User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts/test-WikiProject Video games

About this report

This is a report about articles related to this project in Wikipedia workflows. It contains all articles in workflows which are tagged with {{WikiProject Video games}} on their talk page. See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts for details.

The following workflows are covered in this report. (Not necessarily all of them have active items, though.)

• Proposed deletion
• Articles for deletion
• Miscellany for deletion
• Templates for deletion
• Categories for deletion
• Good article nominations
• Good article reassessment
• Good topic candidates
• Featured article candidates
• Featured article reviews
• Featured list candidates
• Featured list removal candidates
• Featured topic candidates
• Peer review
• Requests for comments
• Requested moves
• Did you know

Alerts

Proposed deletion

• 5 Oct 2008 – Stendhal (computer game) (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Fate: Undiscovered Realms (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Grand Theft Auto Mafia members (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – GunZ: The Duel 2 (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Iron Wolves (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Love (computer game) (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – O2Jam (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – OZ World (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – RF Online (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Rakion (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Shadow of Legend (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Stellar Crisis (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Time of Defiance (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Wonderland Online (talk) proposed for deletion.
• 4 Oct 2008 – Xiah (talk) proposed for deletion.

Articles for deletion

29 Dec 2008 – List of video game slang (talk) was kept.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. I have counted "transwiki" as "delete" for the purpose of this closure as anyone !voting to transwiki (other than Super Shy Guy Bros.) implicitly does not want the article on Wikipedia. If anyone actually wants the article content for the purpose of a transwiki, feel free to drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

List of video game slang

List of video game slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure what the purpose of this list is. Much of it is a horribly sourced fork of Video_game_culture#Slang_and_terminology, and doesn't even cover exclusive slang. We aren't a dictionary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Can't believe I am saying Keep as I went expecting garbage figuring this would be as easy delete, but it is actually well sourced and "encyclopedic". I checked, and it isn't a copy paste of the source articles. The only reason I lean keep is that it is basically a "language" and this article sticks to its purpose of quickly explaining what the expressions mean. Taken individually, I would agree that WP:DICDEF applies, but this isn't an AFD about a single term, it is about the LIST of the term. It is notable, sourced, concise, and well organized. It is also a few things that don't matter in an AFD such as useful and informative. Regardless of any narrow reading of other policies, as a group of terms, they notable and worth including. As a group, the concept of the article is valid. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete I agree with much of what Pharmboy said. The article is indeed well-referenced, and well-organized. However, it is a collection of dicdefs, and I'm not entirely convinced that being a list of dictionary definitions rather than a single term excludes it from violating WP:DICDEF. I'm also not sure what the purpose of the article is, and it is only borderline-encyclopedic. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of what pushed me from Neutral to Keep was WP:IAR and WP:NOT#PAPER. I can see it is a borderline case, so I kinda have to lean to keep something useful (yes, I know, not a valid argument in an AFD) when it doesn't absolutely offend the policies here. Besides, I haven't gotten to invoke IAR in forever ;) When all is said and done, I asked myself "is Wikipedia better with this article or without it" (via IAR) and the answer was clearly with. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If you're someone doing research on gaming culture, and you don't know what these terms mean, and even what some other terms of the culture are, this is an good base point with references. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A large number of the references are to a forum posting, and thus not reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete list as Wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary. That said, these terms should be brought into the core gerne/gameplay articles, as all these terms should be redirections to the right place. I understand the intent to keep, but this is a clear case of where we should not go. --MASEM 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• continued notes on the sources: I removed all the forum posts refs, which all linked to the same post. The remaining three (albeit duplicated references): one is a copy of wikipedia, one is a glossary on a parents gaming site and then there are the official ESRB pages. Just because it is sourced doesn't mean it's notable, people. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a repository for fad-slang terms. I have also removed the nationmaster.com references. Nationmaster.com clearly copies its contents from Wikipedia (look at the cleanup template at the top of the referred article) without proper accreditation. Per WP:SPS, these references are not accepted. The links from theocp.com are also questionable. It is a project to present The History of Computing, and in its infancy. In short, it is a work very much in progress and we should be concerned if their current information are accurate (the referred page lists a Reference section without references). Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary as an appendix, per what eventually happened to fighting game terms (now here). Nifboy (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a dictionary. Encyclopedia. Meep meep. JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In addition many of the sources are questionable. On the other hand, this is why we have Wiktionary. TallNapoleon (talk)
• indifferent: If it bothers you that much, merge it with the video game culture article. I think that's a reasonable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's just it though; if any part of this list was found in an actual article, it would probably be removed on sight per WP:DICDEF. Nifboy (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. We are not a dictionary indeed. RFerreira (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate. Makes no effort to distinguish between slang, jargon, and terminology... let alone game industry, game playing, and game design slang. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps another article with a discriminate list of terms would be appropriate, but not this one -- not in this scope. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• edit: How about this: Instead of deleting the whole article, how about we delete the definitions, and leave the words. That way, people ignorant of video game culture will see that these words have definitions exclusive to the gaming community, and then can the definitions up elsewhere. It won't be a dictionary, then, because a dictionary, by definition, has definitions (no pun intended). Can we compromise on that, so that all my hard work doesn't go to waste?Dstebbins (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It fits better there, and the content will not be lost. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Transwiki - I don't see anything wrong with keeping the article within Wikipedia, but I suppose a transwiki to Wiktionary will do. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:HARMLESS, which documents other arguments to be avoided during these discussions as well. Cheers, RFerreira (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a specialized lexicon, and is an encyclopedic subsection of Video game or Video game culture. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"AI", "bug", "Crash", and "developer" are hardly specialized lexicon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but "God game", "Sandbox", and "Turn-based strategy" are. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Nifboy. This is more Wiktionary-type material. Spellcast (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

29 Dec 2008 – List of Killer7 characters (talk) has been redirected to Killer7#Characters.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Nomination withdrawn. Another reason why AfD should be "articles for discussion" and not "deletion." MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Killer7 characters

List of Killer7 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

TTN (talk · contribs) recently replaced all content on this page with a redirect to Killer7 without anything resembling a discussion prior. I honestly have no opinion on the fate of this content, but replacing a whole page with a redirect is akin to a unilateral deletion. I brought it here for the sake of process and have no opinion myself. JuJube (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Game guide. --Fred McGarry (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect The plot section and the voice actor section of the game article already seem to fullfill the same purpose without giving so much UNDUE weight on GAMEGUIDE information. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki the bulk of the list to a wiki (if not such already); however, there should be a single paragraph that can summarize the main characters in the game quickly (including the 7 personas, as to give a flavor how each appears in game). The list, however, is way too much details for a game with a single release for WP. --MASEM 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Obligatory process creep is evil; redirects should be treated like WP:PROD, don't bother bringing it here unless there's an objection. Nifboy (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought other involved editors might object; apparently I was wrong. JuJube (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no evidence that this list is notable in itself, or that any of the characters in it are notable, jointly or individually. Clearly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Basically this list is a content fork from the article Killer7, into which plot summary with an over reliance on an in universe persective has been dumped. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a game guide. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete game guide, and unsourced. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Merge in the major characters. There's plenty of room. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW, I've merged what I think is appropriate for the characters into the Killer7 article. --MASEM 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Restore if needed Its hard to know what to do here, since almost every step has been wrong. The original action or replacing with redirects without prior discussion is an overbold use of BRD. The appropriate course is to discuss first, and then merge/redirect after consensus has been obtained. But, if it should be redirected without consensus, the appropriate step is to revert, per the second part of BRD, and then discuss until consensus has been obtained. If one see it done, and has no opinion t one way or another, there's no basis to assume it's not approved of--at most one might want to place a note on the talk page and move on to things one does care about. But the idea that redirects are prods is absurd; there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline to that effect. How to deal with contested redirects is an open issue--the last week here has not clarified how to deal with them, though it certainly has clarified that there is a problem. Given that we have the situation, what Masem has done is probably reasonable, and if anyone wants to restore further material, they are also welcome, and it can then be discussed on the talk page. Whether this should then be split out again can then be discussed, when we see what the material amounts to. (I would have dealt with this differently than Masem, but I'm not going to disturb what might be an acceptable alternative.) My view is comment that those who take without discussion large scale actions that they must reasonably know are likely to be controversial are not contributing to Wikipedia in a useful way, and this , if tolerated, will continue to lead to situations like the present one. DGG (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As a note, even if this list is kept, per WP:SS a summary of such supporting lists should be kept as part of the main article, enough that the reader doesn't have to refer to it to get the content of the main article but there for those that need it. --MASEM 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Character list from award-winning game. Generally that's the right thing to do per WP:SPINOUT and general precedent. Hobit (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Close as a protest nomination. Redirection isn't deletion. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close, redirection is not a reason for deletion. If you brought every article to AFD that TTN has turned into a redirect, you'd have tens of thousands of AFDs. The nominator obviously does not understand "the process" and should read WP:AFD (and WP:BEFORE in particular) before making any more similar nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination I'm going to withdraw this nomination because I really don't care about the fate of this article and am not trying to get it deleted. If TTN wants this article deleted, he should nominate it for deletion and not simply replace it with a redirect without any sort of procedural fair warning. JuJube (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

7 Oct 2008 – Galaxy (video game) (talk) nominated for deletion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ffm 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy (video game)

Galaxy (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has already been deleted once, no changes have been made to the article since being restored, notability is unclear. HollyHuntaway (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I'm working on it; the article was restored minutes ago. The nominee is a supposed newbie who placed prod or prod2 tags on a variety of articles in 24 hours in the past week. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, because said user was involved in the article a while ago. However, it was deleted per WP:PROD, so G4 doesn't apply. MuZemike 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. We need reliable third party sources of notability of this game or this article will be a good candidate of deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not a notable game CTJF83Talk 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of third-party sourcing. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Needs independent sources and I'd question the notability of the game. MvjsTalking 09:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:V and WP:N. Current sources are either unreliable or non-independent. Randomran (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I can not locate any better sources. I made an effort. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability for this game. The forecast also calls for WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable game, with no verifiable sources. Tatarian (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

7 Oct 2008 – Empty Clip Studios (talk) nominated for deletion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Empty Clip Studios

Empty Clip Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable games studio which has released one game which itself isn't particularly notable yet (and may never actually be notable) the studio fails WP:CORP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Speedy declined on the basis that someone has created an article for the game and apparently that counts as an assertion of importance/significance for the companyJasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as it is getting coverage per WP:GNG... some trivial, but some in-depth: , , , , , , ... and more at this search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sourced, Wikified, added EL's Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 06:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per the sourcing provided by MQS. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as it's been sourced. If no further verifiable information can be found, though, a merge might be suitable. Randomran (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources found above. MuZemike (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

6 Oct 2008 – WolfTeam (Video Game) (talk) nominated for deletion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WolfTeam (Video Game)

WolfTeam (Video Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online game, created by a company whose Wikipedia page has been deleted on grounds of... notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating

• Wolf Team (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• The game is very notable, with many players. There are many servers, and official website, and thousands of players. The authors page shouldn't have been deleted either, because they are also the makers of the games Gunbound, which has an article. This is not a good reason for deletion. I have properly marked the article as a stub, and will have other add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude300 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) — Techdude300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. Not another MMORPG trying to assert notability with no sources present with a very strong sense of COI. MuZemike (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note — Rally cry from the WolfTeam forumites to defend their article! MuZemike (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not "trying" to make it "another" game. This is a valid game, with valid players, and if people want to find out more about it, they come to Wikipedia. If Runescape has an article, this should too. It's not how good YOU think the game is. It is a valid game, this is not trash, and Wikipedia could benefit with an article such as this. And no MuZemike, it's not an MMORPG. Read the friggin' article. It's an FPS like Halo you play with others online. Stop your stereotyping and why don't you actually check the game out at the VALID website of the VALID game played by many Valid players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude300 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • MMORPG, MMOFPS, what-MMO-ever! MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good You went to the website. You get a cookie! If you can pull wikipedia rules out for your own selfish crap, I could easily say that the reason for deletion was pure bias, and that you are in violation of rules. And no, i'm not taking the time anymore to properly clean up my posts with fancy formatting. You can do it if you want uber censorship power, because that is what wikipedia is apparently about. If I was an admin, I could pull this crap on something you worked hard on. But, alas, I'm not an abusive admin. Stop YOUR bias, because if anybody contributes to the page, its because they want to, not because i told them. --Techdude300 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete lacks the non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources (reviews) needed to demonstrate notability, found an interview at MMOsite but no reviews from reliable sources. Someoneanother 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, delete the page, on one condition. YOU make an article, or find somebody who will, that fairly represents the game and uses your "quality" standards. Better get started, because I won't shut up about it until it's done. Good Luck! =)--Techdude300 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't. That's the point of the notability standard. Nifboy (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - There do not appear to be any non-trivial mentions of this game in reliable sources to verify its notability. In reference to the comment above: That seems to be impossible without any reliable sources. As such, the page will be deleted. If your condition was possible to meet, the article wouldn't be deleted. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: no claims for notability. Alexius08 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I find some better sources and work really hard on this. Thanks for the input (sorry I can't log in and officialy sign this at school) -Techdude300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.138.28 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note — User in question has been blocked for harassment as well as block evasion. Corresponding IP account has also been school-blocked due to persistent vandalism. MuZemike 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

5 Oct 2008 – Vortex (iPod game) (talk) nominated for deletion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Vortex (iPod game)

Vortex (iPod game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to show this is a notable software game. There's a link to the apple website, and a link to a cheatcode website, neither of which grant notability. seresin ( ¡? )  19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 19:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge to iPod games. Same applies to all non-notable ipod games. --neon white talk 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - IGN review, MacWorld review, InsideMacGames review, etc. Of course, these need expanding into a critical reception section, and the gamecruft needs trimming (which I suppose I can do if the article is kept.) Marasmusine (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the verifiable sources found above. MuZemike 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

5 Oct 2008 – Sudden Attack (talk) nominated for deletion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sudden Attack

Sudden Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game, no references from reliable, third-party published sources, very crufty. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This opinion seems very euro/American culture centric. This game is quite notable. I live in S. Korea, a country where computer games are played competitively on TV, in prime time, 7 days a week. This is the 2nd most popular game in the country behind Star Craft. It's unique free distribution system requiring government data is also a noteworthy contrast to standard games. The artical has major needs of revision and new sources, it's true, but it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.72.229.46 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources, no notability, all in-universe. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — with all due respect to our friends in the Far East, per JohnCD and per numerous other MMORPG AfDs that are similar to this one. Try to assume good faith here and not play the "centrism card." MuZemike (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This game is huge. Notability in the western markets is in question, but certainly not elsewhere so the argument of centrism is a good one to use in this case. For further notability, see: , it wasn't hard to find lots of sources on google for this regarding the games importance/notability. Also in correction to MuZemike, this is an MMOFPS, not an MMORPG. And it scale of popularity puts it far beyond most titles that already have wikipedia articles. TrackZero (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mind you of WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sorry about the MMO-confusion (although in my eyes many MMO articles, regardless if it's an FPS or RPG, face the same staggering problems). Anyways, the first source mentioned is from a blog, a self-published source which does not readily pass WP:V. The third and fourth ones don't seem to be reliable sources. However, the second one I think is OK. However, the article needs more sources like this one to establish the significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. I'll change my !vote a weak delete for now. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, notability is not determined by a perception of popularity, but by verifiable sources. (Forgot to mention that from above.) MuZemike (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• delete without prejudice against recreation with sources etc. At the moment it has no sources. If sources exist, now would be a good time to add them... If not we can't have an article Thinboy00 @101, i.e. 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:V, and so on. Only reason for keeping is essentially WP:BIGNUMBER, which is always a weak argument but particularly weak here, as people often create multiple accounts in MMO games, or create accounts and lose the password or just stop playing. Bottom line: the game is not presently notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep searching for "sudden attack" game brings up plenty of hits from game sites. Tag it for references, but there really is no rationale for deleting it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I did the same thing, and I'm not seeing reliable sources when I did the search; what sticks out from the search are the sources TrackZero mentioned above. MuZemike (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep As noted by MuZemike, the second source is okay. And I think the Asiaone source looks quite good and doesn't seem to be self-published (). Given that lots of non-RS indicate this is a highly popular game in Korea, I'm inclined to take those two sources as enough. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. This article needs speedy wikify: sounds like a game guide not a Wikipedia article. And add reliable third party sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I found an external link which could be a reasonable source for the game but the problem is that it is the Sudden Attack official homepage itself, and is in Korean. However, I am still listing the source right here, in hopes that it is a reasonable source: () Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not an expert at wiki formatting. Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep with no prejudice towards nominating again if someone can't prove once and for all that this can meet WP:N and WP:V. Definitely needs a cleanup to remove the WP:GAMECRUFT. Randomran (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

3 Oct 2008 – Node (computer gaming) (talk) nominated for deletion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. kurykh 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Node (computer gaming)

Node (computer gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, given that the first game named in the article, Myst, does not use the word "node" anywhere in it at all. A definition looking for a neologism, which makes it WP:OR. Nifboy (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The mention of Myst might have been a mistake. But I know Beyond Zork did use the term "node" in this sense. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Interestingly, I vaguely remember a book about game design discussing this concept, but I don't remember much of it. I think someone familiar with the field should take a look at this. A quick Google Books search returns multiple reliable sources from books discussing game design that mention nodes, although the topic discussed is different from what is discussed in the article.
• Delete — cannot find any sources establishing notability of what seems to be nothing more than a neologism. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I have to agree that notability is seriously lacking considering the context of the article. JavierMC 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I've definitely seen "node" specifically used in the context of text-adventure games, the best case I can remember is Beyond Zork, which had a scrolling schematic of the nodes you travelled across. Basically just like a node in computer science, a node in an adventure game is a room/zone/dungeon/etc that might have doors to only a few other rooms, which connect to other rooms, and the entire game board can be drawn up as a node structure (and was likely represented that way in the software). Try Google web/books/Scholar/etc for "node" and "Zork" (or other adventure games), and sources should be available. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If I did that, the sources would be about the games and trivial mentions about nodes. Schuym1 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. You could have an article about nodes that gave specific names as examples. The reason for including games in the search is so you don't get a million articles about data structures. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • How would that show WP:NOTABILITY? Schuym1 (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I did a Google News search for the title and I found nothing. Schuym1 (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • And what I mean by trivial mentions, is it will just describe the room, zone, dungeon, whatever. Schuym1 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • So it would not pass WP:NOTABILITY because it would not count as significant coverage in reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • If you are so concerned about the article, why don't you search for reliable sources that show notability in the remainder of this AFD? Schuym1 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a moment. A Google News search is unlikely to turn up concepts or techniques used in computer games. A textbook on game design would be more proper. Rilak (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • So why don't you a find a game book to use as a source in the remainder of this AFD? Schuym1 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Because the AFD would be over by the time I got the book. There's no requirement to produce the source during the few days the AFD goes on for. Just to show that a source is likely to be found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Attempting to determine notability of a subject through an unrelated resource does not carry any weight. Its like searching for a paper about hamburgers in a library that contains papers on the subject of computers - pointless. Also, I was commenting, not recommending. Rilak (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Why should editors use a sources are out there keep? Schuym1 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • If this AFD got closed per sources are out there, there is a possibility of the article sitting there forever without sources. Schuym1 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've found a few items in Google Books that look promising. While I can only get a few snippets of text, I don't think an interlibrary loan is going to get here before the AFD is over:

In The Inform Designer's Manual, by Graham Nelson and Gareth Rees, on p. 369, we have "Regions... or else are delineated by simple geography: cave games are especially prone to this, often having a node-like room with exits in eight cardinal directions. Thus "Zork II" has..."

In Hypertext: State of the Art by Ray McAleese and Catherine Green, on p. 138 we have "little passages of ADVENT and Zork and marketed by Infocom and other companies...where each scene is a node and your options are the allowable paths" and

In Atlas of Cyberspace by Martin Dodge, Rob Kitchin, on p. 181, we have "computer games "Zork" and "Adventure" of the mid-1970s ..... technique: link-node topological map, hand-drawn with pencil and paper."

So while these snippets I found over a couple minutes don't make an article, they do show it's more likely than not (the first book is a game designer's manual) that there really is a concept in game design called a node, and that it's associated with adventure games, it may have been more common in the 1980s, and may have its roots in text-based roleplaying games before computers. So we should give this article the benefit of the doubt and see which sources can be added. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Those sources don't show notability, and I don't think that any articles should have the benefit of the doubt. This article has had a long enough time to be improved because it has existed since 2006. Schuym1 (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If they are books used to teach game design at a university or equivalent level, and they have a significant material on the subject, then I see little reason to see how they can not be used to prove notability. Also, judging a topic's notability on the quality on the article's content is irrelevant. I have seen basic fundamental topics in computer science lacking content and quality. Doesn't mean they are any less notable than a heavily edited Pokemon article. Rilak (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - It's clear that "node" here is the same data structure element as a node in a Graph (data structure) (also called a vertex). The concept of node-based travel in a computer game seems better suited to be discussed somewhere in Adventure Game. --MASEM 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We could redirect to Level (video games) if there is no consensus to keep. It already has sections on maps and dungeons, and it wouldnt be too hard to condense the salvageable parts of the article plus the refs brought out in this AFD to create a paragraph discussing node-based gameplay. A redirect will keep the history of this article for people doing a merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Good article nominations

• 6 Oct 2008 – Xenogears (talk) is nominated as GA candidate.
• 5 Oct 2008 – Mega Man 2 (talk) is nominated as GA candidate (on hold).
• 29 Sep 2008 – Iori Yagami (talk) is nominated as GA candidate; see discussion.
• 29 Sep 2008 – Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (talk) is nominated as GA candidate; see discussion.
• 28 Sep 2008 – Doom 3 (talk) is nominated as GA candidate.
• 27 Sep 2008 – Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (talk) is nominated as GA candidate; see discussion.
• 25 Sep 2008 – Aether (video game) (talk) is nominated as GA candidate.
• 24 Sep 2008 – Europa Barbarorum (talk) is nominated as GA candidate; see discussion.
• 20 Sep 2008 – Final Fantasy VII (talk) is nominated as GA candidate.

Good article reassessment

• 29 Sep 2008 – Strawberry Panic! (talk) is nominated for reassessment.
• 24 Sep 2008 – Pikachu (talk) is nominated for reassessment.
• 27 Aug 2008 – Final Fantasy (video game) (talk) is nominated for reassessment.

Good topic candidates

• 10 Sep 2008 – Topic (unknown) with main article Half-Life 2 (talk) is nominated.

Featured article candidates

29 Dec 2008 – StarCraft: Ghost (talk) is not promoted.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 .

---

StarCraft: Ghost

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), S@bre

This is an unreleased video game that has been canceled. I asked several weeks ago if it was okay to submit it to FAC, and I was told that it is acceptable. David Fuchs has taken a look at the images, while Juliancolton has taken a look at the sources. In addition to S@bre and myself, the article has been copyedited by Durova, GrahamColm, and David Fuchs. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• To state for the purpose of the FAC, yes, I agree that the images meet criteria; all are low resolution, have appropriate fair use rationales, sources, and information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the intro say "StarCraft: Ghost is a military science fiction stealth-action video game previously under development by Blizzard Entertainment." ? I presume they're no longer actively developing the game. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-6 21:55

That implies the finality that they aren't going to return to it, and since the game's in limbo and has not ever been out-and-out cancelled (Blizzard refuses to do so, but all development has certainly gone in-house), use of the word "previously" probably isn't a good idea. -- Sabre (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it now says "suspended development" to get the point across. -- Sabre (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Link checker has a couple of 500 errors to Gamespot. No other comments. Dunno if that's temporary, though I'd suspect it. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Both have been resolved. Gary King (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Leaning support: I did a fairly substantial copyedit, mostly removing redundancies, reducing passive voice, and improving flow. I also added one or two inline comments that I would ask you to clarify. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a huge copyedit, thanks! I have responded to your comments. Gary King (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I still wasn't sure about the year thing, so I changed it to a less awkward wording and what I think is what you're trying to say. Check again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's incorrect; the series begins in 2499, not the game. I've corrected it and tried to make it more obvious. Gary King (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that takes care of that concern. Send me an email, and I'll reply: I've got some print sources I want you to integrate in. They talk about Ghost's parallels to other games, some have support for "highly anticipated", there's some previews you could talk about a little in development, and some other lines to gameplay (tactical capabilities of the player). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sent Gary King (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

References have been integrated Gary King (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that a large number of the sources are from Blizzard, the developer of the game, so they need to be checked for unintentional bias. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, the Blizzard sources, less the odd press release, are generally from the old Ghost website before it was taken down, and are used to reference the plot and a number of gameplay points. -- Sabre (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just need to point this out for other reviewers, it's not necessarily bad, just needs to be handled with a bit more care than when using third-party sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Gary King (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a fantastic article, and all the sources look in order. However, the article does not seem to specify exactly why the game was cancelled. The development section explains that the "GameCube version was canceled by Swingin' Ape Studios due to the platform's lack of online support", but does not mention what the rationale was for the cancellation of the PlayStation and Xbox version. Personally I think this is of vital importance in an article about a game for which development has been suspended, so I must (extremely reluctantly) oppose. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 23:24

Upon reading through the article again I realized that I missed this sentence: "Blizzard's co-founder Frank Pearce explained that the title was not in the company's focus at the time due to a finite amount of development resources." However, that's just corporate blabber in my opinion. I suspect that there was a very lively internal debate about this decision, probably with a lot of drama, and this article would be much more interesting if there was something on that. I realize that it will probably be impossible to find sources for this, which is why I suspect why it will be very difficult to bring any cancelled game to FA. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 23:58

The reason for cancellation of the Xbox and PS2 versions is there: "Blizzard announced in March 2006 that the game is on "indefinite hold" while the company investigated seventh generation video game console possibilities" - ie, to investigate the potential of making it a PS3 and Xbox 360 version. As for the second comment, on the "lively internal debate", that is entirely speculation. We have no idea what Blizzard does internally, or how they came to this decision, and key development decisions are hardly always made known about products that are released. The "corporate blabber" as you put it, is verifiable and relevant, speculation on how they debated coming to the decision to suspend development is not. I can't include sources that don't exist, so the article is still as comprehensive as reliable sources allow. -- Sabre (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just don't feel that the article as it stands does a comprehensive job of telling the whole story. Yes, you've done an excellent job with the sources that are available, and I realize that my objection should perhaps be discounted because it's not actionable due to the lack of sources. However, the fact is that this game will mainly be remembered for the fact that it was canceled, and I feel that the article in its current state does an inadequate job of describing the circumstances that led to this. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 01:18

David Fuchs has pointed me to this Edge article where Rob Pardo talks about this situation. This is exactly the context I was looking for, so presuming the relevant quotes from Pardo are added to the article, I'll support. Great job, everyone. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 03:16

The relevant quotes—the ones on Blizzard being "stubborn" and not executing the game the way they wanted—are now in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with Jacoplane, and must add that while reading the article, the tone made it seem like it was a real and released game. Perhaps changing a lot of the present tense used now to the past tense would help this. User:Krator (t c) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  I was wondering whether or not to put the article in past or future tense; it was in both before, which was very odd. I made it all into present so that it read much more smoothly. I think it makes more sense, too; the information regarding gameplay, etc. is still valid now as it was before. Gary King (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's comments

• "under suspended development by Blizzard Entertainment." - I know what this means because I enjoy reminding my StarCraft loving friends that game isn't coming, but it's not really that clear. I'd suggest you split into two sentences and state in the second that development was suspended, or something like that.
• Campaign image needs a caption that indicates significance (NFCC)
• Same in the synopsis section
• "Despite positive reactions from the press when told that Ghost would be available for video game consoles,[18] the game was consistently delayed," - "Despite" implies a connection. I don't see one.
• "The team consisted of 25 people compared to its original six" - not sure what the original you speak of is...
• "The game's trailer, comprised of the cinematics team's work, was released in August 2005." - next paragraph starts in July 2004; I'd stick to chronological order
• "but the game's GameCube version" - I'd remove "game's"
• "Despite its long development history, IGN noted that the concept of Ghost still held promise" - again, not seeing why "despite" is used; if anything I'd have thought the concept would hold MORE promise if they stuck at it for so long (maybe it's just me?)
• Wired News should be in italics in ref publishers (check other stuff too, just noticed this one)
• "When questioned about this, Blizzard's co-founder Frank Pearce explained that the title was not in the company's focus at the time due to a finite amount of development resources." - this is slightly unclear. I looked at the source and I would include the "It never was technically canceled.", then the rest will make more sense.

Giggy (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"suspended development" is explained thoroughly in the lead. I don't think this needs to be changed. The "Despite [...] IGN" I think should not be changed; the concept is so old that there's a good chance that it is "outdated" by now; at least, that's how I see it. The rest are done. Gary King (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Randomran's comments:

• "StarCraft: Ghost is a military science fiction stealth-action video game under suspended development by Blizzard Entertainment." - Is there a better way to phrase this? "Under suspended development" sounds awkward. Maybe "... and its development has been suspended by Blizzard Entertainment."
• "Set in Blizzard's StarCraft series" - try "Set in Blizzard's StarCraft universe" (and pipe the Wikilink)
• "Several delays in development moved back the planned release date ..." - Try "Several delays in development caused Blizzard to move back the release date ..."
• "Vehicles form a crucial part of the game;" - just drop this. I tend to hate semi-colons as meaningless and messy, and this judgment of "crucialness" doesn't really add anything to the article.

Otherwise, the prose is strong -- it seems like the lead was the main issue. The research appears to check out, and the images have good fair use rationales. The article is very comprehensive, which can be tough when talking about an unreleased game. If you fixed these few statements (not necessarily in the way I suggested), you would have my support. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. Please check again – thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about the "under suspended development" comment? Is there a more elegant way to phrase this? Randomran (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My response to Sabre when asked about this. Gary King (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a matter of personal taste, then. If someone else suggests you change it, I hope you do. But otherwise, I think this is just a reasonable point of disagreement.

Support: Was already close to featured quality, and my concerns have been addressed. You guys are gonna have a lot of fun re-writing this if they ever resume development and release it. Randomran (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

2 Oct 2008 – Crush (video game) (talk) is nominated.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 .

---

Crush (video game)

Nominator(s): MASEM

Bringing this video game article to FA. On the shorter side, but it is one of those games that got some but not a lot of attention despite the critical reception for it. I've double checked prose/references/images, and had a few others copyedit on the prose.

I will note (knowing their reliability will likely be questioned) on two of the references used: MoDojo is under Federated Media Publishing (website), while blog-style posts, the article is an interview with the game's producer. SegaNerds is also a blog-style source under B5Media (website), but also, the article used here is a interview with the same person. --MASEM 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Initial comments - David Fuchs
  • Image check: I'd like to see the fair use rationales beefed up, especially the 'purpose' section.
  • The lead doesn't mention much beyond the Escher bit about development.
  • Is there anything more to the plot? You can go to two paragraphs, you know :P

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've talked more about the purposes of the images in both FURs and captions (to id gameplay elements). I've added a note about the coincident element with SPM to the lead to expand it out. As to the story -- well, it's told over maybe about a half-dozen 1-minute cutscenes in the game; I'll go back and play through the cutscenes (there's no good story references out there beyond what I have, even at sites like Gamefaqs) to see if it can be fleshed out more (like, what exactly was troubling Danny to drive him to insomnia). --MASEM 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. Also, if the images are at the actual resolution, they aren't really low resolution; you can descrease the size slightly (say, to 350 or 400px without decreasing the visibility of items mentioned in the text significantly. Also, explain why no free replacement is available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationales for game screenshots have been expanded, and images at 400x2xx something (same aspect ratio) have been uploaded over the old ones. --MASEM 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, image concerns met. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The final line of reception should be merged in somewhere, not left by itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Merged at end of previous paragraph (there's not much where else it can go) --MASEM 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and copyedited, clarified, and added inline comments when I was confused. Take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, I fixed the "primal" thing. --MASEM 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The present "Story" section is a bit unclear on at least one point. It states that Danny's insomnia is caused in part by repressed memories, but then later states that (further?) repression of childhood memories offers a cure for that insomnia. Not quite sure what to make of this apparent contradiction. Perhaps there's some nuanced explanation that needs to be unpacked here? D. Brodale (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrected; Danny ends up facing those memories as the game progresses. --MASEM 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's still no expansion of the lead and any longer of a plot summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded these both from before as much as reasonably possible with the information provided. Again, the story in the game is all of about 6-10 minutes long told between levels, so the length of plot is appropriate for the game. The lead appropriately touches on the major points in the article and really cannot be made longer without starting to duplicate too much in there or unbalancing information in it. --MASEM 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Redundancies a problem. And 1a more generally.

• My pet hate is "in order to", and there are two instances in the very opening para. Please remove the first two words in the second instance, and check through the rest of the article for this (usually) redundant little urchin.
• Second para: "mechanic" is someone who fixes your car. I think it has to be plural here, or maybe just removed (what's wrong with the "gameplay" alone?). And here it is again, twice. Is it a mechanism? Process? Facility? Function?
• "Game's"—redundant.

Is Deckiller around? He might know the right person to come afresh to this and massage the prose. Try reading this and undertaking the associated exercises; I usually shy from promoting my own stuff, but here I think you'd benefit from developing a "radar". Tony (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I will give Dec a buzz to see if he can work any more out, but I did take the advice to heart to work some things out in the current prose. I will note that gameplay mechanic (singular) is a term used by both board/table games and video games arenas to describe one particular facet of a game's rules or logic ("gameplay" refers to the game as a whole, while "gameplay mechanics" refer to mulitple features), but yes, it can (and has here) been replaced with "feature", "element", or other appropriate words to avoid the issue. --MASEM 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Followup to say Deckiller has given this a passthrough and I've corrected a statement based on a comment he left. --MASEM 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't really give it a pass; I just corrected maybe five or six things. Sadly, I don't really have time to sit down and copy-edit article right now. — Deckiller 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I note the sources noted above and those sorts of things should be decided by each reviewer.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the story section needs a bit of expansion. At the moment it basically tells of the problem with Danny and how it's fixed, but doesn't touch on what the player actually does in game to achieve the end result ("during which he is able to organize his thoughts and face his childhood fears" is not enough). Giggy (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Some of Danny's thoughts, represented by glowing neon icons, are only activated when the world is crushed in a manner that properly completes them and remain in view" - might just be me but I had no idea what this was saying
  • The latter point, I've basically stated what the manual states (which is simpler than the above); thoughts activate when crushes, are no obscured, and are on-screen.
  • On the story, there's a very very loose connection between it and gameplay. I've expanded to point the weak connection of marbles (as in "losing ones marbles") and monsters so that they come up in gameplay. Also had to play the last, annoying level again to get the story ending (which is as vague as it seems) right. --MASEM 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Giggy (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Support:

• "The protagonist is Danny, a teenager suffering from insomnia, who uses an experimental device to explore his mind and return his life to normal". What is "back to normal"—life before insomnia or life before the device?
• "This gameplay element was coincidentally similar to one in Super Paper Mario" It may be best to remain neutral and remove "coincidentally", as, unless a point is trying to be made, is pretty much redundant as both were made in 2007. Seems to be pre-emptively countering some assertion, if that makes sense.
• Lead could be beefed up with a litle bit of development info; the Eshcer reference seems insufficient.
• A minor query: is Danny's actual age revealed in the game? Where is his home set?
• "he is able to regain control on his sanity by". Should it not be "of" as opposed to "on"?
• "semi-intelligent female persona" This intermediate could mean anything to me, so I don't know what this device is actually like. Maybe you could elaborate or be more specific.
• I'm uncomfortable with this trend for novel-length captions. It serves a purpose here, but you could cut it down if able.
• "Crush spans forty levels spread across four worlds". "spans" and "spreads"? I don't know, maybe you could say that it contains four worlds, with ten levels in each.
• "The goal of each level is to collect marbles" Remeber to specify this as the player's goal, and not just "the goal".
• "Danny possesses limited jumping ability". I've yet to see a VG character that can jump infinite heights; I know it helps the phrasing to flow, but it doesn't mean anything in its present state.
• "Scattered throughout the levels are spheres and cylinders, which the player can roll when crushed appropriately, and can be used as platforms or to depress switches." Just generally an awkward one. Could you reword please?
• "Mottram noted that at the time during the development of Crush, the gameplay of Super Paper Mario had not yet been revealed, and thus were surprised to learn that the two games shared a similar feature" Not sure about this sentence. Seems to be missing a statement of who were surprised, although it is obvious.
• "received,[4] however". Should there not be a semi-colon here?
• ...There seems to be a growing consensus not to use review tables now; I must have missed that one. Could you explain the reasons for me, Masem?
• I don't know why the main text of this section is sandwiched between two one-sentence paragraphs. They cover different subjects, but still.
• "this was made up for by". Watch out for informal phrasing.
• Again, I'm not sure, but I didn't think that external links are supposed to be in the main body of text. Correct me if I'm wrong.
• I know it's an interview, but I'm not sure how reliable "Segar Nerds" is. An author is given for this; a surname is not stated, so I'm not sure if the name should be given.

Okay, generally a decent article. I'll give it another look once the amendments are made. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All points (other than the following) have been corrected. On review score tables, it is not that the project is moving away from them, but they aren't always necessary: a more "complete" table can be found going to the linked aggregrate review sources (MetaCritic and GameRankings); this is also closer to how movies tend to organize their reception section. It is not that I couldn't add it here, but I feel it wouldn't really add much (thus, consider this more an experimental approach to see if the lack of a review table still gives a good read). On Sega Nerds, if it was anything but an interview, I would have replaced it, but it is an interview, they've seen to have done such in the past, and based on the Mottram interview, details are consistent with the few other details from other reliable sources (eg Gamasutra), so this is where I feel the source is reliable for the information it is providing: the developement section. --MASEM 11:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to support. One things still bugging me: "Large spheres and cylinders are scattered throughout the levels which the player can roll when crushed appropriately, and can be used as platforms or to depress switches". How about: "Large spheres and cylinders are scattered throughout the levels which the player can roll when crushed appropriately. These can also be used as platforms or to depress switches, required to...". But if you're alright with it how it is, then just leave it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I caught your edits and when through to verify the punctuation w.r.t. to the quoting, and also took some of the longer quotes to shorter snippets (such that all are partial sentences, thus putting the punctuation outside the quotes); the one ellipse was actually from the original quote but I nixed that. I also double checked the spelling again. --MASEM 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the ellipses; I think Tony says it's OK to change dashes and ellipses to our house style even when original source is different, but it's no big deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said above, I don't really have the time to sit down and copy-edit an entire article; I might make a tweak here or there, but that's really all I have time to do. — Deckiller 03:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

30 Sep 2008 – Metroid (series) (talk) is nominated.

Featured article reviews

18 Sep 2008 – Half-Life 2 (talk) is nominated.

Half-Life 2

previous FAR (11:06, 9 October 2008)

Featured list candidates

6 Oct 2008 – List of One Piece video games (talk) is nominated.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:53, 22 November 2008 .

---

List of One Piece video games

• First FLC ended with 0 Supports and 0 Opposes.
• Second FLC ended with 3 Supports and 0 Opposes.

-- Goodraise (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support, per comments from last nomination. Why did it fail?Tintor2 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I couldn't tell from the edit summaries. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the reason this FLC failed before was because of the concern based on the tables, as it was suggested that it be discussed at WT:VG to make a new table that can be sorted and more properly organized, I supported the previous 2 FLC's, but this problem needs to be resolved.--S_RX 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - table issue is resolved from what I see below.--S_RX 01:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Support My issues were resolved from the previous FLC, and as long as the table issue is resolved, this list is ready for promotion. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: The list looks like a good start and is close to FL status. Here are a few things that stood out to me.

  Lead

  • The first sentence seems a bit miss leading to me; mainly because I associated "One Piece" to a manga/anime series. I would tweak it to say "The One Piece video games series is published by..."
    • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Another minor tweak. Feels redundant and just sounds weird to me: "The gGames of the One Piece series have been released..."
    • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  List

  • I think I understand the comment about empty space now. However, I think this is a result of the content rather than the format. A sortable table won't use the space much better.
    • Are there any other interesting tidbits about the specific games? Did one introduce something new and different to the series? Does one have any interesting fact about its development?
      • I don't know. I didn't even play the games. Most of the games don't even have an article of their own. So there's no easy way of drawing information from. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, I think the publisher and developer comments can be combined into one statement. This will give the sentences more length and reduce some of the empty space to the right.
      • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If need be you can remove the {{-}} template to cut down on empty space too. Some editors don't like them, but I don't think they're a problem.
      • Removed most of them. I only added them in the first place to mirror the appearance of List of Castlevania titles. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Battle Stadium not just a "Related game"? I remember it featuring characters and elements in a basic manner like the Jump Star games.

Hope these comments help. The list is looking good and I'll be happy to support once these issues are addressed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

I don't know what you mean by "basic manner", but the "O." in "Battle Stadium D.O.N" stands for "One Piece", the "D." for "Dragon Ball", and the "N" for "Naruto". The playable characters and stages, like the title, are close to equally shared among the franchises. While Jump Ultimate Stars and Jump Super Stars feature characters from a wide variety of sources, like Super Smash Bros., Battle Stadium only draws from these three, more like X-Men vs. Street Fighter. However, that's just my subjective way of sorting the games and I wouldn't mind changing it, if this explaination is not convincing. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice your question. I guess I've just always looked at the games (D.O.N. and Jump Stars) as the same type. Mainly because they are games focused on Shonen Jump characters with no real plot elements from any one series. The main difference I see is that DON focuses on just three series instead of 20+. I think a combining them into a single section titled "Other titles" would simplify things. I would also add details in the notes sections about what specifically relates them. Maybe number of characters, mention there are stages based on the anime, etc. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

• Done. (Don't worry about replying late. I did not expect a reply until I was done with the other issues. At that point I would have left you a message. Unfortunately, my hands are a bit fuller right now, than they were during the first two FLCs. This list has been up here for so long now...) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments:

  Citations

  • I noticed there are a good number of references for some non-controversial content. I'd say two refs are perfectly fine and that some of the first party sources don't add anything extra to the list.
    • With the exception of reference [2] I used references I already had for everything they covered. That was in the early stages of that article. At that point I did not care about the visual appeal. Since then, as removing them is a lot easier than putting them back in, I left them where they are. Do you think I should remove excessive references? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I tweaked the placement of citations to cut down on some of the excess, specifically the publisher/developer info. I did about half of the article as an example.
    • Done. (With 2 exceptions related to 2nd next issue.) -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I would argue that if a game was released on a single platform, then a citation isn't that necessary; the citation of the release date normally has that info anyway. But that's just me and it is not a deal breaker by any means.
    • Left it as is for the moment. As long as it's only one reviewer suggesting this, I'd rather not have to put it back later. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  Content

  • For One Piece: Pirates' Carnival, I think the discrepancy between the two publishers (Bandai and Namco Bandai) is because the game was released in North American after March 31, 2006 when Namco and Bandai merged. I think this should be clarified in the notes and the lead. Something like, "Most of the games were originally published by Bandai. Following the merger of Namco and Bandai in March 2006, the series has been published under the Namco Bandai name."
    • Now, this is a bit tricky. I've carefully (maybe too carefully) tried not to do original research. Most of the games were released by Bandai Games, which was later renamed to Namco Bandai Games. The sources however don't refer to it under either name. They say Bandai (which still exists as a subsidiary of Namco Bandai Holdings) or Namco Bandai (which could mean either Namco Bandai Games or Namco Bandai Holdings). So instead of deciding which company a source is actually refering to, I only copied whatever name they used. - More generally speaking: In the opening sentence of the lead, I said the games were "published by subsidiaries of Namco Bandai Holdings". That way I don't have to use words such as "most", because all the companies: Bandai, Bandai Games, Namco Bandai Games, and even Banpresto fall into that category. I am not sure if the average reader of the list wants to be informed in such detail about the Namco Bandai Group's inner structure. But if it is desired, then I can elaborate, no problem. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than these small issues, I'd say the list has shaped up nicely. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

I think the extra refs amount to overkill and can be distracting. One Piece: Grand Battle! 3 for example. My eyes are drawn to the refs instead of the content.

Now that you mention it, I think explaining the merger is unnecessary and may confuse more than it informs.

Other than the refs issue, the list looks good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

Fixed. I removed 30 citations from only 3 title entries. I suppose it was a bit much. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: The list has definitely improved and my main concerns have been addressed. Though I think the article still has some minor room for improvement here and there. But I still believe it meets criteria in its current form. Good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Featured topic candidates

• 28 Nov 2008 – Topic Half-Life 2 titles with main article Half-Life 2 (talk) is nominated; see discussion.

Peer review

28 Sep 2008 – Peer review opened for Rock Band (talk).

Rock Band

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this game revolutionized gaming as did Guitar Hero, but this time they added drums, vocals, rythym and bass. Also this game is becoming a world wide hit. Please look over my article about it and give me as much feedback as you can. I want this article to give the game the credit it deserves. Thanks, GamerPro64 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Ynhockey:

• Before I start, let me say that I edit video game-related articles very rarely, and don't know the specific FA requirements that might be expected of such articles.
• The main problem I have with this article currently is that it takes the notion that long prose is better than lists/short paragraphs too far. Prose is in fact better, but not in this kind of presentation. For starters, it needs better organization into paragraphs. Also currently it has too many unneeded punctuation marks (especially quotation marks, e.g. musical "notes" - why not simply notes?) and a severe lack of wikilinks. For example, I'd expect 'master recording' to be linked, a link far more useful than 'Rome', for example (not against that link by the way, just saying it's less important than some others).
• Some sections lack sourcing. In addition, while this may be difficult because the game is recent, I think more varying sources should be found, especially those with a good reputation. For example, there are several well-known gaming magazines (e.g. PC Gamer), which aren't even cited once. Again, not sure about sourcing standards for gaming articles, but it's usually not great if most sources are from the same 2 websites (GameSpot and IGN).
• Organization - the article is overall organized properly, but some choices are strange: for example, why are advertizing and pricing under 'development'?
• Finally, let me commend all contributors to the article on the good work - overall the article is of high-quality, especially the lead section and smart use of tabular data.

Good luck!
-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 3 Sep 2008 – Peer review requested for List of characters in The King of Fighters series (talk).