Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 7

What's the difference between Category:PC games and Category:Windows games? Do all the games in the "PC games" category work on other OS's besides Windows?Amren 01:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The few that I checked worked on multiple platforms. Windows is certainly the more restrictive of those two categories, since there were DOS games on Intel pcs before Windows. Oh, how I remembered booting up my pc with Ultima 7... --Syrthiss 01:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Not all PC games are exclusive to Windows. That said, I'm not really sure if PC games is really needed. Perhaps someone can enlighten me how this can be useful besides being yet another umbrella category. Emulators aside, if it's for Windows it should be in Windows. If it's for DOS it should be in DOS - Linux, Linux etc. ?? K1Bond007 02:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I guess the only problem with removing the PC games category is that games compatible with multiple os's would have to be listed in multiple categories.Amren ^(talk) 03:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I would think that they would've already been listed in multible platform categories anyways. Final Fantasy VII should be listed under both Windows and PS1, Master of Orion 2 would be both MS-DOS and Windows. Windows backward compatiblity is pretty darn good, so no distiction should be made with between Windows 3.1/9x/ME/NT4/2k/XP (thank goodness). It's only natural that someone looking for a specific game on Linux (or Mac, etc.), should find entries on those categroies even if it is a port of a Windows game. --Greyhawk0 07:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I didn't make my position clear, oops.

I'm generally opposed to specifying "PC" as a platform. What does that mean? DOS? Windows? Linux? BeOS? Platforms should be more specific. This has been irking me for some time, but the amount of work involved of fixing it has scared me. But if someone wants to do it, I'm all for it. I'll help where I can. — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's bothered me for ages, as well, and I've fixed it when I've come across it. If there's a real consensus, though, I'd be willing to go through more systematically and help fixing things. – Seancdaug 03:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Microsoft are pusing Windows forward as a games platform with Vista, with the same vigour as Xbox. The main difference gamers are going to experience is that the packaging is going to read "Windows CD/DVD-ROM" and have the Windows logo, but I think this is the call to recategorize Windows games to be distinct from Mac and Linux games. Poorsod 10:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How about breaking it up? Here is a simple structure that can be adopted by the WikiProject. This touches on the other section called Plea for Sense.

Video Games          No games categoried here. (Very broad terminology)
-Computer games      No games categoried as being a PC or Computer game. (Broad terminology)
--Windows games      Windows 9x/ME/NT/2K/XP games should be apart of this category and listed as on a Windows platform.
--Linux games        Linux games should be apart...on a Linux platform.
--Mac games          Mac...platform.
--etc                Repeat ad-infinitum.
-Console games       Again, no game should be categoried as just being a console game.
--NES games          I hope you realize the pattern!
--etc                Really, I do!
-Handheld games      -
--PSP games          -
-Arcade games        An exception because I can't think of a non-redundant sub-name for non-pinball arcade games.
--Pinball games      Pinball! Ding ding ding.

--Greyhawk0 03:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Except by direct search, incoming users looking for gaming articles would follow this path:

Main_Page

Article overviews

Entertainment - Game - Types of games

Computer and video games - See also

List_of_gaming_topics

But is the list current enough? Should we edit the article to also point to Category:Computer and video games as well? Especially since we are cleaning up the categorization somewhat? * wants incoming users to be able to find all the great gaming articles * -- Sitearm | Talk 07:02, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Redirecting to a category is probably not a good idea. Why not just update the List of gaming topics article? K1Bond007 07:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't mean to redirect but to include link to category page. Regarding list have you looked at it :) -- Sitearm | Talk 07:55, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Done. Here are the current paths from main page to cvg articles:

Access by category:

 Main_Page
   Category:Culture
     Category:Games
       Category:Computer and video games 
     Category:Entertainment
       Category:Computer and video games
   Category:Personal life
     Category:Games
       Category:Computer and video games 
     Category:Entertainment
       Category:Computer and video games

Access by article:

 Main_Page
   Wikipedia:Browse by overview (called "Article overviews")
     Game - (listed in section "Entertainment")
       Computer and video games - (listed in section "Types of games")

Access by browse:

 Main_Page
   Wikipedia:Browse (called "Browse Wikipedia")
     Portal:Computer and video games - (listed in section "Culture" subsection "Sports and games")

-- Sitearm | Talk 16:57, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Or:

Main_Page

Wikipedia:Browse

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Computer and video games

Jacoplane 21:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I added the cvg wikiportal to the "Culture" subject portal on the browse page. I also added entertainment and game categories under "culture" category and game category under "personal life" category on same browse page. Good catch! :) -- Sitearm | Talk 02:26, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

For a while now, I've been concerned that this project—and all the video game articles in general—are miscategorized and misled and this has led to unweildly categorizations and terminology.

In order for this to be clear, let me back up and give some history. Way back (a few months ago), a new user suggested merging the video game and computer game articles. Many objected, including me. Computer games, of course, were games played on a computer. Video games, on the other hand, are games played on video game consoles. There's a big difference in how they're played, the people who play them, their target market, etc. Eventually they were merged, but to the objection of many. However, this has become part of the problem, not the solution.

The problem is this: video games are games that use a video display as their primary form of output. That is all. They are not console games or computer games alone. They are both. They are also arcade games. It even encompasses handheld games (e.g. games played on a PSP or Gameboy). Many people use the term "video game" interchangably with "computer game" and "arcade game." And they are not wrong, they're just not being specific. Video games are a superset of computer games, video game console games, handheld games, arcade games and games users can play on cell phones and PDA's. The graphic below should clarify the relationship of all these types of games.

Right now, we have a category called 1995 computer and video games and ones for every other year as well. We also have the Computer and video games article, which, as well as being unweildly, just plain doesn't make sense. As an analogy, it would be like having a "Hamburgers and foods", or a "Beer and alcholic beverages" category or a "Sid Meier and people" article. Video games are a superset of computer games, not a peer.

I suggest we try to straighten out our thinking and set about fixing this. Referring to console games as "video games" is not only a disservice to ourselves but to our readers as well. We're trying to explain to them that video games are games played on home video game consoles and telling them they have to adopt our misused terminology in order to understand our articles. Therefore, the opening sentence of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat should not read:

Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a Nintendo GameCube video game featuring the gorilla Donkey Kong gorilla Donkey Kong.

It should read:

Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a Nintendo GameCube console game featuring the gorilla Donkey Kong.

Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a video game, but to be specific, it is a console game.

In a perfect world, we'd have a WikiProject: Video games and a WikiProject: Computer games and WikiProject: Console games would be sub-projects of it (so would WikiProject: Arcade games, which is alredy its own WikiProject). I don't think this is going to happen, but let's straighten out our terminology and start referring to games correctly, realizing what they encompass.

What I propose we do is:

1. Rewrite the video game article and have it explain what the term encompasses (arcade games, console games, computer games, handheld games).
2. Turn the computer and video games article into a redirect to video game.
3. Salvage what we can from computer and video games article and create seperate computer game and console game articles.
4. Create a handheld game article, which currently has no article (but which is a type of video game).
5. Ditch the 1995 computer and video games categories (including all the other years) and have separate categories for 1995 computer games and 1995 console games. If a game is both a computer game and a console game, that's not a problem: we can include it in both categories.

Some issues we might want to resolve are:

1. Should we refer to a console game as a "console game" or a "video game console game"?
2. Should we develop separate templates for computer games, console games and handheld games (the latter which has no template now, AFAIK)? (My vote, no, we shouldn't).
3. Should we create separate handheld game and cell phone game and PDA game articles? Should they belong to their own WikiProject?
4. What term should we use to refer to a game that is both a computer game and console game (i.e. there are versions for home computers and video game consoles)? "Consumer video game"?

Please, this project has done fantastic things. Let's improve the way we refer to the various types of video games as a service to ourselves and our readers. Please bring up any issues, thoughts or concerns. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like you put a lot of thought into it. I've never really had a problem with most of what you listed. I don't see a need to break up the Categories for each year, or create a console game and comp. game articles. Having 2 wikiprojects under one called "WikiProject:Video games" seems kind of silly. Thunderbrand 01:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Going as far as pointing out the proper nomenclature seems fine, the rest just creates unnecessary confusion, including the somewhat far-fetched ideas of forking the WP and doubling the categories. ^wS;✉ 02:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The categories definitely concerns me as well. I don't agree with breaking that up. There are entirely too many games that are for the computer and consoles and it just seems redundant. Maybe just a rename there. I'd like to see more discussion on all of this before I really sign off on the whole deal. I'd hate to make a switch this big (again) and learn down the road that we didn't take something into account. K1Bond007 04:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

This will all take a lot of work, especially splitting the categories up and recategorizing everything. I do agree, however, with making separate articles for console and computer and handheld games, with a video game article being the parent one that links to all those. But I have a feeling that the video game article would be very repetitive as most of the information would already be included in those articles. Still, if you have the time to do all this and do it accurately, then I'm for it. I wouldn't recommend going all-out and making separate templates and wikiprojects, though.Amren ^(talk) 19:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, and consensus was already reached on this issue in the archives of this talk page. Andre (talk) 19:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you've said. I suggested using "video games" as an umbrella term long ago (before people settled for C&VG), but things didn't go that way. Fredrik | talk 19:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with many points, but not the separation of handheld game from console game. A good portion of handheld games are ports of console games, or they are based off series that are established on home consoles. There's a lot more cross-pollination between console and handheld games than there is between console and computer games. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Handheld games and console games are different - the same way computer games are different than console games; most of those are just back-and-forth ports too. K1Bond007 20:42, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Handheld games have a smaller screen, portability, and less hardware power. However, they tend to have the same types of games as their home counterparts, just a generation or two behind. The input method, excluding the DS, is generally the same, with control setups resembling home system controllers. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 02:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

We're essentially agreeing here that they're games. Although on the opposite side of the spectrum, your words could mean the same for console games and computer games. But they're not the same. They're developed for an entirely different audience. K1Bond007 02:42, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Computer and video games should be changed to just video games in all of the places it needs to be, yes. I don't think recategorizing everything is necessary though. Also, Donkey Kong shouldn't read "Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a Nintendo GameCube console game featuring the gorilla Donkey Kong", it should read "Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a video game for the Nintendo GameCube featuring the gorilla Donkey Kong". If you have to, you could write "the Nintendo GameCube video game console" or something like that, but that's not as good. People know the Nintendo GameCube is a video game console. If they wonder what a GameCube is, they can click on that. Maybe this is at odds with Wikipedia:State the obvious, but the way had it does not sound good. So really all this should be is moving everything with computer and video games to just video games.

PS, I'm gonna start the handheld games article with a stub because that should really have something. Cookiecaper 21:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. This proposal seems ignorant of the fact that we already have articles on personal computer games and console games. And I, personally, agree with what's on the computer and video games article:

"Both "computer games" and "video games" are frequently used as umbrella terms for interactive game software. To avoid ambiguity, this game software is referred to as "computer and video games"."

The NES is just as much a computer as a personal computer is. Later consoles, particularly the X-box, blur the line even more. And to be perfectly blunt, every single CVG article would have to be changed in order to comply with this. I don't see the benefit. Also, a proposal to use "video game" as an umbrella term was voted down, 10 to 4. Please stop beating the dead horse. Nifboy 02:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me try to respond to some of the objections. First, I'm not beating a dead horse. IIRC, the other proposal was to combine the definitions of computer games and console games (what was--and still is--being called video games). I was, and still am, against that. What I want us to do is start using the term "video game" correctly.

I'm not dead-set on changing the categories. And, to be honest, that was more of an afterthought. My biggest desire is to start using the term "video game" correctly. I think the best (and easiest) thing we can do is create the umbrella "video game" article which describes what it means and include wikilinks to the types of games that belong to it (i.e. console games, computer games, arcade games, etc.). Having the video game wikilink redirect to computer and video games is awkward and incorrect.

I'm perfectly willing to do this work myself. Is there any support for this one, small change? — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't think games can be divided into sets and supersets as neatly as your graphic shows, I agree with your definition of "video game" and I support the renaming of the terms used. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Poiuyt Man. Are there any other objections? If not, I'll go ahead and start working on this--just the definition of "video game" part. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I object for the moment because I'm lost at exactly what you're planning to do here. I understand your initial proposal and although I have some objections (which I noted earlier), I don't necessarily disagree with everything that you've proposed. We currently have Computer and video games, Console game, Arcade game, Personal computer game, Handheld video game, and God knows what else that I'm not aware of ATM. Your change isn't just a minor fix. It's going to change everything - from the way we categorize articles, to the way we name certain articles (including perhaps this WikiProject), although I'd love to see certain ones that clash be changed (e.g. Handheld game console, see discussion).

I'm not totally objecting here, but I'd like to know more, specifically, on what will and won't be effected by your proposal. I don't think it's within our best interest to, at the moment, jump into the middle of all this and begin renaming articles etc without a solid plan. K1Bond007 18:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I, too, object. Please do not begin changing the organization without a plan. Andre (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I would never make a change of this sort without first reaching a consensus. I proposed a lot of things at the beginning, but I've scaled back what I want to do because of some objections and issues raised by other members. The only thing I'm proposing to do now are:

1. Write a new video game article that describes what a video game is and points out the various types of video games (computer game, console game, arcade game, handheld video game), gives a brief over of each and points to the separate articles on each. This article could also cover any topics that apply to the video game market as a whole (e.g. perhaps a history, economic impact).
2. Get rid of the computer and video games article, scavenging some information on it for the other articles.

I'd also love to clean up all the misc. articles and get rid of conflicting ones, but that is beyond the scope of what I propose we do initially. I only propose to do the first 2 items described above right now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So how does everyone feel about these two changes? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but personally I think they would be good. Fredrik | talk 20:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a nice diagram but it looks like "original research" to me, forcing a logical structure onto games that is not used on current authoritative consumer and industry game sites. It's not our job here to invent a structure, but to report on the ones used "out there", even if they're inconsistent. So I'd say, keep the Computer and video games overview article. Reorganize it as needed but don't change the title. I would like to it cite an authoritative referenced statement like "The Entertainment Software Association classifies games as Video Game genres or Computer Game genres. Source: http://www.theesa.com/facts/sales_genre_data.php:" and go from there. Then summarize the nuances of genre, platform, on-line vs. standalone, etc., with split-off articles if needed. -- Sitearm | Talk 20:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, I know we discourage original research here. I wasn't planning to use the chart in the article, I just used it here for illustrative purposes. But I don't think categorizing the different types of video games is original research, they are inherently categorized by what platform(s) they run on. But I'm not attempting to reorganize the genres of games, just what platforms they belong to. Like I said much earlier, having the Computer and video games article is just like having a Hamburgers and food article: it's lumping a subset in with its superset. I can't do the reorganization I proposed by starting with the Computer and video games article—it's the root of the whole problem. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your points but I don't agree with getting rid of the Computer and video game main article. Too much points to it and hangs off it for now. As a quick "band-aid" fix, we should probably add another redirect pointing to it, called "Computer and console game". Can't you add some text in the current main article, for now, summarizing your discussions here, plus write the new article pages you want, and add links to them? Maybe when we see them in writing, the anxiety at changing what was already debated and agreed to earlier will be eased. -- Sitearm | Talk 04:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that two topics can be grouped together doesn't mean there needs to be one article about them. For example, we don't have an article on television and radio. Sometimes, it is appropriate to separate the topics and where there is significant overlap describe common points in shared "sub" articles. The fact that computer games aren't a strict subset of video games (1% or so of computer games being non-video games), doesn't mean that video games can't be considered the "main" class of electronic games. The world isn't strictly hierarchial, and doesn't need to be described as such. Fredrik | talk 10:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll take User talk:Sitearm's wise suggestion and make a stab at a video game article first, then ask for feedback on it before actually posting it. And, yes, Fredrik's correct, not all computer games are video games. Some are audio games. But as he also notes, only about 1% (or probably fewer) fall into that category. I'll post a link to my draft of a new video game article (and maybe another article, like computer game) here after I write it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have a draft, which took much of it's content from the current Computer and video games article. Take a gander here, and edit as you see appropriate. Of course, any big changes you'll probably want to discuss first. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I really like this idea of changing everything to be under video game. However, consumer video game really only seems to seperate arcade games from the rest and doesn't offer anything beneficial to the categorizing of video games. Also, a major component that has been emerging the last 5 years is internet-based games (Not talking about online games). Some of these can be played over internet on consoles (Dreamcast), handhelds (PSP), and PCs (Windows, Linux, Mac).

So my version of this idea is:

• Video game
  • Console game
    • NES
    • (All consoles here)
  • PC game
    • Windows game
    • (All PCs/OSs here)
  • Handheld game
    • PSP game
    • (All handhelds here)
  • Arcade game
    • Pinball game (?)
  • Internet game (Not online, or MMORPGs.)
    • Html game(?)
    • Flash game(?)
    • Java game(?)

--Greyhawk0 03:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the belated response, but I object to the "PC game" category. PC is ambiguous and only refers to IBM PC compatibles and leaves out Macs and all the computers from the home computer era. I think computer game is much more inclusive.

Next, pinball games do not belong under the video game category. They do not fit the definition of a "game that uses a video monitor as its primary form of output (or feedback)." While some pinball games do have video monitors, they are not the primary part of the game the user interacts with.

Next, Internet games are already included in the list (though, not in the graphic--it was just a draft). But the Internet games section as you have it needs to be cleaned up. What exactly is an Internet game? Does the technology used to implement the game (PHP, Java, Flash) really matter? After all, we don't call The Sims a C game.

Lastly, please a look a the draft for the new Video game article I've had posted for weeks, but which no one has, as yet, commented on. It is the first step to this whole re-organization effort. Please take a look at it and thanks for the comments. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Internet game should probably be renamed to "Web-based game" or "Broser-based game" to avoid ambiguity with "online games" such as MMORPGs or whatever. Also I think this discussion should be moved to it's own talk page with a notice posted on the Project page to attract people to the discussion. If we're serious about discussing this change, this should be done until a consensus (one way or another) is made since this is a large sweeping change to the entire CVG/VG infrastructure. K1Bond007 19:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A few here may remember some while back (circa 6 weeks ago), I proposed reorganizing the computer and video game articles under one banner. That is, I proposed all video games be organized under—imagine this—the term "video game" and get rid of the artificial dichotomy between "video game" and "computer game." Responses were mixed, but we came to a sort of consensus: first a draft of a new video game article should be drafted, copyedited and discussed, at which point it could replace the current article (which is just a redirect to the peculiar article computer and video games). I have a draft of this proposed article posted in my sandbox. Much of the article's content was ported from the current computer and video games artilce, but some of it is original material. Please take some time and take a look at it.

Please consider these items:

• Apart from grammatical, punctuation, spelling and other minor changes, please post proposed changes to the talk page for the article. I know this is un-wiki, but I think it'll help keep changes to the article consistent.
• Ignore the erroneous templates. They are only broken because the article is not in the main article namespace—they will work correctly once the draft is a real article.

Thanks and I look forward to your comments! — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any more comments for a few days, can I assume everyone is okay with me replacing the video game redirect with the article draft in my sandbox? There are still a few issues with it, but they can be resolved after it is posted (and may, in fact, be resolved quicker if it is posted). Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess its OK. I don't see anything wrong with it. Thunderbrand 19:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I posted the new article on the video game page. Edit to your delight. I moved over the comments from the Talk page while it was in development. There are still some issues with it, but I think they can more efficiently be resolved now that it is posted in the right space. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted this back. Not to say I don't disagree with the whole idea for this, but there clearly isn't a consensus here. Tons and tons of things need to be changed, not just a simple article. Another problem here is the history of computer and video games and video game. The make up of the article you're trying to add to "video game" largely comes from "computer and video games". This needs to be sorted out for Wikipedia's own sake as we do not need duplicate articles and useless page histories. An admin (specifically one that understands how to correct complex copy and paste problems) needs to give this some attention to correct this issue before even proceeding with the new version in which you're proposing. K1Bond007 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should take a poll first to gague the interest? Thunderbrand 14:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to do reorganization but we really should get some bots in for this to do all the category renaming and all that good stuff. Personally, I dont think its much a priority (I think bringing the history of video gaming articles to FA status would be better) but It has to be done sooner or later --larsinio 17:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not proposing changing everything at once. I proposed that earlier and it was quickly shot down. Instead I proposed doing a little at a time. So I started the video game article which was just a redirect to computer and video games. I didn't get any negative feedback on this suggestion. Yes, a lot of content was pulled from the "computer and video games" article, but—eventually—it (the C&VG article) was going to be replaced (by several other articles, such as console game, computer game, etc.). So, eventually, there wouldn't be redundant information. A lot of the content is new, tailored specifically to video games, not computer and video games.

I'd like to restore the article text and would love everyone pitch in editing it until it's something we can all agree on. But I'm not going to start an edit war. I thought we had a consenses to take baby steps in the re-org, and that was the first step. I hope I'm clear. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ug, okay. I know what K1Bond007 mentioned is correct: most of the video game article was copied from Computer and video games and the history of that article should be preserved somehow in the video game article ("Computer and video games" was the only article used as a source). However, I don't know how to move the history over without just moving the "Computer and video games" to "Video game" which of course we don't want to do. I don't even know if admins can move histories like that. I was excited about this re-organization, but it looks like most people have lost interest. Personally, I don't have the time any longer to help move this forward. Any help would be appreciated, but I don't really feel optimistic about this anymore... <nowiki></nowiki>&mdash; [[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] | [[User talk:Frecklefoot|Talk]] 19:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes admins can move histories, it's actually more of a work around (deleting pages and restoring them with overlapped histories. It can create lots of problems so it's not done all the time see, Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves - this is a very complex issue - which I'm not sure is solvable in this case. It may be better to just move the old page(s) to a subpage like "/Old" or something and refer to this in the edit summary and talk page). I'm not opposed to this reorganization, I just feel more thought needs to be put into it before it gets pushed forward — and a vote (if possible) considering this is a major change. K1Bond007 20:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should compile a list of essential CVG-related articles for inclusion in the 1.0 Wikipedia, in the process identifying which ones are missing or need improvement. Maybe we should also try to work toward a CVG WikiReader? - Fredrik | talk 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great, but what are those? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what we'd have to decide (if you are referring to the articles). Fredrik | talk 16:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, found what you are talking about: Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 and WikiReader/Wikipedia:WikiReader. Sounds great. (please link items when proposing!) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Essential articles. - Fredrik | talk 11:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any push to even get near 0.5 is underway, or even 1.0, but I'll make a comment nonetheless. One proposed method for getting suitable articles together is by contacting individual Wikiprojects, us included. Each project will come up with a set of core topics to be included, expanded and worked upon, etc. for us in 0.5/1.0. The way I see it, core topics for WP:CVG include systems (NES, Xbox, Genesis, etc), major franchises (Mario, Zelda, Halo, Final Fantasy, etc), and maybe game companies (Nintendo, Sega, Bungie, etc). I think I might work on adding some stuff to that essential articles page thing. Unfortunetly, I think WikiProject CVG has been deemed inactive, as it hasn't been contacted about compiling a set of core topics/articles. Although, it appears that a lot of WPs haven't been contacted, so maybe that isn't the case. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

I've created a noticeboard for this project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Noticeboard for more. ^_^ Cookiecaper 02:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does the template create a space at the top of the articles it is on? —jiy (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see that it does. Could you provide a couple of examples? Ian Moody 23:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

 

I thought it might be that. That gaps appears on articles where the infobox has two new lines underneath it before the lead paragraph starts. Removing one fixes the problem, i.e.

}}

'''''Magic Carpet'''''

changed to

}}
'''''Magic Carpet'''''

I've fixed it on that example article. Ian Moody 13:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I added infoboxes to some articles (and looked at some existing ones), and put in an empty line because it didn't seem to make sense to treat the infobox and the block of text as 1 thing, and I didn't notice it moved down the text, probably because the warning the "Show preview" button always puts at the top, throwing me off. Sorry about that; I shall remove the white lines where I see them from now on. Looking at the code, this is what's happening:

What it is supposed to be (the table being the infobox): </table> <p><i><b>Magic Carpet</b></i> is (...)

With the extra white space: </table> <p><br /> <i><b>Magic Carpet</b></i> is (...)

The break right after the start a paragraph is what caused it. Strange place for a break, but that's what you get when you let software generate pages. Anyway, sorry again! Retodon8 14:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to start another computer/video/console discussion, but... this is slightly different.

If I would start an article on for instance the PC game Normality, considering the Normality page already exists, what should I name it? Normality (computer game) to me seems unnecesary long, and in my opinion the varying bracketed additions after what are all just computer and video games the same are annoying. If the article states which platform the game is for (preferably simply stating GameCube, Nokia nGage, PC, or whatever, as opposed to console/video/mobile/computer/PC/home entertainment systems/PDA/whatever), the article name needen't be that descriptive, especially until consensus is reached about the whole naming deal making it confusing instead of descriptive.

I would vote for Normality (game), short and to the point. This way the article can discuss versions for Nokia phones, PCs, GameCubes, whatever, which I think is preferable to almost identical pages, or worse completely different pages on almost identical games. Of course for instance Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time for the PC and for the GBA are completely different games, but I am still not sure if in those cases multiple pages are wanted. Another con is just "game" could just as well indicate a board game, and there is in fact a Doom board game for instance. In those cases more descriptive stuff can always be added between brackets, just like Doom (film) for instance. If a name is obviously a game, no ambiguity whatsoever, nothing is added between brackets either, so it's optional to begin with.

Thanks for anyone who can help to clear this up! Retodon8 16:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I would think that Normality (video game) since the term "video game" refers to all digital games that use video displays. For a long time, we've been calling console games "video games" and excluding all other types of video games from that definition (for example, arcade games could not be referred to as video games). That use of terminology is starting to change and "video game" is an umbrella term where you could discuss the computer and console versions of the game.

Normality (game) is fine, of course, if there is no other type of game (such as a board game) called "Normality". But if one is created, you'll have to go through all the wikilinks and disambiguate them. I'd opt for the more verbose wikilink, just for safety's sake. Plus, most of our articles use the verbose convention and it's be easier for users to link to your article. Just my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Normality (video game) would cover all the electronic versions. I think that Normality (game) isn't specific enough and Normality (computer and video game) is unnecessarily long. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll just copy-paste here what I talked about with User:Frecklefoot. I really like the infobox as it is right now but I've been thinking that it would be interesting to add "composer(s)" beneath "designer(s)" in the box. I know most people really don't think much of videogame music (and the genre is often a bit neglected), but there has been an increase in appreciation over the years. At least in Japan the phenonemon is a lot bigger, and there are already quite a few "big names" out there (Nobuo Uematsu, Richard Jacques), not to mention classic videogaming scores (Quake 2 by Sonic Mayhem, the Castlevania series, the Sonic the Hedgehog series,...). Nowadays even regular music artists have begun to write videogame scores (think Chris Vrenna's Alice score). Anyway, point I'm argueing: composers shouldn't be left out in this infobox. As it is right now I don't really find a place in the box to put the composer (to list them as "designer" seems too much like a stretch to me). What do you think? --Steerpike 18:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --ADeveria 19:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It could probably just go under the Designer field, as they're both pretty much secondary fields that are optional. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

As long as the field is optional, and there is no reason for it not to be, I wouldn't mind having it. For certain games it's definately important (and of course for others it's useless). I also agree with Gakon⁵ in that it should simply be below the designer, who is still more important. Retodon8 21:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about listing it under designer as well. I'm sure some people consider this a useless addition but just to offer some pre-emptive argumentation: I think there are more games of which the "composer" is known than the "engine". However, a alternate suggestion is to redefine "designers" in the box, since I've always thought that term to be rather vague anyway. Where do we put programmers or planners? Perhaps a more broadly defined "credits"? --Steerpike 22:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just think there is endless information we could include in the infobox. I just hope this doesn't lead to a slippery slope. If we include composer, why not programmer? Certainly John Carmack deserves a line for Wolfenstein 3D, Doom and Quake. What about level designers? Artists? Producers? I think that an argument could be made for many of them for certain games. Of course, they're many games where one or all of them are negligible. But they'd all be optional, right?

I think the infobox is best used for "highlights" of a game. Information on composer, artists or programmers on certain games (where they deserve mention) could be put elsewhere in the article. Though music for some games is very good, none of it has become as mainstream as some movie themes, for example (Jaws, Star Wars) or TV series themes (e.g. the Friends theme) and their composers don't get mentions in their article's infobox.

I think we need to draw the line somewhere. I think where we have it now is pretty good. This isn't a bad suggestion, but once we include composers, I think we'd eventually be compelled to mention others as well. Of course, this is all just MHO. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Composer information is interesting, but far from crucial. Andre (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. On the occasion that the composer is worth mentioning, they're surely worthy enough for a sentence or two of elaboration in the article. – Quoth 05:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think any people worth mentioning should be done in the designer's box. Perhaps is should be renamed key_people? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw, a different question: how do I join this project? I spend most of my time on Wikipedia improving video game articles anyway. I did a lot of work on the Sonic the Hedgehog series and currently I'm writing articles in the Shinobi series. Do I just put my name under contributors? --Steerpike 12:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just go to the project page and put your name in alphabetical order. Thunderbrand 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that it is possible to add optional fields to the infobox, I was thinking it might be an idea to add a sales figures field to the box. I can't find a reliable source for such figures however, surely one must exist. On the List of best selling computer and video games I think figures from NPD Funworld are used. However, as far as I can tell they only cover North America. Does anyone know of a better source? I think this information really belongs in an Encyclopedia article. Jacoplane 14:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. It's almost impossible to find accurate (and reliable) sources for video games' sales figures, and even the ones we can find are disputable. Usually only sales of the really popular video games are known, but even then... The page of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 lists the game as the best-selling Genesis game of all time but I have yet to find a reliable source to back this claim with exact numbers. They say even Sega doesn't know the figures. Anyway, just my 2 cents. --Steerpike 15:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with just saying the sales figures in the article? Thunderbrand 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Metal Gear characters. Someone merged all of them without asking. --Dangerous-Boy 11:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

And Talk:List of Metal Gear characters has a great deal of discussion of that topic, including the current plan to clean the entries up and split them into sublists. The discussion is ongoing. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Some guy wants delete the samples on the OST's page. See Talk page. --Dangerous-Boy 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The samples are now up for deletion. --Dangerous-Boy 17:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tagged them with {{music sample}} and removed the old ifd notices, I could find no reference to them in the deletion logs. (I know I voted, but it ain't there anymore). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about a merger at Talk:Xbox 360 screen of death. Comments would be much appreciated. --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Does this wikiproject have notability guidelines established? It would be helpful to have in order to vote on deletion or policy, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic: Time Attacked 2. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Similar to the CVG infobox, we should create a infobox for video game templates i think, giving a minimal set of important characteristics like its market status at the time, hardware, media, number of games, countries of primary sucess, and so on.

someting like

• Name:
• Image:
• Generation:
• Type (Dedicated, handheld, arcade system,)
• Media:
• Released:
• Ended: (optional)
• Controller ports
• Expansion ports
• Market status (optional)
• Released games (optional)
  • US
  • Euro
  • Jp
• Killer games (optional)

What does everyone think? I think it would be useful in unifying the layout of hte console pages to some degree --larsinio 17:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see why not; although designer is missing, that would be a crucial one (like NES -> Nintendo; Genesis -> Sega, etc). Another required field should probably be Tech Specs for the system. A better word for Ended would be Discontinued. Design-wise, it could look like the CVG and AG infoboxes, but maybe with a different color (sort of like what WikiProject Albums does; seven variants of the same box). -- gakon⁵ [[User_talk:gakon5|(talk)]]

• I'm not too crazy about this idea, but I don't really have a problem with it either. I don't agree with some of the fields listed above. First off, the template (if we have one) should only be used for handhelds and consoles IMHO. I drew up an example of what I think should be included, see User:K1Bond007/Temp2. Listing games and "market status" is bad, although it might be ok to have a link at the bottom of the infobox that points to "List of ___ games". I'm also not crazy about adding expansion and controller port numbers. Controller ports seem almost a thing of the past now considering their all wireless and then for handhelds it may be hard to define what a controller is (ex. DS's stylus and touch screen). I'm unsure of how to attack that so I just did away with the entire field. K1Bond007 23:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Alrighty then, I just C+P'd the CVG Infobox and made a template... with a lot of fields. Go to User:Gakon5/Infoboxes and scroll down to the bottom. I pretty much went with every suggested field, although I agree with 'Bond here on some points... here's what I think about each field:

• Name, image, gen., type, media - all keepers
• start, end - could be merged into "Lifespan" box
• controller ports (or number of supported controllers, for wireless ones) - keep it
• controller specs (it's in my template; features, buttons, etc) - maybe keep, or drop if it's not neciserry that we explain that the NES had four buttons, or the SNES had eight...
• expansion ports - does that mean stuff like Ethernet ports, or the Expansion Pak for the N64? Probably drop.
• market status - keep, but maybe change to "Sales Figures" or something similar
• games - keep Killer Apps, but not released games.

Oh, and I like the logo and color change stuff on your template.. looks much better than mine ;)

-- gakon⁵ [[User_talk:gakon5|(talk)]]

Good looks everyone. We should merge gakon 5's with K1bond's. (Gakon5's substanc ewith k1bond's look). I guess form here just got to make all the optional sub-templates to be put in this. Good stuff people --Larsinio 00:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of what you have is not necessary or the amount of information is too much for the infobox. Controller specs for instance is too large. It's easy for old systems like the NES, but what about systems like the N64 and Revolution. You have to explain the Z button, the analog sticks, the way in which you use it (Revolution). It's just too much. If we need controller information in the infobox leave it to just the amount of controllers it can support. That's really all that is necessary. I don't agree with leaving Killer Apps since that is subjective and once again possibly too much information. PlayStation from a certain point of view had tons of killer apps. Theres no way we can list them all. If the information is available, I'd rather have "Top selling game" for the system. That may be an optional. Summary of what to drop (IMHO): Killer app, accessories (too many to list - redundant with {{Nintendo hardware}} - which other manufacturers like Sega may need to follow), expansion ports (unnecessary), controller specs, discontinued (how does one come to an answer on this?), tech specs (too much, example see Sega Saturn#Technical specifications). I'm not too keen on Market status either, sales would be fine (if optional). K1Bond007 19:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I also think K1Bond007's infobox is the best here. I really feel the infobox should just contain essential information, and all the rest can go in the article itself. Jacoplane 20:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good; In my ninitial spec, i never really wanted too verbatim of details. Just small rankings and maybe one or two word links. But yea less is more. Lets start the oficial template Template:Cvg-console and continue the conversation there. --Larsinio 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Go with Template:CVG system. K1Bond007 21:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple of systems now have this template, amongst others: Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution, PlayStation 3, Nintendo DS. (No Sony PSP infobox yet). However there's no standard for how big images should be. The image of the Nintendo Revolution is much smaller than the Xbox 360 one, for example. Personally, I would suggest that smaller images are better. If someone wants to view the larger version, it's only one click away anyway. Now to apply this template to all the entries in Category:Video game consoles. Jacoplane 23:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And Category:Nintendo_consoles.. shouldn't this category be a subcategory of the video game console category? Jacoplane 23:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your head page labels the anime games category as strictly for games based on anime or manga titles. There are a bunch of pages floating around that are getting lumped into the anime games category that have nothing to do with anime but use a stereotyped art style, particularly ren'ai games. Use of "anime" to refer to an art style is slang, which doesn't really make Wikipedia look professional. Should these games be moved back to the simulation category where they originally were? Alcy 00:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the category is named "Anime games" it's simply open to broad interpretations. If the category is strictly for games based on series (say, Jump Superstars), then "Games based on anime series" would be more appropriate, while also having a "Games influenced by anime and manga" category for the ones purely inspired by the style (like Oni). ^wS;[[User talk:WolfenSilva|✉]] 11:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems way too open to interpretations. Anime can have any art style, not just those influenced by Walt Disney's large-eyed characters, even if they are common. Maybe we should have a category for games licensed as merchandise from other series/things and put the games currently in the anime category in their actual genres. Alcy 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

For clarity, are we talking about Category:Anime games? What's wrong with placing things like Dragon Ball Z games here? These titles belong here as far as I can tell, though I don't know what "ren'ai" is. Could you give an example of an article you feel doesn't belong in this category? Jacoplane 22:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with putting Dragon Ball Z games in the anime games category because those are actually based on an anime title. Ren'ai games, for all practical purposes, are dating sims, a fairly wide genre. Most are not tied with anime titles, yet because many use art styles stereotyped as "anime", are getting thrown into the anime games category. Free Talk Studio ~Mari no Kimama na O-Shaberi~, for example, is not related to any anime, yet was moved into the anime games category. I don't see how it is relevant, and could easily mislead people. Maybe we could have a new category for ren'ai games, since those are getting hit the hardest with this issue? As far as the games that actually are anime games, while their current location is okay, I think they should be put in multiple categories instead of just anime games (where many are), as it doesn't say much about the content of the game. Dual categorization would be ideal-Anime/Role-playing, Anime/Fighting, Anime/Simulation, and so forth. Alcy 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There was recently some disagreement over the policy of using box art images. Mainly, whether to use exclusively pictures of the box packaging, or the cover art contained therein. Most games do indeed use pictures of the box packaging itself, and most of these are lifted from the product pages of various online outlets. I think that although these fall well under fair use rationale, that high quality hi-rez box images supplied by the game makers (who, after all, own the copyright to any box image of their game) is preferable to other sources. Check out, for instance, the large clear image used for We ♥ Katamari - the source of Image:We ♥ Katamari.jpg is http://katamaridamacy.jp

Some game publishers/designers also release promotional designs used in the product packaging for their games. These are sometimes packaged in "fansite kits", and include great quality hi-rez shots of cover art. (See Image:Kameo_cover.jpg, offered at http://kameo.com/RoyalFun/FansiteSupport) Since the images are offered with a special permission to use them, the fair use rationale is solidified over the somewhat clumsier method of stealing pics from places like Amazon.com or Ebay. The images, however, often do not include the console-specific formatting (the bars above and below the coverart, basically formalities that must be included if a publisher wishes to release their game on a particular platform). Since the Infobox covers all of the pertinent info contained in these layouts (Release platform, ESRB rating, etc.), and since many games are multi-platform releases (yet include in the infobox the packaging image for only one particular platform), I think that these are both aesthetically and practically preferable to the aforementioned packaging pics.

This is a proposal for the clarification of Infobox image use policy, based on the arguments stated above. Please note that I am not arguing against using box art, I agree that the infobox image should reflect what the customer sees in stores. Often times the best available image is indeed a picture of the box packaging. However considering multi-platform and multi-national releases, the most likely common component is the cover art - essentially an elaborate rendering of the game logo. --anetode╔╝ 03:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Cover art can go in the gallery as far as I'm concerned. In the infobox we should stick with the boxart. Even though your arguments regarding multi-platform releases have merit, I think you'll find that this has been discussed so,so,so many times already that most people here will be happy to keep the current consensus. Regarding what you feel is aesthetically preferable, I disagree (I prefer having the packaging details), but that's something we'll never get consensus on. Jacoplane 03:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, what about those multi-platform releases? Is keeping a status quo really necessary when there might be a better alternative? And as for the aesthetic comments, you're right, that's more of a value judgement. BTW, I quickly browsed through some pages in the archives before posting this, could you please point to where this has been discussed? --anetode╔╝ 03:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically talking about using artwork, rather about the discussion of whether using boxart is the best method. The most recent discussion was about box art vs screenshots. Jacoplane 04:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it appears we had our channels flipped. I agree that using box art is the best method, but for the arguments outlined above, I think that using the cover art itself (that is, the image depicted in the packaging layout) is preferable. --anetode╔╝ 04:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Mm. I think for those cases multiple versions of box art should be posted instead. Sometimes a game will have different cover art for different ports. Other times, different versions may have different content, or be completely different games (Pugsley's Scavenger Hunt for NES, for example, was a different game than Pugsley's Scavenger Hunt for SNES. A few of the Magic Knight Rayearth games were just called Magic Knight Rayearth with no sub-title as well, for example.) Alcy 04:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Then the problem is, which particular box art do you include in the game page? The infobox currently has room for only one image. I agree with you that the multiple versions of the boxart should be included in the article, perhaps in the gallery or next to a relevant section. The question is, what is the most efficient way to represent a game title for identification purposes? If there are multiple versions of the game (such as all those "premium" packages that are coming out now), and multiple release platforms, then sticking to a specific pic of the packaging might sometimes prove confusing. --anetode╔╝ 04:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

On the problems. Jacoplane, agree I'm with you, for all that I saw here in Wikipedia:Computer and Videogames. And I would like to request (this is great opporunity) comments in:

• Perfect Dark Zero
• Kameo: Elements of Power

Anetode starts a edit war in these articles because of your "consolided consensus" arguments. I just request a admin to protect for this be discuss properly and engage all WPCVG community, not a guy "who think I'm right the rest for 2 years here not". --Mateusc 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear: I did not start an edit war. Check out the relevant talk pages and histories and see for yourself. Also, I am not trying to go against anything, these two were earnest attempts at improvement because I found fair use images that came with the copyright holder's permission. After Mateusc began impulsively reverting any of my changes, I decided to discuss it with him. And to discuss it with WPCVG project in general, hence the posting of this section. --anetode╔╝ 06:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The history of articles show all. Lets hear what other community members think about this. The current problem is that you start replacing the images before proper dicuss with the community. --Mateusc 06:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did, via the article talk pages. But I'm sorry that I did not check in with you. Would you like to be notified of every videogame-related edit I make from now on? --anetode╔╝ 06:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well anetode, as far as images needing to be sourced, is correct. The PDZ box cover (the one with the Xbox logos etc) is unsourced. Wikipedia policy dictates all images must be sourced. That said, however, I don't think it's too hard to find where these particular box covers came from. You could always ask the uploader. IMHO, box covers are inherently promotional material and therefore are good to use under fair use. The "poster" used on PDZ or the released box cover with all the logos etc is okay with me. I don't care. The poster is just as good a representation for what the WPCVG guideline is looking for as the "box cover" — they're both virtually identical. I don't see the big deal here. K1Bond007 06:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you've just succinctly communicated what took me three meandering parapgraphs to try to explain. --anetode╔╝ 08:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment the point is: "if I found sourced boxart image, I should replace in the game article because Wikipedia prefer sourced images". Well, I never saw boxshots without source to be quarrel or problems in the Wikipedia. Until a few days ago this never was problem and the members always uploaded unsourced boxshots as they appear in the stores. I can't understand why this need to changed into a rule now, because WPCVG members ever upload the unsourced boxshots in last monsths/years. I imagine how much of controversy this can generate in other projects, as to substitute unsourced covers of music CDs or movie posters for simply existing a photo sourced. --Mateusc 21:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Having a source for any image (along with a proper license) has always been a requirement at Wikipedia so that other editors can verifty the copyright status of the image. It's only been more recent that Wikipedia has actually begun to crackdown on the problem. Any image that has been uploaded for 7 days without a source is now eligible for speedy deletion. Although the images are usually tagged {{No source}} for those 7 days for notification to editors. I simply don't understand the problem you have here. The poster and the box cover are virtually identical with the exception of the logo for platform, the ESRB, and perhaps a publisher's logo — all of which can be found immediately in the infobox. Use a sourced poster or use a sourced box cover. It truly doesn't matter so long as the basic guidelines and policies of Wikipedia are upheld. Which to use should be handled case by case (what looks better, is it sourced, licensing, etc). K1Bond007 22:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no "problem" as your rude words, I only try to keep WPCVG articles standard. See Dungeon Siege Dungeon Siege II two recent articles that I uploaded stores boxcovers instead to choice the Fankit sourced available. --Mateusc 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that the point here is that your interpretation of WPCVG guidelines is ridiculously narrow. These are suggestions, not absolute laws, and good faith edits that try to uphold the spirit of these suggestions should not be disregarded simply because you don't like them or don't understand the basis behind them. You've made me justify these contributions again and again, but no matter what I or anyone else says you will simply disregard the explanations, and stick to your stubborn authoritarian stance. Your actions and constant reversions are disruptive and rude; cut other people some slack, we're all trying to work toward a common goal here. --anetode╔╝ 05:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If you you're arguing this out, you obviously have a "problem" with it. Don't twist my words to make it sound like I was being somewhat sinister and attacking you. It's so clearly not the case. K1Bond007 06:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Salutations. I was on user Thunderbrand's page a while ago, when i noticed he was a member of this "posse" on his userpage. Naturally, as a user that has made numerous projects and edits for video games, I was just wondering- Can i join your club..?-MegamanZero 22:43 20, November 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, allow me to rephrase that statement: May I become a participant of the WikiProject Computer and video games community..?-MegamanZero 22:49 20, November 2005 (UTC)

Just add your name to the participants. This isn't a club. It's more like an internal community of the Wikipedia community devoted to improving video game articles. We need to really make a statement about this. We get questions like this all the time. K1Bond007 22:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Just wanted to make a verification first to make sure its okay. Thanks. Also, feel free to take a look at the projects on my userpage and tell me what you think on my talkpage. -MegamanZero

I believe the Parasite Eve article could use some more elaboration- I plan to add a page on the Ultimate being, terms for Neo Midocondrian cretures (and they're articficial counterparts). What do you think of that idea..? Also, can we get someone well versed in the game to elaborate more on the story in PE2..? That section seems like a stub. Finally, I posted a few questons on Aya Brea's talk page- culd we get someone well versed in the events of the game(s) to answer them..? Please get back to me on my talkpage-MegmanZero 5:40 21, November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know this game specifically, but it seems to me that rather than writing more detail on the specific creatures in the game, more should be written about the gameplay itself. Jacoplane 15:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what Gamefaqs is for. I want to know more of the storyline for PEII so we can explore its analytical aspects.MegmanZero 7:17 21, November 2005 (UTC)

I'm almost certain this has been discussed before, but the current naming system for console histories at History of computer and video games is a little awkward, especially since it uses parenthetical disambiguation so much (see, for example, History of video games (Seventh generation era)). I propose that the articles instead reside at something like Seventh-generation video game console. æle ✆ 14:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not just about video game consoles though. Handhelds and the industry in general too. I think we're fine with what we have. K1Bond007

8-bit video game era, Seventh-generation video game era? (Incidentally, someone actually created Seventh-generation video game console, which I've redirected.) æle ✆ 01:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

They were already at Seventh generation era etc, but we're moved because the titles were ambiguous. K1Bond007 04:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this project and want to contribute as much as possible. I was wondering if an older member could tell me if it's okay to put boss strategies in the game as long as it isn't very much strategy and I don't give too much away. Can someone please fill me in?

--Dtm142 22:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• You may possibly surmmurize on a boss's behavioral patteren(s), etc., but only if it has relevance to a charater's article and/or history. But not really, no; that's what Gamefaqs is for.-MegamanZero 15:37 28,November 2005(UTC)

• Well there is a "GameFAQs"-like initiative at Wikibooks, as mentioned on this project page, where you can create a game guide for whichever game you wish, and they are a perfect place for game strategies. The "Content" section linked above should clear up any doubts you have regarding the information you wish to include. – Quoth 23:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the Template:anime-cvg-stub used to have the icon  . Now it's reverted to the more generic console controller and the Shiori icon image is scheduled to be deleted. Is there a reason not to use the image on that stub template? It adds a lot more flavour than a generic controller (which is inaccurate for many anime games anyway). Shiori from Tokimeki Memorial is one of the most recognisable and archetypal anime game images, and I'd be in favour of using her icon as a representation of anime games in the stub template. Can anyone (especially whoever inserted the generic controller) comment on this? --AlexChurchill 11:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a free image. Fair use of such an image would be allowed in the article on that particular anime, but not as a generic image to be used throughout wikipedia. Jacoplane 13:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed it because wikipedia has a policy against using non-free images in templates. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be really cool if someone made a nice png/svg anime character icon and put it in the wikimedia commons for us to use! (hint hint!) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer the generic cvg controller icon over the anime one. Boring as I might be, I think it makes it look more professional. - Hahnchen 18:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inquiring about PE again, since it seems no one noticed my last request above...Does anyone here know about the analytical aspects of Parasite Eve....? Or at least played the two video games..?-MegamanZero

I've played and beaten them both, though not recently (and I sold my copy of PE2). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's great. I need someone to fill me in on the story fro PEII and/or expand the article so we can list the stroy of the game more in detail. Please ethier expand the story in the article in detail, or if you don't want to, send me the info (maybe a dialoge script) and I'll write it. Thanks!-MegamanZero 13:41 29,November 2005 (UTC)