Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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


Is Tropes vs. Women considered notable for reception inclusion?[edit]

I can't tell you how many times this argument has come up and gone unresolved, so I profoundly want a firm conclusion to be reached. I don't care that much - its use in individual game articles to me is limited to (1) reiterating that SJWs have a large and vocal presence in gaming journalism and (2) cluing readers in to how repetitive and tired Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are - but I very much disdain the apparent current reality of having it removed from some articles while it stays in others. Tezero (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify your question? Do you mean 'Should Anita Sarkeesian's opinion be included in the reception sections of video game articles'? Sam Walton (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, it's that. Tezero (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I've only watched one of them fully, but I would say that Tropes should only be used if the specific game already has a larger discussion from other sources on the issues that the Tropes videos touch on for that game (so that the Tropes bit would be adding to, and not creating, that), I would not include a section based on what Tropes says if that is the only source talking about that. (eg, one I did watch she talks about issues in BioShock, which I can see her point on, but it also is the only source for that I've ever seen, and so would be a WP:FRINGE problem to include). --MASEM (t) 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily talking about a section; it could only be a couple of sentences. Tezero (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Going off what Serge describes below as good examples, even a few sentences about the Tropes commentary would be undue and FRINGEy if that is the only place where sexist (or other issues) are raised about the specific game. I will note that if those videos get further commentary by others (for example: while she hits on sexism in BioShock in the recent one, I remember seeing a few RSes mentioning "but some of that was what it was like at that time..."), that would be make it appropriate for further commentary within the game. Basically, if it is just her voice on that issue, you shouldn't include it. (And to be clear, this is not because it is Sarkeenian - this applies to all commentary people including, say, Zero Punctuation, TotalBiscuit, Markiplier, etc.) --MASEM (t) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
My view seems to mirror Masem's. I wouldn't use it unless it was commentary on a bigger issue. If she complains that Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds is sexist because you can only play as a man, or something like that, I don't think it belongs. Its more of a WP:UNDUE voice, the game itself isn't fundamentally sexist, and that really wasn't what most reviewers got out of the experience. Now, if its something more like Lollipop Chainsaw, where the game received a lot of commentary in their portrayal of women, then I think her comments would be more appropriate. I wouldn't create a whole section just for what Tropes says, but if it was a big enough deal, I could see it being a whole section, with Tropes contributing to it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Be sure you aren't conflating your own views on the subject with critics'; for example, perhaps others do think only playing as a man in certain games is sexist. (On a related note, to clarify, I don't mean to edit POINTily here; I was just listing what I think the most likely outcomes of Sarkeesian inclusion are. And I actually do think there's a lot of outright sexism - as well as the problem of just not thinking about female characters and gamers - in the industry; it's more of a Don't Shoot the Message issue.) Having said that, a consensus of your larger point does seem to be forming. Tezero (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not. The concept itself is rooted in WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and the example was merely meant to be a "tame/family friendly/generally in good standing with the press" type game versus an "extreme, obviously trying to be edgy" type game. If there were a ton of reliable sources clamoring about how sexist LOZ was...I wouldn't personally agree, but I wouldn't object to a consensus supporting its inclusion. I'd probably just stick around to maintain it, to make sure people don't get carried away with it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Was this in regards to your slow motion edit war going on over here? Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
That was the tipping point, yeah. In a practical sense this discussion doesn't seem necessary for that, as a few other critics have called out similar issues as Sarkeesian there, but I still want to reach some kind of general communal decision. Tezero (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. After two reverts I decided to search consensus at Talk:Amy_Rose#Bonasio_and_Sarkeesian, with more elaborated arguments on my point of WP:SPS than would fit in an edit summary. After this,Tezero brought the issue here (which was the correct move to make). The final anonymous edit of the (with the flaming summary) on Sarkeesian and Bonasio was not mine, by the way. I just wanted to tell this, before someone would suspect that the IP is part of an organized edit war from my side.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to throw my ball. I think it would be best if the series discussed the game at length as opposed to a passing reference. Example: Mentioning Shadows of the Damned in the way she did does not warrant inclusion. Going on for over five minutes about how silly Ms. Pac-man is might warrant a mention to me. Context and depth matter, as when we use Zero Punctuation on some of our reviews. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree here - if she spend the entirety of an episode on one game, that itself probably means it could be included (and add to the fact each video so far has had commentary from RS to add to that , so you'll get more there). --MASEM (t) 19:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No. She isn't an expert, she's not even a passer-by in the field of video games, she's someone specifically looking to complain about aspects of games. I don't see what her unfounded and intentionally biased opinions can add to articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on. You're free to disagree with her, but that sort of thought process is comparable to just covering you ears and saying "lalala I can't hear you!" Her viewpoints are pretty prominently covered in the VG world these days. She's not just "GamerFanattic207", the 12 yr old who just started their first YouTube account last week. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, DWB does capture her job pretty well: she decides first that games are sexist and then picks out everything that can possibly be used to support that conclusion. That's honest journalism like the Everything Wrong With videos are real reviews - it's just that Sarkeesian is at least covered by the media, if not always in a positive light. Tezero (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
She's prominently covered because of the type of criticism rather than the quality. She's covered because her videos stir up lots of alpha male anger, and websites cover her to counter that in a self-promotional, self-serving, self-indulgent manner. You can watch her videos if you want, but her opinion is directed to produce a conclusion, not find it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what she does, and how her videos work. I never said I supported her stance or her thought process. I'm saying she's a prominent figure and you can't just go "No, I don't like it, stay off my Wikipedia". I don't especially like Polygon (website), the stories they write, or the viewpoints they express. But I still recognize that they meet the definition of a reliable source. You need to be able to separate your personal viewpoints from things. And again, if you read what I actually said, I only support her use to flesh out a "controversy" that is already there to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
But if the controversy already exists, it's already sourceable without resorting to citing someone merely capitalizing on those sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
"Capitalize" is a bizarre word choice, but beyond that, because she's widely referenced in the industry and journalists. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, she IS an expert- she has a masters degree in the topics she's discussing. She is also a part of the video game industry- she contributes professionally to the field, which means her contributions are valid. She's exactly the kind of source (an expert source) that we should be drawing on when we add information to pages. I agree with the rest of the discussion that states if she discusses a game at length, it's worthwhile to include her contributions to the article. You may not approve of her work personally, but that doesn't make her critiques or her contributions to the field any less important and worthy of recording. Misrepresenting both her AND her work in discussions like this is degrading to the entire purpose of Wikipedia.Sothewind (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
She has a master's degree in Social and Political thought. I'm representing her involvement in video games and self promotion fairly accurately. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As with all primary source commentators, I would only try to use this opinion when it's covered by editorial control (in a secondary source). For example, this article is secondary coverage that notes the importance of the video's message vis-à-vis the games mentioned. The mention would be worth a sentence apiece in those cases (referencing that Polygon article and not the original source). The same way, I'd avoid using a known indie dev's blog as a source for their criticism of other indie games. If their specific opinion is important, it will have coverage in reliable, secondary sources. czar  22:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Czar; Tropes vs. Women by itself isn't appropriate for inclusion (and neither is citing to it directly), but if the relevant information is covered by an established RS (such as Kotaku), then it may be suitable and discussed on a case-by-case basis. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that Anita Sarkeesian has a masters degree relevant to the work she's discussing- representations of gender in videogames- I would argue her work is worth adding to articles for games that she has substantially discussed. Passing references to games shouldn't be included (that can be left for her own page) but some of the longer, more nuanced critiques of games are worthwhile for inclusion (even if they haven't been commented on by other sources). Her work is part of larger discussions of gender representations in videogames, and they are pretty impactful, so they should be included.Sothewind (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Sexual harassment in video gaming[edit]

I came across this page at AFD during the GamerGate fallout. I've suggested it be moved to Harassment in video gaming which would also enlarge the scope of the article, but I'm also aware that editors may wish to keep it as a pure sexism style piece. Input welcome here. - hahnchen 16:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it might be worthwhile to have a separate article that addresses specifically sexual harassment in video game culture, since it is overwhelmingly based on gender. That article could use some more development, though- there's no shortage of events to discuss on the topic. Maybe there should be a broad "harassment in video game cultures" article that touches on the different kinds of abuse, which can touch on sexism but also discuss racism and so forth. It might be worthwhile to have a discussion about the place of sexuality-based harassment- that is, harassment focused on people who are homosexual or generally non-hetero-normative. Should that be a part of the Sexual Harassment article, or a part of a broad harassment article, or a separate space? Sothewind (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014's TFAs[edit]

So this week, not only did System Shock become the Featured Article on the main page for the 22nd, but on the 26th we will have School Rumble there as well. Its mostly known for being a manga series but since some games were made based on the series, it falls into our spectrum. GamerPro64 00:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We have lots of un-mained FAs, so if you're interested in seeing yours, everyone, post at WP:TFAR for a date in, say, mid-December or later. Tezero (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice re: RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects?[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cockpit Manager '14 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cockpit Manager '14 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockpit Manager '14 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DH85868993 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Open world games task force[edit]

I'm thinking about creating it. Who's willing to join it? Also, what is the process of creating a task force? URDNEXT (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'd be there helping with Japanese iterations of it, like Xenoblade Chronicles X or Zelda Wii U, though I probably would be helping much with the American/Western based ones, which would probably be the bulk of the project... Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 Do you wanna found the force with me? I'm not sure how to do it myself. URDNEXT (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't know either, but I bet someone will post some guidance soon. I'd just be more of a "along for the ride" type in this endeavor. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 Alright, I hope to see you at the force then. Meanwhile I'll just wait till more people come into the discission to get the approval of the project. URDNEXT (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone out there know how do we get an approval from the project to create the force? URDNEXT (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't imagine you'd need much, if any. If a task force isn't active, it can just be closed as usual. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you join it? @Tezero URDNEXT (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I tend to edit what I'm interested in, and I don't play a whole lot of Western-developed games in general barring indies, Valve, Tony Hawk, and the BioShock series, but I suppose I could help out with particularly dire projects as needed. Tezero (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Milestone discussion post #5: Kilometer Edition[edit]

As GamerPro64 noted above, we've once again reached a milestone: 250 Featured Articles/Lists! This was one of the first milestones we declared back in February 2011 (when we had 177 pieces of featured content- 135 articles and 42 lists), and now we're at 184 FAs and 66 FLs. Since it's done... we need to replace it! We've got Start, C, and GA-class covered already, so my vote is for something featured-related. Any suggestions? --PresN 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

10% B-class or higher? I'd kinda like to crop-rotate article qualities rather than jumping straight back to FA, plus I think B-class is a solid general threshold for articles being good enough for the average reader. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we should aim for 500 featured articles, or at least 400. URDNEXT (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with URDNEXT. Four- to five-hundred FA/Ls is similar to what MILHIST tried for when they hit their goal. Looking at their milestones, though, I see that they've added a fifth one related to featured pictures. Perhaps we could increase the FA/L milestone to 500 and add some sort of goal for FPs? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of stepping on a few politically important toes, I'd rather not prioritize featured pictures. I feel that articles, first and foremost, are what users come to Wikipedia the most for and benefit most from being featured. MILHIST does seem to be a rival for us, so I'm fine with the 400-500 FA goal. I'm considering partaking in the GA Cup, in which case at least some of my work will be in video games, so that'll ready a few targets. Tezero (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Only thing I'm worried about in setting a 500 FA/L goal is that it took us 3.5 years to get 73 FA/Ls - another 250 would take 9.5 years. We're moving faster than we used to- 4 FACs at a time is a lot more than we use to have- but it's still a very, very long-term goal. We can shoot for it anyway, though, if that's what we want. --PresN 05:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That seems high. If we escalate our activity somewhat and push some of our GA projects to FAs (which usually isn't a whole lot of work), I think it could be done in three years. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would also prefer something like 10% B-Class - I think destubbing articles serves the reader better than taking a GA to FA, or something similar; there's much more crucial improvement from bad to good than from good to great. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  12:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. (But of course I do - that's pretty much a centerpiece of my editing philosophy in general actually. But you guys care about these milestones far more, so its not like you need to cater to me or anything.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll be honest and say that I don't really care about GA and FA qualifications for my work other than (1) to formally cement that I made a difference and (2) to get GAs and FAs for topics that don't really have them (for example, I took the Czech language page there because there are so few recognized language articles, and before I started with Sonic the Hedgehog articles there was, like, one GA and one FA). Does this mean I don't value the quality upgrades on their own terms? Of course not, but all things being equal, I'd rather one of our project goals be tailored to the reader rather than to shiny things. Tezero (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If there's a consensus for the B-class milestone, I won't stand in the way. I only worry that removing a goal for top-quality content could make the next 250 come even slower. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it would. Is that a problem, though? I don't know that there's an easy answer. It depends what our goal is: to have a few articles that look great or a lot that look good. Tezero (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the current two proposed options look like:

500 Featured articles and lists: 50.2% complete
10% of articles and lists B-Class or better: 51.6% complete

Since I mentioned the rate for FA/Ls above, I'll add that in February 2011, we were at 4.095% B+, and now we're at 5.16%. That said, it's only 1500 articles away, so a concerted effort could make it- right now I think most people don't push an article to B unless they plan to take it to GA. The other way to help is to merge together the many, many series of sub-stub articles we have, so that the needed article count gets smaller. --PresN 19:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't go B without GA in mind, either, if for no other reason than that it's usually close and I might as well. (Actually, I think most B-class pages could be posted at GAN right now and wouldn't fail outright. I only quickfail when there are, like, whole sections unsourced, with the rest being badly formatted or unformatted citations to Ahmed al-Aṣūlī's Totally Objective Freewebs Hub for Islam and the like.) The GA-to-FA push is where the ratio of utility to effort seems the lowest, though; nominators have to spend a great deal of time slaving over minor gripes about wording and paragraph spacing that I can't imagine the average reader will lose sleep over. That's why I typically only bother with FA when there's a topic I'd really like people to learn about as you don't see it on the main page often. Tezero (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
For example, most of the 18-article Fifa Manager series has infoboxes longer than the actual content- merging them all into the series article would be the work of a moment, and chop 16 crummy articles out of the pool. --PresN 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus decides here, but I did want to point out that there is a fundamental difference between a targeted percentage (e.g. 20% C or better, 75% Start or better, 10% B or better, etc.) and a targeted number (e.g. 250 FA/Ls and 750 GA/AA, etc.) because a target number is pretty much reached in a steady linear fashion while a target percentage has two ends to be considered. For the number-targeting milestone that project just reached (250 FA/Ls), every FA/L that was promoted brought WP:VG closer to its goal. If project members promoted only 1 FA/L each year then progress would still slowly be made. That's obviously true for all number targets. When the target is a percentage, however, each improved article (e.g. C->B or Start->B, etc.) brings the project closer to the goal but at the same time every new article that is created at the lower (e.g. stub or start) levels brings the project further from the goal. To put this in perspective, the 3-month stats from WP:VG/NAA are: 182 new stubs, 178 new starts, 48 new drafts, 29 new lists, 9 new C-class, and 9 new B-class. So for WP:VG to simply maintain its current completion stat for the 10% B-class or better milestone would require the promotion of 23 articles to B-class within the past 3 months. If this last 3 month period is regarded as about average, then to make progress toward the goal would require at least 8 promotions per month. Each month. Slacking off on a goal would mean that only the denominator was growing without the numerator keeping balance so it would be even harder to catch up later. This is not necessarily a problem, but it's something that we should be conscious about. Only 1 of the 5 MILHIST milestones indicate a targeted percentage of the total while the other 4 all indicate a specific number. Of our goals we currently have 1 number goals and 3 percentage goals and we're talking about changing to 4 of 4 percentage goals. -Thibbs (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple facts to add, though I agree with the facts you're stating: according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics, in the past 3 months we've added 53 B-class+ articles- which is to say, while we have only 13 more B-class articles at the start of September compared to the start of June, we have 30 more GA and 10 more FA articles. We're not going backwards on the B+ percentage metric, thankfully. Additionally, VG/NAA doesn't reflect deletions and merges- I went ahead and merged almost 20 articles today into parent series articles/lists, shrinking the denominator a bit, and that doesn't show up there. --PresN 23:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's encouraging. Again I have no objection to a percentage-based goal, it's just a little more to think about with them than with straight number goals. Whereas past number goals are still complete today because we generally promote FAs faster than we demote them, past percent goals continue to adjust downward as new articles are added. So we have to continue to work to maintain those goals even after hitting them or our past percentage-based milestones will slowly be undermined. The stats seem to show that this isn't a big deal, though. The previous "10% of articles C-Class or better" goal is currently at 114.8% completion and the previous "50% of articles Start-Class or better" goal is currently at 104.6% complete. So we're not slipping on either of those stats. -Thibbs (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think percentage goals should be maintained rather than reached. So for example it should be worked out what percentage of video game articles are start-class or better (approximately 60%?), and the goal should be to keep the bar near complete.--Coin945 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's right. So a percentage goal is a little more work than a number goal, but as the stats show it's clearly doable provided the wikiproject doesn't grow faster than it can be maintained or lose too many maintainers. I don't think there's much need for concern on these two aspects just yet. So far all percent goals that have been set are either still ongoing or have been changed to increase the percent (e.g. 10% C-Class or better has become 20% C-Class or better; 50% Start-Class or better has become 75% Start-Class or better) but if the decision is ever made to replace one of these with a new unrelated goal then something should be set up to track the old goals. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I think goals should be both reached and maintained- as we have been doing. I don't see the point in setting a goal to "stay where we are" instead of "get better", as long as that's possible.
Anyways, it looks like we're converging on the "10% B+" goal, so unless there's some disagreement or another good idea forthcoming, I'll swap out the bars on the project page in the next couple days. Remember that you can make up crazy goals if you can get people to agree, like "clear X problem category" or "get all top-importance articles to C-class". --PresN 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Goal now set: 10% of articles B+; currently at 1597/3093.5 (51.6%)

TurboGrafx-16 cleanup[edit]

The TurboGrafx-16 article is in need of a major cleanup. I've started up a discussion thread on the best way to do this here. Any input is welcome.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Why is the {{WikiProject Video games}} template suddenly displaying three random citations? (For example, File talk:The Legend of Legacy logo.png shows what I mean, and the problem seems to appear on every talk page where that template is transcluded - such as this very talkpage Note:Issue has been temporarily fixed). Though to be honest it's really late at night where I live and I'm too tired and sleepy to bother to figure out why it happened, but I'm just posting this here to let everyone know. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 13:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I believe this works as a temporary solution but I don't have time to dig deeper right now. The problem has to do with the Secrets of Rætikon entry at Template:WPVG announcements which is transcluded in the WikiProject Video games template. -Thibbs (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. I can't help solve the issue right now either, as I'm off to sleep... Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 13:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
OK I had another quick look and I found the source of the problem. This is the fix. Probably a good thing to be aware of because this has the potential to cause annoying problems project-wide. -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hatoful Boyfriend Peer Review[edit]

A Peer Review has been made for Hatoful Boyfriend if anyone is interested in reviewing it. The article can be found here. Normally I wouldn't make a new thread here but seeing how many Peer Reviews aren't actually reviewed, sometimes a little shove is necessary. GamerPro64 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of this game, though I'm guessing it's an eroge visual novel or a Persona-like game that draws heavily from that kind of storytelling, so my eyes will be fresh. Yell at me by tomorrow night if I haven't left comments. While we're at it, heheh, Tony Hawk's Underground just closed with no comments and I just nominated Czech language, so... *paws ground optimistically* Tezero (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Uhhh, not really. It's a dating sim where you date birds. Not quite Persona'. But yah, I can try to look it over some time too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor's reception[edit]

Can someone help expanding the reception part of Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor and keep it safe from troll. Some people keep removing the critic score.. --AdrianGamer (talk)

It seems like it's all new editors and IPs blanking the info, so I've semi-protected the page. Hopefully that helps some. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect SNAFU[edit]

While surveying the "Metal Gear media" topic, I stumbled across this article: Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance - Vocal Tracks. I checked the talk page for the assessment, but found only a weird redirect page, which didn't even list a WikiProject. Clicking on the redirect link at the top took me to a double redirect that (apparently) led back to the same page. And clicking "article" from this page redirected me to Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. I have no idea how to solve this problem, so any help would be appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there was an article at MGR (hyphen) VT, and also one at MGR (mdash) VT. The talk page for hyphen was redirecting to the talk page for mdash, but the article for mdash was redirecting to the game article. I've just gone ahead and tagged the hyphen talk page with the proper tags, slapped a redirect tag on the mdash talk page, and adjusted its redirect to go to the album article, not the game. --PresN 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't even figure out what was going on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Reminder to all that Glossary of video game terms is a thing that exists, and is a great place to list video game terms and merge in stubs that are only a couple of paragraphs long so that they don't sit adrift in the Wiki, alone and unloved. --PresN 01:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that this page is classed as mid-importance. For something that's this central to the concept of videogames, shouldn't it really be high importance? --benlisquareTCE 04:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Lists suffer a huge debuff; only a few are even mid-. If this informal restriction were lifted, it would naturally be top-. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of our current importance standards, but that one especially doesn't make sense... Tezero (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Heh, debuff. --benlisquareTCE 04:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
H-hahaha...? *clicks on page* Oh. Hahaha. Tezero (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The informal restriction has been lifted, by the way- it used to be that all lists were "low", but that got dropped a few months back. If you think this should be higher, go for it. Same for other lists. --PresN 05:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Review Thread IV: Roman Numeral Edition[edit]

Been a few weeks? Time to resurrect an old "favorite"!

  • FAC:
  • Fez has been nominated since August 24. It has four supports (one pretty short), and source and media reviews. It should be ready to be promoted, if the directors are happy with the last review.
  • Master System has been nominated since September 12. It has one support and an unconcluded review. Could use some more reviews in the near future.
  • Sleeping Dogs has been nominated since September 19. It has two supports, three opposes, a media review, and an unfinished review. The nominator seems to have quit Wikipedia abruptly, so the massive overhaul the article was getting will likely not be finished to save the nomination and it will probably be withdrawn.
  • Tony Hawk's Underground has been nominated since September 27. It has one support and one unfinished review. The support is negligible, though- the directors tend to ignore supports that get posted within minutes of the nomination going up.
  • FLC:
  • List of Sega video game consoles has been nominated since September 10. It has two supports. Another review or two would finish it off, and get it out of the currently painfully slow FLC process.
  • FPC:
  • Fez gameplay has been nominated since September 28. It has two supports.
  • GAN:
  • Peer review:
  • FAR and GAR:
  • Midtown Madness has been nominated since May 1. It has one delist. Thanks to improvements during FAR, it's a lot better, but it needs a small extra push to get rid of the one remaining delist vote.
  • Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None has been nominated since August 26. It has two delists. It got a copy-edit, but remaining large concerns and a lack of editing work means that this one is likely to be delisted.

You can see the above to prioritize reviews. Commence the begging thread below! To start it off with, I'm always willing to give a review back if anyone wants to jump in at my FLC. --PresN 05:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Fez should be passing soon. I'd say the big priority is probably Midtown Madness: it's been up there for almost six months. If anyone can lend a hand, it will mean WPVG gets to keep one of its 251 FA/Ls. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel bad about having tacked up the one lingering delist, but I really do feel the coverage of Gameplay is inadequate - not unfixable, of course, but since I've never played Midtown Madness and am not familiar with its sources I can't do this myself. Also, as a minor note, Raetikon's been passed and Tony Hawk has one support, albeit with more comments possibly incoming. Tezero (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Updated. --PresN 21:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Plus, if I'm being honest, I think URDNEXT, from whom Underground's one support came, was at least one of the following: biased in favor of my work, trying to use an informal quid-pro-quo system on account of us having collaborated, or simply not that discerning yet with regards to prose. And he's retired, at least for the time being, so no more comments will be incoming to back it up. In other words, this FAC might as well have zero supports. Tezero (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

iOS Game Articles[edit]

The coverage of iOS games on Wikipedia is sadly lacking, so I've been scouting the Metacritic pages with the mission of filling in the gaps. Each individual article may be relatively bare atm but there's a lot to get through and we've got to start somewhere I suppose. This is just to give you guys a heads-up that a series of stubby articles are coming your way.--Coin945 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to put {{WikiProject Video games|class=stub|importance=low}} on the talk page of articles you create, and to make infoboxes when you create the articles. Hot Wheels: World's Best Driver, for example, is lacking both. --PresN 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Monty Python's Cow Tossing, on the other hand, is so lacking in sources supporting its notability that I'm tempted to just PROD it/AfD it right away. Please make sure your new articles are at least filled out enough to meet the notability requirements. --PresN 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I've played around with the article today. Not so sure your assertion is true.--Coin945 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's much better now, but as mentioned below, when all you say is "Monty Python's Cow Tossing is a thing that exists. Source: Mobygames.", it doesn't prove much in the way of notability. --PresN 17:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I'm not sure what relative good there is in stubbing a number of poorly rated iOS games that only have limited review coverage from a few secondary, mobile-only sources. The vast majority of these franchise spin-off games are going to end up as redirects to a media franchise page because there's not much more than a paragraph to say on each game. It would save us some time and infoboxes and project classifications to just skip right to making redirects. czar  20:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, keep in mind, Coin - sometimes, articles don't exist because no ones gotten to it yet, or because that respective fanbase doesn't have much interest in article creation. Others don't exist because reliable sources don't cover them enough. I think bothapply here. I've dabbled in some ios game article creation. Some were easy to create (Sonic Jump), some were hard to create (VS. Racing 2) and some were impossible to create (Bar Oasis). Please don't try to force it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that just because I haven't included the sources in the article, that does not mean they don't exist. I found evidence of notability for every single one of these games. I just decided to cover breadth over depth. But if you have done extensive research on any of the games and have not turned up anything, I trust your judgement. (P.S. a badly reviewed game can still be notable).
I'd strongly recommend you build up articles one at a time, rather five at a time, extremely brief 1-2 sentence articles, for this very reason. People are going to challenge them, because a lot of people create articles like these, and then never revisit them. Even if the sources are out there, they're going to look like likely merge candidates if it seems like all someone could muster up was a single sentence. I'd re-adjust your approach if you don't want constant opposition working against you... Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done some research, and I think a combined article on Bar Oasis and Bar Oasis 2 (or maybe even individual articles on the 2 games) would have a very welcome home here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].--Coin945 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I think its still a close call. Kotaku, Destructoid, 148Apps, and TouchArcade are all useable, but the rest of those are random obscure websites that may not hold up to RS standards. And two are Metacritic links, which, while usuable, wouldn't count towards notability per se. I'll leave it to you if you want to create it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I created the article. What are your thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Its pretty rough, but it looks like there's enough coverage between the three titles that I think it would survive an AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The prose needs some major tidying up, no question. But at least the data-dump stage is over and as you said, it looks like the game is notable.--Coin945 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you decide that an article should not be on Wikipedia, at the very least please AFD it to allow for a community discussion? Recently 5 of my articles were prodded, and only AFDed after I requested so. They have all had keep votes by people who claimed the reviewer didn't Google Search and find the obvious sources available.--Coin945 (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what happens when you create these "2 sentence, 1 source" articles. There's nothing wrong policy-wise with PRODding them. Also, MobyGames is not a useable source. Much like Gamefaqs, its all user-generated by random people. It violates WP:SPS - it doesn't meet the definition of a reliable source. There's consensus on this at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"2 sentence, 1 source" articles are totally fine as articles are judge on their potential, not current state. The reason they are so bare is because they're stubs.
Mobygames in its own right isn't a notable source. But it includes reviews from notable sites. That's the only reason why I would site it. Oh and maybe also if it has a very good explanation of the gameplay. I haven't played any of these games before so will rely on someone else's explanation.--Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, deletion discussions are based on the potential of sources out there, not just whats in the article, so much of the time, the article may end up being kept in the end. But if you only bother to put one source in, then you're just inviting yourself into unnecessary redirect/merge/deletion discussions because you're doing such a sloppy, half-assed job in making these articles. Right or wrong, they're going to keep happening if you keep making such small stubs with unreliable sources. Its up to you on how easy or hard you want to make your Wiki-life. Don't complain here if you keep choosing the hard route. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to categorise your articles after you create them, and as PresN said, tag the WPVG template. I've done a few of them (might do a few more in a few days or so); though I'm only going by the information already present in the article, so the cats are nowhere near complete.
BTW the articles in their current state are hardly helpful to the reader, many only stating "X was a video game" and providing some basic information. You know what they say, quality over quantity... Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the handy advice. Though each article is bare bones, each links to a Metacritic article which shows at leas 4 game critics have evaluated and analysed the work, which proves their notability. I'm satisfied for these articles to begin their lives as a stub in this state.--Coin945 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, keep in mind not every source MetaCritic uses is necessarily a source Wikipedia defines as reliable. There's a lot of overlap, but they're not the same. Also, the sources "just being out there" may keep it from deletion, but not necessarily a redirect or a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize the notability criteria varied between deletion and redirecting. Tezero (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


There's an interesting discussion at Talk:Sleeping Dogs (video game) where it is apparent that some regular editors of video games think there is an "unspoken standard" wherein all articles on video games are written using American English. This seems rather weird to me and indeed a sampling of Grand Theft Auto articles seems to show that they are (correctly) in British English, as games developed in the United Kingdom. Can we discuss this please? --John (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As the one who originated that phrase, my words are being taken out of context. I was describing the use of American English for video game articles in two situations: when the national ties of the game to the United States outweigh those to other Anglophone countries (e.g. Lego Star Wars II, because Star Wars is recognizably American despite Traveller's Tales being British) and in the absence of national ties to any specific Anglophone country (e.g. most Japanese games) because American English is the most widely spoken dialect of it in the world. Though I'm not emotionally invested in the cause either way (I find American English a little lazy in some ways), I'm perfectly fine with complying with national ties to any given Anglophone country insofar as they're actually the strongest ties. Tezero (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, both the discussion page and this read to me as if you're saying, the default language for Wikipedia articles should be American English. - X201 (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I'm saying, but that's not the same thing as "all articles on video games [should be] written in American English". Tezero (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I noticed: "dialect variations default to American if the pertinent country is non-Anglophone". No, there is no default dialect of English used on Wikipedia, and for articles not strongly tied to any brand of English, it's up to the first major contributor to establish the dialect. My Japanese articles are written in Canadian English. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
My mistake; it must just be that American contributors dominate those kinds of articles. My point was that there's no reason to actively switch to British in the absence of national ties to any Anglophone country; I'm not interested in forcing American, either. Tezero (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Citation please for "American English is the most widely spoken dialect of it in the world". --John (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I think British English is the most widely spoken as it is the official language of most countries in Africa, the Caribbean and some parts of Asia. Countries from Belize to Kenya and India to Hong Kong still uses UK spelling. But regarding actual population I wouldn't be sure (not all parts of India's 1 billion people use British English). WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES contradicts its own self, stating that if something had strong national ties to something it should be in its language of origin but on the other hand it dictates that neutral articles (ie. Norway) should be written in the language that it started from. Grand Theft Auto has always been based in fictionalised US cities (with the exception of GTA II in London), with the main cultural aspects being American, thus it is in American English despite Rockstar being a British developer. Well what I'm trying to say is that ENGVAR in itself has its flaws and could probably do with some updating... Jaguar 12:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that India's Anglophone status is largely a formality; not much of the population actually speaks it well, which is why most things there are written in Tamil, Hindi, Telugu, Gujarati, etc. - English's potential status as a lingua franca there doesn't even win out. And I'm not an expert on language education, but in my experience, students in, say, China, Japan, and Latin American countries are routinely taught American English as opposed to other dialects. Tezero (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the contradiction there. This is actually one of the most successful and least challenged conventions on the project. I also didn't see (though I didn't look exhaustively) any GTA article that was written in American English. Which one were you thinking of? Glad I raised this. --John (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. Grand Theft Auto III, San Andreas and Vice City are currently in American English. I forgot what part of ENGVAR contradicted the other, but something in it seems like it went around in a circle but I can't remember what. Maybe I'm too traumatised from that ANI discussion that I'm not thinking clearly! Jaguar 19:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
San Andreas has instances of both, which isn't recommended and would need sorting before any sort of peer review. So would a lot of things on that article. --John (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think that the Sleeping Dogs discussion was characterized properly. My argument is that a developer's (or any manufacturer's) nationality doesn't constitute strong national ties. (I think that if there was consensus that it did, there would be at least one such example of a product on the strongnat list.) John, I've only seen strongnat enforced in the video game space on GTA and Rare articles (British English), and mostly through the argument that all other articles in the series are in BritEng (this is a self-perpetuating cycle), without a defense of why the game has anything to do with British culture/language so as to constitute a strong national tie. There is no unspoken standard that all game articles are in AmEng, but there is a standard that if I approach a video game article written in Australian English with no strong national ties to America or GB or Australia or whatever, I retain the existing arbitrary variation if I want to contribute. I'll add that the strongnat argument for GTA easily goes the other way—it was developed in the UK but is universally known to be satirical of American culture (and uses AmEng), but that's for another time. czar  14:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Czar that makes sense. Two things; the variety of English used isn't actually all that important as users of each can readily read the other, though obviously it should be consistent within a given article (and probably as you say within series of articles). Secondly, I am again glad I raised this here as I think it is ripe for discussion. --John (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
ENGVAR was written to cut down on arguments/discussions like this. We know that the British camp and the American camp will never agree for all of Wikipedia to be in the other dialect of English. So we compromise. Each article must be consistent within itself - I think we have already agreed to this. Articles with strong national ties to a language should use the matching language (eg an article about London, England should use British English and an article about New York should use American English. Articles with no real ties to a variety of English (eg most Asian articles) are left to the free choice of the first major contributor or by consensus on the talk page. There is no default to American English unless the article article has strong national ties to America. Articles with weak national ties by being based on a franchise from America (eg Lego Star Wars) or a racing game that is set in America (but developed by a non-American company) in my opinion don't count as having strong national ties but in grey areas they can be thrashed out on the article's talk page.  Stepho  talk  03:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)