edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games:

Gaming collaboration of the Week: "Video game publisher" A membership list has been started. If you are an active member, be sure to list yourself as such. Peer review: Pong Toss! Frat Party Games, Jeff Green (writer), WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2010, Zeno Clash, The Final Fantasy Legend, Halo: Reach, Guitar Hero: Van Halen, The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay Featured content candidates – FA candidates: Arbiter (Halo), Nintendo DSi, School Rumble - FL candidates: List of songs in The Beatles: Rock Band Good content candidates: Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King, Scribblenauts, A Boy and His Blob (2009 video game), Dragon Warrior, Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, Zero (Mega Man), Izuna 2: The Unemployed Ninja Returns, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (video game), Jungle Strike, Guitar Hero On Tour series, Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, Steins;Gate, Saw, Brütal Legend, Tifa Lockhart, Xenogears, Michael Salvatori - Music: Music of the Katamari Damacy series, Music of the EarthBound series, Yoko Shimomura, Hitoshi Sakimoto, Yasunori Mitsuda, Takahito Eguchi, Hiroki Kikuta, Noriko Matsueda, Jeremy Soule – Good topic candidates: Neverwinter Nights 2 Article status review – FA Review: Final Fantasy VI Bounty board: Wario, Beyond Good & Evil (March 28, 2010) Pages for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Announce your new pages. Grant requests if they are suitable for inclusion. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project Talk page. Monitor changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Help clean up articles in Category:Video game cleanup. Remember to get articles you've significantly improved re-assessed. Sign up for the VG Newsletter.

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77
Threads older than 7 days are archived by MiszaBot II.

WikiProject Video games
Main page talk   Talk page archive talk
Manual of style Article guidelines talk   Naming convention talk Templates talk Sources talk
Departments Assessment talk   Requests talk   Archive talk   Bot log talk Peer review talk   Archive talk Collaboration talk   History talk Reference library talk   Print archive talk Newsletter talk   Current issue Draft Video game images talk
Articles Article alerts talk Pages for deletion talk New pages talk Article requests talk Essential articles talk Featured articles talk Good articles talk
Task forces Arcade talk Atari talk Atlus talk BioWare talk Castlevania talk Command & Conquer talk Destroy All Humans! talk Devil May Cry talk Dragon Quest talk Dungeons & Dragons talk The Elder Scrolls talk Gears of War talk Grand Theft Auto talk id Software talk Mega Man talk Mortal Kombat talk MU* talk Nintendo talk Pro gaming talk Sega talk Silent Hill talk The Sims talk Soul talk StarCraft talk Suikoden talk Valve talk Visual novels talk Warcraft talk
WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Popular pages talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk Project members talk Wikipedia 0.7 workshop talk
view • talk • edit • changes

[edit] Arcade flyers

So, according to User:Frecklefoot use of arcade flyers in infoboxes is forbidden and we should use screenshots instead. Is that the consensus here? --Mika1h (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arcade flyers? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See for example: Bubbles, Phoenix, Street Fighter II, Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection. --Mika1h (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought it might be, just wanted to make sure. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a discussion on this in the last few months? I seem to recall it coming down on the side of the flyers/posters, though I might be mistaken. -- Sabre (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before. Flyers, cabinets isolated from flyers, and screenshots are all considered copyrighted and unusable as far as I can tell. I'm acutally talking to the owner of KLOV to see about getting permission for this project to duplicate the non-copyrighted photos of cabinets he has. I also want to see about possibly starting some kind of subproject here specifically for obtaining personally taken photos of cabinets and such for use on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it any different than a movie poster though?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea, I'm just reporting previous discussions and possible solutions. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I understand. I think we had a lengthy discussion here too on the matter that should be in the archives, and I think Sabre's recalling the same one because I was sure it ended in favor of them.

It's a strange setup too when you consider that the flyers are, effectively, the box art for the games, and for console-based games there isn't any such qualm regarding using box art. So according to the sum logic of that and what was used in the AfD, a screenshot would be better than the arcade flyer but a scan of the console box, even if it's more or less the same image in some cases, is better than a screenshot? That's what the AfD and current standing seems to suggest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are two main archived discussions I could find. Here's a very early one from August 06, and the more recent one from August 09 everyone is remembering. After reading them, it doesn't really feel like a true consensus was ever reached. The discussions just kind of fizzled out despite some very valid points being brought up for and against. Shall we try to reach a definite consensus this time? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

When you have an arcade game that has had ports made to home systems then we use box art in the infobox (if I am correct), so are we only really talking about arcade games that havenever been released on home systems? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is not the case for at least two articles. Street Fighter 2 has been released on several home consoles and Tekken 5 was released on the PSP.--70.24.180.120 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Street Fighter II released over XBLM? If it was, then it has no boxart in that form. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Street Fighter II was released on consoles like the Mega Drive and SNES, for which there will be box art. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The debate seems to fizzling out again. How about if a game has only ever been released in arcades than a screenshot of the title screen gets used in the infobox? To a lot of people it may be more recognisable than an image of the cabinet or a flyer. As this would be being used for a purpose different to an in game screenshot would fair-use rationale pass for two screenshots in the article in these instances? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to jump start discussion- I think an issue to take into account is that many arcade game articles are written with the arcade version as the primary focus and home ports as derivatives. Putting in a home console box art does not sound like a good identifying image. This approach, however, would probably be suitable for an arcade game that is more well known for its home version.

Aside from that, I think arcade images should be sought after this order of importance

1. Arcade cabinet- the artwork and cabinet are easily recognizable physical objects.
2. Arcade flyer- flyers typically display one or more type of cabinet and identifying artwork for the characters or in-game objects.
3. Gameplay image- only identifiable if up close to a cabinet. But is typically desired for the article anyway. And with the internet and MAME so readily available, this is probably becoming an easily identifiable aspect.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm of the opinion that a screenshot of title screen should be used if a picture of the cabinet is not available. This should be more recognisable than a flyer to all but the most knowledgeable arcade goer, plus it will also cover arcade games that have been given conversions to home systems if box art is not suitable for these articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we use to do something like that before, but moved away from it once we tightened the application of WP:NFCC. If we can come up with a strong fair use rationale, then I guess we could go back to it. I'm still in favor of flyers over title screens though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Console exclusive / should we do away with the "Exclusive" column

Can I get some opinions of the use of the term "console exclusive" on List of Xbox 360 games and List of PlayStation 3 games? Surely, a game is either exclusive, or it isn't. It comes across, at least to me, as "exclusivity" being used as ammunition in a console war, and that certain games also being on the PC is seen as an inconvenient fact to be swept under the rug or dismissed as not really counting. Maybe that's not the intention, but I don't think we should be promoting this kind of thing... Any thoughts? Miremare 23:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think you can only call a game "exclusive" if it doesn't appear on any other platform in the same form. I can see why handheld and phone games are not considered as they are usually very different versions, but a PC game is usually similar. I can also see what a "console exclusive" is but I don't think it really needs to be in a list. If the reader feels they need to do more investigation they can always click through into the article to find out if it was a "console exclusive" or not. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a PC version then its not console exclusive.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the column "console exclusive" is just superfluous. There's point in indicating that the game is available on other platforms or not. The developer's and publisher's names? Yes. The release dates? Yes. But whether the game is available on other platforms? No. A "list of Xbox 360 games" should focus on Xbox 360 games, period. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. I agree.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Console exclusive column needs to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know "Me too"'s are irritating but, Me too. Can we keep this momentum going and sort out the "only" categories as well? - X201 (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the "only" category?--Ace Oliveira (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_4#Category:_Wii-only_games - X201 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the exclusive column from both articles. --PresN 21:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The thread started with a question about the term "console exclusive", and not the entire exclusive column. I think it's useful, and further I think the "Console exclusive" is a useful value for the column. Let's make sure we are all on the same page before we go making hasty edits. Do we want to do away with the entire column or just those entries marked "console exclusive"? I think both should stay. See the first three sections on Talk:List of Xbox 360 games for the discussion that lead to this. –xeno^talk 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While you have the right if the discussion is ongoing to revert the edit, I'd like to point out that while AirRaidPatrol was talking just about the term, Megata/Oliveira/RobJ1981/X201 and I were all talking about the column as a whole. I agree with Sanshiro (obviously) that there's no point in a list of 360 games to give that much weight to whether it's also available on other platforms. --PresN 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well since the discussion quickly morphed into something unrelated to the original query, let's give other editors some time to weigh in (I've expanded the heading). These columns have been in place for a long while and I personally find them useful, I'm sure some of our readers do as well. –xeno^talk 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Those discussions you linked are also 1.5 years old... --PresN 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Even more reason to give this discussion some room to breathe, given that this is a change to a year-and-a-half-old status quo. –xeno^talk 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, finding things "useful" isn't a good reason to keep them. Codes and cheats are useful too, but we aren't going to list them here because that's not what this encyclopedia is for. Also note: being in the articles a long time doesn't justify the column must stay either. I say if we get no strong opposition about removing the lists in a week or so, they should go. We don't need to drag this out. People visit the talk pages, so if they want to comment they can. If not, the columns should go. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? –xeno^talk 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See above. People give great reasons for why it should be removed. Keeping it because it's "useful" and "been there a while" are more like excuses because you don't have a real reason for it to stay. If many people want it gone, that's a consensus and the columns will be removed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No one gave a reason above why the column should go. It should stay because it is useful, encyclopedic, unobtrusive, and what many of our readers are looking for in such a list. –xeno^talk 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They did give reasons. Just because you choose to disagree with them (or whatever the case might be), that doesn't discount them. Readers are looking for it? I go back to my previous comment: people want codes and all that as well... but it's not going to happen. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. As for the columns: it's just trivia and not important for the list itself. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I see above is that it is believed to be "superfluous" - a highly subjective comment. Other than that, just a lot of "me too". I've requested comment from the XB and PS projects. Codes/cheats are obviously outside of encyclopedic scope and also don't fit easily into a list: this is not the case with the "Exclusive" column. –xeno^talk 18:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
A list should only list core, encyclopedic (for short let's say "important") elements of a topic. For a list of video games of a particular platform, the video game title is an important element. The developer is an important element as it is the author of the work. The publisher is an important element because it is the entity that actually releases the work. The release dates are important as they set the entries in a historical context. Platform exclusivity is not important, because the article is about video games of a particular platform, not video games of a whole console generation. That a [Platform 1] game is also available on a [Platform 2] is not an essential information. Other types of non-essential information would be, for instance, putting a column indicating other famous games of the same developer, or what other games where released on that date, or the dominant color of the game's box art, etc. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing the column would necessitate two new lists "List of Xbox 360 exclusive games" and "List of PlayStation 3 exclusive games" containing redundant data to the current list. Unless we are now decreeing that providing exclusivity data for the console libraries is not encyclopedic data worthy of research? We should not operate ignorant of the fact that the console wars rage on. –xeno^talk 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy that. The idea that we NEED to cover exclusives in the lists is unfounded. A lot of information is useful, so why is this in the ranks of release dates/developers/publishers/names? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Both players and console makers alike put a lot of stock into the console's library of exclusive titles (Halo, Little Big Planet, Super Mario Bros., etc.). To deny this and remove informational content related to it seems to present a very anti-console bias. –xeno^talk 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's totally subjective and it's from a group of people who do care about that kind of info. This list is a catalog of information that's important to the game. Whether or not the game exists in any other form is trivial compared to when it was released and who made it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"That's totally subjective and it's from a group of people who do care about that kind of info" - you mean, like our readers? God forbid we cater to them =) N.B. These lists are the number one google hit for "list of (Xbox 360|PlayStation 3) exclusives" [1] [2] –xeno^talk 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That logic would suggest that we should cater to them without exception, and we just don't. Again, without a reason why exclusivity is historically important, it should not be mentioned. Also, question - what are the Google hits for "boss battle tricks"? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's historically important. Console exclusivity is a very important theatre of battle in the console wars. I still haven't seen a good reason why the column should be excluded, nor can I think of a better place to put this data. –xeno^talk 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fanboys and the console wars are not as historically important as the bare details, and a game being on one platform or many is not nearly a bare detail. The reason it should be removed is that its rationale to include is not as strong as the bare details' rationale, and as such would allow any number of things to be in that are equally historically important, yet are excluded on a case-by-case basis by consensus that never explains why it's of less importance. I think that genre is far more of a bare detail than console exclusivity, but it still shouldn't be on any list.

And while we're on the topic, I think we need to go through and remove such extraneous information from other lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear Xeno is the only one that's strongly supporting the column. I wont claim there is a consensus now, but in a week or so: I think it should be clear then. A better place for this: video game websites/wikis. Why make this a matter of "it has to go somewhere" anyway? Not everything that is removed (or on the verge of deletion) isn't just transferred somewhere else. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On reading the comments I agree that the column has no place in the main list, however I think that the Category "Xbox 360 only games" should remain. As long as all the appropriate games articles are placed in this category then the list of exclusives will remain in place to a fashion, but just not on the main list of Xbox 360 games. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd think the category should go, and the column in the list should stay. Though as Miremare says, it should probably be titled a bit differently;. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be the only site that keeps this data up-to-date and well-maintained. By all means if I am the only one supporting this column a week from now, remove it, but know that in doing so we do our readers a disservice. –xeno^talk 13:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point out that I originally headed this section simply "Console exclusive", and was intending to remove only that term from the columns, rather than the columns themselves. Thanks, Miremare 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, we can't please every reader. If we did that, there would be no policies or guidelines. Wikipedia would have extra long articles filled with any little note that people deem "notable". As for Miremare's comment: I'm not sure how the column would have any benefit being renamed though. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should please none of them. What good is the list if we pare it down to the barest essentials? I've already demonstrated that this list is being utilized to research exclusivity data; being the number one Google hit. Why do we want to now make the list less useful (almost to the point of uselessness)? Doesn't make sense to me - not at all. –xeno^talk 13:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to rename it, just to stop using the term "console exclusive" to describe games that are "exclusive" to that console, despite also being on PC. Miremare 00:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the happy compromise is to keep the "exclusive" column, but not to include "console exclusives", merely make it a yes or no column. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not much of a compromise. Removing a word doesn't change the column much. Consensus is the answer here, not just removing one word. The current consensus I see is removing the column. Perhaps it will change in the next few days, we will see. To reply to Xeno: removing one column doesn't make the list useless. If that was the case, every console list would have the column. Look at the FEATURED list of List of Nintendo 64 games. No exclusive column, even though people could argue for it because other systems were around at the time. A featured list is great proof that a console list doesn't need an exclusive column to be useful. People don't agree with you, but you still think it's alright for the column to remain because you "don't see a good reason for it to go". One person doesn't make a consensus, many do. What doesn't make sense to me is how you can just act like the list useless (or almost useless) over ONE COLUMN?! Many console lists have been just fine without them (other ones besides Nintendo 64), so you are basically overreacting in my opinion. Google hits aren't what we revolve articles around. I can bet you could look at things on the verge of deletion via AFD(original research, trivia and whatever else) and you would find Wikipedia at the top of the hits. Does that mean we close AFD as keep instantly? I don't think so. If we did that, nearly everything would be kept with some exceptions: copyright infringements, hoaxes, etc. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice straw man: multiplatform games didn't become the norm (thus making exclusives/console exclusives noteworthy) until the 6th generation. However, perhaps an alternate compromise would be to create a list of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console which could include all three consoles. –xeno^talk 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Personally I do not see a reason for removing this information, it would be beneficial to those interested in the topic of console exclusivity, and I don't think it really inconveniences anyone. I doubt any reader looking for information/research would say "That resource would be so much better if it didn't have as much information in the table!", to a reasonable extent of course... Also, whilst sure a featured list does not include the column, why does that mean no others should? Featured articles are not perfect nor complete, perhaps they could be improved upon with such information. At the end of the day I feel that having this information benefits the end-user of the Wikipedia project. Additionally, as pointed out previously by other editors in this discussion, exclusivity of titles is an important factor in comparing the consoles in some peoples eyes, and thus this column is more notable than listing say, publishers, release dates and directors etc... --Taelus (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question - do you think listing genre is beneficial and does not inconvenience anyone? The reason the argument doesn't fly is that it applies to, like, everything. Heck, genre uses the argument more strongly. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with 'genre' is that many games fall under a bunch of different genres so the column would be bloated and not benefit much from sortability. –xeno^talk 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then list the main genre. The problem with genre is that it bloats no matter if there's one genre or many. Same with exclusivity. That exclusivity is important to people is extremely POV. It panders to people who want fuel for their console wars fire, not to people using the list as a historical reference. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you crystal-balling that the console wars are not historically significant? –xeno^talk 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I am, what are you doing? How is what you're doing NOT crystal balling when you're predicting the opposite outcome? We're not here to determine that something is historically important. There are many tiers of importance, and fanboy wars are so far down that list from release dates. Why don't we also list if a game is multi-player? Or 2D/3D? Or a remake? Or its Game Rankings score? Or sales? I mean, I'm not sure why the quality of the game is not historically important if whether a game is exclusive or not is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In this discussion, Xeno basically REFUSES to understand anyone's view on the matter. Xeno, you don't own the list, nor do you control what goes on it. I see a consensus in this discussion, period. Xeno, how many more people need to disagree with you before the column can actually be removed? Sorry if this harsh, but you are being very difficult and acting like you are right and everyone is instantly wrong. Not acceptable. Articles are meant to be edited and discussed with others, not just "I'm right and everyone is wrong, so I'll just ignore them and be stubborn" type of attitude. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will always strongly oppose removing useful, encyclopedic information, however I already moved towards a compromise as noted by Miremare below. –xeno^talk 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm... Xeno, given most editors' feelings toward this subject, do you really think that creating list of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console is a good idea? Miremare 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea. Since the 'Exclusive' column is apparently so problematic in the generic List of... articles, the information should be moved elsewhere rather than lost altogether. –xeno^talk 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There really was no good reason to make that article (Xeno worried about the content being gone forever is an excuse and that's about it). There is how many video game Wikis? The content would be much better suited for one or more of those. So if I don't see notability by that article shown (and not just what Xeno has said here about google hits and readers finding it "useful"), I will be sending it to AFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am untagging the notability concerns from the article for the following reasons from WP:N

1. It has gained significant coverage. Console exclusivity has been covered by news websites and reviewers as a topic of note.
2. The topic has reliable sources for this information in terms of release data
3. There are pleanty of secondary sources that can provide evidence of both the status of exclusivity, and its effect on the importance of it. (Although, this may not be suitable for a list article, a discussion of the importance of exclusivity could be maintained elsewhere and linked to the list.)
4. I cannot find any violations of WP:NOT either.

Feel free to take it to AfD if you wish, however I think that the topic is quite notable and useful to our end users for research into the topic. --Taelus (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image check

I've been contacted about an image in LucasArts adventure games not displaying properly. The image in question is File:Manny and Merche.jpg, which the user says is simply displaying entirely red in both the article and file page on both IE and Firefox. I can see it fine, but is anyone else having trouble viewing this image? -- Sabre (talk)

Works for me, in the article and file namespaces. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Works for me to. Salavat (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems for me, possibly a problem with that user's browser. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It works for me in Safari, FireFox, Internet Explorer 8, and Google Chrome so it is most likely a problem with the user's browser. GameSlayerGS (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Xenogears

I'm going to try a Xenogears GAN in a little while but I'm stuck. The plot of the game is pretty intricate and one of the complaints as to why it failed the last GAN was that the plot section made no sense. But in order to have it make sense, I feel like it'll be too long. I'm planning on rewriting it to fit the length of FA plot sections like Final Fantasy XII, but I'm worried there'll still be complaints. Any suggestions? : ] ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(courtesy link: Xenogears) My completely off-the-cuff comment is that the plot would make no sense regardless of how much text you devote to it. Nifboy (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix. They might know how to help you. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember an EGM article a few years back that tried to present a simplified summary of Xenogear's plot and characters (I think it was Xenogears and not one of the Sagas). I can dig it up and email it to you. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Hmm..if you can find a couple more RS sites that do that and comment on the plot itself you could probably split the plot out as Story of Xenogears making sure to have the reception of the plot as well as a legacy section for its impact on Xenosaga. If you can't, try and clean it up as best you can. You (or someone else) already have done my first item i'd suggested: seperating characters and setting.
A good article to see for how to do it is Chrono Trigger between the time it had FAR and was kept (the current version has bad some plot creep in it).陣内_Jinnai 19:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just reading it over really quickly, it seems to use a lot of flowery language and go into unnecessary detail. The only advice I can give you is to just go through it and cut out anything that is not absolutely needed in order to understand the general plot. That will make everything a lot easier to structure, and hopefully it will cut the section down about 50%. --Torsodog^Talk 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. I think I'll try to cut it down this week and see how it comes out. ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images and infoboxes for retro games needed!

Hey there. :) In case you missed my rather enormous thread on Dragon magazine, I've been busy for a few months showing a bit of love to a few hundred odd retro game articles (and probably starting a few dozen or so of them in the process). I was frankly surprised to see just how many of them did not cite even a single source – well, now that has been rectified in each case I looked at!

Another challenge that faced many of these articles was the lack of images and/or infoboxes (in some cases, {{Infobox VG series}} is needed). If you're the sort of person who likes to add these things to articles, well here is your chance to help out! :) Now, you might look at this ridiculous list and say "No way, that's way too much," but don't look at it that way. Maybe pick three to five articles or so that make you go "No way; that one doesn't even have an infobox?" and fix them up. Maybe come back another day or two later and say "Hey, these haven't been fixed; let me get that."

Note that many of these articles do have images like screenshots, but they probably do not have box art, which I think is what an infobox is supposed to have ideally. I'm sure in some cases a proper image may not even exit, let alone be available for public consumption; if so, feel free to strikethrough it with a note explaining. Also feel free to strikethrough anything you fix or that you note has been fixed, and I'll try to keep up with anything that anyone misses. Thanks for your help and patience! :) BOZ (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox only:

• Star Trek (text game)
• Star Saga - also gave it a better picture
• Space Rogue

Image only:

Needs Both:

Note to anyone who wants to help: If you find a cover art image which is too small or which has an annoying Mobygames watermark, you can try searching for other versions of the image on TinEye. Sometimes there's no results because it's a beta engine but sometimes you can find good results. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow thats a really cool site, many thanks for that. Salavat (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of these can be found at Abandonia. I know I have seen Trust and Betrayal: Legacy of Siboot, Amazon: Guardians of Eden, Spellcraft: Aspects of Valor, and The Incredible Machine there. That site has infoboxes for all games and boxshots for many of them. Maybe we can use their resources, with permission of course. New User^(talk) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Level (video gaming) name clarification

The aformentioned article refers to "level", as in the area in which a certain part of the game takes place. However, Level (gaming) redirects to "experience points", e.g. "Level up". I think that the two should be separated somehow. Possibly by moving the first article to Stage (gaming)?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Level for playing could possibly be moved to Area since the terms are used interchangeably in many instances.陣内_Jinnai 03:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that statement. Otherwise, could make Level (gaming) a disambig. Sounds weird... --Izno (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Inzo on this, I have always referred to the stage or area in a video game as a "level". Perhaps the experience point base article would be better being moved to Levelling (video gaming) or somthing along those lines. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I like "Leveling" because it's a broader concept that encompasses character progression in general; that's what the current Experience point article seems to do anyway. "Character progression" might be an alternative name as well. Also, instead of using parentheses you could tack on "Video game..." or "...in video games" to the title. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You could just redirect all the ambiguous page names to Level#Entertainment. Gary King (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the best course of action to me. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts needed on World of Final Fantasy VIII

Resolved.

The article was recently dispersed to two other articles after a short discussion with no objection and one support, mainly due to issues brought up in a GAR and the fact that a majority of the reception focused on the game's graphical presentation, rather than the world itself. As these things go...it was actually a very clean surgery.

The problem though is now User:Dream Focus is contending that a merge discussion should absolutely take place. So some opinions are needed here, given the article's quality, whether or not it should remain especially considering that the information within is now repetitive. Any thoughts one way or another?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the "information within is now repetitive" part is due to information of said article being used on the relevant game and character articles, among others, only after the initial "surgery" took place. — Blue。 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Beforehand only the history and to a lesser extent development sections were repeated in the main FF8 article. Als0o sorry if my tone is coming off as condescending, I realized it sounds that way and it isn't my intention.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After speaking with Dream Focus, the objection towards merger the article has been resolved.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for article - "top 100 lists"

I just got my recent GameInformer that has their 100 top VGs of all time (importantly across all platforms/media). Knowing that there's a few select lists of equivalent noteworthness - Edge, IGN, and possibly a few others, I'm wondering if such a list/table would make be good here to cover these.

Mind you, the details need to be limited and what lists we include need to be very clear. Games would only be listed by name, platform ("multi" for cross platforms), publisher, and year of release. Only well-proven reliable sources would be used (see list above), and if the issue has a regular habit of doing these once a year or slighly less often, we'd only use the last two lists (instead of including them all).

Anyone see any major problems with this? --MASEM (t) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My ages old point against using gamerankings / metacritic for comparison and 'it's the #1 game' statements applies here too. These kind of lists are not comparable with each other: the different sources have radically different views on, say, how to include old games that were good in their time but not influential, and those that were influential, etc. As long as you don't go an add things up and compare these lists, but just provide the information as-is, I'm all for it. See Time 100 on a good example. User:Krator (t c) 09:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I could see storing such info as useful for the reference library perhaps...there's literally so much diversity it's all over the place, and even IGN might be a pain here as they do change their mind from year to year.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be in favour of that. Though we have seen similar things deleted in the past, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Sinclair official top 100. Is there anything relevant raised in that AfD? Miremare 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The two main issues raised in the AfD could be of concern to these articles too. The copyright issue could lead to any article like this being nominated for deletion as it would be difficult to keep the list with it's reasoning without infringing copyright. The subjectiveness and self-referencing nature of these lists will always lead to problems as well. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to describe the lists and maybe link to them, but not to reproduce them or use them to "formulate" entirely new lists that consist of OR. SharkD  Talk  01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] One-liners in TV series

Hi, I would like to know if a one-liner mentioning Crono and Marle in a TV series is notable for mentioning in the List of Chrono Trigger characters. See [3]. Thanks! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently it is not referenced, but I think it could be of note as it is a direct comparison to the game, in a way. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference is kind of small. Yes, you need to understand the game to fully get the reference, but it could have also been the Time Traveller and Weena from the The Time Machine. I'd say it depends on how much coverage it gets from a reliable source. Even then I'd condense the sentence to the bare essentials: An episode of Heroes briefly alludes to Marle and Crono's relationship. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Membership followup

Following up on two past discussion (one and two), the membership page seems to be working out well enough. There has been a fairly steady stream of new members adding themselves, and the number of active members is at almost 200.

The next step is to purge the inactive list and setup a method to gauge activity. There was talk of a getting a bot to check the last time an editor made an edit on Wikipedia. What would be needed to get the ball rolling for that? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

I want to stay on the list, but I'm not active. What do I do? :) User:Krator (t c) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Users who may or may not be active who are part of WikiProject Video games... >.> --Izno (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the membership page should be broken into three sections; active, inactive, & unknown. The inactive section should be changed to unknown, and that way members such as Krator can place themselves under inactive. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sort of for old members that have contributed alot, but they aren't active anymore, and they should still be recognized on the list? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if I do not entirely follow, but why does the inactive list need purging at all? Surely the active list can be used quite happily for statistics gathering purposes. --Taelus (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions described the list as two parts: "Active" and "Inactive". Active members are members that regularly contribute. Inactive members are members that have left Wikipedia or do not edit with any regularity.

The plan was to regularly check the activity of those listed in "Active". Those that had not edited in a predetermined length of time would be moved to the "Inactive" section. Those that remained on the "Inactive" list for a predetermined length of time would be removed to keep the list manageable.

The point of the membership page was to move away from an overly long list of members like Category:WikiProject Video games members that inaccurately portrayed our membership numbers/activity. Of course, if there's a way to do this while maintaining an unknown list like MrKIA suggests, that can work too. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

I went ahead and changed the membership page to the 3 sections, and once/if we purge the members that are under Unknown, it will return to the normal Active/Inactive lists. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eye of the Monitor

Hello once again! This will be the third installment regarding the three computer columns which have been featured in Dragon magazine, the first two being "The Electric Eye" from the early 1980s and "The Role of Computers" from 1986-1993, respectively. The new column "Eye of the Monitor" began in the very next issue after "The Role of Computers" left off; reviewer Sandy Petersen wrote the column from #197-209, and after that the column was either by "Jay & Dee", Lester Smith (once), or any or all of the trio of Ken Rolston, Paul Murphy, and David "Zeb" Cook, and ran in that schizophrenic fashion sporadically from #211-223. Not sure what Dragon did after this column went kaput, but my guess is that they realized other magazines were doing a better job handling computer games, and decided just to just stick to pen and paper.

There may be a concern over how big this thread will get, especially after the last thread got quite a bit larger than I was ever expecting it to get. :) Well, for comparison, EotM ran in at the most 25 issues, whereas I count TRoC running for over 70 columns. So it might get a little bit lengthy, but it won't be a novel. If there's still a concern, I can just post quick updates from time to time as opposed to every single day that I work on it.

Beginning with a similar format to "The Role of Computers", it seems that "Eye of the Monitor" usually tackled more than one game per issue. As I did with the previous column, I will put a blurb into each article with a comment that interested parties can seek me out for more info. As I learned from previous experiences, there may be a significant percentage of games which do not already have articles, in which case I will toss up a stub as needed. BOZ (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1993

The first column, in #197 from September 1993, deals with Wolfenstein 3-D, Commander Keen (Invasion of the Vorticons, Goodbye, Galaxy!, and Aliens Ate My Babysitter!), Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure, and Waxworks. I've got real live D&D tonight, but I am off work for a few days so expect to see a lot of me. :) BOZ (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To finish up 1993 we had: #198 - Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Zelda, Link; #199 - Final Fantasy II, Ken's Labyrinth, Betrayal at Krondor, Day of the Tentacle; and #200 - Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos, Dangerous Dave, Monster Bash I, II, and III, Soul Blazer.

Not too bad so far? Only have 1994 and 1995 left to go. Since we've been averaging 3-4 reviews per column so far (TRoC had a much higher average and lasted quite a few more issues), I think EotM will be done before long at all. Maybe even by the end of the weekend! BOZ (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1994

Worked my way though the first five issues of 1994 today. Should finish up Petersen's run with no problem tomorrow, and probably go beyond that. Finished up 201: The 7th Saga, Might & Magic: The World of Xeen (comprising Clouds of Xeen and Dark Side of Xeen), Faceball: 2000; 202: Master of Orion, Spaceward Ho! (solo version and multiplayer version), Bram Stoker's Dracula, Biomenace; 203: Doom, Sam and Max: Hit the Road, Phantasie I, Phantasie III, and Questron II (re-releases), Mario All-Stars; 204: Companions of Xanth, BloodNet, Xargon, World of Xeen: CD-ROM, Escape from Monster Manor; and 205: Gateway II: Homeworld, The Hand of Fate, Dungeon Hack, Dark Sun: The Shattered Lands. BOZ (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said - no problem! Finished up Petersen's run, and with three issues remaining from 1994, I should be able to get those finished today as well. Finished up 206: Lufia, Isle of the Dead, Archon Ultra, Epic Puzzle Pack (Robbo, Heartlight, and Electro); 207: Fantasy Empires, Walls of Rome; 208: Secret of Mana, Ultima: The False Prophet, Al-Qadim: The Genie's Curse, Ultima VIII: Pagan, God of Thunder, Raptor; and 209: Inherit the Earth, Equinox, Castlevania IV, Serf City. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Finished up 1994 with no problem! #210 had no column. #211 was the first column by "Jay & Dee" (these are aliases), and they decided to just pick games which in some cases had been out for a while already: Civilization, Heaven & Earth, Reach for the Stars, Bandit Kings of Ancient China, Jewel Box, Pipe Dream, and Aladdin. #212 was the first column by Ken Rolston, Paul Murphy, and David "Zeb" Cook, who decided not to use the "5 stars" rating method so I actually had to dig out some quotes for the first time in a long time. :) That one featured: The Seventh Guest, Gadget, and Quantum Gate. Not sure just yet how many issues out of the 1995 run actually featured the column, but once I get through those I will be done! Won't start tonight, but should have the whole thing done within the next few days. BOZ (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1995

Finished up the Jay & Dee reviews from #213: Ultimate Domain, Genghis Khan II, Master of Magic, and Space Hulk. The entirety of #214 was a rebuttal of the negative review of Space Hulk. :) Got seven issues left: 215-221. Hope to finish them today, and if not tomorrow shouldn't be a problem. :) BOZ (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Kengo to Kengo (video game series)

Resolved. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed this on the Talk:Kengo. The article is essentially a brief list of the Kengo games from the first through to the most recent, and would probably be better named as a game series. Thoughts? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kengo is fine as there is no other articles with that name. There is no need to disambiguate. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps there should be articles for each game individually, then there may be a need to disambiguate. As it stands then there are no problems. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering, since this has been marked as resolved for a couple of days now, shouldn't this section be removed to avoid unnecessary clutter? GameSlayerGS (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It will be automatically archived by the bot after nobody talks in the thread for seven days; see the archive at the top of the page. Nifboy (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but is there some rule regarding spoilers in articles? I know that spoilers in general are allowed, because this is an encyclopedia, but I thought I had seen somewhere that they are not allowed in the introduction to an article, only later on, more specifically in the Plot section that's on most (if not all) game pages. Icefall5 (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You just missed it. Check the latest archives. However, it's a more sensible question than most. By my understanding, we try to keep spoilers in the plot section, but if they are needed outside of it (and I mean needed, say, to help describe a gameplay mechanic), then they're allowed there too. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for the clarification! Icefall5 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's my understanding of it, anyway. I may be wrong, so keep an eye out on this section. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me, but don't put too much emphasis on "needed". In the lead section, you probably won't even need to mention a spoiler unless it's basically the entire plot or a major part of the reception, and even then you can probably get by with (for example) stating that there is a twist ending without saying what the twist is. But in other sections (e.g. reception), I wouldn't spend too much effort trying to write around it if it needs to be mentioned. Anomie⚔ 16:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What about spoiling things in the table of contents? It's the kind of thing that would only appear in a "Characters of..." article, but you may have a section devoted to antagonists, and the presence of a character under that section of the TOC would be a spoiler. I suppose if you're on a character page in the first place you're asking for it, in the same way you are if you're reading about a game's plot having not finished the game. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay you guys do realize we're a freakin' encyclopedia and that to anyone, at any time, something can be a spoiler. Sephiorth skewers Aeris!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, god! I didn't know that! How could you?! /sarcasm --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See, someone was surpised to learn that we're a freakin' encyclopedia! Anomie⚔ 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the Final Fantasy reference. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I wouldn't worry about that one either, gakon5. Or a similar situation for playable characters, or a situation that reveals two characters are really the same person. Anomie⚔ 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured it wasn't a big deal. I understood it this way: Wikipedia is not spoiler-free, but be nice and try to keep your spoilers where they are [should be] most obvious. Like I said in the earlier thread, I'd rather not include spoiler warnings just to spite the people who complain about them all the time ;) --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One option is to create a "Synopsis" section in the "Plot" section where you give a brief run-down of the plot without spoilers, and then put detailed info including spoilers in the remainder. SharkD  Talk  01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I call that the "Setting" section; it just gives premise. A plot summary sans plot sounds difficult to write, because anything in a game's story is pretty much a "spoiler". The problem with games is that, for some people, the fact that there's a grass level is a spoiler. But, of course, if you don't want to know there's a grass level, don't read the dang article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 02:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think basically the idea is not to ruin the plot for someone without reason. A good reason is that you need to give the basic plot from beginning to end as best as possible (some games have very different endings) and if the latter is the case you need to note that. However, you don't give a blow-by-blow account. 2-3 paragraphs with possible sections on characters, setting, synopsis, themes, etc. You also need a very brief (1-2 lines) for the lead (you'll be hit in GAN/FACs if its not there) about the plot. Reception often talks about the plot and you'll probably have to mention something there. Development/Production/Creation sections might also mention it. Gameplay usually doesn't unless as stated previously it is a central part of the plot that can't be gotten around.

So in the end, spoilers can be almost anywhere, but outside of sections devoted to it, the info should generally not be too specifici and inside there don't spoil anything needlessly, ie don't talk about a character's death unless its a central part of the plot except where its relevant (their own chracter section/article, reception about that character/scene if applicable, development info on the character's death, etc)陣内_Jinnai 17:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neverwinter Nights 2 Good Topic

Just figured I'd point this out for those who might be interested! :) BOZ (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Birdo gender discussion

I'd like to get some third party input on whether to call Birdo "him", "her", or "it". I really have no preference but I'd like a wide consensus on it, since him and her can both apply [I don't like "it", as Birdo's gender is one or the other or simply unstated, which means "it" can't work]. Discuss here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems the best bet though, as "he" or "she" can be taken as original research in either regard since we flat out don't know which it is for sure.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as original research goes, the scan of the Super Mario Bros. 2 manual over at replacementdocs has the names of Birdo and Ostro reversed, and says of Birdo "He thinks he is a girl and he spits eggs from his mouth." Don't know about Doki Doki Panic though, or any of the later Nintendo games in which Birdo appeared. New User^(talk) 10:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a fictional character, so I think "it" is perfectly acceptable. But any time original research pops up, sources tend to point us in the right direction. A GameDaily list, GamesRadar list, and Official Nintendo Magazine list all describe the character as a "he", though others also said "unknown" because of the Super Smash Bros. Brawl entry. Those lists along with the SMB2 manual makes me think Birdo should be generally referred to as a male in the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

I guess, as sources prove, it is a "he" pretending to be a "she" _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are also several works, including in-game references, where Birdo is called a she. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide examples? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Captain Rainbow specifically, and while it's not on the page, several manuals call Birdo a female. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Japanese name for the character was Catherine. We can't be too sure, however. We got conflincting sources here.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the gender ambiguity being addressed? Is there an article or section on Birdo specifically? Or is this dealing with bit mentions about Birdo's appearances in various games? If there's something that discusses Birdo as its own character, I would include a statement about how sources differ on its gender or that its gender has been a matter of considerable debate (it has, and that particular point is sourceable as well). For spots that just need to refer to Birdo in a non-descriptive context, I'd just use "it", which is the most commonly accepted method of referring to gender-ambiguous secondary characters. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Redacting my own comment - I just replied on Talk:Birdo with saying that while I think "it" is acceptable in a case like this, it's probably better to use the most "obvious" pronoun based on what we know, and to add a note to the WP article itself stating that Birdo is assumed to be female lacking any solid evidence to the contrary. I'd base that on the character's strongly female appearance and the lack of clarity in sources, since Nintendo itself not only hasn't cleared this issue up, but in fact has further confused it with things like the statement in SSBB. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen at times "they" used for the singular in such instances instead of "it" because the latter implies an object of neutral gender.陣内_Jinnai 17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Graphical projection topic

I rewrote much of 2.5D, and created {{VG Graphics}}. However, I'd like to see some more cooperation on creating an article that handles the topic in a more general way. SharkD  Talk  06:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Additional fields to infobox proposed

A couple of new fields have been proposed for the infobox: primarily those for game director (or creative director or whatever, there probably should be some merging of bits from one of those to the other) and game producer, which is thought to be inadequately covered by simply calling them "designers". Game programmer has also been proposed. Take a lookie over at Template talk:Infobox VG#Producer, director and leave some comments, lets see if we can't hammer out a consensus for this. -- Sabre (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Onimusha (series) -> Onimusha

There's nothing else called "Onimusha", and the first game in the series isn't called simply "Onimusha". So there's no need for this disambiguation. (I also proposed this in the talk page). ӣicҟin\\talk with me\\\\\\\\\\ 02:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] D!Zone, for Doom

OK, I've come to a point where I have something that I'm not sure what to do with. As I wind down my run on Dragon magazine reviews, I've come to a review for D!Zone by WizardWorks Software. Now, this is not an actual standalone game, but it's an expansion pack for Doom and Doom II. As far as I can tell, it's not currently mentioned anywhere. I don't really want to start a separate article, but since I have a review I'd like to at least mention it. The problem is, I'm not sure where to put it, and I don't want to mess up anything that anyone else has going on already. Anyone want to point me in the right direction? :) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)