Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Active—and Back in the Game—with Video Games...
Active—and Back in the Game—with Video Games...
caritascarney.org		 Active—and Back in the Game—with Video Games...
Active—and Back in the Game—with Video Games...
caritashomecare.org		 Active—and Back in the Game—with Video ...
Active—and Back in the Game—with Video...
caritasstelizabeths.org		 Games For Health: Games for Health Video Trailer
Games For Health: Games for Health Video Trailer
gamesforhealth.org		 
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-Class)
Gamepad.svg
Crystal Clear app package games.png Video games portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project page Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Gamepad.svg 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
view • talk • edit • changes
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Sections with no replies in 150 days are automatically moved.

Archives
1, 2

Contents

[edit] Guidelines - Possible conflict with WP:NOR

This edit [1] removed the section of the guidelines that related to the "Platform neutral" guideline for boxart. User Locke Cole says that it goes against WP:OR and that cropped boxarts with platform branding removed constitute original research. WP:OI does state "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo." My interpretation of the situation is that the above statement from WP:OI is intended for obviously altered images like faked photos of Elvis at Preswick or images altered to show a person in a bad light. I feel that the original guidelines do not breach WP:OI or WP:NOR because we are not trying to falsify information by showing boxart without branding. - X201 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there's no conflict with OR here. There is nothing "original" about a box image without the platform banner if it exists on multiple platforms, and it avoids edit wars on highly popular games that don't have a PC box but do have PS3/360 boxes. --MASEM (t) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with the points already made by X201 and Masem, there is no attempt to distort facts or alter anything from the actual artwork chosen to represent the game itself, thus no conflict with original research stipulations. In addition to the points raised above, in some cases, platform branded artwork can be accused of misleading to people unfamiliar with the topic, such as those which have something like "only on Xbox/PlayStation/inane console name 42" branded on them, but receive another platform release a few months or a year down the line. Platform neutral artwork where possible helps eliminate the chance of a reader coming away with the wrong impression of the topic from the opening image. -- Sabre (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia covers history, not revised history which is what cropped box art represents. That'd be like going through movies and films and removing "DVD" or "Blu-ray Disc" (or heaven help us, "VHS") from any pictured box art. It would no longer represent reality, but some divine utopia which does not exist. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be better if we chose a sane method of selecting box art. Base it on something neutral, such as when the title was released for a specific platform. If it came out on the XBox 360 first, use that box art, if it came out on the PS3 first, use that, and so on. Modifying the box art to crop it is, IMO, original research. A bit like putting something in quotation marks in text and attributing it to someone when there's no source to verify that quote. A sane rule for choosing which box art to use would keep the fanboys at bay, and help keep Wikipedia presenting things which actually exist (as opposed to presenting things which do not exist, such as the cropped artwork being pushed here). As an aside, why are there now two sections discussing this? —Locke Cole • t • c 12:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
We're not sane for thinking this way? Thanks for pointing that out, I'll be sure to incarcerate myself in a straight-jacket at the earliest opportunity. -- Sabre (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Er, what? I never said anything about anyone here, only that there are better ways to handle this than to resort to original research. As it stood, the passage I removed conflicted with an official policy here, and that is unacceptable. A better way would be to come to an agreement on a standard for selecting box art and enforce that (and that method should be "sane", no reflection on those who take the time to discuss and craft said standard). I offered my advice: platform of first release, do you have another alternative? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
An innocent jibe, nothing more. But if you want the long version: the statement that your method is sane infers that the current method is not sane. Ergo, those who created that method and those who advocate it are not sane. Though that might be original research. Seriously speaking though, your method doesn't work with the majority of multiplatform games with large fan followings, where the release is con-currently over all the platforms—no one platform has superiority. It is in these cases where the need for platform neutral artwork presents itself. Which platform should represent The Force Unleashed, for instance, a game released on nine separate platforms at the same time? The answer: none, hence the neutral artwork which appears on the cover of every edition of the game. -- Sabre (talk)
Date of first release, and if all those are equal, sales? This is an encyclopedia, and part of the concern with writing an encyclopedia is historical accuracy. People who went to the store to pick up Grand Theft Auto IV didn't see some box with nothing on it but artwork and the games logo; they saw platform information, ESRB ratings and so forth. At the very least it's a misnomer to call these cropped images "box art", because it ceased being the box art when it was modified. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Every boxart does have a source. The image source is listed in the Fair Use info and there are also numerous websites that can be used to verify the image as well as specialist boxart sites that display numerous versions of different boxarts. Any user can see where the image has come from and compare it against the original any time they wish which makes the images far more verifiable than quoted text.
What did you mean by "why are there now two sections discussing this?" - X201 (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and those sources prove that the box art is not representative of what people saw, historically, when they went shopping (or downloaded a digital title). That's my point. By modifying the box art you're revising history. As for sections, I'm referring to the section directly above this one which I started when I made the change to the guideline page. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(Slightly semantic, sorry) It is representative of what they saw, granted its not a facsimile but it is the game they saw. Its not as if we're trying to portray one game as being something totally different.
Sections - Sorry that was my fault. I missed your post. - X201 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think WP:NOR makes a distinction between original research made to avoid having to make a choice (one box art with platform X or one box art with platform Y) and original research made to mislead readers (box art showing it released on platform Z when it never was): both are not allowed. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(damn edit conflicts!) I really think you're reading far too much into this. We aren't trying to change history, Trotsky is still in the photograph. The artwork of the game isn't being affected, removal of a simple platform identifier that was stuck on-top of the artwork for publication doesn't drastically change anything. The artwork is still what people saw on the shelf. These aren't all-new original images for representing the game, or drastically altered images, which is what WP:OI is meant to guard against. -- Sabre (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It may seem minor, but again, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and one of the facets of an encyclopedia is accurately portraying things. Removing platform designations, ESRB ratings, etc. does not help with the accuracy of the article and is original work. We shouldn't be encouraging this. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In a perfect world we really should be uploading the original artwork that has been made for the games box art. This artwork would be platform neutral. The image is also there to identify the game not the console and like as said above console neutral versions stop edit wars between console crazy people from uploading there game under their favourite console tag. Console neutral also helps detract attention away from a specific console and removes bias. I agree with Sabre your reading way to far into this. Salavat (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As an example of "original artwork" GTA IV - X201 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunate that the image doesn't reflect what anyone ever actually saw. Probably the most important thing about an article professing to be of historical interest. In ten years will that image be considered accurate? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If in ten years the image is no longer accurate for that article, we can always change it. It's not like the images we post to the articles are completely set in stone - this is a wiki, after all. But the consensus has been, for quite some time, that the image should be as representative as possible of the subject. I argue that a cropped image that discards the specific platform's logo is more representative of a multi-platform game than box art for a specific platform, unless' there is a significant difference in box art between the different releases. (If the 360 version of a game has vastly different art than the Wii version, for example, then a judgement call needs to be made as to which one better represents the game.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

←(Un-indent) While I see no reason to crop box art, I do not believe it be original research or an original image. There's a difference between a derivative piece of work, and a cropped piece of work.

  • A cropped image still retains the same properties as the original image, only the focus has been changed.
  • A derivative work that could constitute original research would be adding or removing specific areas of an image to portray a different concept.
  • While cropping does remove a portion of an image, it does not alter the concept of the image.

For example, cropping File:SSF HD Remix Boxart.jpg to remove the Capcom logo is fine because you haven't really altered that portion of the picture, just removed it from view. However, photoshopping just the logo out of the image as if it were never there creates a derivative work. Edits like that are what lead to original research. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't agree with this. When you remove a portion of the original box art you're presenting something that never existed, and that is the definition of original research. This is particularly important for box art for physical games (SNES and NES games spring to mind, for example: Punch-Out!! (NES), Duck Hunt, Super Mario Bros., and for some cross platform titles, Batman Forever (video game), Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story (video game), Madden NFL '94, Madden NFL 97, Madden NFL '95). At the time I checked these, they all had actual real box art, not cropped to exclude the platform or other characteristics of the packaging. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we have a difference of definitions here. Zooming in on a portion of an image does not show something that never existed. It existed before, just as part of something bigger. A weird example, but imagine a forest of trees. You can see the whole forest from overhead, but one day decide to take a closer look. To do that, you cut down and remove trees around the portion you want to see. The trees left existed before, it's just now you can only see them.
If you decide to trim the trees, paint them pink, and make tree sculptures out of them, then you've altered them in an original way. Relating it to box art image, the trees are pixels. Cropping does not show anything new, simple a more focused view of it. Changing the pixels to represent something new would be original research. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
I'm not sure your analogy is working very well, Guy. For purposes of the wiki, when we crop an image, we create a new image that contains only a portion of the original image. The original image still exists and is unaltered, and I think that's what you were trying to say. However, your analogy describes cutting down the trees around the area you want to look at, which is an irreversible change to the original site. That's more like altering the original image to create the new image.
I can also see Locke's point, that providing only a portion of the image in question does not present the WHOLE image, and in some cases people could be legitimately confused by seeing only a portion of the image. For the Street Fighter example, let's say the cropped portion only showed Ryu's arm. Someone not familiar with the game may not have any idea what he's looking at. So it's up to whoever does the cropping to make sure that the image still accurately represents the property, and I think one CAN make a common-sense decision that the portion of a game's box art that is COMMON to all of the platforms it appears on represents the game as a whole. To present just that portion is not WP:OR: It is verifiable, it is supported by reliable sources, and anyone who sees the cropped image and then goes to a game store and sees the same image on the game's box will be able to recognize it immediately. That's the litmus test I would put such images under. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't agree with this either, Guyinblack. In your example, you say it would be okay to remove crop out the Capcom logo. I disagree, because that logo is part of what represents that property as a whole, without regard to the platforms it's released on. However, if you have the same image (including the logo) on several different platforms, I do agree that removing the platforms' logos to come up with a single representative image of the whole property should be fine, and does not constitute OR. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying I would crop out the logo; just like I wouldn't crop out the platform portions. But depending on the purpose of the image, I believe it is within non-free content criteria. If the only purpose of the image is to show the game's cover art, then cropping is reasonable in my opinion. You have brought up some good points though. Excessive cropping can reduce the subject's quality and identity. But maintaining a large enough common portion of the image is within reason.
In regard to my analogy, trees can grow back and can be replanted. Either way, it was meant as an example by comparing pixels to trees and not as an exact description. However, you did understand my intended message.
In regard to Locke's point, I see the reasoning behind it and do think there's no reason to remove such content. However, I've seen nothing in the image guidelines that prohibit the practice of cropping out the console info. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
To me, cropping is similar to reducing the resolution of an image in terms of violating OR: You really have to be trying to misrepresent the image in order to violate OR via cropping, and I don't believe that's the case here. Nifboy (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
When the image shown is not historically accurate (as is the case with cropping) it becomes OR. I'm at a loss as to how anyone could think different. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If its wrong that WP fails to show boxart exactly as a reader would see it on the store shelf, does that mean that we have to show every boxart for every English language region? The North American LittleBigPlanet boxart differs from the one that is used in The UK, Australia and Europe, so does that mean that we have been deliberately deceiving North American readers because the WP Article uses the UK/Aus/Euro boxart? It works the other way too, the copy of Fallout 3 that will hopefully fall through my letterbox either today or tomorrow, will not have the ESRB rating on the front because I don't live in North America, so that box art should be removed from the article because, from my viewpoint on this side of the Atlantic, that image is OR? - X201 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
As long as it was something someone saw somewhere, and not some derivative original work (as a cropped image would be) I have no problem with it. Again though, this is why it would be better to spend time hashing out when to use a particular platforms box art or a particular regions box art. It might take some effort to hammer out the details, but it would avoid tripping over WP:OI and make the encyclopedia better in the end. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
But that's the point, Locke. Cropping the image does not CHANGE THE CONTENT of the image! It does not constitute derivative work. Drawing your own image, slapping a logo on a different image, or otherwise Photoshopping an image based on the original constitutes a "derivative work", but just showing a portion of the original image, reducing its resolution, etc. does not constitute derivative work. I think you have severely misinterpreted the policy here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OI

Quoting WP:OI;

Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed.

—WP:OI (bold emphasis mine)

The "unpublished idea" here is that the box art looked like this. It doesn't and it never has. What one sees in the store looks similar to this, but similarity is not a defense from original research. The emboldened part is particularly important here and needs restating: "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed." There are no exceptions given for cosmetic changes, or those stemming from a style choice. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That section is focusing solely on original images, or rather, solely user-created images. It has no application whatsoever to the issue at hand. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 11:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet that same section goes on to state "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo.".. the "fact" being distorted is that the modified image represents what was seen in stores, online or elsewhere. I still stand by my suggestion above that editors here should find a way to choose a platform specific image and use that as a guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
As someone in WT:NOR just pointed out, cropping photos in the manner we're describing here is just like quoting a passage from a book or news article, rather than copying the entire book/article verbatim. Quoting a short passage is appropriate and is not original research if you can prove that the passage has not been modified. (In text, passages are sometimes marked up to provide context.) The same goes for images: Presenting an unmodified portion of an image does not alter the image and does not constitute WP:OR. However, the person responding in WT:NOR points out that this could be non-neutral - presenting only a portion of an image could cause the image to inappropriately represent a topic by removing context or placing undue weight on a particular element.
A hypothetical example would be to crop a Street Fighter image such that it only shows Ken's face, cutting out Ryu's. That wouldn't be original research, but it would be placing undue weight on Ken in an article that's about the game, not about the character. So, as with quoting passages, when cropping images, it's essential to make sure we provide the proper context for the image in question. I posit that showing the whole, recognizeable art of a multi-platform game without showing platform-specific logos is acceptable, does not violate any policies, and gives readers all the context they need to identify the game itself, while also avoiding weight issues on any particular platform. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It clearly has looked like this, the cropped image was still published as a part of the original box art. I go to Amazon, type GTA 4 and I will see the artwork on the GTA4 page presented in some form, spread over three platforms. The focus has been slightly changed, but that does not mean an entirely new original image. What that sentence guards against is uploading something like this as the GTA4 box art: that is not the original box art, it is an unpublished fan production and it does not represent the game. That is what would be considered an original image. -- Sabre (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, similarity is not defense. You're misrepresenting what was seen by cropping the image. It ceases to be "box art" and is instead just "artwork" seen on the box art. And it definitely meets the definition of OR, since no box existed with just that cropped view as the face of the box. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
But the art existed and that is what we are uploading, we arent uploading the complete box only the front cover artwork. Your argument is also flawed in the sense that your saying cropping of the console tag from the front is making it original research, but then wouldnt cropping the front cover away from the entire cover make that original artwork, because on shelf the front and back are attached and are as one? Salavat (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, we're a two dimensional medium, even on the internet. And unfortunately even rules must give way to the laws of physics at some point. But if one goes and takes a picture of the cover, they'll either see the front, the back, or the side, not all three at once unless they remove the paper from the case. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Its not similar, its exactly the same bit of artwork that appears on the all editions of the full box art that include the platform indicator. While it might meet your definition of OR, its clear from this discussion that it doesn't meet anyone else's. -- Sabre (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
A WikiProject guideline should not be circumventing an official policy. We don't allow OR, it's not up for debate here. A discussion at WT:NOR would be more useful to gauge whether or not those uninvolved with this project agree with you. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Circumventing your intepretation of an official policy. This entire debate is over interpretation, where its clear your intepretation is in a minority. So there's been a talk page discussion, it didn't go your way, so its brought up here in an attempt to change the guideline. That didn't go your way either, so you want to move it up to a policy page in hope that someone there might agree with you. The honourable thing to do would be to accept that your argument doesn't reflect the consensus and cut your losses. -- Sabre (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
On a side note could i go as far as asking if Locke Cole has a full understanding of the image policies here, quoting from a revert of the said cover that started the discussion, a revert of Calamity-Ace's edit, "plus image is too small". The image was reduced to 256px by Calamity which is the ideal size, Locke then reverted to 480 which would be to large (yes?). So in short i was just thinking that maybe he could be just working on limited knowledge when it comes to images or maybe a case of ownership towards the uploaded image. Salavat (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Any smaller than 250 would be too small, but 250-6 is around the size it displays in the infobox anyway. There's not really much reason to have it any larger, certainly not nearly double that size that it appears in the article. I'd say 300px is a good upper limit for box art sizes as far as keeping within WP:NFCC for low resolution goes. -- Sabre (talk)
Yea, was about to post that the current image is too large. There's a reason "low resolution" is part of the non-free rationale. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually no, that isn't what started this discussion. Another image, File:Superstreetremixcover.jpg (which was deleted today) was uploaded by someone who apparently felt the XBox 360 artwork was more appropriate. Another editor cropped that image, and then it was added to the article. I'm aware of our fair use rules, and there is no strict numeric value for image size. I disagree with your claim that 256px is "ideal". Readers clicking the image links expect to be taken to images which are not the same thumbnail they've already seen. As for the platform issue, well that's already been discussed at the article talk page, and there's consensus there to retain the existing image (or at least, no consensus to change it). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
That's why I said that 300px is a good upper limit. Nearly double the size of how it appears in the article is hardly compliant with WP:NFCC's demand for a low-resolution image when the image is copyrighted. If the image wasn't copyrighted, then that's a different matter. The current resolution would be torn apart at FA or GA level. -- Sabre (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked if a discussion at WT:NOR would be more productive. Okay, sure, let's take it over there, since this is stepping into the realm of general Wikipedia policy and goes beyond the scope of WP:VG at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic started at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Cropped images = Original Research? . I asked for comment from people involved in that policy. They may reply either there or here, so please watch both pages. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Topic has been forwarded to WP:NORN. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The cropping of platform specific banners on box arts, does not constitute original research, but that isn't even really the issue at hand if you read the prior arguments (which is why I've commented here). The argument has been about whether identifying art should be 1:1 reproductions of products seen on store shelves, with the OR argument tacked onto the side to discredit the use of cropping.

Box art is primarily used for identifying art, but that does not mean that identifying art must be a 1:1 reproduction of an actual box. The identifying art that developers produce does not include system branding, that is added by the platform holders to ensure consistency across their library. File:GTAIV Logo.jpg for example, is the perfect piece of identifying art for GTA IV, cluttering that image with banners and age ratings does nothing. Those will vary between platforms and markets anyway, and given the data already given in the infobox, is largely redundant. Including the XBLA advertising banner on File:Megaman9cover.jpg actually detracts from the image, giving readers the first impression that it is an exclusive title. - hahnchen 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] COPYVIO implications

Actually I think removing the logo might violate WP:COPYVIO as it's altering a copyrighted image to specifically remove a logo.じんない 05:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. Fair use allows modifications of images, and per non-free, as long as we trace the source and identify the change, there's nothing that is a copyvio. The question of being "original research" still remains, but I doubt that's an issue. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I am specifically referring to WP:Logos#Trademark concerns - the third paragraph. While the text doesn't in itself apply exactly here, we are rather than adding new logos, removing existing ones.じんない 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Still not really; removing the banner is not an attempt to confuse the reader that a completely different company is responsible for the work. --MASEM (t) 12:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeh there really is no confusion. Say i went into buy a game from the PS2 section of the store, i would be looking for the artwork of the cover and not the console tag and then the next day i wanted it for the Wii, i would go looking for the artwork again. Salavat (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you would be looking at the console tag. If you had a PS2 and not a Wii, you'd make certain it was a PS2 version and not a Wii version before you bought it (well I hope at least).じんない 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeh but, maybe i wasnt very clear, but obviously there are going to be all tagged with the specific console in store, and so in that section with all the ps2 games you would look for the specific title your after. Salavat (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, if there's a PS2 and a Wii version of the same game with the same artwork on the box, I would feel really sorry for someone who could not identify the game or distinguish the versions because Wikipedia didn't have a console tag in its image of the game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely by removing the console logo we're actually reducing the the amount of copyright material we're seeking to use under FUR. And that can only be a good thing. - X201 (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Less material, but an altogether new can of worms. Seriously, wouldn't it be better if we had guidelines for picking one platforms box art over another and just sticking to it? If someone is opening up Photoshop/Paint.NET/Gimp and cropping an image they're subjecting the encyclopedia to numerous issue, ranging from potentially violating our own pillars and policies to potentially opening us up to legal issues if any of the companies involved with these games decides they don't like what we're doing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, this is the reason I brought it up. I think it may require someone well versed in copyright or trademark law.じんない 18:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this topic has been busy this weekend.
While I'm no image expert, I'd say Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria already gives some info on this. 3B states "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." I still believe that cropping does not create a derivative work, and thus removing such portions is within reason.
If someone hasn't already contacted some of Wikipedia's image experts, User:Durova or User:Elcobbola come to mind for people to contact. Though I believe Elcobbola is more active on Commons. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
Contacted Durova. Hopefully we can get this point cleared up.陣内Jinnai 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and trademark are separate areas of law. It appears that both weigh in this discussion. Please allow due discretion: as a Commons administrator I frequently encounter the former but not the latter, and during graduate coursework in a writing program a course on related law (including copyright) was required curriculum. This provided a limited framework of understanding, mainly for self-defense. Despite a long list of featured picture credits, I am not a lawyer and am unable to give expert opinion even on copyright. Regarding matters of trademark I confess profound ignorance. So with those caveats in mind, if there's any objection to removing a trademarked logo via cropping I am unaware of it. Issues of NPOV, etc. (if any exist) would be addressed separately via policy. DurovaCharge! 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted we are looking for expert opinion at WT:Logos on this part.陣内Jinnai 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll be happy to throw my opinion(s) in on the matter, but I think we should see an example of what we're talking about and what specifically needs to be addressed. — BQZip01 — talk 02:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the example that brought this up was my mentioning that cropping out the bottom portion of File:SSF HD Remix Boxart.jpg so the Capcom logo is no longer in view would be fine. That particular image has also been cropped to remove the PlayStation Network logo. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC))
Finally got an answer at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Need someone versed in trademark and probably copyright law to give an answer. - it appears cropped versions should be fine, if not preferable from a copyright standpoint. Now its just the NPOV issue.陣内Jinnai 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cast?

I've noticed a large number of B, C and below articles have a cast list. Featured articles typically have no such list. It's rather difficult to explain to new users that a dedicated cast list is not usually necessary, and certainly a full cast list is not necessary in many cases. I've seen some articles that handle cast well by combining it with a character list, such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game). I'm not asking for a new bullet point, but mentioning that a cast list is unnecessary in WP:GAMECRUFT would give me something to direct new users to. Thoughts? --Teancum (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would only argue for a cast if there is significant character development (most games don't have this) and that the actors are more famous than naught - for example, I may consider a cast list as a possible scenario for Brutal Legend since there's 5 non-tradition game VA involved, but that's still in question. Best to leave it out, and if VA names are important, do it like done in some movies, putting them after the first appearence in the plot section. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I've done in the past, just a broad overview like Kingdom Hearts#Voice cast. But that was done a couple years ago. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
Cast listings - no, but in the prose noting major cast members would be appropriate.陣内Jinnai 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So I suppose my question now is what needs to be done to make note of this in the guidelines. New users are quick to disregard anything but "official policy" --Teancum (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Teancum's argument above regarding A, B, and C articles is a logical fallacy. Most B class articles have attribute b, and most A articles do not, therefore only articles without attribute b can be A articles. Purest fantasy. The addition of June 10 removed. Anarchangel (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The preceding comment preceded and was with regard to the following mainspace edit and summary: (Actors, whether in radio broadcasts, on stage, in film, in operas & TV, are all worthy of mention in articles concerning works in which their work appears.Why should it be different for video games?)
The following comment was preceded by a revert of the above edit, with summary: (This is the video game set of guidelines?... This is the revert after the bold, so please discuss! :)). Note that the editor reverted, and asked me to discuss my edit, all before going to Talk himself. Additionally, is the question in the summary not somewhat disingenuous? The actors of my analogy have many points in common with the actors in Point 10, and the analogy is not unclear. Anarchangel (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It may be fallacy, but guidelines describe how the wiki works... We look to our featured articles when we consider what ends up in these guidelines as well as other policy. If most FA quality articles don't have x item, then it is both useful and worth noting that in guidelines. --Izno (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
At any time that any user looks to FAs or GAs for criteria of how articles should be, without looking at the criteria themselves for their merits, then that user is behaving irrationally. Furthermore, Teancum's argument is not in the guideline, therefore I would not have removed the guideline from the article on that basis. I removed it on the basis of not having received a balanced and thorough discussion. His argument was the reason for inclusion, and a logical fallacy. This guideline requires thorough discussion. It has received illogical musing. The onus is upon the editor seeking to include content to provide a rationale, so if anyone should be reverting, it should be Izno, please.

Basically agree with Jinnai on this, mentioning major cast members in a prose section is appropriate, but listing voice casts strikes me as a bit crufty. The situation is not directly analogous to TV and film articles as voice casts aren't usually central aspects of a video game's notability the way film and TV casts are. I don't have a problem with Teancum's wording and I like the examples of appropriate mentions given by Guyinblack25 above (Kingdom Hearts#Voice cast) and Teancum's edit to the guideline (X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game)#Characters). If there's significant dispute about this addition, an RfC might be in order? --Muchness (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a point to the following, but I just thought I should take this opportunity, when likes and dislikes are being mentioned, to indulge my opinion just a tiny bit:
(Re: "The situation is not directly analogous...") That's why I like video games. They have two separate yet integrated forms of content: the gameplay, and the acted drama, and in my opinion, are potentially superior to film in much the same way that film is superior to photography, to say nothing of the fact that they can include aspects of literature that escape film also. If it were not for their execrable reputation, perhaps more talented writers would contribute, in much the same way as television and before it, the movies, were once an anathema to writers.
It is only your assertion that acting is not the 'central aspect of a video game's notability'; for evidence to the contrary, see the video game article entitled, "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Feature Voice Performances by Patrick Stewart, Sean Bean, and Terence Stamp"
My complete quote was, "aren't usually central aspects," and by agreeing with Guyinblack25 and Teancum I was making the point that they warrant a mention in cases where they are a notable aspect of the game. --Muchness (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Guyinblack's comments are not part of the guidelines, and actually substantiate the overreaching of this guideline, as Kingdom Hearts is a FA, voice cast list and all. Other than that, his comment amounts to a preference for prose, upon which it would be seem to be unwise to base an entire guideline, particularly as it has almost certainly stated elsewhere.
Video games based on movies have a deplorable reputation; in that sense, perhaps, voice acting in them is relatively speaking, more notable.
I do not really have anything to say about 'a bit crufty', but then, I do not feel I should, either.
I of course hope that an RFC will not be necessary, but I hold in great esteem the wisdom of the occasional wise person, more likely to be found when the net is cast wider. -copy-paste due to edit conflict this date- Anarchangel (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issue with a "Voice Cast" section is that it's redundant. Such cast can easily be covered in the prose of the article, either in the plot section, or in the characters section, similar to how movie articles do it. Having a dedicated section to the voice cast is just list cruft, and it invites non-seasoned wiki editors to add voice actors for minor characters, such as "Security Guard #5", or even worse, to list every possible role for every actor. For example: in Fallout 3#Voice_actors are "Harold the Tree" or "Scribe Bigsley in Broken Steel" truly notable characters? I don't know, but they should be mentioned in the characters section and the actor mentioned there if so. Mentioning the actor in the characters section puts the focus on the in-game character, rather than the actor portraying them. It's not mentioning who voiced XXXX character, it's how we do it. --Teancum (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct. You do not know. And I suspect no one who does not now, will ever, as such information is routinely removed from articles as Cruft. Yet your attempt to belittle the subject (Would you be comfortable dismissing Liam Neeson and Malcom McDowell?) was a poor choice in the case of Harold, whose character literally and figuratively evolves throughout the entire Fallout (series). But look on the bright side, neither do any of the incessant horde of deletionists at AfD know. So in a way I suppose you could say that making decisions without any facts is common WP practice. And so is deciding that only information from the first half of the credits is worthy of inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, let's keep this neutral per WP:NPA. If you have an issue with the policy, post it here. If you have a personal issue of how I adhere to said policy take it to my talk page. I clearly said I did not know whether Harold was an important character, yet you continue to make this personal. Future such attacks will be reported immediately. If you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page. --Teancum (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Lists of voice actors in video games

Is, "Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters ... not appropriate"? (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Inappropriate content and the discussion above)
Anarchangel (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is another aspect of WP as buggy as RFC code. As you can see once you are editing, the policy tag is correctly added, and this RFC shows up just fine on the RFC policy page. Just not on the template visible on this page. Anarchangel (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally no, IMO. Cast lists generally aren't appropriate unless the cast reaches some sort of notablility, like playing the role in a film adaptation or if the voice actor has won some sort of award for his/her work on that VG. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No to independent lists. Yes (on a case-by-case basis) to mentions in relevant prose sections as discussed above. --Muchness (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the guideline provides enough flexibility and is written appropriately. –xenotalk 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There have been opinions expressed by B, M and X, opinions that have been expressed before, above, but no reasoning, and no facts. There's nothing to answer, other than the over-reaching assertion by B:
Even if actors standing in front of a microphone had less notability than those standing in front of a camera, they still would have some notability, contrary to Bovineboy's assertion. Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Per GA class film articles (Anarchangel had earlier referenced how films list casts) you can see that cast lists and not just random lists, they flesh out each individual character, listing the actor and a short bio, following WP:FILMCAST. You'll note the similar format listed in WP:GAMECRUFT. Author had his cast list removed from Fallout 3 per the criteria, and was notified such lists should be made prose. I see no issue here. A flat-out cast list just doesn't add to the article - it should be prose of some sort, and should only list notable characters. Current content in the Fallout 3 article does not add to the article, but detracts from it. --Teancum (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not the author of the Fallout 3 list. Perhaps you notified someone about the deletion, it certainly was not me. Looking at your contributions, I am guessing you are attempting to portray your edit summary as notification. I suggest that you refrain from such deception, and from attempting to read my motivations, for many reasons, most relevantly that they are not anyone's concern on WP, ever. You wrote the criteria, Teancum. 'removed per the criteria' is effectively, 'removed by me, per a rule written by me'. If anyone has a conflict of interest in this and should recuse themselves, it is you. Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
FILMCAST could not be more different from Gamecruft, as it is currently written. FILMCAST begins, "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose" note that it does not say, 'which must be', but, 'ideally'. Inappropriate#10 starts with a blanket suppression, and only mentions prose in the final sentence. FILMCAST is eight paragraphs, Inappropriate#10 is one. FILMCAST carefully details multiple locations in the article for actor's names to be entered. Inappropriate#10 of course, says nothing on that subject. However, they do have one significant point of agreement, which you have not mentioned: FILMCAST: "a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate" Inappropriate#10: "In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast". Quite obviously, the issue here is the first sentence of the guideline. That is why I titled the RFC with the first sentence. This has not been addressed. Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree a bit with BovineBoy in that not all cast lists are appropriate, but I'm sure as anything else, there are the few exceptions out there. What we should not be doing is regurgitate the entire credit roll from a game and place it in the article or in an independent list as that is too indiscriminate, or even regurgitate every single voice actor credited in a game. My rule of thumb would be, if it has an article or might be notable enough to warrant mentioning, then mention it. That falls under editorial discretion depending on the article discussed. MuZemike 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That characters who have their own articles should be mentioned is obvious, even in stand-alone lists (WP:STAND), this is a major point in favor of inclusion. However, re: "regurgitate every single voice actor", it is easy enough to separate credits into 'Major voice acting roles' and 'Minor.." sections. It is not entirely clear if you think the wording should continue to specifically deem lists inappropriate, or whether that sanctions the wholesale deletion of all lists from all articles that Special:Contributions/Teancum (search for "rem per WP:GAMECRUFT, point 10") has performed since he first added point 10. Anarchangel (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
One thing you neglect to note is that none of those edits were made until after the original cast lists consensus was made, nor did I add that section to WP:GAMECRUFT until after such consensus. Given that I can't help but notice the personal attack. Let's keep this neutral. Let me be 100% clear - having a voice cast in an article is not inappropriate. The point of all this is that to just have a list doesn't focus on the characters of that game, but rather the actors. Placing the voice actor in the character description allows readers to read up on the actor, but focuses attention on the article and characters within it. As far as removal of lists, a large chunk of the articles I have removed voice cast either 1) didn't have anyone notable in the cast, or 2) was a stub/start class that would likely not have a user actually update the article per the guideline. Fallout 3 is an excellent article, and we're not talking about removing it permanently. It's an article well followed and it's likely a dedicated Wikipedian would actually check WP:GAMECRUFT and then re-list voice actors per the guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As we all seem to be in agreement that prose is preferable, and since there are no other proposals or comments regarding wording, I prepared this proposed replacement for the existing text. The placement alternatives are from FILMCAST:

"Prose is preferred over tables and lists where listing the voice cast of an article is concerned. The information can be placed in Production sections (rationale: the default, to some extent, or there is information regarding the production that is relevant to the actors or vice versa) integrated into the plot section (rationale: character-driven plot), in its own section below Production (rationale: the actors are particularly notable), or above it (rationale: actors are notable, and the Production section is not detailed), whichever is most appropriate."

This really shouldn't come down to comparisons to films. Video games are a totally different animal. Films are so often accredited for the writing, directing and acting, so a cast list makes sense. Video games are more about production and gameplay. A cast list just doesn't make sense, IMO. Of course there are exceptions, as there is with any rule, but for the general majority of video games, the voice actors are rarely covered by third-party sources or reviewed by game reviewers and are even more rarely listed as something important to a game. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Or, one could say it comes down to actors. They are the subject of the lists. I already refuted your statement about 3rd part sources above, with "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Feature Voice Performances by Patrick Stewart, Sean Bean, and Terence Stamp". You say nothing about the suggestion. Reiterating refuted arguments and ignoring my new ones is not furthering consensus in any way. Let me suggest the option of conceding points, which you may not be familiar with. Good for the soul, too. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I do think that cast should be included somewhere in the article, I agree with you on that. And your right, for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion it would be sensible and notable to to include the cast (preferably not in list form, but that is just a personal preference). But you should see that not all games have a notable cast. Rarely does a game come down to the actors (notice rarely as in there are exceptions). I really haven't seen too many games that critics said the voice acting made or broke the game. Of course, I could be wrong with this. And you really should be careful about "furthering consensus": one person disagreeing with every editor, a consensus does not make. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
A couple of issues I see: 1) we need to make a standard, prose or no-prose. To say it's preferred will give too much wiggle room in the future. 2) no examples are give, and so users have no reference for their articles. --Teancum (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Preferable is the same standard that is applied for film actors. The rationales are far superior to examples, which are in real life notorious for allowing just the sort of 'wiggle room' that you prognosticate. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt and point out that recent edits by user Special:Contributions/Anarchangel have reverted several edits before this dispute was complete. Can we make the effort to be civil and discuss this through until its completion prior to reverting previously established edits? Clearly we're both seeking for what's best for Wikipedia, but given pretty standard operating procedures we don't make a move until the dispute is cleared. Additionally the general consensus thus far has been to not have cast lists, but listing notable actors in prose one way or another. I am re-reverting such edits until the dispute is complete, as currently that is policy. I am fine with someone adding them back in later if policy is changed. --Teancum (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please. You edited all those articles before the discussion was complete; as I noted above, the discussion before the guideline was added was peremptory and illogical. My edits also took place after my reexamination of this issue had begun, and before there were any objections to it. I am squeaky clean, always. You, on the other hand, are not even adhering to your own guideline, with blanket deletions of any voice cast list you can get your hands on. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the current guidance at WPVG is good. Cast listing is pretty ancillary to most games. Where cast listings are central to the work, well that's why it's a guideline. Protonk (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that I am viewed as having a personal interest in this I'm bowing out of this conversation. Suffice it to say whatever the final consensus comes to is what I will follow. --Teancum (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Per the debate concerning the cast list in this article:

[[2]] Wouldn't it be better to simply include the voice actors and motion capture actors within the appropriate character's article? Simply place it in the infobox for the Mortal Kombat characters and in the appearnce in other media for the DC characters. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign voice actors of English-developed games

I'm sorry that I didn't really follow this discussion, but I have a question that is partially related to this discussion so I think I should open a new section here. The question is: if a game is developed by an English-language company and released in English-speaking countries first, are the non-English voice actors notable? (See Crash Tag Team Racing#Voice cast for example.) We already know from VG guidelines that non-English release dates are not notable in such cases, but what about voice actors? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Licensed soundtracks acceptable?

I can understand licensed soundtracks being added to music-based games such as the Guitar Hero or Rock Band series, but what about licensed soundtracks that are more or less just background music for a game, such as the Tony Hawk's series? I added soundtracks to articles of that series long ago, and they have long since been removed for apparently being a non-notable list, however I don't see anything saying that they shouldn't be added. Are licensed soundtracks notable information, or does it fall under part 6 of inappropriate content, "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts"? Licensed soundtracks aren't explicitly mentioned there, but I don't see anything else that would explain why they would be removed. For the record, I am not talking about games that have a separate soundtrack released on a CD, just background music from the game. --GVOLTT How's my editing?\My contribs 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is an official soundtrack, it should at least be mentioned. We don't have to go into detail about what other albums the songs play on, what bands are there, etc. NM. Misread your statement. Generaally unless the music is an integral part, it doesn't need to be listed. The exceptions to this usually come as a response from reviews or controversy.陣内Jinnai 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, if the soundtrack, released separately from the game or otherwise, did not receive any third-party coverage, then you should probably omit it. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Release dates

As all English-only and English-first rules, an execrable example of bigotry and arrogance. Anarchangel (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Or is it a desire to provide the information most relevant to the readers of the English Wikipedia? –xenotalk 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So in order to provide X, censor Y? Anarchangel (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more like "in order to provide the most relevant information without unnecessarily bloating an infobox...". Wikipedia is not a buyers guide. –xenotalk 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So this is a rule because of your aesthetic that the infobox should be a particular length. Unless you have objections to WP users gaining the benefit of knowing when a particular release is or was in a particular country? Anarchangel (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, what gives? I see nothing in particular given your editing history to spur this comment... --Izno (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Not only did you prejudge my statement as personal bias, even when proven wrong, you are incapable of seeing another motivation. That's sad. Anarchangel (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm certain this can be discussed without harsh words. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
Prejudge? No, I was merely looking to see what spurred this, and to ask for further information. Have some good faith. Further, I'll agree with Guy. --Izno (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't even expect my comment to be noticed. Let's get started then. If WP:PAPER, and given that Xeno's argument is invalid, as censoring Y does not prevent providing X, then there must be some other reason for not including mention of non-English speaking release dates. Already one has been proposed, that info boxes should be of a particular length. So there is the utility of knowing when a particular release is due in a particular country, vs an aesthetic. I put to you that layout preferences, quite apart from being subjective and varying from person to person, are secondary to content. If this is accepted, then the first bullet of WP:VG/DATE should be removed. Anarchangel (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Revision: The aesthetic not in itself a problem. It is worthy of mention. To avoid it interfering with needed content, it should be phrased as a recommendation of succinctness, with the English/non- distinction removed or qualified. Anarchangel (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
...Yeah, I remember you guys now. RFCing is just the very thing for this page. Anarchangel (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, infoboxes are for a quicksnap shot of a game. The list should be cut down even more in my opinion. Of course we shouldn't exclude a non-English release date because it isn't English, but to avoid an indiscriminant list in the infobox, it is necessary to limit. If a release is notable in anyway, it should be mentioned in the prose. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cover art

The screenshots and cover art section contradicts itself. In one part, it states that "Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.", while another paragraph states that "Cover art should appear in the infobox (see below for more info on the infobox), and ideally, the most recognizable English-language cover should be used to illustrate the subject.". This needs to be fixed, preferably by incorporating the "most recognizable English-language cover" rule into the earlier paragraph's priority hierarchy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also it's not the first time the guideline contradicts itself (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 71#Contradictions in the video game image guidelines). Another awkward wording is that the section refers to Template:Ubisoft-screenshot when the template has been renamed Template:Attribution-Ubisoft for over one year now. I think the guideline needs to be revised and rewritenn very thoroughly; all these contradictions are likely due to the fact that the section is so long and thus that few people actually bother reading it thoroughly. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the most recognizable box art in the English-speaking world should get priority for infoboxes, with the rest of the priority hierarchy only being applied if recognizability cannot be determined. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What criteria are you using to define "most recognizable"? - X201 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say that the "most recognizable" would be the box art from the first release in an English Speaking country. In most cases, it will be the same if a game is released in multiple regions, but there are some instances where the artwork will be different, or the name might change. In those cases, this can be discussed in the article, but the box art itself should be of the region that first had the English release. Sgetz (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that being released first makes it most recognizable. How about "highest-selling" or something along those lines?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to get rid of one, then I'd get rid of the second one. "Most recognizable" is simply too subjective and would install a natural bias towards the US; with a population of 300 million to the next highest English-speaking population of 60 million in the UK, there are proportionally more customers and sales to push the US idea of "most recognizable" than any other English region, except in truly exceptional cases. Using other criteria such as "highest-selling" would result in a similar problem. Going by the developer's nationality (or in some cases, country of origin for the franchise) is more balanced and considerate towards WP:ENGVAR—for instance, it would be silly to have a game done by an Australian developer and written in Aussie-English have the American box art when an Aussie one is available just because the publisher released to the larger American market first. If the developer's not English-speaking, then just go with whatever English-language cover is uploaded first. -- Sabre (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention: PAL, AUS, or NA region titles?

Code (video game) wasn't moved to Base 10 (video game), Picopict wasn't moved to Pictobits, and Nemrem wasn't moved to Zengage when they hit NA, and yet this morning I wake up to see that Kubos has been moved to Precipice (video game), with the reasoning given as 'Nintendo announced that this is the title of this game per this article: http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=19272 '. I know WP:ENGVAR covers spelling within articles (though I don't know if this counts as 'spelling' per se), WP:UE advises leaving it at the latest stable version (though it also says 'after the article has ceased being a stub', and the article in question is still a stub) if there's two different English words/titles involved, and Wikipedia doesn't hold any version of English as more correct than any other, but the WikiProject Video Games Naming Convention section does not cover this situation, so it would be nice to have project-official clarification on the matter.

long story short, should Precipice (video game) be moved back to Kubos on principle, or should it be left where it is since it's a stub-class low-importance article in terms of the project, and i'm probably the only one who noticed? ^^;;; -- Khisanth (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Online Multiplayer content

Online Multiplayer is a very important aspect of many games today and I think that it might be helpful if we had guidelines for what types of information is and is not appropriate for sections of articles that discuss online multiplayer. Would a discussion about how the online multiplayer part of a game is different from the single player part of a game be alright? What if such a discussion included a mention of how the basic strategy differs, might that help people understand the game better? Would a mention of how the experience differs between single player and online multiplayer be appropriate? How would something like those last two items be properly referenced? It seems like the only references for something like that would be to refer to the game itself, a consensus amongst editors familiar with the game, and/or to discussion forums, preferably the official forums hosted by the game's developers. (In my experience, information where a journalistic reference does not exist is often easily verifiable by playing a game itself or by investigating alleged facts, such as visiting a website to verify that clan ladders exist.) Would information about online player counts and places where people tend to congregate ("the community can be found at this IRC channel") be permissible? Would information about the online multiplayer community itself, such as a description of the game's competitive clan scene ("several competitive sites offer clan ladders for this game") and how online games get organized ("team captains draft the teams and then they join the game server and a voice communications server") be appropriate? Would a list of popular mods (such as instagib) be alright? In some cases, might it make the sense to have and permit separate articles about some games' online multiplayer components, especially those that have very extensive and popular online multiplayer components? I think that explicit guidelines for all of this would be helpful and I hope that someone will draft them and that a fruitful discussion can take place. WhipperSnapper (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

When browsing through articles within the scope of Project Video Games I have come across a few where the image in the infobox is a screenshot. In my opinion the image in the infobox should always be box art, with a screenshot in the main body of the article. I'd like to gain a few more opinions on the matter before making wholesale changes to various articles, so what do other editors think about images in infoboxes. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Which articles in particular are you talking about? Depending on the article, it could vary. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Example is Liquid Kids and before I altered them a few of The Addams Family articles has screenshots in the infobox. I think what I am proposing is a standardisation across all video game articles so that there is always box art and a screenshot for a game. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm torn. For most cases was have a blanket FUR (and some strong consensus) that box art is ok on all of these pages. On the other hand, some articles are so short that having two fair use images is hard to justify. In those cases I would prefer that we show what the game looks like over what the box looks like especially if the box is mundane and the game content interesting. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The question could well be ablut why the images are used. I like to use the images for identification purposes. To the casual reader who perhaps doesn't know all that much about video games the box art may aid more towards identification (as this is all they may have seen on a shop shelf or ebay listing) than a screenshot would. I have been tending to place screenshots in a "gameplay" section of the article as it is more relevant to that than in an infobox in my opinion.
Also, the infobox tends to contain technical information and release dates etc, and a screenshot isn't really appropriate in this area of an article, whereas box art is far more appropriate as it relates more to the details of the game. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly a lot of box art tells us more about what the marketing team thought would be cool than the game itself. If I want to identify a game like zelda the box is great. It was an iconic design that had some connection to the game. Bases Loaded (video game) less so. Another issue is availability. If we have a case where the box art is available or even on the page and a screenshot is being used in the infobox, then I could be convinced that it should be replaced--articles aren't that big. But if there is no box art forthcoming, I don't see the logic in moving a principal right justified image down the page for the sake of consistency. Protonk (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Most box art images are reletively easy to find either on the internet or by scanning the box, and the vast majority pass a fair-use rationale. However, I agree that if it proves impossible to obtain a box image then the screenshot will have to be acceptable in the infobox. If there is no box art on the page then it should get tagged on the talk page for the article and the image department will endevour to sort it out. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Writing a Reception section

Just an inquiry about properly writing a Reception section. When using the VG reviews template, how many of the Review score fields need to be filled in? Would filling in all of them be too much? Similarly, how many of these review scores should be mentioned in the body of the section? VG Editor (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems a point of some contention (minor) within the project still, but I'm personally for including two of the meta percentages, as well as four or five of the underlying reviews. It would probably be ideal for those in the template to be used in the prose, along with other sources if necessary. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Game Sales

Is there some kind of guideline or consensus on including game sales figures for games? I've noticed some articles list them and some don't. It's also a little strange because some games include the sales figures of expansions in addition to original sales, which inflates the figure compared with single product releases (eg Guild Wars includes all campaigns and Halo 3 only includes a single game). 122.111.0.60 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the variation in sales figures inclusion is the availability of this information, since its dependent on the developer or publisher having released it. If sales information has been released, then it should be included: it is a vital part for strengthening an article's coverage of reception. But if we can't get hold of it, there's not much we can really do.-- Sabre (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moving MobyGames to "Inappropriate" since it almost always is?

Mostly posting here to cross-reference a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#MobyGames paid Wikipedia?: I don't believe MobyGames has enough substance to justify linking to it as much as we do. See for instance this page on Hunt the Wumpus, which, if you take out all the content not already on Wikipedia and unique to that game, some screenshots (which you can get just about anywhere), links to Amazon and eBay (commercial), a bit of trivia, and a forum. It's pretty underwhelming as a whole. Nifboy (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Got my support. -- Sabre (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Same. In my limited experience with it, it seems to be too difficult to tell when to place it and when not to. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. I never understood why they would be allowed. If I had the time, I would dig my complains from having such links in our articles when they add very little. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it seems to be gaming the system. No pun intended.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since that's 5-0 in favor I went ahead and moved it, adding a rationale. Nifboy (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to wait a little more than six hours before committing the change, especially given the number of users who have used the site for ELs in their articles (much more than 5, FYI)? I mean, since we're already "voting". I think the existing wording is fine. SharkD (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The current wording is, essentially, "Don't link it unless it's substantial", which IMO should put it under the "inappropriate" heading, regardless of the wording change. Right now users are seeing it in the "appropriate" section and spamming it all over the place even when MobyGames has nothing of value as a link. Nifboy (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts are that it shouldn't be in either area. Stating it's appropriate or unappropriate puts undue weight on something that should be judged purely by the extra content it brings to that specific article rather than what category it's listed under in the guidelines. Appropriate promotes spamming, and inappropriate promotes auto-removal. Regardless, this consensus building should stay active for at least a few days vs. 6 hours. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Marty: it's usage should be a case-by-case basis and not under one category or the other, and would be best used under the judgment of the editor(s) involved in the article's development. And yeah, that was an overly fast conclusion to this discussion especially given it apparently occurred when many of us are asleep?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if it is on a case-by-case basis, will it really change anything? After all, some might think that it does have merit, others won't, others may not check to see if it's already been checked for merit. It's all going to turn into a big mess no matter what we do. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"Even if it is on a case-by-case basis, will it really change anything?" Um, yes? Given the alternative routes would imply it should be used everywhere or not at all, I'd say this is the best option. We can't account for how other editors might take it and we don't prohibit links in general: as long as it can be justified for one reason or another, it should be fine.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That quote was meant to be read in conjunction with the rest of my post. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"The current wording is, essentially, "Don't link it unless it's substantial", which IMO should put it under the "inappropriate" heading, regardless of the wording change. Right now users are seeing it in the "appropriate" section and spamming it all over the place even when MobyGames has nothing of value as a link." I don't really care which section it is placed under as long as the wording remains the same. SharkD (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The change you're trying to make is dealing with two vastly different issues:
  • One part of that statement is about gaming databases. What the guidelines state is that we should link to them if they provide a source of information that we otherwise would not include in the article like credits and screenshots. That is, if one has not been able to include a game's website, or its developer/publisher website, then this database link is the last consideration that should be made. Thus, it's not a link to avoid, but it is a link to use in lieu of any other links. Thus, wholesale removal of this line is not appropriate.
  • The specific advice about MobyGames - as specifically there are more than just MobyGames for game database information. There needs to be a discussion if MobyGames is better than AllGame, or do we use the best one for the situation. Now if its agreed that we should avoid MobyGames, then we need to rmeove that as an example in the statement, but not the statement itself as was done per the first point. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If sources are that limited for information, then editors should include the credits and a screenshot in the article use the mobygames content as a source instead of having it as an external link.
  • By allowing a link to one game database you are automatically allowing every other game database to be linked to.--Lorson (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots