Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:28, 14 May 2008

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2014-05-29 Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Aimsey (1 participant) Fedmyster (2 participants) Retro Engine (2 participants) Chrome Engine (1 participant) Payal Dhare (3 participants) Edi Birsan (3 participants) Jack Manifold (7 participants) Gameplay of World of Warcraft (6 participants) Pokémon Trading Figure Game (3 participants) Westballz (4 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Evil Empire (company) (discussion) Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom) Ethan Winters (nom) Fallout: New Vegas (nom) Good article nominations Dark Urge (nom) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (nom) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (nom) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Cry of Fear (nom) A Space for the Unbound (start) The King of Fighters '97 (start) F1 24 (start) Façade (video game) (start) Prey (2017 video game) (start) Transfer Pak (start) Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (start) Lost Sphear (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Dynasty Warriors 4 (nom) Articles that need... assessment (3) (0) reassessment (1) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (257) screenshots (9,039) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging

Archives

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

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

Template:WPCVG Sidebar

Reminder: Next newsletter

This is a reminder to active participants to this WikiProject: please submit and comment on ideas for the second VG newsletter. We can make this as much of a success as the Misplaced Pages:Signpost has been if enough participants contribute. So please take a look and lend a hand! JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 23:06

20 Stub Articles: Mahjong

I just stumbled upon the Category:Computer mahjong 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.

• Aki (computer game)
• Apparel Night
• Baka Tono-sama Mahjong Manyuki
• Bijokko Gakuen
• Bijokko Yume Monogatari
• Dynasty Warriors Mahjong
• Ide Yōsuke no Mahjong Juku
• Jangō Simulation Mahjong-dō 64
• Kiwame Mahjong DX2
• Brodie Lockard (an author. is this even notable?)
• Mahjong 64
• Mahjong Hōrōki Classic
• Mahjong Master
• Mahjong Taikai
• Maqiupai
• Princess Brave
• Pro Mahjong Kiwame 64
• Pro Shinan Mahjong Tsuwamono 64: Jansō Battle ni Chōsen
• Yosuke Ide's Mahjong Juku

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

I'd like to merge these all together in a list of mahjong video games, unless someone else has another solution. I'd appreciate some help too. Randomran (talk) 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. (Guyinblack25 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. Randomran (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahjong video games are all the same... just consider them all the same game, and merge them in Mahjong video game, 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. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 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. Ham Pastrami (talk) 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 Mahjong video game article, with a bunch of redirects. Randomran (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the deletions of the clearly non-notable stuff have come through, with the exception of Aki (computer game). 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). Randomran (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress report / request for assistance

I've created a mahjong video game article based on a merge of the remaining mahjong game articles. I'd appreciate a copy-edit or a clean-up. I really want nothing to do with this topic, but I do enjoy a good cleanup. Another helpful thing to do would be to clean up a few of the redirects so they point directly to the new article. Randomran (talk) 17:47, 12 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 Filefront 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 Lerhinkim. Exactly one week after came Smeunum (account was also only used for one week). Two new "editors" popped up today, Quastbel and Struenang.

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. SeanMooney (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You want to report this over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. They may be able to help you out there. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 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.Gazimoff _Read 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Another account registered today, dedicated to filefront spamming: Naltorqua - spamming some of the same articles. The additions have been reverted but hopefully something else can be done about this. SeanMooney (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quake Army Knife article

After reading this WikiProject's guidelines and looking at some related articles (mainly other level editor articles), I realise the Quake Army Knife 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. --DanielPharos (talk) 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. --MASEM 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But in that case, all those other articles (GtkRadiant, Warcraft III World Editor, etc.) should also be included. That's fine with me, though. :) --DanielPharos (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, all those examples directly pertain to video games. (Guyinblack25 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? --DanielPharos (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Their current setup is fine. All they really need is the Project banner {{WikiProject Video games}} on the talk page, which is already on there. (Guyinblack25 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Ah, I see, it's on the TALK-page (D'oh! 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? --DanielPharos (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since they are software for developing and editing video games rather than video games, {{Infobox Software}} is the best infobox. (Guyinblack25 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? --DanielPharos (talk) 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 assessed. (Guyinblack25 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. --DanielPharos (talk) 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 --DanielPharos (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that may not be possible now. Normally, to do that you'd have to move the page. 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. (Guyinblack25 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

OK, I'll do that. Thanks for your help! --DanielPharos (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You can put in a request for a history merge. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is very cool. Learn something new every day. (Guyinblack25 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Oh sweet! I've added the request to the page. Thanks! --DanielPharos (talk) 14:27, 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: Captain Olimar, Toad (Nintendo), Charmander, Pac-Man (Character), Dry Bones (character), Shy Guy, Piranha Plant, Chain Chomp, Bullet Bill, Blooper (Mario), and Starman (EarthBound).

Olimar was nicely merged to Pikmin (series)#Characters for a while. Toad was merged with List of Mario series characters#Toad; 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. TTN (talk) 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: Toad (Nintendo), Pac-Man (Character), and Starman (EarthBound). Kariteh (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, Toad was part of this discussion. 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). TTN (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I redirected Pac-Man to Pac-Man. 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. Pagrashtak 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anyone feels like dealing with them, Jigglypuff and Meowth 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. TTN (talk) 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...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. TTN (talk) 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 Link (Legend of Zelda) 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages: Notability. I feel that you'd be better off finding/identifying those sources that do express notability, per the above policy. Ashnard _Talk 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. (Guyinblack25 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. TTN (talk) 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 this on gamefaqs which may count to Jigglypuff's behalf, or Adam Sessler 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. TTN (talk) 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 Alleyway and Poison (Final Fight) 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?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. TTN (talk) 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? Ashnard _Talk 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. Ashnard _Talk 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). (Guyinblack25 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. TTN (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I do think reception, impact, and development info are the best ways to establish notability, WP: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. (Guyinblack25 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then they can be put in a 'list of'. But the sources determine notability either way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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 List of Samurai Shodown Characters 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. TTN (talk) 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. TTN (talk) 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. TTN (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Going along with all this further, tidied up the Jigglypuff 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?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. TTN (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

*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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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'. Bridies (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A search of IGN and Gamespot reveals one article: Pok¿mon of the Day (nothing on Gamespot). Bridies (talk) 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".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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: WP:N. Bridies (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Let's get back to business, people! I merged Starman into Earthbound's main series article. Anymore I can do here? ZeroGiga (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Game cleanup template

These templates are currently overlapping: Template:Gamecleanup and Template:Gameguide. Both have a fair amount of usage. For consistency we should pick one to use and redirect the other. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep Template:Gamecleanup, just makes more sense to me. King Rock 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. Pagrashtak 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. Ham Pastrami (talk) 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. (Guyinblack25 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. Randomran (talk) 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 Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should expand for sure. But articulating it properly is difficult. How much detail is excessive? I've tried to rely upon WP:GAMETRIVIA when it comes to something like that. Obviously we can never be 100% clear. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to produce a rule that can be interpreted by the community to weed out the most terrible of info. Randomran (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GameFAQs template

What do you guys think of Template:GameFAQs 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. Ham Pastrami (talk) 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. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 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. (Guyinblack25 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. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-6 21:49

Absolutely; I would suggest GameFAQs links only used where the article's editors have agreed that the GameFAQs coverage of the game is exceptional. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 7 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're proposing changing Rumble Pak into something like "Rumble technology"? Currently, the closest thing I could find was Force feedback, 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. (Guyinblack25 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. --Slordak (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Because one piece of rumble technology does not a separate article make? - A Link to the Past (talk) 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. --Slordak (talk) 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 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. User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree --8bitJake (talk) 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. xenocidic (talk) 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.) --MASEM 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. Bill 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 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. User:Krator (t c) 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. --8bitJake (talk) 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. (Guyinblack25 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. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 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. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Reliable blogs), 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. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 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, The Escapist wasn't even listed till recently, sites like Rock Paper Shotgun 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. Someoneanother 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. --MASEM 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 looking at personal picks from 2007, I see we have articles on two of the writers: Marc Saltzman and Erin Bell. 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. Someoneanother 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). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that from? (The pay to hits notion) John.n-IRL 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 article on pbs.org. 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. Strongsauce (talk) 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). Kariteh (talk) 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). Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 2 games

This needs a lot of formatting, sourcing and cleanup. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2

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 WP:GAMETRIVIA. 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. -- Sabre (talk) 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. Kariteh (talk) 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. Randomran (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reported him for reverting a 4th time. Kariteh (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist now as well. Gazimoff _Read 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 4

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. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown! (video game series)

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 =)--~SRS~ 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. King Rock 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 Age of Empires for a recently featured VG series article. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But I based it off of List of Harvest Moon titles, a FLC.--~SRS~ 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not really what a series article should be like. As H2O pointed out, see Age of Empires, Crazy Taxi (series), Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts (series), and Mana (series) 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 List of Kingdom Hearts media. (Guyinblack25 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?~SRS~ 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. (Guyinblack25 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. --Blackbox77 (talk) 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 Template:Cite_manual and games themselves by using Template:Cite video game. If you need help with how to add a citation to an article just ask and someone will help. - X201 (talk) 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. GAME TITLE. GAME PUBLISHER, YEAR. Game manual; p. ### should do it, I think. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 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 User:Guyinblack25/Sandbox#Proper citations.

For instruction manuals, I normally use either {{Cite book}} or {{Citation}}. They both have parameters that work well enough with an instruction manual. For example, {{cite book|year=200X|title= Game Name instruction manual|publisher= |page= |chapter= }}.(Guyinblack25 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? --Blackbox77 (talk) 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). --Craw-daddy | T | 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. (Guyinblack25 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 here if you want. Thank you for your time. ZeroGiga (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wavedashing

I need a third opinion on Wavedashing's inclusion in Super Smash Bros. Melee, on the grounds that two reliable published sources verify its notability (namely Nintendo Power and Major League Gaming). - A Link to the Past (talk) 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—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—just look at the lengthy the talk page dispute for that. So...any thoughts? Ashnard _Talk 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.--8bitJake (talk) 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, "it won't hurt"—which I here all the time—is among the weakest arguments going, and one which should be discarded when debating the inclusion of content here. Ashnard _Talk 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? - A Link to the Past (talk) 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". - A Link to the Past (talk) 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. Ashnard _Talk 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".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would use the article on Street Fighter III as an example. They talk about the game play but do not break down every single technique and strategy. “Blitzing”, “turtling”, “supering” --8bitJake (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question, where in the article is it being considered to be included? (Guyinblack25 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. Ashnard _Talk 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

@Guy, Link's pretty ambiguous about this. There's been references to inclusion in either "tournaments" or "gameplay". Ashnard _Talk 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. (Guyinblack25 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is actually 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. --Izno (talk) 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, Asteroids 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1. It's mentioned in Major League Gaming, 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.
2. 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 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. (Guyinblack25 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". - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did they say more than just that? Like how it's changed tournaments? (Guyinblack25 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"? Ashnard _Talk 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? - A Link to the Past (talk) 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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 notable enough and probably gamecruft. John.n-IRL 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. (Guyinblack25 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. Ashnard _Talk 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 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!"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 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? John.n-IRL 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 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 WP:Fancruft, despite its mention (not exactly extensive coverage) in articles. But thats just my opinion. John.n-IRL 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? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe that this satisfies wp:n, 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. John.n-IRL 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? - A Link to the Past (talk) 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 wp:fancruft, even in interviews. By there nature they are appealing to gamers, to whome this is of more interest. John.n-IRL 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? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought it is your burden to prove notability 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. John.n-IRL 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. John.n-IRL 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? - A Link to the Past (talk) 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 wp:n page, where it goes into specifics. John.n-IRL 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? (Guyinblack25 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. John.n-IRL 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (Oh...and damn you guy, I was enjoying my nice healthy debate at two in the morning! :p ) John.n-IRL 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 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? - A Link to the Past (talk) 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. John.n-IRL 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. (Guyinblack25 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.
• Objection 1: _{"it is of no use to anybody beyond the hardcore"} Misplaced Pages is not a guide; 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: _{"Let's debate what it does contribute, which is virtually nil to anybody beyond the hardcore."} 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: _{"we write for the average reader, and not the average gaming reader, I'm inclined to not include it in either "Gameplay" or "Tournaments"."} 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: _{"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."} 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: _Fancruft. 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: _Notability. 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. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 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 Super Metroid's 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:

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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Time to address some misconceptions. Here we go:

• Notability—please, this applies to the article's topic only, and does not dictate content. Perhaps the relevant links would be WP: GAMECRUFT, WP: TRIVIA and WP: WEIGHT.
• 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—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 WP: GAMECRUFT 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. Ashnard _Talk 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. WP: GAMECRUFT 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. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

• 1: What do you mean by notable? If by this, you're referrring to WP:N, 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. Ashnard _Talk 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. "While Melee has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, aAdvanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's engine, often giving themto obtain 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? (Guyinblack25 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 Super Metroid 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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; reliably sourced 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. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what, whatever—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. Ashnard _Talk 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To Izno—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. Ashnard _Talk 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 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". Ashnard _Talk 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 WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, which warns: "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."

You're correct in saying that WP:N 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 WP:VERIFIABLE because it has a WP:RELIABLE source. WP:TRIVIA is not valid grounds for opposition because it pertains to lists of info and because it "does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Neither is WP:Undue weight, because it applies to representing perspectives on an issue fairly. WP:GAMECRUFT is subject to the caveats of WP:WEDONTNEEDIT and whether "content only has value to people actually playing the game" is hard to determine, except by the list of unsuitable content, and as long as we can avoid "explaining how to execute using the controller is not", then we're golden. On that note, I'll turn to Guyinblack's edit of Kiefer's suggestion.

"While Melee has widespread appeal among players of virtually all skill levels, aAdvanced players have discovered ways to exploit the game's physics engine, often giving themto obtain a competitive advantage in tournaments. While exploits such as wavedash were discovered during development, they were omitted from Super Smash Bros. Brawl 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 Masahiro Sakurai."

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 there is no deadline. 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. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 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 WP:AMS would be beneficial on the general subject of "gamecruft"/"useful in-depth discussion of the gameplay". User:Krator (t c) 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. Ashnard _Talk 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 efforts 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 WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, which informs WP:GAMECRUFT, which is wholly satisfied by even this early draft of the text for inclusion. As well, it is WP:VERIFIABLE because it has a WP:RELIABLE 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.clicketyclick_yaketyyak 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. Ashnard _Talk 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: "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." (Sakurai's words.) Glitch was in scare quotes. 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) clicketyclick_yaketyyak 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 WP: GAMECRUFT. That it violates no policies or guidelines explicitly in this context is why we're discussing this—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. Ashnard _Talk 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. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But I can only be as tenacious as the opposing debater for it to continue. For WP: GAMECRUFT, "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. Ashnard _Talk 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. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Arcade Games

Heads up: There's currently an effort underway to increase membership and participation in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arcade games, which could/should be considered a subset of WP:VG. 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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. (Guyinblack25 22:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

OGame nominated for Deletion

Incase anyone is interested, i have nominated OGame for deletion. Discussion here. Thanks. John.n-IRL 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed redirect

I propose redirecting Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Naming convention 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. .:Alex:. 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 {{/Naming}}. --Eruhildo (talk) 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:

v t e Video game genres
List of video game genres
Action	Platformer Endless runner Platform fighter Shooter Arena First-person Hero Light gun Shoot 'em up Bullet hell Rail Twin-stick Tactical Third-person Survival Battle royale Survival horror Other Beat 'em up Hack and slash Fighting Platform fighter Maze Pac-Man clone Snake Stealth
Action-adventure	Grand Theft Auto clone Metroidvania
Adventure	Escape room Graphic adventure Interactive fiction Interactive film Visual novel Walking sim
Digital tabletop	Deck-building Roguelike deck-building Digital collectible card
Puzzle	Hidden object Sokoban Tile-matching
Role-playing	Action role-playing Looter shooter Soulslike Dungeon crawl MMORPG Monster-taming Roguelike Roguelike deck-building Tactical role-playing
Simulation	Life Dating Farming God Social Virtual pet CMS Business City-building Government Sports Fishing Racing Kart racing Sim racing Vehicle Flight simulation Combat Lunar Lander Space Submarine simulator Train simulator Vehicular combat Other Falling-sand Immersive sim
Strategy	4X Auto battler MOBA Real-time strategy Time management Real-time tactics Tactical role-playing Tower defense Turn-based strategy Turn-based tactics Artillery Wargame Grand strategy
Other genres	Cozy Fitness Horror Survival horror Incremental Music Rhythm Non-game Party Photography Programming Typing
Related concepts	Themes Advergame Bishōjo Christian Comedy Educational Girls Licensed Otome Sexual Eroge Nonviolent Personalized Sci-fi Serious Art Climate change News Player modes Multiplayer Co-op MMO PVP Single-player Production AAA Indie Doujin soft Fan game Design Casual Hypercasual Emergent gameplay FMV Gacha Kaizo Masocore Nonlinear gameplay Open world Sandbox Side-scrolling Twitch gameplay Vertically scrolling Other Minigame Toys-to-life Video game clone Video game modding Video game remake

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

• Merge Run and gun, Scrolling shooter, Top down shooter and Run and gun into Shoot 'em up. In a nutshell, shoot 'em up covers all the information and these other articles just get into unnecessary detail about viewpoint/perspective. (See discussion)

• Merge Grand strategy wargame into wargame and wargame (video games). This is really a minor distinction that hasn't been written about extensively. Probably because it can be summed up in a sentence. (See discussion)

• Merge space simulator and space flight simulator, 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. (See discussion)

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. Randomran (talk) 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"? .:Alex:. 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. Randomran (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. If someone complains, just point to this discussion post. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:18, 14 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? King Rock 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 Role-playing_game_(video_games)#Combat. Randomran (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For RPGs turn-based is the implied default. Action RPGs are the exception. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:01, 13 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 close to one hundred gets two comments at most. Those articles are pretty much all messes with no potential. Only seven articles (Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Miles "Tails" Prower, Knuckles the Echidna, Doctor Eggman, Shadow the Hedgehog, Metal Sonic, and Amy Rose) and seven character lists (List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Sonic the Hedgehog (comic book) characters, Sonic the Comic characters, List of characters from Sonic X, List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series), List of characters in Sonic Underground, and Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog characters) 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. TTN (talk) 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. User:Krator (t c) 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. TTN (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest taking this to Fiction-related noticeboard, 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. --MASEM 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. TTN (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you list the usernames of those who oppose this redirection here please? User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought there were more, but I guess it's just User:Doktor Wilhelm, User:Red Phoenix, User:Fairfieldfencer, and a few anons that commented once. TTN (talk) 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.Bridies (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a chat with Fairfieldfencer after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Julie-Su ends. User:Krator (t c) 14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you beg for comments, here's mine: Weren't you restricted from requesting merges, redirections, or deletions of character articles? And before anyone tries to claim it doesn't apply to VG characters, note that List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series) is in the list. Anomie⚔ 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. TTN (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance in expanding a new article

As part of working on adding sources to Sega Mega Drive, I found that I could include a link to Joe Montana Football (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. Anomie⚔ 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

{{vgrelease}}

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 {{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 {{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 {{vgrelease/NA}} which would be <small>^]</small>), and have the main template translude whichever subtemplate is needed (i.e {{vgrelease/{{{1}}}). MrKIA11 (talk) 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. - X201 (talk) 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 {{vgrelease|NA|], ]|JP|], ]}} or {{vgrelease|JP|], ]|NA|], ]}}, 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. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I created a template page here as an example. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion I think is to use both in form of indented lists, although I'm not sure how you'd demplate this. Essentially, you have platforms sorted in the order of the first instance of release for that platform. Other release dates are included under their relevant platform in date order for the territory. Please let me know if this isn't clear and I'll try to include an example.Gazimoff _Read 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be done with multiple calls to the template. The new template is just to have a one call per platform. I don't think an indent is necessary though. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, so that you use the template once for each platform. Makes sense now. I'd agree with that, and in that case suggest it's sorted chronologically, with seperate calls used for each platform.Gazimoff _Read 14:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sectionhide

What happened to Taito?

I have been looking and looking on Google News and the like, but I can't seem to find much info on Taito as a company since the buy-out by Square Enix, and that's where the article trails off. This would make sense if Taito was fully absorbed, but it doesn't seem that way, as they've released several games that were not even published by SE (LostMagic), and even published third-party games themselves (Cooking Mama). Can anyone find any info on Taito since the acquisition, or what SE's plans are in that regard? I can understand keeping the Taito name around as far as development, but publishing under multiple names doesn't make a ton of sense for brand-recognition, not to mention using third-party publishers when SE is already a major player. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several interviews with Taito on Gamasutra. Kariteh (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Taito is in the midst of their "rebranding" excercise, especially with their 30th anniversary in mind. Template:Ja icon If you have Japanese translators on hand, just search for "タイトー" on Google. It is possible that with the decline of the Japanese video game industry (in terms of development, and compared with the West), smaller firms are being left out of the spotlight. Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), need some advice with citing additional info.

I decided to dig around the internet for the article I'd gone tooth and nail over in the past and see if more information had turned up, and some indeed had, but there's a bit of an issue. Derrick Sobodash, CinnamonPirate's webmaster and fellow that made the initial english report on the cart, managed to get his hands on a copy of it and did a detailed extended analysis (vital information for the article), as well as mentioned the fact that many initially reacted to it as being a fake (something even the AfD discussion partially reflected when it went down). Aspects of that analysis are also reflected in a copy of an eBay sale that can be found here (it should be noted that according to the seller, Kitsune Sniper, SquareEnix had the auction terminated on eBay).

Now the dilema is, I've cited CP's original article heavily the first time...though the reason being most of the sites covering the subject did the very same thing rather than cover it themselves. So should I cite the second article still? And can the gamecollecting.com article be used in accordance with it or would reference issues come up there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Retro Gamer issue

Does anybody happen to have Issue 42 of Retro Gamer? I checked the Magazine page but didn't see it and was hoping a member here might have it. Please leave me a note on talk page if you do. (Guyinblack25 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists