Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
1 - 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
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


Review Thread IV: Roman Numeral Edition[edit]

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

  • FAC:
  • Master System has been nominated since September 12. It has two supports and two unconcluded reviews. It has a passed image review and a passed source review. Urgently needs more reviews in the near future.
  • Tony Hawk's Underground has been nominated since September 27. It has two supports in addition to a trivial, very early one. It has a passed image review and a passed source review. It currently needs one or two more supports.
  • Lightning (Final Fantasy) has been nominated since October 6. It has one support.
  • FLC:
  • GAN:
  • GTC:
  • 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.

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)

Anyone interested in nominating one of their GAs or fixing up one of someone else's? Three FACs is a bit dry. Tezero (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed Mordin Solus' GAN. It wasn't being touched so it was best to have it taken care of. GamerPro64 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd really encourage some more feedback at the FAC for Master System if anyone can. Most of the reviews so far are unfinished; it could really use a source and image review, and maybe some completion on prose as well. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated again; thanks to the GAR contest almost all our GANs have dried up! We were at nearly 15 a few weeks ago, and now we have 1. We still have three FACs and one FLC waiting for reviews, though! --PresN 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to urge you all to review the Master System article if you do nothing else. Tony Hawk's Underground, which was nominated later, is still doing better; it's only one support and an image and source review away from FA. Master System's an interesting read, too - this might sound surprising, but I'm actually not very well-versed in Sega's history, and now that condition's been a bit alleviated through Red Phoenix's hard work. Tezero (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Every time you don't review the Master System article, William Dafoe screams in a puppy's face. (You may win back a small amount of karma by reviewing Tony Hawk's Underground). Tezero (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel bad for not helping Red Phoenix with a Master System review, but I'm really not qualified. It's too far outside my realm of knowledge. (That said, I'll probably review Dreamcast when it goes up, since I read a lot about it while scanning stuff for RP.) If anyone can give Master System a review, it'd be great. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I always say I'm not into reviewing FACs and the like. But I'll attempt to write one up for the sake of giving it a fair run on the boards. GamerPro64 20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You guys are very kind; thank you for your help. Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Are unsourced topic sentences in Reception paragraphs OR?[edit]

JimmyBlackwing and I disagree on this front. I have argued to him that it's not necessarily OR because in many cases the critical consensus on a given aspect of a game is quite clear, and that even if it is OR, going with a jumbled mess instead of having topic sentences isn't worth it. He disagrees, pointing out that while most VG FAs don't follow his rule, he's becoming stricter about it. You all know me, I can't stand inconsistently applied standards for VG articles, so here we are. Should these things stay or should they go? Tezero (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • To clarify, the debate is regarding whether unsourced summaries of critical opinion are acceptable outside the lead. The most recent case appears in the FAC Tony Hawk's Underground; examples below.

The story was well received.

The graphics and art received mixed opinions.

The alternate gameplay modes were received very well.

  • I don't think they are, really- we do the same thing in the lead, right? Give a summary that we later back up with sourced specific examples? I do prefer, from a style point of view, to try to avoid having the sentence be on its own, and do something like "The graphics were well received by reviewers such as A, who said 'X'.[1]" Even without that, though, I'm fine with topic sentences, as long as it's immediately followed by sourced statements backing it up. --PresN 04:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that discrepancy immediately jumped out at me: why is it okay in the lead but not the body? I mean, sure, citations are discouraged in the lead, but that's only because the information is presumed to be cited below. If it's OR, isn't it OR no matter where it appears? Tezero (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've seen this same argument extended to television and film articles as well, where they're seen as synthetic information. Then again, it's been argued that summary statements are not necessarily synthesis, so I guess it's a split thing. I bet Cyphoidbomb would find this discussion interesting, although he doesn't deal with video game articles in particular. 23W (talk · stalk) 04:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi 23W, thanks for thinking of me! Yeah, I find this stuff interesting. And frustrating, and I could probably ramble about this for hours. :) Apart from my hatred of the meaningless phrase "Reviews were mixed" (aren't all reviews mixed?) or the other meaningless phrases "mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive", I don't think these are the sorts of statements we should be making as they are most commonly supported by cherrypicked reviews and require us to act as aggregators of opinion, which we are absolutely not. We already have critical aggregators for Film and TV: Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and these sources are not always in sync. It is always best to present the evaluations of these aggregators in a clinical way "Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 70% rating with the summary: 'It was okay.'". To make these statements of our own interpretation is a combination of general WP:OR, and more specific WP:SYNTHESIS. The latter, because we are looking at whatever sources are available to us and drawing a conclusion that may not be expressly stated in any of the sources. In addition to TV articles, these summaries are often attempted in film articles, usually by inexperienced editors, and they are typically reviled. I've been a part of a few of these conversations at WT:FILM. Here's one among many: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Summary statement for "Reception" section. I don't see how there's much difference in video games. Addendum: Look at what I'd noticed this IP had contributed after I'd finished writing this post. He apparently found references that supported his worldview that the show isn't good, and contributed his assessment to the (absurd) article List of television series considered the worst. This is exactly the problem with such summary statements. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Response to addendum: I'm not advocating for allowing individual reviews to constitute admission to that list. I think that list should be limited to games with commentary on their critically reviled status or maybe with a Metacritic/GameRankings score under a certain threshold (say, 30 or 40 percent). Claiming that a certain aspect of a game was generally poorly received, when the sources clearly indicate this although none of them says it explicitly, is not the same as claiming that a game is one of the worst-received of all time. Tezero (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying your statements are without merit, but they overlap very closely with JimmyBlackwing's so I don't feel the need to respond to them again. As a minor note, "mixed" in the context of reviews means that the entire pool of reviews was mixed, i.e. there was no clear consensus for or against. "Mixed to negative", accordingly, means that the reviews leaned negative but there were significant positive comments. Tezero (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read the other user's comments or your responses. Mebbe I'll try to find those. Respectfully, I think your definition of "mixed" is interpretive. I believe Metacritic uses mixed as equivalent to "average" but I don't think Rotten Tomatoes uses this word at all. As linked above, I don't think the WikiProject Film community quite sees eye-to-eye with you on "mixed to negative/positive". One editor despises the phrase "with the burning passion of a thousand fiery suns". Neither RottenTomatoes nor Metacritic make this determination, so at best users are mashing the two opinions together and synthesizing a conclusion, or they are trying to reinterpret Metacritic's phrasing, which is just stupid. Either a project is received well, or it is received poorly, or the response was neutral, or maybe we let the ratings speak for themselves without summarizing either, since they both use different methodologies that aren't always consistent with one another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
While obviously, everything challenged needs to be discussed, ultimately, Tezero's sentiments on this are correct. If the sources back it up, it's fine to make statements like that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources do not back it up. Not one reliable source describes the totality of critical opinion on a given feature in THUG. To summarize reception without such sources is blatant synthesis, per Cyphoidbomb. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, then, in theory, Tezero's idea is plausible, but if what you say is true, then no, it shouldn't be done. It all depends if we're talking about a "hypothetical" or a particular situation. (I think this is why many just essentially paraphrase or quote Metacritic rather than jumping to more ambitious conclusions.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No disrespect intended, but I don't think I understand your answers or your position. Time is the best filter for determining the prevailing critical attitude toward a thing. If a bunch of sources think it sucks now, maybe that's not the way history will look at it. In which case, by editorializing, we are committing a not-yet-ripe opinion as fact. There is no reason why we cannot just include what the various sources say in their own voices. Why do we feel it necessary to attempt to tell people that a video game sucked or was great? Let history decide that. In the interim, just write what reliable sources say, and find other opinions to balance it for WP:NPOV. An encyclopedia does not exist to document opinions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I could write a book on the glory of NPOV; I'm totally not advocating for Wikipedia to purport that critics' prevailing opinions are factual. You may want to consider, though, that actively seeking out differing opinions where they aren't really significant runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. Documenting opinions is one use of an encyclopedia - otherwise, not only would we not have Reception sections at all, but pages like Anarchism, Feminism, Humanism, and Determinism wouldn't exist because they're opinions by their very nature. Wikipedia is supposed to cover opinions, like everything else, with a fair and undiscerning eye. Regarding the history issue, it's worth noting that very, very few games ever have anything written about their reception in the future. (Those that do are usually ones that fall at one of the extremes, e.g. Final Fantasy VII or Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing.) If something ever is written about a game's reception, I think it's absolutely fair not only to include it, but to give it priority here. It's just that that's not a very reasonable expectation - and the less "classic" a game is, the more hopeless the situation. Tezero (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Not well thought out, and poorly phrased on my part. Yes, encyclopedias do document some opinions. The broad intention of my diatribe is that we shouldn't be promoting one opinion as the zeitgeist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not, either; I think these articles should summarize as many reliable sources' opinions as feasible, not one. Remember, summarizing what people say doesn't mean we agree with them, or else articles like Holocaust denial and Intelligent design wouldn't exist in Wikipedia's highly analytical and self-affirming hivemind. Tezero (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's not get distracted. We aren't talking about article subjects, fringe science or sourced summaries of critical opinion. We're talking about unsourced summaries of critical opinion on specific aspects of a work: the synthesis of multiple reviewer opinions into a "consensus view" that no extant source describes. Obviously, if such a consensus view is mentioned by a reliable source (e.g. "Big Rigs was universally panned", "Wind Waker's art direction divided critics"), then it may be included in the article. That isn't what's under debate. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think its practical or enforceable to try to remove these summarizing statements. (As mentioned by PresN, to follow things as strictly as you suggest, wouldn't even allow for the writing of a lead statement.) And one of the things people love to know when reading about something, is how well it was accepted by audiences, so its going to keep being re-added into article whether a few of us here like it or not. Here's my stance: I'm saying what Tezero is trying to do, is much of the time, rather uncontentious, and fine. But if it is contentious, then it should be removed, and potentially replaced by something more objective, like a directly quoted summary. (ie "Review aggregator Metacritic showed Hyrule Warriors having a normalized rating of 75, based on 65 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews".) Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure it's enforceable. All you have to do is change it when you see it. And film articles, for instance, aren't of a lesser quality simply because they don't describe a film with flowery "critically acclaimed" language. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No? Are you sure? It sure didn't take long to find some GA films that do... Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that is an example of. Face-smile.svg An article that received a GA because it has a summary statement? Or an article that received a GA, and "Hey, lookit, it has a summary statement!" If we remove that summary statement, the article isn't going to lose its GA. Anyhow, I was arguing that cutting such statements aren't likely to impact the quality of the article. The other content (aggregator data) would still be there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
You seemed to be insinuating that film articles don't use such flowery "critically acclaimed" language. I was showing you that this wasn't true in my experience. "Difs" or links usually drive this point home. ^_^ Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Of the people who have expressed an opinion at WikiProject Film, the majority don't like to include these summary statements. That doesn't mean the statements don't exist, only that they are not the preference of the vocal Film members. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I am in the stance on this that you need a source explicitly stating the opinions. Who are we to write a topic sentence for the reviews, when our view of the given reviews might be different from another reader's? That's why I try to steer away from the "X received <degree> to <degree>" sentences, unless I can find sources that tell me such. An example from the Film project: at Thor: The Dark World, users found this source from CBS News, stating the film got a "mixed" response. Thus, in the lead, it is stated and sourced the film received a mixed response. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Theoretically that can happen, and it sometimes does when reception of a certain aspect really is "mixed", but when 80% of the critics are slamming the graphics, I don't see how you're going to get "positive" or even "mixed" out of that. This is why I generally prefer to avoid editorializing beyond "mixed" when the overall critical preference is unclear. (As a note, it's much easier to find sources summarizing reception of an entire work than of parts of it - even Metacritic and Game Rankings can suffice for that.) Tezero (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've always felt these sort of statements are plain violations of WP:SYNTH. They are also bland and unnecessary: the prose commentary itself should make clear whether graphics were well or badly received, generally, and so on. bridies (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, those comparing these statements to lead summaries are incorrect. There should be no similar original synthesis in the lead either. If there is no source for "XYZ was generally well-received" it should be in neither the body or lead. If one has 5 sources praising graphics, one might write "Reviewers praised the graphics" in the lead; it would be asinine to do so in the body, when the section is going to detail them anyway. Writing "generally", "mainly" and so on, without a source that says that, is not on the other hand permissible. bridies (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess my biggest concern would be selection bias. I disagree that a summary of the sources is by definition SYNTH - it's not impossible to determine a common sense summary that could not be challenged in good faith provided that you have all of the reliable review sources available. In reality, however, we never have that. What we have in the vast majority of cases is whatever 2 or 3 reviews a good stub creator has decided to throw in to safeguard the article from AfD. Summarizing these 3 sources could lead to a wildly incorrect claim about the general reception of the game. Likewise for a well-intentioned editor who looks up their favorite video game and only finds negative reviews, there is a strong temptation to go on a search to find positive reviews to counter the perceived NNPOV. By selecting a subset out of the entirety to summarize we are likely to skew the conclusion. That's also why I'd say it's inappropriate to use a metareview site's designation as the final word on the subject without prose attribution (and explanation for nonstandard terms). Conclusory summaries aren't really necessary. -Thibbs (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mmm, while we need to have guidelines that apply to all cases, this thread was started with FAC in mind- presumably, the article is using all the major RS reviews, so any summary statements should be a summary of everything relevant. Anyways.
  • I really don't think that saying, for a boring example, "Reviewers felt that the graphics were bad.", followed by "IGN said bad, Gamespot said bad, Eurogamer said bad, etc." violates WP:SYNTH. At some point, we have to inject some sort of framework and actual editorial work into the process, or else we might as well just make the reception section a bulleted list of quotes. I'm also a bit confused by what bridies is saying- so if we have 5 sources in reception saying that the graphics were great, we can say "reviewers thought the graphics were great" in the lead, but we can't say "the game was well received by critics" unless we have a source explicitly saying that? Because in that case, we might as well make it a commandment: "thou shalt explicitly quote and cite metacritic in all articles", because pretty much the only possible source for an explicit review aggregate statement... is a review aggregator. I'm not really fine with that. I don't see the issue with saying "The game was well received by critics" in both the lead and at the start of reception for a game with a 95% average (on metacritic) when it's followed by three paragraphs of glowing reviews.
  • Agreed. Honestly, if we can't summarize critics' reviews, why can we, for example, summarize that a game received "several" or "numerous" awards? Not everyone has the same definitions of "several" or "numerous". There is, however, a general understanding that one or two awards is not "several", but ten clearly is. Likewise, a 45% on Metacritic isn't a positive reception, but an 85% clearly is. Tezero (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I do see a parallel discussion going on above, though: is "mixed", in any format, a good word to use as a summary word, even when quoted from Metacritic? Personally, I'd only use it in the context of, say, "Reviewers were mixed in their opinions of the slashing mechanic; while some, like IGN, said it was "awesome", others, like Gamespot, said it was "awful". Then Jimmyblackwing would take issue with a rambling sentence like that, and it would get broken up, but hey. --PresN 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I wouldn't use "mixed" when the overall critical consensus on an aspect of a game is that it is average; that just doesn't happen very often. When some like it, some dislike it, and some just don't mention it one way or the other, I will opt for "mixed" (because that's what "mixed" means), and this is far more common. Tezero (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Reviewers praised the graphics" when there are multiple sources is not WP:SYNTH. Using words like "generally, largely, mainly well-received" is WP:SYNTH. Also, "The game was well-received" is not the same semantically as "Reviewers praised the game" (let alone just graphics), and is an original, unsupported statement (unless there's a metacritic or some oher source, in which case the statement should be attributed to that). First sentence of WP:SYNTH is: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. bridies (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess my concerns were mainly for low-level articles, not GA/FAC issues. Still, instead of saying "Reviewers felt that the graphics were bad.", followed by "IGN said bad, Gamespot said bad, Eurogamer said bad, etc." I would probably say something like "Several reviewers felt that the graphics were bad.", followed by the specific sources. Simply saying "reviewers" generally gives the impression that all reviewers agreed which is rarely the case. That sort of a broad claim is strengthened by citing a metareview source, but I'd still try to avoid it due to the metareview sites' common biases toward online sources and toward English language sources. If I was to use metareviews to provide a general overview I'd say something like "Metareview sites X and Y reported overwhelming critical accolades." I'd just err on the side of caution. -Thibbs (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
"Several reviewers..." is fine IMO and is what I usually do (in the lead). If one is using Metacritic as a source for "generally good reviews" or whatever, it should be "generally good views according to Metacritic" (or whatever source; for old games sometimes a history article will sometimes make these statements); yes, again just because of WP:DUE and so on. bridies (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. None of you are saying that we can't summarize individual reviews, right? No one's saying that the reception section should contain only the complete quoted text of each review, right? So if it's fine to summarize every individual review, why are folks worried that a summary of all of them together is going to be a huge problem? It's the same exact content that's being summarized. And as PresN says, at some point we have to take an editorial hand to create a framework and structure. WP:SYNTH isn't mandating that articles consist solely of content quoted straight from the sources. I agree it is important to take care with these generalized statements (in several instances, I've removed the statement "The game received generally positive/negative reviews" from articles where only a single review was cited), and I like Thibbs's suggestion of saying "Several reviewers" to avoid the implication that Wikipedia's coverage is comprehensive. But I don't see any problem with summarizing well-sourced facts.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You put very well into words what I thought of one day while I was out but had forgotten by the time I got back to my computer. In fact, Reception sections are very often criticized (see what I did there?) for being too quote-heavy. I can see the rationale behind "several" reviewers a little more, although if the most important reviewers (basically, the ones we keep when an article has too many reviews for the table, e.g. IGN, GameSpot as opposed to Sega-16, NintendoLife) agree on something, I don't think it's out of line to prioritize them over the lesser-known ones, since we're prioritizing the lesser-known ones over random people's reviews on the Internet anyway, and in this case "Reviewers generally praised" could be appropriate. Tezero (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Martin: the issue is described succinctly at WP:OR.
"The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." (Emphasis added.)
The conclusion "feature X was received well/badly overall" is not stated in typical reviews. Those reviews state only their own opinions; they do not comment on the consensus. Unless a source backs up the claim about the consensus specifically, then you've engaged in synthesis. The rule does not apply to the lead quite so extremely, however. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not what he's saying. Why doesn't it count as original research to summarize an individual source, which you're doing whenever you describe their opinion without quotes? Why doesn't it count as original research to say, for example, "Joystiq, Game Informer, and expressed negative opinions toward the camera"? None of these sources ever say outright that their opinions are negative, and there certainly isn't one that mentions the sentiments of all three. Tezero (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Because each of those reviews explicitly makes the claims that you're summarizing. IGN says: "I didn't like this"; Wikipedia reports: "IGN didn't like this". Let's say IGN publishes the following sentence: "Unfortunately, the camera really doesn't work all that well." You could without synthesis write: "IGN found the camera flawed." Why? Because it's the same information simply rephrased—that's all Wikipedia ever puts out. On the other hand, if IGN published a review that was positive about every aspect of a game, but it never gave it a high score or explicitly said that "this game is good" or "I love this game", then you could not write, "IGN enjoyed the game." You'd have to summarize what they liked about it without making the wider claim. Similarly, you can include a hundred individual comments about a game's graphics, but you can't jump to the wider claim that the game's graphics were well received. You need a separate source for that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but that begs the question by assuming that "IGN found the camera flawed" naturally follows from "Unfortunately, the camera really doesn't work all that well." They never said it was flawed; they said it didn't really work all that well. In fact, it's very rarely as clear as "I didn't like this", and if we rely too heavily on the cases when it is this way, we'll be pushing copyright boundaries. Confused? I hope so. Tezero (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not confused. It's very simple: if the IGN line can't be translated in the way I suggested, then Wikipedia is fundamentally incapable of following its own paraphrasing policy. That kind of translation is what it means to edit Wikipedia, though, so I'm not too worried. The thing is that no one here has explained how it's translation rather than synthesis to combine multiple reviews into a consensus view. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it really that unfair to simply make a statement about the general interpretation of reviews, though? Usually it is very clear and backed by a referenced metascore in the next sentence, as well as the reviews table, and disputes in this regard can easily be discussed within the prose, and on the talk page. Wikipedia is essentially constructed from its authors' interpretation of sources, as English always has some ambiguity. If we wanted to truly avoid all OR, we'd have to only ever quote our sources, which might start to push our Fair Use boundaries, and take away from the value of Wikipedia... What I'm trying to say is, I don't think a summary like a topic sentence is really OR in Wikipedia's sense, as it isn't really a personal theory about the quality of the game and/or why, but simply a summary of the general thoughts of the reviews sourced throughout that paragraph, which should be perfectly acceptable in this context, and use of consistently negative adjectives obviously makes for a negative review. (If an article published in 2013 made reference to "last year" it wouldn't be OR to deduce 2012 and source that as information, for example...) DarkToonLink 00:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't intended to detract from the above point, but in that specific example (2012 deduced from "last year") there is a direct policy exception to NOR. See WP:CALC. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Completely agreed. A certain degree of liberty is needed all the time when writing, or articles would just consist of direct quotes strung together. Beyond that, as I somewhat alluded to above, the alternative is just too strict for practical purposes. It's high enough of a hurdle to get people up to Wikipedia policy and standards. There's no way it'll be taught or enforced if the project is split on it like it is. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see why people "don't understand": Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. As JimmyBlackwing pointed out above, the notion that we'd otherwise be using bulleted lists of quotes is a spurious reductio ad absurdum: we do paraphrase, collate, edit and synthesise; we don't add original claims into the synthesis. bridies (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously the list of quotes is an extreme example, but surely it is not unreasonable or an overly personal conclusion to begin a paragraph listing reviews that spoke highly of a game with "The game received positive reviews." This is not bringing together the sources to say something like "The game had very good controls and the A button was fun to use", which would be synthesis to create an opinion, but simply a general comment about the content of the sources presented in the article, which itself is non-subjective. I learnt to stick to fairly vague language in this sentence in my very first week as an editor, actually, haha... DarkToonLink 11:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
For that example, I wouldn't say it's unreasonable, or original synthesis, but pretty pointless. bridies (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Summarizing the views of sourced reviews isn't "adding original claims"; it's simply summarizing and collating. And again, I still see no explanation for how one can say that it is perfectly okay to summarize an individual review (in the process omitting select statements at the WP editor's personal choosing, summarizing multiple statements into single blanket statements, and altering wording in a way which may or may not alter the reviewer's meaning), yet still claim that doing the same for the reviews as a group is "original research". Like DarkToonLink says, the consensus of reviews is almost always very clear and indisputable, and in the rare event of a dispute that can be worked out on the talk pages. It's actually much easier for an individual review to end up being misrepresented than it is for the majority opinion to end up being misrepresented; I've certainly edited enough Reception sections in the past month or so to learn this.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Because WP:SYNTHESIS does not apply to single sources. On the other hand, it is synthesis to jump from "X and Y and Z liked the graphics" to "the graphics were well received", because the latter claim is not contained in or entailed by the former. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Summarizing the views of sourced reviews isn't adding original claims. Deciding what "the consensus of reviews is" and then writing about it, is adding an original claim. bridies (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Summarizing an individual review can be problematic. Make no mistake about that. Though I didn't come with a real-world example, I have seen numerous edits where users cherrypick complaints from an otherwise positive or neutral article and call it a negative review. And here's a real-world example of someone attempting to summarize critical response of a TV series off one review. Moving along, statements like "the graphics were well received", suggest that this was the predominant opinion when it may just be the result of an editor's personal bias, their laziness to find conflicting sources, or that they don't subscribe to X, Y & Z magazines. Were the graphics also negatively received? If so, we should include that information for balance, and if so, that would affect the summary. We are not critical response aggregators. That's why we like sites like Metacritic and RottenTomatoes, who have access to hundreds of reviews written by hundreds of reliable sources, and aren't just using the same three websites to draw conclusions. Metacritic and RottenTomatoes, however, aren't always in agreement though. Hey Arnold!: The Movie, for instance, has a 29% "rotten" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, but a mixed/average score of 47 at Metacritic. So I don't know how it can be argued that "the consensus of reviews is almost always very clear and indisputable" when even the aggregators sometimes don't agree. And unless you've personally culled through all the video game reviews from the hundreds of reliable, suitable video game magazines, websites, podcasts out there, and you can say with 100% confidence that "critical response was overwhelmingly positive", then the statement shouldn't be in there. Oh wait, culling through those resources and arriving at a conclusion would be synthesis, so it still shouldn't be in there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Punisher sourcing[edit]

I'm looking for a second opinion on the sourcing used in The Punisher (1993 video game), a recent GA now at DYK. It would appear to be mostly fansites to me, which are unreliable sources and should thus be removed. Thoughts? czar  20:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would say... ouch, those references. But if they are the only places where that information is found, I suppose they would be allowed. I think those are probably included under the same sufferance as: original interviews from dedicated fansites that contain details not found elsewhere, or that site Hardcore 101, which often has details from obscure sources no longer obtainable or accessible. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi ProtoDrake. I am the GA nominator for the article. This is the first video-game article I have put a lot of effort into, though the fan sites were already added to the article before i got there. One quick question: do video game plot and/or 'cast' sections even need references? I mean, i've upgraded two film articles to GA, and film plots/cast don't require sources, even for GA or FC. My first reaction to the fan-sites being used in the plot was just to remove them all, on the assumption that plots don't require sources, but I left them in in good faith. Is there an official position on this? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The plots don't; casts also don't (I think) but are discouraged for video game articles. A note: something already having been in the article before you got there isn't a reason to keep it unless you suspect that the editors who added it know something you don't. I had to remove the cast section of the Freedom Planet article, especially because only one of its actors is notable enough to have an article here. Tezero (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
As the reviewer, I went easy on it because of the most of those fansites were used mostly for the Gameplay and Plot sections (which hardly counts as WP:CHALLENGEable content) while the Reception had the good enough review sites. In fact, I think some of those reviews can be used to substitute some of the content which those fansites are sourced to, am I right @Freikorp:? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. I've removed all references from Rq87.flyingomelette and Arcadequartermaster, replacing where possible with existing sources in the article. I only had to remove one and a half sentences from the article, and slightly reword another two sentences based on what the new sources back up. Freikorp (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Excellent work. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What about,,,, RetroCollect, retrogameage, ifanboy, movie-censorship? They don't appear to be reliable in any way, and should be removed, no? As far as sections that need sourcing, (as of now) the plot can be sourced to the game itself, but the gameplay and reception still should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. Outside input requested czar  12:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Some aspects of gameplay may be sourceable to the game itself as well, but yeah the development section could also do with stronger sources. I know there's some coverage of this game in Retro Gamer. Nothing super in-depth, but it comes up a lot in discussion of which are the rarest of the PAL-region Genesis games. Might be something to consider adding to the article. Let me know if you want me to hunt out the specific references, Freikorp. -Thibbs (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Freikorp: In response to the above post, ping only works when you attach your signature. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh thanks. What do you mean by that, though? I did sign. Do you mean ping only works if you use the {{ping}} template? -Thibbs (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The Ping functionality, regardless of template, only works if in the same edit as the user name is linked you sign the edit- in your case, you added the ping in a separate edit from your signature, so it wouldn't have sent them a notification. --PresN 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Thibbs. When I first came across the article, it had one sentence backed up by the source "Retro Gamer 72, page 52". See this version: [1] I found someone who was selling issue 72 of Retro Gamer on ebay, as I intended to use said source to expand the article further, and also format the reference with an approved method, for which I would have needed more information, such as the article's title. I asked the seller to just confirm there was an article on The Punisher in the magazine before I purchased it. The seller said there was no such article in that issue of the magazine. Considering that if the article had of been in the magazine that person would have made a sale, I can't help but think they were telling the truth. Accordingly I removed the Retro Gamer reference and the attributed statement from the article. I would very much appreciate it if you could find references for this game in Retro Gamer or elsewhere; either the person who added the reference to the article or the ebay seller I contacted got it wrong, so if you have copies of Retro Gamer and could find out who was correct, and or find out where actual articles are, that would be awesome. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
YesY No problem. I left a comment on your talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion of systems under "Platform" in infobox[edit]

First off, I apologize profusely if this isn't the correct discussion page for this. I wasn't sure if the template page was simply for the design of the template or if content was also included in that, so I decided to put it here since this page is more active. I noticed on Half-Life (series) that the Steam Machine and Android (NVIDIA Shield) are listed as platforms. While these are specific examples, I think discussion on what is or isn't a platform could be valuable. Concerning the Steam Machine, it's a Linux variant and it's redundant in that aspect. On the other hand, it's a system specifically created for playing linux-enabled games as well as streaming games from Windows and OSX computers. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this, but I lean towards it being a redundancy. As for the Android labeling, the issue is that it doesn't actually run Half-Life natively on Android. While the shield does run Android-based games, in this capacity it's merely a streaming service. Basically, I think my question is are we to include any service that runs the game, or only platforms for which the game was specifically released? (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Steam Machine should not be listed if Linux is also listed; I know that Valve has said that games developed for SteamOS should still work in regular Linux (with necessary drivers) but if there is a case where SteamOS is required over Linux, that would be when to use that. For games that are run by streaming through cloud services, we'd rather just say "Cloud computing (<service>)" if the specific service is unique - in this case for HL the NVIDIA shield is definitely unique. (This relates to when we had to deal with Onlive services). --MASEM (t) 04:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I just came here to this discussion page to ask a question along this very topic. My specific question is about the Turbo CD and TurboDuo. At first, when I saw "TurboDuo" in the platform field of an infobox, I instinctively replaced it with "Turbo CD", since the TurboDuo is just a combination of the Turbografx-16 and Turbo CD. But then it hit me that, after all, the games' packaging does say "Duo", not "Turbo CD". Gaming publications follow that standard too; they invariably list each game's platform as "Duo". So now I don't know which way to go. Thoughts?--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on if game was a North America release or not, since the Duo was released specifically for North America. If the game packaging lists the platform as Duo, I'd go with that. (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Duo was first released in Japan. The covers of Japanese Duo releases say "Super CD-Rom2 System", but they ran on the same consoles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

GTA clone CfD[edit]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 10#Category:Grand Theft Auto clones. The category actually got deleted, after something like 7 weeks listed and 3 replies. Since a recent discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 108#"Clone" designation bias) supported the existence of the parent article (as have quite a few other discussions in different places), it should really have more comments. The cat has been reinstated but is now empty until I can fill it again, as well as being still up for CfD. Editors interested in caretaking generally should probably watchlist CfD to prevent stuff being deleted with only a few non-arguments. bridies (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Already got externalities, if anyone cares to comment: Talk:Red Dead Redemption#Reverts. bridies (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • We got into an edit war over a category. Maybe editors interested should watchlist CfD to prevent stuff being kept with only a few false-arguments. - hahnchen 04:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

GTA clone as infobox genre[edit]

On a related note, Bridies has been adding GTA clone as genre in several video game infoboxes. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Red_Dead_Redemption#GTA_Clone.3F regarding this, but I think a more thorough discussion may be needed. -- Calidum 02:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of discussion are you looking to have? Both the cat and the parent article have been around for ages; it has been a part of the genre navbox for ages. There has been much discussion of these. Also, I am merely repopulating the cat per this admin request. Rather than simply revert the relevant bot edits I am adding sources to those articles for which I can find them, which is the correct thing to do per fundamental policy. As for it being in the infobox, that is merely the simplest way to do it; I don't care if it goes in the article body (which would require the composition of a bit of prose). This is why I have been writing "feel free to better integrate" (which you either failed to comprehend or simply ignored; a recurrent theme with you). bridies (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I articulated my opposition to the category at the CFD, the arguments I made are the same reasons why I oppose the addition of GTA clone into infoboxes. If we can satisfactorily describe GTA V (a featured article) as an open world action-adventure, we can do the same with all the "clones". - hahnchen 18:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

But GTAV can't be a GTA clone, because it is GTA. That's like saying we should describe Brick, Alleyway, and Smashing simply as "arcade" games, not with the well-documented, well-applied, and much more descriptive term Breakout clone, just because that's what the original Breakout article does. Tezero (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
In the CFD, I highlight the following problems with the term GTA Clone, that it is non-standard, ill-defined and can be considered derogatory. Given those issues, I think we should use the genre designators used at GTA V (and others), and not the clone shorthand. - hahnchen 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not particularly bothered whether it goes in the infobox or not, but if it is sourced it should be mentioned. And again, no, GTAV is described as "open world, action adventure"; two seperate terms, originally synthesised. bridies (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"Originally synthesised"? What a bizarre turn of phrase, are you trying to conjure up the spectre of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for describing GTA V as "open world, action adventure"? If a wolf is "bad", and that wolf is also "big", you'd have trouble describing it as a "big, bad wolf"? - hahnchen 14:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a plain verb for original synthesis. I'm not "conjuring up the spectre", I am plainly stating that it is original synthesis. You big bad wolf analogy is asinine. Open world is one thing, action adventure another. If "open world action adventure" is the name of this genre, and its use is so prevalent as to make "GTA clone" FRINGE, prove it with sources (yet. again). If you not referring to a single genre, why do these terms preclude the use of GTA clone? Why do we not have the actual (sub)genre in the lead, infobox and cat, as with any other game? Pretty much any other action adventure game will have at least another genre cat; same with open-world, which again might mean anything from Minecraft to MMORPSs to MMOFPSs. I've stated this in multiple venues now and you are still ignoring it. bridies (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"big, bad" is not a genre of wolf. Morrowind's lead describes it as "open world fantasy action role-playing", that's three different things, not "open world fantasy action role-playing". I'm fine with this, I don't think there's anything to gain from pushing your fringe theory. - hahnchen 15:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, big, bad is not a genre, which is while it's an entirely asinine example. No one is using "open world action-playing" as a reason to exclude another genre, or saying that that is the genre. GTA clone is verifiably a genre, and we have sourced various games as belonging to this category. You are saying that this is "clearly" FRINGE, because there are "hundreds" of sources demonstrating that the prevalent name for this genre is "open world action adventure". So prove it already. Bringing these two terms together as a genre definition (the infobox for Morrowind gives its genre as only action role-playing) is original synthesis without sources. And if it's not the genre definition, then GTA clone is. If all you are saying that these are both open-world and action adventures, then so what? Every game which is open-world and every game which is action adventure will belong to at least one other genre cat. bridies (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, I would argue that being classified as "open-world, action-adventure" does not preclude also being categorized "GTA Clone"; they're overlap for sure. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to maintain perspective here. As I see it there are two major questions that need to be addressed:

  • 1 - What makes "Category:GTA Clone" different from "Category: Breakout clones‎", "Category:Mortal Kombat clones‎", or any of the other categories listed at "Category:Video game clones"?
  • 2 - Categories are intended as navigational aids. Is the collocation of these articles helpful? Would another form of navigational aid (list article, nav template, etc.) suffice/improve matters? Would such a thing be acceptable as a compromise?

I would use inter-article consistency to guide the discussion. Has a similar disagreement over categorizing video game "clones" taken place in the past? -Thibbs (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I would add Category:Roguelikes. bridies (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bridies was blocked (somewhat unfairly) over this fight a few days ago, and he appears to have now retired from Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I didn't see that coming. It's a shame. bridies has been here a while and has done a lot of good work for WP:VG. I hope this retirement isn't permanent. -Thibbs (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

X series[edit]

When I write about a series, I refer to it as "X series" and so link it in an article not as X series but as X series. Other than in the infobox, I haven't found a single usage in months (ever?) where I wouldn't link "series" as part of the phrase. In this case, why do we use "(series)" as a disambiguator? Perhaps this makes more sense with television or other franchises that may refer to a monolithic singular TV show title as a metonym for the whole series ("Y character in Breaking Bad" not "Y character in the Breaking Bad series"), but it makes little sense for games, where Ultima or Mother or Super Mario or whatever is always followed by "series" (not "Y character in Grand Theft Auto" but "Y character in the Grand Theft Auto series"). Unless someone has an explanation, my recommendation would be to drop the parentheses from the disambiguation when referring to game series (e.g., Donkey Kong Country (series)Donkey Kong Country series) as "series" is part of the common name when referring to the overall series. (Another way of thinking about this is that it's "the DKC series" and not "DKC, the series". This also isn't to say that it wouldn't be preferred to remove "series" altogether and use the shortened name, but at least when "series" must be tacked on.) This has been bothering me for a while, so I thought I'd bring it here. Apologies if I brought it up elsewhere before. czar  19:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd expect that the reasoning is that often the series' name is most closely tied to the series, not a character, location, individual game, etc., in which case the series' article is simply named "Explosion Chick" instead of "Explosion Chick (series)". (How the hell is this the case with Donkey Kong? Whatever...) In keeping with the standard "(character)", "(video game)", "(fictional country)", "(1989 video game)", etc. scheme, keeping it at "(series)" fits fine.
On the other hand, Wikipedia's coverage of languages, an area I've got some experience in here, only very rarely doesn't disambiguate a language's name simply as "X language" (e.g. English language, Danish language, Hungarian language, Cherokee language, Maori language). And when it isn't, it's just the language's name itself (e.g. Hindi, Nahuatl, Lojban, Sindarin), never something like "Korean (language)". Moreover, languages are actually less likely to be referred to with the "language" addendum than video game series with "series", which places us in an odd situation. Tezero (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The reason TV series are so different is because people rarely refer to individual installments of the series, however popular it may be. Books are a closer cousin, and their series articles do tend to be named "X series" without the parentheses (see, for example, Category:Fantasy novel series). On the other hand, articles on film series (see Category: Film series) clearly favor using parentheses. So I'm wondering now if this is really an issue which should be decided on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis, or if we should take it to a different forum in order to get a broader consensus.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any opposition to this proposal? I'd like to get local consensus within the project before pitching it elsewhere. I can open an RfC if need be, but, honestly, I think project talk page consensus should be fine czar  16:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

GA project goal challenge[edit]

One current goal is to get 533 GA-Class articles. There are 578 B-Class articles and the top competitor in the GA Cup stated that would be able to review 100 articles per month. In ten days, the user has done 32 reviews.[2]

If WikiProject Video games is willing to offer a video game trophy to this editor, the GA goal could be achieved in six months. I suggest this challenge: 578 GA reviews without quick failing or 533 GA passed nominations, whatever happens first. (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering. Why are you asking us this? We only have one article that's part of our project at GAN now (amazing I know) and by looking at his submission page, none of his reviews are for video game articles. GamerPro64 23:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I have one VG article I'm gonna put up for GAN within a few days, but I don't know of any others. Wouldn't surprise me if czar had a few in the pipeline, but if you're looking for a ton of video game GANs to help your goal, I'm afraid you may have to leave empty-handed. Tezero (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Do not worry about nominations. This editor has enthusiasm and that energy can be channeled to improve Wikipedia. Video games is the only project I am working with that has enough articles. I am not promising 500 good articles, but 500 GA reviews that will help future editors.
It looks like this user is willing to work hard and recognition would be a good payment: that seems fair to me. I only need the project's endorsement and a gift image to offer; that is, if the user accepts and completes the challenge. (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I just checked on their submissions page again. It seems that they withdrawn from the cup and has retired. So I believe this whole conversation is moot. GamerPro64 02:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm a judge for the GA Cup and it appears that this IP and Jonas may be the same person (as suggested by GamerPro64). To save all of you time, if this IP ever proposes another idea, just shoot him down....don't allow his idea to progress (their all bad ones anyways), as the saying goes....don't feed the troll! :) --Dom497 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Why should we reject ideas solely based on whom they come from? Why is this idea even a bad one? Tezero (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently this belief that I and some IP user is the same person has became popular. As I said everywhere else this is being discussed, I'm NOT and have NO connection to the IP user. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to ask Dom497 not to interfere, since this is not about the GA Cup. This is about improving a WikiProject that has specific goals. The challenge is valid; nevertheless, if it is deemed inconvenient, there are two ways to end it:
  1. The project states that it is not interested in 500 GA reviews, statement that will be implicit by a lack of answer. GamerPro64 has mentioned Jonas Vinther's withdrawal, so he does not seem to have understood the proposal; that can hardly be considered an answer from the project.
  2. Jonas Vinther declines the challenge expressly, which has not happened yet.
However, Jonas Vinther should not be afraid and should resume editing. No one is going to shoot anyone down. I once wrote: the Wikipedia method works. I trust the community to do the right thing. If Jonas Vinther wants recognition for a well-done job, this is the place and this is the challenge: no delays, no disqualifications, just reviews. (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what your saying or what your point is, but it seems to matter no more. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I see. Let us give Jonas Vinther some of weeks of rest, to think about it. (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The point is that your challenge doesn't make any sense- the project doesn't have 500 GANs to review (it currently has 0). The bottleneck isn't finding reviewers, it's writing the articles to get reviewed, which takes a lot longer. Additionally, while I like the idea of WPVG putting up a barnstar award to whoever does the most VG GAN reviews throughout the cup, 1) the cup has already started so that's a bit late, 2) we don't have a surplus of GANs to review, and 3) it wouldn't make sense to target the award towards a specific individual, especially not one that you have apparently no right to speak for. I'm quite confused on that last point- why are you speaking on behalf of Jonas Vinther, or exhorting other people to make challenges for him? --PresN 22:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me try again, more slowly: 500 good articles are offered, does this project want them? (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I would love for us to have 500 more, but I don't see how one person, or even a decent-sized group, could get 500 with any efficiency. Tezero (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me try again, slowly as well: this project does not have 500 GANs, and therefore cannot accept any GAs that are "offered". Additionally, no one is offering- you are not Jonas, and Jonas is not reviewing anything. --PresN 00:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this discussion topic isn't salvageable. 578 B-class articles is a lot, and if that rating is worth its salt, most of them could get to GA without a huge amount of effort - I know GLaDOS, which was mentioned somewhere recently, probably could with a copyedit. Of course, this brings the question up of whether it's worth the effort to GA them... Tezero (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like that would be about the fastest way to achieve the "5% GA or better" milestone. -Thibbs (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This thread baffles me, but a drive to go through B-class articles sounds promising. I know for a fact that some of them are GAN-ready: I recently nominated one (Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis) myself that hadn't had a major edit in about two years, and it passed with no issues raised. I'm sure there are other free GAs out there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd add that most of our A-class articles are probably FAC-ready as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I will take it as a yes; this project wants 500 good articles. JimmyBlackwing has pointed out 18 B-class articles; let us say 100 are ready to pass. What happens to the other 400? An example would be easier to understand. So, one random B-class article could be named and Jonas Vinther would review it (after reading the guidelines).
However, it looks like Jonas Vinther is resilient and working again; that is good. Should Jonas Vither want to take this challenge, or another user with the same energy, we can resume the discussion. (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Even though by what he said in this discussion already Jason doesn't seem to want to do this. Let's just put this to bed. I'm concerned that this may be violating something in terms on policy. GamerPro64 01:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
GamerPro64 should not be concerned. I realize that my words may be hard to understand and editors fail to see what I see. What other people would consider a serious discussion is a funny one to me, because I know the context and where the misinterpretations come from.
I was happy to have someone reviewing Debian finally, but GamerPro64 should not feel compelled to continue the review. I am an IP editor, I have absolutely no power. I made the proposal to this WikiProject because I am working in Ghost in the Shell (video game). The challenge was targeted at Jonas Vinther because the user was the top competitor in the GA Cup. I hope that this has addressed GamerPro64's concern. (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Book:EarthBound series vs Book:Mother series[edit]

A few years ago, I created Book:EarthBound series. A few days ago, someone else created Book:Mother series (which I've edited some more to fix formatting and such). The question here isn't which of the books should survive (the current Mother series seems the better of the two versions), but rather where should this book be located? Most of the games are titled Mother ..., but the series article is at Earthbound. My opinion is that Earthbound is the most well-known title in English so that the book should be at Book:Earthbound series. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is under discussion at Talk:EarthBound_(series)#Requested_move and would likely follow its result czar  14:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna be honest: I haven't once heard it referred to as the EarthBound series outside Wikipedia. Tezero (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Either way I don't particularly care. I agree that the book should be located at wherever the RfC decides the series article should be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
True. Regardless of which one is preferred, there oughtn't be two. Tezero (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GAN- and FAC-ready articles[edit]

The discussion above has inspired me to dig through the project's B- and A-Class pages for potential GAN and FAC candidates. I'll start by mentioning Maniac Mansion, which nearly passed A-Class and could pass FAC with very little work. Here are some others.

  • Pong — Could probably hit FAC without much trouble.
  • Dragon Warrior — It's been sunk at FAC a few times, but it could probably pass now.
  • Super Mario Kart — A spitshine would most likely make this FAC caliber.
  • Robotron: 2084 — Another likely FAC.
  • F.E.A.R. — It would take some work, but it's already 75% of the way there.
  • Pac-Man (Atari 2600) — Definitely potential FAC material.
  • And Yet It Moves — A bit of expansion would take it to the necessary level, I think.
  • Blaster Master — Could probably be nominated today.
  • Pyramid Head — Failed FAC in 2011, but the opposition's reasoning was poor. Could probably be renominated after a little work.

That isn't even close to all of them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Y'know, now that I think about it, I could bring Shinobi (2002 video game) and Astro Boy: Omega Factor, two old projects of mine (as in, pre-semi-retirement, 2010-2011), to GAN pretty easily. I only stopped back then because I haven't actually played them and wasn't patient enough to watch playthroughs, so I didn't feel I'd be able to represent the plots well enough. That could change if large-scale GANing here were a thing. Project M (mod) isn't far, either; I just have to get around to writing a real Gameplay section (admittedly, my sluggishness here is because I prefer regular Brawl and find the M fanbase pretty repulsive, but hey). Wouldn't be surprised if others among us had old, forgotten projects like these. Tezero (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Xenoblade Chronicles would probably be a pretty easy effort to get to GA status too. I've been working on it off and on for forever. The main area it needs help is the plot/story section, which is super bloated, but I've only pared down some of it due to not wanting to spoil the game for myself. (Still haven't beaten it.) FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely been there; spoiler aversion has kept me away from the likes of Dust: An Elysian Tail, Antichamber, BioShock Infinite, Questionable Content (I've read the first 500-odd strips and everything since 2009/2010, but that leaves a lot), and a bunch of anime/manga articles - only those pages I haven't even touched. While we're listing potential GANs, all of the main-series Sonic games from 4 onward are within shooting distance; I haven't bothered with them as a result. Lego Rock Band isn't bad, either. Tezero (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and 'Splosion Man and Ms. Splosion Man could be sent there in short order. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Nice to see that this thread has worked out. Already we have "Pokémon Black and White" being a Good Article. GamerPro64 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Jungle Strike could have been one, too, if bridies hadn't retired. I'll probably renominate it myself in a week or two. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd caution that Platform game isn't nearly as close as it looks. There are lots of original-research statements about the history of the genre and what individual games did for it - some of these are masked by the presence of citations that don't actually confirm this kind of information, just the existence of the games. The reference list is also pretty dismal (unreliable sources, lots of inconsistency in formatting), and there may be too many non-free images. (I can't say I was 100% unbiased in adding the Freedom Planet screenshot - although I suspect it was the same with the addition of the Fez video - but hell, at least those two don't aggravate the copyright problem while they also illustrate the recent development of retro indie platformers.) I'd totally be interested in fixing it up with someone, but "a few days" is likely a massive understatement. Tezero (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I removed it from the list. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Killer Instinct (2013)[edit]

(As if I didn't think Payday 2 was enough of a silly pet project...) I've been on a bit of a kick with this game and it sorta occurs to me the article we have on it is sorta lacking. Unless I'm complete missing it, this seems like the first professional fighting game that is attempting a free-to-play model (DoA5:U:CF sorta does it, but doesn't explain if it compatable with the full game) at its core and it feels like the article is not bringing that idea across. It is also weak on story and could use some post season 2 reception (whenever that comes out). I thought about putting this up for peer review, but I didn't think it was ready for that. Anybody care to take the dive with me again? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like doing this, but...[edit]

I'm not confident that Super Smash Bros. Brawl, an important, highly viewed, and highly esteemed article of ours, still meets the FA criteria. The Gameplay section is ridiculously over-detailed with spillover into two other level-2 sections (Playable characters and Stages), and there is a huge reliance on sources from two entities: IGN and Smash Bros. DOJO!!, the latter being a first-party source. More minor concerns include the use of as a source, a few dead links, some inconsistent formatting (e.g. IGN vs. IGN vs., and a few short paragraphs. I know it's part of a featured topic, but I wonder if an FAR wouldn't do it some good. Tezero (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the article in detail but a quick look at how much the article has changed over the 6 years since obtaining FA leads me to think an FAR would be a good idea. Sam Walton (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

VG comments subpages[edit]

Back in October 2009 there was a village pump discussion where it was decided that Wikipedia's old comments subpage scheme would be deprecated. The consensus was finalized in the creation of WP:DCS.

To provide some context here, this scheme was originally developed for use by the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team (see WP:VG Newsletter 1-7's feature) as a way to provide small assessment notes to articles included in the "Articles by Quality" indices. Many WikiProjects including WP:VG did not embrace the new scheme and/or weren't even aware of it. In the discussion leading to deprecation, several specific problems were brought up: broken feedback - these subpages don't show up on watchlists unless specifically watchlisted so even an article's frequent editors were often unaware of the subpage and comments would languish for months to years without response; lack of use - some WikiProjects like WP:VG hardly used them at all; and potential for vandalism/misuse - some of these subpages were either vandalized without anyone noticing or were hosting inappropriate material like personal contact information for new reviewing editors. When the decision was made to deprecate the use of these comments subpages, there was discussion about notifying all affected WikiProjects (with this message) and then deleting all Comments subpages (after subst'ing them into talk). Unfortunately the notification, subst'ing, and deletion phases never took place.

Lucky for WP:VG there are very few (only 38) of these pages in use currently (full list here) so addressing this will hopefully be simple. Would there be any objection if I went ahead and shifted these historical subpages into their relevant talk pages? Per WP:DCS, the process I would use would be this:

  1. - Subst each Comments subpage into talk
  2. - Sign unsigned comments and provide a simple attribution list if unclear from the subst.
  3. - Request the removal of Comment subpages from {{Template:WikiProject Video games}} (easily done by changing "|COMMENTS = yes" to "|COMMENTS = no")
  4. - Request MfD per CSD G6 (Technical deletions) for each shifted comments subpage

The articles that will be affected by this process are covered by 2 WP:VG child projects (WikiProject Halo and WikiProject Square Enix) as well as 37 other WikiProjects (e.g. Biography, Companies, Apple Inc., Animation, Business, California, United States, Albums, Anime and Manga, Dallas-Fort Worth, Film, Horror, and Japan to name a few). So I've requesting input from these and other WikiProjects concerning all relevant WP:VG crossover articles. So does this sound like a good idea? I'm ready to start whenever I get the green-light. -Thibbs (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with this; I didn't even realize these pages existed- and one of them is at an article I GA'd!. --PresN 17:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can get behind putting these comment pages under historical. Doesn't seem like anyone would even touch them anyway. GamerPro64 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You mean templating them with {{Template:Historical}} per WP:HISTORICAL rather than deleting them? -Thibbs (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Must have mis-read a part in this discussion. Deleting them works too. GamerPro64 18:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe move them under a talkpage archive and list them on the talk page as with any other archived discussion? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait, comments? What? Can someone show me an example? Are these like the "to do" lists? Tezero (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, those. I've seen them before. It's kinda interesting to read these and old peer reviews, GANs, and FACs; it's like a portal into Old Wikipedia. Tezero (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question about step four: don't you need to keep (not delete) the comments pages to preserve attribution (unless you're going to do some sort of complicated history merge)? czar  21:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I imagine you would keep the signatures when moving the comments, so it's attributed that way, but I mean that we often redirect pages in order to keep their edit history attribution in lieu of deleting those ties. czar  16:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if anyone even found these pages once they are redirected (and its links removed), nevertheless if an IP were to find them and get confused. I'd also be surprised if MfD were to delete them, especially knowing that their content was merged. Anyway, my 2¢ are in czar  23:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
OK here's the list (color coding: green = safest for CSD; yellow = safest for MfD; red = debatable CSDs) :
Anyway I don't know. I understand the point you're getting at, Czar, but that's what WP:DCS seems to recommend and from the talk page it sounds like it worked pretty smoothly for WikiProject New Jersey in 2010. That's the model I'm going for. The only tweaks I've made to the 2010 WikiProject NJ formula is to invite other interested WikiProjects to comment and to MfD some of the complex ones instead of speedying them all. If consensus at MfD is to redirect then so be it. I don't see much if any value to it but either way is fine by me. -Thibbs (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Process sounds good to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll give it a few days in case there are comments from the various other WikiProjects, but so far there seems to be no objection. -Thibbs (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Type-0 Ultimania interview translation help?[edit]

I've opened a section on the said article's talk page about translating some interviews from the Ultimania guide. This is a little more interesting than other Ultimania translation jobs as the game has yet to be released in the west yet. Is anyone willing to help? And could that someone put translations somewhere easily accessible? It's the merest chance these scans weren't inaccessible to me, as I'm not really signed into a lot of online things. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Anime project might be able to help, they have a higher number of Japanese readers- and if not then, maybe the Japan project, I asked them to translate a title once. --PresN 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests Board reminder[edit]

This is a reminder that we have a Requests Board which has requests for creations of articles for the project. If anyone is interested in making one on the board, feel free too. As well, you can also look through the ones listed and see if they would meet WP:GNG requirements. If not, you can remove them from the board. GamerPro64 20:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned it up and added sources until July 2012. I don't think I'll be doing more for now, so if somebody else wants to pick it up ... Willhesucceed (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I just created a page for Owlboy. Man, that's a pain, though it's a neat way to learn about games before they're released (if this ever is...). Tezero (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Does Video game controversies need improvement?[edit]

Is this really the best way to present this information? It seems like an incredibly unwieldy page.

To my mind, there are two broad categories into which video game controversies fall: socio-cultural concerns (gender, race, religion, etc.), and lifestyle/psychological/health concerns (addiction, effects of a less active lifestyle, violence, etc.). Do technological concerns such as DRM really belong here? Maybe it's better to move that to its own page.

So the layout would look something like:

  • Background
  • Negative effects
  • Socio-cultural concerns
  • Gender
  • LGBT
  • Etc.
  • Health and psychological concerns
  • Addiction
  • Violence
  • Etc.
  • Positive effects
  • See also
  • Further reading

The country-specific incidences can be tucked under the relevant concern instead of being grouped by nationality.

Is "Video game concerns" better as the article name than "Video game controversies"? "Controversy" seems like a strong word for some of the worries addressed on the page, e.g. addiction, and would also seem to be more appropriate for an article which also contains a section titled "Positive effects".

Do you have any better ideas for improving the article? Or are you fine with the page as is? Willhesucceed (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. The DRM concerns and the like are tailored more towards people who already play games, anyway, not to the general public. Tezero (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This article has gone through a lot of tense discussion and conflict in the past and the current version represents the most recent (April 2014) consensus. The page has 232 watchers at present so you should probably drop a note at the talk page there, Willhesucceed. You might want to ping User:Myrtlegroggins, User:David A, and User: as well since they are the ones primarily responsible for the article's current condition. I had made a major cleanup to fix some egregious POV and SYNTH violations prior to that, and I'm not sure who had been involved prior to me. -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the discussion's here, if anyone wants to participate. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


I know a number of y'all live in the American Midwest. I'll be traveling from Wisconsin to Indianapolis (via Chicago) for a conference the second weekend of November (6–9th). If anyone wants to meet up, let me know? (Email is fine too) czar  21:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A pretty interesting idea to see other members of the project. Too bad I'm busy being in the East Coast. But that does raise an idea for any possible meet ups in the future. GamerPro64 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me check my calendar. I live in Indiana. Red Phoenix let's talk... 22:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I actually... might be able to make that. My dad's family all lives around there (compared to my mom's in NYC, which would not be as practical), and if I weren't there for that reason, I could hop a bus pretty easily if I had time. Tezero (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with GamerPro64 - a meetup is an interesting idea. I thought of something like that after attending a USA East-coast Wikipedia event this summer where I was the only one who worked in the VG area. I'm unable to make it to a Midwest event at present, but one thing I'd recommend is that at least one person should wear a super-nerdy Wikipedia shirt or other marker. There's nothing more awkward than having to go around asking random people if they're here for the Wikipedia event. :) -Thibbs (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking we could say what we were going to wear beforehand, if it were distinctive enough. For example, I could wear my Tool or Grateful Dead T-shirt or be listening to my iPod with a purple earbud cord. Maybe describe ourselves as well to make it easier: I've been told I'm the spitting image of Landon Liboiron. Tezero (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of platform categories[edit]

Has anyone got the ability to roll back User:RacingPhreak's category edits? (Failing that I'll AWB it) - He/She has been removing platform categories eg removing PlayStation 3 games when the PlayStation3-only games cat is in the article. We discussed this and have a consensus for WP:DUPCAT in this discussion from last year. - X201 (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Mass Rollback doesn't seem to work for me (maybe it's Monobook only?), I'm sorry. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)