WikiProject Computer and video games |
Earlier discussions
= Deletion list =
Hi folks,
I just wanted to let you know about a list of . This isn t exclusive to computer and video game-related deletions, but those make up more than 90% of the items.
Since you re interested in improving Wikipedia s coverage of game-related topics, you might want to monitor this list.
If you find the list useful, please also help to maintain it by adding new items and archiving old ones. Thanks!
Cheers,
-- 16:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
PS New members are needed and welcome at . Hope to see you there!
= Infobox float please fix =
It s 18:57, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
: Never mind, leave as is. I fixed on Children of the Nile article by putting infobox into its own section. I think I prefer this placing vs. float top right. Thanks! -- 19:11, 2005 August 15 (UTC) ::The infobox should never be in its own section. If it s not displaying correctly, it s most likely due to how the code is written on that specific article. The float hasn t been changed for quite some time. Page looks fine to me right now anyway. 19:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
::: The display changed to float left, then changed back to float right about 30 minutes later. It wasn t just the article page because I saw the change on this project page as well. If I knew how to find the template I d check the edit history. Either that or something changed temporarily higher up in the wiki. -- 02:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC) ::::It was probably your cache. I had that problem when it was first changed. It appeared on the left, but after doing a shift F5 (Firefox) it corrected itself. 02:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
=Gamerankings=
Could we make it a Wikiproject guideline to link to the Gamerankings page of a game in its external links section That way, instead of having to mention individual reviews or criticisms/praises of the game, we can just direct the reader to a collection of reviews for the game. I think this would be a good guideline to add although I don t know where it would fit in the Wikiproject... 06:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC) :This has already been suggested (please see 11:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC). All right, so we should just link to it in the external links section I ll do it to every game article I come across, thanks. 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
= Infobox CVG... rating =
I don t suppose this can be made optional as well I dunno if there s any overhead with if defined call1... but as a lot of games predate this nanny state buisness, would be nice not to have a blank row if it s not absolutely nessersary. -- 12:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC) :Looking at your contributions it seems you re having problems with games that have only been released in Japan ( 12:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC) ::They were founded in 2002. To my knowledge, there was no rating system prior to that. And actually, the game I d looked at just before writing that was 13:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
:: How about adding Unrated for these cases. I like making it optional in the template. -- 15:40, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
:::I did it, nothing seemed to blow up. Shout at me on my talk page if anything goes direly wrong. -- 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
=Terminology category=
I d like to request some help moving as many articles as possible out of 13:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC) :I agree, many of the articles in the terminology category (such as player-run economy) should be in gameplay. 16:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC) :I ll see what I can do. 16:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC) :: Me too (I ve started). Some things still ambiguous like woot and avatar . Where would you put those -- 17:12, 2005 August 20 (UTC) :::I have no idea to be honest. Just do the obvious ones for now and we ll have to come up with something in the future to better categorize some of these misc ones. 17:14, August 20, 2005 (UTC) :::: kay (p.s. what about a category for netspeak or whatever the current term is) -- 17:18, 2005 August 20 (UTC) :::::See 17:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC) :::::I already put PWN in culture, I think w00t should go in there as well. Maybe I m applying the category too broadly... 17:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC) ::::::I was going to say 17:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I like Internet slang because it exists but I see the issue. Maybe culture is the best place for now, then look again later. Different topic, things like collision detection I am putting into the existing Computer game design category. -- 17:38, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
All the articles have been recategorized. I added a please don t use notice on the category page. The most common categories I moved them to were: 21:57, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
:Good work, thanks! - 21:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I m not all that fond of this idea, but I can see it is at least 4 to 1 in favor so I ll bow out. If wikipedia isn t meant to be a dictionary, I think that many of the terms on gameplay (and in MMORPG Terms and acronyms) should be transwikied to wiktionary. A wikipedia page on afk , for example, seems bound to be a stub. -- 22:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Many of those term articles are actually a pretty good size. 22:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
=Another category question=
What s the difference between 01:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:The few that I checked worked on multiple platforms. Windows is certainly the more restrictive of those two categories, since there were DOS games on Intel pcs before Windows. Oh, how I remembered booting up my pc with Ultima 7... -- 01:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC) :Not all PC games are exclusive to Windows. That said, I m not really sure if PC games is really needed. Perhaps someone can enlighten me how this can be useful besides being yet another umbrella category. Emulators aside, if it s for Windows it should be in Windows. If it s for DOS it should be in DOS - Linux, Linux etc. 02:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC) ::I guess the only problem with removing the PC games category is that games compatible with multiple os s would have to be listed in multiple categories. 03:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC) :::I would think that they would ve already been listed in multible platform categories anyways. 07:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC) ::::Oh I didn t make my position clear, oops.
:I m generally opposed to specifying PC as a platform. What does that mean DOS Windows Linux BeOS Platforms should be more specific. This has been irking me for some time, but the amount of work involved of fixing it has scared me. But if someone wants to do it, I m all for it. I ll help where I can. 02:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed. It s bothered me for ages, as well, and I ve fixed it when I ve come across it. If there s a real consensus, though, I d be willing to go through more systematically and help fixing things. – 03:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
How about breaking it up Here is a simple structure that can be adopted by the WikiProject. This touches on the other section called Plea for Sense .
Video Games No games categoried here. (Very broad terminology) -Computer games No games categoried as being a PC or Computer game. (Broad terminology) --Windows games Windows 9x/ME/NT/2K/XP games should be apart of this category and listed as on a Windows platform. --Linux games Linux games should be apart...on a Linux platform. --Mac games Mac...platform. --etc Repeat ad-infinitum. -Console games Again, no game should be categoried as just being a console game. --NES games I hope you realize the pattern! --etc Really, I do! -Handheld games - --PSP games - -Arcade games An exception because I can t think of a non-redundant sub-name for non-pinball arcade games. --Pinball games Pinball! Ding ding ding.
-- 03:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
= Way to show available gaming articles to incoming users =
Except by direct search, incoming users looking for gaming articles would follow this path: :Main_Page :: :::Game#Types_of_games ::::Computer_and_video_game#See_also :::::List_of_gaming_topics But is the list current enough Should we edit the article to also point to 07:02, 2005 August 22 (UTC) :Redirecting to a category is probably not a good idea. Why not just update the 07:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC) ::Didn t mean to redirect but to include link to category page. Regarding list have you looked at it :) -- 07:55, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
Done. Here are the current paths from main page to cvg articles:
Access by category: Main_Page Access by article: Main_Page (called Article overviews ) Game - (listed in section Entertainment ) Computer and video games - (listed in section Types of games ) Access by browse: Main_Page (called Browse Wikipedia ) - (listed in section Culture subsection Sports and games )
-- 16:57, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
:Or: ::Main_Page ::: :::: : 21:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok I added the cvg wikiportal to the Culture subject portal on the browse page. I also added entertainment and game categories under culture category and game category under personal life category on same browse page. Good catch! :) -- 02:26, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
= Bureaucratship =
I m letting you guys know that I ve just ) 02:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
= =
Do we need separate subcats of 08:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
= Article structure =
Consider the following article structure:
Lead section Summarizes the most important (of course) Gameplay How the game itself works History Describes development, release, and later history, as well as reviews Trivia Notable bugs, cameos, fan activity, etc
This format naturally doesn t fit all topics, but it has worked out wonderfully in many of our best CVG articles (eg 11:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC) :Dunno. It seems OK for some games. Need some more input. 13:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC) ::You have to fit storyline somewhere in there. 15:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC) :::Part of gameplay (describes the internal aspects of the game). See 18:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC) ::::Gameplay should be separate from plot in games with very complex and involved storylines. Also, I like having an Impact section that explains what precedents the game set, as in ) 18:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC) :::::Super Mario 64 clearly uses the structure described above. Please note that I m not talking about specific section titles; gameplay may cover many sections. The storyline is an aspect of the gameplay -- at least when complex and involved; in any way you shouldn t take my choice of particular titles too literally. What matters is the rough order of 1) describing the game, 2) describing its historical context, and 3) describing less important curiosities. 19:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC) ::::::Right, but all the games you mentioned don t (arguably I guess) have much of a story so in that sense, yes it s a good structure. Mario 64 - the princess is taken yet again, Doom - Marine guy goes to Mars all hell breaks loose , and Pong . Games with more complex stories such as Half-Life 2 and to a lesser extent 19:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC) :::::::Again, I m not talking about specific sections. 19:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Ahh, apparently I misunderstood. You should mention that in the description for gameplay . Otherwise, I can agree with this. 20:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, second try:
Lead section Game description Plot and gameplay History Development, release, impact, later history Trivia Notable bugs, cameos, fan activity, etc
- 21:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:I ve added this stuff to the main page. ) 22:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have a proposal for the headings!
pre-headings is a game that was initially released on the in on . Overview - -Plot With start and end spoilers markers for all games. -Gameplay How the game is played. Notable elements for that title at that time. Ports - -Official Ports Explanation of all ports officially released. (Some history here) -Fan Projects Any and all notable fan-projects. Trivia Maybe make a trivia template that can hide the answer too. See Also Links with-in wikipedia with friendly names, like lists of other games by the genre or by the developer. External Links Fan pages, RPGC shrines, templates , , etc.
An example (of See Also and External Links) would be here on this game I liked when I was younger: -- 06:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
= Suggested Style additions =
Hi, everyone. I m not a member of the project, but I ve written quite a few video-game-related articles and edited many others. I just elaborated on the point about putting game events in present tense; I hope this wasn t out of line for a non-project member. It just seems that many people ignore this point, so I thought an explanation might help win them back to the light.
I do have a few suggested points for the style guide, but I wanted to present them here for comment before adding them. Here they are in draft form:
*If the game is primarily a one-player game, descriptions of gameplay should use the term the player ; i.e., The player controls a party of five wizards. If the game contains a significant multiplayer mode, descriptions of it may be plural; i.e., Players take turns fighting the computer-controlled boss characters.
*Be careful to maintain the distinction between characters and players . The character or player character is the on-screen sprite that runs around, wins new weapons, fights bosses, and saves the princess. The player is the person behind the controller who gives commands to the character. Therefore, we say Sonic must collect rings , not The player must collect rings. However, The player must guide Sonic to collect rings is correct. Likewise, Enemies may attack the characters at any time, not Enemies may attack the player at any time.
*When introducing the title of a game for the first time, try to include the system for which the game was released and the year of release. This is especially important in articles about characters, series, or game developers that span several games. Some examples: ), Mario must wash away grime using a powerful waterhose.
Comments 17:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC) :The stuff about using the term the player sounds good, because I run across a lot of articles that say you must save the world and all that. 01:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I m not sure if I agree with your first two points. They re a little bit excessively pedantic. The third one is fine, though. ) 01:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC) ::Point 1 came about because of articles written like this: In Final Fantasy VII , players take the role of Terra Bradford . . . It s misleading, since this is only a one-player game (primarily). Point two is cribbed from work I once did for 02:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
:That Super Mario Sunshine example is interesting. It s always bugged me that the first sentence of CVG articles is long and clunky, like Space Shooter 2659 is a video game released for the GameCube on 28 November 2005 by Nintendo. or something to that effect. What does everyone think of making a standard of something like: Super Mario Sunshine (Nintendo, GameCube, 26 August 2002) is a computer and video games ... [rest of sentence that can actually be meaningful....] , with the original release being used For non-exclusive games either Killer 7 (Capcom, 7 July 2005) ..... or Killer 7 (Capcom, multiple platforms, 7 July 2005) ..... . :If we adopt a standard like this, it will get rid of a lot of filler and let us get to the actual interesting parts of the article faster. -- 02:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ::I really don t like this idea. I understand the rationale and the intention is obviously good, but the problem with it is the multiple platforms. That needs to be spelled out with correct release dates. Not all multiple platform games have the same release and some articles go on to list their release date in other countires (Non-US) and other regions, most notably, Europe and Japan. These dates are almost always different. At this point you just have a list of information that can be better written in prose or more easily found in the infobox. Hurts even more when you add computer games and their platforms, remakes, etc. 02:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC) :::I would propose to mention the earliest release date in the article and leave the other dates to the infobox. It s hard to mention three (or more) release dates without destroying the flow of a lead section. -- 02:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ::::Not really. 03:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC) :::I agree, as usual, with K1Bond007. ) 02:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC) :::: I respect both your opinions, so never mind. -- 03:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
= Anon. IP =
Recently, an anon. IP added 17:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC) :I took care of it. 19:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC) :My mistake, I forgot to log in. sorry :), I m gonna go add myself in again.
= Disambiguating series pages, naming conventions =
As discussed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive5#Series_pages_-_standardization.3F previously on this talk page], a standardized method of disambiguating games from game series would be beneficial to the project. I ve created 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC) :I think it may be premature to take a poll on this. I d rather see more discussion before leaping into a poll - a discussion can also show a consensus on something. Another semi-issue I have is that this naming convention doesn t discuss what length a series should be where it would be appropriate for a disambiguated series article. For instance, it is beneficial to have a page called The Legend of Zelda series , but perhaps not so much for No One Lives Forever series or Max Payne series , the latter two having only two games (not counting expansions or spinoffs) under their belt. This is an interesting issue because in my opinion, it s ok for Max Payne to be home to information on the series thus far rather than creating another article that does the same thing. Hopefully, I m making sense here. :I m personally of the opinion that it depends on the series. In one case, 03:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC) ::Perhaps you re right about the poll, as the page hasn t even been given a chance to expand beyond the text I ve written. I m willing to wait for more perspectives on the issue before resorting to an opinion poll. Would you mind adding some of the points above to the page -- 06:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) :::I essentially copied the above over (minus the point on the poll). I should have added my comment there in the first place anyway. 06:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC) : 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
= Cvg-stub =
Can we delete that second line from 23:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC) :I think that the second line of this template is unimportant. Stub article have to invite to expand article, not putting it to work for others users. If I can expand this article I will do that, but if I don t know nothing about article subject I won t put it in 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
::I think the second line should be ditched too. 20:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) :I just up and removed it. Since the break down of the stub template into others, I don t think it makes much sense anymore on its own. It really doesn t matter to me, though. 21:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC) :: I did this also for 09:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
=Plea for Sense=
For a while now, I ve been concerned that this project—and all the video game articles in general—are miscategorized and misled and this has led to unweildly categorizations and terminology.
In order for this to be clear, let me back up and give some history. Way back (a few months ago), a new user suggested merging the video game and computer game articles. Many objected, including me. Computer games, of course, were games played on a computer. Video games, on the other hand, are games played on video game consoles. There s a big difference in how they re played, the people who play them, their target market, etc. Eventually they were merged, but to the objection of many. However, this has become part of the problem, not the solution.
The problem is this: video games are games that use a video display as their primary form of output. That is all. They are not console games or computer games alone. They are both. They are also arcade games. It even encompasses handheld games (e.g. games played on a PSP or Gameboy). Many people use the term video game interchangably with computer game and arcade game. And they are not wrong, they re just not being specific. Video games are a superset of computer games, video game console games, handheld games, arcade games and games users can play on cell phones and PDA s. The graphic below should clarify the relationship of all these types of games.
Right now, we have a category called article, which, as well as being unweildly, just plain doesn t make sense. As an analogy, it would be like having a Hamburgers and foods , or a Beer and alcholic beverages category or a Sid Meier and people article. Video games are a superset of computer games, not a peer.
I suggest we try to straighten out our thinking and set about fixing this. Referring to console games as video games is not only a disservice to ourselves but to our readers as well. We re trying to explain to them that video games are games played on home video game consoles and telling them they have to adopt our misused terminology in order to understand our articles. Therefore, the opening sentence of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat should not read:
: Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a Nintendo GameCube video game featuring the gorilla Donkey Kong gorilla Donkey Kong.
It should read:
: Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a Nintendo GameCube console game featuring the gorilla Donkey Kong.
Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a video game, but to be specific, it is a console game.
In a perfect world, we d have a WikiProject: Video games and a WikiProject: Computer games and WikiProject: Console games would be sub-projects of it (so would , which is alredy its own WikiProject). I don t think this is going to happen, but let s straighten out our terminology and start referring to games correctly, realizing what they encompass.
What I propose we do is: # Rewrite the video game article and have it explain what the term encompasses (arcade games, console games, computer games, handheld games). # Turn the computer and video games article into a redirect to video game. # Salvage what we can from computer and video games article and create seperate computer game and console game articles. # Create a handheld game article, which currently has no article (but which is a type of video game). # Ditch the . If a game is both a computer game and a console game, that s not a problem: we can include it in both categories.
Some issues we might want to resolve are: # Should we refer to a console game as a console game or a video game console game # Should we develop separate templates for computer games, console games and handheld games (the latter which has no template now, AFAIK) (My vote, no, we shouldn t). # Should we create separate handheld game and cell phone game and PDA game articles Should they belong to their own WikiProject # What term should we use to refer to a game that is both a computer game and console game (i.e. there are versions for home computers and video game consoles) Consumer video game
Please, this project has done fantastic things. Let s improve the way we refer to the various types of video games as a service to ourselves and our readers. Please bring up any issues, thoughts or concerns. 00:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Seems like you put a lot of thought into it. I ve never really had a problem with most of what you listed. I don t see a need to break up the Categories for each year, or create a console game and comp. game articles. Having 2 wikiprojects under one called WikiProject:Video games seems kind of silly. 01:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Going as far as pointing out the proper nomenclature seems fine, the rest just creates unnecessary confusion, including the somewhat far-fetched ideas of forking the WP and doubling the categories. 02:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC) ::The categories definitely concerns me as well. I don t agree with breaking that up. There are entirely too many games that are for the computer and consoles and it just seems redundant. Maybe just a rename there. I d like to see more discussion on all of this before I really sign off on the whole deal. I d hate to make a switch this big (again) and learn down the road that we didn t take something into account. 04:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC) :::This will all take a lot of work, especially splitting the categories up and recategorizing everything. I do agree, however, with making separate articles for console and computer and handheld games, with a video game article being the parent one that links to all those. But I have a feeling that the video game article would be very repetitive as most of the information would already be included in those articles. Still, if you have the time to do all this and do it accurately, then I m for it. I wouldn t recommend going all-out and making separate templates and wikiprojects, though. 19:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
:I m not sure I agree, and consensus was already reached on this issue in the archives of this talk page. ) 19:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with much of what you ve said. I suggested using video games as an umbrella term long ago (before people settled for C&VG), but things didn t go that way. 19:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with many points, but not the separation of handheld game from console game. A good portion of handheld games are ports of console games, or they are based off series that are established on home consoles. There s a lot more cross-pollination between console and handheld games than there is between console and computer games. -- 20:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC) ::I disagree with this. Handheld games and console games are different - the same way computer games are different than console games; most of those are just back-and-forth ports too. 20:42, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::Handheld games have a smaller screen, portability, and less hardware power. However, they tend to have the same types of games as their home counterparts, just a generation or two behind. The input method, excluding the DS, is generally the same, with control setups resembling home system controllers. -- 02:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC) ::::We re essentially agreeing here that they re games. Although on the opposite side of the spectrum, your words could mean the same for console games and computer games. But they re not the same. They re developed for an entirely different audience. 02:42, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Computer and video games should be changed to just video games in all of the places it needs to be, yes. I don t think recategorizing everything is necessary though. Also, Donkey Kong shouldn t read Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is a , but the way had it does not sound good. So really all this should be is moving everything with computer and video games to just video games.
:PS, I m gonna start the handheld games article with a stub because that should really have something. 21:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
:I m confused. This proposal seems ignorant of the fact that we already have articles on personal computer games and console games. And I, personally, agree with what s on the computer and video games article: :: Both computer games and video games are frequently used as umbrella terms for interactive game software. To avoid ambiguity, this game software is referred to as computer and video games . :The NES is just as much a 02:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Let me try to respond to some of the objections. First, I m not beating a dead horse. IIRC, the other proposal was to combine the definitions of computer games and console games (what was--and still is--being called video games). I was, and still am, against that. What I want us to do is start using the term video game correctly.
I m not dead-set on changing the categories. And, to be honest, that was more of an afterthought. My biggest desire is to start using the term video game correctly. I think the best (and easiest) thing we can do is create the umbrella video game article which describes what it means and include wikilinks to the types of games that belong to it (i.e. console games, computer games, arcade games, etc.). Having the video game wikilink redirect to computer and video games is awkward and incorrect.
I m perfectly willing to do this work myself. Is there any support for this one, small change 22:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Although I don t think games can be divided into sets and supersets as neatly as your graphic shows, I agree with your definition of video game and I support the renaming of the terms used. -- 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, 17:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC) :I object for the moment because I m lost at exactly what you re planning to do here. I understand your initial proposal and although I have some objections (which I noted earlier), I don t necessarily disagree with everything that you ve proposed. We currently have Computer and video games, Console game, Arcade game, Personal computer game, Handheld video game, and God knows what else that I m not aware of ATM. Your change isn t just a minor fix. It s going to change everything - from the way we categorize articles, to the way we name certain articles (including perhaps this WikiProject), although I d love to see certain ones that clash be changed (e.g. Handheld game console, see discussion). :I m not totally objecting here, but I d like to know more, specifically, on what will and won t be effected by your proposal. I don t think it s within our best interest to, at the moment, jump into the middle of all this and begin renaming articles etc without a solid plan. 18:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
:I, too, object. Please do not begin changing the organization without a plan. ) 19:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I would never make a change of this sort without first reaching a consensus. I proposed a lot of things at the beginning, but I ve scaled back what I want to do because of some objections and issues raised by other members. The only thing I m proposing to do now are: # Write a new video game article that describes what a video game is and points out the various types of video games (computer game, console game, arcade game, handheld video game), gives a brief over of each and points to the separate articles on each. This article could also cover any topics that apply to the video game market as a whole (e.g. perhaps a history, economic impact). # Get rid of the computer and video games article, scavenging some information on it for the other articles.
I d also love to clean up all the misc. articles and get rid of conflicting ones, but that is beyond the scope of what I propose we do initially. I only propose to do the first 2 items described above right now. 22:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
:So how does everyone feel about these two changes 20:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
::I can t speak for everyone, but personally I think they would be good. 20:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a nice diagram but it looks like original research to me, forcing a logical structure onto games that is not used on current authoritative consumer and industry game sites. It s not our job here to invent a structure, but to report on the ones used out there , even if they re inconsistent. So I d say, keep the 20:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
:Um, I know we discourage original research here. I wasn t planning to use the chart in the article, I just used it here for illustrative purposes. But I don t think categorizing the different types of video games is original research, they are inherently categorized by what platform(s) they run on. But I m not attempting to reorganize the genres of games, just what platforms they belong to. Like I said much earlier, having the 22:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
::I understand your points but I don t agree with getting rid of the Computer and video game main article. Too much points to it and hangs off it for now. As a quick band-aid fix, we should probably add another redirect pointing to it, called Computer and console game . Can t you add some text in the current main article, for now, summarizing your discussions here, plus write the new article pages you want, and add links to them Maybe when we see them in writing, the anxiety at changing what was already debated and agreed to earlier will be eased. -- 04:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
:The fact that two topics can be grouped together doesn t mean there needs to be one article about them. For example, we don t have an article on 10:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I ll take 19:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:Okay, I have a draft, which took much of it s content from the current 21:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:I really like this idea of changing everything to be under video game . However, consumer video game really only seems to seperate arcade games from the rest and doesn t offer anything beneficial to the categorizing of video games . Also, a major component that has been emerging the last 5 years is internet-based games (Not talking about online games). Some of these can be played over internet on consoles (Dreamcast), handhelds (PSP), and PCs (Windows, Linux, Mac).
:So my version of this idea is:
:*Video game :**Console game :***NES :***(All consoles here) :**PC game :***Windows game :***(All PCs/OSs here) :**Handheld game :***PSP game :***(All handhelds here) :**Arcade game :***Pinball game () :**Internet game (Not online, or MMORPGs.) :***Html game() :***Flash game() :***Java game()
:-- 03:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about the belated response, but I object to the PC game category. PC is ambiguous and only refers to IBM PC compatibles and leaves out Macs and all the computers from the home computer era. I think computer game is much more inclusive.
Next, pinball games do not belong under the video game category. They do not fit the definition of a game that uses a video monitor as its primary form of output (or feedback). While some pinball games do have video monitors, they are not the primary part of the game the user interacts with.
Next, Internet games are already included in the list (though, not in the graphic--it was just a draft). But the Internet games section as you have it needs to be cleaned up. What exactly is an Internet game Does the technology used to implement the game (PHP, Java, Flash) really matter After all, we don t call The Sims a C programming language game.
Lastly, please a look a 15:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC) :I agree with this. Internet game should probably be renamed to Web-based game or Broser-based game to avoid ambiguity with online games such as MMORPGs or whatever. Also I think this discussion should be moved to it s own talk page with a notice posted on the Project page to attract people to the discussion. If we re serious about discussing this change, this should be done until a consensus (one way or another) is made since this is a large sweeping change to the entire CVG/VG infrastructure. 19:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
= Pre-ESRB ratings =
In games created prior to the ESRB s establishment, what should go in the ratings row of the Infobox Should it be blank or say something like n/a 03:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
:Leaving it blank is what we normally do, I think. ) 03:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC) : I usually put in Not Rated (NR) . 15:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ::I prefer n/a over leaving it blank, since a blank spot makes it appear that we just don t know the rating, and I prefer it over Not Rated , because NR can also imply that it s a game the ESRB officially chose to not rate. 17:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
:Some games were given ratings of sorts by their publishers. For these I d prefer the notation Company:Rating, with a link to an article (a new stub if necessary) on that company s rating system. 13:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
= New proposal Entertainment software =
I propose we rename this main project, main portal, main category, and main article to Entertainment software . This is consistent with the industry (as see 12:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
:I object to this proposal. Computer game and video game are significantly more common terms. ) 13:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ::I object too...while that term might be fine for the industry, I think an encyclopedia reader as well as most of us would expect the word game in there somewhere... 13:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ::I object with the same reasons as listed above. 14:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ::Object as above. 14:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
:Preamble: I think the intention of both the meta-proposal and this section are great and necessary, even if I disagree on details. Specifics: I agree that the term Entertainment Software sounds more like suits and less like gamers, but maybe there s another umbrella term to suggest, because having either video game or computer game as parent to the other feels wrong. For much of game history many (not all) people thought of video game as an imperfect synonym for console games: if someone said they were playing a video game they probably meant a console game (or maybe a coin-op), but if you double-checked and asked they might be playing a computer game. That s why we keep encountering problems here: the terms were/are not used consistently. Declaring a consistent meaning here when society has failed to do so seems wrong. That said, I don t have a perfect alternative. Electronic Games sounds like handhelds alone. Interactive Entertainment begs the question of why we d exclude paper gaming. Although I don t like Entertainment Software much, IMHO we should focus on better alternatives rather than just rejecting it outright. Thanks to those who are driving this issue for doing good work. 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ::What about electronic games That blanket term could include everything from pinball and arcade machines to computer and console games. 04:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC) :::If you take Frecklefoot s proposal, add one higher layer called Electronic Games , you could then subdivide into: :::* Coin-op Games (subdividied into Mechanical Coin-op Games , including Pinball among other sub-cats, and Video Coin-op Games ) :::* Home Electronic Games , subdivided into Console Video Games , Home Computer Games and Handheld Games ; this is a slight re-casting of what Frecklefoot recommended. :::Whatever specific path we take, the spirit of Frecklefoot s proposal for a clear hierarchy feels very necessary to me. 18:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:FWIW, I still prefer using video game as the umbrella term, since it describes all the games: computer game, console game, handheld game, etc. It excludes things like pinballs, which may use electronics and even computers, but don t use a video display as the primary form of output.
:Yes, society uses the term video game inconsistently. That doesn t mean we have to. In my proposal, it s perfectly consistent to refer to a console game or a computer game as a video game. Both are , but the term isn t as specific as saying computer game or console game. For example, if I were eating a hamburger and Lola asked me what I was doing, I could either say, Eating food, or Eating a hamburger. Both statements are true, the second is just more specific. But the former statement would be true if I were eating a hamburger, shrimp or a tasty green salad.
:We could help clarify things by stating in the console game article that they are often generically refered to as their umbrella term, video game. What say ye 20:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
::I m not sure if this is particularly relevant, but I m curious about the uses of the terms video game and computer game in other languages. For example, being from 22:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC) :I disagree. Just because some suits decided that this is a good marketing term they can use to make their market seem bigger than it really is doesn t mean that it will be used in everyday common use. I know I ve never heard anyone talk about Entertainment software . I think we should stick to a lexicon that is in common usage. 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC) ::I still think video game is the umbrella term under which computer game is included, and entertainment software is just not going to work no matter how you organize it. 20:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Please cite your sources that Video Games is the umbrella category.
From the consumer side: Amazon.com sells Computer and Video Games . Amazon.ca sells Video Games with PC Games under it Amazon.co.uk sells PC and Video Games . Amazon.de sells PC- & Videospiele . Amazon.jp sells... well, I can t read it. Amazon.fr sells Jeux video
From the media side: Gamespot calls it games and gamers and refers to titles by platform or manufacturer. It does not use the word video . Gamespy calls it gaming and refers to titles by platform or manufacturer. It does not use the word video .
From the industry side: The Entertainment Software Association (aka Suits ) categorizes games and reports statistics as Video Games and Computer Games side by side. It s members include Activision, Inc., Atari, Inc., Buena Vista Games, Inc., Capcom USA, Inc., Crave Entertainment, Eidos Interactive, Electronic Arts, Her Interactive, Inc., id Software, Konami Digital Entertainment America, LucasArts, Mad Catz, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Midway Games, Inc., Namco Hometek, Inc., Nintendo of America Inc., NovaLogic, Inc., SEGA of America, Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America, Square Enix, Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., THQ, Inc., Ubisoft Entertainment, Inc., Vivendi Universal Games, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment Inc., Wild Tangent
So the current use of computer and video games , which was the result of a previous big debate and final consensus in this group, still works. Video game alone is a step back. If entertainment software is too new a term to serve as umbrella, then leave things as they are. -- 22:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:I was not here when this big debate took place and if a final consensus was indeed reached, I will abide by it. It is still my opinion, however, that video game is the umbrella term and that console game and computer game are two of the branches under it. But the only source you cited that seems to agree with my view is amazon.ca, so there seems to not be much support for my view anyways. 14:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
::It was before my time too (only been on WP since July) but it s in the archives of this page. And just because something was agreed to before doesn t mean it can t be brought up again (I was just reading about this in the Village Pump). I m not trying to quell the discussion (I couldn t) but I am trying to keep on track with citing sources. This WP writing thing is so different from, for example, a game forum I participate on where I can think and do original research all I want. But in WP we have to try to take a neutral broad perspective and stick to what authoritative others say about one of our favorite pastimes, gaming. -- 17:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
=Video game industry footer=
Not to detract from the ongoing discussion on fixing the terms for games, but I ve been experimenting with a footer to link all the 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC) :To tell you the truth, I think I d have to go with monotone. The rest are somewhat distracting, too big or have too much white space. I m gonna take a crack at this later. If I get anything good, I ll link it here or add it to your sandbox. 18:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:I like Monotone, though could the blank lines be half height somehow to make it more compact This may be Pandora s box, but adding the History of computer and video games and Genres would be good, too. Cool idea as part of the overall get-organized effort. 01:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
:I think Horizontal Colorful Compact has the best layout, but I don t like the colors. I made a modified version 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Very nice, Frecklefoot! I like the compact layout with CyberSkulls mods. Are you thinking of putting articles like 13:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback! But let s keep the discussion on the 19:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, finally made it into a proper template. If you want to chime in on changes, you can visit it 18:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
:I think it looks nice, but isn t that extreme I mean if you re looking at a game, do you need all those off-topic links I could see links to lists of other: game releases by the same publisher, games released the same year, and games of the same genre. Why would someone looking at Dig-Dug s article (for example) would want to know about Game Design or Hand-Held games -- 07:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC) ::I think the footer is only meant to be placed on generalized articles, not specific game ones. 13:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the footer is only for the articles that are listed in the footer, not every video game article. It just links the similar industry articles. 02:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
=Rocketjump article=
The CVG WikiProject page mentions how 12:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC) :The basic problem back then was that it was an article about rocket jumping in Quake, which is far too specific to merit a separate article. But as the article now demonstrates that rocket jumping is a feature found in many games (and provides interesting information), it is worth keeping. 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC) ::Done =) 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Thanks both for the fix and explanation, sounds good. That just leaves the project page requiring a slight alteration, or at least clarification on why the current 18:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC) :Done. Don t be afraid to 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Good point. And I thank you again. 16:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
= Screwed up categories =
I ve just had someone highlight the weird category system for games: Some games are under ). In general, having one instead of two would make things a lot easier to manage (and easier for the reader to browse).
I suppose the only good thing about the current scheme is that , and have the best of both worlds, right
Any objections 03:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, merge the two categories under 13:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
= n00b Contributor for Video Games =
I ve been contributing to a particular console game, , without realizing that according to this group my contributions likely belong in the wikibooks and not wikipedia. First, what do I do to go about moving such things Second, images that I create from scratch but are based on items from the game itself (runes particularly), what should their copyright be and Third, how do I officially become part of this group
Thanks!! 00:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:# . :# Unaltered images should go under , altered is a different story. :# Go to and hit the edit link. : 01:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:Ok, I ve looked at the images. If you are the author, you should release it under a 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
::Ok. Thanks for the help (& the start on wikiwbooks 
) I ll working on that book for a while. I ll make a complete guide. As for characters and things. When I first arrived at the wikipedia article the gods in the game each had their own page. Also, some other video games rune languages have their own pages (sometimes for each rune) on wikipedia. What s the rule of thumb for this kind of thing 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I d consider merging them all together on a page like List of rune stones in Eternal Darkness or perhaps something shorter. I haven t read it, but you wanna keep the fancruft etc to a minimum. If you can add them all to Eternal Darkness, then I d go for that. 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Ok, how to delete a now deprecated page Or can they only be flagged for deletion 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Use a 19:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:I ve done a bit more research, you should upload the runes you made into the 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ::Ok, thanks. One more question. For a straight up screen shot, youe d use but what about an altered screen shot Creative Commons 14:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC) :::It depends what you altered. For example if I use an emulator to take a screenshot of a boss and artificially turn off certain layers in order to isolate it on a transparent background that s still entirely the official artwork despite not being a direct screengrab. However if I were to take a screenshot of the world map and then laboriously draw on each and every one of the game s secret items I can then claim certain rights to it as a derivative work, as long as I have a all other graphic elements are the property of XYZ Company disclaimer. Take a look at some videogame maps on GameFAQs etc. for an example of how this is done. Oh but don t put any sort of ownership or copyright disclaimer on the image itself like GameFAQs contributors do, that information goes on the image description page instead. 12:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC) :I have found our Wikipedia templates for what a wikipedia video game article should resemble, but I have not found anything for wikibooks. Do we have anything or is it up to the book contributors 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC) ::I don t think this project has any clearly defined guidelines for writing a wikibook. Perhaps we should start a CVG project there 22:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC) :::I m for it. others 21:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC) :::What, you want to start a Wikibooks branch of WikiProject CVG! Count me in! Having helped in the layout of the vast 12:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC) :::I m getting tired of my contributions having to be suffled from site to site. Grumble. 20:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
=List of gnarly video game related templates=
Do we have a list of useful templates for video game articles outside of the (really useful) stub messages and our (very cool) infbox Two that I know of come to mind: the 21:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC) : 21:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC) :I added 07:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, we do. See 11:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
= WP:FICT and video game characters =
I ve noticed a tendency for very fine granulatiy in articles about video game characters. My experience with this started with the Pokémon articles (and there s still controversy over this, in the Pokémon Wikiprojects), but, while Pokémon is particularly infamous for it, there s no shortage of overly-fine-grained video game articles.
Why do we need separate articles for characters who don t transcend their source work, especially in the case of characters that appear in only one or two games Often, articles such as these are rife with speculation or lack context, but even when cleaned up they end up being substantive duplicates of the article on the source work. is more controversial than I initially thought.
Does uses, but he was unmoved.)
For just a handful of cases... *Ingrid (video game character) *Captain Olimar *Breath of Fire II and its series of character articles, beginning with Ryu (Breath of Fire 2 character) - This requires you to read eight different articles to get a plot summary of BOF2.
I don t want to do nothing, but I don t know where the line is drawn, and even using ) 07:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Some less clear-cut examples were ) 08:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:I find myself increasingly merciless to any character that doesn t transcend their medium. For example I heard of 13:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Is there a reason that the keep it in the main article until it gets too unwieldy and then split it off technique won t work After all, this is the encyclopedia for everything - it seems to me if somebody wants to go ahead and write a long, extensive biography and history of some random character they like then more power to them, as long as the quality of the article remains high. BTW, I m kind of a wikipedia newbie - is there a general problem of page bloat here If not, what is the problem of having a page on 15:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::: Is there a reason that the keep it in the main article until it gets too unwieldy and then split it off technique won t work :::The issue seems to be more articles made for these characters that never started off as splits from the main article. Look at, for example, Lord Sturm; the bulk of it is plot summary that isn t duplicated word-for-word from the original articles, but instead is written with an eye to his involvement. It s still factual duplication, but not literal duplication. :::Am I right to just merge these articles about non-transcendent characters into the articles for the source works, as long as it doesn t bloat the articles for the source works unnecessarily - ) 23:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC) ::::You have my support, at least. That s what I ve been doing with the 02:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC) :::In my opinion, it should go something like this: :::* Characters with minor backstories, but still notable within the game, should be mentioned and briefly described in the game. :::* Characters with more significant backstories should exist in a List of Game X characters or similar article. :::* Transcending characters and characters appearing in many games with a long and detailed backstory may have their own article. :::And somewhat on the subject, there s a recently created 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
= Computer and video_games categories =
These categories are pretty ambiguous. Do they mean the first release of the game Do they mean the first release of the game in North America Do they mean every known release See what I mean!
How about :
Category:Game releases by year -Category:Game releases in by year --Category: game releases in by year (Optional Genre) ---Category: game releases in
So Category: by year , which would be the sub-category of Category:Game releases by year .
Or just kill the whole categorization by year concept. -- 23:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:My understanding is a title is listed per release per platform. 00:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC) :They go by release in North America, all the ones I come across. I don t see why we have to recat. them and add categories for Japanese release. That would kind of be for the japanese wikipedia if they do that. 02:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC) :This has come up before. They should be categorized by first availability regardless if it s NA, Europe, or Japan. After that it may be reasonable to list per platform or whatever. Example being 03:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC) :Speaking as a library science grad student with a strong interest in categorization, there s absolutely no reason to conflate release date with genre, and doing so kind of defeats the point of the categorization system, which is designed (in part) to allow postcombination searching (multiple, broadly conceived categories that can be made more specific by combining the results of one category with the results of another: to look for adventure games released in 1988, you d compare the contents of 03:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC) ::yeah, that s what I meant to say 04:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::Ok, so scratch my idea. From what you are saying is that every single release of every game should be categorized this way That almost sounds like it would be better done with a list (maybe we should start one in addition to the category), which would have three extra columns: platform, region and date. -- 04:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC) :::The categories are not intended to provide information for people who are already reading the article. Release dates can (and should) be properly documented in the individual article. Placing an article in 07:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC) ::Also (new idea, make new section if worthy), from a scholarly approach it might be interesting to have a list of games where only the initial date would be referenced ( 04:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC) :::The problem is that this creates problems for users who don t particularly care to discriminate between initial and subsequent releases, and just want an idea of what games were release in a given year. The only way it could be done would be to subcategorize (something like 07:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC) ::::Additionally, I m not entirely sure what hassles of seeing a game listed in 2-5 different years you are referring to: from a category-browsing perspective, you only ever see an article listed once per category. From an article-reading perspective, the article itself should provide the context to understand the categorization, and it should only do that if the reader is interested in using the category system to browse for related works. – 07:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
= Welcome! =
I ve made a variant of the tag for use by the CVG project, :
Comments 04:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:hmm, wouldn t it be better if we used and an addition to Sort of only As you have contributed to computer and video game article(s), you may wish to check out Wikipedia s WikiProject on Computer and Video Games. This could be also be used to invite other than newcomers. 13:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
= Silly edit war =
Could someone please weigh in at ) 12:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
= WikiProject Notice template =
Do we have a WikiProject Notice template I couldn t find it if we do. 16:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC) : I ll make one at . 11:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
= The Final Fantasy series and the infobox images =
I have noticed that according to your standards, only box art can be used as the info box image. However the Final Fantasy series of games have their logos in the info box.
Are the logos acceptable or not I bring this up beacause Final Fantasy VI is the only article with box art for an info box image, and it looks jarring compared to the info boxes for the other FF games.
:My opinion is that box art should be used without exception... unless of course the game never had one, in which case official art will have to suffice ( 16:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:My opinion (which should come as a surprise to no one) is that it should be determined on a game-by-game basis. I continue to fail to see what is so vital about box art that it needs to be the standard, and I feel that there are numerous game articles that are harmed by the rule. – 18:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:For the most part, all games should use boxart. Final Fantasy may be the only exception to the rule in my opinion. There are multiple versions of boxart out there (US v Europe v Japan v ), and the games have been released/remade/renamed numerous times and have a number of different box covers in that respect. In my opinion, it may be more suitable to show the logo for the game, rather than an editor-chosen box cover. 22:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:I don t feel really strongly about the subject, but it s worth mentioning that the Pokémon wikiprojects, despite the split boxcovers for the paired Pokémon games, have just included both images. When you ve got a choice between two boxcovers, I don t see why you can t include both (see ) 22:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::I ve actually tried that once or twice, but it s been shot down each time simply because it gets unwieldy. Take 23:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::This is for the limited cases, where you ve got two (or maybe three) images. Cramming all the different covers FFVI has had into an infobox is probably a bad idea. - ) 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:Pretty much all games should use English language box art. In the case of Final Fantasy games, Japanese box art or both English and Japanese box art can be used. I do not see why a logo should be used. ) 22:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::Well, yeah. Nobody s arguing that Japanese box art should be used (save in situations where foreign-language boxart is the only boxart). But in the case of FFVI, for example, there are at least three English-language boxarts I know of, and possibly more. - ) 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:I think that we should use whatever image is of the highest quality. Of course I would prefer the english box up there. In the case of the Final Fantasy games here, I would lean towards the logos in this case. I am against using screenshots in the infobox. As for computer games, I don t mind using the application s icon either. 23:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
=Game series list templates=
Is there a perferred format for game series templates, such as those at the bottom of games from many game series Are there specific template styles that are more worthy of emulation than others I m trying to build 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Some examples I know of...
There are probably more, but that s a selection to draw ideas or inspiration from. I d offer advice, but I m not great at making templates. - ) 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
On a semi related note 23:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
= new optional fields for cvg infobox =
Since : *Version *Date
This is mainly for computer games that receive updates, as most of applies to the computer games as well. That s just my thoughts on the matter. 06:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC) :That is true. I wouldn t mind it, as long as it doesn t mess the code up. 15:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC) ::It shouldn t. With this feature optional parameters don t need to be present in the template call for it to work properly, at lest that is what my experimentation shows. Parameters not used by subtemplates must be used though. 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC) I ve made 01:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC) :Thinking about it, I think below the engine. 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I m not up on the new features/tech or whatever you wanna call it. Does this mean that if you add an optional line that we wouldn t have to add the line to every article For instance, engine is optional, but is required to be listed regardless for the infobox to function properly. Is there a page at Wikimedia that explains this 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC) :Prettymuch, yeah. I dunno the wiki page for the feature, so I made an example in my 23:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I ve added it, and the template has totally not exploded. Look at 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
=Infobox border=
Could we add a white border to the left of the infobox so level 2 header lines don t touch it This may require removing the infobox bordered class. 15:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC) : But then you wouldn t have a border on the left side at all. It d be invisible. Am I understanding this 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC) ::You d have two borders (using nested divs or tables): the outer invisible and the inner a regular border. 11:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC) :The style element overrides the class element in a tag, so just making the adjustment there should do it. 23:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
=The start of the re-organization=
A few here may remember some while back (circa 6 weeks ago), I . Much of the article s content was ported from the current computer and video games artilce, but some of it is original material. Please take some time and take a look at it.
Please consider these items:
Thanks and I look forward to your comments! 18:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
:Since there haven t been any more comments for a few days, can I assume everyone is okay with me replacing the 19:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC) ::I guess its OK. I don t see anything wrong with it. 19:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
= CVG encyclopedia =
I think we should compile a list of essential CVG-related articles for inclusion in the 1.0 Wikipedia, in the process identifying which ones are missing or need improvement. Maybe we should also try to work toward a CVG WikiReader - 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC) :Sounds great, but what are those 12:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC) ::That s what we d have to decide (if you are referring to the articles). 16:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC) :::Ok, found what you are talking about : 09:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
= I ve created a noticeboard =
I ve created a noticeboard for this project. See 02:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)|
|