Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Archives
1 - 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112
Threads older than 10 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk

viewtalkeditchanges

Changes to developers/publishers and related categories by IP[edit]

176.248.107.108 (talk · contribs) has been making quite a few changes related to publishers and their categories, such as "rolling up" publisher/developer credits from the subsidiary that made the game to the parent company. I've reverted some of it myself, such as including Activision Blizzard as a developer on Blizzard games. Another example would be where they removed Sierra Entertainment from some older games as well as new ones since it's reactivation and replacing with Vivendi and Activision Blizzard. Some of their edits appear to be straight up improvements, and everything seems to be 100% good faith, though I did do a warning after they repeated some of the changes once I'd asked them to stop on Blizzard articles. The user has edited under multiple IPs and I believe maybe 2 registered accounts, based on some page histories.

The IP is also adding categories for publishers to the articles, and I'm not 100% sure what the stance here is... For example, should the Ubisoft video game category contain games developed by Ubisoft, or also published by? Category:Vivendi video games was apparently created and populated by this user, but I do not believe Vivendi was ever a developer directly.

Someone else may need to review the edits and see if any other cleanup should be made. My watch list was mostly related to Activision Blizzard games. -- ferret (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was recently having a very similar problem with 31.52.7.7 (talk · contribs), who was going about adding Nintendo as a publisher or developer to virtually every game that's ever been on a Nintendo platform. I just recently blocked them because they refused to stop or discuss, and keep introducing a lot of errors into articles. They were non-negotiably wrong, things like Nintendo developing Sonic Colors or Disney Infinity. So, I guess keep an eye out for it in generally, everyone? Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
User is now editing as Zachary rules (talk · contribs). I'm at 3RR on my watchlist articles.... -- ferret (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked both the IP and ZacharyRules, Ferret. The IP has been making the same sort of erroneous edits without stopping or discussing as the IP I came across, as is Zachary, who just happened to create his account right at the time I blocked the first IP address... Sergecross73 msg me 04:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

86.139.95.89 (talk · contribs) is now engaged in this. This time adding Vivendi Games as the developer for multiple games, even those released long after the Activision Blizzard merger. Edit history behavior suggests it's the same user. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across another one earlier in the week too. They must be the same, as I can't imagine multiple people would have the same basic fundamental misunderstandings as to what it means to be a publisher. (For instance, seemingly thinking every game on a PlayStation console should list Sony as a publisher.) Blocked both for block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

176.24.181.122 (talk · contribs) and 176.250.202.128 (talk · contribs) may be worth a look as well. Seem to fit same pattern - X201 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Crash zachary (talk · contribs) as well, though now "dormant". -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeesh, I didn't realize how much of a problem this was. Those three are all dormant now, but still, this has been going on since February... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to even begin to really clean this up. The user, over multiple usernames and IPs, has made hundreds of changes. One I just noticed on the latest IP was adding XBox 360 category to games that aren't released on 360. Finding the usernames/IPs involved can partially be solved by looking at the edit historiies for some of the (partially valid, partially not) categories they have created, such as Category:Vivendi video games and Category:Activision Blizzard games. Category:Microsoft games is another, the user has made it a sub-cat of 5-6 other categories, such as the Xbox category. -- ferret (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret and Sergecross73: Got a new one for you: 77.96.101.235 (talk · contribs). They made these changes on Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix and Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Behavior looks the same to me. Adding Sony as a publisher for games just because they are released on Playstation. I cannot block, not an admin. Probably needs entire edit history reverted.... -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Now operating as 90.220.112.68 (talk · contribs)... are these proxies or something? Exact same behavior. -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you filled an WP:SPI yet? It might be worthwhile... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. Rolled back. Salvidrim! - is this something your amazing check user/range block skills could help us with? Otherwise, everyone just keep notifying me of them, and I'll keep blocking and rollbacking... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so I'm a Checkuser now, ain't I? Bloody marvelous! I wish someone would've told me sooner, I could've squashed more ne'er-do-wells. More seriously though -- IPs are across many ranges, so a simple admin range-block won't help. Filing an SPI might help documenting things and blocking accounts, and SPPs are likely to help too. Sorry I can't be much more help! ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I was thinking you had CU rights. Anyways, if someone wants to file an SPI, that's fine, but I have no problems with blocking per WP:DUCK and documenting it here or my talk page personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Now operating as 2.126.202.120 (talk · contribs). Just started up looks like... -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted most of those edits. Found another from two days ago while checking article history: 67.255.219.44 (talk · contribs). – The1337gamer (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Blocked both IP addresses. --PresN 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone involved, I missed this one. I was about to say "you guys can just report it straight to my talk page" if you want, but I suppose if its posted here, there's a chance someone else like PresN could help. Whatever you guys prefer works for me. I'll keep helping with it regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Newest IP: 86.163.219.42 (talk · contribs). Same behavior patterns. Mixture of good category updates with bad changes to infobox fields and inappropriate categories. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was unsure at first, but then these edits cemented it for me, as this person was once again proposing that Nintendo published all these Sonic and Crash games. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: 2.126.56.27 (talk · contribs) appears to be the newest incarnation.-- 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Serge blocked him, and I rolled back all his edits. --PresN 23:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I only had time to block him and rollback a few edits at the time. Found another one today by myself - 90.195.158.128 (talk · contribs) - too. Already blocked and reverted. Same kind of issues, misguided category choices. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another: 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs). The1337gamer (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Tag teamed by PresN and myself again. Thanks all! Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible new hit, 90.222.22.159 (talk · contribs). Primarily adding Japanese publisher categories, i.e. adding "Sega video games" to a game publisher in Japan by Sega. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught that one too, since I have most things Sonic on my watchlist. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@PresN and Sergecross73: another new "90" IP 90.208.223.148 (talk · contribs). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Found another, 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs). -- ferret (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, no, I see this one is a return visitor after block expiration. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I hadn't been blocking the IPs for very long because they've never returned to an older IP/Account so far. I kind of assumed they were doing that thing you can do in FireFox where you can hit refresh and get a new randomized IP address, in which they can't/won't usually return to the old IP address. I'll start blocking for longer if they're going to return to old ones... (Also, re-blocked and cleaned up.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Another User:2.220.194.151 - X201 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

And another User:2.126.57.175 - X201 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked and rollback'd both. --PresN 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Found another today, cleaned it up already. Another returning one, so I'm starting to make the blocks longer. Also thinking of starting to protect some of the pages that are repeatedly being targeted. Some of the Crash/Sony/Nintendo related pages. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another User:94.10.4.121, could we add any of his usual edits to the edit filter? - X201 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread 11: Non-April Fools' Edition[edit]

Once again, the thread is up, as it is helping cut down the multitude of GA and FA nominees that become neglected. And no, the list below is not a joke. It's virtually a copy-and-paste from the previous review thread, except that the peer reviews have closed.

FAC
  • Children of Mana has been nominated since March 2. It's the second time up, with three supports, but is missing an image review, a sources review, and could use one more prose review.
GAN

Note: both Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children and PewDiePie have the reviewer saying that it should pass on the review page, but never actually did it. If anyone could take a look at those, that would be grand.

  • Comment - PewDiePie is already a Good Article. Also, I would like to mention that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests exists if anyone is interested in making new articles. There is only one more article request left before we are finished with requests with 2011. That is how backed up the requests are here. Take a look and help out with the page. GamerPro64 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment That Resident Evil 3: Nemesis article looks so good I would quickly pass it if I were a reviewer. I have reviewed only two articles so far and they were from another project.Tintor2 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Begging thread[edit]

As the creator of this thread, I'll start this off. Excepting PresN, I'll exchange any review for a review of Before Crisis or for someone to do something about Advent Children before it fails due to lack of activity. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also trade a review for someone finishing the GA review of Advent Children or doing an FAC review of Children of Mana. --PresN 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks to Niwi3 for his review of Before Crisis. Now, if only someone would complete Advent Children, we will be most of the way towards the VII Good Topic. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Advent Children finally got cleared, thanks to NARH! I'll reiterate, though: I'm willing to trade a review, any kind, in return for an FAC review of Children of Mana. --PresN 20:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
All right. I'll take a look at CoM. More than likely you might not own me a trade of review anytime soon but its the thought that counts. GamerPro64 20:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, save it up, and spring it on me when I least expect it. --PresN 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest PresN, if you help ensure that Virtual Boy articles are reviewed at GAN quickly, you can straight up just link me to articles you've nominated and I'll do a review for them. :P I wanna finally get the VB GT done! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Should Super Smash Bros. 3DS/Wii U somehow be exempt from article guidelines?[edit]

User:TheMeaningOfBlah insists that Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U should feature boxart of both the Wii U and 3DS versions of the game, and has been reverted by myself and other editors; despite the fact that such an inclusion would violate WP:VGBOX ("only one cover should be present, regardless of platform or regional differences").

I'll also copy-paste from his talkpage more reasons on why I believe two images to be inappropriate:

  • In other games with different "versions", precedence is that only one boxart is used. See Pokémon Black and White as an example.
  • Consensus was that they are pretty much the same game, and whether Sakurai thinks otherwise is irrelevant.
  • There is no need to violate WP:VGBOX for no reason, especially as having two or more boxart images is explicitly discouraged.
  • Multiple boxart images may violate the "minimal usage" and "minimal number of items" parts of WP:NFCC.

I have no intention to edit war over this. Should this one article somehow be exempt from guidelines that cover all other articles? Also the other party has so far provided no policy-based rationale except for "let's ignore it". Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Exempt from guidelines for the following reasons I stated on my talkpage:
Also, should does not equal must, according to the IETF standard. I'm still going to ignore it until a consensus is reached.

TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

From the NFCC side, yes, multiple covers are against NFCC; you get one cover to identify the work per WP:NFCI#1, but any additional cover-for-identification images that are non-free must be the subject of discussion (such as the Wii version of Okami). --MASEM (t) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The link you gave me doesn't explicitly state that multiple covers are against NFCC. The images used to identify the games aren't non-free, so that basically invalidates your argument. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
They are copyrighted covers and thus non-free. We seek to minimize the amount of non-free, and only allow a single cover image without discussion to identify a work. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In further response to your points:
  • Things are discouraged for a reason; it is obvious that WP:VGBOX states that multiple boxart images should not be used in the same page and trying to find loopholes around guidelines is unconstructive and undermines the purpose of the guideline in the first place.
  • This is irrelevant as I've pointed out multiple times - what Sakurai thinks isn't an argument and has no bearing on whether one or two boxart images should be used.
  • Again, irrelevant. Pokemon Black and Pokemon White are also "not the same game" as you put it, but they share the article and share the boxart - as does every other article on Wikipedia that I've seen. If the games are truly independent, than split the article, but previous consensus is against that.
Also, please don't take this as an attack against you, but referring to an IETF standard simply because not a single policy or guideline on Wikipedia supports it is an incredibly weak argument, if not a non-argument. Please provide a policy-based reason on why two boxart images should be used in the article. Saying "I'm just going to ignore it anyway" is disruptive editing. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 03:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For archival purposes, I'll point out that TheMeaningOfBlah changed their username to VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs232 (talk · contribs).-- 10:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And the user also uses the IP 71.87.73.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)-- 20:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need two box arts in this case. The only reason that I can see that being necessary would be if a second box art received critical commentary, like the Wii Okami box art.--67.68.208.170 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a strong case to be made that these are two different products, each of which are notable enough to have identifying art. Each of the games will have had a separate (but concurrent) development process, each of the games will have significant reliable coverage dedicated to it specifically. A merged article can sustain multiple cover images if each are independently notable, such as New Super Luigi U or Bastion Original Soundtrack. I find the rationale for including identifying artwork for the notable 3DS game to be a lot stronger than the rationale for the second Okami cover (which was quickly replaced, and whose only notable feature (the IGN watermark) is easily described in text). - hahnchen 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with your statement regarding this, Hahnchen. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Please point to the guideline which states how "two different products" (this is contested btw) allows for multiple boxart in the same infobox. The first example doesn't even have a boxart for New Super Luigi U, while the second is a subsection - no article shares multiple boxart within the same infobox, which frankly makes it looks like shit. And all my previous points still remain unanswered, such as VGBOX and NFCC... Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason Super Luigi U didn't have any artwork is because two hours after I made my comment, the article was split. A guideline isn't policy, template documentation isn't policy. The NFC policy does not prohibit the use of multiple identifying artwork, as you can see in The Dark Side of the Moon and other articles implementing Template:Extra album cover. That it's not something usually done in video games does not mean it can't be done. The bar for inclusion isn't whether there's a separate infobox, or a separate article, but whether the subject is notable, and it can be argued that both the 3DS and Wii U games are. I agree with you that it looks shit, it's handled more elegantly in the album infobox, but that's not a policy argument. - hahnchen 14:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, yes, WP:NFCI#1 has a footnote to this extent, in that cover art is typically presented without additional comment about that, so beyond the one image allowance for identification, all additional cover art needs to have strong demonstration for its need to be there. The WP Music project has worked with NFC to establish the limiting cases where a second cover art can be used. (And "The Dark Side of the Moon" is a bad example, because the remastered album art is discussed in the body of the article, and not just thrown into the infobox without reason). Should the latest Smash game be split between the two platforms? I don't know, but the current way the development and reception is written, I'm not seeing a strong reason to split the two since the games are very much intertwined with each other. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to split articles in order to justify multiple identifying artwork. Going back to music, you see this a lot with songs, where the original and its cover versions all have identifying artwork, and without any critical commentary on the artworks themselves. - hahnchen 17:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but more comparatively, in working with music album articles, I've seen far more situations where there is different/altered cover art for the same music album, and the extras are almost always deleted due to NFC concerns... Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Saying "a guideline isn't policy" does not mean you're allowed to simply just ignore it; especially since you haven't provided any policy-based rationale for inclusion whatsoever despite repeated requests to do so (additionally NFCC is policy, and having multiple boxart in one infobox almost certainly a violation of "minimal usage"). Saying "music articles do this so we're allowed to do it as well" is a weak argument because 1) WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, 2) the covers are never placed in the same infobox, and 3) it is a violation of policy anyway. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Multiple subjects allow for multiple identifying artwork. In this case, there is critical commentary for both 3DS and Wii U games. The examples I've listed above are not a violation of policy. NFCC has nothing to say about infobox placement, if you think otherwise, you are wrong. - hahnchen 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it "multiple subjects"? Is Pokemon Black and White also "multiple subjects" to you? How about the two different versions of Sonic Generations - do those deserve separate boxart images as well? Or maybe we should include boxart of all platforms for any game on multiple platforms? One image per infobox is a good way to ensure that the "minimal usage" requirement of NFCC is not ignored, as Masem as explained to you above.
So far, you have not provided a single policy or guideline that supports your side of the argument, despite the other side having already supplied several, such as VGBOX and NFCC, which supports theirs. Instead, your side tries to find loopholes around them, such as "we know VGBOX discourages this, but let's do it anyway!" If you choose to respond, please provide a Wikipedia guideline or policy which explicitly supports your side of the argument. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple box arts on Pokémon Black and White and there has been for years. NFCC is the policy that supports multiple identifying art for multiple subjects, I'm not sure how much clearer you need that to be. - hahnchen 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Other stuff exists isn't an argument, but for the specific case of the Pokemon (1)/(2) paired games, the idea is that neither title is the landmark one (they are meant to be equal) so to put one box cover over the other is impossible to do. On the other hand, with Smash here, the Wii U version is clearly the flagship title, not that the 3ds one isn't as important, but clearly less important than the Wii U version, so we can make a selection as to one or the other. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the argument was the second sentence, the first was a refutation. Your "which is more important" argument is off topic. - hahnchen 21:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I dunno where you pulled "NFCC is the policy that supports multiple identifying art for multiple subjects" from, especially when the page makes clear that a "minimal number of items" must be used (there is also absolutely no reason to treat them as "multiple subjects", especially since all other video games on multiple platforms are treated as one subject). VGBOX strongly discourages multiple boxart in the same infobox, as I've explained numerous times, and saying "let's ignore it" to a guideline, as you have done, is not appropriate. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


:As for Pokemon B/W, I wholeheartedly disagree with using the cover for B2/W2 in there. It won't be an issue once it's split out, but presently, there is a main subject, B/W. B2/W2 is a part of the article only because it's not yet notable enough to not be. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but for the record I was talking about B/W, not B2/W2. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

So what is the outcome of this? Both images are still present. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking for consensus on vg infobox[edit]

Not sure if this is allowed, but since a post I made regarding the composer field for game infoboxes hasn't answered by anybody yet, I thought it might help to get it noticed more by posting here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Its definitely allowed, and probably a good idea even, as this page gets far more traffic than I imagine the original discussion location does. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Could you make your thoughts known on the page? Nobody else seems to be bothered, and having just one other opinion is better than none. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Virtual Boy Good Topic?[edit]

I was giving it some thought, and this is something I've suggested in the past, but I think there's potential for a Virtual Boy Good Topic since there are so few games released for the system. Anyone interested in giving a helping hand with any of the articles? I'm presently trying to cleanup Golf to be ready for GAN. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to say I'd help, but it's taken a lot of effort to squeeze out even C-B class articles out of the ones I've worked on. (Mario Clash and Mario's Tennis) Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you get the time, you could totes help out on the Golf article, and I'd do what could be done to give those two articles a leg up. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It would definitely be a challenge. By my reckoning, it's a 22-article topic:
17 articles
C-Class article Virtual Boy
Start-Class article 3D Tetris
Stub-Class article Galactic Pinball
C-Class article Golf
Start-Class article Jack Bros.
List-Class article List of Virtual Boy games
Start-Class article Mario Clash
C-Class article Mario's Tennis
C-Class article Nester's Funky Bowling
Stub-Class article Red Alarm
Start-Class article Teleroboxer
Stub-Class article Vertical Force
Start-Class article Virtual Boy hardware
C-Class article Virtual Boy Wario Land
Stub-Class article Virtual Lab
Stub-Class article Virtual League Baseball
Start-Class article Waterworld


And that's leaving out Gunpei Yokoi. My magazines stretch back this far, and there's probably quite a bit of online material on the subject—so sourcing shouldn't be an enormous problem. It would take years to get this thing finished, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that we could do something to trim down the list; for instance, what if we stipulated that the Virtual Boy game must be the primary focus of the article? This would help us not have to deal with Panic Bomber or Puyo Puyo Tsu. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The "hardware" article could probably be merged into the main VB article too, those spin-outs make sense for these decade spanning consoles like PS3 or Wii, but not necessarily this little blip on the radar. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Although there might well be active and helpful magazine collectors out there to help, I'd be concerned about finding sufficient sourcing for all of these articles, since not only are the games old; they're for a platform that was unsuccessful and unpopular even then. That, along with a bit of resentment that what critics consider to be "classic" games conveniently ends pretty much right before my gaming childhood began, is why I normally don't work much on games from before the sixth generation. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I could work on some, I've been pretty idle on Wikipedia recently. BlookerG talk 21:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The VB's failure might be in Wikipedia's favor, Tezero. Colossal bombs from big studios tend to get a lot of coverage, especially retrospectively. I doubt that sourcing will be a serious issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur. The system was hyped at the time of its release and I have plenty of magazine coverage of some VB titles as well. Heck, Famitsu even devoted an entire spin-off magazine to covering the topic (see Virtual Boy Tsushin). Of course a lot of this material will need to be painstakingly translated. It takes time, but it can be done. -Thibbs (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I removed a few games from the demonstrative GT template, specifically ones that are just articles about games that were ported (or planned to be ported) to the Virtual Boy. Anyway, if I had to guess about which games likely have the potential to become GA, I'd say Golf, Waterworld, Teleroboxer, Nester's Funky Bowling, Red Alarm, Mario Clash, Mario's Tennis, Jack Bros., and Galactic Pinball. I'm considering doing a proposed deletion for Virtual Lab if there aren't enough sources to show that it's a notable VB game, and while Dragon Hopper and Bound High might have potential, they are ultimately just cancelled Virtual Boy games. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If you do go ahead with this, let me know and I can handle the cleanup/prep on the two Mario games. I think the VB hardware article can be merged into the console article, and I know the List of games has had some style changes in recent months. czar  12:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm probably going to start to work on this. Can you tell me what you think of Bound High? I think I've exhausted all of the sources I could find to add to notability, though I suppose there could be one or two references left that I haven't found. I'm considering merging it into Chalvo 55, since that article could use some boosting up anyway. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I burned some time today by writing a Dev section for Red Alarm. I might finish the article at some point—the rest will be much easier. It's an interesting subject, too. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not super able to focus on Wikipedia at the moment, but I can definitely find some Virtual Boy sources. Let me check and see if I can find any for Red Alarm and others. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I boldly merged the important parts of Bound High into its sequel as it didn't have any dedicated sourcing (unless some other sourcing comes out of the woodwork). Its greatest claim to notability was inclusion in those two 1UP.com lists, which weren't hefty mentions anyway. Feel free to revert, though I think it's the best action for now. czar  12:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I've edited a big chunk of 3D Tetris, but I'm having trouble finding development information. If anyone could help, that would be great. BlookerG talk 22:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your decision Czar, and I am proceeding to redirect Dragon Hopper to Virtual Boy, as I couldn't really find anything noteworthy in any sources, merely repeats of "this game was cancelled." And to Blooker, I'll try to find some sources, though like Golf, you may have to settle for a tiny development section. :P - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Question - I'm of the opinion that the GT should be limited to exclusive games in order to avoid having to focus efforts on articles where the primary focus is not the Virtual Boy (ie Space Invaders, though that example is an FA). If we flat-out limited the GT to exclusives, it would mean that Space Invaders, Bomberman: Panic Bomber, and Waterworld would not be included. I'm mostly okay with not having the first two in the GT, but even though Waterworld isn't exclusive, I feel that if we went this route, Waterworld is pretty notable as a Virtual Boy game. Anyone have any comments on the matter? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

3rd Birthday rewrite planned: anyone want to help?[edit]

I'm preparing a rewrite of The 3rd Birthday. I would do something for the other Parasite Eve games, but I think that's beyond my skills of research as they are rather old and little commented on. I am more than willing to handle the development, reception, gameplay, lead and infobox, but the plot synopsis is a little more than I'm comfortable handling. Could someone help with this by tidying it up rewriting it or something while I work on the rest of the rewrite in my sandbox? I can handle the rest easily enough. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll offer you my usual services of reading it once over, making a few minor changes, and then telling you that you did a good job. ;) Sergecross73 msg me 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I made myself clear. I've clarified above. To be frank, I won't want to do the story at all as I find it confusing and weak. That may be a little wrong of me, but after dealing with Tales of Hearts, I am more than a little cautious when it comes to confusing and/or poorly-written plots. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, I actually did understand what you were getting at. I was just making light of how easily distracted I get with content creation, and that you're so thorough that you generally do a great job anyways, leaving me with just a few minor revisions. ;) Sadly, I share the same distaste for writing story sections too, so we aren't such a good team in that respect... Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User making "typos"[edit]

User:Devin.1125 has been adding comments to the Kingdom Hearts articles without back up sources. Apparently it all started last December and he hasn't stopped. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked him several times in the past for doing this at other articles. He's blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Help needed with romanization of Japanese titles[edit]

Not 100% sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I doubt a lot of people would even notice this if I just asked on the article's talk page, so...

I've been working on the Etrian Mystery Dungeon article for a little while, and yesterday I added a section about the game's soundtrack. However, I'm not good enough yet at kanji - or indeed, Japanese in general - to be able to reliably romanize the track titles. Like, yeah, I'm fairly confident that 新しい冒険のはじまり is "atarashii bouken no hajimari", but I'm not so confident with all of them. Is there anyone here who's more knowledgeable than me, who would like to help out? There are two discs with 16 tracks each, and I have already added the kanji+kana titles to the article. IDVtalk 09:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If you make it easy to answer, like "What is the romanization of 新しい冒険のはじまり?", WP:JAPAN has been helpful to me in the past. WP:VG has surprisingly few Japanese speakers/readers. --PresN 14:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, as active as I am in Japanese video games, I have zero knowledge on the language. I'm sadly entirely dependent on what English sources tell me... Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I took a crack at disc one, though I did have to look a few words up. Any particular preferences about the formatting? Tezero (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I don't write about music very often, but I'd probably choose to do it something like "Romanization (kanji/kana, lit. translation)", since the translations aren't official English titles --IDVtalk 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

One last appeal[edit]

Back in February, I got Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children reviewed at GAN. NathanWubs reviewed it, gave it greens across the board, said he wanted a second opinion... and vanished. For two months. Can someone please go to Talk:Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children/GA3 and give it a second opinion so it can finally be done? I'll trade a review back for it, any type. --PresN 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it if you help out with copyediting a single Virtual Boy game article (once I'm through working on it that is). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Heck, if you help get a VB game article to GA, I'll review like, three of your articles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently I can't even get my own articles to GA... (frowny face) But yeah, IOU one copyedit, and we'll see about the VB GA. --PresN 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Black Ops III[edit]

Activision just confirmed Call of Duty: Black Ops III. I have created the page with reference to the now confirmation article. But this page is destined to be a source of vandalism for the next few days, so any help keeping an eye on it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Chambr (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the case where this should be a redirect to the main Call of Duty series page until more details beyond the existence of trailers and release date should be done. (E3 is coming, the same thing needs to be kept in mind). It helps to reduce vandalism doing it that way .--MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In the past, Call of Duty articles have been started right at initial announcement, I think mainly due to Activision always progressively releasing new information right after the announcement, like they have already started doing for this. Not to mention, if the article is left as a redirect, then every single editor or IP that hears about it will just try and create the article anyway. Chambr (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to note, IPs can't create articles. They can only edit (unless by create, you meant edit the redirect article). --JDC808 20:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Most IPs and lots of casual editors don't even know you can edit redirects. Redirects are so effective that in many cases (and this is a negative), they actually kill what would be better off as a standalone article. In this case though, the redirect is better, it'll only last until the 26th. - hahnchen 20:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Chambr (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't agree. I think there's enough to start at least a stub. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 03:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Until there is consensus, it needs to be left as it was, a redirect. Chambr (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I would say the opposite, because there was no consensus to redirect in the first place, but that's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, the game is confirmed, the article in it's last state had not one, not two, but three reliable sources. And there are further sources, like this one, that can add to the article to extend it and add more information. A redirect in this case is detrimental to the wiki. As for precedent, which I personally always look to for established patterns, Advanced Warfare's article existed, without redirect, with not much more information that we have now, especially when you consider the supplied PC Gamer source. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 08:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sandbox your edits and then copy it over, just wait until the 26th --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? That nice, long, thought out comment and that's what I get? Not one concern/point addressed? Wow. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 11:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
CRRaysHead90, I would recommend using a more friendly and civil tone when dealing with disagreements, as stated at WP:FIVEPILLARS. BlookerG talk 11:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • there was no consensus to redirect in the first place

    Every other person who has weighed in contributed to the consensus to redirect. That's very clear. It's normal to redirect to the series article until the official unveil and subsequent substantial coverage. czar  11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@BlookerG: I was not uncivil, I was simply using my brand of humor to relay that I'm astonished that I made an argument and got brushed off. But it's easy to mistake the intentions if you don't know me, I understand. @Czar: The fact of the matter is that a binding consensus has never been formed in less than an hour, because it doesn't give everyone a chance to comment. Now I would like to point back to my second comment on this thread for the rest of my argument. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We have a title and an announcement for the upcoming reveal. It's a 2 line article with nothing more to expand on. It's also not detrimental seeing as the redirect destination Call of Duty#Call of Duty: Black Ops III covers everything in the proposed article. So for now, I would agree with keeping it a redirect. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We also have a general description of the game and know some of the consoles it will be on thanks to the provided PC Gamer article. There's plenty here to start a stand alone article. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't know which platforms specifically. Source just says "next-gen hardware". That is ambiguous and I don't think we should be making (seemingly obvious) assumptions on which platforms they are referring to if we can't verify it. The premise and description of the game we have so far is just a vague marketing statement that is covered in a single sentence. I don't see any harm in waiting until there is more concrete info. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This page receives a fair amount of traffic and it is textbook procedure to redirect vg titles until there are several different references about the game. With the dearth of material right now and likely until the official reveal, it's fine to build the article at the series article (summary style) and it can expand from there. I don't think further discussion on this matter will be fruitful. Plenty of other things to work on. czar  01:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So we're going to ignore the source provided and the snapchat videos, not to mention the fact that we can build a pretty decent pre-reveal article for a change, because you have established norms? Seems very anti-policy/guidelines to me. And I wholeheartedly don't agree. Never before has Activision done a reveal for a Call of Duty game this way. Never. We need to adapt. The article as it would stand today would easily pass WP:N and WP:GNG. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia , not a vg news site, and especially for a game like Black Ops III, an article with minimal information attracts speculation against WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL like flies. If we can't write a fair comprehensive article that is more than just release date and platforms, we shouldn't have an article yet particularly on a series that has year to year iterations with little change in each one. Contrast the little we know about Black Ops III to what Activision did for Guitar Hero Live - massive press coverage, articles covering the details of the new changes and the approach they took, etc. That's the type of information we really want when we are starting a new article so that we start off comprehensive and build from there. --MASEM (t) 12:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please read WP:TOOSOON - situations like this are basically why it was written. Take it easy, surely they'll be doing a huge blowout on it soon, at the latest by E3 which is just months away, and then it'll definitely have any article. If you're really that antsy, just build up the info at the series article, or the draft space. (Perhaps people seeing that could even persuade naysayers.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitman: Absolution[edit]

Hitman: Absolution needs its gameplay section improved. It would be pretty straight forward and easy for an experienced editor. There were requests at the talk page too. It would really improve the article. I will try myself tried. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

PvZ[edit]

If someone could take a look at Plants vs. Zombies, an editor is inserting unsourced genres into the infobox. Efforts to discuss with the user, who seemed to agree to go to the talk page and find sources, appear to have failed, as the user continues to change the infobox. I am at 3RR so am walking away. -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Image of River Phoenix at the Squall Leonhart article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Squall Leonhart#Image of River Phoenix. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time/GA1[edit]

So, the review of my article has started (I use the term "my" loosely - you know what I mean in the context of Wikipedia), and have realised that I'm in way over my head with this one. I am nearing the point where I feel like if I do any brutal copyediting to the article, I will only end up removing the info I worked so hard to find in the corners of the internet.

I think the best thing for the article is for someone here to take a look at it and see what they can do to make it better. I love the franchise and have worked a lot on this article, but have no "ownership" over it, and I don't think I can get it to GA by myself. So I think it would be fantastic if a more advanced editor took a crack at it, rather than me freaking out at the daunting task ahead. As mentioned before on this page, it is very rare for an edutainment game to be headed for GA, and this is from the popular Carmen Sandiego franchise, so I think it is quite an interesting topic to work on.--Coin945 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel like I'm the "more advanced editor" you are looking for, but it seems to me like the entire Historical accuracy-section consists of primary sources, whereas the entire synopsis section is unsourced. I am not worried about their factual accuracy, but I don't think the content of those two sections are entirely notable. Cutting both out entirely or looking for third party sources talking about the game's historical accuracy would probably make the article easier to maintain, more focused and more encyclopedic.
So... I'll just go ahead and do that, I guess. The rest of the article looks very good and a decent contender for GA, but I feel that a lot of less notable content is weighing it down. If someone more experienced thinks differently, please revert. ~Mable (chat) 16:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The first section (sourced to ProQuest) needs to be sourced to specific references, not a directory of sources. czar  16:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread XII: Mist and Graces Edition[edit]

The time has come again for this surprisingly successful strategy. The thread above is quite near the top and likely to vanish in the next couple of days, so it likely to be ignored. So I will create a new one down here. As per usual, editors are reminded that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests has a backlog that needs to be attended to. Willing volunteers more than welcome.

FAC
  • Children of Mana has been nominated since March 2. Has three supports and two in-progress reviews.
GAs
Peer Review

Note: All but Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time, Saints Row IV Lego Racers, and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island are already being reviewed already as can be seen. All the others are up for grabs. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Begging thread[edit]

I'm opening myself to all sorts, but I'll trade a GA or Peer Review of SXX 3 for a descent set of comments on the Type-0 or FE Awakening Peer Reviews or a review of The 3rd Birthday. I've already put in my two-bits for the Children of Mana FA. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I'd love to be able to help, but I feel way too inexperienced. I'm still trying to learn the ropes around here, and I usually forget a bunch of important stuff when looking over articles. Thanks for the offer though, I appreciate it. BlookerG talk 02:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@BlookerG: You gotta start somewhere. Might as well dive in and learn as you go. --JDC808 16:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@BlookerG: Easiest thing is to just go ahead and do a GA review, then ask here for a second opinion to double-check once you finish. --PresN 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Silent Hills Cancelled?[edit]

Seeing how Hideo Kojima might be leaving Konami after the release of the new Metal Gear game, I saw reports that the other game he's making, Silent Hills, is cancelled. Not sure if that's true, though. The link on the article is a bit vague. Might need someone to look at the page for a few days. Link. GamerPro64 03:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This article looks like bullshit to me. This quote in particular "Silent Hills has been cancelled. Hideo Kojima did not allow Konami to use the Fox Engine to make the game and Konami has since put the game on ice and my sources tell me that the project is now effectively cancelled," Cyberland reports."" That part is highly unlikely. Also their source, Cyberland, is just some dude on 4chan that constantly fabricates rubbish, he gets quoted on numerous other unreliable websites. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... "Kojima did not allow Konami to use the Fox Engine"? That's... that's not how game development works. Why would Kojima, employee of Konami, own the rights to an engine that was developed at Konami for Konami games? --PresN 17:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Drafts are drafts[edit]

Just a heads up, I've fiddled with the settings and the assessment table now shows Draft articles as being Drafts, rather than dumping them in the catch-all "Other" row. - X201 (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! --PresN 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

It has been proposed that GPLRank be merged into Grand Prix Legends. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

To Article or To Redirect that is the question - Halo Online[edit]

Don't know if this needs any consideration like in WT:VG#Black Ops III
--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to redirect it back to Halo (series)#Future until there is official release info or coverage on its development. So far it is just info from the press release announcement and a sentence on the leaked/modded version of the game. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is VideoGamer.com an unsafe site?[edit]

I have a problem. Lately, VideoGamer.com appears to be a safe website, but when I go on a website link, I get redirected to a report from Norton that says that VideoGamer.com is unsafe! It feels as though VideoGamer.com may be hijacked by a trojan! Can anything be done to rid VideoGamer.com of trojans and make the website safe again? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a rather interesting development. Is there a place do direct this concern to in the event something like this would happen? We have VideoGamer.com marked as a reliable source. Something like this being a new thing now might lead to some issues for readers passing by it. GamerPro64 04:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it may be that "VideoGamer.com" is redirected from "Pro-G.co.uk", which may have been why the VideoGamer.com site is marked as "unsafe". --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to add that it may also be because I use Google Chrome for this. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I've used VideoGamer on Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome, and I'm not encountering any warnings from Norton. There are some sites that work better on one browser or another for various reasons (makes some research interesting), but VideoGamer isn't giving me any grief. Siliconera and Gematsu did for a while, but once Iswitched to Chrome, they stopped that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This might be over zealous, but: make sure it's not your computer, with a virus and malware scan (I suggest Malwarebytes) Though I can't see a problem
--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hint - don't use Norton. - hahnchen 20:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Chambr (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Grand Prix Legends[edit]

The Grand Prix Legends article has gone a bit MySpace. Its got plenty of content, but it needs someone who is in a "batter it into shape" mood, section headings need renaming, tone needs altering, and a bit of pruning with the copy-edit shears wouldn't go amiss. Just giving a heads up if anyone is looking for a small task.- X201 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I started a bit, but stopped because I felt like virtually everything could be removed. Almost everything borders WP:GAMECRUFT territory, and anything that actually would be appropriate, is basically unsourced. In my opinion, I'd think the best route would be to basically start over and write it according to sources that would be dug up. I'm not familiar or interested in this sort of game though, so I'll leave that to whoever may want to take this on. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Luigi series up for deletion[edit]

Just a heads-up, as the template falls under the scope of this project. Nomination found here. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Any Warcraft fans here willing to help?[edit]

I've created the Sylvanas Windrunner character article off a split from Characters of Warcraft, but the "Role in Warcraft" section badly needs attention from an expert from the subject (shame WikiProject Warcraft exists no more...), as it was simply copied off from the original subsection. Any help and improvements would be greatly appreciated. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this character has significant coverage for the general notability guideline. All of the mentions that make up the reception are individually trivia, without depth. She would appear to be best expanded within the character list article. czar  11:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but I contest your notion of "significant coverage" - these sources are more than enough to establish notability, especially when compared to other articles - there's literally one article at AfD that is currently attracting !votes to keep literally because of only two sources. I've even seen BLPs with far less sources survive an AfD... Not saying this article can't be nominated, just saying I'd certainly be !voting to keep. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, I strongly believe that sources #3, #9, #13, and #14 in particular (as of revision 656718568 - numbering of sources may change over time) contain quite a bit of depth, and are most certainly not trivia'; the others also demonstrate the overall notability and impact of the character. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This article shouldn't go to AfD because deletion is not plausible and a redirect would be suitable. People can also argue to keep for no reason at all—the closer won't interpret the existence of two interviews as a valid keep rationale. BLPs can be kept for other subject-specific guidelines if not by sourcing and the general notability guideline. It remains that this character has no shown out-of-universe importance and that the majority of its discussion is in trivial (i.e., discussed in sources as trivia) capacities . It isn't to say anything against your work, but that those types of amalgamations are best for character Wikias and not for an encyclopedia. (edit conflict) As for those four sources, there is essentially a sentence about Sylvanas in each one—passing mentions that are the opposite of significant coverage. It's stuff that's suitable for a list of characters but not for a dedicated article, as there's little to say apart from that people mention her and that her story (within the context of a game) is all right. czar  12:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's that bad. It's not perfect, but the content does run a lot deeper than a lot of the fictional video game character articles, that largely equate to endless "Buzzfeed-esq website X called character Y the number 7 most hawt character in gaming. garbage comments. I think it either meets the GNG, or would be close enough that its worth working on rather than redirecting. (Though I know nothing of WOW, so I'm not the person for that...) Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I feel as if we have quite different interpretations of the GNG, "significant coverage" and what constitutes as a "passing mention", with yours being much more strict than mine, especially regarding fictional characters. I believe we had the same disagreement over the Sonic the Hedgehog characters debate quite a while back, with you !voting to redirect and me !voting to keep all of them, and the end result was somewhere in between. Nothing personal but due to this I doubt anything productive would come as a result of this discussion, so I think it'll be best if we were to close it for now and not comment further. Feel free to nominate for AfD if that's what you really want, but I'd much prefer to work on and improve the article more. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 13:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I can help. Let me know if you have specific questions on my talk page. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Wikiproject Proposal[edit]

I have just proposed a YouTube Wikiproject that would cover any Articles relevant to YouTube People, Culture, Organisations and Business

I would love to get lots of support for this --- :D Derry Adama (talk)

Vampire: The Masquerade Redemption[edit]

Paging User:Thibbs, User:JimmyBlackwing, and User:SubSeven. I am in need of references for the above and the directories have led me to yourselves.

  • Thibbs, I need Games' 164, (Vol 24, #7) 2000 October, from here
  • JimmyBlackwing, I need NextGeneration magazine (Lifecycle 1), Issue 53 May 1999, and NextGeneration magazine (Lifecycle 2) Issue 1, 1999 September, and Issue 8, August 2000.
  • SubSeven, I need PCGamer US 2000 September.

If any of you can provide any of these materials I would be grateful. I have lots of development info so I'm mostly interested in receptions/awards/plot/story/characters/gameplay info as I'm struggling to find this on the net.

Thanks all.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The 9/99 issue has just a handful of screenshots with uninspiring captions. There's a meaty preview in 5/99 and a review in 8/00—I'll get those scanned as soon as I have the chance. In the meantime, I dredged up some CGM articles: Preview Part 1 and Part 2, Second Preview Part 1 and Part 2, Interview. Don't know if these will be useful, but I figured they'd be worth looking at. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jimmy! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh wow. I checked out the article (Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption) because I thought to myself "who ever has enough development info that they specifically don't want any more?" The answer is you. That's a crazy-long dev section! I'm mildly concerned that you've pulled in too much from the Gamasutra ref 41/43, since you have about 6 paragraphs just from that big piece, but whatever, that may just be jealousy talking. --PresN 20:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The Gamasutra article was an amazing find, I struggled with web sources for the game, but when I came across that, it was a goldmine of pure development information. I wish all games were that easy, it even had a budget! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll try to get a scan up tomorrow. -Thibbs (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Importance of eSports articles[edit]

Would there be a problem with upping the importance of all the current eSports Tournies/Leagues, Players, Teams and Commentators to Top importance.

I've identified ~138 eSports biographies, not all are active in the scene any more, there's likely about ~20 teams and ~10 Tournies/Leagues that also would be applicable. There's only 46 articles in the Top, category so it shouldn't be too much of impact

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Video game --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there would be a problem; it would be completely inappropriate. Top is for articles that "reflect the basis of video gaming and not so much the hallmarks of the fields". It's for entire genres, the history of video games itself, basic ideas like Video game console, etc., not Day9. The most important ~50 articles out of ~30,000. Not for whatever current eSports tournaments are around to play 4-5 games in. I could see them as Mid ("Notable gaming phenomenons and specialized topics"), but that's about it. Given that there's an eSports task force, I'd recommend reworking the articles section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports to rank the top-importance articles for eSports instead. --PresN 03:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
My stance is similar to PresN - this eSports stuff may be important to eSports, but little, if any, of it falls into the top importance as far as the scheme of video games on a whole. I also oppose. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it makes more sense to discuss whether eSports itself should go into top priority, with which I can agree. Other than that, MOBA might make it, though I doubt it. I'm surprised fighting game isn't top priority, hmm, seems like MOBA doesn't even come close to its importance. We should also note that no single game is top importance according to our guidelines, so making a team or tournament top importance seems silly. If you want to make a social event top importance, the first thing to look at might be E3. Just my two cents :) ~Mable (chat) 11:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)