User talk:Randomran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! Hello Randomran! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave me a message! :D Happy Editing! Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help My Talk Page New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Role-playing games 2 New articles 3 See Talk:First-person_adventure 4 Changing references 5 Removing sources 6 Spore 7 Re: rail shooters and light gun shooters 8 4X. 9 Computer role-playing game 10 Music video game article 11 "4X" and "Tech tree" 12 Re: 4X PR 13 4X (again) 14 Re: WP:SPAM 15 VG Newsletter 16 Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:JAF1970 17 New Message 18 prodding 19 The WPVG Newsletter (May 2008) 20 Mahjong 21 Hattrick AfD 22 Side-Scrolling "Genre" 23 Refs 24 Conflict of interest 25 You have no idea how right you are... 26 Stop reverting - source verified 27 Maxis keeps changing the name of that one phase 28 "Business" 29 Ace Combat 30 re: video game genre articles 31 AfD notification etiquette 32 Regarding your change to Europa Barbarorum 33 List of locations in the StarCraft series 34 Aki Ross gamecleanup 35 What do you think? 36 Characters 37 Cleanup? 38 cleanup take 2 39 video game genres, contd. 40 VG guidelines 41 Email 42 The WPVG Newsletter (June 2008) 43 Barnstar 44 Re: IAR 45 3 phases of a genre 46 Nice work 47 Dispute re WP:NOTE, etc. 48 Historical note 49 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games set in New York City 50 4X review 51 Please use edit summaries 52 4X 53 New source 54 4X: Krator's comments 55 Copy edting Blue Dragon 56 Some quips 57 Notability 58 Video games 59 The WPVG Newsletter (July 2008) 60 Pokemon Red Blue Glitch City 61 Not all that urgent 62 Update regarding hound surgery earlier this morning 63 Peer review of 4X 64 Overdue 65 Regarding this edit 66 AfD nomination of List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series 67 Lists, episodes, and characters 68 Wikiquette issue 69 4X FAC 70 Nonlinear videogames 71 Nice 72 VG writing guide 73 The WPVG Newsletter (August 2008) 74 Xenogears Original Soundtrack GAN 75 VG Barnstar for 4X 76 Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop 77 Re: Userfication 78 RFC 79 Barnstar for Diligence 80 The WPVG Newsletter for August 2008 81 Reverted your removal of comments at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise 82 Thanks 83 RfC proposal 84 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer (2nd nomination) 85 Europa Barbarorum 86 Watchlist Notice 87 Pokémon game mechanics 88 Re:AFD

[edit] Role-playing games

I would like to help on the console/computer RPG articles, but I firmly believe, despite an unfortunately short-sighted resistance on the part of a few people, that this cannot be done until the articles are merged

They are not distinct. At all. There are tendencies of one or the other to lean toward certain sub-genres and styles, but these are not descriptive, nor can they be universally. Furthermore, any account of either's history and development that does not include all genres will be wrong. These articles will never meet anyone's standards of quality as long as we cater to a handful of people offering no definition, but stomping their foot all the same. Frogacuda (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think a good strategy would be to merge the two history articles. If you establish the inextricable way that these supposedly separate genres developed, it would be difficult to argue that they should be distinct. For instance, you can talk about how RPGs were introduced to Japan by the Sharp X1 game The Black Onyx (created by a western programmer specifically for Japan) and this opened the way for console ports and localizations of Wizardry and Ultima, which became the foundation for Dragon Quest, and established the style of RPG that the current wiki calls "console RPG."

When you discuss them separately you need to pretend that Dragon Quest came from nowhere and that eastern action RPGs never had any impact on the western RPGs and it all falls apart. So that would be my strategy. I will do what I can to help when I have the time. Frogacuda (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Hey, I noticed you've been creating new articles, thanks for helping out with Wikipedia! You can announce your articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 22:51

[edit] See Talk:First-person_adventure

Please respond to my post at Talk:First-person_adventure. And since you asked for reliable reference, where is yours?--Wormsie (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing references

Please don't change references other people have added to point to other places. If you need to add a reference, add your own. You've changed references without changing the access date, making it look like other people added these references. Also, please use Wikipedia:Citation templates when adding references. Simply adding the URL is not satisfactory, as, if a URL to an article changes, people will not be able to find it if the author and publisher are not listed as well. SharkD (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing sources

Please stop removing sourced material from articles. You've removed sources and applied sources to comments that are not covered in the articles from Artillery game. You've removed sourced material and applied sources to comments that are not covered in the articles from Artillery Duel. SharkD (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, I wouldn't see that as a problem. However, no-one seems to be even starting in the discussion. I'm still waiting on opening statements. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a suggestion on the case page, I'd like to know your thoughts on it. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spore

Thanks for joining in the discussion. It's good to have another level head in the mix. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to be level. In fact, I came in agreeing with that other guy. But he's been so belligerent and the others have been pretty fair minded. I can't help but see the need for a compromise. It's silliness. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: rail shooters and light gun shooters

You're right that it's deeper problem, essentially caused by people using their own opinions rather than checking for sources. Firstly, light gun games are indeed sometimes called 'rail shooters', but from the sources I've looked at (usual suspects, IGN, GameSpot etc), 'light gun shooter' is far more prevalent. Secondly, 'rail shooter' is more commonly used to describe games like space harrier, star fox, rez, sin and punishment etc. Obviously, these games and light gun games don't have much in common other than a (differing) form of 'on-rails' movement. It should be noted that using 'on-rails' to describe one particular aspect of the gameplay (movement) is not the same as saying 'this game is a rail shooter'; sources sometimes note the first person viewpoint of light gun games, but they don't consider them 'first person shooters'.

With regards to the main article on rail shooters, I believe originally it was about games such as space harrier, star fox etc. At some point, people began to add information about light gun games in. Cue much debate over what a 'rail shooter' is, on the talk page; at no point did anyone look at any secondary sources. Eventually, I rewrote the article to cover 'on-rails' movement in both light gun games and shoot 'em ups (Space Harrier etc), as well as covering 'rail shooter' as a genre category (again, more information on the talk page). 'Rail shooter' and 'light gun shooter' should really be separate articles, but I never got round to it.

As for the template/category rail shooter, again I believe it's mistaken and reflects an editor's personal opinion rather than critical consensus. When I was rewriting the rail shooter article, I looked at several articles covering light gun games categorised as 'rail shooters'. None of them cited any sources to show they were considered as such, indeed the sources I did find termed them 'light gun shooters'. I intended to do something about that, but again haven't got round to it. I don't dispute that 'rail shooter' is a genre, only it's applicability to light gun games (or at least the prevalence of the term). It should be grouped under shoot 'em ups (along with scrollers, run and gun etc), or have it's own article/category. Indeed I believe it was orignally mentioned in the shoot em up section of the genre article and I misguidedly removed it (at the the time it appreared to me to be synonymous with 'scrolling shooters'). Bridies (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To sum up, it's the template that's the problem, not the genre article. Bridies (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think adding 'light gun shooter' to the template is probably the quickest fix. However, currently there's no article on light gun shooters, though there is a list of light gun games. The rail shooter article should be split, with the information on light gun games being used to create its own article. That would make two very short articles at the moment though. Going deeper, light gun games categorised as 'rail shooters' in their infoboxes should be changed. Bridies (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

'Light gun game' does have an entry in the 'sub-genre' subsections of Shooter game. Bridies (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a light gun shooter article and moved the appropriate content from the rail shooter article to there. I also added light gun shooter to the template. There's probably quite a few light gun games marked as 'rail shooters' in their main articles/infoboxes; I'll check for that later. Bridies (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4X.

I'd be glad to give it a review, but I'm a bit busy these days; mind reminding me around Thursday or so (I tend to forget this kind of thing...)? · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to contribute if you have specific ideas, althought the article already contains just about everything I can think of that would be acceptable in Wikipedia. Refs are particularly difficult - I trawled extensively during the "4X notability" debate (now vanished form the Talk page, there appears to be no archive) and inserted almost everything I found. Philcha (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, right, I had already forgotten. :( I'll start copyediting the article tomorrow morning, and I'll probably have finished—and commented on—it by Saturday. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, very sorry. I'll get started right away. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first impressions: needs a lot of copyediting (I'd be happy to help with that), and the definition is somewhat vaguely explained (though I'm guessing the reason is because there is no true definition; see the message I left on the talk page, though), the organization needs a bit of work, and too many mentions of "such and such game is a good example of this" (not really needed, at least, not too often). Finally, the "Examples of 4X games" section should be removed (the most notable ones are likely to get mentioned in the text, anyway). I'll post on the talk page when I've finished reading the article (only read a little so far). · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a better explained, more comprehensive review when I'm finished going through the article. · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re "Examples of 4X games", it would be better to create a "list of" article. There's no sense in throwing away information some readers may find useful. Philcha (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I've not been able to review properly yet; I'll make sure to finish reading tomorrow. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer role-playing game

hi, instead of replacing one reference with another, equally informational, I believe it is better to give reader a choice like here. You may want to consider merging the two articles, by the way ;) Pundit|utter 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it is great that you're sorting these out. The only problem is that a "video rpg" is much narrower than "computer rpg". I'm one of these old guys who remember MUDs and other non-video computer rpgs. Therefore it is rather counter-intuitive for me to keep the video-rpg article as the main entry :) merging everything into "computer rpg", however, may be an option because of the big overlap. Pundit|utter 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What I find confusing about the "video" in the name is the fact, that there is a whole genre of computer role-playing games that is ONLY textual, without any graphics. Thus, calling them "video RPG" does not make much sense. In my view, actually, "computer RPG" does justice to the idea :) Pundit|utter 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that you have your own terminology within the project, and that is totally fine. It is just that it perhaps should not be reflected in the generally accessible articles :) On Wikiproject RPG we distinguish computer-assisted gaming from the traditional one. I think it is better to try to stick to names, which are not anti-intuitive or misleading (which would be the case of "video RPG", when you consider the fact that many known computer RPG systems were entirely text, and not video based - some didn't have ANY graphics at all). Pundit|utter 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully some people interested in both types will come up with suggestions :) Good work! Pundit|utter 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a pleasure to discuss with you and develop Wikipedia in the atmosphere of constructive collaboration :) see you around Pundit|utter 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music video game article

Hi, I noticed you added a "citation needed" tag to the top of the Music video game article in this edit. Could you please explain in Talk:Music video game what it was that you felt needed citation? It is unclear from the tag alone. Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "4X" and "Tech tree"

Hi, how do you feel about the current state of 4X? Before you turned up I'd though I'd said all I had to say about that topic, but you got me thinking on new tracks.

IIRC you also expressed interest in "Tech tree". I'd be interested to know what your ideas on that are. Philcha (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What aspects of "Tech tree" in 4X do you have reservations about?

• That 4X tech trees are usually big, and sometimes complex?
• That tech advancement is generally vital in 4X games, and often optional in other games?
• That costs of going up the tech tree are often higher in 4X than in non-4X games?
• That research mechanisms / resourcing are different in 4X and non-4X games?
• The structural diversity of 4X tech trees? Philcha (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have ago at making the "Tech tree" section in 4X more concise. I actually realised while typing my last message to you that the bullet points summarized the subject well and needed little more than the addition of refs. Philcha (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I can. It's not much shorter, but I hope it's little more coherent. Philcha (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that all screenshots of non open-source games are dodgy? If so, can you supply a pic that shows a many-to many tech tree from a suitable source and is clearer at thumbnail size than the Free Orion pic?

I don't how the Civ 3 tech tree pic's being from a mod affects 4X - it's not a game tutorial, the pic illustrates the structure and any mod has to follow the structure expected by the game code. Philcha (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think using FreeCiv as a "prototypical 4X game" is not a great idea: I doubt if it's that well-known, and the image is poor. I'm reinstating the Civ II image. I've checked Wikipedia:Non-free content and I think using the screen shot in 4X counts as "for critical commentary" since: the article comments on the whole genre; it presents Civ II and the other Civ games as the prototypical 4X games. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to C-evo - I'd given up playing Civ games because of the amount of micromanagement (towns and units), but I'll give C-evo a try.

The problem with using open-source games as examples is that it might be hard to find good refs for their status as 4X games (assuming their own web sites are not allowable evidence). In any case most of the developers will not complain as they're getting free publicity. The only exception might be MOO III, criticisms of which are cited in 4X; but that image is really just eye-candy and its removal would not cause serious pain provided the caption is integrated into the text first. Philcha (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 4X PR

Sorry about that-I've been working on my Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project, I should have more free time this week to review. Thanks for the reminder, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4X (again)

I think we need to discuss your recent edit to "Depth of gameplay". I like some aspects, but in other areas you've changed the meaning. For example "even if the player's ultimate goal is total conquest" was intended both to make the point that would-be Alexander the Greats have to consider these factors and more specifically to raise the point that diplomacy etc. are important in SoeSE although the only victory condition there is total conquest. I'm turning in now, so I'll leave more detailed comments at Talk: 4X tomorrow. Please don't make any other major changes in the meantime. Philcha (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a suggestion at Talk:4X#Depth_of_gameplay. Philcha (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else you want to achieve with 4X? IMO the main thing outstanding is to make the lead summarise the content, but we should stabilise the content first. Philcha (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:SPAM

Sure no problem. Anytime. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] VG Newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 1 - April 9, 2008 Archive before Archive After To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project at a Glance As of 2008-04-07, the project has: 82 Featured articles 10 Featured Lists 7 Featured Topics 1 article in Featured Article Review 184 Good Articles 15 articles for Peer review 3 articles for Assessment Featured Articles, Lists, and Topics Candidates and Reviews Featured Article Candidates Guitar Hero Featured List Candidates List of songs in Guitar Hero II Featured Topic Candidates None Featured Review Final Fantasy VII (FA) Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics in March Promoted FA: Final Fantasy XI, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Defense of the Ancients, List of Halo media, Giants: Citizen Kabuto, Grim Fandango, Spyro: Year of the Dragon, List of songs in Guitar Hero Demoted FA: Metal Gear Solid Topic: Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow Promoted GA: Grim Fandango, Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid series, SimCity series, Characters of Halo Demoted GA: Final Fantasy III, Star Fox 64, Star Fox Adventures News Current proposals and discussions Well, gee, thanks 1up! 1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details. Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. Feature The Importance of the Lead The lead is one of the most important parts of any Wikipedia article; its job to summarize the article in 2 to 3 paragraphs in order to familiarize the reader with the structure of the content that you will providing them as well as to give a quick one-minute overview of the topic. Many articles that are processed through Good Article or Featured Article assessments will be heavily scrutinized for a poor lead section. For articles dealing with video games, a common practice has developed for leads, being a 3-paragraph discussion. First paragraph The first paragraph should state the name of the game (using both bold (to identify the article's name) and italics as per the manual of style), along with any other alternate names the game may go by. The genre of the game should be clearly identified as well as the developer and the publisher. If a notable person has been cited by the game as having worked on the game's development (such as Tim Schafer or David Jaffe), this should also be noted. Release dates should be given, along with the release of any ports, remakes, or sequels. Second paragraph The second paragraph should summarize the plot briefly in one or two sentences; a high level overview is only needed to set the stage for further discussion. One or two sentences should be included to discuss the gameplay, including any notable features of the game. Third paragraph The third paragraph should cover the reception of the game, citing its general critical reaction and any significantly notable successful or failing elements in the game. If the game has won awards, this aspect can be noted, but specific mention of any award is discouraged. This approach should help you to write a good lead for nearly any game, though this may need to be altered for other games. If there's not a lot of reception information for a game, it may be worthwhile to combine the listed first and third paragraphs into one paragraph. There may be need to talk more about an aspect not normally covered in video game articles (such as with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)) which should be noted in the lead. Things you can help with: Peer review: The Conduit, Anarchy Online, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, List of characters in The King of Fighters series, Guitar Hero, Rewrite (visual novel) Cleanup: Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed, Destroy All Humans! 2, Darksiders: Wrath of War, Hellboy: The Science of Evil, Reactor (video game), Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, List of PlayStation 2 games Featured candidates: Discography of Final Fantasy VII, Concerned, Space Invaders, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings Good article nominations: Half-Life 2 episodes (Topic nomination), Species of StarCraft, Final Fantasy VII, Key visual novels (Topic nomination), Silent Hill 3, Europa Barbarorum, Chris Metzen, Aether (video game) Article status review: GA Review – Pikachu; FA Review – Half-Life 2, Silent Hill 4: The Room; FT Review – None Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles. Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project page. Sign up for the VG Newsletter. Help prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at the VG Wikipedia 0.7 workshop Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:JAF1970

I've started this discussion on him. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Message

[edit] prodding

when you place a prod on an article you must give a reason. It should says something like "non-notable game, no sources" or something of the sort. Please go back and replace the tags on the ones you placed recently. To avoid confusing our reporting system, please delete the old one first, save the article, and then place the new tag. DGG (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The WPVG Newsletter (May 2008)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 2 - May 7, 2008 Archive before | Archive After To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project at a Glance As of 2008-05-06, the project has: 84 Featured articles 11 Featured Lists 8 Featured Topics 0 article in Featured Article Review 206 Good Articles 1 article in Good Article Review 13 articles for Peer review 1 article for Assessment Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics in April Promoted FA/FL: Guitar Hero, List of songs in Guitar Hero, List of songs in Guitar Hero II, Halo: Contact Harvest, Age of Empires Topic: None Demoted FA/FL: None Demoted GA: Air (visual novel), SimCity (series) Promoted GA: 24: The Game, Chocobo Racing, Crackdown, Crush 40, Dynasty Warriors 4, Geneforge, Gravemind, Guitar Hero (series), Half-Life (video game), Martin O'Donnell, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Music of Final Fantasy III, Music of Final Fantasy VI, Music of Final Fantasy X-2, Music of Final Fantasy XII, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Resident Evil: Extinction, Sega Mega Drive, Super Smash Bros. (series), StarCraft: Ghost, System Shock 2, The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures, The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game), Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, CD-i games from the Legend of Zelda series, Xbox 360, Voices of the Lifestream News There were 256 new articles in April 2008 Current proposals and discussions Well, gee, thanks 1up! 1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details. About 14% of the articles on the list have been checked and updated. Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. WikiProject Warcraft and WikiProject StarCraft have been switched into Warcraft task force and StarCraft task force under the VG Project. WikiProject TimeSplitters has been deleted. Feature Writing about Gameplay The Gameplay section is a crucial component of a good video game article. Although it may be relatively easy for an experienced gamer to write such a section, care must be taken to maintain an appropriate focus and balance. The section should be written for readers with little or no knowledge of video gaming and should not be filled with detailed information about weapons, levels, or other such topics that are only of interest to the video gamer or that might be found in a game guide. Your goal for crafting a good section is to have people who have never picked up the game understand the basic mechanics. Do note, however, that it's safe to assume the reader has at least a minor knowledge of what a video game is. This section often begins the body text after the lead, but is sometimes placed after the Plot section. Games with little or no story can cover the plot in the Gameplay section. When writing about a game, use your head and common sense about the ordering. Generally, start off with a broad stroke—is the game a RTS or an FPS, etc. Don't talk about why the gameplay is like it is; generally, that is better placed in the 'Development' section later on in the article. Images can be added to better illustrate some aspects of gameplay. Generally, a single screenshot will suffice. Because of screenshots are non-free content, usage should be minimalised. Multiple images can be used, but all images should add something to the article beyond what the prose states. All non-free images require a fair use rationale to be used on Wikipedia. Things to remember Don't add in cruft about weapons, levels, and minute details of trivia; gameplay sections should serve as a primer to the game, not an exhaustive list of every facet of the game. Don't use gaming jargon which can be confusing to readers, such as "NPC" or "MMORPG". If you use these terms, state the full name and the abbreviation the first time it appears. For example, "Halo is a first-person shooter, or FPS." Wikilink! So you don't have to describe what a god game is, link it. Talk about what makes the game different from others; if you only talk about why StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, then readers could just visit the article about the game genre and be better served. Things you can help with: Peer review: The Conduit, Anarchy Online, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, List of characters in The King of Fighters series, Guitar Hero, Rewrite (visual novel) Cleanup: Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed, Destroy All Humans! 2, Darksiders: Wrath of War, Hellboy: The Science of Evil, Reactor (video game), Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, List of PlayStation 2 games Featured candidates: Discography of Final Fantasy VII, Concerned, Space Invaders, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings Good article nominations: Half-Life 2 episodes (Topic nomination), Species of StarCraft, Final Fantasy VII, Key visual novels (Topic nomination), Silent Hill 3, Europa Barbarorum, Chris Metzen, Aether (video game) Article status review: GA Review – Pikachu; FA Review – Half-Life 2, Silent Hill 4: The Room; FT Review – None Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles. Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project page. Sign up for the VG Newsletter. Help prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at the VG Wikipedia 0.7 workshop Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

[edit] Mahjong

Hi Randomran, nice list; could you put Aki and any other solitaire games on Mahjong solitaire instead? Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hattrick AfD

Please see here: [1]. Thanks, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Side-Scrolling "Genre"

Thanks, friend! You've been helpful in many ways in my recent sporadic plunges into the whole Video Game arena. I have updated the Side-scrolling video game‎ article, removing references it to being a "genre". I've also stripped the "Side-Scrolling" sub-genre from the Video game genres‎ page. (Meanwhile, work progresses on my List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games by genre page.) Dawynn (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

Convince me why there's 8 refs needed when 2 suffice and the facts aren't being changed. JAF1970 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A Serious Sam blog constitutes a valid source? JAF1970 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

Good morning. I have a small request for aid and an admonishment. Giving the request first might seem disingenuous, but giving the admonishment first could sour further dealings. Which one should I lead with? --Kizor 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally good with assuming good faith so don't be ashamed to lay all your cards out. I'll assess your request on its own merits, and help in whatever way I can. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. First: this edit felt wrong - my use of English seemed off. I'd be obliged if you reviewed it.
Second: You tampon, you voted for the deletion of an article about TV show characters while calling it an article about video game characters and citing WP:GAMETRIVIA. I waived my right to complain in tearing you a new one in that discussion, but you hopefully agree that this sort of thing shouldn't happen. --Kizor 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I was confused about that when I looked at the AFD as well. I saw the article because it was listed within the gaming AFDs. When I looked at the article, I saw issues of non notable information on a fictional topic. Gametrivia does a good job of summarizing the problems with these kinds of articles, and I usually rely upon that. On the other hand, I saw mentions of a TV show. I probably should have stuck to WP:N and WP:FICT and WP:PLOT rather than taking the easy way out with WP:GAMETRIVIA. But I still stand by my recommendation for deletion. This was lazy on my part, but not because I didn't review the article or attempt to seek sources. It was lazy because I got sloppy with my reasoning.

I also looked at the government simulation article and tried to improve it. The paragraph about hearts of iron still needs work, but I don't have enough experience with those games to clarify. I hope I've been helpful. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, if I was seeking to change your opinion then my timing would be as badly off as possible. I'm only concerned with due diligence in AfDs - !votes that get the topic wrong get ugly in most of all possible ways. (A personal favorite comes from last January: Six people called for speedy delete without denying or in any way acknowledging the explanation about the ineligibility of speedy deletion on the second line of the nomination.) For the record, Avatar is a TV show and has spawned a few cash-in games that have negligible impact on the main franchise.

Thank you kindly for your work on the government simulator article, you certainly have been helpful in aiding its legibility and that of later revisions. I do intend to make another pass later on because (a) I wish to put some more focus on the differences between government simulators and other genres, as similarities are common but usually very superficial - Civ IV, for instance, is about empire management but only marginally about government management. It doesn't have domestic politics. Half the time the player doesn't know what kind of state he's running until something uses his title. (b) I'm a greedy bastard. --Kizor 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an amiable conclusion. I'll pay more care to the governmental thingy article and point the changes out on the talk page when I'm done. While we're talking, I saw a couple of things that took my interest in my watchlist and in bouncing here through your contributions and decided to bug you directly. Regarding a giant fish that I'm quite fond of, from my fairly anarchistic viewpoint WP:N, being a guideline rather than a policy or core policy, is a tool (not "the") for estimating grounds for inclusion. This doesn't keep it from being a good idea, just leaves room for other metrics. This was expressed and appreciated in my RfA (which was otherwise embarassing as it was during that time that I was making a hard left at Looneywood junction, but I digress). Featuring in several dozen video games over fifteen years (as well as some very unlikely places (the Far Side cartoon is a real stretch, but that image is fairly inarguable)) is a good argument for inclusion, is it not?

Regarding that Emrich article, is there a chance that I could get a copy, in private correspondence or otherwise, for my nefarious GA purposes?

Regarding my writing style, do I use the first person singular too much? It might be an artefact from my native language - where the equivalent is a fairly inconspicuous suffix - and I worry that it might make me look self-centered. --Kizor 08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would otherwise reply "good luck, and good editing" and go on my merry way, but I was in the neighbourhood and saw you speak out in support of massive-scale deletion to polish Wikipedia's image. Lemme just collect the quotes and build some arguments, and I'll get back to you.
I wasn't looking for any further commitments, so sucks to be me. ---Kizor 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have no idea how right you are...

"Repeat what the sources say, and leave it up to the reader to interpret what's happening. ... and then who knows what could happen in a few months? The funny thing about wikipedia is that journalists read it. Just by virtue of saying "there's an emerging subgenre here", journalists will pick that up, and run with it, and then you can put that back in as research." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarranon (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop reverting - source verified

Source has been verified. JAF1970 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed the cit to include the verification within the cit. JAF1970 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maxis keeps changing the name of that one phase

Now it's the Cell phase. JAF1970 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Business"

You changed a number of articles, including Clonk, from "economic simulation" to "business simulation". I'm not a native English speaker, but what is the rationale behind this? Clonk has a lot of resource managment (You can chop wood, mine ore, melt metal and build vehicles and weapons from it; similar to the more well-known The Settlers), but you aren't managing a "business" as in e.g. Sim City. I have heard the term economic simulation a lot for these games, but business simulation seems rather unfitting. Sven Eberhardt (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were some fixed game categories in Wikipedia. In any case, reading the articles of the game categories, it does fit into real-time strategy much better than business (or economic) simulation. I changed the introduction text. Sven Eberhardt (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ace Combat

Do you think it would be possible to combine the information in Organizations of Ace Combat, Militaries of Ace Combat, Earth (Ace Combat) and Superweapons of Ace Combat into an Universe of Ace Combat article? This was done with Kingdom Hearts (see Universe of Kingdom Hearts). Thanks! RCX (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: video game genre articles

Hi there, sorry for the late reply. At one point I was trying to go through them all and take care of all the respective issues they are tagged for (mostly 'no sources'). I'm thinking of looking at the ones that are reasonably well developed and laid out (e.g. shoot 'em up and fighting game) and trying to get everything sourced (and any or removed). It's mostly the various action genres on my watchlist, all the variations on stragegy and RPGs I don't know much about. Bridies (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD notification etiquette

Please be sure to follow this aspect of the AfD instructions regarding the nominating process: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Wikipedia Page History Statistics." I do not believe you did so for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat. In the first case, you should notify any user of IP with more than one edit and the same for here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your change to Europa Barbarorum

I see that you put a template on the Europa Barbarorum article warning that it might be deleted due to lack of notability - precisely what changes do you want made to it in order to make it notable? Please note that it would be strange if the article were deleted now as it has been around for several years as far as I know. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of locations in the StarCraft series

I've noticed that you've tagged the List of locations in StarCraft article for cleanup. Just incase this is a potential prelude to possible AfD, I just want to ask you to refrain from nominating for deletion. It is an utter mess, and its on my (fairly extensive) to-do list, but I'm currently taking a break from StarCraft related things after rewriting the FA StarCraft, dealing with Species of StarCraft and bringing StarCraft: Ghost to GA. However, I will get around to sorting it out in due course. -- Sabre (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aki Ross gamecleanup

I'd like to know what you think needs to be game-cleaned up about this article. The other articles you tagged are obvious, but this one not that much IMO (especially as it's not even about a game to begin with). Thanks. Kariteh (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for cleanup because there's a few parts that are unreferenced. Probably not the most suitable tag. It just needs more editors on it, hence why I tagged it. If you can think of a more suitable tag, feel free to change it. Randomran (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Refimprove}} is probably best. Kariteh (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What do you think?

I don't think I asked you this, but would you consider making a request for comment on Le Grand? I haven't made it yet, but I'm strongly considering it, as his disruptive attitude is creeping into many aspects of Wikipedia (dispite many people telling him of policies, which he chooses to ignore). I was told to stay away from him, but frankly: I'm fed up with his attitude, and it's very clear others are as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While Le Grand doesn't curse, or attack people... his views are disruptive and seem to just flood many deletion debates at times. I can start building evidence, could you help out? Request for Comment requires 2 or 3 people at least for it to remain open, but I can easily find others to be part of it. If you could email me (click email this user while on my talk page), I can give you more details (not suitable for here). RobJ1981 (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I could just give you an email address that I don't use much, then I wont be too worried about it getting spam or whatever from whoever else might see it. Some policies that Le Grand is probably breaking: not assuming good faith, as well as point-of-view pushing. I haven't read the policies on those completely though (but I'm pretty sure POV pushing is something we could find many examples for, if that is indeed a policy that's been broken). Plus he keeps listing another editor's opinion essay, and acts like it should be followed (but it's not an official policy, as the tag at the top of it clearly states). The "Don't Destroy" one, that I'm sure you've seen at least once. For any type of thing: deletion debates, talk pages are indeed the best bet to find things. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

robJ1981@hotmail.com (my MSN messenger name: no active email though), we can talk there. Otherwise, do you use IRC? There's no need to create a new email address if we don't need to. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles. I don't think any alert for him has been on there in the past. With alert, it takes less time to make, and gets enough input usually. If it fails (or not much response), then RFC is the way to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At WP:ANI, LGRdC has stated he has to leave wiki. I think it may be best for all concerned to just let this go and peacefully help create a better encyclopedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually on the Wikipedia-en or Wikia channels. Look for me. I'm usually online late at night, or in the afternoon (central time zone). RobJ1981 (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently on IRC with this same name. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

I'll see if I can get to it, but I would try to build up the main character article and merge the individual character articles there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to echo this. A merge is always preferred to a deletion if feasible--provided you actually do get consensus, demonstrated on the talk page. Yes, in case there's no agreement there we do need some better way of handing deciding on the validity of a particular merge--though I am very reluctant to propose further bureaucracy. DGG (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

oops, that was meant for someone else. DGG (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

Hello, why do you tag Ivalice for cleanup? Any specific issues that we can address, because this tag is a bit too vague. — Blue。 07:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup take 2

Hi, same question as above: what do you think needs to be cleaned up in Netrek? -- Akb4 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] video game genres, contd.

I've decided to try starting with fighting game, I think, because there's quite a few sources on Gamespot which seem to provide a good historical overview. Specifically, I'm looking at History of Street Fighter, History of Mortal Kombat, History of Sega Fighting Games, Fighting Game Classics. I've yet to read through them properly but they should provide an informative starting point. With regards to the current fighting game article, the first paragraph of the 'history' section is good, and that's about it. I'm not too sure how the article should be laid out and what it should cover and since none of the genre articles are any good (as far as I'm aware) there's not much to go on. It should cover development, technical and critical milestones, waxing and waning popularity etc, but that might conceivably all go under 'history'. Bridies (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VG guidelines

You may want to check out Guyinblack's draft for "How to write a video game article"; mind you, I think there's need for two different documents, one being the quick reference, one being the discussion given. --MASEM 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Masem - Guyinblack's draft is quite good, but also very detailed. The Guidelines should be a quick summary and should contain a link to a more detailed essay.

That said, I think your draft is great, Randomran! It's quick and concise, it captures the core concepts very well, and I like that you're linking to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines - that seems rather important since people are questioning whether we're in line with WP's policies.

I don't have time to give much detailed feedback right now, but I do think it's a great starting point. Definitely open a discussion on the main VGProj talk to see if you can get the new revision adopted. :) Good work! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your draft is headed on the right path. Like Masem and Kiefer said, it's a good, quick reference and is easy to read. I like how you organized the "Inappropriate content" section and followed it with a good (and sourced) "Exceptions" section. I think the first "Overview" section focuses a bit too much on what should not be in an article, though I understand why you phrased everything the way you did. I would try to include an extra, brief sentence explaining what an encyclopedic video game article is actually for. Like providing a "comprehensive overview" or an "informational analysis and background" of a video game topic while not giving "too much weight" to certain sections of it. And regarding the content about transwikifying content, it seems a bit out of place, but I can't honestly think of a better section to put it in—just something to keep in the back of your mind while doing revisions.

All in all, I think it's a good step forward from what we currently have and I hope we can adopt it sometime soon. Nice job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Re WP:FICT, I've been probably the most active in trying to meet various "goals" for revising it since last year. The current version, which allows for limited but allowable lists of characters, is the one that is seen as the best likelihood of being accepted. --MASEM 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of warning that WP:FICT can get noisy (it is very quiet now) but I will try to drop you a line when things change with it. Do, however, be aware that in the GNG at WP:N that one of the footnotes (#8 I think) also allows for selected non-notable spinouts (WP:FICT's revision is to try to expand this point more). Again, as I commented on the talk page, I'm pretty I'm reading what you're thinking and in line with the existing guidelines, but it's just not coming out exact in the wording, but that's easily fixed. --MASEM 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Use the email facility on my User page to send an email which encloses your email address. I'll reply; you reply to the reply, adding the attachment. That's worked twice for me, and AFAIK none of the 3 people involved has had (increased) spam as a result.

Thanks for the notification about Tea Leaves, I'll gird up my lions loins and smite the unbelievers. Philcha (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you get my email re the Emrich article? Or are you just busy at present?

BTW congratulations on the Barnstar. Philcha (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The WPVG Newsletter (June 2008)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 3 - June 4, 2008 Archive before | Archive After To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project at a Glance As of 2008-06-04, the project has: 89 Featured articles 13 Featured Lists 9 Featured Topics 2 articles in Featured Article Review 208 Good Articles 0 articles in Good Article Review 10 articles for Peer review Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics Promoted FA/FL: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts, List of Harvest Moon titles, Riven, Myst, Topic: Characters of Halo, The Orange Box Demoted FA/FL: Devil May Cry series (FT) Promoted GA: Air (visual novel), Crash Boom Bang!, Driving Emotion Type-S, Einhänder, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Metal Gear Solid, Off-Road Velociraptor Safari, Team Fortress 2, Grand Theft Auto (series), Kratos (God of War), History of video game consoles (seventh generation) Demoted GA: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Cloud Strife, Super Smash Bros. News There were 203 new articles in May 2008 Current proposals and discussions Well, gee, thanks 1up! 1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details. About 28% of the articles on the list have been checked and updated. Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. WikiProject Dragon Quest has been redirected to WP:VG. WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games Guild Wars task force has been deleted. Interested in a specific video game series or company? Check out some of our task forces to help improve the related articles. Atari Command & Conquer Devil May Cry New! Gears of War Grand Theft Auto Silent Hill Suikoden New! StarCraft New! Valve Visual novels New! Warcraft Feature Writing about Development Development content is very important to include in an encyclopedic video game article. It provides a history of how the game came to be and provides real world information needed for an article to claim comprehensiveness. However, writing this section can be difficult because the amount and type of information available will vary for each game. One of the best sources for such information is a developer interview. These can provide insight into the thought process of the designers and give examples of influences and obstacles encountered. Previews can also be helpful by giving a snap shot of the game before it was released and may mention development issues that were still being addressed. When writing about development, common sense should be used to organize content to maintain a sense of flow for the reader. Most times, it is best to give the information in a somewhat chronological order—though information can also be grouped by topics like audio, promotion, graphics, etc. If one such topic gets large enough, it can be split off into its own subsection or regular section. For example, Kingdom Hearts#Audio is a separate section from the rest of the development information because it focuses on the game's musical score and voice acting. Portal (video game)#Soundtrack, however, does not have as much content and is a subsection of the main development section. What to include about development Who are the developers? Which company or studio developed the game, and are there any prominent designers involved? When did development begin? When and where was the game first announced? (e.g. Tokyo Game Show, E3 Media and Business Summit, etc.) What influenced the game's story, characters, music, and/or gameplay ? (e.g. past games, movies, books, etc.) Were there any delays? Was anything excluded because of time or technological constraints? (e.g. extra levels, game modes, characters, story arcs, etc.) Things to remember Avoid proseline. Though maintaining a sense to chronology is important, this section should not read like an ordered list of events. Images in this section should be relevant to the information given and should add on to it. Source everything to avoid information being tagged as original research. Things you can help with: Peer review: The Conduit, Anarchy Online, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, List of characters in The King of Fighters series, Guitar Hero, Rewrite (visual novel) Cleanup: Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed, Destroy All Humans! 2, Darksiders: Wrath of War, Hellboy: The Science of Evil, Reactor (video game), Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, List of PlayStation 2 games Featured candidates: Discography of Final Fantasy VII, Concerned, Space Invaders, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings Good article nominations: Half-Life 2 episodes (Topic nomination), Species of StarCraft, Final Fantasy VII, Key visual novels (Topic nomination), Silent Hill 3, Europa Barbarorum, Chris Metzen, Aether (video game) Article status review: GA Review – Pikachu; FA Review – Half-Life 2, Silent Hill 4: The Room; FT Review – None Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles. Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project page. Sign up for the VG Newsletter. Help prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at the VG Wikipedia 0.7 workshop Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

[edit] Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed how much work you're putting into policy discussions and trying to cleanup the VG project article guidelines, so I'm just giving this as a recognition of your efforts. Your civility and knowledge of policy has also been really good. Interested in going for a set of tools in the future? I'll help you along if you like. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't blame you for not wanting to go to WP:RFA right now. No one should have to undergo the extreme scrutiny and rather pathetic reasoning for opposes that currently is being undertaken there, although there are efforts to have it fixed. If you're ever interested, let me know. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: IAR

I don't believe in ignoring all rules. I'm just tired of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's cherry-picking of quotes and policies to stymy discussion and reduce everything to drivel by repeating the same points over and over again. I was making a point that if he/she really thinks that IAR is so important, I should be able to do what I really would like to-ban the annoying bugger and be done with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is when push comes to shove, we’re going to have to overrule the opposers and roll out the guideline. While some have valid issues which should be taken seriously, the other four or so are on one side of the fence or the other on notability and can’t be reconciled. Prolly those who want to axe the stuff will be more likely to come on board, but even if we pass the guideline, it doesn’t mean any attempts to delete utter crap aren’t going to be assaulted by Citron and the like saying that the guideline wasn’t really consensus, yadda yadda… Without a functioning guideline, our ability to deal with this crap basically boils down to unilateral action, which definitely won't make anyone happy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. This is just more annoying then all the shit that went down over at WT:SPOILER because this is absolutely essential to a vast portion of wikipedia, not just little tags in articles. Whatever, I guess I'll go back to some writing while this gets tossed about. Cheers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a "he" incidentally. One could say the same about cherry picking and repetition on those against the inclusion of the articles in question. And again, I don't think calling editors' good faith contributions "crap" helps. If anything why not somehow notify the various article creators and editors of these discussions to get a better sense of what they really think? Why not get some new blood into these discussions? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand, I know you're trying to help, but this is a conversation that's aimed at trying to diffuse a dispute rather than escalate it. If you want to continue your dispute with David Fuchs, please do it where the two of you began it. Do not bring it to my talk page. I'm asking you politely to take my talkpage off your watchlist. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a reply for Le Grand on his talk page regarding this topic as well. I have already pointed out to him in the VGProj discussion that it's up to him to get editors he thinks will be interested in the discussion if he feels that strongly. Most of VGProj is made up of non-admins, so the majority of the project has the same limitations he has in terms of seeing deleted contributions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 phases of a genre

You might like one part of A Discussion about Matter, part two, and it might even be useful for a an article on some genre (RTS springs to mind): "... all artistic movements and genres passing through three phases. You have the initial phase when ideas are laid down, then the second phase when you get the great masters of the genre and then the third phase when it’s all about being a virtuoso, about not challenging the limits of your genre but rather producing art that relentlessly pursues beauty as defined by the genre with no interest in innovation or change." It also links to the article that presents that idea, but IMO the summary's much more readable. That sounds like a literary equivalent of some remarks in Trent Polack's A Glimpse into Modern Real-Time Strategy Philcha (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RTS seems to have had a 1-year phase 1, a 5-year phase 2 and an extended phase 3. Can't work out how it applies for TBS.

BTW did you get my email? Philcha (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work

Nice work expanding Turn-based tactics. The article no longer seems like such a stub. SharkD (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute re WP:NOTE, etc.

I know that, I've been part of the dispute at WP:FICT since the beginning. I'm not particularly worried about it, the cleanup gets done one way or the other. NOTE has been contested by people wanting to write all kinds of cruft, but like I put myself, it follows so logically and cleanly from our core policies, it's been longstanding despite any such challenges. But thanks for the heads-up, and while I'm aware of the origin of that debate myself, might it not be a good idea to link to the FICT debate from the NOTE one, so that the context is easily visible? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not either, I see, upon looking through the page, that Masem has already put exactly such a notice. So, guess no one has to worry about it anyway! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical note

By the way, per Book burning, it's not a reference to "Nazis" per se, although some have actually made that allegation, but I am referring to a long historical precedent across many cultures and for many reasons rather than to any one particular moment in history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games set in New York City

Hey, we agreed in one! Anyway, I'm happy to see that happen! I just came home from Waldemeer Park in area after riding the Ravine Flyer II. Cool ride! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4X review

I've posted responses to most of SharkD's comments, and flagged those I think are fully resolved. The exceptions are:

• "The first 4X games were turn-based, but game developers have created real-time 4X games, as well." This sentence exists in the intro and shouldn't be repeated verbatim. Reword it or merge it somehow with the points that follow it.

I don't see how it's a problem. A few Web style guides advise against varying phrasing just for the sake of it (it's the well-known "scan, not read" thing again).

• "Most 4X games represent these racial differences with a collection of economic and military bonuses and sometimes also disadvantages; but in Sword of the Stars the races mainly differ in their space travel techniques, which has a large impact on how they play." Is SotS the only game that differs from the main of the genre? Is SotS notable enough to get special emphasis? This can be fixed with a simple change in style or tone. I'll do this myself, as well as fix some issues in the preceding paragraph.

SharkD said he'd copyedit. I notice the text has changed.

• "The earliest 4X games were influenced by board games and text-based computer games from the 1970s." Once again, you're repeating yourself. Not a big deal, and can easily be fixed.

I don't see how it's a problem. A few Web style guides advise against varying phrasing just for the sake of it.

• His conclusion

I've pointed out the problems about sources, but can't see a solution.

Could you look over the responses, and:

• Let me know if you disagree with any.
• If not, we should decide when to ask SharkD to consider them. Philcha (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for Randomran: 43% for major edits and 30% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 119 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --SharkD (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an additional note for the purpose of education: Mathbot doesn't count edit summaries on Talk pages. I don't find them extremely important; the (approximately) chronological order in which messages are added to Talk pages is enough to maintain proper organization and comprehensibility. SharkD (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an old request, but I've tried to improve my edit summary usage. I think I am still too forgetful. I have changed my preferences to prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I don't expect to ever hit 100%, but hopefully this can make it easier for others to see what I have done. Randomran (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4X

Man I wish you guys would have mentioned this article earlier. I want to help get the article to GA, A, and then maybe FA. Just tell me where to help out and I'll do anything you need, from small edits, to whole rewrites, Im ready to help.Gears Of War 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being helpful. Check the 4X talk page. We're almost done. Really what we need is a second / third opinion. We've been working on this so much that it's hard to see the forest between the trees. Randomran (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dammit man, I forgot to check back on the page. Sorry I wasnt there to help out. Hope all is well. Again sorry, that was my chance to help. 4X will be up for GAN soon and I want to make sure it passes it easy.Gears Of War 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's okay! You've already been helpful. Like I said, the most useful thing is to do a little copyediting or identify parts of the article that need to be phrased better. Randomran (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New source

Kevin Rorabaugh, “How Hardcore Are You? Your proudest gaming moments: The next contestant in our monthly harder-core-than-thou competition arrives!” in Electronic Gaming Monthly 228 (May 2008): 10. Made a potato launching replica of the M41 SSR MAV/AW Rocket Launcher from Halo; features a photograph as well and set aside from other letters to the editor in special colored box in magazine Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4X: Krator's comments

The results of Krator's review have been disastrous:

• Combining "tech tree", "contraints" etc. into "Empire management" blurs points. "Empire management" is now a grab-bag.
• His comments about style generally are totally wrong. The consensus of all guides on writing for the web or other media read mainly via screens is that a simple style is best, including shortish paragraphs and sections - see for example Web Style Guide and the rather simple style used in WP:MOS. The fundamental reason is that web users don't want to read, they want to scan (Jakob Nielsen)
• He is no authority on written English. User:Krator claims that "I speak English at a near-native level" - note the emphases:
  • No evidence is provided.
  • Spoken English is very different from written English. I remember working with a Dane whose spoken English was excellent, at everything from business meetings to parties - he even told jokes well in English. But he blew up when we had to write the final report on that project, and I had to write all his sections as well as my own.
  • "Near-native" means "not quite as well as a native speaker / writer". For example no literate native user would have written "I recommend to completely rewrite this paragraph" - a native user would write "I recommend completely rewriting this paragraph" without thinking about it.
• That may be why he misses the point of some of the wording, e.g. in the lead, "Mainstream reviewers now use "4X" in articles about games which follow a similar pattern". Philcha (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to smooth things over, but the truth is I no longer care. What I care about is articles that are informative, accurate, and easy to read. The reviews have have made a few useful suggestions, but their general effect has not been to make 4X more informative, accurate, and easy to read. All I see is bits of WP:MOS quoted out of context and ignoring the style in which WP:MOS itself is written, and reviewers pulling rank. On the latter point, if you want to see a review working well, look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review#Review_of_Howard_Staunton - and it would be more productive for me to get back to that.

On a more personal note, it's been fun working with you - even, or perhaps especially, when our points of view differed. I hope we get the chance to work together sometime on a subject unrelated to video games. Philcha (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm worried the article will get dragged away without a little pressure from the opposite end. (If that makes sense.)" Er, ... Philcha (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone who "knows the genre well, and who knows this article inside and out" will achieve nothing if reviewrs are free to pull rank. Is there a procedure for dealing with that? Philcha (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edting Blue Dragon

Hey, I know we really havent worked together yet but can you give Blue Dragon a good copy editing?Gears Of War 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some quips

You've probably heard this from other people, but try to keep your edit summary use as close to 100% as possible. Even if it's "fix", "reply", "rewrite", or something short, it's informative for those who are going through article histories, looking down their watchlist, and whatnot. Also, you might want to look into archiving the older items on this talk page. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to make a better effort. Randomran (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an old request, but I've tried to improve my edit summary usage. I think I am still too forgetful. I have changed my preferences to prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I don't expect to ever hit 100%, but hopefully this can make it easier for others to see what I have done. Randomran (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

The debate over general notability has been going on since I started working on the project in 2004, and has never actually made progress in any direction. The essential problem is that notability does not have general consensus of the sort that is needed for a policy, but that notability repeatedly gains local consensus on individual AfDs. It's a distinction our policy is ill-equipped to handle, and it leads to the long and eternal fight.

Which is to say, though noble, the RFC is not going to change anything. On the other hand, I think that by approaching the subject via a specific contradiction that exists in existing policy, and by clarifying that problem we can at least remove one of the most divisive specific fights, the fiction guideline, and do so in a way that is a compromise position that does not actually require anybody to give ground on the fundamental questions of notability as a criteria for inclusion. Thus I am inclined to push for a specific discussion of this issue precisely because it is a smaller and easier to address issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video games

Hello! Just in case if you were curious what games, consoles, guides, etc. I have and therefore are most familiar with, please see User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Thanks.. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The WPVG Newsletter (July 2008)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - July 9, 2008 Archive before | Archive after To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project At a Glance As of 2008-07-08, the project has: 90 Featured articles 16 Featured Lists 9 Featured Topics 1 articles in Featured Article Review 231 Good Articles 1 articles in Good Article Review 16 articles for Peer review Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics Promoted FA/FL: Crackdown, Myst III: Exile, List of Sega 32X games, List on songs in Guitar Hero: Rocks the 80s, List of WWE SmackDown video game titles Topic: Video game consoles (seventh generation) Demoted FA/FL: 3D Monster Maze Demoted FT: Final Fantasy titles Promoted GA: Alleyway, Chrono Resurrection, Club Penguin, Conan (2007 video game), Day of Defeat: Source, Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), King Arthur & the Knights of Justice (video game), Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time, Mario Power Tennis, Midtown Madness, Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume, Pokémon Gold and Silver, Pokémon Red and Blue, Super Smash Bros., The World Ends with You, Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory, WWE SmackDown (video game series), Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Nobuo Uematsu, Halo: The Fall of Reach, Halo Original Soundtrack, Jack Thompson (attorney), Key (company), The Myst Reader Demoted GA: World of Warcraft News There were 236 new articles in June 2008 Current proposals and discussions Well, gee, thanks 1up! 1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details. About 32% of the articles on the list have been checked and updated. Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games redirected to WP:VG. See MfD. MU* taskforce moved to page under WP:VG. See new MU* task force page. Neopets and RuneScape taskforces deleted. See MfD. All talk pages moved to archives under WT:VG Wikipedia:WikiProject Dynasty Warriors deleted. Feature: Writing the Reception In many video game articles, the Reception section is the last main section of prose. As its name suggests, within the section you should summarize the critical reaction to the game. The section should provide a high-level overview of what the critics liked and didn’t like about the game; it is a summary, not a repetition of what publications thought. Therefore, don’t put in excessive, long winded quotes or have a paragraph detailing IGN’s thoughts on the game. To prevent cluttering of the prose with scores, reviews table such as {{VG Reviews}} can be used to organize this kind of information. A good way to lead off the section is a by-the-numbers or at a glance snapshot of the game’s reception; you can use aggregate scores to suggest an overall critical response to the game, and can provide sales figures (if you have them) for the game’s release. Commonly, the rest of the reception is broken into positive and negative paragraphs. Entirely separate ‘Praise’ and ‘Controversy’ or ‘Negative comments’ or the like are strongly discouraged as troll magnets. If the game has won any awards, then listing them at the bottom of the reception section is an option. Other things to remember: Don’t list every single review in the reviews table; likewise, don’t mention every award the game has ever gotten. Generally, talk about what the reviewers say rather than speaking for them; for example, “Reviewer X of Publication Y took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z” instead of “Review X said that “I took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z.” If a reviewer has a good comment which sums up the positive/negative/overall reaction, or a particular sentiment common in many reviews, it might be more appropriate to use. If adding sales data, make sure to provide context; did it sell those 4.2 million units within three months of release or three years? If possible, break down the sales by region; did the Japanese like the game, but Americans not buy it? Use reviews whose scores are outliers from the average ratings to find key points that were liked or disliked about a game. If all reviews except for one average around a 9 out of 10, and the one is a 7 out of 10, there is probably some clear negative points to be found in it; the same works with very positive reviews. Perhaps most importantly, give proper weight and keep a neutral point of view. If the game received mostly negative scores, having three paragraphs on positive aspects and glossing over the bad parts in a sentence or two conveys the wrong impression to readers. Things you can help with: Peer review: The Conduit, Anarchy Online, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, List of characters in The King of Fighters series, Guitar Hero, Rewrite (visual novel) Cleanup: Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed, Destroy All Humans! 2, Darksiders: Wrath of War, Hellboy: The Science of Evil, Reactor (video game), Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, List of PlayStation 2 games Featured candidates: Discography of Final Fantasy VII, Concerned, Space Invaders, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings Good article nominations: Half-Life 2 episodes (Topic nomination), Species of StarCraft, Final Fantasy VII, Key visual novels (Topic nomination), Silent Hill 3, Europa Barbarorum, Chris Metzen, Aether (video game) Article status review: GA Review – Pikachu; FA Review – Half-Life 2, Silent Hill 4: The Room; FT Review – None Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles. Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project page. Sign up for the VG Newsletter. Help prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at the VG Wikipedia 0.7 workshop Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

• Newsletter delivered by xenobot 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon Red Blue Glitch City

Hi, you voted a while ago in favour of some mention of Glitch City in the Pokemon Red/Blue article. Unfortunately, despite admin saying a Glitch section would be ok, the main editor of the page is turning it into a war, constantly deleting it despite sources and Pokemon-culture relevance. If you have an interest in keeping this kind of interesting information in wikipedia, please come over to Pokemone Red and Blue and help get the small Glitches section reinstated. Regards, MKULTRA333 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Got your feedback on my talk page, just in case you don't read my response there, thanks for the input. I'll try to avoid "canvassing" in the future.

Thanks for the input, Randomran. I was unaware of the canvassing issue but will work within the guidelines. Regarding WP:NOTABILITY, you are making the common error of thinking this applies to all information in the article, when in fact it only applies to articles themselves. I quote:

"These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." MKULTRA333 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not all that urgent

Hi Randomran.
I like what you've done with the Chex Quest article. I have worked on it a little bit and I must say it looks much more encyclopedic now.

In other news, I am currently asking WPVG editors and other concerned parties to weigh in on a suggestion I am making and I would value your input. I have recently been attempting to properly categorize and subcategorize articles that fit somewhere under Category:Music video games and I have found WP:SUBCAT to be extremely helpful. At WP:SUBCAT, the main rule in simple cases appears to be that "an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory." In cases where duplication may occur, however, WP:SUBCAT suggests three test questions to help decide the matter. I was struck by parts of the first question (reproduced here):

"1. Are there any explanations posted in the categories that explain what goes in each category? Many categories will say right on the top of the page what belongs in the category. Sometimes there is a discussion on the talk page that can help you make a decision. If there is nothing mentioned go on to the next question. Hopefully all categorization schemes that have duplications will have instructions directing editors about how things should be categorized."

(emphasis added) (See also Category page rule)

My question to you is a two-part question.
First: Seeing as you're a member of WP:VG, do you know of any WikiProject guidelines discussing categorization and subcategorization? I would love to craft a set of "instructions directing editors about how things should be categorized" for Category:Music video games, but I'd like to make sure I'm not wasting my time by doing anything contrary to WP:VG guidelines.
Secondly: If there are no guidelines, then I've already begun thinking about the issue myself and I have drafted a tentative guideline at my sandbox that I would like to discuss with editors who have an understanding of the subject. If you aren't too busy then I'd like to run my scheme by you and any other interested WP:VG editors you could suggest so that we might gain some sort of consensus on the issue.
If you are too busy with other matters right now, don't worry. I understand.
Anyway, thanks in advance for whatever help/guidance you can provide.
-Thibbs (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update regarding hound surgery earlier this morning

The vet took off several inches of tail where the ruptured tumor was and removed 8 other elsewhere on her body. She's apparently not taking it too well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of 4X

FYI- I figured I should leave a note in case you forgot about the PR since it's been about two weeks from when I first started my review. Anyway, I finally finished up my review of 4X at Wikipedia:Peer review/4X/archive1. Sorry if took such a long time, and I hope it helps some. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Wow, thank you for the very kind words. It is always nice to receive a barnstar in recognition for past efforts and it is much appreciated. Thanks again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Overdue

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Couldn't think of the most appropriate barnstar, but this will have to do... for not only wading into the muck of non-notable and crap articles under the WP:VG scope, but for returning alive to the project page to report and help clean up. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Sometimes I ask why I bother with some of this cruft, considering the notorious push back. A little appreciation goes a long way. See you around WP:VG! Randomran (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding this edit

Given our past disagreements, you have greatly increased my respect for you by making such a constructive and thoughtful comment. Please note that I have revised the lead further. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know we disagree a lot. I know I might not have the best manners. But I try to be honest as much as possible. And, of course WP:AGF, even when the disagreement is strong. Consider this an act of honesty. Randomran (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is appreciated.  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series. Thank you. --Anfish (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists, episodes, and characters

Well, I think I have actually come across two lists and lists concerning episodes and characters at that that I may actually support deleting. See User talk:Narutolovehinata5#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FYin .26 Yang: Might and Magic School. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't say that's particularly interesting. That's straight up WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. You'd be pretty out of step to try and keep any part of a topic like that. Thanks for the update, I guess. Randomran (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette issue

I started a Wikiquette alert involving you, here. Please respond there. SharkD (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4X FAC

Hi, Randomran. I refrain from judging FACs as I still feel my experience is lacking to give an adequate standard of review. However, I am very troubled by that the way MobyGames is presented in the 4X article (an issue I have noted in its peer review and never got a satisfactory answer). Could you take a look at my comment, and respond to it on the FAC? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is very much better. Excellent job! I am still reserved about opposing or supporting any FACs, so I ended with a message that will hopefully encourage more reviewers to look through the article. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out my comments on Talk:4X#Misplaced reference?. By the way, I think Giants2008 meant the pages of the reference for the Master of Orion - Game manual by Steve Barcia (ref 45 in the current article). Jappalang (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nonlinear videogames

Would you mind if we renamed it to "nonlinear video games"?

Please do so. Although there's a difference between nonlinear and open-ended games (the latter is a subclass of the former), so probably there should be also a "open-ended video games" or "sandbox video games" subcategory. Diego (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Thanks for wordsmithing "my" proposal. Much better. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to keep making tweaks until we've found the right balance of simplicity and clarity. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VG writing guide

Hey, I started revising "How to write a good video game article" in my sandbox today, and was wondering if you could take a look at it. I think a fresh pair of eyes would be a big help.

The only section I haven't really messed with much is the "Having a biased point of view". Krator wasn't sure such a section was necessary. Masem thought it was fine and expanded it. I'm a bit in the middle, and would like to trim it some.

Also, I'm not sure what to do with it once it's done. Should it be moved to a subpage of the VG Project, subpage of my userspace, or stay where it is? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

[edit] The WPVG Newsletter (August 2008)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - July 2008 Archive before | Archive After To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project At a Glance As of July 2008, the project has: 92 Featured articles 19 Featured Lists 11 Featured Topics 0 articles in Featured Article Review 16 A-Class articles 231 Good Articles 1 articles in Good Article Review 11 articles for Peer review Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics Promoted FA/FL: Flood (Halo), List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series, Super Smash Bros. Brawl Topic: Devil May Cry (series), Super Smash Bros. (series) Demoted FA/FL: None Promoted GA: Devil May Cry 4, Final Fantasy III, Golden Sun: The Lost Age, Guitar Hero: On Tour, Halo 2 Original Soundtrack, Halo: The Flood, Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time, Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, Mario Party 4, Mario Party 5, WWE SmackDown (video game series) Demoted GA: RuneScape News There were 304 new articles in July 2008 Well, gee, thanks 1up! 1UP.com recently changed their rating scale. See discussion for details. The list of almost 700 articles has been checked and updated. Special thanks to MrKIA11, Dukeruckley, JFlav, FMF, and several other editors for checking the large number of articles. Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tales of deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indie Game Developers deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games moved to page under WP:VG. See new Arcade task force page. Feature: Reliable Sources A common issue with writing video games articles is that it's often natural for editors to turn to the internet for all their information. However, using only online sources can be problematic, especially if editors are not familiar with Wikipedia's sources guidelines. First off, for every notable, reliable web site about gaming that exists on the web, there are twenty-five fan sites or personal blogs. As per Wikipedia's, content guideline about reliable sources, a proper source that should be used in an article must meet the following criteria: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How do you determine if website X meets the criteria? Look around for information on who owns the website or if the website has a staff and established editorial processes; if the site doesn't have information posted online, send an email to the webmaster or editor. It can be hard to definitely prove the a website has a "reputation" for accuracy. Thus, it's probably easier to go with established sites to begin with, such as IGN or GameSpot. If you use a source with borderline qualifications, be prepared to justify the site at content review or to other editors. WikiProject Video Games has a partially-complete listing of vetted sources in print or online at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as well as more detailed information on what constitutes a reliable source. To find sources on the internet, checking Google News as well as simple web searches can help spot references you might have missed. Often, however, older news articles are locked behind pay gates or subscription services. A workaround is using a service like ProQuest or LexisNexis, although unless you have access to these through a college or education institution it will likely cost you money regardless. Libraries can have old newspapers and copies of magazines; to assist in finding print sources online, WikiProject Video Games has a Magazines Department where you can contact users to get copies of certain reviews, previews, or features from old magazines. If you have gaming magazines of your own, add yourself to the list! Things you can help with: Peer review: The Conduit, Anarchy Online, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, List of characters in The King of Fighters series, Guitar Hero, Rewrite (visual novel) Cleanup: Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed, Destroy All Humans! 2, Darksiders: Wrath of War, Hellboy: The Science of Evil, Reactor (video game), Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, List of PlayStation 2 games Featured candidates: Discography of Final Fantasy VII, Concerned, Space Invaders, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings Good article nominations: Half-Life 2 episodes (Topic nomination), Species of StarCraft, Final Fantasy VII, Key visual novels (Topic nomination), Silent Hill 3, Europa Barbarorum, Chris Metzen, Aether (video game) Article status review: GA Review – Pikachu; FA Review – Half-Life 2, Silent Hill 4: The Room; FT Review – None Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles. Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project page. Sign up for the VG Newsletter. Help prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at the VG Wikipedia 0.7 workshop Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xenogears Original Soundtrack GAN

Hey, since Kariteh hasn't been on for a week and his GAN hold was about to expire, I tried to go through and address your concerns. Please check it out and see if I've gotten everything! --PresN (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VG Barnstar for 4X

		The VG Barnstar
		For taking the arduous initiative of bringing such a higher level video game article to Featured status. I hope 4X encourages others to take a similar step in crafting other great encyclopedic articles. Please keep up the good work, and let me know if you need any help with an article. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Congrats on your hard work on an important article! Very well done. —Giggy 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys. This was very satisfying work. Randomran (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop

I realize that the current article is short and needs improvement. I thought the Construction sticker I placed would prevent deletion until I was done. I am working on Adding many more references and information, so until then, please do not delete this page.

Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundZ3R0 002 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Userfication

(Copied from my user talk --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

I was reading the WP:USERFY guideline. I was hoping you might be able to offer me some guidance. The guideline says that articles should not be kept indefinitely in the user space. But I'm also 100% sure that most users would object if you said "okay, time is up, it's time to let the article go." I know you might not be able to give an exact number, but where do we draw the line between someone who is keeping an article around because they're still sore about an AFD or merge, and someone who is genuinely working on an article and knows how to restore it? I figured since you are willing to provide copies of deleted pages, you might be able to answer this question.

And just in case... "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Maybe we can figure the answer out together. Please respond at my horribly messy talk page. Randomran (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer is, quite firmly, "it depends". Like with many other Wikipedia guidelines, there's no hard limits on what is appropriate and inappropriate - everything has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Usually, I instruct people to mark userspace copies of deleted content for speedy deletion themselves when they are done with them. But usually, if something that has been untouched for a long time - from several months to several years, even - you can usually safely assume that the user in question has copied the content away, if they ever need it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I have no problem taking the b.4 one out just to simplify it.

What you need to do next is make that page a subpage of WT:N and copy that text in there. The entire text needs to be under some subheading and starting with "RFC:" so that the RFC template works right. Then add an {{RFCPolicy}} template per WP:RFC (note that the formatting is odd for that.) You can then start announcing the page at the usual places; a bot will handle putting it on the RFC page, and we'll need to talk to the watchlist-notice page again to let them know its in effect. --MASEM 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put up the request for the watchlist notice. Otherwise, I would notify WP:VPP, WT:N, WT:FICT, and maybe at WP:CENT too. Basically anyplace people expect to look to find this out. --MASEM 03:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Commendation awarded to Randomran for the diligence & skill applied in the creation of Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise by Gavin Collins (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm not sure this RFC will lead to any consensus, but at least it will be the next step in what is becoming a very difficult issue. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The WPVG Newsletter for August 2008

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - August 2008 Archive before Archive After To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. Project At a Glance As of August 2008, the project has: 97 Featured articles 20 Featured Lists 11 Featured Topics 1 articles in Featured Article Review 17 A-Class articles 238 Good Articles 0 articles in Good Article Review 14 articles for Peer review Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics Promoted FA/FL: 4X, Alleyway, Conan (2007 video game), List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, Midtown Madness, Wipeout 3 Topic: None Demoted FA/FL: None Promoted GA: Chocolatier, Cloud Strife, Discography of Final Fantasy I and II, Discography of Final Fantasy VII, The Guardian Legend, Guitar Hero III Mobile, Halo: First Strike, Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, Key Sounds Label, Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, Necrid, Paper Mario, Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, Secret of Evermore, StarCraft: Brood War, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Xenogears Original Soundtrack Demoted GA: GoldenEye 007 News Special note: The naming convention for the newsletter has altered. Instead of being labeled the month it is delivered, it is now labeled the month the content applies to. See discussion. There were 204 new articles in August 2008 Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here. The following Wikiprojects are candidates to be turned into task forces. Nintendo Project: See discussion. Castlevania Project: See discussion. Pro Gaming Project: See discussion. The first video game genre article has reached Featured article status—4X. Special thanks to Randomran for pushing the article up the quality scale. Feature: Departments Assessment Department: This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's video games articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program, and more specifically in the Video games essential articles page. Two new quality ratings have been implemented into the Assessment Department's scale. The new Wikipedia-wide C-Class rating (see category) has been added to the scale between Start-Class and B-Class. Because of this, the criteria of the B-Class has been tweaked to better illustrate the difference between a B-Class and C-Class article. An older rating, List-Class (see category), has been added to the scale as well. It is mainly used on pages that have very little prose and are primarily tables and lists of information. Editors are encouraged to submit articles for assessment if they feel an article has made significant progress up the assessment scale or has gained importance within video game articles. Assessed articles generally receive some feedback to further improve the article. Experienced editors are also encouraged to help with assessment of articles when the number of requests gets too large. Peer Review Department: The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a Featured article candidate. It is not a academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. Editors are encouraged to use the Video game peer review process, as well as the regular Wikipedia-wide process, to improve the quality of articles. While a peer review can be done at any time, it strongly suggested to use this process before an article goes up for Good article nomination and Featured article or Feature list candidacy as articles cannot be a candidate for GA or FA while at peer review. Editors are also encouraged to leave feedback for articles undergoing peer review. A process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take. Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps. Things you can help with: Peer review: The Conduit, Anarchy Online, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, List of characters in The King of Fighters series, Guitar Hero, Rewrite (visual novel) Cleanup: Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed, Destroy All Humans! 2, Darksiders: Wrath of War, Hellboy: The Science of Evil, Reactor (video game), Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, List of PlayStation 2 games Featured candidates: Discography of Final Fantasy VII, Concerned, Space Invaders, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings Good article nominations: Half-Life 2 episodes (Topic nomination), Species of StarCraft, Final Fantasy VII, Key visual novels (Topic nomination), Silent Hill 3, Europa Barbarorum, Chris Metzen, Aether (video game) Article status review: GA Review – Pikachu; FA Review – Half-Life 2, Silent Hill 4: The Room; FT Review – None Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles. Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project page. Sign up for the VG Newsletter. Help prepare for Wikipedia 0.7 at the VG Wikipedia 0.7 workshop Project Navigation VG Project Main pages Main project – talk Project category – talk Portal – talk VG Project Departments Assessment – talk Cleanup – talk Peer review – talk   Magazines – talk Newsletter – talk Video Game Images – talk

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted your removal of comments at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise

This is a heads up. I've reverted your removal of comments at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. I think this is beyond the pale, to be honest, since the page is a Request for comment. I don't think it is right to remove comments which have been requested simply because they are not liked. All comments should be made welcome in a bid to create a consensus. Now I don't do edit wars, so if you remove them again, I think that'll probably end my involvement with reverting. I would ask you not to remove them again though. You might try moving them to talk. I don't think they should be binned though. If needs be we can seek input on this at an amenable venue. It's not something I want to fall out over, I just don't think your actions were the right thing to do. Sorry. Hiding T 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see this post is redundant as you have already reverted me. It's a shame we couldn't find the time to communicate on this issue. Peace. Hiding T 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm on my way to moving them to the talk page, actually, and I had every intention of doing so. I appreciate your concern. I hope you can understand my main concern: trying to keep people focused on the main two issues, lest this RFC spiral out of control the way that past discussions on notability have gone. Give me a few minutes and you'll see them on the talk page. Randomran (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I agree; but at this stage I'd rather just walk away. It'll all turn out for the best eventually, and that's all anyone can really hope for, isn't it? Best, Hiding T 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • You're entitled to your opinion, but perhaps if you read the past few archive pages at WT:N you would feel as I do. Either way, I hope you do stay involved and keep your eye on the RFC, since your comments have been reasonable and civil. Randomran (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
        • You need to read more archives of WT:N and the page history of WP:N to see why I feel the way I do. You may have bought the t-shirt; I possibly had a hand in printing it. All the best, Hiding T 22:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I've taken a peek at the older WP:N discussions, and it definitely confirms much of the same thing: this has been contentious from the start, but with basic support for the overall spirit of it. The problem is in the details. My hope with this RFC was to get people focused on those details, rather than retreading old debates, or getting completely off topic. Randomran (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
            • That's fair enough. As I commented at the RFC, I think this has been festering since we ignored the consensus at the Pokemon poll which was to merge articles to lists. That tends to be the middle ground, and hopefully it will all turn out for the best eventually. T my mind the looser the guidance, the easier it may be. IMHO WP:FICT worked for a long time in a very basic fashion and broke when someone tried to fix it. Take it easy, Hiding T 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
              • It's kind of sad to think that pinning it down will break everything, but letting it float in limbo with no consistency will offer a little more guidance. But you might be right. Either way, I think there's value in trying, even if we only find a few things we're largely against, rather than anything we're largely for. Thanks again for the insights. Randomran (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the kind explanatory note. I sincerely appreciate it and I now better understand where you are coming from. I know I can be passionate and didactic (you can take that as me admitting I can be a puffy donkey *chuckle*). Though I feel very strongly that some of the proposals are deeply flawed, and they may well be, it doesn't mean they are or that now is the time to raise them. I will take a day or two to step back and ponder (and also allow more people to generally comment and discuss things) to gain a bit of perspective before making any further comments or adding another proposal to the list. Vassyana (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully admit that passions sometimes get the better of me, too. Especially in the middle of a single-issue debate, it's easy to lose track of the bigger picture. I'm glad we've found a better understanding. I look forward to your participation (and your proposal, if you choose to add it). Randomran (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC proposal

I've made a revised version of the proposal based on your invitation and the feedback in the RfC. I tried to keep to a middle ground between exclusionists (no exemption from merge and other content discussions, emphasis on notability's relationship to sourcing) and inclusionists (SNGs are clearly inclusion criteria, "there is no deadline"). I also tried to make some appeal for precisionists (clearly defining notability in the context of the major content rules with an explicit coherent relationship between the GNG and SNGs), delusionists (by relating the proposal to the historical foundation of SNGs in AfD precedent) and eventualists (by reference to the lack of deadline). I don't know how many more wikifactions I can squeeze together without contradiction in the same short proposal! *chuckle* Any glaring flaws that you think need to be addressed before it goes live? How should I add the proposal to the live RfC? Should I "hidden" the current B.3 and make this B.3.2, as was done with another proposal? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing part of the concern you raised, I have some idea of what to add as a closing statement to the rationale. However, I feel it's a bit wordy:

"As a practical matter, articles satisfying SNGs supported by a broad consensus are unlikely to be deleted via AfD. In contrast, reaching consensus for a merge and redirect is often a viable option, particularly for articles lacking independent sources and in borderline cases (e.g. the Pokemon character merge)."

For this aspect, I'd like to stay focused on practical application and precedent. Any suggestions for paring it down a bit or alternate phrasings? Vassyana (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and feedback. After looking at your feedback, comments on the RfC and some previous notability discussions, I made a final set of revisions and went live with the proposal. Judging by the initial responses, I may be on to something at least (but time will tell as more people respond). Vassyana (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, things seem to be chugging along on their own without any major snags or disruption. The proposal definitely still needs some word ironing and to have a few additional aspects addressed, but a more complete version can always be worked out if a reasonable consensus forms for it. Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a list of notes about proposal B.6 because it seems like it may be a viable approach (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I'm trying to note the major points of everyone's concerns, while limiting the alterations to points that are coherent with the gist of the proposal and able to be included without causing contradictions and muddled points. So far, it seems as though all the points raised can be coherently and rationally addressed. Your feedback on the sandbox talk page to make sure I'm staying on-track would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'm taking the time to consider how to best integrate the listed notes with the proposal using a minimum of additional verbiage. If you have some advice or recommendations, they would be quite welcome. I will make a draft revision at some point over the next week after giving the matter some serious thought. Vassyana (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer (2nd nomination)

Good day to you. I was suprised to log on and discover that bjbot had placed a notice on my page that an image of mind was orphaned since it was in an article. When I went to put it back in the article I discover that the article was deleted. I further discovered that the person who nominated the article for deletion never once bothered to notify me that an afd had been filed. This pissed me off imensly, and I came here with both barrels loaded to give you a strong piece of my mind, but as I see you have been here less than a year I am going to assume good faith that you haven;t done all the associated reading for afds, or maybe made a simple mistake with this one.

According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, user who nominate an article for deletion on wikipedi are asked (but not required) to notify the user who first created the page so that he or she can be a part of the process. Most wikipedians take offense when there articles are deleted without being notifed that they were being considered for the axe. For love of AFG next time please drop a line on the page of the guy who created the artcile and let him or her know about the afd, ok? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Europa Barbarorum

Hi there, thanks for all your help with getting Europa Barbarorum up to scratch. As I said on the peer review page, do you think that it's good enough for me to close the peer review now and go onto WP:GAN? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist Notice

No objections here - but could you do me a solid and come up with the proper phrasing? Let me know what you want posted, and I'll be happy to add it to the list. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Per our conversation, I've posted the notice here. It's condensed; the specifics are better left to the RFC itself. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon game mechanics

Seeing as how this article is split from a notable article, the contents of it are as notable as the article, so if it's not included, I think that if Pokémon (video game series) is included, it will be incomplete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't inherited. But I think there are enough sources here to support its own notability. The article will need a clean-up, which is more than I can do with my time and level of knowledge. But the article has improved significantly, in my personal opinion. Randomran (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:AFD

		The Resilient Barnstar
		As long as you are willing to try and remember to add the message then I am happy. You do a great service to the wiki by locating these afd-bound articles, and I think that if this continues you would make a good admin someday. Remember, anyone who can learn from thier mistakes is capable of great things. Take care. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)