Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Esports/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reactivation, reogranization, and renaming

I recently stumbled upon this taskforce while proposing a WikiProject with the same scope. I am interested in reviving this project and reorganizing it in hopes of making it more active. To start, I would like to propose that the name of this task force be changed from pro gaming to eSports or Electronic Sports as this seems to be a more common term these days. —Entropy (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, upon reactivation this project should be listed as a child project of WP:VG on that project's main page. Whoops, didn't see that it was already there. —Entropy (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Nope to the latter, it's already listed under Taskforces, because this is what it is. However I support making it more active, clarifying the scope, etc.! I suggest you ping the main WT:VG for interest. I'm mostly involved with WP:NIN, another Taskforce, but would be happy to help set things up for y'all if needed. As for the rename, despite the unusual capitalization, I think Taskforce eSports to be the most accurately descriptive name. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 23:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, though if it's alright I'd like to wait and see what the consensus is on the WikiProject proposal before doing so. —Entropy (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Renaming it pretty much introduces more work than is gained, imo. However, no one will stop you from rejuvenating the page; you may want to start with deleting the inactive members from the main page. --Izno (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I think a rename would be worthwhile; what all would have to be done to go through with it? —Entropy (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, a quick Google search turns up far more results for eSports (~63 million) than pro gaming (~7 million), showing that eSports is far more common a term. I think a rename would help with the revival of this taskforce. —Entropy (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done. I have renamed the project and begun reorganizing the project page. If you have any suggestions, feel free to mention them or implement them yourself! —Entropy (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I will change the banner parameter and update all pages sometimes before I next go to bed. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
New logo
New logo
  •  Done I won't add a logo right away but I'd like you to make one that scales well at that small size. File:Task Force eSports.svg looks like a garbled mess at 40px. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 09:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    Sure thing, the existing one is just something I threw together. Any suggestions as to the format of the updated logo? I'm really open to anything. —Entropy (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    Since I didn't get any feedback, I went ahead and made a new square logo (shown at the right) where the text "eSports" is still readable at 40px. If anyone would like any changes to this logo, please let me know! —Entropy (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

League of Legends

A question, as a follower of the League of Legends scene, where would I find guidelines for criteria or creating articles about LoL teams/players?(although, I have found that quite a few teams already exist from careers in other games) Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

These criteria need to be discussed and formalized! That's one of the goals of this Taskforce. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 08:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I would still like an answer to this. :) I would like to think that sources would be no problem to obtain(IGN/GameSpot cover LoL eSports), and the only problem would be if it is considered "encyclopedic". I would probably stray from current events and recently made teams, and focus more on notable teams that were successful in previous seasons(Team SoloMid, Counter Logic Gaming, etc). Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Scope

While I might agree that articles like MOBA may fall under the scope as being a particular genre of game, or particular game, suited to eSports, I'm not sure it should be within the scope of the task force. I have reverted an edit to MOBA for this reason.

I would suggest that the scope be limited to players, teams, and competitions. That keeps the task force scoped directly to the eSports portion of things. --Izno (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a user interested in improving articles on professional Starcraft II players, teams and competitions would probably also be interested in improving articles on casters and Starcraft II itself. —Entropy (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Y'know, that's actually interesting -- I think some content about eSports could be sourced and added to the MOBA article, since it's a major genre in the activity. I'd support tagging the FPS & RTS genre articles as Taskforce related too, but then again, that's just me. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 19:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, though it should be restricted to games with an eSports community (e.g. Warcraft 3, Starcraft and Halo 4 but not Age of Empires 3 or Turok: Evolution. —Entropy (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Get too broad, and you miss the point of having a task force dedicated to a topic.

Casters I would include, naturally, and did not mean to disinclude them.

I still don't think it would be necessary to tag the video games much less their genres. But take this with a grain of salt. --Izno (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer including them but it's a pretty weak preference and I would really be fine either way. Does anybody else have input on this? —Entropy (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I think, first of all, that a clear scope needs to be defined. Two things need to be laid down -- notability guidelines for inclusion of player/team articles in Wikipedia, and a clearly defined scope as to what articles should be included in the Taskforce. I think it would be silly not to include games like Starcraft and Counter-Strike, but if we include them, then we need to decide why them and not others; where the scope ends. Salvidrim! ✉ 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Defining which games are considered "eSports games" should be pretty trivial; any game with a well-documented competitive community is an eSports game, and the rest aren't. A quick Google search for "professional X", where X is a certain game, can be a lazy way of checking if a game has a large eSports community. Additionally, any game in Category:Electronic sports games is an eSports game. —Entropy (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, after trying out a few, "X eSports" seems to be a better query as non-eSports games return usually only one or two digits of results. —Entropy (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Project status

State of task force as of January 24, 2013.
State of task force as of January 24, 2013.

Click the pie chart at the right to see the number of articles with each rating within the scope of our task force is shown at the right. Because of the high number of start- and stub-class articles, I think a priority should be getting these articles to at least C-status. —Entropy (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice! How exactly did you get those stats? Manually? Salvidrim! ✉ 07:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I counted them up while categorizing them on the main page. —Entropy (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect this talk page as part of task force cleanup

I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include redirecting all task force talk pages, including this one), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 01:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reactivating this talk page

This page has served as a redirect to the main WikiProject's talk page for two an a half years. I would like to suggest for it to become active once again. This is not necessarily because I think it will be particularly active, but simply because I think a separate space to discuss esports is downright 'needed'. There are a lot of questions related to esports specifically, such as dealing with tournament tables and rankings, notability of teams and players, specific types of images, etc. Just today, this edit was made. Seeing as there are currently many more reliable sources discussing esports, I think we can finally do some catch-up. Of course, there is still sadly very little interest in the subject here on Wikipedia, for various reasons. Dealing with this may be difficult, but let's see where we'll go from here. ~Mable (chat) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a central repository of eSports discussions that have happened in the past. Would it be acceptable if I copied and pasted some threads onto this page or should I just link to them? As far as usefulness goes, as other users have mentioned, the WP:VG talk would honestly work better since threads would get better exposure.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Tournament results tables in annual tournament articles

How notable are tournament results in an article on some (bi)annual tournament. As we all know, articles like DreamHack and Evolution Championship Series are 90% tables describing the results of all the tournaments. This really isn't how it should be done on Wikipedia, I would think. When I created Community Effort Orlando, I kept my focus on prose and writing about what the event is really about. A while later, an editor added a set of tables with tournament results to the article. Is there any merit to this? Should our article on DreamHack be changed massively? I was wondering what everyone's opinion on this is. One of the things I liked about creating articles on specific Evo tournaments was that it allowed me to move the tables to the article on the specific event, where it feels much more undue. What would be the best practices here? ~Mable (chat) 20:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The WP:NNC allows lists to contain information that would not otherwise meet notability guidelines. And yes, WP:PROSE recommends that prose style information take precedence over lists and tables, so thanks for writing prose on the CEO page. That doesn't mean that tables shouldn't be used, and they are just more convenient for information like tournaments results, where you have very consistent data. Personally I think the level of information contained on DreamHack is just right, other than the fact that rosters should probably be added. The real question is what level of prominence tournaments need to have to be listed on a player/team's past results. It feel like certain minor tournaments being listed on a page like F0rest amounts to WP:LISTCRUFT. Concerning whether or not results tables are more appropriate on separate pages rather than the main EVO page I'm assuming that you mean it feels less undue, rather than "more undue".--Prisencolin (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that tournament listings on player/team pages is a different discussion (though also one very much worth having). But as for articles like DreamHack themselves... I personally seriously don't think it's a good thing to have an (bi)annual yearly gaming event completely dominated by lists. It doesn't look like an encyclopedic article at all: it's just a list of results. Of course, in this case, the article should probably be split in the same way that I did for Evo 2015 and 2016, but that will be some work. As for whether tournament results should be listed at all on the CEO page... I'm not sure. It would make the page look very much alike that of Evo. Is that proper? Wouldn't that be giving undue weight to the winners of the tournaments, something most sources don't even really talk about? ~Mable (chat) 10:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I mean, it's a competition so I'd imagine that listing who the winners are is of high priority.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(Minor) tournament results listings on player and team pages

I'd like to keep this discussion separate from the one above, but I do think it would be a good idea to make a decision regarding this. You gave the example of F0rest above, who seems to have a huge table that includes every tournament win that can be sourced. Personally, I think a solution to this will come over time: as we create more articles on distinct tournaments, we can simply list any high ranking on tournaments that we have an article for. I mean, looking at F0rest's page, I think we could already do this. A better solution may be to just describe someone's tournament history in prose. I tried to do this when creating the article on Fuudo, but I noticed quickly that having table as well just really clarifies all the information beautifully. In Fuudo's case, because the table is so short, this seems like a good deal. In F0rest's case... Urgh, I just don't know >.> ~Mable (chat) 10:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Date format?

Prisencolin, you added to the task list that we might need to standardize our date format (2016-01-01 vs January 1, 2016). Per the manual of style, both formats are allowed (though the Korean style isn't usually applied in prose). I don't think standardizing a date format project-wise is a good idea. This is partly because of the WP:DATERET guideline that says you shouldn't change an article's date format after it is set in a certain way, or else people will just start to argue. I also believe that it isn't really important to do so. I know I'm personally going to continue using Korean-style dates for all articles I write for personal reasons, and I'll just follow whatever citation-style is set when I work on established articles. I don't think it's a good idea to change that practice... ~Mable (chat) 10:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure anyone would really care if we changed the dates on esports articles. At least for me, I find western style dates much easier to read, and presumably most people reading wikipedia articles do too.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Link to past discussions

I figured I'd just post links to previous discussions at WP:VG or elsewhere:

Good choice. This should at the very least be a useful reference for a while. ~Mable (chat) 09:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sponsors in Team Infoboxes

Currently sponsors are listed in the infoboxes of esports organizations. This appears to be a convention that has been borrowed from esports wikis since there is no precedent for this on pages for conventional sports organizations. I don't think this information is particularly relevant, and I'm concerned it most of all acts as an advert for these sponsors which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Kaas (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thekaas: Why do you think it's not particularly relevant? I might suggest it's highly relevant, as some of the proceeds from a win surely flow to the sponsors. --Izno (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sponsors can definitely be highly relevant, but I am curious if there is any precedent for this at WP:Sports. I can imagine that they wouldn't have much value in the infobox. I also don't know if we list historical sponsors alongside whatever current sponsors an organization may have? Such a list may get long. ~Mable (chat) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Career statistics for League of Legends players

I've been working on creating some tables for a LoL player's career statistics here, but I'm not sure how to format the section. I've currently sectioned it based on leagues, worlds, and "other", but perhaps doing so with domestic/international might be better. It doesn't look neat either way, but I'm at a loss of what to do. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Power Unlimited esports issue

I saw a special esports issue of Power Unlimited in a local magazine store.Skimming through it, it has a lot of information about the esports scene around games like Hearthstone, Starcraft, Overwatch, and various other titles. It also has an article about major controversies in the esports world, a list of best-payed competitive gamers, etc. I found fairly little about the fighting game community, sadly, which is the main reason why I'm hesitant to pick it up. I'm not really interested in most of the games discussed in the issue and am very unlikely to ever use the book as a source myself. However, I'm willing to buy it if other people want to use it as a source. I'd be really happy to translate articles to English and help out with that. If some people are interested, I'll buy it and make some requested translations available - if nobody shows any interest, I'm just gonna let the offer pass me by. ~Mable (chat) 10:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Super Smash Bros. (video game) tournaments

I came across this wiki page and noticed that it is really lacking tournaments. It is missing at least 10 tournaments in the past 2 years that have had over 50 entrants and at least 5 that have had over 100. I had made edits but they were removed due to lack of source. My source was the tournament registration site called smash.gg but it was taken down due to being a primary source. Our eSport does not often receive articles from the list of credible sources. I wondered why articles would be needed to report simply the results in a table form. At any rate can this page please be marked as incomplete if nothing else. Maniac379 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Because of the idea of notability on Wikipedia. The inclusion criteria for such lists are often based on some form of notability among independent sources. It's honestly more likely that these lists need to be trimmed than added to if we want to follow Wikipedia's philosophy. After all, we are not a directory of tournament results: we're an encyclopedia, a summary of information rather than a list of data. ~Mable (chat) 12:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Overwatch League teams with "Former players" section

Is this section really necessary? For the most part, the players aren't notable, and the list will continue to grow exponentially over time. Would a better alternative be limiting it to notable players (players with pages, i.e. Seagull and xQc with Dallas Fuel)? JTP (talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • 100% no. We already discussed this a bit on the main WT:VG page, where nobody had any real support for it. This just seems like a carryover from when people copypasted team pages from Liquidpedia here, and people just assumed over time that it's apart of the MOS or something. Get rid of them any time you see them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @NotTheFakeJTP: Would you like to help remove them? I can do the teams from the Atlantic division and you handle the Pacific just to speed it up? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I figured there was some Liquipedia carryover. I can definitely do the Pacific. Thanks for responding. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@NotTheFakeJTP: Thanks, I'll finish up the Atlantic teams then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Imaqtpie

Imaqtpie has had his article deleted twice due to notability. I am working on a new draft at Draft:Imaqtpie and have been putting a lot of effort into it. Please take a look at it to give suggestions on how it could be improved, I'd really like his article to survive this time. Derek M (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability question

tl;dr
Question: are there specific notability requirements for this project?
Answer: Not really, use WP:GNG, wherein reliable sources include Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources Maarsch (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just had my first article tagged as not notable and tagged for deletion. This was about a non esport thing, but I have started a draft for a Starcraft II caster. I can't find specific notability requirements for casters/commentators and if I'm to launch this page I'd like to to survive. Can anyone point me in the right direction for dealing with Draft:Kevin van der Kooi. Maarsch (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maarsch: Most of the sources cited in this article aren't considered reliable, either because they are primary sources (sources that are relatively strongly tied to the subject) or because they don't have an established editorial policy and/or staffing. See if WP:VG/S for a list of video game-related sources that have been discussed in the past. In order to established Notability, a subject needs to be covered by what are considered reliable independent sources. I can find a few mentions of van der Kooi in reliable sources, like this USA Today article and this CNN article, but it's indeed pretty weak. I don't know if there are enough sources to establish notability. Maybe you could find some in Dutch newspapers or something like that, though I know how unlikely that is. I'm afraid odds are that van der Kooi doesn't meet the general notability criteria.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: To add on to your answer, not only do the sources have to be independent, but they have to be about the subject directly. That is the biggest reason why the USA Today and CNN article do not establish notability for van der Kooi. It's understandable why it could be disappointing if one's first article is tagged for deletion, but unfortunately sometimes there is a reason the article does not yet exist. Derek M (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The USA Today article can be used for establishing some notability, but I agree that it's just way too little. As for the CNN mention, I guess I am just trying to make the case seem more hopeful than it may be... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for you feedback. I'll see if I can find something, though a quick search of all national newspapers mentioned List of newspapers in the Netherlands doesn't bring any results (Doesn't help that his handle is the country's 2nd biggest city). I'll see if I can find something internationally. I don't suppose there's a verified news outlet that has a standing esports section (I tried ESPN)? The sources I'd provided was mostly to show that I hadn't pulled his attending the blizzcons as announcer out of my ass. Maarsch (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, if I understand correctly, HDStarcraft's notability would be based entirely on reference 3: Pennycook, Jeremy (2010-07-29). "Video Games And Their Evolution Into A New Breed Of Spectator Sport". NPR. and the other references are there to source random other stuff Maarsch (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Be careful not to fall into the other-stuff-exists trap. While comparison can be useful, as you can see, HDStarcraft is tagged as having questionable notability--so yes, in this case, his supposed notability rests only on the reference to NPR. Which, per the WP:GNG, is not sufficient to retain an article if challenged at an AFD discussion. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
News sources that I use a lot for esports articles, like ESPN, The Daily Dot, or Red Bull, haven't written about van der Kooi. I've done a minimal source search and found next to nothing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Red bull has this, but then that is about their tournament and would be considered a primary source, I suppose. And then this mentions him, but doesn't pass your earlier comment that "but they have to be about the subject directly.". And this, which might be directly about him (if only as steady partner to the one of the people the article was about) goes back under primary source, it being a Red Bull Battleground. Nothing on ESPN, now that http://xgames.espn.com/esports/article/15449585/the-dreamhack-austin-esports-overview redirects to http://www.xgames.com/esports/article/15449585/the-dreamhack-austin-esports-overview. I don't know where that leaves me in terms of "relevant source", though the article is about the tournament, making that notable, not the casters. Which brings me back to "but they have to be about the subject directly.". Right . . . . Maarsch (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maarsch: You do not need a big outlet like ESPN for verifiability. There are a lot of great esports publications. Just to think of a few (which may be more League of Legends related but still), I can think of Dot Esports, The Score Esports, and of course there are video-game focused publications like Kotaku, IGN, PC Gamer, etc. The point I am trying to make is that simply being mentioned in a news article doesn't make you notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The rule of thumb is that there should be multiple articles specifically about the subject in order to establish notability. For example, suppose you are reading an article on ESPN about Overwatch and they mention Montecristo is a caster. That article isn't about Montecristo specficially -- it is primarily about Overwatch. If ESPN writes an article called "Why Monte, DoA, and PapySmithy don't need Riot" after Monte quits League of Legends casting, it is more believable that maybe Montecristo is notable enough for his own article if his actions alone are newsworthy. Derek M (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't suppose there's a list somewhere never mind, got it in which among all the sites out there is a reliable source. I don't know whether Girls on games is good for anything or a fansite, for instance. I'd never heard of em. But then again, I didn't know IGN was still a thing (or that they had specific language sites) and this might just work though. (Let me quickly check whether using foreign language sources is a problem though) Maarsch (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Foreign language sources are great and that Dutch IGN article looks good :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So, I'm wondering if this is an American Lawyer show thing where I have to prove notability, if only on a technicality. Or whether this is something where, if it is this hard to prove notability, I should just accept he isn't and move on. Maarsch (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly a hollow win if you only manage to prove it upon a technicality. Personally, when I write an article, I try to source all the text purely to independent reliable sources. If you can do this and are left with a decent-looking article, I personally believe that you have a reliable subject. It can still end up at Articles for Deletion, though.. One other thing you can do in this situation is just wait for more sources to come up. Maybe in a year or two, you'll have enough to work with. I've been waiting for years for more journalists to write about a specific webcomic, though, so it's not really practical in all cases ^_^; ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

NRG Esports

This page is a mess and need much cleanup and revision. I have been working to add the names and nationalities of players and I have also updated the Fortnite, LoL, and PUBG sections but this is just alot to do.

MrCheese76 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Player Naming

Should articles about Esports players be their real name, or their in game nickname? I have seen both used very commonly. Lxxl (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Common name varies from individual to individual, and general practices may vary from sport to sport and community to community. Whatever name is most commonly used by sources is generally the name we use. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Previous discussion on this is also that WP:STAGENAME applies. --Izno (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Box Art Legality

Does a scan of Box Art from a video game fall under fair use? If so, what version should I use (NTSC, PAL, ect.)? Also, does a picture that someone else took of an esports player fall under fair use if I have the consent of the picture taker? Thanks!User:Noble5034 (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability guidelines?

Hey, I was looking through some past AfDs and ran across my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Vitality. In that AfD discussion, I pointed out that it's time for notability guidelines specific to esports for such things as teams and players. It looks like I'm not alone, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise Nation (2018) and some proposals in 2016 at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 130. Is there any interest in drafting notability guidelines that cover esports specifically? Raymie (t • c) 08:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

it's time for notability guidelines specific to esports for such things as teams and players WP:GNG is sufficient for these topics. We do not need to go down the path of WP:NSPORTS, which has caused a mess of BLP violations and trivial factoids. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree to a point. There are topics and a style of writing for esports players that are both too specific for GNG and differ from traditional athletes. Our refusal to set up some any sort of esports guideline, even a minor section within MOS:VG, is one of the primary reasons why the majority of esport articles here are terrible in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissident93 (talk • contribs)
GNG does not concern article content, only the topics of articles. Please produce proof or some indication that the GNG is insufficient for those topics. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Esports/Archive_1&oldid=1137358905"