Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

	; WPCVG Talk Archives
	01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05; 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10; 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15; 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20; 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25
	How to archive a talk page

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:24, 24 April 2007

Template:WPCVG Sidebar

Wikiproject

We have made a new project for Playstation products. To view click here.Playstationdude 02:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps (2nd nomination)

Just a note to direct you to the above discussion, as the article is part of your WikiProject. Best regards, --195.169.224.219 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you can just list the article according to the directions on the main page, seen here. Dancter 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free main page images?

Seems the board caved in to the paranoids, so we can no longer use copyrighted images on the main page. I'm really hoping that's not what holding any of my articles from the main page, but at any rate, I guess we might start exploring free alternatives. That's the issue, though -- I can't think of a single one. What could one use for Chrono Trigger? Everything's copyrighted, right down to a picture of the cartridge. --Zeality 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the inherent problem with completely eliminating fair use for everything. Films, video games, albums, etc. usually have no free images, while other areas like the US military and the sciences have a wide range of pictures to choose from. In some cases we might be able to substitute something - i.e. if Nintendogs was featured, I imagine that we could use a general picture of a dog, kind of like how the recently featured Scooby-Doo FA had a picture of a dog. hbdragon88 04:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan art? Kariteh 11:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan art would most likely be considered derivative works, and unauthorized ones at that. — TKD::Talk 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about a photo of a Play! concert? Kariteh 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you focus on any screenshots shown, that'd be a no-no. If you don't, then the relevance of the picture wouldn't be immediately obvious unless it were in a section that specifically describes the concert. — TKD::Talk 01:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what could be considered "free alternatives?" ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For video games, not much, unfortunetly. Even a picture of a screenshot on a TV is bogglingly not considered free. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this only goes for the main page, right? I mean, we can still put pictures in the articles under fair use, right? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is yes, given that there is no other feasible way to illustrate anything about a video game until its copyright expires. — TKD::Talk 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that "mind boggling"? They spent the money to buy the broadcasting equipment, they have the rights to whatever footage they air. Likewise, if you went to that same event and took your own picture, you have rights to that picture, too. Would you want that stripped away? hbdragon88 04:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of Mitsuda or one of the developers? Kariteh 07:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that might work, but the hard part is getting a free photo of one of them considering not many exist. The only shots of Masato Kato I've found are all from official SE publications. Maybe something could be found for a high profile guy, like Hironobu Sakaguchi. Or, we could just carve "Chrono Trigger" into the side of a potato and get it featured status on the Wikimedia Commons. At any rate, I plan on improving FF Chronicles to Good status soon and submitting "Chrono Series" as a featured topic with Judg. --Zeality 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiromichi Tanaka seems to be the easiest to find, but that would only work for Chrono Cross of course. [1] Kariteh 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for outsite comments on Gyakuten Saiban 3/Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations merger debate

There's a debate whether or not should Gyakuten Saiban 3 and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations should be merged to the latter. Dicussion is here. The debate seems to be whether the games are the same or not, barring localization and platform factors. As both games have the same 'first' copyright date (2004) I hold the view that the games are the same and thus should have only one article. 216.80.38.172 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the main argument agianst merging states that states that since we cannont prove that the plot of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations will not be sufficently different Gyakuten Saiban 3 placing the plot and character info from the GS3 article into the the trials and tribulation artice is a violation of WP:OR. Maybe trying a discussion on that page is a better idea since a consensus on whether OR applies in this case would probably be helpful. --67.68.154.253 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regions, Ratings, and Release dates (RRR)

In infoboxes for various games, at least eight lines are always occupied by ratings and release dates. That is bad: avoid redundancy.

A clear infobox is paramount for a good article. The infobox is the first thing any reader will see and read, and a bad infobox could make a reader turn away from the article, whether by introducing new questions or getting in the way of reading. New questions such as "What the hell is USK" are not productive when all the reader wants is to read about a game. Infoboxes often extend well into the first or second section, and almost always below the table of contents. Reducing the size of the infobox is good. There is a lot of information that could be left out of the infobox, but for now I will only address the redundant release dates and ratings.

Currently, infoboxes can contain any number of release dates, though a number between two (AOE3) and five (FFX) is most common. Ratings always include ESRB and a European agency (usually USK, ELSPA, BBFC or PEGI) at minimum, and when including Australia (OFLC) and Japan (CERO), this makes for a maximum of seven ratings. Rating collectors might include all 12 ratings in the relevant category.

An example, from the article I am currently working on:

Release date(s) EU: 2007-02-16 NA: 2007-02-20 SKorea: 2007-02-22 AUS: 2007-02-23	Rating(s) ESRB: E10+ PEGI: 12+ USK: 12 OFLC (Australia): M

The current practice ("include some") is a compromise - some argue for including every single country, because doing anything else would be geographical bias. It is true that Indian or Chinese ratings, together more than a third of the world population, are rarely included. However, is this a bad thing? Sixteen million people from the Netherlands know no other rating than Kijkwijzer, should it be included too because of that?

Guitar Hero XXX surprisingly features Kiss

It is indeed good to know when a game will be released in one's country. However, I think a better place for details like that is in the article itself, perhaps in the Development section or in the Lead section. One of those sections usually repeats the information in the infobox now anyway. In the above example from Supreme Commander, all dates are within one week. Are these few days of difference worth listing in the infobox? If changed to, for example, February 2007, no information is lost to most readers. When more than a few weeks apart, this could be Q1 2007, or even 2007 if Brunei releases the game in November. The specific dates should be in the article. It must be noted that when the release date itself is notable, an exception should be made. For example, if Chinese censors surprisingly agree to allow Guitar Hero XXX: megapr0n version in China three years after the release of the game, and the New York Times writes about it, the Chinese release date could be included.

Ratings are even more redundant than the release dates, because they are never far apart, except in very special circumstances which would warrant multiple ratings. If every rating organisation rates a game as "Teen" or the local equivalent, why list it as "T" "Teen" "12+" "12+" "12-year" "K-11" "MA-13" "12" - if "Teen" would do? If one rating organisation rates the game differently (such as 14+ or 16, or even XXX), it should be explained in the Reception section. An article like Motion picture rating system could be made to explain the local ratings when a game is rated "Teen", or better - such information could be integrated into Motion picture rating system.

Concluding, a better infobox would be:

Release date(s) February 2007	Rating(s) 12+

This has become more of an essay than a small note — apologies for that. I propose changing the infobox description once there is consensus for a policy change on this subject.

--User:Krator (t c) 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly agree with what has been proposed here. Most game articles don't have that problem mainly due to the lack of editors collecting such information, but for more popular, widespread games this can lead to bloated infoboxes containing release dates from countries some people haven't even heard of. I agree that most release dates are more less the same if not a few weeks apart, with some uncommon exceptions that can easily be covered within the article itself, either in the Development section or, if the release dates are staggered enough, a separate Release section. The idea of summarising data like this makes for an easier reading experience instead of being flooded with lots of geographically exclusive data. Readers who are interested in specific pieces of data such as release dates can find out on specialist sites, such as GameFAQs or MobyGames. --Scottie_theNerd 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example of this in action? --Teggles 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the rating part of the infobox of Supreme Commander to reflect the highest (12) and lowest (10) ratings, linking to a table comparing to what ratings those ages have in different countries. The article Video game content rating system could use a lot of work - see my first edit summary there. before after --User:Krator (t c) 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this guide! My kitten was getting confused by the infobox and started batting at it. My kitten wonders if there should be an info box template with fields to fill in that would give a common look between game articles (also the reader would not become confused having to decode different layouts). Meow. DJ Barney 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually already seen release sections in articles which can be anything from comparing different versions of the game to talking about notbale updates (is that even possible?). Perhaps the specific release dates have a place in these sections. It would certainly be better than the mosh pit of info we have now.--Clyde (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio clips

I'm not sure what license File:Blood-Migrax.ogg should come under. There are templates for "Screenshot from a videogame" and "Music clip", but this isn't either of those. It is essentially the audio equivalent of a screenshot but I haven't been able to find any other examples of such clips. I've asked this on the helpdesk and Image Copyright Tags pages, but there haven't been any responses. Does anyone know of any other game articles that have audio clips, so I could see what licenses have been used? Arganoid 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a generic category tag, so I'd use {{Fair use in}}. You might also add it to Category:Fair use sounds. Pagrashtak 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto task force?

I was thinking about creating a Grand Theft Auto task force. Is anyone interested? .:Alex:. 16:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of task forces

It seems that the current task forces that are focused on a company, like the Capcom, Sega, and Konami taskforces, are pretty inactive. On the other hand, the Devil May Cry task force seems more focused and has been doing good things. The video game images task force has also a clear objective and has been filling the relevant categories and finding images, and adding fair use. Perhaps we should retire some of the inactive task forces and from now on focus on creating task forces with a more limited scope. Any objections? If not I'll go ahead with removing them from the {{WPCVG Sidebar}} and removing the links on the talk pages. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-19 17:06

You could tag them with {{Inactive}} and see if it stays. If so, I'd have no problem with removing their links. Pagrashtak 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. BTW, I redesigned the sidebar the other day. Does anyone have any suggestions for further improvement? JACOPLANE • 2007-04-19 18:19

I honestly question the need for company-level WikiProjects/task forces. Like WP:NES vs. WP:PCP. PCP is well-focused and has much discussion, while Nintendo seems a bit dead. Okay, it's not that dead, still some talk page topics, but it's not nearly as active as PCP. Of course, when you become too specfiic, that's no good either. I remember the Nintendo Wars WikiProject, for instance. hbdragon88 19:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Nintendo, it probably should just go (as it's pretty inactive). Some posts doesn't seem like much to keep it around. Also, if people can: keep on eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject PlayStation. I can imagine it will go the way of many of these taskforces and projects: inactive. Sometimes I wonder why people want taskforces (or whole projects), then when it's made: it has activity for a bit, then nothing. In my opinion: just post the article issues here, and a much wider group of people can help out. Why seperate them, just because they have alot of articles of their own? The video games project is for everything. So it makes more sense just to post here, asking for help and so on. Much more people can help in one project, rather than just splitting into other projects and/or task forces. RobJ1981 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy has demonstrated that a focused group of editors can achieve a great deal. The problem with this WikiProject is that it's almost too generic and therefore has little participation in spite of the large number of participants. Look at the GCOTW: usually less than 10 editors contribute in any given week. Besides, academic studies in business schools have demonstrated that teamwork is usually most efficient in a groupd of 10-20 people.^{[citation needed]} We have over 700 participants here, and those are only the people who have bothered to indicate their participation on their userpage. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-19 20:14

True, our Final Fantasy articles are in great shape, generally. But to be fair, how much of this shall we attribute to the WikiProject, and how much shall we dedicate to the zeal and skill of individual contributors? I'm inclined to think that the latter is by far the important factor here. Large projects like WPVG here are beneficial, in my opinion, in mostly cross-article tasks. We help standardize video game article elements such as the infobox, offer video game-specific style information, etc. Now consider a narrow project like WP:ZELDA, which has around 60 listed participants. That's over four editors per Zelda game in the main series, yet only two of those are featured articles, both of which predate the project (I believe - correct me if I'm wrong). The third Zelda featured article about Link also predates the project. A group with that narrow a focus cannot offer much beyond individual contributions. There is (and should not be) Zelda-specific style guidelines — anything of this nature should cover all video games, and thus come from this project. This, incidentally, is why I have not joined the Zelda project, despite it being my main VG interest. Pagrashtak 05:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the biggest uses of a WikiProject is like a noticeboard, such as WP:CVG/D. I wouldn't necessarily count the usefulness of the said project purely in terms of FAs. For instance, issues on the notability of some character comes up, and people from the WPFF argue about it until something comes out. It's a centralized discussion that can be much more easily followed on one WikiProject talk page instead of a few scattered talk pages. hbdragon88 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that noticeboard, there is no day with over three entries. Why would each task force need their own deletion noticeboard when they could simply look there? The driving force behind any WikiProject or task force (with the possible exception of projects like the WikiProject Council that do not focus on the article space) should be article improvement. In fact, one could make the argument that a project that shows no discernible impact on improving articles but has editors come out en masse in deletion discussions has an overall negative impact. Pagrashtak 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hbdragon88 was not advocating that every task force should have their own deletion noticeboard. He was trying to point out that within the context of the CVG community, there is a benefit to listing all relevant entries in one central place rather than expecting CVG contributors to go through the AFD entries for every day. I agree that there are a lot of tasks that have very little to do with taking articles to FA that would benefit from more centralised discussion. The images task force is a good example of this. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-24 00:44

I know. The deletion noticeboard is useful for this WikiProject — I was explaining that such boards, if made more specific, would not be so useful for our subprojects or task forces. Pagrashtak 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new big task

Anyone care to help me tackle this big task? The Infobox needed tag is no longer for the talk page, and it belongs on the article (so people can see it, and fix it sooner). A full list is here: Category:Talk pages with misplaced main page templates. While it's not all video games, there is quite a few video game articles that need this change. I believe the category contains a few other misplaced templates: but overall it's for infobox needed. Also, you could just put in the infobox when you can, which would also help out this massive infobox task. RobJ1981 18:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fucksake, this is just a load of work for very little payoff and will make articles even uglier than they are. We have enough article banners already, and a ridiculously ugly "No photo here" image too. This is really going to ugly up a lot of articles for a long time. It's not a big deal either unlike say NPOV and unsourced (which readers should be warned about), but some backroom consistency worry. Do you guys really think it's a good idea? I don't, and there hasn't been much discussion either. I might take this to VP or AN or something. - hahnch e n 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill Rooster :) I tend to agree with you, but no need to get all worked up. Like you said, there hasn't been much discussion yet, so let's have the discussion before we take this to AN/I (in any case most admins who give a shit are watching this page anyway). JACOPLANE • 2007-04-20 23:53

Creating one infobox is better than moving ten templates, if you ask me. So if anyone wants to help out with this task, why not make a few infoboxes rather than moving a bunch of templates? Pagrashtak 06:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can provide assistance

If any of you know of Playstation 1 games that need screenshots, please leave me a message so I can see if I own the game. If I do I'll get a screenshot of the game and put it into the article. Xtreme racer 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Dreamcast

FYI, there's a mini edit war on Dreamcast between myself and Asim18 over which Dreamcast logo should be used for the article's picture - between the orange swirl logo and the blue one. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I wouldn't say an "edit war" - edit war is when both parties are repeatedly reverting. He switched, you reverted; nothing else has happened yet. hbdragon88 00:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOLD, revert, discuss. My understanding is that this is exactly how it should be. Nifboy 01:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Soul Cali pages

Say is there a task force responsible for the Soul Calibur pages? I have browsed trough some and there is significant a ammount of characters that really don't deserve a page by themselves. To be specific see Night Terror (Soul Calibur) and Abyss (Soul Calibur), these two characters only appear once in the whole series and they have absolutely no background whatsoever, some users tried to compensate this by adding long unrefereced trivia sections and a full section only to descrive the weapons they use wich would be better in the Soul Calibur mystical weapons page. I personally propose that a character list is created and these characters are merged in them, any comments? objections? suggestions? thanks for your time. -凶 05:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Go right ahead, it's common practice for articles of that nature to be presented in list form with all the fan fluff cut out. Combination 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no task force for this series yet. Feel free to go ahead and start one. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-24 22:24

Revision as of 14:48, 24 April 2007 edit Combination (talk \| contribs) 14,270 edits →The Soul Cali pages: reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:24, 24 April 2007 edit undo Jacoplane (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 32,061 edits →The Soul Cali pages: reply Next edit →
Line 153:		Line 153:

	:Go right ahead, it's common practice for articles of that nature to be presented in list form with all the fan fluff cut out. [[User:Combination\|<span style="font-weight:bold;">Combination</span>]] 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)		:Go right ahead, it's common practice for articles of that nature to be presented in list form with all the fan fluff cut out. [[User:Combination\|<span style="font-weight:bold;">Combination</span>]] 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
			:There is no task force for this series yet. Feel free to go ahead and start one. <small><font color="AE1C28">[[User:Jacoplane\|JACO]]</font><font color="#21468B">[[User_talk:Jacoplane\|PLANE]]</font> • 2007-04-24 22:24</small>