CZ Talk:Video Games Subgroup

Video game/Catalogs/Games by genre

While I like the idea of cataloging games by genre, I don't agree with having one big list that would quickly become huge. Instead I would suggest:

• Video game will have the related article video game genres
• Video game genres will have links to each of the genres, such as Massively multiplayer online role-playing game.
• Each genre could then have a catalog like Massively multiplayer online role-playing game/Catalog/Games within the genre.

--Chris Key 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I mainly wanted to indicate that lists of games can be collected on Catalogs pages instead of on the Subgroup pages.

Catalogs may be large, but I agree: Splitting a huge list into smaller ones is the better way.

But even if you expect the list to be too big: What do you think of tollecting annotated catalogs of important (major) games by genre, and by date (first of its kind, successful, etc.)?

--Peter Schmitt 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The subgroup page, to me at least, is more of a helpful plan of what articles we need to develop. I agree that catalogs will be the best way to go. I particularly like the idea of a catalog page with the major games in the genre. As for the by date system... perhaps the best way to go would be some kind of Timelines subpage is the way to go rather than a catalog? --Chris Key 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Plan to heavily rework the video game article

You can see some of the work in my sandbox. Obviously it requires a lot of editing--I've left in some large block quotes (some of which have citations noted, some of which do not), there are occasional notes and reminders to myself, there are misplaced paragraphs, and so on. I need to reword a lot of sentences. Some sections need expansion; others require reduction. I know it's not at all complete.

But this is the result of months of (admittedly sporadic, but sometimes laborious) reading and work. The structure/subdivision alone took me quite a long time to finally settle on. I invite anyone to read and comment. Please tell me what you think! Do you think that my proposed changes, when refined, would be superior to the current video game article? (Per CZ policy, huge changes should be discussed beforehand.) Nick Bagnall 12:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You posted this at a good time, as I was about to start a discussion on the future of that page. I've taken a look at your work and have made some comments on the more developed sections here if you would like to look (keep an eye out for words in bold and linked ref marks, which is where my comments are. Do I think it would be superior to the current article? Perhaps, or at least it would probably provide a better point to start. The current article is disjointed and has out-of-date information.

I would say that the best move now would be to go for it. If there are no objections from others then I would suggest that you take out your notes, completely blank out any sections that are completely undeveloped (although leave the headings), and upload the article to the main page. Something like this. Then we can begin some real collaborative work on it, and work towards getting it ready for approval. --Chris Key 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just now, I do not have the time to read both pages carefully. However, my first impression from browsing them is that Nick's page does not work as a replacement because it concentrates mostly on the more recent aspects. Since both pages are quite large and have different styles, merging seems not to be a good idea. Thus, I think, the "old" page should stay -- perhaps as "Computer game" -- until the "new" page is developed and it is clear whether the pages complement each other, or the old one should be adapted or is indeed redundant. --Peter Schmitt 23:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, thanks very much for your comments; all are very helpful. I responded to them in your sandbox (my responses are boldfaced and in the footnotes you added).

Peter, that may be a great solution as the current article is rather focused on PC games. (I do, however, disagree that my draft concentrates on more recent aspects--in fact, Chris noted that the history section covers very little past the 1980s.) Nick Bagnall 12:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I only browsed your article, but I saw that the history section treats the early games. But the rest, including the introduction, is mainly on more recent games. --Peter Schmitt 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the old version being put into a placeholder page, whether that is Computer game, Talk:Video game/Old version or CZ:Video Game Subgroup/Old version of the video game article. I also that some sections of Nick's work concentrate more on recent developments, however in some of those cases it may be appropriate that the historical implications are left for the history page. Anyway, I'd say go for it Nick. Move the old version somewhere and upload the new version. --Chris Key 14:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hows this going Nick? --Chris Key 12:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I believe the the current Template:Infobox Video Game has a few flaws. You can see it in use on the The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article. It is copied straight out of WP. It contains far too many details that can be mentioned, if relevant, in the article itself. And, its huge! Therefore I have drafted up Template:Infobox CVG from scratch. You can see it in use on the World of Warcraft article. It contains the most important details only, and is therefore a brief overview as I believe an infobox should be. It is much easier to implement than the huge WP version. Comments and criticism are appreciated. Once we're agreed I will begin implementing it on all video games. --Chris Key 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Been two and a half weeks and no objections. I'll give it 24 more hours and then start adding infoboxes in accordance with my above suggestion. --Chris Key 11:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right to make this shorter. Full publication data would fit on the Bibliography subpage (despite its name): It are "source" data.

On the design of the infobox: I would change the order of the entries (more interesting items first): genre, year, platform (if needed?), developer, publisher, website.

--Peter Schmitt 12:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The re-ordering makes sense, so I have implemented that. The platform is definately needed... there is a huge difference between a game designed for the Nintendo DS (handheld console), the Wii (unique controller that detects movement as well as button pressing), the PlayStation 3 (modern day console played with a controller) and the PC (often very complex games to control using the full keyboard and mouse). Also, there is a huge difference between a PlayStation 2 and a PlayStation 3 game in visual terms, even though some PS2 games were developed after the release of the PS3. --Chris Key 12:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Standardised naming conventions

One problem with video games is that they tend to use names that could clash with other articles, and they also tend to have series names that are named the same as the first game in the series. For example:

• Grand Theft Auto is an crime involving stealing a car.
• Grand Theft Auto is the name of a series of games.
• Grand Theft Auto is the name of the first game in that series.

I would therefore like to propose a standardised naming convention for video games and series names.

Conditions			Outcome
Game name matches another article?	Series name matches another article?	Series name matches game name?	Title of game article	Title of series article	Example game article	Example series article
Yes	No (or doesn't have a series)	No	Game Name (video game)	Series Name	Flight Control (video game)	Doesn't have a series
No	Yes	No	Game Name	Series Name (series)	The Secret of Monkey Island	Monkey Island (series)
Yes	Yes	Yes	Game Name (video game)	Series Name (series)	Half-Life (video game)	Half-Life (series)
No	No	Yes	Game Name (video game)	Series Name	Final Fantasy (video game)	Final Fantasy
No	No (or doesn't have a series)	No	Game Name	Series Name	Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!	Brain Age

--Chris Key 18:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Been two weeks and no objections. I'll give it 24 more hours and then start moving things in accordance with my above suggestion. --Chris Key 11:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

According to current CZ practice, Final Fantasy (series) should also be disambiguated, and there should be a Final Fantasy (disambiguation). Final Fantasy may be a redirect to the series.

You are certainly aware that there may be a need for further disambiguation. video game series / TV series / film / year / online - computer etc.

(By the way: I do not think that "Grand Theft Auto" is a good example -- I do not expect much competition for this title ... )

--Peter Schmitt 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see why? According to CZ:Naming Conventions#Disambiguation in page titles the most common sense of the word or phrase does not need parathenes. If someone is talking about Final Fantasy then they are probably talking about the series in general, rather than the first game in particular. This applies to most series of video games... someone talking about Space Quest will probably be referring to the series as a whole rather than the first game in the series, as would someone talking about The House of the Dead.

I do however believe that where there is a non-video game article for the word or phrase, then that is more likely to be the common sense - perhaps especially on CZ. That is why I believe half-life should be about the scientific term, whereas Half-Life (video game) and Half-Life (series) will refer to the video game and series. It would be silly to expect the current article about half-life to be moved just because there is a game with the same name. After all, CZ primarily deals with more academic topics.

Of course, in every case where there is a disambiguation, a (disambiguation) page is required, and yes there is further disambiguation that falls outside of the video game subgroup. --Chris Key 12:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)