Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Kinks in the whole Start -> FAC process

This is a rant, but please read and consider it. Posting it here because it focuses more on the reactions I've seen VG FAC's get.

Okay, this isn't targeting anyone in particular, but on the whole there's a really crappy trend going on:

• Article X gets started, improved, and achieves GA-class
• Article X goes to peer review, gets slapped about a bit, a copyedit, and told good luck (and sometimes barely gets that).
• Article X hits FAC, and it becomes a tossup. Quite often you get comments such as "needs a copyedit" and "needs more peer review".
• Author of Article X as a result either a) tries and tries again, b) moves on if he succeeded, or c) gives up.

This is not a process, it's a crapshoot. I'm sorry but it is. We as editors many of us long-term established here get the whole "it's our best work" thing. And yet we still try, and get the above comments about needing a copyedit or a peer review or similar. Look, and again not targeting anyone in particular or everyone, but if you're going to review the article for FAC, review it: point out every little flaw you find and point it out so we can fix it, and even try to tweak it yourself. Don't go halfway and shout "copyedit"/"peer review", you're not a mind reader and neither are we. We're not going to know for sure what the problems with the article are and sure as hell don't want to slave over rewriting something just for you to shout in Round 2 "Still needs a copyedit." Oh and by pointing out those errors, you help editors improve. And this is all probably hypocritical of even my own actions somewhere in my editting past, but so what, I'm saying at least try.

Hell if Peer Review worked the way some people apparently expect it to we'd have much stronger articles all around.

And while we're at it, telling us when there's a new requirement apparently added would be a good idea. We shouldn't have to stumble over these things (I never noticed it until I started looking at more FAC's in the TODO box). Knowing my luck though it's probably something I just missed anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be talking about this in FAC talk page?陣内_Jinnai 06:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I somehow honestly feel it'd fall on deaf ears there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Though this may not be the best place to discuss this, I feel I have to share Kung Fu Man's disappointment with the current system and agree that it does end with one of those three outcomes. However, I don't think it completely falls on FAC's shoulders. True, video game articles have a bad rep there and many reviewers have replied in less than polite ways (in my opinion anyway). But part of it is our level of editing skills within the project. Our peer reviews often go unanswered for lengthy time frames, and few provide in-depth dissections of the article. And even those are not always enough. I've seen several articles that I pick at as much as I can (both ones I've written and ones I just reviewed) get torn to shreds at FAC. It got to the point where I just stopped going to FAC. The 2–4 weeks of time dealing with the comments and the stress started to become a distraction to me. Not worrying about going for FA really sped up the amount of work I've done on articles.

Sadly, I think the real root of the probably is Wikipedia's structure. Since we're all volunteers here, it just wouldn't work if we were barking orders at each other to dedicate more time than we have available. For example, I do what I can to improve my desired articles, work on peer reviews and help the project, but sometimes I just don't have the time. If anybody wants to yell at me for that, they're welcome to, but it won't free up more of my time. Most of us are like that, we do what we can. The only real solution that comes to mind is becoming more structured as a project. Having a plan about which articles we should work on and how to accomplish that, like designating work to maximize editors' time and working on improving our grammar and writing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Minor updates and corrections to above post. Man I need to proof read my posts better. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

• When a reviewer says that an article "needs a copyedit", it's usually clear what they mean. Which is, they want you to find 1-2 copyeditors to heavily rewrite the article. In my own reviews, when I say something like that, I give examples of prose errors to prove that it's true. Listing every error is a tiresome, useless process; if you're going to get that detailed, you might as well copyedit the article instead. But I agree with your general point about the quality of FAC reviews: reviewers often do not properly describe the issues present in an article, which confuses FAC nominators. Also, the thoroughness of reviews is suspect in many cases—take, for example, Samus Aran. Here, we see that the first several reviewers did not assess the serious failing that was brought up later on, about copied text. In my own comment, I admit that I did not read the article; I merely noticed that problem while skimming and brought it up, with no intention of supporting or opposing—regardless of his response. To support an article, you must first be certain that it more-or-less passes all criteria. When opposing an article that has even a remote chance of reaching FA quality during FAC, however, you must give the nominator something to work with. If they are willing to put the effort in to fix what you bring up, then you should work closely with them, via Talk pages and even edits to the article in question. If you do not have time to do that, then you should not oppose a nomination. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mega Man 2

I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles and noticed that Mega Man (video game) was listed under the "Console games" section. Now I'm a fan of the first game, but I don't think it was as important as the second one in terms of impact. Should Mega Man 2 replace it? As a similar example, we have Street Fighter II in the "Arcade games" section but not the first one. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

• I love the first two Mega Man games but I don't know how important they would be for gaming. But for the First Street Fighter game, HELL NO! The first game isn't as revolutionary as SF2. So , no SF1. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Pretty much agreeing with GamePro64. SF1, while the start of the franchise, was ignored by a lot of folks (there are even letters sent to GamePro (magazine) in old issues asking "is there a SF1?" So I'd say that Street Fighter II should have priority.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with this proposal wholeheartedly. Mega Man was a failure that would never have gotten a sequel if not for the insistence of its design team and immense after-hours efforts. It is because of the far more polished Mega Man 2 that the series gained the renown it has today. As a note to the above posters, I do not believe Guyinblack25 was advocating listing SF there, I think he was using it as an example of a situation where the second game is far more important and so is listed instead of the series originator. Indrian (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the first Mega Man received a remake for the PSP, and while Mega Man 2 is more well-known, Mega Man started the whole series. Kinda like Zelda vs. ALttP or OoT. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really care which Mega Man game is on that list, either one has its merits, another one established the series (1), the other popularized it (2). My problem looking at the console games are three games: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. Each seem to have weak rationales. Also there are already two Zelda games there beside those and they far more influential. --Mika1h (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indrian is correct. I merely listed SFII as an example were we've done something similar. This idea came to mind after working on Mega Man 2#Legacy. To clarify, though the first game started the series, the series wouldn't have existed with the second game. Inafune, 1UP.com and Retro Gamer credit the rest of the sequels to the success and quality of Mega Man 2. IGN credits it with helping to shape the action platform genre.

By comparison, I'd call the second more important than the first. Admittedly, that may be because the proper research hasn't been done for the first game. Not sure. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

The first one has at least the more notable box art ;) --Mika1h (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As always, make sure you have good reception info in reliable sources to determine importance. I think most sources would agree that SF2 and Mega Man 2 are the most important and influential games for their respective series. If the list you're referring to is trying to assert this importance, it should be pretty cut-and-dry based on the sources. It's gonna be stepping into WP:OR and WP:NPOV if it's making conclusions "on its own", or based solely on editors' opinions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Though I didn't search specifically search for info about the first game, it's been my experience that some content will pop up during research about other games in the series. Not much really did, and the info that did compared the two in Mega Man 2's favor, hence my conclusion.

If more research is desired, however, I wouldn't mind waiting until Mega Man (video game) is brought up to par. No idea when that will happen though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Not to go off on a tangent, but I agree with Mika1h's concerns regarding The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. There's a few others I might take issue with as pushing "essential", but those three really stand out. Maybe this should be another thread... bridies (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How important is Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games anyways? I played the game and it doesn't really seem important in gaming. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that one per this discussion. bridies (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the tangent, I too question if Twilight Princess has really had enough of an impact to warrant being called an "essential article". Perhaps a new thread should be started to weed out non-essential articles, or the discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Two questions

Hello! I posted this question that no one has replied to in literally months and just posted Talk:Pinball_Hall_of_Fame:_The_Williams_Collection#Release_date_of_PS3_version.3F. In both cases I am finding conflicting information. For example, some sites list Monster Bash while others have No Good Gophers. Has anyone else found a more definitive reliable source on the "new" upcoming tables and current generation release dates for this game? Thanks for any help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of all Japanese-developed games released in the US

I am currently doing research on gender in Japanese-developed video games vs. US-developed ones, and the first phase of this involved gathering data on all video games developed in Japan that were then released in the US from the Playstation 2 era to the present. Using the Category:Japanese video game companies I compiled a list of all games matching those criteria and organized them by developer. I am currently in the process of entering all that information into a database, and I was wondering if/how this could be useful to this WikiProject and what I could do to assist that. If not, does anyone know where this information could be of use? Rein Aurre (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the context for which you are making the comparison. If I'm correct in guessing that it's related to women's studies, the right article might be Portrayal of women in video games. The raw data could not be added to the encyclopedia, but the resulting analysis could be mentioned, if there is a meaningful difference in comparison. Your results would have to be published in a reliable source, though. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it you are asking if the list of games developed in Japan that have subsequently been released in the US will be of use, as opposed to the results of the research you are conducting. I would say that such a list does not merit it's own article as the information is available elsewhere either on wikipedia or other sites, just not in a direct table form. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We did briefly have a Table: namespace that it would have made sense to put that sort of thing in, but we got rid of it because nobody could decide what exactly the difference between a list and a table was.

If you want to make the list available to other people, an easy way might be to put the table in your userspace and then link it from the relevant category talk page. It wouldn't be officially on the wiki, but other people who wanted the information could be able to find it that way. --erachima talk 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcade board cleanup

See Category:Arcade system boards. While a handful of these articles have some encyclopedic information in them, most of these are stubs that read like service manuals. Are there any sources that discuss arcade boards from a general perspective? As interesting as I'm sure all this info is to arcade hobbyists, I doubt Wikipedia is the correct place to host spec sheets. Perhaps the articles could be salvaged and merged into lists of some sort. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Retro Gamer had an "Arcade Retrospective", or some similar title, segment that was specifically about arcade boards. It featured some technical info and history as well as general info about the games. Killer List of Videogames sometimes mentions hardware info on their game entries, but not a lot. I've also spotted a few things here and there in some random articles I can't recall at the moment.

So some specific ones have received coverage, but not all. I'd imagine maybe a few could make it to B-class. Some merging wouldn't hurt. Though, I'm not entirely sure how to do that in a constructive way. Maybe combine the stubs into articles or lists by company, like "Taito arcade system boards" or "List of Namco arcade system boards". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Space yamato games not be merged

Space Battleship Yamato (video game) ,Space Battleship Yamato: Iscandar e no Tsuioku and Space Battleship Yamato: Nijū Ginga no Hōkai have third person and first articles to justify not being merged and the official website always has updates relating to star blazers.

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series

Can I get some more comments on merging Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series to Universe of The Legend of Zelda (discussion)? The actual content has been merged, though it's currently just an ugly list that needs to be turned into a few paragraphs. TTN (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with sources at Universe of Kingdom Hearts

Hey guys, this article is under GAR (here) and the main problem is that we're looking for the original location of these interviews: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. We need to cite to the original source, not the translation. Help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Power Pyramid

This article needs to be kept an eye on as an anonymous user keeps re-adding advertising information and undo-ing all attempts to clean it up. I would urge an admin to lock it up for a while. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the person is edit-warring and IP-hopping at the same time. If this keeps up, then I think semi-protection may be necessary to stop the spamming/warring. MuZemike 15:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article may be more appropriate for deletion than protection, along with it's parent article Konnet Technology Inc.. They were both originally started by the same user and were just advertising speil. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcjakeqcool

Mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs) is still at it, even after his short block at the end of last month. The user has been going through various video game lists, adding brief descriptions where they don't belong (see contribs). The user was already informed about this here. Then, while looking through Special:NewPages just now, he created Microcosm (game), in which there is already a Microcosm (video game). MuZemike 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DAMN IT! I thought Gib had it taken care of after this. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The user has done nothing of that sort but has continued. I gave the user a strong warning to stop what is now starting to be disruption here. MuZemike 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, there was apparently some confusion on Microcosm above per comment made to me by him [6]. MuZemike 16:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see it was a simple misunderstanding.

<Start rant> I know this user had a rough start, but they seem to genuinely want to help the project. Let's keep an eye on them like we do for most everybody else and offer polite advice as needed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather work with these new people than against them. These are the editors that are going to take over for us when we're gone. I'm certain I'll stop editing one day for whatever reason, and I'd like to make sure there are competent editors to continue the work we've done. Just like we've picked up where past editors left off. <End rant> (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

File:Phantasy Star Zero.jpg

TJ Spyke is consistently reverting this image from the European cover art which was uploaded first by Calamity-Ace to a box art which has the "RP" rating on it. The VG guidelines even say "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." He keeps reverting anyway though, citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can someone please help out; I don't want to engage in an edit-war. The Prince (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "don't change it" rule was so we wouldn't get shit like this. Spyke's excellent reasoning for the change is - "Smaller image (and their are plenty of cases where the North American boxart was added first and some idiot replaced it with the PAL cover)" Apparently, being that idiot - is fine. Also note that the version he uploads is higher resolution, yet of lower quality. - hahnchen 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the rest of the series use? If they are all NA (or Japanese for those lacking releases), then that may be okay, but a better quality photo should be found and he should defiantly be warned. Alternatively can we find one that doesn't have any symbol on it or crop it?陣内_Jinnai 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no standard. This, and pretty much all other art disputes - especially in this case, the art is fundamentally the same, only deserves a "Shut up arguing" response. - hahnchen 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Excessive edits/reverts. Content now protected, suggest the relevant parties engage in some discussion here. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the art is pretty much the same, unlike the Dragon Quest cover we discussed a while ago. That said, I can try and upload a cropped version if that'll resolve this dispute.陣内_Jinnai 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They are the same picture. Could it be that someone cares that much for the ratings icon in the bottom left. Salavat (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the guideline should be clarified as to which one, NA or PAL, should be preferable? Otherwise people will continue assuming that a certain region is preferable, even though the guidelines state not to change it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline should just make it as clear as possible that current images should not be replaced. Criteria for new uploads should just be marked as suggestions. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy needs to be changed. The image should be the finalized artwork of the cover-work from the first English-speaking country release. If the game isn't released in an English-speaking country, it should be the artwork of the original country. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The first English language country of release in a vast majority of cases is NA. Using that as a basis would effectively end up with a rule saying "Use NA artwork for non-English language titles". Are you really saying that? - X201 (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue. Because it doesn't matter. No one cares whether a game was released in Europe 2 weeks prior to the US release. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in 10 years from now, no one will give a shit. In the fair use rationales, box art is used purely to identify the subject. There is no reasoning which suggests that one cover is any more "official" than the other. If you upload a valid English language box art, it stays. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bovineboy. Why does it matter which version was uploaded first? Our policy should require more consistency. -sesuPRIME 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It matters when the artwork itself differs such as in Dragon Quest V. In this case, it really doesn't matter. The only other time it may matter is if all the other images from the series are from a specific region. As I said before, right now our guidelines empower those who are quick to the draw as it doesn't give exemptions once an English version is uploaded. It doesn't "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." See, the last part is simply saying completely ignore what was just said since whatever is uploaded first always trumps, according to our guideline, the previous statement. It doesn't say "don't change it without a good reason." it says "don't change it." Period.陣内_Jinnai 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't just "empower those who are quick to the draw" it also empowers the users who have uploaded art for the thousands of games that aren't big name A-list titles, all the PSN and Xbox Arcade titles that have articles but no art. It prevents their efforts being wiped out with a brief "Sold more in NA/EU/Congo" comment - X201 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, your wrong. If I upload an English boxart you diagree with according to the guideline your SOL becuase whoever uploads it first automatically wins because it says "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." In such a case I would have been the person uploading that image and could point to that line arguing it trumps all other arguments because it says clearly "don't change it."陣内_Jinnai 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, you're interpreting the guideline too strictly. Quote: "This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." We've seen a recent "common sense" exception with Dragon Quest V. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap uses the European box art because that's where it was first released in English, but the other Zeldas use the NA box for the same reason. Are you suggesting Minish Cap's box be changed to the NA version despite the fact that it was released in Europe before NA? -sesuPRIME 06:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support an NA standard, at least until Europe becomes the dominant English speaking market, lol.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It won't be too long until China or India have more English speakers than NA and EU combined. So brush up on your Sanskrit and your Simplified Chinese because those box covers are going to get pretty interesting, pretty soon. - X201 (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the European upload of The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap box art, overwriting the American one, was a mistake. Valid English language covers should not be replaced. And before people seriously start arguing about languages, it's irrelevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for native English speakers only. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the point of me bringing up language. English is rapidly becoming a global language, before long "an English language release" or "English language cover" will mean any country on the planet. Making "cover of first English language release" an irrelevance. I was just future gazing. - X201 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the Phantasy Star image - User:Calamity-Ace uploads the first English language cover. User:TJ Spyke overwrites the image with a higher resolution yet lower quality replacement with a North American "pending" label instead of the final European one - without explanation. He is reverted, citing the "don't change stuff" rule, and then reverts himself, stating:

Smaller image (and their are plenty of cases where the North American boxart was added first and some idiot replaced it with the PAL cover)

This back and forth continues between TJ and other users, with Spyke claiming "No reason to change" regardless that it was he himself which made the change originally! It is now protected. I find it extremely difficult, given that the artwork is identical, to assume good faith on Spyke's behalf given his edit summary. This wasn't about finding which box art was most suitable, as they're the same - it's about planting flags.

As an aside, I have uploaded hundreds of box arts, from different regions. What are my criteria? Whichever I think looks best - see File:Dino Crisis.jpg for a graphic example. Cover arts are there to identify the subject, and any English language cover is generally suitable. What I don't do? I don't replace covers that have been already been uploaded, because it's an unproductive waste of time, seemingly motivated by nationalism more than anything else, and I have a respect for the decisions made by other editors. - hahnchen 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For info, I have invited TJ Spyke via his talk page to participate in this discussion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems a bit silly. If nice (high res, high quality) English-language boxart is already present in an article, there's no reason to change it. If there's a better image available, regardless of region, then it should be updated. Sometimes this might be to the detriment of the aesthetics (MGS4's EU boxart is a million times nicer than the US one), but that's just the way it goes. Imposing one version as automatically superior to the other just seems silly. The PS0 boxart should never have been changed in the first place, the EU art should remain. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just reading stuff again there, I basically agree with everything hahnchen says above. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Hahnchen. bridies (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically the NA boxart is better quality and small size (both of which help the FUR more). You can't say we always use the first English boxarts, because that is false. There have been games where the first English boxart added was the North American one, then somebody came in and replaced that with the PAL boxart and that is the one used now. TJ Spyke 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Two wrongs don't make a right". I'm lost as to why you think you're entitled to force the box art to change. You even say "no reason to change", when the reason to change is clearly stated, and you are entitled no right to continue to revert. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why you think it's better quality (it's more grainy), and it's barely smaller (one pixel in x, four pixels in y). Hardly reason to change (if the previous image was a horribly pixelated 1600x1200 image, I could see your point). Also, as retro points on there, saying "It's been done in the opposite direction" doesn't mean it's ok (those changes should've been reverted too). Thanks! Fin©™ 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Localised names in article intro

Hiya. Just wondering what the policy is on native names in the intro of games articles. Articles of games developed in Japan, eg MGS4, often contain the Japanese name after the English one, and those developed in the west, eg COD4, just contain the English name. User:Megata Sanshiro has been adding the Chinese name to games developed in China (but often the game's developed software houses of western developers/publishers, eg Ubisoft Shanghai). What's the story with games developed in a non-English speaking country (and subsequently not released in that country, or the primary release was elsewhere)? I'd assume to just keep the English name, unless the game was first released in the native language and then subsequently translated into English (as would be the case with most or all Japanese dev'd games). Thanks! Fin©™ 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it or not the English was merely a restatement of the Japanese title or a subtitle; for the former it clearly doesn't need to be in as redundant. For the latter I would say it would depend upon how it was marketed and/or reviewed.陣内_Jinnai 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't know games developed by Ubisoft Shanghai were not released in China. I don't think Falcon9x5's adverb "often" is warranted; I've been adding Chinese names for China-exclusive games too. Same goes for Russian games IMO. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to use "often" literally, it was more like "there exists edits where". I'm unaware if games developed by Ubi Shanghai are actually released in China or not but that's most certainly not their primary market. China-exclusive games should certainly have the Chinese names alright! Thanks! Fin©™ 15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

VG Infobox parameter suggestion

Why doesn't the Template:Infobox VG have a next/previous parameter for the previous edition of a game in a series or the next edition of a game of the same series? I think it would be useful.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean the next/previous released or the next/previous in terms of the games' story? -sesuPRIME 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It comes up so often that SharkD made a compilation page of the discussions. Template talk:Infobox VG/GameSeries It contains the discussion for why they were removed and the opposition to their re-addition- X201 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was unaware of that. But after reading the most recent one, I can't seem to agree with what was said about the interpretation. The series should just follow the chronology in which they were released in, as in Previous release and Next release; the prequels and other -quels can just be mentioned in prose. --Truco ₅₀₃ 15:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

sountrack notable?

Every song is mentioned in FlatOut 2. I've never seen a FA mention every song, so should this be deleted?--Megaman en m (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FAs that have track listings include Halo Wars, Wipeout 3, and every Myst game. And those are just the one's I've written. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it just needs editing into prose rather than the list it currently is. Perhaps something along the lines of "the soundtrack features Band X, Band Y and Band Z" where the mentioned bands are notable. Perhaps doesn't need a section all of it's own, but more a development section where it is included. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the look of the tracklisting on Wipeout 3, if this can be achieved for FlatOut 2 then it might be preferable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wipeout games were all noted for their use of music though, so I think it's a bit unfair to use them as an example. Lists of songs shouldn't be included in articles - soundtracks can be included if there was significant third party coverage (I think this might've been discussed recently?), but generally it's better to keep them out. Case by case of course, but the list in Flatout 2 should definitely go. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Falcon. While we have a good amount of free reign to add what content we deem acceptable to a game that has established notability, not every part of a game is notable and thus isn't required. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

AFAIK, collapsible tracklistings are fine for the soundtrack section if the songs are original. I'm not sure about licensed songs.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD goin' slow - Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX (2nd nomination) Input, please? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Template:CharR to list entry discussion

In a current TfD for Template:R from character, the CharR template has come under discussion as to the appropriateness of its name and whether the two should be merged, along with possibly renaming the similar Template:FictR to list entry and Template:ER to list entry templates. As these templates were created per consensus from a discussion among the Television, Anime/manga, and Video game projects while dealing with many character to list merges, I am notifying the three projects so they can add any input desired at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 24#Template:R from character -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Another VG Main Pages heads up

Crush (video game) is set to be on the main page on Sept 8. It's a rather short article and I don't expect lots of vandals to interfere with it, but just as a heads up, a few extra watchlist eyes wouldn't be bad.

(I swear, this is just random, but this is like my 6th main page article! I'm not making Raul pick mine over anyone elses!) --MASEM (t) 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it has something to do with some of these ;-) - X201 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about say, something's not right here. I guess I need to start writing with Masem. :-p

Seriously though, that's quite a feat. Must be good karma or something, so keep it up whatever you're doing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

I think I've got... 3 or 4? Not all video games though. Raul is inscrutable... I bet he's got some big plan just to screw with our minds! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had two, both which were surprise picks by Raul as well. One thing I've noticed though, is that the random video game articles he's picked this past year have garnered less controversy from editors and random readers. In fact, a few got nothing but praise and were barely vandalized. If I was a superstitious person, I'd think we should never ask for a specific article to be featured again. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Sometimes putting a controversial item up is good, but not all the time.陣内_Jinnai 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. I think it was great to see ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion on the main page. However, I hardly find Kingdom Hearts (series) controversial, but it apparently rubbed some readers the wrong way. Go figure. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Vandalism from IP range on Nintendo-related articles

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent vandalism from a range of IP addresses, where the target from the mentioned IPs have been multiple Nintendo-related articles. If anyone has any other information regarding these IPs or any possible sockmaster, please contribute to that discussion. Regards, MuZemike 21:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New Game Plus prod

An editor has proposed that this article be deleted. I have no doubt in my mind that it is a notable concept but I've had quite a bit of trouble finding sources. I see a lot of articles mentioning such-and-such game has a NG+ feature, but I haven't run across anything discussing its core importance and whatnot. At worst, the article I found (about Mass Effect 2) does have a paragraph briefly discussing what NG+ is and mentions Chrono Trigger, but help finding sources would be appreciated. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I contested the PROD giving my reasoning on the article talk page. However, I agree with you that sourcing is difficult to find as there is no set definition of what a New Game + is. I am sure that there are pleanty of sources that could be included to signify notability, but I am reluctant to include them right now as it would change the page into being more of a list of its usage. Perhaps we could continue this discussion on the article talk page, and come to a concensus about what to do with it. Perhaps it will indeed become more of a list of usage, or perhaps it will simply end up at AfD. --Taelus (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Europe-videogame-company-stub}}?

Hi! MuZemike recently created {{Europe-videogame-company-stub}}. I don't think this template should exist though. Shouldn't European company stubs be categorized by country like all other video game company articles? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Corpx (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While I see the logic to your view, I think MuZemike as the right idea with the stub. Creating stub templates for every country out there seems like over-categorization to me.

However, I don't think a few stub templates for countries with a large amount of companies whose articles are stub wouldn't hurt. Like |articles about UK video game companies. But I don't think a stub template is needed for the articles about Bulgarian video game companies, Norwegian video game companies, or Danish video game companies. I think those should use the broader European stub template. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't even think those categories are necessary. A category for a single article? There should be a parent cat. –xeno^talk 15:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me, as I do not fully know procedure, however what harm does a template and category such as this do? If a group of users, or even only one user, is using it as a method to gather topics in their area of expertise in order to allow them to more easily benefit the project, what reason is there for it not to exist? --Taelus (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's probably best to propose new stub types at WP:WSS/P. They can help determine, based on pre-existing stub types, what the best method of division would be. –xeno^talk

Well, my reasoning was that we already have one for Japan, the US, and the UK that were already created. I'm about a little over halfway through the list and already found about 75 stubs that fall under this category. So I would expect about 100 such stubs or so when I'm done, which is about the same as the other company stubs by country or continent. I am aware that we don't need them for every country, and that's clearly not my intent to do so, especially regarding the basic "50 or over" rule of thumb used for stub-types. MuZemike 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Still a good idea to run it by WSS, so they can put it into their list of stub types. –xeno^talk 15:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All completed. 124 stubs in total, which IMO is reasonble and consistent with the others. I'll ping WP:WSS/P about the creation. MuZemike 16:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that I have absolutely no connection with Imuze studios :) MuZemike 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New banner

I wish to apologise to my fellow Wikipedians for being so dreadfully lazy in English Wikipedia as of late. I promise to be more active in the coming year.

That said, I hope this new banner I made for the CVG project makes things up. A little.

Or maybe not. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. The only issue that comes to mind is that we no longer go by WP:CVG. Most every use of that in project space and templates has been redirected to ones that use just VG.

And no need to apologize for having other priorities. We're all in the same boat, coming and going, doing what we can and whatnot. Any help you can provide is appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Dang! Foiled by old habits! Could have been so much worse blunder, though - I almost crammed "WP:WPCVG" in there. =) I'll upload a new version some time tomorrow when my head works a bit better. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I see what you did there.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Great image. Those Evony ads are a nightmare. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad that people like the ad! I've now uploaded a new version that says WP:VG instead of WP:CVG. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Old AfD

This VG AfD is now two weeks old, no discussion has taken place. Anyone care to comment? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AWplanet Marasmusine (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An article to potentially be split for disambiguation purposes

Good day, I bring this article to your attention: Tap (gaming).

As was highlighted on the talk page, it is unsuitable to have an article describing three unrelated uses of the term, and thus it may be a good idea to split the page into a disambiguation page. However, I wanted to bring it here for discussion first as the notability of each individual term is questionable.

The multiple uses for this term include:

• Tapping in collectible card games, detailed on the page.
• Tapping in MMORPGs, detailed on the page.
• The act of tapping a touchscreen, detailed on the page. (I suspect this will fail WP:N even without being split.)
• Tapping in Cheating in online games#Lagging, currently not included on the page.

Perhaps we could construct individual pages in project space/user space before performing the split, if we do so at all. I welcome your input, thank you. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a collection of definitions to me. The first is, at best, redundant with List of Magic: The Gathering keywords#Tap/Untap; a similar glossary for MMORPG terms was deleted for lack of sources. Beyond that I'm not sure what there is to say beyond linking to Wiktionary and being done with it. Nifboy (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It could simply be converted into a disambiguation linking to the pages which cover each in brief currently then, with an additional link to Wiktionary if there is something relevant there then? --Taelus (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Or just a redirect to TAP, which is already a dab page. Nifboy (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also a possibility, as this would avoid the uncommon a double disambiguation page occuring. Having thought about this and reading your comments, I will go ahead and be bold and redirect the page to the disambiguation page, as it is only covering topics already covered elsewhere and containing dicdefs in its current form. --Taelus (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on character merging for Sonic.

Please see [7]. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper title for this article

So I want to merge Dancing Stage SuperNova 2 and Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 (North America) because it is essentially the same game with a single song added to the Europe version. Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 is already taken by the arcade release which has enough differences to warrant another article so what should I put inside the ( ) if the game is across different regions? I can't use the year since the North American release was in 2007 (Same as the arcade) and the European release was in 2008.  ^{æronphonehome}  10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also can't use PlayStation 2 as the merge template suggests because the Japanese release, which is discussed on the arcade page being closely related, was also on the PlayStation 2.  ^{æronphonehome}  11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

K, I'll just wing it.  ^{æronphonehome}  08:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of antagonists in Xenosaga

List of antagonists in Xenosaga is one of the oldest 100 articles tagged as unreferenced. It is listed as in scope of this project. Does anyone care to add references or does this article fail WP:N so it should be deleted? Jeepday (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Three antagonists have articles of their own (Albedo (Xenosaga), Testament (Xenosaga), Wilhelm (Xenosaga)), the last of which might minimally pass WP:WAF, though not WP:N in its current state, so I don't think AfDing the character list would succeed. It's desperately in need of something, though. Nifboy (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(update) I threw in the references to the Perfect Guide etc. from Wilhelm's article. It feels like cheating so I'll leave it to someone else to remove the unreferenced tag. Nifboy (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All four articles should probably be merged to List of characters in the Xenosaga series. It won't be too long if the plot "summaries" are trimmed down. As a sidenote, I tried to make Shion Uzuki a notable article some time ago (User:Megata Sanshiro/Shion Uzuki) but apparently there was not enough sources to assert notability. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to delete those articles but they were keep voted because of inclusionists. I think they should at least be merged, but there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to do maintenance.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

KOS-MOS could pass WP:N if someone wanted to actually work on her. On breif stints to find sources for MOMO almost every article talked about KOS-MOS and several giving paragraph more if not almost exclusively focusing on her role.陣内_Jinnai 20:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, I posted a mergefrom on List of characters in the Xenosaga series to see if that increases discussion on the move. Jeepday (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Collins class submarine now open

The peer review for Collins class submarine, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Category for games with more than 1 disc?

I've been playing around with this idea in my head for a bit. Might there be a useful category here? I understand that there might be an overwhelming number of PS1 games here, so possibly make them a subcategory. Games with more than 1 disc very roughly indicate a certain threshold for content to justify a second disc. Also, starting in the PS2/GCN/Xbox era, I haven't heard of any games needing more than 2. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an unneeded triviality (and I say this as a relative inclusionist for trivial stuff). Most of the time multiple discs mean more/longer/higher quality movies than anything else, not more content inherently. Xenogears is about four times as long as Panzer Dragoon Saga (at the very least), despite having 2 discs to PDS's 4. And hell, Xenogears is itself a perfect example -- disc 1 has about 4-5 times the amount of game disc 2 has. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that there are dozens and dozens of PC games with more than 1 disc (e.g. The X-Files Game 7 discs or King's Quest V 10 3.5" floppies). --Mika1h (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Garfieldfan78138

Someone familiar with the Sonic series should take a look at the contrib history of User:Garfieldfan78138. Most of his edits look pretty questionable. — RockMFR 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Icewind Dale II

Is anyone able to help out this hard-working soul? BOZ (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Able-bodied reviewers, report!

This is an open call to any experienced good article reviewers; in case you weren't aware there's currently a sweeps project going on to reassess old GAs and make sure they're still up to spec (or meet current criteria). It's slow going, but we're reaching the end... there's still a few video game articles that need to be checked, and I've got my hands full with everything else. If you're interested in helping out, read this and jump in. Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

International version

I've noticed that a lot of articles that use {{Vgrelease}} use the parameter INT= to list worldwide release dates. However that parameter links to the article International version which is not about worldwide releases but "relocalized version of a previously released title in its native territory that has gained additional features and contents in foreign releases." There's something contradictory here, isn't there? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by contradictory, it just sounds like a misunderstanding being caused by a vague name for a parameter. I suggest deprecating INT= and replacing it with something like relocalized=. If you meant that the article title was contradictory with what it actually means, I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but it can't really be helped -- it's jargon and that is the correct usage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean the parameter INT= is widely used for "worldwide release" (a game which is released on the same day in Japan, America, Europe, etc.), but the link International version refers to something totally different (a game which is re-released in Japan after having been released somewhere else). The article International version is fine; the problem is that people are linking to it via INT= as if it were about worldwide releases. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So what's to be done? Not only is the name mistaken to mean "international release date", its context is different from the other parameters. The other parameters are for regional release dates for the original game, while INT= is a secondary Japanese release date for a new version of the game. IMO this is overloading the infobox field. International versions should be treated the same as any other "deluxe edition" type of release, and not be in the infobox. So I would suggest removal of this field or deprecation as above. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually we do list "deluxe" versions if they are released and marketed separately. Usually this is not the case.陣内_Jinnai 03:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another port collection question

Like the Metroid Prime: Trilogy (which included ports of two GC games to the Wii), there's now going to be a God of War Collection that will provide PS3 ports of the first two PS2 titles. Note that the port version of the individual game is not by itself.

Question: For the purposes of a game's infobox, if there is a future port of it that is part of another title (as the case above) as opposed to its own standalone product, should the port-as-collection details (platform, release date, etc.) be added to the original game's infobox? I'm thinking not - because while it is that game that is being ported, it is not be sold as that game in the port; it's the collection that is. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless it was a multi-platform release, I've always avoided release information for ports because I believe the article should focus on the original game. (See Space Invaders, Marble Madness, and Robotron: 2084, which have all been released as part of compilation titles as well as stand-alone ports for different platforms.) The port information is mentioned in a relevant section and the categories are added as well, but I like to keep the infobox tidy and focused. Cramming the relevant information here into an infobox seems excessive and tangential to me. Of course though, I don't know if we have a guideline for this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, it should still mention the release dates of all the documented re-releases if they were not mere reprints.陣内_Jinnai 22:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at how Metroid Prime 3: Corruption does it, where it calls out the name of the collection, seems to be a fair representation and distinction in the box. That is, as long as all aspects of the changes in infobox fields are marked as being in the collection, then it's clear that it's a port or repackaging. However, this is not consistent with the other MP articles but should be easily fixed. I will try to add some language to the guidelines to reflect this. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Halo Games Question

I got a question on the three main Halo games. I can understand that Halo: Combat Evolved for being a High-important article because it was a revolutionary FPS and Halo 2 for its help with online play, but should Halo 3 be a High-important article, too? If so, What's the explanation? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "best-selling game on a major console" is justification for High-class, even if it's basically the same as previous iterations. Someone is welcome to correct me if that's not the case. Nifboy (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Per our new importance scale, it looks like just being a best-selling title isn't enough to be "High" anymore. I quick read of the article didn't point out any major impact or legacy outside of the series. I'd say moving it down to "Mid" would be a justifiable edit. Though it wouldn't hurt to see what a few others think too, so there's more of a consensus.

General FYI- Be sure to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles with any importance or quality changes to important articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

I think it's fine to move it down to Mid. I agree that sales should not be the only determinant of an article's importance; the game's influence should be the primary factor. The first Halo is High for sure, and the rest can be Mid, unless, for example, Halo Wars revolutionized RTS gameplay (I wouldn't know, I've never played it before). Gary King (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Gary, I think most of what you said sounds good, but Halo 2 should remain "High" as per my above comment. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Heroes list in Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes

I'm not familiar with all the nuances of the WP:VG/GL ... can someone more familiar with this project take a look at Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes#Heroes? The Heroes list seems excessive to me - at the very list it's written in an in-universe style, for which I've tagged it. But it also seems to be more about the characters than about the encyclopedic mechanics involved around them. Can someone either assist or provide feedback here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Addams Family games

Could I propose a merger of all the games featuring The Addams Family into one article? There are currently five articles (Fester's Quest, The Addams Family (arcade game), The Addams Family: Pugsley's Scavenger Hunt, Addams Family Values (video game), Addams Family (Game Gear)), that all have stub status. My proposal may allow one start-class article that covers all five seperate articles. What do other people think? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a merge in the articles' current state. There should be critical coverage somewhere to write proper articles some day however. bridies (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made a start on this as a suer page at User:AirRaidPatrol 84/Addams Family games. The new article is essentially the old information rehashed into one article and I appreciate more work is needed on it, but at least it's a start. Looking for opinions really. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a lot more information to the article. I still don't think there is enough information to split them down into individual articles. I will go ahead and redirect the old pages to this one once I have moved it from a user page to a proper page. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

See The Addams Family (video games). AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. US release date

This is in response to a discussion about Super Mario Bros.'s release date in the United States. Currently, several gaming websites list the date as October 1985, however, a few source refute this (stating 1986) while others dance around it ambiguously. To be up front and get to the heart of this discussion, I think there's a logical argument for 1986, but WP:V dictates that the article content should mirror the most verifiable information regardless of what we think to be true. In light of that, I'd like to see if a consensus can be built to ignore the rules for this specific matter.

Sources that support an October 1985 or 1985 release date in the United States.

• GameSpot's SMB directory page
• IGN's directory page
• IGN's Top 10 Tuesday: Best Launch Titles, which states Super Mario Bros. was an NES launch title. This relates to the NES's first US release, which was in New York in October 1985 to test its viability in the market.
• Nintendo's website SMB entry, which does not specify a region simply a year (1985). This doesn't help to much because the game was released in Japan in 1985. However, the SMB3 entry lists 1990 as the original release, which was the year the game was released in the US, 2 years after its Japanese release. Without regions specified, this is not completely concrete in my mind, but I concede the argument exists that it is concrete.
• Chaplin and Ruby's Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment, and Big Bucks in the Videogame Revolution stated "Mario and the NES finally debuted in the United States in 1985..."

Sources that support an 1986 release date in the US

• Kent's Ultimate History of Videogames.
  • "When Nintendo went to New York, Super Mario Brothers, which would become the linchpin during the national launch of the NES, had not been introduced." - pg. 297
  • "By the end of 1985, Nintendo began packaging Super Mario Bros. with the Famicom. This marketing move was so successful in Japan that Yamauchi and Arakawa decided to do it in the United States. It took a few months to create an American version of the game, and the cartridge was available by the time Nintendo of America went national - the end of 1986." - pg 300.

Evidence that suggests an 1986 release date or at least not a 1985 date.

• Marty provided some info that demonstrates the lack of SMB's presence in advertising at the time.[8][9][10] While this isn't concrete, I agree that it is odd given the success SMB had in Japan. If it was available, it stands to reason it would have been advertised.
• Smartbomb and Sheff's Game Over go into a good amount of detail regarding Nintendo's efforts to bring the NES to the US. SMB is mentioned before (describing it's success in Japan) and after (describing it's success in the US), but nothing about it is mentioned during the whole process. The less commercially successful R.O.B. is covered in greater detail, which I found odd because SMB was very successful in Japan at the time.
• Mario777Zelda and Marty have contacted Nintendo of America about the information on the Nintendo's website and it turns out they just pull info from a database they have no little explanation why it's that date. More details are on the talk page.

And just for good measure to show that sources can sometimes get things wrong.

• Vogel's Entertainment Industry Economics: a Guide for Financial Analysis lists Super Mario Bros. release date as 1987. Go figure.

In summary, the theory is that the game was released in the US in 1986, and any source that lists 1985 is operating on the assumption that the game was released along side the NES in it's first test release in New York during October 1985. On the surface, sources point to a 1985 date, but I believe closer inspection points to a 1986 date because no sources explains why 1985 is used. Only Kent's book gives a rationale behind the listed date. I must admit though, this is a bit of synthesis.

Marty is contacting some people to get more info about the actual release. Hopefully that will bring to light more concrete information. Not sure how long that will take though. In the mean time, would this qualify as a situation were WP:V should be ignored? Any thoughts or suggestions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

• I know I am a little late to this conversation, but I have just found an interesting article in the Philapdelphia Inquierer dated August 19, 1986. No link I am afraid, but some relevant quotes below:

"Nintendo says it sold 6.4 million games starring Mario and his brother, Luigi, between Sept. 1, when the game was introduced, and the end of February, the last month for which figures were available. The game plugs into a television set and costs $95.

The company hopes that Super Mario and Luigi will become stars worldwide, just as Japan's robot toys stampeded around the globe two years ago.

Nintendo exported 200,000 Super Mario games to the state of New York earlier this year to test at its American subsidiary, Nintendo Entertainment Systems. The results of consumer tests have not been released, but the company is confident that Super Mario will be snapped up from American toy store shelves by Christmas."

This was apparently a Reuter story, and both the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen (and most likely others as well) also ran this story. Seems to be pretty definative proof as to a 1986 release date, especially with everything else gathered on the article talk page. Indrian (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the article is dated 1986 and not 1987? It says the game was released on 1st Sep, but that would mean 1st Sep 1985 - before it was released in Japan. Or am I missing something here? Xenon54 / talk / 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Appreciate the digging Indrian, but there are a few factual issues that don't make sense to me.

• First, SMB was released in Japan in September 1985, which leads me to believe the sales numbers are for the Japanese release.
• Second, Nintendo only released 100,000 NESs in their October 1985 test run in New York. They sold half and the remaining units went to Los Angeles for a second test run in February 1986. It doesn't make sense to release twice as many cartridges as there are systems.

This further demonstrates the conflicting information that keeps coming up. Most sources point to a 1985 date, but the conflicting data and blanks in the story point to a 1986 date to me. I generally follow sources in all my article writing, but I think this is one of the rare cases where deductive reasoning and common sense should trump policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

• I think you are misunderstanding the point I was making with this article, and the issues you bring up above are not actually issues at all. What the article appears to prove is that a)Super Mario Brothers was released in Japan in September 1985. The sales mentioned in the article are referring to Japanese sales, not North American sales. b)A test run for Super Mario Brothers was held in New York sometime in 1986 involving 200,000 copies. The article language is unclear here (they get the name of the North American subsidiary wrong, for one), but what is clear is that this is referring to a 1986 test and not the late 1985 test release of the NES, which you correctly state was 100,000 units, ie these are two different events. c)This test aside, the game had not been released yet by August 1986, but it was coming. Therefore, the article establishes that no copies of SMB had reached American shores before 1986. Indrian (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoops, my mistake. I think I misread your comment as saying "...proof as to a 1985 release date..." rather than "...proof as to a 1986 release date...". Must have been a long yesterday. :-p Please accept my apologies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC))
• Found the full article in the New Straits Times, 10 August 1986. I think it's the same as Indrian's article, because I also found it in the Inquirer. Interestingly, it also doesn't mention a September 1st release date, only saying "6 months to February." The most important point is that it doesn't mention America at all, and calls Mario the "superhero of Japanese children". So you can conclude that it hadn't been released there yet. Link. Xenon54 / talk / 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe SMB was released with the NES in it's nation-wide release around summer 1986. This August 1986 article may be a response to that. Just guessing on my part though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

One more thing: This Google News search pulls two (pay-to-view) ads from the Los Angeles Times (dated 9 Nov 1986) and Chicago Tribune (dated 16 Nov 1986). Both appear to mention SMB. There is also an article from the Tribune (dated 27 Jun 1986) that says "the biggest splash, both here and abroad, is [SMB]...". And there is a (pay-to-view) story from the Minneapolis Star Tribune (dated 22 Dec 1986) that mentions SMB. There is no mention of SMB in any English-language media before the 10 Aug 1986 New Straits Times article. (I should mention that NST is an English-language paper based in Malaysia, so the first mention in American media is the Inquirer article.) I guess it's reasonable, based on these finds, to say the game was released nationwide sometime in summer 1986 and definitely before Christmas that year. Xenon54 / talk / 21:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that, no matter what the original US release date was, the media probably wouldn't have covered it immediately; it was just a novelty, not yet a phenomenon. Also, if Super Mario Bros. was released in the US in 1985, as far as I can tell, it would have been to only a very limited market, very easy for the media to miss. If we do decide to use 1986 as a date, will we be able to place it on a specific day or month?Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A date or month is not possible at this time, as all we know is sometime between January and August 1986. Remeber, though that the article quoted above contains actual information received from Nintendo itself, including sales data for SMB in Japan and extensive quotes from Miyamoto not included here. The article is clear that NOA first did a test release of SMB in 1986, not 1985. A contemporary press account is much better info than what IGN or even NOA's own website claims today. Indrian (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer my press accounts to be well-written, unlike this one appears to be (though I haven't actually seen the full article yet); it doesn't even mention an L.A. test market. Anyway, this search appears to show a pay-to-view ad in the L.A. Times mentioning SMB on March 13, 1986. Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had mentioned that advertisement previously though I need to pay for it to see what it actually states (I.E. coming, or available). It could very well be an additional part of the test marketing of SMB (as it's in another location where they had tested the NES before going national that Fall). As far as not mentioning the LA test market, that's irrelevant and you're missreading it. It's not referring to the test marketing of NES's (which took place in Christmas of '85 in NY and Feb in LA). It's specifically addressing the testing of SMB - which is what the article is about. And it specifically states earlier in the year (1986) via their New York office (they had opened office space and taken warehouse space in August of '85 in anticipation of the NES testing in NY that Christmas). And please try not to lay some kind of invalid discrediting of a Reuter's news article based on how you would write (even though you haven't read the whole article). That sort of commentary just strays from the facts, and brings in to question if you have some sort of expertise to critique news writing style - which further strays from the task at hand. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(←) My favorite go-to source for old Nintendo release dates is Super Smash Bros. Brawl's Chronicle listings. The North American version of the game indicates that 18 NES games were released in October 1985, including SMB. -sesuPRIME 01:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Let's try and stick to reliable sources that can be verified. Lumaga (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, same issue with that as with the ones listed on Nintnedo's site above. Modern game (just like the modern site) quoting the same questionable date in passing, getting it from the same source - if they have that date in their database, it would make sense they'd also be putting it in to games now, etc. According to the previous interviews mentioned, including the detailed development time (specifically that development did not begin until *after* the Japanese famicom version became a success and took several months), October 18th would be out of the question. That's also reflected in their actual material from the time, including press, commercials, coverage, etc. as stated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I know WP:IAR gets thrown in our face all the time, but this time I think it's a valid application. Taken by themselves, the sources that simply state October 1985 appear valid, but they don't match up with other facts. Add in some deducing and it seems completely reasonable to me that a 1986 date is more likely, even though we only have one source (Ultimate History) that explicitly states that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

If anyone has that old book that came with or sold as extra or something, from Nintendo Power, that had a listing of all the official NES games up to that point, I'm almost positive SMB was listed as 1985 in it. This is from like 1990 or so, so one imagines it may be a bit more accurate... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I finally found another source that explicitly states 1986: Learning by Doing: A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games, and Pedagogy in e-Learning and Other Educational Experiences. It's got a timeline in the back, and on page 329: "1985 - Nintendo test-markets its [NES] in New York...1986 - Nintendo releases its 8-bit NES console worldwide. In the United States, it retails at $199, including Super Mario Brothers..." Xenon54 / talk / 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

While I 100% agree based on the Kent book and the Philadelphia Inquierer article that both explicitly give a 1986 date that 10/85 is wrong, I do not believe your new source actually proves anything. I think it is merely claiming that SMB was bundled with the NES in 1986 in a $199 package. The quote really does not speak to a release date for SMB. Indrian (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that the quote just claims that SMB was bundled with the NES in 1986. I need to clarify my previous comments. The first on this page, responded to by Indrian, was actually in response to reading the article in the New Straits Times found by Xenon54, which differed significantly from the one that Indrian found. The New Straits Times article didn't mention the U.S. at all, which was used by Xenon54 as evidence that the U.S. release couldn't have been in 1985 (this is evidence, just not definitive). I still haven't seen the full text of Indrian's article; is it verifiable? Also, my second post, in which I mentioned Indrian's article as not being "well-written" was not well-written by me. I should have said well-researched; I really don't think the game was introduced in Japan on September 1, 1985 (and the American subsidiary's name is also wrong, as previously mentioned by Indrian); however, if this article is taken as definitive proof of a 1986 U.S. release, then we might as well change the Japanese release date as well. We can't pick and choose. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Philadelphia Inquierer article is slightly different from the New Straits Article. Near as I can tell, they used that article as a base and added some new information of their own. As for it being verifiable, it certainly is. The article appeared in the August 19, 1986 issue of the Philadelphia Inquierer on page C8 under the byline of Caroline Dale of Reuters and contained the portions I quoted above. That is all that is necessary for verifiabiliy, the ability to create a citation to a reliable source. I found the article in a premium database available through my local library, which is why I cannot post a link. Indrian (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification, Indrian. For now, I suggest we list a compromise release date, something like "Officially 1985 [cite Nintendo, IGN, Gamespot], but other reliable sources say 1986 [cite this Reuters article and Steven Kent's Ultimate History of Videogames]." Mario777Zelda (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That kind of wording would put undue weight on the '85 date, as one of the '86 articles uses Nintendo as a reference as well. We already have the "compromise wording" defined in the previous discussion at the article. This discussion is about whether to use IAR, and go with the 1986 date entirely, which consensus seems to be moving towards. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we will still need to address the 1985 date in some way even if it is just in a footnote. Otherwise, there will be constant edit warring on this issue since Nintendo appears to officially maintain a 1985 release date. Indrian (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, and that can be done in the prose of the article if IAR is found to be applied for the date itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Indrian (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would wonder where the books get there 1986 date and where Nintendo gets its 1985 date. I'd rather say based on what I've seen neither is more reputable since some of the 1986 dates talk about the bundled game and the others are talking about something that appears to be a novelty and thus could easily have been missed if it wasn't a nationwide release. Remeber this is when consoles were considered a dead commodity in the industry. The 1985 date is also on similar ground as the sources, except Nintendo, aren't as reliable, and Nintendo could be seen as trying to push it's console back further in date or have lost the actual US release date and made one up. Therefore I would question anything trying to say essentially say that one release date is probably more reliable than the other.陣内_Jinnai 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Kent (the book) got it from interviews with Minoru Arakawa, Howard Lincoln, Howard Phillips, and others in NOA around at the time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what the compromise wording is; I just can't see how the weight of one reliable source (the book) and one semi-reliable source (the Reuters article, which does have several inaccuracies) provides grounds for IAR when Nintendo officially maintains a 1985 release date, as does every other source that I've found. Mario777Zelda (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's where he got it from it's no more reliable than Nintendo's official site and therefore neither date should be favored.陣内_Jinnai 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mario777 - Reuters is considered a reliable source by any standard here, if anything the difference in Japanese release date could point to issues with that claimed date by the current Nintendo as well. Reuters got it's info from Nintendo at the time, that's how it works. Likewise, your summation is incorrect. IAR is not being considered based on just the book and the Reuters article, but everything presented and clearly laid out here as a whole - on both sides. Jinnai - not the case. Those were people actually involved with the launch and distribution at the time. The current Nintendo are simply regurgitating a date from a database as mentioned. I'm actually working my way through management now to work on updating it with the correct info. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

←Mario777, I understand that the sources point to a 1985 date, but none really explained why. The ones that do give details dance around the issue, skipping from SMB's success in Japan straight to its success in the US. Nothing about SMB is mentioned in the detailed accounts of the NES launch in the US. Kent's book explains why he lists 1986. Add in the lack of advertising and media coverage of SMB from October 1985 to mid-1986 and I think that casts reasonable doubt on any 1985 and even early 1986 dates. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I'll address each source, to hopefully prove that nothing has been proven. The Reuters article, according to Indrian's quotes, definitely mentions 1986 as the release date for SMB. I know that Reuters is generally reliable, and that they wouldn't purposely spread false information; however, the article does seem to have other factual errors. Kent's book, the best source of information on either side of the argument, does not explicitly state that SMB was first released in the U.S. in 1986 (as far as I can tell from the quotes that have been provided). Rather, it wasn't available when Nintendo first came to NYC (October 18, 1985). This still allows over 2 months for the game to get to U.S. shores before 1986. The second quote:"By the end of 1985, Nintendo began packaging Super Mario Bros. with the Famicom. This marketing move was so successful in Japan that Yamauchi and Arakawa decided to do it in the United States. It took a few months to create an American version of the game, and the cartridge was available by the time Nintendo of America went national - the end of 1986." The first part deals with the bundling of SMB with the NES, not the release of the game. Kent never states when the work on the U.S. version of the game started, only that it took a few months. He then states that SMB was available by the end of 1986, not that it was first available then. Either he didn't know when it was first available, or he didn't tell us. I've already addressed how the lack of media coverage could be explained (small, localized test markets, with a product that may or may not have turned out to be a fad or novelty). Finally, the lack of advertising, as apparently evidenced by one 1985 commercial not mentioning SMB can also be explained/refuted. This commercial was advertising what Nintendo thought would be the coolest parts of the NES: ROB and the Zapper. Thus, Nintendo advertised games that used these (especially the Zapper). Finally, here are two commercials, claiming to be from 1985, that show SMB:[11],[12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario777Zelda (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken or missrepresenting the information on most of your points and it seems like the same argument over and over, with a proposenity to twist or missrepresent as you do so. Once again, the reason we're here is that IAR is being considered because of all the info as a whole, not on any one individual source you may want to try and incorrectly explain away. A) If there's errors regarding the Japanese release dates, again they got them from Nintendo - figures, sales and such are garnered from PR given to them from the Nintendo back then. Once again, it points to the possibility of the current Nintendo PR dates being off for even the Japanese release dates. B) Incorrect, it states it was not availabe for New York test marketing - that's the period of the day after Thanksgiving until after Christmas. It also further states it in the context of the games that retailers like for the system when approaching them to sell it. October 18th is once again, by all published accounts, when they started approaching retailers about selling it. By the time the actual Christmas sales test started, they had 500 retailers in the new York Area, through which they manged to sell 50,000 of the 100,000 shipped units. C)Incorrect, it deals with the packaging of the Famicom, not the NES, then states explicitly they decided to create an american version to try it in the US - bundled NES/Mario's did not appear until the Action Set in '87 as was already explained. Likewise the book explicitly states the end of 1985, which is commonly November/December (which would also account for the initial slow sales period that occured first), and which is also the actual Christmas season (which once again officially starts the day after Thanksgiving). Additionally, as someone who actually codes games and has also interviewed plenty of coders from the time, game development took a minimum of 3-4 months back then (I was trying to be extra giving with the two months). Again as well, it was a limited test market. Stock was moved and/or bought back from there to be sold at LA - there was no "could have still been at the end of '85". D) And again, your explination of lack of media coverage suffers from everything taken as a whole, if it was just the media that's possible. If it's the media, marketing material, the books and personal accounts, that's a completely different story. Likewise, there was coverage by January of the New York test where it was considered a dismal failure. E) That's once again an incorrect premise. First, there was only one commercial released in '85, the design of which is covered in detail in Game Over. The first commercial you referenced is from '86 not '85, the unreliable poster also states "The original commercial for the Nintendo Entertainment system. With all 5 games that where available at the time!" when there were far more, and this is *not* the original commercial either. Additionally there's well over 20 cartridges in the commercial showing the aditional titles that were added in '86. It was part of the national launch commercials for Fall of '86 (and also turns up correctly labled as '86 on Youtube, as does your other commercial. F) Lastly, you're twisting facts on the ROB/light gun marketing, which was specifically how they approached retailers and the initial New York test where SMB was not available. They still promoted the games as well, and in fact specifically came up with the term "Game Packs" for them so as dissasociate them as "game cartridges" and the possible negative linke to Atari. And in fact, the only reason they got it in most retailers is because they offered to buy back all unsold merchandise, which is also well documented - Rob and the lightgun was use as a tool to get them in the door and the buyback was used to seal the deal. As stated, the whole reason for developing the US version was because of it's success in Japan. You do not, by any measure of marketing experience, go to develop a US version because of how good another version is selling and not market it. That logic just astounds me. It appears on no material from '85, it was *not* covered or present at the January '86 CES at their booth, and it finally is presented at the June '86 CES. Advertisements start springing up in the months leading to the June CES, press coverage including Nintendo's push of SMB starts springing up during and after, commercials finally start showing up, etc. etc. as has already been stated. That's the way the video game industry works and worked especially at the time (in the days long before E3), no matter how much wishful thinking you want to play fast and loose with these facts with on an individual basis. Each one supports the other as a whole, and reflects how things were at the time - not just for Nintendo, but other game companies at the time as well. Atari Corp. test marketed the 2600 Jr. at the same time as the New York test (the Christmas season), and did so well that they decided to ramp up it's production and bring out the 7800 as well and start promoting them as the January CES - long before the actual late '86 release came, and against the entire negative context the brand already had against retailers. If something sells well you put it forward, front and center - which is why Yamauchi decided to have the US version developed in the first place. His mindset is all well documented - when people were telling Yamauchi to give up on the US becuase of the retailers, he felt it was more important to let the public decide (and rightly so), hence the New York test and then the LA one. There was no "holding back" of games and marketing to the public. As described, that had to do with approaching retailers - that's not who the marketing is for. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we're now starting to waste time. What's the consensus of the community? Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of the discussion was to decide whether or not to list 1986 as the NA release date, ignoring the fact that it cannot be verified in reliable sources outside of Kent's book. It seems that consensus is to list 1986 because a) Marty has pretty much proved singlehandedly that the game could not have been released on Nintendo's date of 18/10/85 and b) despite the fact that date is in reliable sources, no one knows where they got it from. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Xenon54 / talk / 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add something to this, but I really think it would be a good idea to avoid using NoA for release dates period. According to this from their website, Tetris for the Game Boy was released in the US in June 1989...which is mighty strange given the Game Boy used to play it (and it was bundled with!) didn't come out until August. Even the other launch titles (Super Mario Land, Alleyway, etc) show an August date in the very same document, a mistake repeated by GameSpot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say not to list the release date at all in the infobox or list 1985-1986. I realize the october release date is inacurate, but the other sources do not support a claim for the infobox.陣内_Jinnai 07:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the most glaring issue in this whole discussion is that reliable sources get it wrong sometimes. IGN listed Kingdom Hearts X as the "The third chapter in the mash-up adventure of Square-Enix and Disney." The Sheng Long rumor persisted because other reliable publications didn't do fact checking (See Sheng Long#Original EGM April Fools 1992).

So while I have to concede that Kent maybe got it wrong, others have to logically concede that it's possible for other reliable sources to get it wrong as well. With that in mind, the lack of detailed evidence showing SMB around in the US during October 1985 and February 1986 points to an inaccurate piece of information. An mid to late-1986 date is the only one that makes sense to me.

While an October 1985 date is supported by reliable sources, I believe there is cause to ignore the rules in this case and use a 1986 date. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

I wholeheartedly agree. My thoughts are, if all the other resources/info that are supporting Kent's version did not exist then I could buy it as a simple issue of two reliable sources contradicting each other and one of them (Kent's) being wrong. But that's not the case here, and it is precisely a scenerio like this why we at the project go through multiple sources to evaluate and get a bigger picture. My own feeling is the same, sufficient evidence has been shown that the '85 date is incorrect and a "mid to late-1986" should be used in the infobox. Likewise, neutral prose should appear in the article that repeats some of the points raised here, i.e. that the current Nintendo corporation acknowledges an '85 date, Kent's variation and interviews with NOA people of the actual time of the release and supporting evidence (news, etc.), and Kung Fu Man's example of how the current Nintendo have other dates wrong such as the Tetris date. Basically a paragraph of neutral prose, as discussed earlier in the conversation, that summates everything leading to why IAR has been taken (not actually mentioning IAR of course, that doesn't belong in the article itself). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm biased, but this seems like the best compromise. It doesn't ignore the other sources and presents both sides. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

New information. On this discussion (near the bottom of the page), Kent, on his own blog (linked to from his website, sadsamspalace.com), says that SMB was released in Winter 1985. Does this change matters? Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that much I think. We've already established that the system was not released nation-wide in 1985. Also, it was not an arcade port like the original Mario Bros. The game started as NES exclusive and was ported to arcades after its console release, which was in September 1985 in Japan. I know how lame this sounds, but given the errors in his response, I'd guess he answered based on memory and didn't look up sources. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Correct, an off the cuff remark from a distracted memory, and frankly I'm appaled at MarioZelda stooping to even try taking advantage of a retired author on their blog. His mind wasn't in the answer as it hasn't been in several years (he even had to correct himself once) - according to his own blog, he's smei-retired from video game journalism since 2005, focusing completely on novels and Sci-Fi authoring. You also neglected to mention what was in his own book (both editions) to him - and his book covers a very wide range, not just the NES or Nintendo - any time I've talked to him in the past about specifics, he always has to refer back to it directly. An off the cuff answer given while he's obviously (by his own admission) busy with his parents visit, and obviously in discussion on a completely unrelated topic, is hardly conclusive evidence to the contrary. If he had responded with "I checked my notes and interviews and..." or "I know I said this in my book, but since then I've found out...", then you might have something. But an off the cuff distracted answer? I've corrected that err and posted the following to him: "Steve, according to your own book (both editions) you stated the opposite - "When Nintendo went to New York, Super Mario Bros., which would become the linchpin during the national launch of the NES, had not yet been introduced." pg 297 ("The Seeds of Competition"). Furthermore, on pg 300 you state development of the US version did not begin until after it began being packed in to the Famicom version at the end of '85, development took a few months and it was ready for the national launch at the end of '86. I realize the other poster blindsided you with your mind elsewhere (your parent's visit). Hopefully quoting your book will help the matter." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up Marty. But I'm sure Mario777 meant no ill will and was only trying to get to the bottom of this like we are. Hopefully between following up with Nintendo and Kent, we'll get some resolution. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Here's his direct response: "Wgungfu, I just looked it up and you are correct. More importantly, I stand corrected, by myself and by the Mes suers Lincoln, Arakawa, and Philips, upon whose quotes much of that chapter was based. I still maintain that the arcade version of the game was available in 1994; but considering what I wrote at the time when all I ate, slept and breathed was video game history, I will stand by the book. Again, standing also by the first-hand recollection of the people I interviewed while writing the book. Wgungfu, thank you for bringing that it my attention." So now we have verification directly from him as well that the information was based directly on Lincoln, Arakawa, and Philips - all who were hands on directly invovled with the launch. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up to this, Kent has now posted this info in a new blog entry at http://sadsamspalace.blogspot.com/2009/08/okay-now-that-i-haveofficially-looked.html, which gives us another source for the 1986 date. Indrian (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and besides verifying the original answer on his blog was indeed off the cuff, now he also verified SMB wasn't available at the February test market either by stating Winter instead of just Christmas (the Winter season lasts of course from December through March) and stating just "limited trial launch" vs. one or the other (since both occured over winter). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And he just posted a comment further clarifying why the original off the cuff remark that has now been deleted - "Yeah, I tried to answer a question while entertaining my parents and cooking dinner simultaneously and fell short at all endeavors--my answer was wrong, my parents were bored, and my zucchini bread was raw in the middle. After having my errors pointed out to me, I decided to start again, this time paying attention to my work." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can accept a 1986 date now. However, he said it wasn't available during the winter of 1985; he didn't rule out the winter (January, February) of 1986, if I read that right (but he may have meant that whole season starting in 1985). Is he referring to some sort of winter retail season? I consider March to be spring. I'd hate to pester Kent about it, though, since Marty was so "appaled" last time. Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Winter in the US is officially December through late March, then Spring begins in late March, regardless of what you personally consider them defined as. Winter '86 would not begin until December of '86. And I was "appaled" at the rather shallow attempt at trying to put one over on people - asking him and running here saying "see, see, he said it on his own blog", without any attempt to clarify the conflict between what he previously published. That didn't have to come from me asking him, it could have just as easily been approached neutral by you, which it wasn't. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the clarification I was looking for. I had thought that you meant (in your previous comment) through March 31. Additionally, meteorologists often define spring as beginning on March 1. However, this is just more discussion of extremely minor points; let's just ask Kent again. I'm sorry for that quick post; I was in a hurry earlier today. Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break 2

More new information. IGN has a detailed article called IGN Presents The History of Super Mario Bros. in which they claim SMB was released in the U.S. in 1985, and also give some explanation for the claim. What say ye? Mario777Zelda (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that article is similar to the other accounts, but this one is worded rather weird/poorly. I had to reread it a couple times to get it.

"In October 1985, the Famicom, by then redubbed the Nintendo Entertainment System, went to America in several forms -- one of which included a R.O.B. the Robot-less Super Mario Bros. bundled in the box."

This reads to me as "one form which included a ROB peripheral and not a Super Marion Bros. game (less Super Mario Bros.)". Also, the sentence about it's success doesn't give any time frame either. Super Mario Bros. did drive sales of the NES, but only after it was released. I'd file this as another ambiguous account. Others may disagree though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

*Sigh* I thought we were done with this and now you were moving on to yet another agrument on it being available in Feb '86 or not. Honestly, this is getting ridiculous - unless you can find another interview with Licoln, Arakawa, and Philips that says otherwise, there's not much else to discuss. Nothing new here, that article was already known - they give no explination, no references, no actual facts, etc. and it looks to be a compendium of several other sources. It simply covers it in a single paragraph that states "In October 1985, the Famicom, by then redubbed the Nintendo Entertainment System, went to America in several forms -- one of which included a R.O.B. the Robot-less Super Mario Bros. bundled in the box. Arakawa found exactly one unenthusiastic distributor willing to gamble a limited stock in their New York stores as a test run. Expectations weren't high. That fad was over. Everyone expected the NES to sit on the shelves and stay there right through the upcoming holiday season." The entire paragraph is one big error - there were 500 retailers carrying it in the NY area, not one. Nobody expected it to sit on the shelves "right through the upcoming holiday season", becuase it wasn't being sold until the holiday (Christmas) season - again, October 18th is simply when they started approaching retailers for the Christmas season. There were two packages, the control deck and "deluxe" and neither one contained a pack-in SMB as we've already shown. Likewise the next sentence about "Only it didn't. Word got out about a system that blew Atari away, and the amazing game that came with it", again based on the fallacy it was a pack-in game, and that the system was well recieved - which as once again the press in January were saying it was a failure. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly just curious, where do you get the figure of 500 retailers carrying SMB in the New York area? Anyway, SMB was available in the U.S. by mid-March, 1986. This Google News search, as mentioned earlier, confirms it. I actually bought the rights to look at the ad. Target is advertising NES systems for $139.99, and a Super Mario Bros. cartridge for $21.99. The ad is dated March 13, 1986. Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Even so, most of the 500 retailers who sold the NES that Christmas might not have taken the merchandise if it were not for a risky offer made by Arakawa himself - a money-back guarantee." Steven Kent, Ultimate History of Video Games pg 297.

Yes, as previously stated, that ad is the earliest one. However, you still need to verify if it was actually available or not being advertised for pre-advertising. Long before the concept of pre-ordering that's around at places like GameStop now, in those days games were actually advertised as available to garner interest before they were actually available, and the customer would fill out a raincheck - delays were a commonality. March seems reasonable for a test release of SMB in Los Angeles (given the previous test of the console itself that February), but given the volatility of game releases and advertisements, you'd still need additional references to state anything other than that's when it was first advertised. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Stupid edit conflicts!!! Anyway that ad is enough to meet WP:V and would probably pass WP:RS. Right now your placing too much emphasis on the late 86 date when a lot of those clearly state it came bundled with the NES and there was a time SMB did not.陣内_Jinnai 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that quote, Marty. I can't time travel to an L.A. Target store in 1986, but I can tell you that the price is a sale price (a reduction from the regular price of $24.99), and that other video games commonly listed as available at the time are also listed as on sale. Moreover, these sale prices are good through March 15; it would really appear that Target intended to sell the merchandise, not hand out rain checks. Do you have an example of this practice or a source confirming it? Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mario777Zelda - if it's a sale price, then that's certainly more convincing and very good evidence of it at least being available in early March. Likewise it also supports it not being a hot item yet when they are discounting everything to make stock move from that new of a product (the NES first appearing there early the month before and they're already discounting it). As far as an example, the most well known would be 2600 Pac-Man. Stores were advertising it for sale and instead taking pre-orders - which in turn lead to some of the further financial problems for Atari. Atari started basing these as actual sales on their financial reports. That in turn lead to some of the over production problems they had by the end of the summer, such as pre-orders being cancelled or the initial demand not reflecting the actual overall demand once the deficiencies of the game got out. Having been around during that early 80's time period, I also know from personal experience where it happened with other games as well - usually for me with Toys 'R Us. Going in to get an advertised game and finding out they never had it but offering a "pre-order" raincheck. As I mentioned, this was in the days before pre-orders actually became a marketing tool. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break 3

What does the community think of a release date of "By March 1986", with some explanation in the article? Mario777Zelda (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. (Though the grammar freak in me would like the "by" to be lowercase. It looks better.) Make sure explanation is sufficiently detailed to ensure this discussion isn't taking place again in 3 months... Xenon54 / talk / 00:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as we note that some sources, including official ones, still stand by the 1985 date otherwise it would be violating WP:NPOV.陣内_Jinnai 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai, "Stand by" and "official" would be violations of neutrality as mentioned earlier. Likewise, a neutral paragraph that mentions both was already discussed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with a less exact 1986. But if others deem "by March 1986" the best compromise, I'm fine with that too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

If there are no further objections, I'll change the release date to "by March 1986", then. The text in the article perhaps should read "Many sources [cite Gamespot, IGN, Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment, and Big Bucks in the Videogame Revolution], as well as Nintendo's website [cite the webpage] list the game's US release date in 1985 along side the NES; however, Steven Kent, based on interviews with those involved with the game's release [cite Ultimate History] stated that the game was not available until 1986. The first print ad mentioning the game appears on March 13 of that year [cite the Target ad]" (a modification and expansion of the text discussed earlier). Mario777Zelda (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Many sources" still seems a bit biased towards 1985. How about "several"? Xenon54 / talk / 16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Many" and "several" are vague number terms that should probably be avoided (frequently guilty of it so I know :-p ). In this case, I think direct wording would get the point across better and strengthen the meaning.

"Video game journalism websites like GameSpot and IGN list the US release date in 1985 along side the test launch of the NES. This date is also used by Heather Chaplin and Aaron Ruby's book Smartbomb and Nintendo's website. Steven Kent's The Ultimate History of Videogames, however, stated the game was not available until 1986, based on interviews with Nintendo staff involved with the NES's US release. The first print ad mentioning the game appears on March 13 of that year."

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Sounds perfect to me. The release date has been changed to "by March 1986". Mario777Zelda (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost article

Hi everyone! I'd like to do a report on this WikiProject for an upcoming edition of the Wikipedia Signpost. Are there any members who are familiar with how the WikiProject works and its history and who would be willing to answer a few questions? Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm complaining, but we already did a report in March 08. Is it our turn again?

History-wise, Jacoplane is probably the most knowledgeable among our active members. He's been around longer than most of us. There are a number of members that are knowledgeable about and active in the project's workings: myself, Kung Fu Man, KieferSkunk, MuZemike, MrKIA11, Masem, David Fuchs and a few others that aren't coming to mind right now, but I'm sure will pop up here. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Well, I'm interested in helping out if needed. It has been 18 months since the last interview, so I'm not going to complain too much :P We can really just jump off the questions from the last one and hopefully talk about issues that affect all projects. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As a disclaimer, I'm utterly unqualified to talk on the WikiProject as I'm relatively new and only show my head up at obscure times (such as now, HELLO!). Anyhow, I just wondered what format this report would take. Whilst I generally approve of the original format (asking questions that are answered by a selection of members) the article itself isn't pleasing to read though admittedly I'm not sure what I don't like about it. I also share the surprise at re-investigation since there appear to only have been two WikiProject reports since VG's last (Australia and The Simpsons), but welcome anybody interested in the Project with open arms and a whole host of cheerful commentary. Though, to regain my questioning stance, what format is this report likely to take? Cheers! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's actually been many more: Oregon, Years, Food and Drink, Chemistry, LGBT Studies, Opera, Birds, Michael Jackson, Final Fantasy, Films, Color, China, Judaism, Christianity, Norse History and Culture, Islam, Gaelic games, Music, Motto of the Day, Pharmacology, Ice Hockey, Solar System, and Military History. --PresN 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and New York State Routes. They're listed here- User:Cryptic_C62/Interviews. --PresN 22:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I was dubious, but thought it was worth asking. Also, the format looks a lot nicer in more recent reports, due to the new Signpost design. So no qualms there. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I've prepared some questions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject report/Video games; responses (on that page) from anyone here would be very appreciated. Thanks again! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people Kirill had in mind, but I personally think one more response to questions 4, 5 and 6 would balance things out. Doesn't have to be from a single person, two or three different editors would be fine too. Of course, whoever answers number 6 should have been around 18 months ago. Any volunteers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

At the moment, I really don't have anything to add here - you guys covered all the questions pretty well! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Question 4 is the only one that still has one response. Any other takers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

MiszaBot Archiving

MiszaBot's archiving on the page has been going to three archives—71, 72, and 73. I manually updated the counter and posted a note on Misza13's page pointing out that the counter wasn't incremented. Should the archives be reorganized so that the conversation dates within each minimally overlap with the other two pages? —Ost (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The same thing happened to Archive 69 in June. Manually updating the counter fixed it then too. I don't think reorganizing is needed because the Archive index provides easy access to past discussions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. I just wanted to check; I didn't know if some editors relied on the conversation dates when looking though the archives. —Ost (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a repeat: How to do review table summaries for games with multiple system releases

So, GH5 is out across 360, PS3, Wii, and PS2 and pretty much feature compatible (Band Hero will be different since it has a DS game with fundamentally different mechanics). Spot checking across the scores (well, not so much for PS2), the game is rated the same pretty much for all (the Wii gets a slight bump for additional features, but we're talking 3 points out of a 100 pt scale on it's MC score).

Include all 3/4 platforms? Pick one platform and stick with it in the table?

(This has no impact on the actual prose - I know, for example, I will toss a Wii-specific paragraph to talk about its features in reception, and if there were more data points on PS2, I'd add a para there too). --MASEM (t) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a multi-platform template you can use. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Largest wikiproject?

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Largest_wikiproject.3F Ikip (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't seem that way, that list probably includes inactive members.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Because it is often generated by {{User WPVG}}, anybody can added their name to that category list. Who knows how many people added it simply because they like video games. In the few years I've been with the project, I'd guess we have around 30–50 active members contributing to discussions and using project resources at any given time. Also, if the newsletter stats are any sign of membership, inactive numbers are very high. See traffic stats for the Quality content subpage, News subpage, Feature subpage, and Interview subpage compared to our readership list of 188 at the time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't see why we don't remove inactive members like the Military project. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How does MilHist do it, and how would you propose we do it? --Izno (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I do over at WP:NIN (which I will be doing again shortly) to keep the task force's membership up-to-date is to automatically place all users listed on an "inactive" list. What I then do is send talk page messages to every member telling them to "update their membership" by moving their name from the "inactive" list to the "active" list. I give a 1 month timeframe to account for those users who may be on wikibreak and stuff like that. After 1 month, everyone in the "inactive" list is removed and are no longer considered to be part of the project.

We could theoretically do something like that with the entire WikiProject, but we would definitely need some sort of bot assistance since we're dealing with over 1000 members. MuZemike 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Member" is pretty loose anyway. I'm not on the list, apparently because I don't have the userbox on my page. bridies (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• We could listify our members list and then comb it by activity level. –xeno^talk 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the list? I've never added myself to it. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The list is just plainly Category:WikiProject Video games members, which you can add by placing the {{User WPVG}} template on your user page or, alternatively, by placing the category on your user page. But if you don't want to create a user page, then you could probably just tag it onto your user talk page. I also note that there are quite a few duplicates in that category. As far as listification is concerned, then I think that would be a good idea for a start at least. MuZemike 21:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike- Is a bot needed to check the member activity? Ideally an automated process would be best, but is that something an editor with AWB or one of the other Wikipedia tools could do? Just trying to figure out the best (and quickest) way to get this going as an accurate list of active members would be helpful with collaborations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

I've contacted someone who has a bot that can do this. This list will at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members and break it down as follows:

• Users with at least 30 edits in the last 2 months
• Users with fewer than 30 edits in the last 2 months
• Users with no edits in the last 2 months

Sound good? –xeno^talk 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately, Rick doesn't have the cycles to run this for us, but he did provide the source materials. It requires a bash shell and pywikipedia, and probably some coding know how. If anyone can do this, see User talk:Rick Block#Listify category based on activity levels. Else we'll have to poke around for someone else, maybe make a WP:BOTREQ. –xeno^talk 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume we don't have any coders with that level of expertise, so could you please put in a request? I have a feeling that once we do a run through of inactive members, the list will be narrowed down to something we could feasibly manage ourselves. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

MZMcBride ran a quick check for us, per [13], we have 424 users who display the category on their main userpage and have edited in July or August. Will see about getting a more exhaustive report as some might not have the category on their main userpage. –xeno^talk 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a third of the 1287 members in Category:WikiProject Video games members. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

We used to have a list, seen here that was eventually replaced by the category. It would be a good idea to do more updating based on activity, any update on that? JACOPLANE • 2009-08-29 17:51

MZM made us a better list [14] that includes people that have the userbox at all, not just their main page, and it shows 476 who have edited in July or August and 547 if you include June. –xeno^talk 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Unless anybody else has other ideas, I guess we'll follow MuZemike's Nintendo example. The next step then is to create a subpage to list the names and notify the users to switch their names to an active list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Requesting peer review on Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising

Hi, I've recently made changes to Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising, and I'm seeking an assessment to see what I need to do to get this article into the GA category. I'm planning on adding more sources when I find them, but regarding the content, I'd appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction. I've tried to be as encyclopedic as possible, but if I've failed in any way, please feel free to point it out, thanks. ♥ichi 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"New features" is too long, "Reception" too short. "Gameplay" should probably have "New features" folded into it in prose and summarized much better than it is now. "Story" is about right, though I'd personally rename it "Plot". It needs a lot of work. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and there's no "Development" or "Release" section (the 2nd not always needed if there's very little; it can be folded into the Development section). And it needs citations. --Izno (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend looking at Dual Strike and Days of Ruin for examples since they are both GA article. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the AWDS article, I've made a bunch of changes to the article. Can someone look at it again and tell me how I can further improve it? Thanks! ♥ichi 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What, ideally, you'd do, is split all the information that can be found in every single one of the Advance Wars games to Advance Wars (series)#Gameplay. All of it. That will allow you to trim the main gameplay to about one paragraph in Black Hole Rising, and possibly one or two more paragraphs on the stuff that's different or is introduced in Black Hole Rising (and a {{main}} to Advance Wars (series)#Gameplay). Development and Reception still could use expanding. Nice work overall, though! --Izno (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a ton of 1 and 2-sentence paragraphs- it just leaps off the page to my eyes as poor flow. Paragraphs need to be roughly 5-8 sentences- and don't just delete all of the line breaks, try to make the sentences flow together as a coherent paragraph if they don't sound right back-to-back. --PresN 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, excellent work improving the article! In order to reach higher qualities, the flow of the article needs to be improved, as it has alot of short fragmented sentances currently. The article would also work better if common series elements were merged into the Wars (series) article, which would also improve that and other articles on the topic. Perhaps the Advance Wars (series) article would be a better location for such, but it is currently a redirect. --Taelus (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after revising (almost) the entire text, I've made numerous changes, and removed many one and two-sentence paragraphs (also improved flow in certain cases). Please have another look at the article, and tell me possible improvements and also tell me if I'm going in the right direction. Thanks to everyone who's commented or made suggestions!

Also, in response to Izno's comments: what specifically could I add to refine the Development and Reception sections? I'll probably start working on developing the Nintendo Wars series page tomorrow, but I do want to bring Advance Wars 2 to a decent level before doing that. Thanks again! ♥ichi 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks better then I last saw it. But I think that the second paragraph in the lead should be expanded and also make a third paragraph too. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific in what this third paragraph should consist of? ♥ichi 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe talk about the Reception and its awards. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading the AWDS article, I have a better idea of what you mean. Also, I've edited the Wars (series) page as well; if someone could take a quick look there and see if the content is appropriate, that'd be awesome, thanks. ♥ichi 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. it needs a reception and development section. A good example would be the Chrono (series) since its GA. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've waited a few days, and I was wondering, could someone go and give it a peer evaluation? Thanks a lot! ♥ichi 21:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo development teams

The articles related to List of Nintendo developers, Nintendo Development Teams and Template:Nintendo developers (and these 3 pages themselves) are a real mess. Any help in checking facts, merging duplicates, merging non-notable internal microteams, etc. would be appreciated. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There are more out there. Most of them have trivial info. I've prodded the others so feel free to be bold and merge them as it appears to be POV forking rather than content forking except maybe for the list.陣内_Jinnai 05:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Statistics on actual online game-players per game

Is there a modern equivalent for http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/ (not updated since 2004)?

Other sites for other genres? Eg. we have http://www.mmogchart.com/ for mmos (though of variable reliability and regularity).

Not how many bought a game, but how many average/realtime players there are for each game, ideally in a plot-over-time?

I couldn't see anything at WP:VG/Templates#External link templates or WP:VG/Article guidelines or even WP:VG/RS.

I'm mainly asking out of personal curiosity, so the site's don't need to be Reliable enough for article use (though that would obviously be a great bonus), so rumor-site-sections would be fine for me. Or is this kind of information simply impossible to get publicly, and not frequently speculated on somewhere obvious?

Possibly this question belongs at refdesk, but I thought I'd check here first. Thanks! -- Quiddity (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Navbox ordering

I recently noticed that the Professor Layton series game articles were using individual navigational templates despite the existence of a templatespace one at Template:Professor Layton and so replaced the individual templates with the central one. This has since been reverted. I do not think there is a question as to whether a centralised template should be used rather than individual ones for reasons of uniformity and ease of editing but I think the issue of the content and presentation of the template may need to resolved (I imagine this what caused the separate templates to spring up in the first place).

• Current templatespace template:

Current individual articlee) (non-templatespac template:

I think that apart from its non templatespace nature the non-templatespace template has two problems:

1. It is inaccurately titles since the games are not listed in "(chronological order)" they are listed in the order of fictional chronology, chronological order would be the order the games were released in the real world (as used by the templatespace template).
2. To me it would seem that both guidelines and convention would point towards using the real world chronology rather than the fictional one. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) states that "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference." would seem to indicate using the real world chronology. Many other game series have prequels but the templates still list the games by their release date, for example: Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater in Template:Metal Gear, Silent Hill: Origins in Template:Silent Hill, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City in Template:Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil Zero in Template:Resident Evil series. After a few quick searches the only possible exception I found was the Metroid Prime sub-series which is listed separately from the other games in Template:Metroid series.

Basically I was wondering if there was an established guideline on whether to use real world or fictional chronology in navigational templates. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that, if there is ever a choice between real-world and fictional-world anything, real-world always wins. It doesn't make sense to list Curious Village as anything but the first game of the series, prequels or no prequels. Nifboy (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Order based on release date is the most real-world perspective in this case, which I think should apply. It's not our place to deal with fictional continuity, because even the creative authors can get that wrong. Release dates are concrete and "real". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Same for me, release date order. To add on to what Guyinblack25 said, fictional continuity can be difficult/impossible, just last week Kojima stated that even he gets confused about what happened when in the Metal Gear storyline. - X201 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Slightly offtopic, but shouldn't Layton 3 and 4 (and the movie) use Japanese names since they don't have official English ones yet? --Mika1h (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the policy is. Personally I think if they're referred to by an English name by reliable sources that becomes the default common name that English language speakers are likely to refer to the game by, even if it's not the official name. Slightly ironically of the three you mention the only source ([15]) for an English name I can find is for the third game which is the only article currently under a Japanese title. Guest9999 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That goes against what seems to be common practice. In most case editorsa wait for an officially announced english name first and don't use a translation of the Japanse title. For example Dragon Quest XI does not use an english translation of the title. There a two reasons I think it is not the best idea to do so. First, an english title could confuse people into believing that an english version has been announced and secondly there is no guarentee that it will be the English title. In fact, the second game of this series had a changed name.--76.66.189.152 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense I guess, thanks for the explanation, the other two titles should probably be changed then. Guest9999 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see they already have been, the wonders of Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep the chronological order. Most things are kept in that order. My arguement, is that the Star Wars series is listed chronologically. I would like to keep the Professor Layton series in the same way. I would also like to use English names because we dont speak Japanese, and the press is refering to them by an English title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderLD (talk • contribs) 16:15, 28 August 2009

The Star Wars example is not a good one. That is listed the way it is because it is a collection of two trilogies seperated from each other. This is not the case for this series. If in the future they create a trilology of games that take place before the first game it may make sense for the template to reflect that but not a this point. In short, the existance of the star wars template is not a valid reason to list the games of this series by a fictional chronology.--76.71.208.35 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the person who created the template is still at it this time altering the main template ny placing the 4th game of the series first and reverting anyone who trying to change it back. Unless I have missed something there is nothing to indicate any change in the existing consensus to make this acceptable.--76.66.191.9 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted one of his changes as well, but if he persists I would suggest that you seek admin intervention. There's enough consensus here to support the real-world release chronology, and if you check the edit history he's actually been at this since at least June of this year. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)