Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 13
To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item. |
 WikiProject CVG Archives | |
| List of archive topics by section | |
Retro genre
I dunno about you guys, but I really really really hate the retro genre. First of all I dont think its a real genre, and just refers to more of a pop culture view of the games. "Thats an old game, its considered retro!" I move that we strike it from computer and video game genres and all mentions on any game pages. It may be valid as a descriptor, but not as a genre. As a game like Pac-man is much different than say Battlezone and is also much different than say a game like Qix. Sometiems the argument is made in terms of simplicity, but I find many of todays arcade games to be more simplistic than games were back in 1982. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
These categories are redudant IMO. What do you guys think? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Why teh hell was Category:Computer and video game stub templates deleted?
Why oh why?! --16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- All I can say is I was the instrument of the deletion that came from this decision, which stemmed from another decision. :/ --Syrthiss 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- They seem pretty useless to me. WP:WSS/ST. K1Bond007 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Video game firsts
From this page i found this list. We should aim to cover all these games with decent articles. --larsinio [[User talk:larsinio|
- I added a couple of things, fixed a couple of errors Coll7 02:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
(poke)]](prod) 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
First game played on a computer: Noughts and Crosses (Tic Tac Toe), A.S. Douglas, 1952
First action-based ("arcade style") computer video game: Tennis for Two, 1958
First space-themed, genre-defining computer game - Spacewar!, 1962
First video game played on a television screen - Fox and Hounds, 1966
First video game to accept coins - Galaxy Game, Computer Recreations, Inc, 1971
First video game in arcades - Computer Space, Nutting Associates, 1971
First team sports game (also first sports sim) - Baseball, 1971
First successful arcade video game - PONG, Atari, 1972
First adventure games - Adventure and Hunt the Wumpus, 1975
First RPG -- pedit5 on PLATO System and Dungeon on PDP-10, 1974-75
First home video game console - Odyssey, Magnavox, 1972
First coin-op racing game with steering wheel and gearshift - Gran Trak 10, Atari, 1974
First cocktail table arcade game - Quadra Pong, Atari, 1974
First arcade videogame with a microprocessor - Gun Fight, 1975
First controversial arcade game - Death Race, Exidy, 1976 (See also Space Invaders [1978], Custer's Revenge [1983], Chiller [1986], and Mortal Kombat [1992].)
First "brick-breaking" ball-and-bat game: Breakout, Atari, 1976
First arcade game based on a computer game: Space Wars, 1977 (Also the first vector graphics arcade game.)
First vertical shoot-em-up: Space Invaders, Taito, 1978
First coin-op trackball game/video sports game/scrolling playfield: Atari Football, Atari, 1978
First "cockpit" game: Star Fire, Exidy, 1978
First game to track high scores with initials: Star Fire, Exidy, 1978
First head-to-head fighting game: Warrior, Cinematronics, 1978
First coin-op game in true RGB color: Galaxian, 1979
First pseudo-graphical dungeon game: Rogue, 1980 on PLATO System and Dungeon on PDP-10, 1975
First 1st-person flying sim: Red Baron (arcade game), Atari, 1980 (See also Tailgunner [1979])
First game with a "bonus round": Carnival (game), Gremlin/Sega, 1980
First home game system with selectable starting level of difficulty: Intellivision console, Mattel, 1980
First game with a character/first to be very popular with female players: Pac-Man, Namco, 1980
First game with pseudo-3D first-person environment: Battlezone, Atari, 1980
First game with secondary weapon and fully realized "game universe" stretching beyond the screen: Defender, Williams, 1980
First game with "different levels" and "boss enemy": Ozma Wars, 1979 (see also Astro Fighter, Phoenix [1980] and GORF, Scramble [1981])
First coin-op game with a female programmer: Astro Blaster, 1981
First home game with a female programmer: Intellivision Pinball, 1982, and Shark Shark 1982
First color vector game: Space Duel, 1980; Space Fury was 1981
First coin-op game with speech synthesis: Stratovox, 1981
First coin-op game with selectable starting level of difficulty: Tempest, Atari, 1981
First sim game or god game - Utopia, Intellivision, 1981
First laserdisc game - Astron Belt], Sony, 1982
First coin-op game with non-monophonic sound: Sinistar (cockpit version), Williams, 1983
First game with true three-dimensional filled polygons - I-Robot, Atari, 1983
First coin-op game with selectable camera angles - I-Robot, Atari, 1983
First home game with selectable camera angles - Intellivision World Series Baseball, 1983
First coin-op driving game to add shooting and other features: Spy Hunter, 1983
First home driving game to add shooting and user-defined tracks: Racing Destruction Set, 1983
First coin-op game with a stereo music soundtrack and an ending: Marble Madness, Atari, 1984
First MMO Game on a Commercial Service - Islands of Kesmai, 1984
First MMO Game with graphics - Air Warrior, 1987
First MMORPG with graphics - Neverwinter Nights, AOL, 1991
Review Scores in game articles
Can we get some consensus on which ( if any ) review scores to include in articles? There seems to be a tendency for people to continually add review scores from various magazines & websites to articles, leading to a messy list with no real purpose. I'd personally like to see just the MetaCritic average score followed by a link to the metacritic site, which has already compiled a comprehensive list of all review scores a game has received. If people want more review scores to be detailed in the main article, then I'd suggest limiting it to the largest ( circulated ) magazines & websites ( ie. GameInformer, Gamespot, IGN ). Any thoughts? TheExtruder 11:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- This has come up several times in the past, and my response will never change: None should be added. There is no fair way and no correct way to pick 1 or 2 or even half a dozen scores. It is purely subjective and depends upon different criteria at different websites/magazines/etc/. It is not an encyclopedia's place to provide scores and ratings. --Naha|(talk) 13:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- They absolutely should not. An encyclopedia is for the pursuance of information and knowledge, not some one's bloody opinion on fun factor. If someone feels the need to know such semantics, they can type in www.gamespot.com in thier URL bar. More importantly, it also violates the WP:NPOV policy. -ZeroTalk 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reporting what external reviewers think of games does not violate WP:NPOV. In fact, it is entirely appropriate. Our job is to compile opinions from multiple sources so our readers will get a more balanced view than those who only read gamespot's reviews. Perhaps individual numerical review scores have no good use here, but objective descriptions of opinions do. Fredrik Johansson 14:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, both Featured Articles, have extensive "reviews" sections, while Super Mario 64 has a short one. Meanwhile 3D Monster Maze and Katamari Damacy have extensive sections based on their critical reviews. Nifboy 14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a review and a numerical score. The problem is with the latter. Descriptive reviews are helpful while arbitrary numbers are not. It would be one thing if every magazine and website on the planet used the same methods for gathering votes or what have you, but they don't. Therefore its impossible to compare one numerical score to another. Some websites do not track IPs or users and one person could vote 1000 times for a particular game. Other scores, specifically those from magazines, are often the opinions of 1 or a small handful of staff writers, not the collective consensus of 100s or 1000s or more users. Keep the reviews, trash the scores. --Naha|(talk) 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Basically, yes. Any kind of user-based poll or reader review is completely useless (Quoth Slashdot: If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane). Numerical scores are only really useful on the far upper end (a handful of articles). The most important thing is the writeup. Nifboy 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a review and a numerical score. The problem is with the latter. Descriptive reviews are helpful while arbitrary numbers are not. It would be one thing if every magazine and website on the planet used the same methods for gathering votes or what have you, but they don't. Therefore its impossible to compare one numerical score to another. Some websites do not track IPs or users and one person could vote 1000 times for a particular game. Other scores, specifically those from magazines, are often the opinions of 1 or a small handful of staff writers, not the collective consensus of 100s or 1000s or more users. Keep the reviews, trash the scores. --Naha|(talk) 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, both Featured Articles, have extensive "reviews" sections, while Super Mario 64 has a short one. Meanwhile 3D Monster Maze and Katamari Damacy have extensive sections based on their critical reviews. Nifboy 14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- There absolutely should be review scores and critical reactions within the article. Go for big name print magazines (EDGE, PC Gamer, EGM) and the big websites (IGN, Gamespot). Anything which looks iffy, I remove on the spot, I removed some recently from the Oblivion article, who the heck are GamersEdge? Xbox360advanced?! - Hahnchen 16:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think we should just keep away from obscure sources; maybe we should compile a general list of "accepted" magazines/websites (some are obvious) and stick it on WPCVG's project page. -- gakon5 16:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we should develop a template for insertion into articles for the major review outlets like Metacritics, gamerankings, gamespot, ign, etc? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- As for numerical reviews, I definitely would not remove the Famitsu score from The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, as I think it's important to note that WW is one of six games to earn the perfect score. So at the least we shouldn't completely eradicate numerical scores from articles. Pagrashtak 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Music articles (for example FA Smile (Brian Wilson album)) include numerical reviews. Some movies like The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film) include the IMDB score. Personally, I think that picking random reviews and including the score in articles is too subjective and NPOV. However, I do think that perhaps we could include the Gamerankings score (for example Oblivion) in aricles. Metacritic could also be an option. Consistency should be very important here. jacoplane 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
So, do we have any consensus on this issue? We should conclude this discussion and add something to the Wikiproject guidelines. jacoplane 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Console sales data
Recently this link [1] was presented as evidence as the XBox selling 24 million units but I have become suspicious. I think they are just rounding up the GmaeCube's and XBox's sales data and presenting Sony's 100 million shipped as sold. Does anyone else have any link to support that data? Jedi6-(need help?) 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- I found this for the PS2 sales, but it doesn't have XBox figures (Edit: However, the article does round up on GameCube sales, if this site is right). Nifboy 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- WE can't use that, that chart is for shipments not sales. Jedi6-(need help?) 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Depends on how you define "Sales". The console manufacturers sell the consoles to retailers, who turn around and sell them to consumers. So when Sony sells 101 million PS2s (which is how the article words it) that's the same as shipping 101 million PS2s. The number of consoles in consumers' hands is necessarily less than the number shipped. Nifboy 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sony doesn't release actual sales numbers to my knowledge. Just shipped, which are sold to the retailer. Instead of saying 100 million sold or whatever the number is make sure the word "shipped" is clearly there. Nintendo releases their numbers in their annual and quarterly reports. We should only use that number. I would assume Microsoft does something similar. Surely we should be able to get a first-party source for this and not something from a third-party like CNN or whatever. I would think anyway. K1Bond007 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can anyone find the official Nintendo and Microsoft quarterly report. Jedi6-(need help?) 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Looking through Microsoft's financial reports didn't yield anything useful. Nintendo's, however, has some sales numbers but since my computer hates .pdf files (particularly in mixed languages) I couldn't get much more than the first page. Nifboy 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- (two Adobe Reader updates later) Yep. The 20.61 million number comes right off page 6 of their Q3 financial report. Nifboy 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I can't seem to read it, does it say anything about the DS and Gameboy sales. (I wish Sony and Microsoft gave out data like this, it would simplify everything). Jedi6-(need help?) 23:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- The list I pointed to earlier pulls numbers right from these financial statements: 14.43M DSs, 74.25 GBAs. Nifboy 01:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I can't seem to read it, does it say anything about the DS and Gameboy sales. (I wish Sony and Microsoft gave out data like this, it would simplify everything). Jedi6-(need help?) 23:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- (two Adobe Reader updates later) Yep. The 20.61 million number comes right off page 6 of their Q3 financial report. Nifboy 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Looking through Microsoft's financial reports didn't yield anything useful. Nintendo's, however, has some sales numbers but since my computer hates .pdf files (particularly in mixed languages) I couldn't get much more than the first page. Nifboy 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can anyone find the official Nintendo and Microsoft quarterly report. Jedi6-(need help?) 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sony doesn't release actual sales numbers to my knowledge. Just shipped, which are sold to the retailer. Instead of saying 100 million sold or whatever the number is make sure the word "shipped" is clearly there. Nintendo releases their numbers in their annual and quarterly reports. We should only use that number. I would assume Microsoft does something similar. Surely we should be able to get a first-party source for this and not something from a third-party like CNN or whatever. I would think anyway. K1Bond007 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Depends on how you define "Sales". The console manufacturers sell the consoles to retailers, who turn around and sell them to consumers. So when Sony sells 101 million PS2s (which is how the article words it) that's the same as shipping 101 million PS2s. The number of consoles in consumers' hands is necessarily less than the number shipped. Nifboy 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- WE can't use that, that chart is for shipments not sales. Jedi6-(need help?) 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk page template
How come I can't find any mention of the {{cvgproj}} template that you can place on a game article's talk page? That should be prominently mentioned on the project page so people know to do that. I also can't find a guideline for what categories each new game article should go into. Aguerriero 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also, how does one modify the ToDo list in it? Was it meant to be stubst'd? Nifboy 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the todos are not in that template but in {{Gamebox contents}}, which people have (kind of) been editing. jacoplane 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I split up the "Content" part of the article into "Common elements" and "Scope of information". I wrote the Common elements to give people a short list of what should be included in every article. Please review. I am going to do some more work on the whole "Computer and video games article guidelines" heading to make it better organized. Aguerriero 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Removal of screenshot galleries
I had recently created Ozma Wars, and as I normalyl do, uploaded some screenshots. Due to the page not being that long I put the screenshots in a gallery with descriptions. User:Carnildo removed that gallery citing
"See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, point #8. Images in galleries do not illustrate points made in the text of the article.)" He apparently has something against galleries specifically. I checked the policy and it does'nt specifically mention image galleries. The material clearly repreents items that I had talked about in the article, as any user who actually read the article can see. I reverted his change with discussion, and then he reverted back. I have since added some more context on the page, such that the third image is specifically mentioned in the text for contextual purposes. I also wrote on his user page explaining:
- "Galleries are just another way to represent pictures. They should not be seen differently than a thumbnail. Granted it has to apply to the context, but clearly the images in Ozma Wars correspond ot the text. Which is what fair use policy necessitates. In the future it would be better to explain this to people before you arbitrarily remove entire sections from articles, to give vested interest the opportunity to show that the images correspond to the text. Perhaps just by telling them to add comments to the images showing their context. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)"
Has anyone else experienced removal odf screenshot galleries? Is this valid? Is this compliuance under fair use images? Arent screenshots of video games almost automatically valid by context, as they picture the gameplay? Do we really need to go above and beyond to prove their fair use? Please comment --larsinio (poke)(prod) 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have experienced the removal of screenshot galleries on more than one occassion with the same fair use rational given in one instance, and in another instance someone told me it wasn't encyclopedic or something. Well, I own a set of World Book Encyclopedias and my grandparents own a set of Encyclopedia Britannica, and both series have dozens of articles with picture galleries. Encyclopedia Britannica online does as well, so I don't know. I think screenshot galleries can really be helpful in illustrating points of the game and also to represent the technology/graphics used. Granted, I support the removal of particularly bad screenshots or excessive (imo more than 8) shots to a gallery, but I am against gallery removal in general. --Naha|(talk) 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto, I have seen it happen across the whole site. Generally, the rationale is that each unnecessary image weakens the case for "fair use" in the article and on Wikipedia as a whole. The argument is typically that if the image doesn't illustrate something you are writing about in the article, it should not be included. So if you have a video game stub, you should only have one image. If you have a more extensive article, have more. Have a screen shot of the gameplay when you are talking about gameplay. If you talk about the awesome graphics, have a screen shot illustrating the awesome graphics, and so on. Aguerriero 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Carnildo really has a shoot first, ask questions later attitude towards images as do a few other editors. Screenshot galleries belong in computer game and console articles. They contribute to the article and display specific gameplay elements of a game, they are encyclopedic. If there are too many screenshots, then it's OK for them to be removed, otherwise just revert removals on the spot. - Hahnchen 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I notice especialyl with fair use issues, that people really think they are right whenever they take upon deletionist activities. I reverted with explanation, and he-reverted, so I had re-reverted. Its just not tha teasy to revert removals all teh time, because you have to win over "hearts and minds" for this. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've notified Carnildo on his talk page about this discussion, since it would be only fair to include his views here. Carnildo does a lot of good work with his User:OrphanBot. Personally I think that the fair use policy is not at all clear about the use of galleries, and that any statement claiming they are or are not allowed is premature. I think it does depend on the context and if images are included that are representative of what is being described in the text and they have good captions then probably it should be ok. However, I'm not at all an expert on American law, so my opinion in this matter is not very relevant. jacoplane 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- You don't need to be an expert in American law. We go by Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, not by American law. Jkelly 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Carnildo also removed it from the GameCube page. Jedi6-(need help?) 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise that. I just don't think the criteria are clear on the use of galleries. jacoplane 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive8#Screenshots_prohibited.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive5#Images.2C_screenshots_.26_fair_use_rationale. - Hahnchen 23:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've notified Carnildo on his talk page about this discussion, since it would be only fair to include his views here. Carnildo does a lot of good work with his User:OrphanBot. Personally I think that the fair use policy is not at all clear about the use of galleries, and that any statement claiming they are or are not allowed is premature. I think it does depend on the context and if images are included that are representative of what is being described in the text and they have good captions then probably it should be ok. However, I'm not at all an expert on American law, so my opinion in this matter is not very relevant. jacoplane 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I notice especialyl with fair use issues, that people really think they are right whenever they take upon deletionist activities. I reverted with explanation, and he-reverted, so I had re-reverted. Its just not tha teasy to revert removals all teh time, because you have to win over "hearts and minds" for this. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Carnildo really has a shoot first, ask questions later attitude towards images as do a few other editors. Screenshot galleries belong in computer game and console articles. They contribute to the article and display specific gameplay elements of a game, they are encyclopedic. If there are too many screenshots, then it's OK for them to be removed, otherwise just revert removals on the spot. - Hahnchen 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
ESRB
The ESRB rating is beneficial to the infobox. Not only does it allow for someone skimming through the article to get the rating info at a glance (rather than having to sift through text), but it also takes up a very, VERY small amount of space. There is no reason whatsoever that a policy should exist whereby the ESRB rating image deserves to be removed. To put it simply, it serves a purpose and it's not bogging down the page. Daniel Davis 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really care, but I think its silly. Some of the infoboxes look way too crowded with all the little images inside of them. I think this point was raised before... Thunderbrand 18:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't an issue until the same guy who inserted the "policy" decided to go to all the game pages and slash out the ESRB rating. If the infoboxes may seem crowded, then the appropriate thing to do would be figure out a way to uncrowd them without removing legitimate information. Daniel Davis 18:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- The discussuion's been stuffed up there in archive 9- him and a couple other people decided to axe them out of the blue. Personally, I think the ersb ratings are quite professional and should be kept. It's just my opinion, of course, but they DO serve a purpose you know. The Eye 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think in order to use the ESRB images you need to sign something with the organization. They shouldn't really mind, but who the heck does the signing Jimbo? --Flipkin 23:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the "him" you are referring to is me. I raised the issue about not using ESRB and similar rating images in what is now archive9, as The Eye notes. I got four concurring responses and no objections. Based on that consensus, I updated the WikiProject guidelines. No one complained. Since then, I've been removing the images from the article a little bit at a time. If you haven't read Wikipedia's fair use policy, item 8 says that images claimed under fair use, such as these rating images, cannot be used for decorative purpose, which is clearly the current case. In effect, all I did was clarify the WikiProject guidelines to conform to Wikipedia's existing fair use policy.
- In light of this, I resent the implication that this is being done "out of the blue". What is out of the blue is Doom127's revision of the WikiProject guidelines to state that ESRB images should be used in the infobox, despite consensus otherwise. Pagrashtak 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- And now I've found that Doom127 has reverted a large portion of my work yesterday, including reverting redirect fixes. Pagrashtak 01:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Quit trying to make yourself look like some innocent here. There was no "little bit" at a a time; you made your edits all within the space of less than a day, a massive sweep. On top of that, as was said before, the archive (archive 9) was put away with comment from less than five people AND wasn't made aware to the general public. You've created your own little policy switch, one that I think more than a few would disagree with. I'm sorry that you feel offended that a few other of your changes got mixed in with the reverts, but having to FIX a hundred articles that you vandalized is a big job. Go ahead and put the redirect fixes in, if you will, but be aware that ripping out those legitimate images WILL be reverted again, by me. And that "wikiproject guideline" is nothing but your OWN writing. Making your own law and then assuming we all agree with it when we haven't even read the guideline goes against all forms of logic. And NO, there hasn't been "consensus", bub, only you and a couple other people. Daniel Davis 01:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- There's no "innocent" or "guilty" here. Looking at my contribution list, I looks like I did about 50 articles or so in the sweep in question. This was not the first time I had removed the ESRB images from infoboxes, although it was probably the largest to date. There were still many more articles with rating images, I basically cleared out the K-A articles, one of the smaller sections, a few prominent T's and I think possibly some M's. That's what I meant by little bit. As for "policy switch", the WikiProject page is not marked as policy, it's merely the consensus of the members of this project. The only applicable policy here is the fair use policy, which I feel I am supporting. Please desist with the condescension and the profanity - try to remain civil. I take offense at your accusations of vandalism. You will notice that instead of reverting the articles back I am discussing the matter here with you. I will, however, request that you leave the WikiProject page in the revision agreed upon in archive 9. Changing it to explicitly promote the use of ESRB rating images is definitely not supported by consensus. Pagrashtak 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I had put this on my watchlist- I knew it might turn into an argument between you two. Allow me to see if I've got this summed up right- Pagrashtak, you believe that the images serve no purpose and thus should be removed, and feel that your original discussion that is now on archive talk 9 was sufficient, no? And doom127, you believe that the images do serve a purpose and take up very little space, thus they don't operate as decorative, right? And that the archive doesn't provide enough of a basis of a consensus, right? am I being correct in both your arguments? The Eye 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. And you yourself said that the images serve a purpose. They're not just "decorative" at all. They serve as a good quick reference, as I said before. Consensus on a site with over a million articles doesn't follow the tone of five people hiding in an archive. Daniel Davis 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- My reasoning can be summed up by my statement in archive 9:
- I think we need to stop using ESRB rating images (as well as other rating systems) in our articles' infoboxes. They are marked as fair use; we need to use fair use images only when necessary. Criterion 8 of Wikipedia's fair use policy states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Adding the images doesn't really help the article, it's just decorative. Replacing the images with plain text will also be easier to read, as the small images are often a blur. --Pagrashtak 05:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- If someone would like me to expand upon this I will, but the above is my basic argument in a nutshell. Here's the timeline of what happened: On 19 February, I raised my concerns about the use of ESRB rating images. On 25 February, after statements from four editors and no opposition, I updated the guidelines as proposed and announced that I had done so. I left the discussion on the talk page in case there were objections to the new wording. After no such objections were announced, I made the first removal on 4 March. Every so often I would remove more images, doing larger chunks each time, waiting to see if there were objections. After hearing no objections, I archived the discussion on 27 March — over a month after the change — along with many other topics into archive9. I did so not for the purpose of "hiding" the discussion, as seems to be the accusation, but because the talk page was rather lengthy. If you look at the list of archive topics you will see that archive9 is one of the larger archives because the talk page was so large. Pagrashtak 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- My reasoning can be summed up by my statement in archive 9:
- doom127 has abandoned Wikipedia. Just thought you guys should know- so enforcement of your own edits will be left up to you. A big shrug and a half. The Eye 02:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I hope that's not because of me. I didn't re-revert Doom127's article reverts in the hopes that we could settle the matter here peacefully. I guess I'll give this a rest for tonight and see if he decides to come back. Pagrashtak 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- It seems like doom127 took it as a personal offense, Pagrashtak, and he left. But why does that matter? He's gone now and has completely erased his page, so you might as well make the changes with or without him. He is (or was) quite a good editor, but you know, there are a lot of editors that were on Wikipedia before, and got mad for one reason or another, then either turned away from Wikipedia or became vandals.
- Look at the case of one user named Brazil4Linux, for example. The guy was a good editor, then all of a sudden he got into a single edit conflict, lost, and spent the next half a year vandalizing pages and stalking Wikipedia users, making sockpuppets and generally causing mayhem. Now B4L is completely banned and never made another beneficial contribution to the project ever again. Somettimes it's unavoidable to have personality conflicts, especially when one person or another feels "ganged up" on, which I think may have occurred in doom127's case, judging from what happened. Whether or not he comes back, this entire incident looks to have been a rather nasty circumstance of that. Go ahead and make the re-reverts, and we'll see what happens, Pagrashtak. Jean-Luc Picard 21:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Pagrashtak. And so, consensus are in the archive 9 just don't understand why this guy Daniel is revolted. --Rick Browser 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand either. I have yet to read a convincing argument for having the graphics, and Pagrashtak has provide several reasons why not to have them. I understand that they provide a "visual cue" that leads the reader to the rating, but is that really the point or responsibility of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia? If people don't want to READ TEXT to find information, they should be looking up their game ratings on Amazon or someplace. Aguerriero 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Or, you know, looking at the front of the game box. Nifboy 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yep.. extreme redundance. Remeber Wikipedia is not a shop "yet another ordinary redundant information" site. ESRB can be provided with text without information losses. --Rick Browser 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Or, you know, looking at the front of the game box. Nifboy 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the information REALLY belongs in each article, and that entering it as text instead of using the copyrighted rating logo (with its legal requirements) is less visually interesting but still highly informative. Coll7 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is suggesting removing the rating text, the only issue here is the use of the image. Pagrashtak 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the information REALLY belongs in each article, and that entering it as text instead of using the copyrighted rating logo (with its legal requirements) is less visually interesting but still highly informative. Coll7 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Doom127 has just informed me on my talk page that he is being harassed about this conflict through AIM and Yahoo, which is why he chose to left. I call upon everyone to stop this; it's turned what could have been a civil discussion into a situation that has driven a contributor away from the site. Please, don't give Wikipedia or Wikipedians a bad name. Pagrashtak 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would find it hard to imagine that any of the regular members that frequent this WikiProject are harassing Daniel. If anyone is, I second the call to cease the behaviour immediately. Doom127 has done a lot of very good work for Wikipedia in the past, and though I disagreed with him in this instance I certainly wish him well. jacoplane 22:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think we need them nor do I think we should use them. My understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines concerning images gives me the impression that we couldn't use them regardless of whether we were in agreement one way or another. "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." - I would say this is decorative. K1Bond007 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Someguy0830 has changed the CVG infobox, along with some others. According to the userpage, it's something that he just does from time to time. Do we like it? I personally prefer the old one, I find the contrasting colours makes it easy to read, now there's way too much blue. - Hahnchen 11:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I also dislike the new color scheme. jacoplane 11:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- It also breaks some articles like Dune II for me in Firefox (the images in the box used to be side-by-side). jacoplane 11:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- That may have something to do with the width being changed (I believe). I might try and change it to fix that while you guys decide the other points (colors, etc) yourselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Width change fixed the issue with Dune II. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for fixing that. jacoplane 12:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Width change fixed the issue with Dune II. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- That may have something to do with the width being changed (I believe). I might try and change it to fix that while you guys decide the other points (colors, etc) yourselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Now it actually looks worse. Fredrik Johansson 12:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Did Someguy fix anything technical points with his template? Can we just revert? - Hahnchen 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)