Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
1 - 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111
Threads older than 10 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk


Is WP:VG giving too much weight to numbers?[edit]

As per EuroGamer, Kotaku, Joystiq, Rock, Paper,Shotgun and any others I've missed, do we need to look at the project's use (or over-use) of numbers to indicate a game's quality? The content of VGReviews will already be biased by the fact that the sites listed above either aren't listed in it at all, or will only be listed at certain times (e.g EuroGamer "Recommended" award). If the template is there to give a quick snapshot of reviews, then it is failing, due to the fact that it can only give a snapshot of sites that assign review scores, this is in itself and in-built bias towards those sites and could start to raise the NPOV question.

A similar problem is the use of MetaCritic in the template, if scores from EuroGamer et al are not going to be included in MetaCritic, then again, we're using a skewed figure that doesn't represent the opinions of a number of key websites.

I think we need to talk about the above, just to see if they really are problems and what we can do about it if they are.. - X201 (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm personally on TotalBiscuit's side with regards to arbitrary scores and things, so I agree that we need to rely less on them, particularly as some big sites are beginning to move away from using them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't feel that a template on the side is too much weight. I think its becoming less encompassing than it once was, true, but there's still a lot of sources that use review scores too. Like it or not, the industry places a lot of emphasis on review score and MC scores, so I don't think it makes sense to remove it. Equally important - I believe it would be a maintenance nightmare to attempt to not use them anymore. Yeah, sure, there's a strong core of 10-20 of us here who would follow it, but there's hundreds and thousands of other editors that edit more casually who are constantly going to be re-adding it because they won't understand or won't agree. I, for one, don't want to be the person reminding CasualEditor57 for the millionth time why it was okay for Halo 5 to have a reviewbox, but not Halo 6. Even if I did want to, I think it'd honestly be about as effective as our "No using Gamefaqs for release dates" stance - largely ignored. The industry and the fans care about it too much, and we don't have a concrete/objective enough reason to change yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The caution on the review score table is that it should not be a crutch for good prose describing the reception of the game - it is to give a highlights of the most RS sources that give reviews to understand how the reviews break down. There's a difference between a game that gets a score of, say, 8/10 with a +/-1 variance, and a game that gets a bunch of 9s and 10s, and a number of 4s and 5s as to average out to 8, and the table should at least make that clear on sight, but the prose definitely then should talk about the difference of opinion on the game. (For example, Goat Simulator has that wide variance.) As such, this is why the review table should not be overloaded with reviews, but generally between 5 to 8 prime sources in addition to aggregates. And agreed on Serge's last point - while there are signs the industry is moving past review scores, it is not there yet and it still remains a significant measure for the industry at least towards AAA publishers. We should still be doing that since this is the data that the industry is based around. Maybe someday we'll have a system based more on the Rotten Tomatoes approach for films, where it's fresh or not, but we're not there yet. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts are aligned with Masem's. People should be taking care not to rely on the numbers anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We give the numbers as much weight as the reliable secondary sources and the games industry does. Aside from our massive undue support for Gamerankings, this is the correct approach. It's the prose that counts, the box merely serves as a way to excise clumsy percentages from that prose and acts as a sanity check for the prose. - hahnchen 19:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with Masem as well. I don't find the template to suffer from undue weight and can be a good way to provide "at a glance" info about a game that is supported by the text. In the same way that some commenters snidely remark that a review "reads like a 7/10", I think it's very important that the Reception section read like the scores it supposedly represents. If there's a mixed reception, represent each side to the degree they're supported by reviews. I don't think the project needs to change its MoS with respect to how we write Reception sections. The only difference I see is when citing a review from a publication that no longer uses review scores, like Eurogamer, and taking care to explain their "Recommendation" or lack thereof. In other news, quick plug for the issue I brought up one section above related to the VGReviews code. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
"Massive undue support"? What are you talking about? We include GameRankings pages when they exist; if not, we don't. If this is about GameRankings supposedly not being used in the game industry, that notion was debunked on a thread about this template a few months ago. Tezero (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't "debunked", WP:VG just said they liked Gamerankings. "We include GameRankings pages when they exist" = undue weight. Compare the prevalence of Gamerankings to Metacritic in the industry. Just search on Google News. See how Eurogamer doesn't mention Gamerankings at all. According to SimilarWeb, Wikipedia accounts for the majority of referrals to the website. - hahnchen 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's the lesser of two evils to include GameRankings instead of allowing Metacritic to extend its mindshare monopoly to Wikipedia as well. There is a shortage of review aggregators since Metacritic is so popular so any other voice is welcome. Using Metacritic as the only listing for aggregate reviews confers way more tacit undue approval than including GameRankings and having it appear visually to have the same weight as Metacritic. Axem Titanium (talk)
(Edit conflict) Maybe someone else here can find that discussion, but we did locate a few instances of major companies, like Ubisoft, considering its scores. We've also decided it's useful because of the breadth of scores it includes and calculating them in a different way from Metacritic. Tezero (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Axem, This was one of the arguments. Because some editors don't like Metacritic, our entirely original Wikipedia-only, not enacted by any other publication solution, was to promote Gamerankings. An editors opinion of Metacritic is irrelevant, its position in the industry is not. Tezero, the previous discussion is here. Yes in very few instances gamerankings was mentioned in reliable sources, yet "We include GameRankings pages when they exist". - hahnchen 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure when Tezero said "debunked" he just meant that was a pretty strong consensus against your stance in the link you gave, which seems pretty spot on. You were literally the only person who chose a "discourage GR's use" stance, in a discussion with 10+ participants. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:VG acknowledges and endorses the undue weight placed upon Gamerankings. - hahnchen 17:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Come on, are you really so stuck in your mindset that you have to try to skew it like that? It seemed much more like "WP:VG acknowledged the weight, but didn't deem it undue, and endorsed its use." Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamerankings has the vast majority of its referred traffic arrive from Wikipedia, it is mentioned by reliable sources at least ten times less than Metacritic, it is ranked by every traffic ranking site as being less popular than, yet we place it on as many articles as possible and continue to do so. And you do not deem it undue. - hahnchen 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not "scalable" though. Both are mentioned basically one time per article. It's not like you could mention GR 1/10th of the time as MC in an article. It's one brief, sourced mention of a number that exactly matches the source. I'd understand your argument if we had dedicated paragraphs to the respective aggregators, but it's literally nothing but a bare percentage that is presented 1-2 times in an article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Metacritic is the industry standard 100% of the time. Use GameRankings only when there is no Metascore, or if a secondary source uses it. If GameRankings is so small, why are we still doing it? Stop asking what it would take away, and ask what it adds. I find out hard to believe that tens of thousands of links across tens of thousands of articles is somehow small. Our readers and the industry care little for GameRankings, it's Wikipedians that love it so much, but who are we to promote that onto others? I'm not proposing a wholesale bot excise of GameRankings, but Template:Video_game_reviews#Guidelines should be edited to state one aggregate as the norm, and that to "stay with the 'usual suspects'" means Metacritic, not GameRankings. I'd also edit the template itself so that Metacritic is above GameRankings, unlike the big list of publications, there's no debate here as to which aggregator is the most important. - hahnchen 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said before, your whole argument falls apart when you look at the context of how we actually use it. There's no grand scheme of promotion or heavy weight or attention given to the site. It's literally just a half sentence that reads "and a XX% score from GameRankings based on Y number of reviews." Anyways, I'll drop it now though, as it clear you're not swaying anyone with your ludicrous argument, then or now. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Because no one is maliciously scheming to promote GameRankings, it isn't a problem? Whether or not there's a "grand scheme" to promote GameRankings does not detract from the fact that GameRankings enjoys a protected reach on Wikipedia which vastly outstrips its place in the industry. "Literally just half a sentence", how about an external link to Zero Punctuation on every article? That'd probably be too small fry for you to care about. - hahnchen 15:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Here, I'll pose a question, since I personally don't see purely numerical consensus as particularly useful, even though in this case it's running in my favor. What do we lose by allowing GameRankings in cases where Metacritic is available? I genuinely don't get that. I don't see a reliability issue - is it that it's a slippery slope to including less notable sites? (If so, could we set a bar somewhere?) Is it that allowing it will shift convention toward demanding it and that's a lot of work? Is it a template-size issue? Is it that it's seen as excessively redundant? Tezero (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What GR provides - given that they have, as documented, a flat average system that perhaps encompasses a larger number of sites, is a second method of getting what the average review score is to MC. 90% of the time, the MC and GR rankings might be off by 1-2% at most, but on a few titles there is a larger difference (no more than 10% in the worst cases I've seen) that usually have a lower GR as they encompass the broader array of sites. Having the second GR score in addition to the MC score does not harm anyone's understanding (and in fact improves the resource pool for readers looking for information) to glean from . --MASEM (t) 22:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You could say this for any aggregator. You could just add more scores to the VG table and "improve the resource pool", but we do not do this for any other resource aside from GameRankings. The VG table is not the external links, it's in the middle of the article, not a jumping off point at the end. Readers look to the table for the aggregate score, they accept Metacritic, the industry accepts it. Wikipedians say thats not good enough. Requiring a second method for aggregate scoring is not supported by our secondary sources. If you have issues with Metacritic, that's fine, but you have an issue with the games industry. Wikipedians should not be promoting their own remedy for a reality they don't like.
I'm not arguing for the removal of all GameRankings scores, for some games, there are no alternatives, and in some cases, reliable secondary sources may actually quote GameRankings. But if you're going to talk undue weight in our numbers, only one stands out. - hahnchen 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Additional scores in the table aren't really a good analogy; we don't limit them because they're deemed redundant or "undue weight", but because we've decided that we shouldn't include scores in a table that we don't elaborate on in prose, and adequately representing more than maybe 10-12 scores in prose could take an enormous amount of text and be hard to read. GameRankings suffers no such problem, even when combined with several other aggregators, because they're just single scores that take up one line each of the table and only a small part of the prose. Tezero (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
We do limit them because of weight, this is why they're usually the most popular and influential publications, the same publications we use in the prose. We place IGN in the prose and in the table, because we know that IGN satisfies the games industry and our readership (I don't like IGN but use them anyway). We place Gamerankings in the table because it satisfies the whims of the editor. You are talking about a single redundant line replicated on every single games article, a line that drives the majority of Gamerankings referrals, and which is often clumsy. In many cases, Gamerankings isn't referred to in the prose at all. Why would it be when you have Metacritic? And yet GameRankings sits at the head of the table, sometimes in a gang of six. - hahnchen 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realised that Template:Video_game_series_reviews forces you to include GameRankings. - hahnchen 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Review scores[edit]

I've been adding review information from magazines like Electronic Gaming Monthly and GamePro for some months now, and it's become clear to me that there's a difference of opinion on how the review scores for these publications should be represented.

  • Electronic Gaming Monthly uses a panel of four reviewers which each give their own score on a scale of 1 to 10. No single consensus score appears in their reviews, but in places like their buyers' guides and top 50 games of the year, they use an average of the four reviewers' scores as the game's official score, so I've been taking their lead and doing that. However, some editors instead use the total of the four reviewers' scores. For example, where EGM and I use 6.75 out of 10, another editor might write 27 out of 40.
  • GamePro does not provide a single score at all. They give scores in four categories (graphics, control, sound, and FunFactor), but I have not seen any indication that they consider these four categories to all be equally important. Despite this, many editors post GamePro scores, using either the average of the four category scores, or the total of those scores. In a number of cases I've added a summary of a GamePro review to an article, and immediately after an editor has stepped in to add a score to the summary.

How does project consensus say we should represent scores for these publications? I still think we should use each gaming publication's own scoring system (or lack thereof) rather than making up our own, but I'll happily bow to whatever the consensus is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

With EGM, we should suggest the average score, but the total score is fine as long as it is presented "27/40" to show what the maximum is. (I assume that the math works out right that it is a straight up average for that). I'd avoid including GamePro scores in the table - just because the review is used in prose does not require it to be summarized in the table, and there's no simple way to summarize 4 separate scores without engaging in OR (the averaging). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I really like using either of these scores. Taking the average from the four Electronic Gaming Monthly scores doesn't seem that bad for the role these scores play in our articles, but I don't really see the point of doing that. "making up" an out-of-context score from the four GamePro scores doesn't seem right to me, as we have no right of deciding the value of each of the grades, nor can we even know if any of the four accurately show the value of the game in general. Since GamePro doesn't use their scores in such a way either, we probably shouldn't. That, and again, I don't really see the point. The prose is as always way more important and of interest than those grades at the end. ~Mable (chat) 20:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, now that I think of it, using the Famitsu approach for EGM would be better (showing all four scores). I'm still not sure on GamePro, however. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Use the individual scores from EGM. If you use the total score in the table, insert a note indication the separate scores. Do the same for Famitsu. A game receiving 9/10, 9/10, 9/10, 1/10 is different to a game receiving 7/10, 7/10, 7/10, 7/10. I've previously mentioned this at FAC. - hahnchen 22:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
While I doubt that we will ever get a case of three nines and a one there are actual cases were simply listing the average would skewed the facts. For example, the average of the EGM scores for Starfox Adventure was 7.1666.... but that average does not take into account that the actual scores were 8, 9 and 4.5. While EGM is not listed in the table for that game it would be true that if it was, and we only listed the average, it would hide the fact that there was a significant discepency between the scores.-- (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the replies. I'm sorry I'm coming in late with a follow-up question, but as far as variations in EGM's individual review scores, when that happens I've just been noting it in the prose, e.g. instead of "Electronic Gaming Monthly gave it a mixed review", I write "The four reviewers of Electronic Gaming Monthly were divided about the game. Two of them said blah blah blah while the other two said bleh bleh bleh." Is this insufficient? The thing is, while variations in their individual scores do occur, they are not nearly as common as you'd think. It is extremely rare that EGM's highest and lowest scores for a game differ by more than two points, and I've never seen a variation on the level hahnchen suggests. It just seems a bit tedious to list all four review scores when it's mostly along the lines of 6/10, 6/10, 6/10, 7/10.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
No Martin, explaining it in the prose like that is perfect and is exactly what you should do. I simply don't recommend trying to at the scores in somekind of table just for the sake of it. The table can be used for a quick overview, but if you have to overcomplicate the table and skew the numbers in the table, then I think you'd be losing sight of what is important. Again, generally, there are plenty of reviews to put in such a table, meaning that it is easy to avoid such situations. ~Mable (chat) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is "universal critical acclaim"?[edit]

This probably sounds like a stupid question, but what exactly does it mean for a game, movie, or whatever to have universal critical acclaim? Does that mean every reviewer gave it a perfect score? Basically, there are no flaws?

I ask this because I'm having an issue with its inclusion in an article. On God of War III's FAC, there's a reviewer (a non-gamer) who has an issue with including the statement because there are mixed reviews in the reception section. I explained (and linked) him to Metacritic where it shows the score range a game must have to be universally critically acclaimed (which is 90-100). He said that although that's Metacritic's scoring, it's not actually universal acclaim. He said that although gamers would understand the Metacritic scoring, non-gamers wouldn't. Have any of you dealt with this and how did you resolve it? --JDC808 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I remember the same discussion about the definition of "universal" on a Zelda page a few years ago, I'll try to find it -- maybe Sergecross73 remembers? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  00:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
((edit conflict), kind of funny, I was already writing it as Salv pinged me!) I always discourage the use of the "universal" part, for the very reason you mentioned - it leaves zero room for any differing opinion. That was also the outcome of a massive RFC for Skyward Sword upon its release, in the same situation. It's also kind of unnecessary. "Critical acclaim" is already very strong wording. It's kinda comparable to saying "Really very good" when "very good" gets the point across just fine. Just use "critical acclaim", unless you're explicitely direct quoting Metacritics description and giving it proper context as such. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The massive discussion is here. If you don't have much of a stomach for tons of arguing, I'd just skip the the actual RFC subsection of it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I dropped "universal" from the lead and beginning of reception, but state that Metacritic describes their score as "universal acclaim". --JDC808 00:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
And, just for the sake of completeness, a follow-up discussion happened on WT:VG. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I saw that the RFC referred to us discussing it here too, but the link I tried to the discussion didn't appear to work, so I hadn't added it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Stuff like "widespread critical acclaim" and "overwhelming critical acclaim" are also non-neutral. As Sergecross says, "critical acclaim" is already very strong wording, and should only be used when all reviews by reliable sources are very positive. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

New Spectrum book[edit]

New to the reference library: The Story of the ZX Spectrum in Pixels by Chris Wilkins. Published in 2014 after a Kickstarter campaign. Has a history and descriptions of the various Spectrum models, two-page spreads of important games, and first-person accounts by many developers. Ylee (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just curious. Is the copy of this that's linked to from the Reference library legitimate? This book came out less than six months ago so should still be covered by copyright. I'm just a bit worried that we're linking to material that we shouldn't be. - X201 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, if Nintendo makes it's rumored new console...[edit]

Would Nintendo's rumored new console be part of the 8th or 9th generation of video game consoles? They seemed to beat the other two (Sony and Microsoft) to the punch on the eighth generation, but I don't see Sony or Microsoft releasing a new system for at least another 6-or-so years. So, if Nintendo's new platform comes out in the next couple of years (the Wii U has already been release to the public for over two years, bearing the other two major consoles by about a year), what generation would that console belong? Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We should cross that bridge when we have to. It's either going to be sub-scripted in the current gen or a in a new generation if Sony and Microsoft do something. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, we can't make any assumptions now. Rumours like these are usually "leaked" from first party sources anyway, so it's best to see what happens in the coming year. Jaguar 23:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There are far too many "ifs" in that scenario to make a call on that. We'll likely go based off of what reliable sources call it, because every seems to have their own personal opinion on what defines a generation, and we collectively seem to have a hard time coming up with a definition beyond that. But yeah, its a ways off, we don't even know if that'll happen this year, and that's just a first announcement, the actual release would be even farther out... Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
We'll have to go with what the video game industry and video game journalism will call it. Sometimes even annoyingly so, like calling PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 "last generation", and PlayStation 4 and Xbox One "next generation". --Soetermans. T / C 14:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Category - "Role-playing video games introduced in 2015" Question[edit]

Okay, so I keep seeing a certain category being added to a bunch of articles on my watchlist, and I wanted to double check here before I start reverting, in case I'm wrong.

Here's an example of what I mean. The category "Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 2015" is being added to games like Xenoblade Chronicles X. My concerns are:

  1. This game is not out yet. Its set for a 2015 release date, but is not out yet, or necessarily guaranteed to release this year. The fact that the category is in past tense makes me think this should only be tagged for articles already released in 2015.
  2. If "introduced" refers to something besides release, like when the game was first announced, then that doesn't fit either. The game was revealed in concept in 2013, and by official name in 2014, for example.

Am I missing something? Or does this need to be removed? Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this category... useful? I mean, is it going to be expanded back through the years as well? What about all the other genres? We already have genre categories and "released in year" categories. Is this a subcat of both the "RPG" category and the "Released in 2015" category? Nevermind, I see there's dozens and dozens of these categories already populated... I have no relevant input. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Introduced does sound a bit off to me, how is it "introduced"? Like Serge said, the game was unveiled or announced in 2013, and Chronicles X is not out just yet this year. It isn't the first Xenoblade game either, which could make it the introduction to a series, but that would still be a wrong category (or at least not correctly named). I think it should be "released", like "scheduled for release in..." and later on "released in..." because that doesn't leave any room for confusion, at least to me. --Soetermans. T / C 14:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've always struggled to understand the "introduced" categories, I thought they were there to indicate the first appearance of a series (like on the opening credits of a film or TV show : "Introducing Sergecross as...") not to catalogue individual games. - X201 (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This was how I had previously seen the category used. I also thought it was applied inappropriately on games that have yet to be released. Something like "2015 role-playing games" would be a fine intersection of "released in 2015" and "RPGs", no? We currently have the whole Category:2014 MMORPGs and Category:MMORPGs by year. czar  16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So, I rarely deal with categories other than putting a few very obvious ones on the article's I create; can you just "move/rename" a category in the same manner you can an article? Or would it be better to delete this one and create a new one? Any help would be appreciated. I normally wouldn't be all that concerned, but as I said, it, and similar ones, have been making it on my watchlist lately, and I know it needs fixing, but just wasn't sure how to go about doing it... Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think if we do keep this is should only used for the year of the first entry in a RPGS series, not the latest entry in an established series. At the very least the category should be removed from Xenoblade Chronicles X since that was not the game that started the series.-- (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduced would make sense if it was the "introduction" of a franchise. Final Fantasy could have "Role-playing video game series introduced in 1987" as a category, for example. It currently has "Video game franchises introduced in 1987". I guess that's better anyway. One does not introduce a game, it gets either released or announced. Xenoblade Chronicles X could have a "2015 role-playing video games" category (if it isn't considered Christal ball or something). Probably an category's title worth changing. ~Mable (chat) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(We get around the crystal ball by putting forthcoming games in the "Upcoming video games scheduled for 2015" category; since that list is pretty small comparatively it doesn't get broken down by genre the way the released games categories do.) --PresN 19:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This subject has been nagging me all week. I've just done a bit of digging and I've just dug this out (User_talk:Mindmatrix/December_2014#Dispersion_of_year_categories_by_genre) I knew it rang a bell. I contacted the user that created them last year, as they were going against our consensus on WP:DUPCAT, I hadn't seen their additional explanation until this morning. It seems the user was trying to create something akin to Category:2007 role-playing video games and instead decided upon a different naming structure to fit in with different projects. I think a mass category rename is in order to avoid the confusion that "introduced" has introduced. - X201 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Prodding @Sergecross73: just to make sure he's seen the above. - X201 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I did read this, I just haven't been around that much the last few days. I agree with what you say, I believe it should be changed or deleted. I was hoping someone else would take the lead on this though, as I'm not expert with categories. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Two questions on categorising video game franchises.[edit]

1. If a franchise article page is placed in subcategory Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2007 should it be removed from the parent category Category:Video game franchises? Going by WP:CAT#Categorizing pages I'm guessing it should be removed from the parent category. Currently, some articles are in both, some only in subcategory, and some only in parent category.

2. On Category: Video game franchises, under Subcategories do the eponymous franchise categories need moving under Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises‎? Again there doesn't seem to be any consistency at the moment.

Just checking I got things right before I make changes. – The1337gamer (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that category has already been removed from Category:Video game franchises. At first glance, I'd think its parent category should be Category:2007 video games. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's still there as a sub-subcategory, it's listed under Category:Video game franchises by year which is a subcategory of Category:Video game franchises. I think Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2007 should be removed from Category:2007 video games because the former is for franchise article pages and the later for game article pages. Same goes for other years. The1337gamer (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Who made the Reception charts very big?[edit]

I noticed a few minutes ago that the Reception charts are suddenly made very big. I have a feeling that they may be too big for article pages. Like this one, for example. Who made these Reception charts so big? Can something be done to make them normal-sized again? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Koavf, at Module:Video game reviews. Reverting, no discussion was held at the template talk or here for a change to a large-use template. --PresN 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreaciate your help. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Angeldeb82: But they're not "normal-sized": the module makes text which is 80% the size of the default: this is almost unreadable in some templates. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, there's something going on wrong with the template. It looks like the VG article you were editing that you saw a problem in was Apotheon, and I agree- that reviews box is tiny. But look at Children of Mana - same template ({{Video game reviews}}), but actually readable. Something about adding the "platform" columns shrinks the text even more. I'll look into it. --PresN 03:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, think I've got it. That's some... interesting Lua code, at least as far as CSS goes. It shrinks the text down for the table, then undoes some of that shrinking for certain cells- but wasn't undoing it for tables with multiple systems; instead of 88% size, you'd get 70%. Should be fixed now. --PresN 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Which source is more "reliable"?[edit]

Hi guys! While read Color TV-Game, I found an opposition between two sources. The one is from the book Game Over, now listed in article, said Color TV-Game 6 and Color TV-Game 15 were sold one million units each; while the another one I found is from Japanese media Nikkei Business Publications, said the totally sales is one million, Color TV-Game 15 is 700,000 and Color TV-Game 6 is 300,000, respectively. I'm not familar with guidelines, we source which one, or both?

The Nikkei BP source said: "The two video game consoles of Nintendo have been sold about 1 million units in total. More than 70% of the sales are from the console priced 15,000 Yen." (任天堂は二つのゲーム機を合計で約100万台販売した。販売台数の7割以上が1万5000円の機種だった。) --CAS222222221 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is one of the sources more recent than the other? i.e. could it be the case that they ended up selling a million each and one story is just behind the other? Sam Walton (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The one is on 1993 and the one is on 1994, while the lifespan of Color TV-Game is 1977 to 1980. --CAS222222221 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe both sources are reliable. I think usually you'd go with the sales figures you see replicated in the most sources, but I imagine there's a limited amount of sources reporting on this. If you can't find out which one is correct, you could always list both, attributing each source for each figure in the writing. ("According to figures from Game Over, it sold "x" units", for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Another 3 questions[edit]

Hi everyone! I would like to ask another 3 different questions.
1. I would like to know whether a video game gone gold is notable to mentioned in the development section. I tend to add them to articles every time when critics made stories about them but are these information necessary?

2. This one is a very minor question. It is about the position of the review template. For example. If an article have both pre-release subsection and post-release subsection, would it be more sensible to put the template along with the post-release section since scores were issued after the game's release? I always found that the template was placed/moved next to the pre-release section like this and this

3. This is also a very minor question. I wonder if information about reception is appropriate for the lead section or not. It often get removed like this

AdrianGamer (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I see no problem with mentioning when the game went gold.
  • I personally find the pre-release/post-release subsections odd. It just depends on how it's done I guess.
  • Reception in lead is appropriate, especially for higher quality articles. --JDC808 04:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The Dying Light edit you linked in question 3 happened because the Lead had more detailed information than the Reception section itself. Keep it brief when mentioning reception in the Lead, maybe one or two lines. BlookerG talk 08:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree with removing reception paragraphs from the lead, just because the actual reception section misses such a summary. We should either add one there, or trim the reception paragraph in the lead. Outright removing it isn't the way to go. --Soetermans. T / C 09:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


If someone has a chance to look into notability on this bunch (I believe it's the same author), it looks to me like they should largely remain redirects. I'm on the run right now. czar  16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Success in the City looks like it establishes notability. Friends for Life and Singles in the City do not appear to do so. Paris Nights is questionable, though rough assessment leans toward not.

I would suggest a merge for all involved, even for Success. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just moved the template to Template:Gameloft social simulation games. --Soetermans. T / C 13:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Official Xbox Magazine links broken[edit]

Future have just moved OXM across to GamesRadar. All their links no longer work and their old material has not transferred across to the new domain.

Future have recently closed various websites and publications such as C&VG and Official Nintendo Magazine. Did we do anything about those? Are there any bots on Wikipedia where we can request mass archive link updates for an entire domain? - hahnchen 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Infobox credits[edit]

If a game does not list anybody as a director or co-director, but a member/s of a development team are listed as a development director/s, can I place them in the infobox as directors? BlookerG talk 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We generally suggest avoiding listing these type of credits unless the person is notable (that is, having a blue-linked article here). Thus for titles like any Final Fantasy game, a lot of these will be listed out since these people are all notable, but for many indie games or the like, even if the credits have a director, its not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. BlookerG talk 23:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)