
*Objection 1 of Cc: Its utility to the general audience is relevant. You've misinterpreted it as me talking about in the gameplay-sense exclusively. I can't speak for the general audience, but how is an advanced technique of any encyclopaedic value? On the furthest stretch of desperation, you could make an argument for cramming it into "tournaments", but this is not the purpose of the section.
*Objection 2: Good for you. But by your definition, I could add in the special moves of my favourite character, merely because I find it interesting. But again, I can't speak for everyone when I say that it's minutia.
*Objection 3: No, no, no. The "tournamnets" section exists to establish the game's impact on the scene and nothing else beyond this. The exception to this is the Ken statement, but that '''never''' should have been put in. Justification by example isn't the best either. Hah, so we should cater to the hardcore because the casual reader only reads the lead&mdash;how many policies are you contradicting there?
*Objection 4: But this is not the purpose of the section. By definition of others' arguments, it has an ''impact'' on the tournaments. Then by the wonderful example, everything that has had an "impact" should be included. My limited knowledge knows that this list could be very long. This isn't my main argument, though.
*Objection 5: No, but ] is a guideline. If we couldn't use it as an argument, then it would be completely redundant. As for your Misplaced Pages "philosophy" if you can call it that, well...what can I say?
*Objection 6: You're only setting some vague criteria of inclusion without saying how this information meets that, except from "I'm a casual gamer, and I like it".
To KieferSkunk, I've seen this before on WP:VG. If we find information that is ambiguous in its relevance, we like to coat this by wording in it in a way that seems to extend its relevance and impact. It's the same thing, there is no justification, but we include it as an example to establish a somewhat broader concept to appease its advocate who for some questionable reason fights tooth-and-nail to include. Anyway, I thought you wanted some sort of cultural impact to warrant inclusion? My big sentiment is that we shouldn't include things for the sake of inclusion. When things come up, we shouldn't try to accommodate something where it has no place. And please, before anyone suggests, don't look for "compromise", look for what's actually good for the article. Thanks. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
: re: 1. Sorry for misinterpreting what you meant by "use". It's of encyclopedic value when it is notable. It is.
: re: 2. No, now you've made the mistaken assumption that my refutation of objection 2 was my grounds for supporting its inclusion. It is not. I am merely systematically eliminating objections. I would assert that it does contribute something to those beyond the hardcore—not that this is enough to justify its inclusion, but it's enough to eliminate opposition on those grounds.
: re: 3. Indeed. "The scene" is for the hardcore. If no techniques used by the hardcore are to be included because it's only of concern to them, then why should the impact of the game on their scene be included? Both can be construed as only information of "use" to advanced/hardcore/elite players. I am not contradicting policies. I am asking you to consider the implication if the non-gaming reader's interests were to be taken into consideration.
: re: 4. Merely having an impact—how vague— is oversimplifying things. It's the kind of impact it has, and the slippery slope of things you listed have a different quality of impact than this technique. Hell, I doubt if you could even find notable sources like NP listing that info.
: re: 5. ] means that WP is not a game guide. ALttP already stated that he's "established that it can be written without teaching the player how to perform the technique in any scenario"—an assertion you did not challenge. All that is required by this guideline is that he describe wavedashing without "explaining how to execute using the controller". If he can do this, then this guideline is not a valid means of objection.
:re:6. I had an extra paragraph detailing all my reasons, but I found it repetitive and obnoxious to make people read more so I deleted it. It should be included because: A. it is of interest to those beyond hardcore gamers because i) just because people don't do something doesn't mean they aren't interested in it AND ii) they are likely to have encountered others using the technique on them in a match and so it affected them directly so they might hold negative opinions about the technique (since it is noted for unbalancing gameplay) or be interested in reading what it was. AND B. I see no guideline regulating the inclusion of content based on who is interested in the info. I instead see guidelines for that purpose based on notability. AND C. It is notable because i) noteworthy, reliable sources have reported on it AND ii) it is a required technique in tournies AND iii) it has been a source of controversy on whether it is a 'glitch' and whether exploiting it is fair play AND iv) it was so grand in the scale of its consequences that special attention was paid to eliminate it in making the sequel. AND D. There remain no objections besides how much weight it should be given in the article. As long as the mention is short and concise, I am in favour. If it isn't, let's work it down to a manageable size. Then worry about where to include it. ]<sub>]</sub> 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses:
*1: What do you mean by notable? If by this, you're referrring to ], then you're mistaken as this applies to the article's topic only.
*2: But how is your personal experience enought to discount this? In terms of using it to establish "gameplay", I believe it would be of no interest to the general audience, and I don't think your statement discounts this, although I cannot necessarily prove my original claim. When talking about "tournaments", it's a whole different ball game, but inappropriate for other reasons.
*3: The tournament section was written explicitly to factor in the legacy of SSBM in relation to tournaments. The section does not cover the "scene" but establishes the game's influence on tournament development. Again, the only statement that deviates from this purpose is the Ken statement, which shouldn't be there.
*4: Actually, there's a slew of sources that cover the "scene" in great detail. By using this as a precedent, I would not be able to deny further coverage, but again, the section is sub-section within "legacy". It is only there to convey the game's legacy. I don't know what you mean by saying it has a different impact. There are many reliable sources that cover factors that affect the tournaments much in the vain of Wavedashing.
*5: From the guideline that you know so much about: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." Of course this applies mainly to the notion of explaining it as a factor in "gameplay".
*A: How is it of interest. You could only ever try to find a way of pronouncing the impact on tournaments, but that is not what the section is for.
*Ai and ii: But these are all nuances of the gaming audience. To say that it has been used against you is not a plausible context for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.
*B: I've provided that guideline, although there is more coverage about audience issues. Writing for a general audience is one of the fundamental aspects os the encyclopaedia.
*C: i) Reliable sources reporting on something doesn't make it automatcially worthy of inclusion. Reliable sources report on winners and losers, but that's never going to go in this article. ii) To report on techniques in matches is to lose focus. I expect that there is a favourite character of choice there, but this article will never report on such nuances. iii) Controversy? Please, some forumers probably started moaning. From the evidence, there is no major controversy.
Finally, the proposal to write about and then figure out where to put it epitomises the whole attitudes raised here. Just putting it in for the sake of inclusion, without thought of what it actually contributes. Thanks. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 10:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::Regarding point three, I'd like to point out that I said that without knowing much about the debate. I said "inclined" because that's my general rule of thumb when dealing with precise gameplay details. However, I do believe there are exceptions. Having said that, I still think we're going off on a tangent.
::Regarding Kiefer's suggestion, "While Melee has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, advanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's engine, often giving them a competitive advantage in tournaments." It sounds reasonable, but I would tweak it a bit. "<s>While Melee has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, a</s><font color="#CC0000">A</font>dvanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's engine<s>, often giving them</s><font color="#CC0000">to obtain</font> a competitive advantage in tournaments."
::I personally don't see any reason to mention the technique by name in ''Melee''. However, it seems appropriate to mention it by name in the development section of ''Brawl''. Any thoughts? (] <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

:'''Ashnard:''' I disagree that the proposal is there just to appease the person who wants to include the text in the first place. I'm not attempting to appease anyone - I'm saying that I agree there is sufficient ground to actually include this statement - the SSBM engine is flexible and varied enough that it lends itself to many different styles of play, and not very many games can claim that. Again, I cite ] and the concept of speed runs. If we can mention speed runs in the Super Metroid article, we should also be able to mention the fact that there are well-known exploits available in SSBM. I don't see the harm in doing so, it violates no policy or guideline that I'm aware of (even given the detailed point-by-point arguments above), and it helps to broaden the scope of the article.
:Think of it this way: An average non-gamer may not necessarily be interested in reading about HOW to perform a wavedash, or what specifically it allows him to do, but knowing that it's possible in THIS game specifically might increase his interest in the game itself. We do have to consider multiple levels of readership here, not just the lowest common denominator. I think the biggest challenge in this particular case is figuring out the most appropriate place to insert the comment. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

:Re point 2 Ashnard: You seem to be arguing the same way others have argued (other than Clickety) in that while arguing for its non-inclusion, you have already decided it doesn't need to go in the article, based on your own prejudices about the information's value. You are not (nor is any other person) the judge of that; ] information is. I honestly think Kiefer's middle-of the road approach is the way to go here, as it's a general statement that allows for expansion if someone deems it needs to be. Naturally, such a statement would need to be made in the development section. --] (]) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

::You know what, whatever&mdash;do what you guys want. I've got thirteen GCSEs to revise for and I can't be doing with this. I've wrote the article to include what is relevant based on the guidelines, and now that's twice some ranting user has came there, yelled the loudest and has forced something that has no place in the article. I guess that's taught me to try and make something of a popular game. To Kiefer, by definition of your "explanation", this article nor any other article on the project would be what it is if we were to take that stance. We seem to include things on the basis that they may be of interest to some fringe minority in the world, and then all we need is a source and an exaggerated rationale-effect and then it's in the article. But nobody batters an eyelid because it "does no harm". A bit melodramatic I know, but it's just so annoying. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:::To Izno&mdash;bollocks to middle-of-the-road. The merest sign of ambiguity and people look to something "middle-of-the-road" -like because they don't want to commit one way or the other. The worst thing is that something that doesn't dismiss one party exclusively for the sake of curtailing Wikidrama is always viewed as the best option. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::::You basically try to strong arm me by telling me I don't have enough throughout this whole conversation and try to dominate by simply blocking the text from being added (knowing that the one opposing the text has the advantage), but when you realize people have more sense than to let you use strong arm tactics on them, you just throw in the towel. You keep making up your own personal, POV, OR, biased assessment that it's "only of relevance to a small group of people". If you find that annoying try dealing with someone who clings to imaginary guidelines.
::::And Ashnard, Notability DOES work for me. You've never suggested that it fails notability - merely it's not in a position to pass or fail it. If you are so adamant on opposing its usage of WP:N for being in the article, let's say that I want to make an article on Wavedashing. Are you saying it does not pass WP:N? Of course it can't be an article just for passing WP:N as it would be very short, but if it can pass WP:N, then theoretically, it's one step closer to having an article. And in essence, ALL articles are "the contents of articles". So if it can pass the guideline to bring it one step closer to being its own article, then it is certainly notable enough to be mentioned in ANOTHER article. - ] ] 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::If you are arguing about something's inclusion in an article, and then you talk about a guideline applicable to the article's topic only, then the proceeding "logic" is immaterial. You can't criss-cross policies this way to justify your argument. For that reason, I've never argued about its Notability because it isn't applicable. But, as a matter of principles, it fails it anyway because a passing reference in NP and the tournament's site does not count as "significant coverage". ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

===Arbitrary section break===
You are continuing to misunderstand what I say, Ashnard. I won't get into detail per Guyinblack's observation that we're on a tangent, as well it seems to be getting hostile (I'll peg it as stress of exams.) If you really want to know, I can spam up your talk page, but this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As Kiefer and Izno noted, what's relevant are the guidelines and policies, in order to avoid ], which warns: <i>"what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there is no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted... Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as cruft. While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential."</i>

You're correct in saying that ] is really written for topics, not facts for inclusion, but that really only strengthens my argument, seeing as I had to make that distinction in defense of inclusion. What's left to consider? It is ] because it has a ] source. ] is not valid grounds for opposition because it pertains to <b>lists</b> of info and because it <i>"does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations."</i> Neither is ], because it applies to representing <b>perspectives</b> on an issue fairly. ] is subject to the caveats of ] and whether <i>"content only has value to people actually playing the game"</i> is hard to determine, except by the list of unsuitable content, and as long as we can avoid <i>"explaining how to execute using the controller is not"</i>, then we're golden. On that note, I'll turn to Guyinblack's edit of Kiefer's suggestion.

"<s>While Melee has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, a</s><font color="#CC0000">A</font>dvanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's <font color="#005ac0">physics</font> engine<s>, often giving them</s><font color="#CC0000">to obtain</font> a competitive advantage in tournaments. <font color="#005ac0">While exploits such as wavedash were discovered during development, they were omitted from '']'' in order to "level the playing field" because Nintendo noted that these exploits were the cause of "a growing gap between beginners and advanced players" in ''Melee'', according to ].</font>"

<b>Note: we will not make a move to insert this information until you are finished your exams and have ample time to respond, Ashnard, because ]. Don't feel pressure to respond now. Do well on your exams and we'll have a finalised version of the proposed text ready for you to look over when you can afford to.</b> ]<sub>]</sub> 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a straw poll if the issue is not resolved soon. Without any personal attack meant, discussions with clicketyclick can be rather tiring due to a lack of conciseness, and it would be a shame to exclude anyone from the ''consensus''-building because of this rather 'administrative' side effect. On a broader note, I think that a survey akin to the ] would be beneficial on the general subject of "gamecruft"/"useful in-depth discussion of the gameplay". ] (] ]) 20:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

:Krator, do you mean like a "support" or "oppose/object" thing? If so...
:'''Oppose:''' Besides all my arguments, none of the advocates actually know where to put the information, which doesn't reflect well upon intentions in my opinion. After all, the info should be based upon the pupose of the section itself, so I don't know how writing and then choosing sections is supposed to work. Anyway, I digress: it is of no use in "gameplay" considering gameplay is only described in a very general sense, and this would be setting a precedent for other nuances. It shouldn't go in "development" since it is unrelated to development unless in the ''Brawl'' article. To include it in "tournament" is to lose focus of the section and to deviate from its purpose, which is to establish' Melee's legacy only. The only evidence we have that it's more than an advanced technique is its impact on the tournaments, which the article does not cover in any detail. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 21:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:No personal attack meant, yet you single me out from among all the participants as the cause of this continued discussion and exclusion of others from consensus-building, despite my ] to make sure all can participate. However, I do seem to recall that the only time you've encountered me, you attempted to exclude dissenting voices by means of deleting an entire discussion and referring back to an informally proposed one, in which three people agreed, as established consensus on the issue, which any further discussion would be upturning. No personal attack meant.
:'''Support:''' Per my explanation of the need to avoid ], which informs ], which is wholly satisfied by even this early draft of the text for inclusion. As well, it is ] because it has a ] source. These are the guidelines and policies dictating inclusion of info and it meets all criteria. It can fit into either Gameplay or Development. Precedent for "nuances"—whatever those are—are not set by articles, as each time the issue comes up, the guidelines and policies are the things referred to. Brawl is only mentioned in passing to indicate the conclusions Nintendo drew about gameplay in Melee. It fits in Dev because it mentions a 'glitch' noted during development. It fits in Gameplay because it contains Nintendo's perceptions of flaws with Melee's gameplay. Hell, it could go in Reception as criticism that Nintendo leveled against itself. That the location hasn't yet been decided upon is not sufficient grounds to fundamentally oppose insertion.]<sub>]</sub> 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

::That a location hasn't been decided on wasn't my main argument, and I think I made that explicitly clear. By the way, precedent is set by articles. If an interpretation of a guideline leads to a piece of information's inclusion, then that will be held as an example. People assume that the original inclusion was justified, so they think using that as an example is a great argument, and most won't disagree. For example, when KieferSkunk tried to use Super Metroid's speedrunning as an example in favour of wavedashing's inclusion. The information about Brawl's development should be reserved for Brawl. You can't allude to some strange synthesis like "they removed it to balance it in Brawl, so that must mean Melee was unbalanced". I don't know what you mean by "glitch" because it apparently wasn't a glitch, so please explain. To say that it's preceived flaws in Melee's gameplay again is original synthesis, and it wouldn't go in gameplay too. "Gameplay" comments on gameplay, and not rationales or consequences of features, even though again, you couldn't use the claim. Mainly, you can't interpret it as a critcism. All series undergo development, and if we were to comment on existing features in Melee by merit of alterations in Brawl, then that would be losing focus. The predecessor-successor relation doesn't work like that in articles. Thanks. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 08:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::What is your argument then, in light of my response about policies and guidelines? Regardless of the Metroid example, Kiefer's main argument was that it violated no policies and guidelines. There is no strange synthesis: <i>"With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, "OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?" We really just wanted this game, again, to appeal to and be played by gamers of all different levels. We felt that there was a growing gap between beginners and advanced players, and taking that out helps to level the playing field."</i> (Sakurai's words.) Glitch was in ]. Discussion of where it goes can take place later as we all agree that it is irrelevant to this argument. 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ]<sub>]</sub> 17:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Whether it violates any guidelines or policies is, to some extent, dependent on its usage, which is somewhat counterproductive for this debate. For example, if it was used in "gameplay", I could conclusively say that it does, per ]. That it violates no policies or guidelines explicitly in this context is why we're discussing this&mdash;otherwise no discussion would be required. I think it's dependent on users' interpretation of relevance, and what is or is not conducive to an article. But again, not specifying how the information is going to be used/placed is limiting how this can develop, because that makes such a difference. At this point, I can't see its relevance in any context within the article, as explained above. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::What part of gamecruft, precisely? And you are opposing it at the outset on the grounds that you can't see where it would be placed before efforts have really been made to write the thing. As it currently stands, it is two short sentences. Since you agree this comes down to different ideas of relevance, is it really worth such adamant opposition and this whole discussion? Why don't we stop this tiresome discussion over whether it shouldn't be allowed outright and turn to productively attempting to write it and figure out how to fit it in. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::But I can only be as tenacious as the opposing debater for it to continue. For ], "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." would, in my interpretation, exclude it in the context of the explaining the game's gameplay. By the way, I have '''never''' said that I opposed on them grounds, only that it is seriously limiting how the debate can develop, and essentially, what we are debating. Its length and the fact that it will add content to the article is irrelevant towards the rationale for inclusion. Thanks. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::If that were some sort of "ending rule", then it wouldn't be a guideline. It would be a policy. There's tons of precedence to show high quality articles featuring similar content. - ] ] 23:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== WikiProject Arcade Games ==

Heads up: There's currently an effort underway to increase membership and participation in ], which could/should be considered a subset of ]. The original members of that project that are still active are asking for other people to sign up and help out. I believe the project could provide a more specific focus on arcade games, so I've put myself on the active list. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:That's good. They were next on the clean up list after the Dragon Quest project. We can hold off on examining them to give them time to get the project going again. (] <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

== OGame nominated for Deletion ==

Incase anyone is interested, i have nominated ] for deletion. Discussion ]. Thanks. <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

== Proposed redirect ==

I propose redirecting ] to ] as the former simply regurgitates the latter exactly and therefore serves no useful purpose and is unnecessary. It is also too short to be a standalone guideline article and there's no reason why any possible links couldn't just redirect to the section on the Article Guidelines page. ''']]]''' 11:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

:I agree - there doesn't really seem to be a reason to keep it on a second page. It seems like it would be a pain to edit since the main guideline article includes the naming article with <nowiki>{{/Naming}}</nowiki>. --] (]) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

== Organization of video game genre articles: three merge proposals ==

For a quick overview of the organization of all the video game genre articles, see this template:

{{VideoGameGenre}}

There's a lot of unnecessary articles with limited / bad information. So I'd like to draw your attention to three proposals:

* Merge ], ], ] and ] into ''']'''. In a nutshell, shoot 'em up covers all the information and these other articles just get into unnecessary detail about viewpoint/perspective. (])

* Merge ] into ''']''' and ''']'''. This is really a minor distinction that hasn't been written about extensively. Probably because it can be summed up in a sentence. (])

* Merge ] and ], but split out the video game information from the academic information. These articles are a mess, probably because the scope of each article is unclear. (])

Take a quick glance at the articles and discussions to get a sense for why these mergers might be necessary. I'd like to build a consensus to organize this creep of unnecessary genre articles. ] (]) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:I say go for it. The genre articles are growing to ridiculous proportions. Just last week we had to delete "Cartoon Shooter" or something like that. What's next? "Bear and bird action platformers with shiny golden puzzle thingys"? ''']]]''' 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

:: You'd be doing me a big favor if you echoed that sentiment at the three respective discussion pages. I want to have something to point to in case I run into an edit war with people reverting the merges. ] (]) 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== Turn Based RPGS ==

There seems that there is not an article on yirn based RPG's. Examples are Blue Dragon which is a turn based RPG. I think an article should be made, what do you guys think?]]<sup> Go ] </sup> 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

: I'm not sure there's any real value to having RPGs categorized based on real time versus turn based. Do other scholars/journalists talk about them along these lines? I know there's a lot of talk about different combat systems in RPGs. But I think it's already covered at ]. ] (]) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

==Sonic the Hedgehog characters==
Can people please, please, please comment? For some reason, people can easily comment on the existence of one article or the inclusion of two sentences in another article, but the existence of ] gets two comments at most. Those articles are pretty much all messes with no potential. Only seven articles (], ], ], ], ], ], and ]) and seven character lists (], ] characters, ] characters, ], ], ], and ] characters) are necessary, give or take one or two.

That's the basic plan, but if someone want to change it, that's fine. The main thing is that it gets started, and the only way that will happen is if people will comment. It won't take that many, but It'll take more than the two or three that usually do so. ] (]) 12:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:I think the best way is to nominate these for deletion one by one over the course of a few months. Takes a long time, but will avoid any problems like last time a noble cause as this was pursued with too much zeal. ] (] ]) 12:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::I doubt that would end up working correctly. Some may end up redirected/deleted, but all of the usual complications will eventually pile up on them. If you want to do it for some of the minor comic characters, that may be fine, but any that are "major" or appear in multiple pieces of media will be shot down pretty quickly. It's really only three or four actual users opposing it, so as long as there is a number consensus here, and the actual mergers are done slowly, it should work out. ] (]) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

:Can I suggest taking this to ], making sure to announce here and to the Sonic articles/project that it is there? There's a couple reasons, one being that it is part of a dispute resolution (even if there's a handful that want to keep them, overwhelming with numbers is not really the greatest idea). The second being is that this will be a good test of a recent addition to WP:FICT on non-notable character lists and how they should be organized - the Sonic fandom is large enough to have several spinoff medium but doesn't lack the huge background of materia like Star Wars. --] 13:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::You can if you would like. So far, not enough people have bothered with it to make a difference in any discussion. If you want to get the people from the FICT discussion in on it, that may work. ] (]) 13:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:Could you list the usernames of those who oppose this redirection here please? ] (] ]) 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::I thought there were more, but I guess it's just ], ], ], and a few anons that commented once. ] (]) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::: Wilhelm's not currently active, as it happens. I don't think RedPheonix is opposed to merging certain of the characters also.] (]) 14:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a chat with Fairfieldfencer after ] ends. ] (] ]) 14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you beg for comments, here's mine: Weren't you ] from requesting merges, redirections, or deletions of character articles? And before anyone tries to claim it doesn't apply to VG characters, note that ] is in the list. ]] 15:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:That's through the use of tags. I'm still able to use talk pages according to that. At least, that's what I'm able to get from it. I commented on a request for clarification, but they haven't bothered to respond. ] (]) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== Request for assistance in expanding a new article ==

As part of working on adding sources to ], I found that I could include a link to ] (a 1990 game), which to my surprise was a redirect to its 1994 sequel. I threw together an article with the development and reception information from my source and one other I found in a quick search for an infobox image. If anyone is interested, it could use a Gameplay section and critical reviews added to Reception. It could also use a slightly better infobox image if anyone can take one. ]] 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== <nowiki>{{vgrelease}}</nowiki> ==

I know this has been brought up before, but I have not seen any concrete decision regarding chronology. I know that dates should be grouped by platform and then by country, but does it matter what order the countries are in? Is it better to just have one translusion of {{tl|vgrelease}} where the dates are not chronological, or have multiple translusions so the dates are? I personally think that chronology is important, but one translusion is better. A recommendation I have is to change {{tl|vgrelease}} so that the order that the parameters are given are the order that the dates show up. The best way I can think of doing this would be to create subtemplates (i.e <nowiki>{{vgrelease/NA}}</nowiki> which would be <nowiki><small><sup>]</sup></small></nowiki>), and have the main template translude whichever subtemplate is needed (i.e <nowiki>{{vgrelease/{{{1}}}</nowiki>). ] (]) 01:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:I feel that setting the order of the Release Date field in concrete would be a bad thing. At the moment we have the flexibility to group varying dates by platform, if dates were displayed in strict chronological order we would end up with the platform being repeated numerous times for quite a few articles. Some articles format better when chronological ordering is used but other articles format better when grouped by platform and then chronological order. I think we should keep the flexibility of having that option. I also think that having multiple templates for different occasions will make it harder for passing casual editors to add information. - ] (]) 08:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::I think what I said originally was not very clear. I think that the current guidelines of sorting by platform first should be kept, but the template should be changed so that the dates can be chronological within each platform, with one call to the template per platform. The user would not be using different templates, only the template itself would be. For example, a release date of May 8, 2008 in North America and a release date of May 10, 2008 in Japan could be <code><nowiki>{{vgrelease|NA|], ]|JP|], ]}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{vgrelease|JP|], ]|NA|], ]}}</nowiki></code>, both of which would display the same chronological order. Depending on the region specified (i.e. NA, JP, EU, etc.), the template would translude the respective subtemplate for that region. I hope this clarifies my idea a little. I can make a userpage of my idea if someone wants me to. ] (]) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I created a template page ] as an example. ] (]) 04:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== Archives ==

I recommend that the auto archive time be changed from 10 days to 7 days. This page is ridiculously long. ] (]) 23:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:Sounds reasonable. Though I worry some postings may get archived before members respond to them, but having the page this long doesn't help either. I guess we can always change it back too. (] <sup>]</sup> 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
::I am also a member of ] and its a highly active project, with many posts, but the talk page still operates well with a 7 day archive time, so I think 7 days would work here. This page is just too long, eventually it will be too long, and it wont load.--'''''<font size="3"><font color="blue">~</font></font>]]]<font size="2"><font color="blue">~</font></font>''''' 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:23, 17 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Video games and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVideo games
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Shortcut: WT:VG
WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Archives
Archive index

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

Guidelines
Manual of Style talk
Article naming talk
Sources talk
Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
Newsletter talk
Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Popular pages
Vital articles
Recognized content
Good content
Featured content
Requested articles
Task forces
Esports talk
Indie
Nintendo talk
Sega talk
Video game characters talk
Visual novels talk
WikiProject
Portal talk
Project category talk
Project cleanup talk
Traffic statistics talk
Article statistics talk
List of active editors
Project watchlist

Page for Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree?

Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. Masem (t) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Hearts of Stone and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that Elden Ring is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The other factor to keep in mind is that per WP:NOPAGE, just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) Masem (t) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split." I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, then we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on locations, bosses, NPCs, and concepts like bonfires that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ Dissident93 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, the Souls area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ Dissident93 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Now Blighttown was just created. ~ Dissident93 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Bloated and bombarded to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ Dissident93 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. Masem (t) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. λ NegativeMP1 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ Dissident93 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ Dissident93 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘
Another new one today Northern Undead Asylum — Masem (t) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@PrimalMustelid: I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ Dissident93 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm only making two Dark Souls locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ Dissident93 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by NME and Goomba Stomp Magazine primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with Arcade Sushi communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main Dark Souls articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the Dark Souls series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but looking at their About Us page, I think it'll be a short discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion started Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Goomba Stomp Magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like Anor Londo passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding any of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on Shiori Fujisaki from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm always surprised by that. I personally always try to link to my article creations as much as I can (within the realms of being appropriate) to help the odds of people actually viewing/reading it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
You haven't really advanced any argument for it. "more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability" is just a long way of saying "WP:ITSNOTABLE". Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
If it's something to the scale of Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned and Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony, I don't see how a separate page for the Elden Ring expansion would hurt. Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge may be notable on its own, but idk if the Red Alert 3 – Uprising expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. Masem (t) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was notable, which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about Galarian Corsola or Klefki despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than Torrent or bonfires. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what Misplaced Pages:NOPAGE is all about. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a WP:SIZESPLIT. OceanHok (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. @Zxcvbnm, I might have a crack at drafting too to help and see if in that process I can generate good sourcing. The WP:NOPAGE argument is a little funny to me because we're talking about a very well-covered, award-nominated expansion to one of the biggest games of the past decade. If we're honestly saying the copious amount of coverage out there in terms of its gameplay additions, potential development history, reviews and discourse around its award eligibility is not independently notable or preferable, I would honestly say that the vast majority of expansion articles in this WP should be merged immediately. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution

This suit cost me three grand. Feel the satin and weep. Happy new year!

I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who doesn't love an icebreaker? I don't!

What's your Misplaced Pages-related resolution for 2025? What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year? Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.

Gameplay of Pokemon

I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Pokémon. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at Pokémon (video game series). With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about Gameplay of World of Warcraft or Gameplay of Dragon Quest. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the Pokemon was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the gameplay of a game is notable independent of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into WP:ROUTINE-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in WoW, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the Dragon Quest spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, "meat and potatoes" type games. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --PresN 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Gameplay of Hearthstone devotes a ton of space/text to covering every expansion. The rest of it is a more detailed version of Hearthstone#Gameplay. It's possible to retool the former as a List of Hearthstone expansions if we decide that's something we want. Otherwise, it seems to suffer the same issues as the rest of the articles at Category:Gameplay of specific video games. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It kind of echoes my feelings on Development of Mother 3. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at Mother 3, and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of Pokémon" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of Dragon Quest" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least Pokémon has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll defend Gameplay of Overwatch as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to Magic: The Gathering rules which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think Gameplay of World of Warcraft is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). Masem (t) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Live service games

I decided to take Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Dragon Quest to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more WP:GAMEGUIDE detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more Category:World of Warcraft expansion packs than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release.

TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

In my mind, the main and perhaps only reason one would ever write a "gameplay of X" article, is when that game or series is played competitively. In such cases, the gameplay is very important separately from the games as commercial products or pieces of art on their own. Graphics and music, development and reception, it all falls away as irrelevant in that field, and you get a fairly separate topic to describe. I don't know if this really makes sense with live-service games. I wouldn't create "Gameplay of Fortnite", I think I would create "History of Fortnite" instead, as this would still be about the product as a whole, not just about its gameplay. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
It really depends on the live-service game. I don't think that in terms of any specific mode of Fortnite like Battle Royale has changed significantly over the years, but that there are gameplay elements that come and go during its seasons, so an article here like Fortnite seasonal events makes sense (in addition to the fact this is also documented in reliable sources). Whereas with Destiny 2, there are significant lasting changes with most of its expansions (also covered by sources) so in that case, the individual expansions serve this (Though in that case, most of those due need a trim).
Separately, because of how Fortnite transitioned from a single idea to Battle Royale to a metaverse platform, the main Fortnite article is more a history of the product and less about the gameplay changes. Masem (t) 13:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
My first reaction to @Maplestrip and @Masem is that we might have a separate article for long-standing games with lots of post-release support. I agree that "History of Fortnite" or "Fortnite seasonal events" is a better article/scope than Gameplay of Fortnite. Maplestrip focuses more on competitive games, which is a valid point. I'd say there's a big overlap between competitive games and games-as-service, or other forms of post-release support.
I still feel strongly that "Gameplay of X" is too redundant in scope. But a game with lots of post-release support over many years, like Fortnite or even WoW, might still deserve an additional article to document its evolution. Maybe "List of X expansions" or "List of X updates" or "List of X special events"? I'd be a little nervous about WP:CHANGELOG here, but for a game with a decade of history and lots of discourse about balance and updates, it's in the right direction. The spirit of my suggestion is supposed to be similar to List of Game of Thrones episodes, without setting a precedent that every game gets such a list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Key is how reliable sources treat the live service aspect of the game. WOW, Destiny 2, Fortnite, Overwatch -- all have gotten reasonably good coverage of how the game changes, whereas Apex Legends or Valorant may have had that at the start but has significantly waned relative to these. — Masem (t) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
What do you think is a better title for these types of articles? The problem with Gameplay of X is nearly any notable game would also have secondary sources that cover the gameplay of the game, making it really subjective if we should have one article or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
"List of X seasons", "List of X seasonal events", or "X seasons" or "X seasonal events", the latter if there are sources that broadly discuss the games seasonal structure. Masem (t) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Translation help

Hello, I am writing here to request help with some source title translations. I am currently working on implementing the suggestion on the FAC for List of generation II Pokémon and one of the suggestions is for the non-English sources to have translated titles. I currently have all the non-English sources on this sandbox; containing 28 Japanese sources, 3 Spanish sources, 1 Finnish source, 1 French source, 1 Brazilian Portuguese source and 1 Indonesian source. If anyone is able to provide help with this that would be very much appreciated. Hope to hear back, CaptainGalaxy 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Tomb Raider source question.

Hi. So, I want some confirmation and possible discussion regarding edits made last year to Tomb Raider (1996 video game), Tomb Raider II, and the main series article. A LOT of wordy information was added by ERAGON citing a book called "The Making of Tomb Raider" by someone called Daryl Baxter. IMO, it seemed to me to simply repeat stuff that was already present. I did edits on the OG game's article to incorporate the info on an assumption of good faith (I was in a bad mood that day, explanation for some edits that appeared on TR2's article).

My questions are: is this book a reliable source of development information, and if so could the information be incorporated into the articles in a less wordy way? I don't want to do anything on my own beyond what I already did on the OG game. ProtoDrake (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi ProtoDrake. I would say that the book is a reliable source; it is a series of interview transcripts between Baxter and former Core Design staffers. Outside of the book he has interviewed people from the team before for podcasts; there's one of those available here. If things are too wordy we can of course edit down. ERAGON (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dynasty Warriors 4

Dynasty Warriors 4 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Unofficially dead Nicalis game

On the Nicalis page, we've had 90s Super GP listed for twelve years. There has been no official word from Nicalis since 2015, with only subtle changes, (like the title itself), made. It's still listed on the Nicalis website, but having been in the industry myself, I can attest that the creator is no longer involved and the last expo presence or even rumored stages of development were made in 2019. Do we even list this vaporware at this juncture? BOTTO (T•C) 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source calls it vaporware (or cancelled.) I understand your concern in this instance, but if we let editors make this call personally, then we get these overzealous/pessimistic editors declaring games like Metroid Prime 4 or Shin Megami Tensei V as vaporware or cancelled games. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: It's good to see you again, Sergecross73. We have a bunch of articles like this one that pragmatically ask the question, "What the hell happened to '90s Super GP," but none that explicitly calling it "vaporware" or "cancelled". I'd compare it to Half-Life 2: Episode Three, except Valve recently acknowledged that it wasn't going to happen. BOTTO (T•C) 02:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This intrigued me, so I made the article at '90s Super GP.
From what I saw, it's indeed vaporware but not officially cancelled. Such games can resurrect at any point, and the game was even referenced in a subsequent game by that developer. Unless it sees a full cancellation it should be listed as such. BTW, the Nintendo Life article does say it is in "development hell", akin to vaporware. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: Wow, great work! It certainly is one of the most infamous cases of both predatory indie publisher practices and development hell. There's nothing saying it won't ever be released, so maybe we'll eventually see it pushed out eventually? BOTTO (T•C) 20:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
after all, we got Metroid Dread... Andre🚐 05:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Steam (service)

Steam (service) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone finish this draft about a Chinese video game franchise?

Draft:Roco Kingdom (game). Abandoned by the student creator, since the course finished. We have three very bad, AfD-asking, articles on related media (animated films) that may be deleted without redirecting if there is no main article for this to be redirected to: Roco Kingdom: The Desire of Dragon, Roco Kingdom 3 and Roco Kingdom 4. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's going to probably need a Chinese speaker. Andre🚐 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Likely; I've also posted to WT:CHINA. Sadly, I don't speak Chinese, but the topic seems quite important - it seems like a rather big franchise, with many games, movies, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Eh, I'd say it's of low importance to the video games articles scope as a whole. In zh:洛克王国 it seems to have a moderately low number of incoming links. There's also an article in Korean that is pretty short. Though, that may just be the article on the first Roco Kingdom game. Tencent is a big company but a lot of this looks like mobile/web games which don't really interest the English-speaking world quite as much. And there are films at the Chinese box office, but I can't find anything about an international release. Andre🚐 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair, but considering how big China is, even a China-only franchise, that is reasonably big there but has little international impact, is probably mid-importance for the world. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
China being so big means there are a lot of game franchises, some of which may have a bafflingly large interest inside China and little impact outside of China, which makes it hard to write about them because there aren't a lot of English sources that are reliable. Especially Chinese web/mobile games made by Chinese companies with few products or customers overseas. Also, keep in mind the video games project covers not only all the video and computer games ever but all of the people, companies, and in many cases fictional things inside the games. That's a pretty large scope. And since the nature of many web/mobile games in terms of the content and the quality of the material, especially ones made by large Chinese companies such as Tencent, is that they're probably of limited interest for the mainstream AAA game, indie game or retro game communities in the Anglosphere. For example, I checked out the Roco Fandom site and I noticed the following badly translated text, "Rock Kingdom is a web game. Come and complete the task, chat with friends, and upgrade for your pets." These virtual pet games are a dime a dozen. It might be of interest to the gacha game community. It doesn't even have a public subreddit, and it seems that the game itself might not even work outside of China. Yet the film Roco Kingdom 4 grossed 10 million yuan in presale making it the top domestic animation ever in pre-sale. That's pretty crazy. Andre🚐 07:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
It is Tencent after all, indispensable to the lives of literally E-V-E-R-Y single one Chinese from the young to the elderly. It will be a surprise if the spin-offs become box office bombs. MilkyDefer 14:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I forgot to mention the popularity of Tencent games among Chinese people especially those young (should I mention Honor of Kings?). It is not hard to imagine children, during their summer breaks, begging their parents to bring them to theatres for the film. MilkyDefer 14:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, your fellow Chinese speaker is always available. MilkyDefer 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (January 2 to January 12)

Main page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements 
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

January 6

January 7

January 8

January 9

January 10

January 11

January 12

I'm back! --PresN 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to maintain this! Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Undertale

Hey there, I'm currently preparing the article above for FAC; its subject's 10th anniversary is coming up in September. The reviewers at the PR strongly recommended me to look for academic analysis, but I'm unsure if the papers I found (listed below) will be sufficient to write enough content for a hypothetical scholarly/academic analysis section. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

— 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions Add topic