Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 3

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 10

Articles that need fixing for infoboxes, etc

I started a list of them at User:Andrevan/To Fix and with the help of K1Bond007 it's huge. Anyone looking for something to do should take a look. Andre (talk) 04:45, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed PES 3 and PES 4 are there, later this week I'll try to create a main article, then merge and redirect these two. There's no point in adding different articles for each game in the series. \ wolfenSilva / 19:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, theres a few of those like that in the list. There were a bunch of others that I purposefully left off because they were more "series" including numerous games on a page. Resident Evil, for example. Theres others in the list that need to be cleaned up majorly. MechAssault, IMO reads more like a guide than a Wikipedia article. It needs to be seriously cleaned up and trimmed down. Do whatever you guys can for any of these articles. Feel free to add any other games you come across too. K1Bond007 20:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Pro Evolution Soccer is on. feel free to add/correct/etc as anyone wishes, I've put what's missing now on the talk page. \ wolfenSilva / 12:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and to this project, and I have a few questions :

1/ Games in series : what to do with them ? Create distinct entries or merge them all in only one ?
2/ Games on several medias : can we discuss the differencies, or is that the kind of informations that should be moved to wikibooks instead ?
3/ Infoboxes/layouts of entries : do series have a different layout ? What about side entries, entries about characters, the plot, ... What to do with them ? --Bloodstained Agar 15:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. About your questions...
  1. The priority should always be at first creating a series article, and then, if the games allow that, individual entries for each game if they have enough potential to be developed into full articles, not just copies of the section in the series article.
  2. Care to explain a bit further ?
  3. Series have no infoboxes. About the layout of the page, I don't think that there's a predefined page layout, but the most common is a header for games in the series, and then a overview of each game in sub headers. The plot and characters should remain on each game, unless they carry from game to game, where they can be given a header. But as I've said, there are no conventions, and these are just my main guidelines for article I edit.
wS 16:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. If the game allow that ? What do you mean ? If there is enough variation between two games, in plot or gameplay ?
  2. Games on different medias... Excuse my English, that is not my birth tongue. What I mean is that a game can be pulished on many systems, consoles or computers, and often the programmers alter the content of the games : new quests/plot events, new characters, new features. This can also appear on different versions of a same game that the company release (for several reasons : translation, promotion, ...). Do the game entries have to detail those differences ? --Bloodstained Agar 18:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Take FIFA Series or NHL Series vs Final Fantasy, for instance. While the first two won't require individual articles, except for landmark titles (I've been meaning to wrote one article about FIFA Int. Soccer and NHL 94, but they're very low in my priorities), there is enough variation between FF titles to assure each title one individual article. The point is that it's better to create a "series" page rather than a number of stubs, and a "hub" article will always have to be created.
  1. Well, I've mentioned them above, and Final Fantasy I has a good example of a infobox with multiple release information. For more detailed information such as the ones you mentioned, open one header named "Differences between platforms" wS 19:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Console infobox

I've had this discussion with many people, but I thought I would make it open to others and gather more input. For the infobox, should we really include "media"? First off, the point of the infobox is to give a little overview-like blurb on the game. That being said, I feel the media section is unneeded especially for games that are multi-platform. If you have a game that is for GameCube, it obviously uses GameCube media, theres not going to be a surprise there or anything. If someone wants to know what GameCube media is then they should head over to the article on GameCube, not an exclusive game to find out. As it is, most articles don't even list a more specific media type, it just states "DVD", which really tells you nothing. If the game is for GameCube, Xbox, and PS2 then we have to mention all of those, this takes up a lot of space and like the previous example is pretty useless.

The only time I would actually consider "media" useful is on a computer game because at least there it has a large possibility of being different. Half-Life 2 for example can be on CD, DVD, or as a download through Steam. This is something thats worth mentioning in the infobox.

So I figure we have three options.

  1. Leave it
  2. Remove it from all console games
  3. Remove it from multi-platform console games only

Opinions? K1Bond007 21:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

remove from all multi-platform games, leave it for exclusives and PC games. Alternatively, create a note in the infobox pointing to the article. \ wolfenSilva / 21:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say we should remove it from all console games, but I just joined today so my opinion doesn't really matter that much. OvenFresh 23:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Media can also include memory size for cartridge based games... Y0u 03:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, it's useful for CD/DVD-based games because one can specify number of discs. So I'd say keep it in. – Seancdaug 17:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
The line is optional on the standard infobox we have now. The point of making it optional was because of current systems and their media. Too often were games being labeled under media with "GameCube media" or whatever. It's not really notable if 1 line above it states the game as being for GameCube. This was the point to this discussion. Both the memory size for a cartridge for older games as well as the number of discs a game comes on are good reasons to add the optional media line. K1Bond007 17:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Stubbing Companies

What would the correct stub be for video game companies? Would it be the {{corp-stub}} or the {{cvg-stub}}? Or maybe both, I'm not sure if that's allowed but as of this post it's been done on a couple such as GameTek and Takara. Just wondering because there's a bunch of companies such as Cybersoft and Video System that don't have a categorized stub (or any real content for that matter). --TheDotGamer 10:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Forcing font size

The infobox template currently forces the font to render in a size that is illegible to me and any other people with poor vision. This should be fixed so that it renders at the same size as the other text, or at least has it's size calculated relative to the normal text size.

Darrien 01:27, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Another era/generation problem

I've been cleaning up History of computer and video games as best I can, but have run into a conundrum with the pre-16bit consoles. The concensus I've seen so far is that the 16-bit era is the 4th generation, the 32/64bit the 5th, the so-called 128bit the 6th, and the next round of yet unreleased consoles the 7th. Assuming the first generation is made of the hardwired electronics like the Magnavox Odyssey, Coleco Telstar, and Pong home version, that leaves 2 "generations" spanning the 8-bit CPU based consoles. The obvious split would be before and after the 1983 crash, but so far the divisions seem to be along the lines of technologies, and that split would put some technologically superior machines like the Colecovision before simpler ones like the NES. Then there's articles like this [1] that expand the crash and the years surrounding it into an extra generation. Our own List_of_video_game_consoles groups the 2600 together with the earliest machines. So the whole thing is a bit muddled. Or you could simply bag everything not hardwired and running an 8-bit processor under one generation, pushing everything after down one number. But I'm not sure if machines before the NES and Sega Master System can really be included as part of an "8bit" group, as I think the concern over "bitness" only came into being when the two were compared to their 16bit successors. I suppose the question is whether the generational divisions are on power/technology, or time periods. -- 07:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I came up against the issue of how to represent storylines for Starcraft. If you look at that article, parts of the storyline are very detalied and others...arn't. I took it upon myself to try and come up with a way to do it, but then realized this is something that should be done as a whole for all computer games (or most, at least). I have a few sample entries on User:Alasseo/Starcraft Story but here's the main idea:

For articles with seperate storyline pages, I would have it arranged:

===Mission name===
Mission subtitle, base location, ect.

This would be a summary, "Kerrigan gloated over Raynor.", not a word-for-word transcript,
"'I ownzed j00 Raynor!!!!1' Kerrigan said".

<h4>Mission Objectives</h4>
*A Bulleted
For missions with changing objectives,
I don't know if they should go in the next section or this one.

<h4>In Game Story</h4>
Same as breifing, with the possiblity of having mission objectives,
and being much longer for FPS like Renegade.
Or non existant, like for Doom.

I would have a simple synopsis for each campaign if the story wasn't long enough to get its own page, or there was just one campaign, ect. However, I'm new to all this so if you want to sit back and laugh for a little while at how naive I am..go ahead. I won't mind. Really. Alasseo 09:20, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Detailed per-level story descriptions would be a good start for a wikibook game guide(and it looks like there's a wikibooks:Starcraft guide waiting for input), but simply too much for an encyclopedia article. In fact, quite a bit of that article would probably fit better in a guide. For a game article, keep the story bits short and to the point. It's supposed to be about the game being played and its mechanics, after all.-- 07:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I'll move what I've got so far over to wikibooks, and work on breaking down the Brood War: Protoss part of StarCraft here. --Alasseo 09:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Games_in_(insert year here)

should we do something like this, or has it already been done? Thanks in advance, Drizzt2

It's been done. See Timeline of computer and video games and (for example) 2005 in video gaming. BTW when you talk on a discussion page (to make it easier for you), type ~~~~ <- 4 of those and you get this -> K1Bond007 05:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Game Master list

Thank you Bond, sorry for all the questions, but is there a master list of games article. Like every video game ever made?Drizzt2 01:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No a list like that would be way too large for Wikipedia and way too much to be properly maintained. That said there is technically a page for this, but it's just a page that links to other lists, example List of Xbox games. You can find that list here -> List of computer and video games. It's categorized by genre, platform, and other certain categories. K1Bond007 03:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Computer and video game genres over how to organize the genres. I feel its important enough to mention this here to gather more input, suggestions, alternatives, or thoughts from other participants of this project for the article than just myself and User:Slike. Thank you. K1Bond007 05:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox VG

I co-opted the Template:Infobox Videogame, which was being used on a few pages, to serve as a prototype for a possible templatized version of our infobox. (See X-COM: UFO Defense for example.)

The template makes it easier to add the infobox to an article, it doesn't clutter the top of the article's source text as much, and it makes it easier to tweak the format. On the downside it doesn't have the flexibility of the raw infobox and it's designed for the lowest common denominator (i.e., no PC- or console-game specific fields, "Rating" instead of "ESRB rating").

I think it would be a convenient way to spread the infobox lovin', but not a replacement for the current infobox. It's important that anyone interested look it over, comment, and hopefully we can produce an official version. Thoughts? --Mrwojo 23:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An option is to create a few different versions, with different fields. Fredrik | talk 23:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that would help. "Template:Computer game" and "Template:Video game" seems like two candidates for the few. --Mrwojo 00:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, I agree that before we really begin to use the template we should iron out and be sure of all the fields because once we actually use it, it'll be a PITA to make field changes. Design changes are a different story. I think as far as console games go there really isn't a need for "media". If it's a GameCube game its going to use GameCube media (and more often than anything none of these are ever written the same) and if it's a multiplatform game then you gotta list them all out and most of the time, it looks like this: Xbox DVD, PlayStation 2 DVD, GameCube DVD - and thats just sad especially since it's sitting under "Platform" that says it's on Xbox, PlayStation 2 and GameCube.

I think it is possible to have optional fields, however, I've been unsuccessful with the templates I've created. I'll look into this more because if this is something that we can achieve then that'd be great. -- Update: Take a look here for optional tables. I think we can do something similar. Template talk:Peru region table. K1Bond007 03:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree about media for console games. Thanks for the example on optional fields — that's the first working one I've seen. :-) That could be really handy. The alternating row colors would probably have to go if we have optional fields. --Mrwojo 04:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We could change the design to the first column being a certain color and the second being another. That would still work. See Template:Infobox Movie K1Bond007 05:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the format as suggested and made Media optional as a test. See Cadaver (computer game) for an example (no Media). Optional fields makes editing the template more difficult, but that's relatively minor compared to the advantage. The template now looks more like a replacement than a supplement with these changes.

Here's possible list of fields, nothing new:

  • Developer
  • Publisher
  • Optional: Designer
    • I'd like to see this not be optional eventually
  • Optional: Engine
  • Released
  • Genre
  • Modes
  • Rating
    • or optional fields for ESRB rating, ELSPA/PEGI rating (AFAIK, there's no overlap between ELSPA and PEGI rated games), others?
  • Platform
  • Optional: Media
  • Optional: System requirements
  • Optional: Input

--Mrwojo 15:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't really taken the time to look it over and see exactly how it works. For the optional fields do you still need to say "media = "? or can you just leave it off entirely. What do you mean by "I'd like to see (Designer) not be optional eventually"? K1Bond007 21:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
You still have to say "media = ". If you don't, it looks even worse than the typical {{media}} you'd see if it weren't optional. It spits out this junk if you don't say "media = ": {{{{{2|{{{2}}}}}}|1{{{media=void|2={{{3}}}}}}|Infobox Videogame/media|{{{media}}}}}
As for "I'd like to see (Designer) not be optional eventually": Scratch that — I think that Designer should be a non-optional field. --Mrwojo 21:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's fine for contemporary games, where the game designers are hailed as gods, but for most older games the designer(s) weren't always credited. So it should either be optional or "unknown" should be a valid entry. Just my $.02... Frecklefoot | Talk 15:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I made it an optional field. --Mrwojo 03:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On a side note, I added some information to the X-COM: UFO Defense article's infobox , but then the infobox showed up incorrectly. The entire contents of the article got appended to the end of the infobox. Looking at the history, all the previous versions looked incorrect as well (which is strange, since it looked fine when I visited it the first time). I think it may be a server problem, but I'm not sure. Can someone check out the template and see if they can spot anything wrong with it? It's commented out right now since no matter what I removed, it still looked incorrect. Thanks. Frecklefoot | Talk 15:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the template into three a few moments ago: See User:Mrwojo/temp for an example on how to use it. This is what the taxobox does and I think it might be the better way to go than optional fields.
Everything is fine the first time an optional field is used on a page, but every optional field after that inserts a <p><br /></p> which looks rather bad. I'm also concerned that it seems rather hackish. --Mrwojo 15:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's best to just keep it commented out until we get a finished template. I'm thinking it might be better to just have two templates now, one for video (console) games and another for computer games or crossplatform games where one platform is a computer. K1Bond007 20:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Good news: K1Bond007 has found a way to fix the whitespace problem with optional fields. I updated the template to use optional fields again and it seems to be working fine. --Mrwojo 03:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check here for a typical example of a console game/computer game infobox User:Mrwojo/temp. If anyone has any suggestions or whatever for the fields now is a good time. I think it looks pretty good and it functions pretty good as well. K1Bond007 03:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
That looks good, but if this is used with a game that has not been released yet, having something say 'released' followed by some date in the future doesn't really make sense. Wouldn't simply putting 'release date' as the field name be better? Jacoplane 04:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I changed it to "Release date" unless Mrwojo can give a reason why he changed it. I think he did anyway (it could have been me, I guess or it could have been with the previous template). I feel I should note that future release game articles should be limited to only notable titles (AAA) since they are routinely targeted by VFD. I see it all the time, so keep that in mind. Good point though. I had to adjust the width for the left column so I hope nothing got screwed up. I haven't noticed anything yet anyway. K1Bond007 05:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I only did it because it's shorter, so yeah, this kind of problem trumps that. :-) (I'm mostly against articles on unreleased games though, except in special circumstances such as DNF.) --Mrwojo 18:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with keeping unreleased game articles to AAA K1Bond007 18:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. The reason I asked is because I was using the template in an upcoming game, Black & White 2. I'll refrain from working on articles on unreleased games from now. I'm kind of new here, still learning ;) Jacoplane 19:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vote (closed, 10/0)

This vote has ended. The result was unanimous (10/0) support for making "Template:Infobox VG" the project's new official infobox.

I think it's fair to at least take a vote to see if anyone disagrees with making the template our official infobox. Assuming the "vote" passes we would use the template on all future video and computer game articles as well as over time, convert the old manual infoboxes to the template. Since I haven't seen anyone really against this, this could be a waste of time, but in fairness and in part because we essentially voted on the last one, I think this should be done before proceeding. K1Bond007 18:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


  1. K1Bond007 18:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mrwojo 18:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Frecklefoot 18:59, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jacoplane 19:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. wS 19:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mattb90 19:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Thunderbrand 22:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ADeveria 22:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Andre (talk) 22:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  10. pie4all88 21:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)



  • I like the fact that there are two, one for console games and one for computer games. Frecklefoot | Talk 18:59, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well technically theres only one. The lines: designer, engine, media, system requirements, and input are optional. Meaning if you don't place any text in that field they won't show up. See User:Mrwojo/temp for the difference in code on the page and their appearance. K1Bond007 19:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • I like it. Looks much cleaner. Thunderbrand 22:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • While my eyes prefer the interchanging horizontal stripes, I understand and agree with the reasoning for this one. ADeveria 22:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I hate to go against the majority, but I personally prefer the old design. I don't mind that it clutters up the top of the editing page; as ADeveria mentioned, the interchanging horizontal stripes are easier on the eyes. I also think that it would be a lot of work to redo the infoboxes on all of the articles that we have put it on...To be honest, it seems like this is being changed partly because the last version hasn't been changed in a while. I may be missing something, though I did read the comments in the topic above this. Looks like I'll be overruled anyways, though. :) --pie4all88 01:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Bah, forgot to mention a few things. Maybe you could make the new infobox a bit wider so "Release date" is on one line? And do we want colons after each field? I guess the biggest thing I have against it is that it doesn't have the different colored stripes. :P --pie4all88 01:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)'
    • Saying you don't like the current design is not that big of a deal because a change in the design of the template is something that can be done in the future that will change all pages that use it. I am fairly certain however we can't do alternating color lines because of the optional fields we use, however, there are other ways to make the infobox easier to read or perhaps more to your liking. Thats the point of the template, that if we make a change, all pages are effected instead of having to micromanage the code on every page. Also note, that the template was made using Mozilla FireFox. I'll look it over in IE and make some changes so it's appealing to both browsers. K1Bond007 02:21, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, understood. I guess I missed the fact that it will be easier to mass-change the infoboxes in the future and the "What links here" link will work since it's a template. Those are pretty important things, so I'll support the change now. --pie4all88 21:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I fixed the release date appearance in Internet Explorer. It should look fine now. (You might have to clear your page cache to see: CTRL+F5) K1Bond007 23:13, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • When should the vote conclude? I recommend no sooner than April 2 @ 19:00 (UTC) and no later than April 5. The sooner the better in my opinion. --Mrwojo 14:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the votes pretty much done, there hasn't been any new additions for a few days now. I guess give it another day then call it. K1Bond007 17:34, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Mrwojo's comment on my talk page

Yes, it's fine now.

Darrien 04:36, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Copyright question

I was considering including some prologue text contained within a game's manual. Would this be ok? Subtlesnake 21:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that a portion of the text italicized and predeceded by the manual states that, according to the manual or anything similar could qualify the entry as fair use, but I'm not all that familiar with such copyright rules. wS 22:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not that familiar with copyright rules here either, however, I would think that if you're quoting a sentence or two, as long as you cite the source, it would be ok. Copying entire paragraphs might be a no-no even if it is cited. I would ask this question elsewhere, honestly. K1Bond007 00:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
From what I remember of a poster that I read at a printing place (while waiting for something to get bound), you can't copy more than a page from any work, or what would amount to one chapter of that work (and a whole bunch of other requirements I believe). This may vary from country to country, so it's best to find out the laws both from where wikipedia is hosted, and out of respect, from where the publisher resides. Slike2 05:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still on the infobox...

Although I consider this to be a much better version over the old infoboxes, there are a two issues that I only noticed now that I've tried to replace existing boxes:

  • Some games require a "License" field, such as games based on movies or sports events (see Olympic Gold, for instance)
  • The "input" might result too crowded in some PC games that can use any controller plugged in (keyb, mouse, gamepad, joystick or wheel, in case of racing games). I was thinking about small images(32x32, regular icon size) for each controller, but I've never seen anythink like it before, and I'm not certain if it actually violates some of Wikipedia's readability norms.

Sorry for dropping so late, but it's been months since I've last edited a infobox from scratch, and couldn't remember most of the problems I had back then. wS 13:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The pros and cons I see of having an optional License field nearly balance out. Many games could use it and it could potentially be further broadened to include game franchises. I think the input icons would be interesting, but the words look fine to me. --Mrwojo 14:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can see why a License field might be useful, but it's not really a necessity IMHO. Most of the time this information can be found in the first sentence, should be found in the first sentence (ex Olympic Gold) or in the actual title (ex. Simpsons: Hit and Run). The input icons, while a good idea, might not be right for Wikipedia. I don't know the stance Wikipedia has on this though. Personally as far as input goes, it shouldn't be used for console games except in RARE occasions (ex Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, Samba de Amigo) and for PC games it shouldn't really be used to just say "keyboard and mouse" since thats almost a given, but this is just my POV on the subject. A possible solution is to link to a section in the article (instead of listing) that explains what inputs can be used etc. K1Bond007 16:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think this was worth starting a new topic over so I'm putting this here: What do people think about an optional "current/latest version" row in the infobox table for PC games? I don't think it could hurt any, since it'd be optional. – Quoth 10:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a bad idea, but someone would have to go around and add the field to every article with the infobox so that when it's added to the template every infobox that uses the template doesn't get messed up. Wait to see what others think or suggest. K1Bond007 16:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Current/latest version"? Thunderbrand 16:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
The official infobox, I'm sure. K1Bond007 17:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps something like the "latest release" field in computer programs infobox ? wS 17:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah thats exactly what I was thinking of. Mozilla Firefox for an example of how it would look. It's still not a bad idea, but like I said you'd have to go and change every article first before implementing the line in the template. K1Bond007 18:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to adding a "Latest release" or "Latest version" field (since games a rarely re-released as updated versions). Changing the articles wouldn't be a problem to do by hand since we have a list of pages that use it thanks to the "What links here" feature of Wikipedia... If we couldn't get a bot to do it... Could we get a bot to do it? I've never dealt with one. This is all if we agree on it's inclusion and placement in the infobox, of course. – Quoth 09:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Google release date

Interesting Google trivia: If you Google a game name with the words release date, it gives a good guess for you. I found this by searching for "Tribes Aerial Assault" release date. I was further surprised to see the sole source for "The Dig" release date. ;-) --Mrwojo 17:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, neat. Too bad it doesn't work for older titles, though. I've been scrounging around for the exact release date for Vampire Killer for close to an hour, now :-) – Seancdaug 18:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Save Goomba

Vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Goomba Andre (talk) 17:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Quite possibly the dumbest VFD I've ever seen. K1Bond007 18:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


I've checked the stub for video games template, and it's nothing but functional. Since I've noticed a lot of templates include more features (such as a small pic or the correspondent wikiproject link), I suggest changing the template a bit to bring a little more attention over the GCOTW. My suggestion is something like this:

wS 17:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has a picture, but it was taken down due to server load. All major stub types were done like this. See an earlier version [2]. It has to do with Meta-templates. User:Andrevan probably knows more about this. K1Bond007 18:10, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
What K1Bond007 says regarding the picture is correct. Your text isn't bad, though, you can probably add that if you like. Andre (talk) 21:30, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Allright, I've edited the message. Sorry for taking so long to reply. wS 02:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Why did you delete the stub category? I reverted that part back. I also feel this second line is too long, but I don't know exactly how to rephrase it. Perhaps:

"This computer or video game-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"
"Or you could nominate it for a weekly collaboration or expansion with the corresponding WikiProject"

Maybe just a descrease in font-size. I don't know. K1Bond007 02:46, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Did I deleted anything ? It probably missed me when after trying to save the changes for the first time it reported a server overload (or other error, probably when I clicked the "back" button FF probably put a previous version on the edit field. My bad, thanks for fixing it. And yes, it looks too large, now that you've mentioned it. A font change might work the better, as in:

"This computer or video game-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"
"Other alternatives are putting up the article for expansion or to possible community collaboration"

(underlines are wikilinks, for the sake of simplification) wS 03:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Oooh I like your wording and style better than the one I did. I made the change. See what you think. K1Bond007 03:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Looks great now, let's hope it brings some life up to the GCOTW. wS 04:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I hope so, its dying. The last article was pretty bad in terms of contributions and overall improvement to the article. See: Stats K1Bond007 04:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to have this message. Or it should be a uniform thing that all the stubs have (this is a very general description). - Stoph 20:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I'd rather you had discussed this here before reverting to the previous version unilateraly. The reasons for the stub message change are well presented in the previous lines: There is a collaboration project which, with some exceptions, have a winner with less than 8 votes. The revised stub has (or had) in mind to increase awareness and traffic to it in order to increase the number of participants and editors, and hopefully, the quality of the said articles. Anyway, you are mentioning "completely different" as if it's indeed completely different - the only difference between the others is the inclusion of a second line. I've seen at least three other with informations on related projects, and many others "completely different", as you put it. wS 21:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Theres no rule that says it only has to display that the article is a stub. Since the additional information gives other options to expanding the article there is no harming in mentioning it. As WolfenSilva already said, please discuss making changes to the stub in the future prior to just doing it. K1Bond007 21:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not on this project (GCOTW), but I'd like to add my two cents anyway. When I first saw the extra text on the cvg-stub, I didn't know who had put it there or why it was different from any of the other stubs -- I thought it was just something to be fixed. Perhaps it would help to add just a couple words to indicate that it's not just any "community collaboration" you can nominate it for, but the Gaming Collaboration of the Week. I propose: Other alternatives include putting this article up for expansion or nominating it for gaming community collaboration. MithrandirMage 15:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I changed the text "community collaboration" to "the Gaming Collaboration of the week." If it's the Gaming Collaboration of the week, we might as well call it that. -Hyad 05:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MobyGames template

Since we include links to MobyGames from so many of our articles, I created a MobyGame's template. Currently it is only being used in one article, Heroes of Might and Magic, since I'd like to get some feedback before putting it into widespread use. See the template's talk page for usage. Note, it is only for games, not developers (people) or companies. Different, but similar, templates will need to be created for them. Please comment on the template talk page. Frecklefoot | Talk 19:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Copy this one Template:Imdb title instead of "IMDB name" and you're set. If you want you could create another template, "moby name" that will do people. K1Bond007 19:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Video games/Archive 3".