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
Archives
1 - 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108
Threads older than 10 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
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

viewtalkeditchanges

Sourcing guide[edit]

I've written a guide to sourcing video game articles, so I thought I'd post it here to get outside input. What do you guys think? And did I miss any research tools? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty good at showing ways to source in our area of articles. Though I do think that some parts of it, like the "Fake It" section", will prove to be controversial. GamerPro64 18:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I've Faked It before. You might add using the table of contents in a Google Book or the Metacritic snippet of a print review as examples - I know I'm not the only one who's done this. Nice job, though. Tezero (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't possibly imagine that more than a few dozen (dozen) prolific VG editors have ever "faked it", or left in a pre-existing reference to a source they've never seen in an article they're rewriting, or surreptitiously downloaded scans of magazines. Anyways- great guide! As far as adding to it- for some articles (companies, hardware products) some google scholar searching or lexisnexis/highbeam can turn up some arcane sources- I would have been SOL on List of Sega video game consoles without it. --PresN 21:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that downloading scans of magazines or manuals does happen quite frequently. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I've used Sonic Retro tons of times. If it's not considered too specific, that'd be a helpful resource to mention. Tezero (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The stuff about scanned games is really great for older games. Not been able to find anything about Vampire the Masquerade sadly, but it's a really great bunch of resources of hard to get material. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, guys. And yeah, Sonic Retro, LexisNexis/Highbeam and Google Scholar are great. (Actually, they're all mentioned in there already, in one form or another.) As for Vampire, it would definitely be in the CGW Museum, and the reference library search engine says that User:Thibbs has a PC Gamer cover story on it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep I see that there's a feature on Bloodlines. I also have some coverage of Redemption in Games Magazine and there's more of both games in NextGen too. I'd be happy to make what I have of these materials available. Nice guide, by the way, JimmyBlackwing. -Thibbs (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Thibbs, any material you have on Bloodlines would be appreciated as I've run dry on online based sources. I think I managed to find a review in CGW but that was all I was able to find from some cursory searches. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Sure, no problem. I'll locate the articles and make them available to you in the next few days. Drop a note at my talk to remind me if you don't have them by Monday. -Thibbs (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • An addition to the sourcing guide that you may or may not want to include- since most people don't have a program that's capable of opening CBR/CBZs, I found a web-based solution that seemed to work well for the two magazines I tried it on: kthoom. You just select the file and it reads the images into your browser. --PresN 21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tip. I'll add it to my growing list of stuff to include. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion[edit]

There is an AN discussion which may interest this project, as it discusses one of its important contributors. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black has now been indef topic banned from all articles relating to Japanese entertainment, broadly construed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
A closure review is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None FA[edit]

Taking upon a pre-2008 FA review, I have serious concerns with Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None's status as an FA, noted here. I have an inkling that this is unfortunately destined for FAR. What's a good time to wait for responses to my comments before moving to the next step? If anybody has further concerns with the article, please feel free to add to the discussion. CR4ZE (tc) 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Its undergone a lot of changes when it was promoted in 2007, until now. I know FAs aren't preserved in aspic, but this is a different article. - X201 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think even the 2007 version would have passed by today's standards. CR4ZE (tc) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I wrote down those initial comments at the pre-2008 FA page. While we're at it, have you had a look at BioShock's sources lately? Tezero (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sent to FAR. CR4ZE (tc) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest[edit]

I have a feeling some of us may need to keep an eye on these. Almost reminds me of what happened to Anita Sarkeesian's page. But not as bad for the time being. GamerPro64 04:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be prudent to add notices to the tops of both pages that Quinn and Depression Quest have been involved in recent controversies and that reliable sources and neutrality are important tenets of Wikipedia. (Personally, I've fallen too far into depression too many times to want to play a game about it, and I think this is just the latest boxcar in the SJW-sphere's endless train of turning all Internet jerkishness into white hetero-patriarchy, but I'm glad people like me aren't able to just add our opinions in article mainspace.) Tezero (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the tags, though I think it's more that that particular boxcar ran into the latent-misogyny boxcar of the anti-SJW train. An unpleasant wreck that has more light and noise than substance. --PresN 05:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to keep everyone up to date: The Zoe Quinn article has been locked to admin only level. - X201 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there's an ANI up for the Zoe Quinn page. Why not voice your thoughts on the whole thing? Discussion GamerPro64 13:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

May want to add Phil Fish and Polytron Corporation to this, as their accounts/servers appeared to just got hacked tonight in association with the "quinnspiracy"/SJW attacks. (well, polytron got hacked, but revealing Fish's personal information). --MASEM (t) 04:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of Anita, we just recently threw an FAQ at the talk page. Perhaps it could be helpful for this? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 05:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I like that idea, now done. --PresN 05:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
...which I've disputed because putting a FAQ on a currently 'hot' issue is not acceptable, as it leans towards one side in the dispute. FAQs have a place, and it's not until all the discussion has been exhausted and consensus is clear that they are added. Tutelary (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
How is it leaning towards one side or the other? The FAQ says that you can't add potentially libelous information to a BLP without an RS backing it up. It says nothing about one side or the other being right or wrong. --PresN 05:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Because the statement about there being -no- reliable sources is false. It was already been stated that Daily Dot and Vice already covered it rather thoroughly, and that there are other sources for it (but those are the two indisputable ones) and it's ticking me off that people are saying that there are only 'blogs' about this. No, there are not. It's also rather offensive that people want to cover up what was being done to her. It deserves at least a sentence mention and of course with a NPOV and BLP in mind. Tutelary (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I resent that you are accusing me of trying to "cover up what's being done to her". If you have sources for "what's being done to her", then add them. The FAQ was intended to be there to answer the questions posed by the hordes of people who want to copy-paste in unsubstantiated libelous rumors about "what she's done", not to prevent any mention of the controversy. If you don't like the wording, change it. I don't know what sites on the internet you're reading that are just filled with hordes of people trying to defend her and not hordes of people attacking her without proof, but I seriously doubt they're representative of the people trying to edit the article this week. "It deserves at least a sentence mention" - it has one. What more are you trying to add? --PresN 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for that, but what I was hoping for would be an elaboration of how vindictive the Internet sexists are that they question and bring into her own personal affairs and her infidelity, going as far to doxing her information and calling her house. Right now, there's a single mention of a 'sexually explicit phone call' which is not representative at all of how much harassment she received for just trying to publish her game. I would be perfectly alright with you restoring the FAQ with the first question (stating that there are no reliable sources) removed. I've no problem with the other two FAQ questions below that.. There are some difficulties on the talk that people are using primary sources and Youtube videos to attempt to argue their points, and I believe it would help with that. Going to be heading to bed, just letting you know so you don't need to wait for a watchlist notice of my reply. Tutelary (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted, FAQ restored with Q1 removed. I agree that the current mention is vague and strangely worded. --PresN 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated to the immediate problem I think there way more than enough information to have an article "women and video games" (or something), not only to highlight the plights here for Anita and Zoe (and subsequent impacts on others), but also things like gender trends in video games, etc. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is. Tezero (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Freedom Planet[edit]

Hey, everyone, I have an issue I've never seen a definitive answer on: Are voice cast lists for video games expressly forbidden, or is there some way they can be permitted (parenthetically in Plot, or in a new Characters subsection, as opposed to in a separate table)? The reason I ask is that the article for Freedom Planet, which I created a few months ago, has been edited at some point to include one, and I'd feel bad taking it out, but at the same time it may not be considered notable information. Tezero (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Did you know this was added to the guidelines a while back? See item 10 in WP:VGSCOPE - X201 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not. Tezero (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My short opinion: it is appropriate to mention voice actors when they are otherwise notable (example: God of War), but generally a "cast list" format is not the best solution and it should be integrated in prose. It is not appropriate to list non-notable cast members for the sake of listing them (as is done in Freedom Planet). So: mention Patrick M. Seymour when you introduce his character, but don't list the non-notable cast. On a side note: damn that plot is huuuuuge and disproportionnate! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict):They're not forbidden, it's just that 1) working that material into prose is preferable, and 2) video games rarely have so many notable voice actors to justify a separate section. Look at The Last of Us, for example: names in parentheses and no list, and that's a game that actually could support a section. I think you're justified in removing or working it into prose. (Pretty much exactly what Salvidrim! wrote.) Woodroar (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll do that. I wish there was a dedicated wiki for it that I could link readers to, though. (For the record, I didn't have any hand in the current Plot section; I created the article as a short Start-class ditty before the game was released and haven't touched it much since.) Tezero (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry Tezero, I was just expressing general dismay, not specifically criticizing your work. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

StoryBundle 4[edit]

FYI StoryBundle 4 is out, if you're looking for some new sources. I haven't checked each for reliability but wanted to put out a PSA before I forgot.

$3+:

  • Chrono Trigger (Boss Fight Books series) by Michael P. Williams
  • Delay: Paying Attention To Energy Mechanics by Zoya Street
  • In Play: Tales Of The Gaming Netherworld by Neils Clark
  • Gamers at Work: Stories Behind the Games People Play by Morgan Ramsay
  • Piranha Frenzy by Colin Campbell

$12+:

  • The Anatomy Of Super Mario Vol. 1 by Jeremy Parish
  • ZZT (Boss Fight Books series) by Anna Anthropy
  • Year One: Reloaded & Change (6 full magazine issues!) by Five Out Of Ten


And back into the archives, czar  05:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Welp, I just bought this. Thanks, Czar. It all looked super interesting. Let me know if you need me to look up a source or something from these and I'm happy to help! Nomader (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tales (series)/GA1[edit]

This article is currently under review. The reviewer has a notice on their page saying that they are very busy at the moment. Can anyone else who has not been greatly involved with the article take over if necessary, so the review doesn't simply close due to lack of input? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Roger Craig Smith[edit]

Roger Craig Smith - Can I get some eyes/help at this page? This page a while back had a laundry list of roles for him without sources, and it was removed for BLP issues. Some IPs have decided it's time to bring that back. I reverted a few times, again stating the need for sources, but they continued on. Some have sources (have not check reliability yet) but it has been a few days since this list addition again, and not many more sources have appeared. Thanks in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

PC1'ed. Thanks for your vigilance. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think length is necessarily an issue, and sources should be stupidly easy to find. Tezero (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No the length wasn't the issue, but these IP add a long list with only a few items sourced. So that was the issue (content to source ratio). And per WP:BURDEN, it should not be up to a user like you or I to go in and source the content others add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Could you maybe consider semi protection? The IP is very persistent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference question[edit]

I want to know something about using a reference for the release date for an episode of Final Fantasy Agito. Can the Livedoor blog be used as a reference in the article (which could become GA in the future) or is it an unreliable source? I have been having trouble finding a reference for one particular episode. All the others currently available are sorted. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what sort of blog y're using. A professionally-written/edited blog may be okay; see WP:NEWSBLOG. However, self-published material would generally not be considered reliable. But since y're only looking for confirmation of a single release date within the series, then an annotation in a footnote might be ok. Perhaps state something like "Release date unconfirmed, but reported as dddd in bbbloggggg". Just a suggestion. jxm (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought self-published material would be allowed per WP:SELFSOURCE. I mean, as long as it falls onto requirements of that rule. GamerPro64 21:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Tnx fr that. I imagine that it's quite okay as a source if someone connected with FFA has posted the release date on Livedoor, maybe for marketing or public relations purposes. OTOH, if it's just a game fan providing the info, then it could well be seen as unreliable. But I wouldn't worry about too much - let's just go for it :-) jxm (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Update: the blog is a fan-run affair, and thus unusable. Instead, I used a post from the Square Enix-run Twitter feed for Final Fantasy Agito. I am planning to use sources such as 4Gamer, Dengeki, Famitsu and the Square Enix Support Page for the game to help with release dates and chapter names. Hope it isn't this difficult with the English release. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

BioShock FAR[edit]

BioShock is in pretty dire shape, particularly with regard to its sources—as User:Tezero pointed out on this page just a few days ago. It should probably be sent to FAR. If no one else wants to write the pre-FAR list of problems on the talk page, I plan to do it myself soon, although I don't have a lot of experience with the process. (Looking back, I see that my last go at it was in 2006, when I nominated the truly horrible bishōjo game.) Is anyone from WPVG interested in saving this article, if and when I nominate it? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I helped FA it but back when it was out, but it would be helpful to have the FAR-type list from someone else to know what to clean up. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) One problem I see that you might not have noticed is that Reception prioritizes number of sources over depth of each one - I mean, look at it. Most of the review comments are about how great BioShock is in general, not about specific aspects. Even if the reviewers in the table were the only ones covered, 11 would still be on the large side. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
While we're talking about possible FARs, you may want to look at Diary of a Camper, Final Fantasy X-2, and Donkey Kong: poor sources, massively over-detailed Gameplay and Plot with more citations needed in Gameplay, and tons of problems all around. Tezero (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If anyone plans to take FFX-2 (or any other Square Enix FA) to FAR - please post your concerns at WT:SE, and give the Square Enix project (likely me) a chance to fix them before advancing to there. Much quicker and easier. --PresN 05:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what's wrong with Diary of a Camper. TKD was an excellent editor, and his copyediting abilities were top notch. Barring the inexplicable reference to "Psyk's Popcorn Jungle", the page appears largely to have stood the test of time. FF X-2 is in pretty bad shape, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My bad on Diary; Australian Centre seems to be good and a couple others that looked iffy are, as I didn't notice, from universities. I really think Donkey Kong is by far the worst of the three, though, and among our worst standing FAs. I mean, Story and characters doesn't really need to exist outside Gameplay; it's just an almost promotional narrative about Donkey Kong's significance in the game industry (and I don't know what the heck is up with "The Lady is instantly recognized as female from her pink dress and long hair"), and the sections after Development contain kind of an odd organization scheme. There are also a number of unreliable-looking sources (e.g. Donkey Blog, Dadhacker, Don Hodges, Twin Galaxies) and, less importantly, widespread inconsistent and incomplete citation formatting. Tezero (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to post a list of problems on Donkey Kong's talk page to prepare for a FAR, I could probably do one for BioShock here in the next few days as well. Maybe we could clear out that pre-2008 backlog a little. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll put it on my to-do list. Tezero (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FL dead links[edit]

Hey everyone, I did a quick check of our FLs after seeing a number of deadlinks, and it was pretty bad. I took a random sampling of five of our lists and I came up with the following stats:

It looks like GameSpot deprecated a ton of links sometime in 2013, and we haven't updated them in most of these lists. Unfortunately, GameSpot was our go-to for a long time for video game release data and it means that all of these articles' links need to be updated. Is there some sort of semi-automated process we could use to speed this up? Nomader (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm vaguely recalling that we stopped using GameSpot release data since it pulled from another user-contributed source. Does that ring a bell for anyone? czar  15:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes- we're not supposed to use GameSpot game landing pages to source release dates any more, since its the same database as the user-generated GameFAQs. So no, there isn't an automated way to do it since we need to replace them with different sites. --PresN 15:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Just use archived versions of the GameSpot URL, from before it went user contributed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that CNET (owner of GameSpot) bought GameFAQs in May 2003; the database merger happened sometime after that. --PresN 20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review request[edit]

Can anyone pop over to the Secret of Mana FAC and give it a source review? It's not hard- just verify that there aren't any non-RSs used as sources (and ask if there's any you're not sure of), and optionally spotcheck a few statements from the article to make sure they're supported by the source cited. I'll owe a favor back, if you'd like. --PresN 21:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You only have to spotcheck a few statements? All that love I sunk into Deathrow was for nothing! Hah, but yeah, I'll do it with the assumption that you'll hop over to Sonic X at some point. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Your love was appreciated, if not required czar  21:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
<3 Tezero (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Will do! Yeah, don't know that it's still the same but as far as I remember the more FAs someone has the less the directors care about spotchecks- back in the day it was entirely optional for some people and essentially mandatory for new nominators, and now they've just standardized on a few spotchecks for everyone unless a problem is seen. It's not like most people are falsifying or plagiarizing sources, so the RS check is seen as more important. --PresN 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The more FAs you have, the less they care about spotchecks? I'm not entirely comfortable wiith that practice. GamerPro64 22:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's still the case, but when spotchecks were started it was due to some FAs slipping through with falsified or plagiarized content (one of each, I think- the plagiarized one made it to the main page, and the falsified one was part of a massive scandal involving tons of GAs and other articles by one editor). So, spotchecks. They weren't mandatory, though- they weren't required in any review guide, but at the time Sandy Georgia was really the only person doing promotions, and essentially running all of FAC, and she refused to promote an FAC by a new submitter that didn't get a spotcheck. She admitted at one point that she actually kept a spreadsheet of editors that she trusted due to having passed several spotchecks previously, and if you weren't on the list (or especially were on the alternate list- people who had failed a spotcheck) she wouldn't promote the article without one. Time moves on, Sandy stops being the coordinator, and now we have a system where every article needs a spotcheck to get promoted, but what that entails isn't written down anywhere. And without guidance, it certainly appears that if it's not your first nom, the spotcheck doesn't need to be quite as robust as for first-time nominators. --PresN 22:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs[edit]

Hey, is anyone available for helping me with the Sleeping Dogs (video game) development section? I need it to be like GTA 5, that means, the entire production summarized in 5 paragraphs. If yes, the draft is at User:URDNEXT/sandbox, and I recommend using this because the main article is under a GA review, so major changes to it could quick fail the review. I plan on taking the article to FA with Tezero in a week, so any help is appreciated! URDNEXT (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the prose quality needs significant work before it's nominated for FAC czar  21:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you available to help any time in the future? Czar URDNEXT (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already done some cleanup, but yes, I am. My timeframe is more like the next two weeks+ than the one week you mentioned above—I'm particularly tied up with a move this week. czar  22:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As I'm moving in two weeks, I think that idea sounds better, since that could significantly help with the FA, as you have more experience than I do on the site, Czar URDNEXT (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Typically, URDNEXT, I get a peer review before FAC. Helps with little issues I might not otherwise have noticed and that might otherwise lead to an Oppose vote. Tezero (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Tezero How long does a FAN take before getting promoted? URDNEXT (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
URDNEXT, typically a month or two. The time can be decreased by having it as ready as possible beforehand. (Theoretically, it could be over in a couple days if you got three supports, an image review, and a source review just about right away, the remaining time coming from the coordinators looking it over and waiting for additional votes ("forever hold your peace"). Tezero (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I got someone for the source review, image review, and support could come from you (Tezero), Czar, and Rhain or Snuggums. What do you think? Also, do you think my development draft looks (or promises) to be ready for FA? I've been pouring my time and heart in it. URDNEXT (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
URDNEXT, this wouldn't be for a separate "Development of Sleeping Dogs" article, would it? If so, it'll need to be much, much longer to merit being its own article. (Even Development of Fez wasn't uncontroversial in its suzerainty.) Either way, I would not recommend including the text "Rai Ping Yu" or "holy shit, this is easy!" in a featured article. Aside from that, though, I think it looks pretty solid. Tezero (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Lol, those texts are just for fun, I'll remove them later on. And the thing is just small because I'm trying to get it to 6 paragraphs in order to fit in the main article, not in a separate one. By the way, what is your scale for measuring the quality of an article? Like, pretty solid could be an 8? Sorry, I'm asking this because I'm a number score guy. Tezero URDNEXT (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • URDNEXT, eight paragraphs wouldn't necessarily be too long (as I've said, Wikipedia pretty much lets you go as nuts as you want with information as long as it's focused on real people instead of silly fictional characters); rather, the issue is that the text doesn't get redundant - it doesn't look that way to me, really. I don't like committing to a specific score because there could be issues I don't notice, but if 10 is a perfect FA, 8 is a GA, and 0 is a botched translation of the entirety of Time Cube into Klingon, I'd give it a solid 8.5 at least. I do spy a few grammatical and spelling mistakes, which I'll edit accordingly. Tezero (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice! I was actually expecting less, so this is good news! I plan on structuring the section according to Batman: Arkham Asylum's development section as I fits the game more than GTA. It's also good to know we can take how many paragraphs we want with the development as the game has a lot to cover. I'll take my time with the draft and will only put it in the article once the GA review is over, that way I can focus in achieving better quality. As Snugumms just finished work on Katy Perry, he'll probaly take a little day long break, then start taking notes from the article tomorrow. This is just an educated guess, I could totallybe wrong.Tezero URDNEXT (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

List of exclusive games articles[edit]

Articles like List of PS3 exclusive titles are excessive, right? A few of them have popped up, in about 90% incomplete form, in the last few weeks. I was about to redirect it or something, but It seems like I'm always the bad guy around here lately, so I thought I'd get input on this one first. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 3 games already documents this already too, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. It is completely redundant. Chambr (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Also completely agree with you Sergecross; I thought about proposing the same thing here but I guess you beat me to it :) They are nowhere near complete, not to mention redundant, and they should all be redirected. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, redudant to the full list of games by platform. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention List of horror games, a needless duplicate of List of horror video games. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
To add to this user's list Comparison of gaming platforms seems debatable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, it's good to see editors working on vg-related lists, but it's important to get them right from the outset to avoid redundancy and work being thrown at dead-ends. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me or is ja:WP does not have a grudge with primary sources?[edit]

A bit inspired to try fixing up Puyo Puyo Tetris article. Went to check ja:ぷよぷよテトリス to see if any sources can be paralleled across, and found that they can have 3 out of 6 references (Nos. 5-7) being primary sources from SEGA while not gaining any tags like {{primary sources}}. I note that there could be policy differences, and understand that Puyo Puyo can easily achieve notability easier in Japan with its popularity, but is that simply bad form unchecked, or I just misunderstood some fundamental thing about primary sources and it's totally OK? Thanks for your answers in advance.

PS. Docking some sources here. If any of them are not WP:RS please do advise.

野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 09:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

4Gamer and DengekiOnline are reliable sources. And all that they're doing at ja.wp is pointing out obvious things in the text that don't need 3rd party stuff like gameplay details, I'm guessing. Honestly, the same thing flies here. Third party sources are needed to establish notability and support critical reviews and such. Not gameplay details, unless there's some sort of metagame that only gets touched upon in third party sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The Japanese Wikipedia has completely different standards and is almost universally obsolete in references, sourcing and "encyclopedic content" by English Wikipedia standards. WP:VG has done a much better job in covering the content than our Japanese counterparts. However, much of plot and character details exist undisturbed there when they would be removed on English Wikipedia because they comprise the entirety of the article. JA is a good starting point, but not every page is going to be equivalent, useful or a undisturbed gold mine of sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
As others have noted, other language Wikis may have different rules/standards. But on the other hand, a lot of that is similar to what can be found on here when hitting the "random article" button or browsing pop culture/fiction articles; it wouldn't be surprising to see it at least as prevalent on smaller WPs with less manpower. bridies (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and sometimes it all boils down to if there's anyone there to enforce things correctly too. For example, in 2008 when I first started, there was all sorts of in-universe, garbage fancruff across all the Sonic articles. It's not that it was okay, it just that it was overrun by fans who we're writing it more like a Wikia or a fansite. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Mostly this. If there is no admin/dedicated by the rules user(s) around what can happen is that articles become tripe. In the foreign Wikipedias this happen a whole lot more, as there is just not enough dedicated man power. It's one of the reasons why I mostly do not visit the dutch Wikipedia anymore. I do not see a point in struggling with certain articles if there is no hope for improvement on the long term. NathanWubs (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but you also see the Japanese Wikipedia deleting pages wholesale where we'd just revdel stuff out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the biggest issue here is WikiProject populations size. jp.wikipedia is a volunteer project just like en.wikipedia, and with something like 5x fewer editors at ja.WP:VG and 30x fewer subpages (this was covered in WP:VG Newsletter Q1 2013), the sourcing in their articles and the enforcement of their policies are bound to be less rigorous. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem with jawiki is partially that there are too many content pages and active users (including both IP and registered), and disproportionately fewer people cleaning the usual trash up. As a result, jawiki has accumulated all sorts of trash and fancruft since no one's there to attend to it, and now it's essentially become a norm there to have lots of cruft in articles. If someone points out that an article is full of cruft, another person would probably say something like "but so and so article is also like that!", leading to a never-ending cycle of more inaction. The cruft simply accumulates, and no one is motivated or interested in cleaning it up. If someone breaks the status quo, they would probably face opposition against the old norm. This is not just for videogame articles; even country articles and articles about historical scientists are full of unencyclopedic tripe, and there is a huge ton of articles on the Japanese Wikipedia with zero citations, inline or otherwise. No one bats an eyelid, because nobody cares. Keep in mind that jawiki is one of the larger Wikipedia projects, despite being smaller than enwiki; there's still a large amount of content involved.

The English Wikipedia has 1,400 sysops responsible for covering 4,588,506 mainspace articles, and 130,663 active users. This amounts to a ratio of 3,277 pages per sysop, and 93 regular users per sysop. Meanwhile, the Japanese Wikipedia has one of the largest sysop-user and sysop-article disparities among the larger sized (500,000+) Wikipedia projects, with only a figure of 53 sysops covering 923,564 mainspace articles, and 11,655 active users. That's a sysop-article ratio of 1:17425, and a sysop-user ratio of 1:219. No one is there to clean up all the unencyclopedic shit on jawiki, because there just simply aren't enough admins to handle such a workload.

On the English Wikipedia, we see sysops as glorified janitors, not people of power or prestige. As long as someone is able to demonstrate that they are willing to have professionalism and competence in contributing to the project, we hand out the mopbuckets on a regular basis. Over on the Japanese Wikipedia, however, the community is shy about handing out sysop privileges, because these positions are still viewed as holding power. The amount of bootlicking and asskissing for sysops on the Japanese Wikipedia is far greater than what we have over here. --benlisquareTCE 12:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input. Cleaned up the article some and will continue into the future. Should also try to read the policy text for ja:wp because I foresee myself having to parallel quite often. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of fancruft, ja:wp's coverage of Puyo Puyo has full pages of character info for even the most minor of characters and very disproportionate size of sources. Just saying though, not going to incorporate into any en:wp pages. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The largest group of video gamers are adult women. Could you feature an explanation?[edit]

There are groups like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force who give Wikipedia an earful because of a gender gap in our participation and coverage. But I was just floored to read [6] which says that there are substantially more adult women than teenage boys who play video games. Clearly neither our coverage nor the image in the media gives this impression - the article mentions that advertising is generally targeted to the young boys, not so much why.

I think it would be useful for your project to identify something to feature which gives people more of an understanding of what the women are playing and/or what the state of art in its development is. I'll add that I've never personally been fond of featuring single-product articles, so my wish would be that you can feature an overall category or type of game that gives us some insight into "how the other [larger] half plays." Wnt (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This'll get really dirty really quick but I'd just like to quote what the article says about it; The spike in the number female gamers is likely tied to widespread smartphone adoption. In addition to traditional PCs and the Nintendo Wii game console, women were more likely to game on their mobile devices, So rather than playing 'heavy' games, they're playing games on their phones more than boys who would traditionally use a console/PC gaming machine. That's my understanding of it, anywho. Oh, the article also mentioned 'in app purchases' which would be indicative of mobile gaming even more so. Flurry found that on average, women spent 31 percent more money on in-app purchases and 35 percent more time within mobile games as compared to their male counterparts. So yeah. Tutelary (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Id agree with that explanation as well. Wii and Smartphone games expanded the audience, while games like GTA, and the general aging of the NES/Genesis era of gamers has skewed the demographic as older in general as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's already been pointed out, but again - that stat (and similar, like the c. 50% of all gamers now being female stat) includes all the various simple games being played on smartphones, tablets and social media (tactile, Wii-type gaming may also account for some of it, but probably increasingly less so as tablets have gotten more popular). If you're able to get stats for people playing games on consoles and especially desktop computers, and even more especially games that cost a significant amount of money (say, more than $10), I'm sure it will still be male dominated. Even if tablet/phone/facebook games are nominally "video games" and "gaming", IMO there's a real dichotomy between that and the more trad games we tend to cover, and am not really bothered by any lack of coverage on our part. bridies (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Women and video games would be the obvious article, in reference to the latter part of your question. bridies (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a welcome article to have, currently listed as B-class. I think it would be exceptionally welcome for the readers to see your project work this up to featured status. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean "exceptionally welcome"? We work on whatever we want. If for someone here that happens to include the Women in video games article, so be it, but we're not obligated to get any specific page up to a certain recognized status just because others want that. Currently, FA video game articles don't represent visual novels, traditional sports games (Madden, MLB, 2K, etc.), The Sims, Tetris, etc. at all; what's so special about representing middle-aged women? Sure, they're an important demographic that the industry could probably do a better job advertising to, but FA status doesn't make a given topic any more important, and this article in particular would be difficult to because of its massive, nebulous scope and strongly controversial nature. Tezero (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Take it easy. He didn't say "Do it now, or there will be consequences!" He's saying it'd be nice if it happened. If you don't want to do it, then don't. But it's nothing to get mad about. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As someone who has spent time improving the "Women and video games" article I'll note that those of us who have worked on the article would always appreciate further improvements if you are interested in helping, Wnt. -Thibbs (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, as evidenced by my surprise here, I really don't know the industry, and honestly, I haven't focused on getting even an article on a familiar topic through the featuring process in years. I was just hoping someone here would think it was an interesting thing to do. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks for the suggestion. There's actually been a bit of attention on the article recently so we may see some improvements soon. There's no obligation to assist of course, but often I find that the more participation the faster the improvements take place. So no pressure, but feel free to join in. -Thibbs (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

RESCUE discussion notification[edit]

As a heads-up, I've started a discussion at WP:ARS about Dancing with the Stars (video game), since it is, in my view, at once an article on an interesting topic (see the ARS thread for details), and also an aricle that risks being deleted if nominated for AfD. Please feel free to join the discussion there if you have any thoughts. It Is Me Here t / c 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Multiplayer and single-player video games[edit]

You might have seen this new category in your watchlists recently. I'm not so hot on the title, but I don't have the time right now to really think about it. Wanted to bring the recategorization to your attention since it will undoubtably affect thousands (a sizable minority) of our articles.

Discussion at Category talk:Multiplayer and single-player video games czar  17:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This was also added to a video game on my watchlist that's exclusively single player.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Elysian Shadows Unsalt[edit]

  • The game has been successfully funded on Kickstarter.
  • It has received national coverage by WHNT News.
  • It has set the record for highest funded Kickstarter from Alabama.
  • It has also set the record for highest funded game from Ouya Free the games fund.
  • It has also been on the August cover of Indie Game Magazine.

Elysian Shadows reality series AiGD has also earned a partnership deal from YouTube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cube_b3/Elysian_Shadows All of this information has been updated to the page in my sandbox.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who salted the article, because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Shadows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Shadows (2nd nomination). Still uncertain if it's WP:TOOSOON or not, and tired of being the bad guy all the time, I suggested it be brought up here, to let the community decide. (EDIT: Nevermind, I didn't salt this one, I was thinking of Heaven Sent Gaming, another article that was being repeatedly recreated around the same time. I was merely a recurring proponent for this article's deletion in the past.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why you're concerned with "being the bad guy". You're only enforcing policies; it's not your fault that there's a strong correlation between experience on Wikipedia and deletionism. I don't involve myself in notability discussions anymore, but if they want to plaster up the article and it's not to your liking, as an admin, tough beans. Tezero (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with WP:TOOSOON. Their kick starter has not even ended yet. I do not think It has set the record for highest funded Kickstarter from Alabama. is all that notable. Unless you could show that there are a lot (higher the average) kickstarters to start with in Alabama and I suspect that is not the case. Would still make a nice detail in the article once it can be created. NathanWubs (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the Ouya free the games fund exponentially more notable than anything else. That is a video game industry milestone in general! Additionally the biggest problem with Wikipedia is that no Ouya specific website is on the approved list. Not even Ouyacentral.tv
Also note the game has received significant coverage from all notable indie websites including the ones on our list.
Lastly 801 projects have been Kickstarted from Alabama. That is a significant number. EIGHT HUNDRED AND ONE. Reference is on the page.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
One more thing that the admins are not keeping into account is that the development of the game is actually more important then the actual game. You know the old saying it is not the destination, it is the journey that matters. Well that is exactly what AiGD is and it is a series that has been on for 7 years.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
http://whnt.com/2014/08/20/two-madison-county-engineers-leave-jobs-to-make-video-game-close-to-funding-their-dream/

http://kotaku.com/a-16-bit-rpg-that-promises-a-modern-twist-1626228329 http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331672688973/elysian-shadows-kickstarting-a-new-dreamcast-game

These are all websites that are main stream, reliable and notable. Please let's expedite this process. I have been working on this page for months and I really want to move on to some other articles.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why it's the projects fault that there are no known RS's for dedicated to the Ouya. Is it our fault that the system apparently hasn't generated enough interest to have one arise? Is it our responsibility to create sources? Or ignore RS guidelines because there aren't any yet? What exactly are you suggesting with that? Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest you evaluate the Ouya scene. The system has made national headlines and it has fundamentally redesigned game development, distribution and financing. Given it's business model it has changed the way a video game platform is supposed to interact with the community. I think Admin's need to explore the Ouya thoroughly and prioritize an investigation on how that community is ticking because it is a significant part of video game history and notable anyway you look at it. You are an admin, spend some time on Google and do your own research. When you do you will find that Elysian Shadows has been covered on every Ouya website official, professional or fan sites.
Coming back to the subject of Elysian Shadows please explain how the following things are exempt from notability?
  • 1) It has set a record on Ouya on Free the Games Fund.
  • 2) Record holder for Alabama's highest crowd sourced project on Kickstarter out of 801 projects.
  • 3) Secondary news coverage from main stream media outlets on national television such as WHNT News (owned by CBS).
  • 4) Original secondary coverage from main stream gaming outlets from the approved list of secondary references such as Destructoid, IndieGames.com (owned by Gamasutra) and Kotaku. You can use Wikipedia's own custom search engine to find a whole lot more.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 1) Admins have no special responsibility to do research on what OUYA sites are notable/reliable over regular editors. They have a mop, not the keys to the car
  • 2) Yes, OUYA is notable. That's why it has an article. That does not in turn, however, mean that any in-development game for the system is de facto notable prior to release.
  • 3) The guidelines for what is a reliable source have nothing to do with a specific site being the largest in (insert niche here). If Ouyacentral.tv is reliable then it is, if not then it is not- what the site covers has nothing to do with it.
  • 4) As to your points- #1 isn't the FtGF just a matching program? So that's just another way of saying it's made a lot on its kickstarter, #2 is meaningless trivia unless there's something special about Alabama vs the other 49 states; there's likely been 1000+ kickstarters from Seattle alone so 801 isn't really impressive, #3 WHNT is not national news, it's local Huntsville news, though it could certainly go in any article about the game, #4 sure those are RSs, and I'd be fine with those supporting notability.
  • 5) No, the development journey is not more important than the game itself, especially when its just a minor youtube channel that wouldn't support an article on its own.
  • 6) You're allowed to work on multiple articles at once, you know, so this certainly isn't blocking you from working on something else.
  • 7) I'd be fine with unsalting based on the references, but I don't think it should have an article regardless- this really seems like some minorly notable kickstarter that managed to get 2 or 3 sites to pick it up. It's importance to the OUYA scene aside (since that doesn't actually matter), there's nothing special that separates it from a dozen other kickstarters that look kinda neat- Heart Forth, Alicia still doesn't have a page, and it's at a comparable level, though missing a tiny youtube channel or a desperate console fanbase
  • 8) Really, the biggest issue here is that you're approaching this whole thing from the mindset of an OUYA fanboy, not from an editor who's genuinely interested in documenting a notable game. This is, incidentally, exactly why the article got salted after the last AfD- your attitude pushed people away, and made them want to keep the topic from coming up again anytime soon (like, 1.5 months later...) You're twisting notability to support every detail you find interesting, and pushing sites based on the content rather than their inherent notability. All that's going to result in is one more stub/messy start packed with detailed trivia that no one will ever clean up, and we're always leary of that around here. --PresN 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the insights. Some things have been misunderstood and I should offer some clarification but let's start with what we agree with.
  • 1) Please use the Custom search engine, I can not share the link here. You will find several websites that have written original articles covering the game. You will also find international coverage in foreign languages. So you can go ahead and unsalt and we can call it a day.
  • 2) I have approached this article neutrally and made my original article based on technology but it was all primary references it got deleted and I actually understood the rationale. My second attempt was to make a case of notability via Dreamcast and secondary references. As a professional journalist who frequently writes for Sega websites I automatically view something for Dreamcast with the utmost notability maybe i'm biased but I have successfully created articles on all indie Dreamcast games released in the last 5 - 8 years years without running into any problem. I assure you none of those projects have attained the level of publicity or notability then Elysian Shadows.
  • 3) I have OCPD and this article has significantly effected my mental health I can not work on another article until this issue is permanently resolved.

Writing here is a labor of love, not as a gamer but as a Wikipedian it is my duty to spread information. I believe in reciprocity I learn a lot from Wikipedia and I believe in positively contributing. This has been a rewarding and relaxing experience I would edit articles to unwind from a stressful day and now this has become a source of stress.

  • 4) I am being driven insane by the double standards refer to Ghost Blade's talk page. Once I am done with ES I would like to go in and fix that because despite all high and mighty none of the admins have taken positive action to wikify that article.

Best Regards--Cube b3 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a mistake to automatically view something for Dreamcast as having the utmost notability. The term "notability" on Wikipedia means something rather different from what it means in common speech. It's a term of art that describes significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources. As editors we are not allowed to make claims of notability based on personal opinion of a topic's significance or real-world importance, and we're not allowed to use Wikipedia as an original publishing venue to cover topics until the rest of the world takes notice. You can read more about the topic at WP:N. -Thibbs (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Thibbs' points, a few points of order that you seem to still be missing:
  • It is not the responsibility of other editors to find the sources you are talking about- we know how to use Google and the VG custom Google search as well. If you have reliable sources, include them in your draft you posted. Simply stating that they exist does not actually prove that they exist.
  • It is not the responsibility of the "high and mighty admins" to fix every article you come across. Admins don't get special editing tools, and with 30,000+ video game article alone there's far too many for anyone to jump whenever you point out a poor article- I could find 10 video game articles just as bad in under 60 seconds. Everyone just works on what they want to work on, and may help if asked nicely- I don't expect anyone to jump in and work on Legend of Mana just because I've taken an interest, so why would you expect people to jump in on an article that you've taken an interest in?
  • In general, you seem to misunderstand what admins are: we're editors who can protect articles and block users. That's it. If we enforce article standards, it's only because it's the job of every editor to enforce standards- we don't have any special power to make the rules that were formed via consensus stick, and we don't have any special mentor powers beyond any other long-term user.
  • TL;DR: if you have reliable sources, use them in your draft. Don't just tell us that they exist. Don't just tell us that the article's subject is important to a niche field without proving it with reliable sources. Use the sources and show us. --PresN 04:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Thibbs: My point exactly that was the whole point of approaching the article from multiple perspectives.
@ PresN: I already have. Please check the article. I have not included every reference just for the sake of including it for example Kotaku doesn't really share anything that wasn't already covered on the page. I could include it just for the heck of it would you like me to include references from a Russian or German website just because they are on the list of approved websites? I try to include references that actually reveal new information.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah I didn't realize this was your third attempt. Regarding whether or not you should include coverage in German and Russian RSes, I'd say go for it. See the third bullet here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I keep trying to tell you people, Wikipedia sucks for comprehensiveness about most things "low-culture"; there are plenty of other ways, as most gamers already know, to learn about their industry of choice than through Wikipedia. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort to fight the tides. Tezero (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Thibss: DONE. Added 2 German and 1 Russian reference. I just took the results from the first 2 pages. In my last search I did find Italian and French references as well. So can we unsalt the page now.
@ Tezero: Yeah man, it can really break your spirit fighting with mods but overall I did learn a few things so that makes me a better Wikipedian.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked over your 21 sources and here's what I see:
  • Explicit non-RSes: 3 (Niche Gamer, seganerds.com, TwoDashStash) - These are on the WP:VG/RS list as non-RSes so they probably can't be used in the article.
  • First party sources: 5 (kickstarter.com, twitter.com, and the 3 press releases on Gamasutra, MCVUK, and GamersHell) - These could perhaps be used in the article, but they can't be used to demonstrate notability.
  • Sources of unknown reliability: 7 (GamingEnthusiast.net, retrogamingmagazine.com, socialblade.com, igronews.com, the two dreamcast-scene.com sources, and nexgam.de which was previously discussed unfavorably/neutrally here) - Hard to say without further evidence that these can be used in the article let alone to demonstrate notability.
We can split the remaining 6 sources into clear RSes and situational or quasi-RSes.
  • Situational and quasi-RS sources: 3 (Destructoid, University of Alabama in Huntsville, whnt.com) - These may be able to demonstrate notability.
  • RSes: 3 (Game Revolution, IndieGames.com, gamestar.de) - These are at the heart of the notability question. Of the three, the coverage by Game Revolution is probably going to be found to be insubstantial and thus unable to confer notability. The other two do look plausible to me, though.
So what's my conclusion? I see notability pretty clearly demonstrated in 2 third party RSes (namely IndieGames.com and gamestar.de). The minimum threshold is "significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources." Two sources is multiple sources. So I think it meets the minimum threshold. I'd remove the 3 listed non-RSes and carefully examine the reliability of the first party sources and sources of unknown reliability to clean it up a bit, but otherwise I'd say it's OK. I don't have the power to unsalt anything though. I'm also sympathetic to the WP:TOOSOON argument as this may not be more than a stub for a while until the game is close to release or until some time post-release. -Thibbs (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential FPCs from commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar[edit]

Seeking potential featured picture candidate (individual and set) ideas from my collection of free use uploads, including hundreds of videos, screenshots, logos, sprites and character assets, and animated GIFs.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar czar  04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Review update[edit]

The old review thread is pretty out-of-date, so I thought I'd take a turn creating one.

  • FAC:
  • Squall Leonhart has been nominated since July 4. It has one support and an unaddressed source review. It's almost certainly going to be archived unless the nom sees activity in the next few days.
  • Flight Unlimited III has been nominated since August 19. It has two supports and no outstanding objections. Currently not a high priority.
  • Sonic X has been nominated since August 22. It has one support and no opposes.
  • Fez has been nominated since August 25. It has no comments whatsoever.
  • FLC:
  • GAN:
  • Peer review:
  • Deus Ex has been nominated since July 31. It has received input from three editors, none addressed.
  • Andrew Sega has been nominated since August 7. It has received input from one editor, none addressed.
  • FAR and GAR:
  • Midtown Madness has been nominated since May 1. It has two delists. Thanks to improvements during FAR, the article isn't in terrible shape and could probably be saved with a little more effort.
  • Ada Wong has been nominated since August 14. It has one downgrade and one neutral. The article dates from Niemti's GAN-flooding period, so the nom could definitely use more input.

As always, there's a lot to do. Most pressing noms are Squall Leonhart at FAC, List of Bleach video games at FLC, Enter the Dominatrix at GAN and Midtown Madness at FAR. Please give them some love if you have time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, anyone who can help, please show these articles some love! Ceasar (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me throw Payday 2 at it since I just revamped quite a bit of it. At least change it out from "Start". Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Updates: I've given some comments to Squall, put Mikengreg on hold, supported the Bleach list, and given the GTAV list a source review. Might change priorities a little. Tezero (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Early access/beta games[edit]

Do we categorize early access games as released or upcoming? My edit was reverted at Spacebase DF-9 and was told that other articles like Hack 'N' Slash use this format. But there are articles like Dota 2 and Minecraft that use the official release in the infobox and category. It would be nice to have some consistency in these kinds of articles. --Mika1h (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I say they are not, based on the fact that most of our review sources do not review Early Access games - if they do they are clear it's not a final review and tend to not give scores. Once the game is out of Early Access, then it's released and fair review game. --MASEM (t) 04:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, reviews help to determine notability, but they really don't have a bearing on encyclopedic content. If a game is available for sale, and is playable upon purchase then in encyclopedic terms, it's not upcoming, but released. JenniBees (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It's "released" to be played but not released in its final state for regular player consumption. A current concern in the video game field are early access games that are never "finished" (even Steam/Valve warns of this [7]) --MASEM (t) 23:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic. Whether a work is finished or not, does not change the fact that it can still be notable, and thus if it is deemed notable by wikipedia standards, it's release to the public should still be listed in an encyclopedic article. There are plenty of unfinished creative works on wikipedia that have the year of the public release associated with them. JenniBees (talk)
Well, of course. The date of early access release should be mentioned in the prose, no matter what, and I'm fine with it being in the infobox under the header "Early access release". Minecraft doesn't have it's alpha/beta release dates in the infobox, but it did prior to full release and they're still mentioned in the development section. --PresN 15:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And that, is exactly how this should be approached. Chambr (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Masem. A game is released upon the official release date. It is still upcoming for the general populous. Chambr (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. I've always considered a "Release date" to be the day that its released to the general public without any "Early access" tag on it. - X201 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If early-access counts as a release, Minecraft is five years old. Tezero (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't have to be at our discretion. Do the reliable sources list or refer to a "release date"? There's the answer. Sometimes the early access is the release date, and if RS change their minds later, so changes the article. czar  00:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Xbox One (XONE, XBONE, etc?)[edit]

What is the project's preferred short hand for Xbox One, especially in say infoboxes and release date lists? I've got at least one article on my watch list were a couple editors are changing from XONE to XBONE to Xbox One, etc. -- ferret (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think "XBONE" is a fan name. Most of the articles I've seen where it applies use "XONE", but that's only in the review tables. In the main text, it's referred to by its full name. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we should stick to XOne or the full name. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I've yet to see a consistent abbreviation for the console, and agree that XBONE is a some negative fan name that's stuck from its reveal and should be avoided. I would keep spelling it out for now until we find some consistency in sources. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wanna know what I think? I think neither this WikiProject now Wikipedia should "decide" this. We should go with whatever is commonly used in reliable sources. Xbox One is not unmanageably large, so not abbreviating may be the best option if we can't determine what is the abbreviation generally favored by media. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Certainly, but the project can help narrow down and "decide" what the majority usage in reliable sources is. I myself don't know so this is the best venue I think to figure it out. Somewhere along the way we settled on X360, even though "Xbox 360" is no longer than "Xbox One".. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of users quote the Infobox guideline for the released field (Platforms can be abbreviated to fit in one line, and should be listed as bolded section titles without colons, separated with commas (e.g. PS2, GCN, Xbox).) when changing the platform names in the release date field. I think "Platforms can be abbreviated..." is being read as Platforms must be abbreviated..." because the changes are happening in articles that don't need it.- X201 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Sal that "Xbox One" is hardly unwieldy, although no issue with XONE being an appropriate abbreviation when called for (such as in tables). "XBone" is right out. --McDoobAU93 14:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Funnily, I tweeted about this over a year ago, cheekily suggesting (in French) "X1" or "X-One". I haven't seen any of these used in the media though, so we should either abbreviate to XONE or avoid abbreviating altogether. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
X1 is also a content delivery system from Comcast's Xfinity cable operations, so maybe best to avoid that one. Personally, I've taken to calling it "the One", but that's hardly encyclopedic. --McDoobAU93 15:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
XBO might be my favourite, it's only 3 letters and doesn't sound like a joke. Although it's only 1 letter from becoming XBOX which might be confusing. --Mika1h (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)