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, 110, 111, 112
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


Changes to developers/publishers and related categories by IP[edit] (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 (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) (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) (talk · contribs) and (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: (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 (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 (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: (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: (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: (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 - (talk · contribs) - too. Already blocked and reverted. Same kind of issues, misguided category choices. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another: (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, (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 (talk · contribs). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Found another, (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: - X201 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User: is today's. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted both yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User: is today's. -- ferret (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Second of today, actually, I was alerted of one directly on my talk page. Both blocked and reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Move this from talk page[edit]

@Ferret, X201, Sergecross73, PresN, The1337gamer, Juhachi, and Favre1fan93: Can we either move this to WP:SPI or WP:LTA or set up a separate subpage (at e.g. WP:WikiProject Video games/Abuse) for this? Given the continuing activity, this talk page is probably not the best location for the continuing reports, which are are mostly being made experienced users. Or look into an WP:Edit filter for this continuing behavior? --Izno (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I guess? I don't see a problem keeping it here...what are we, short on space or something? I don't really see any other avenue working any better. As you said, a lot of experienced users are already on this, and no ones got anything better than this, which I don't personally mind - it's easy to clean up with rollback. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
My point is that this is becoming routine and does not (particularly) impact the work that one would use a page like this talk page for, which is for (variously) collaboration on articles and discussion of contention on articles. Since these reports/problems are routine at this point, I figure it should get its own subpage (or otherwise) for interested users to track to let the rest of us who use this talk page for more substantive stuff to do so. (If you want the really sad answer, it clutters up my watchlist with stuff I really don't care about--I suspect a number of other users don't care either--and I figure the people who do could stand to have this on its own page so they can have their regularly scheduled WT:VG back.) Besides which, a talk page really isn't the best place for this kind of stuff. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the discussion of cleaning up the work of a vandal recurring exclusively on video game related articles isn't appropriate for the WPVG talk page? If you're not interested in it, just ignore it everytime that section title shows up on the WATCHLIST edit summary. That's what I do every time someone starts up another GA Review begging thread... Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 28 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 (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.-- (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)

B/W2 is clearly notable enough for its own article, and it has been since probably before its release. Just because it isn't in its own article doesn't mean it shouldn't have identifying art. We judge the requirement for identifying artwork on the subject, not where that subject sits. - hahnchen 19:39, 22 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)

To me, it looks like there's reasons why we could allow both, but not really any saying that we should keep them both. NFC and precedent (Pokemon and Sonic games, for example) are against it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
A stronger precedent is Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons, which are two explicitly different games with only one cover. I don't see any real discussion over the second cover's design, so I don't really see why it needs to be in the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Two explicitly different games should have two explicitly different covers. Neither cover may be discussed, but a notable subject justifies identifying artwork. - hahnchen 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a limit as to how many games can be the primary subject of an article before there are too many covers? Or do you feel that if Smash 4 had 10 different versions that were equal, we should have 10 game covers?
The problem with your logic is that if Smash Wii U was notable enough to need its own identifying cover, it would need its own article too. I mean, let's take Super Mario Advance for instance. SMA is a notable game - a launch title for the Game Boy Advance and the progenitor of a series of games - but it is not notable enough to need its own cover. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 23 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)


There are now two teasers, 14 snapchat teasers, sources about how Deus Ex-like the game is. There is more than enough for a standalone article here 24 hours before the reveal. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 23:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the rush? It's 24 hours. Tomorrow you'll have a wealth of more details and higher quality sources to use. -- ferret (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The point is that we have confirmed information now, and enough to start an article. But fine, we'll wait another 16 hours. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 02:40, 26 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)
@Darkwarriorblake: Next Gen May 1999: 39, 40, 41, 42. Next Gen August 2000: 84, 85. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jimmy, I don't suppose there is an author for the preview article is there? All I can see is the NG as a signature. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, Next Gen articles were anonymous until Lifecycle 2. I think standard practice is just to leave the author field blank on Lifecycle 1 NG citations. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've been able to put the scans to good use! Thanks Jimmy and Thibbs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Article is looking good! Here are the PC Gamer scans - [1] --SubSeven (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SubSeven. Do you know what issue that is? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Volume 7, Issue 9 --SubSeven (talk) 22:31, 20 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)

Video game articles requesting screenshots[edit]

What is the purpose of counting Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots? Seems academic.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It's a maintenance category. It's not actually part of the encyclopedia. It's useful for tracking tasks that need to be done. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Which tasks to be done?--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This particular task is for adding screenshots to articles that do not currently have any. Reach Out to the Truth 22:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Why? Screenshots not important, they are to complement text, you can't just dump screenshots on articles without proper text.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Each article is viewed by human beings before adding requested images. If an article doesn't need an image, nobody is forced to add one. Reach Out to the Truth 22:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It is appropriate per NFC policy that in describing a notable game, one non-free screenshot to establish how the game is shown to the player as part of describing the gameplay. We presume that if the game is notable (that is, having critical reception), it's gameplay can be documented and thus illustrating it is helpful. There are exceptions, and we also want to encourage free game screenshots (which is possible thanks to the work of some editors in this project) whenever possible. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Calling all self-appointed experts[edit]

I'm making my way through Category:Video games articles needing expert attention (cleaning up each as best as I can and removing the tag) if anyone wants to join me. Count started around 85. Once it gets to zero, maybe we can discuss retiring it? czar  23:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

To bring some focus back to this section (since Czar's managed to get it down to 53 from 85 by himself!), I agree that the category should be retired. It's not clear how it's distinct from "articles that need attention", its sister category, for one thing. For a second, I don't know if either category should exist- any article that's less than, say, B-class "needs attention", so why are the articles in this category(s) special? Is it just that we don't have an easy way for editors to ask for help on an article (in which case it's failing, no one checks these categories before now), or are the cats added by driveby taggers who just want someone else who supposedly knows more to fix the problems they noticed, rather than people invested in the article? --PresN 18:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars: Battlefront merge proposal[edit]

There has been a merge proposal by an editor at Star Wars: Battlefront (2015 video game). Any input would be good. Chambr (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-diffusing console exclusives[edit]

Why are the console exclusive categories (e.g., Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment System-only games) templated "non-diffusing"? Am I missing some kind of use case? It should follow that if a game is a console exclusive, it will not also be a member of the parent category nor a member of any other "console game" category. Or is the idea that it could also be a member of sister categories such as "Cancelled Super Nintendo Entertainment System games"? My real question is whether removing "SNES games" from a game already categorized as "SNES-only games" is the right action. czar  03:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a consensus that "(Platform name) games" should contain all games for the given platform regardless of any other differentiating factor. The reason is because of WP:DUPCAT, "...some are simply subsets which have some special characteristic of interest,...", being a platform exclusive is just a small characteristic of a game, the more important factor is that its a Super Nintendo Entertainment System game. - X201 (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Additional - Sorry forgot to answer your direct question. A game should be present in both The parent and the "only" categories. As for cancelled games; its a case of when do we decide to call it a SNES game, when its released it gets called that, but if its being developed is it a SNES game then?, I would say yes and so apply the same DUPCAT rule to the Cancelled category and have the game in both cats. - X201 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Gran Turismo and Forza vandalism[edit]

There's an IP user that seems to disagree with Gran Turismo and Forza being described as simulators, they are changing simulator to game in the prose, and moving the category from simulator to game. Keep your eyes open for it happening on any other articles. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you check the sim racing page you will see that both games don't fit the description. Maybe there should be a new category simcade which is popular term in the racing video games communities. I might not be answering properly here but bear with me I'm a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UglyTroll (talkcontribs) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
They fit the definition on Sim racing perfectly ("...attempts to accurately simulate auto racing (a racing video game), complete with real-world variables such as fuel usage, damage, tire wear and grip, and suspension settings"), and Gran Turismo is even listed as an example. - X201 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, both titles are pretty much the exact definition of simulation racing. How much more realistic do we need it to make it be a sim? Super complicated special controllers akin to Steel Battalion? Making new terms is not an option here either - Wikipedia documents what is already in existence, it does not coin new terms or phrases. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You are using "perfectly" way too lightly. The fit would be perfect to a simcade category as these games are far from realistic or acurate. racing game is still a correct category as sim racing is a subset.--UglyTroll (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, "racing simulators" are a proper subset of "racing game", specifically focused on a game that attempts a level of realism w.r.t. driving and physics. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm positive that reliable sources much more commonly call them sim racing than "simcade", which Wikipedia doesn't even recognized as a game genre, nor does anyone outside of a few random forum posts which would not be usable as a source. Wikipedia has to go according to what sources say. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
On the same page, the games in question are listed as Semi-simulation. I think moving them to the more general "racing video game" category is valid. --UglyTroll (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Articles can't be used as sources for other articles. Similarly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As Sergecross correctly stated, the gaming press refers to these games as simulators, which makes them independent and reliable sources. Personal opinions and observations should not enter into this. --McDoobAU93 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Simcade is a relatively new term but here are some sources using it: I think isrtv invented it but not sure.

You will mostly see it used by reviewers dedicated to sim racing which are less popular than the mainstream ones.--UglyTroll (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Also interesting to note that none of these sources places either Gran Turismo or Forza Motorsport in those categories. Only one even uses the term Gran Turismo, and it's only in the sense that the reviewer wanted something similar to what was in GT. The clear majority of reviewers of both games refer to them as simulation racers. --McDoobAU93 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an appeal to popularity fallacy. And the question isn't whether the titles are in this category, the question is whether the category exists. --UglyTroll (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Category exists, no question of it. Provide a source that places GT or Forza in these categories and the discussion can continue. --McDoobAU93 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Not the same word and the site is currently down

racesimcentral screenshot However despite having sources, we can't pick an authority between them. So I think we should first get a proper description for the new category and then check which titles fit it.--UglyTroll (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I really think you should slow down and try to learn more about how Wikipedia works before you go about trying to revamp things. Your suggestions so far don't really mesh well with policy. Like I said, on Wikipedia, we write according to what reliable sources say. See WP:V and WP:RS on what that means, and see WP:VG/S for a huge list of websites that are generally considered usable or not usable. Also, make sure to stay clear of original research - we need to go by what the sources say, not what we can synthesize with our own personal conclusions. You may better persuade people once you can formulate a plan that gels better with these sorts of things... Sergecross73 msg me 12:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Fan-sites don't rise to WP:RS standards, and this appears to be a fan-site for racing games. They have their hierarchy for such games, while another fan-site may have a hierarchy that places GT and Forza in the simulation category. Neither qualify as sources, as Serge points out. --McDoobAU93 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there is no reliable source then? If all majority and significant minority views have to be covered it won't fall in any subcategory and we are back to square one.--UglyTroll (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it took me all of 30 seconds to find a reliable source for Gran Turismo being referred to as a racing simulation - see this IGN source. Also, while not directly stated literally, its pretty apparent by this GameSpot article that they consider GT a simulation racer, or the premise of the entire article doesn't make sense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
They don't cover minority views.--UglyTroll (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. And as such, neither does Wikipedia (when policy is being followed.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
From Identifying_reliable_sources "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" I don't see what makes IGN reliable and sites dedicated to sim racing unreliable.--UglyTroll (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:SOURCE "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." - X201 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Resident Evil chronology[edit]

I just want to let everybody know that I nominated Template:Resident Evil chronology for deletion. If anyone cares, please discuss this matter at TfD. Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Joystiq is now Engadget![edit]

In response to the topic that has since been archived here, I've just discovered something: When I went to the Joystiq link shown here, it is now redirected to the Engadget link here! So it seems that Engadget has preserved old Joystiq reviews! The proof is in the Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 3D article I've edited. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this the other day too. They open up as Engadget links, but they're still the same Joystiq articles. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment of the Sources Idea[edit]

I was originally thinking of putting this in the Sources talk page, but I wanted to run this idea through here since it'll probably get more discussion here. Now, I've been thinking about how there are a lot of sources that are used on multiple articles that are part of this project. They have either been deemed Reliable, Situational, Unreliable, or just have no consensus on what they should be marked as. A couple of these decisions were made years ago, which makes me wonder if their reliability status has changed over the years. What I'm suggesting is possibly reassessing sources to see if they still hold up on being reliable or maybe deem a site as not being unreliable anymore. Thoughts? GamerPro64 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of me says anything that would make us more accurate with our stances on sources would be a good thing, but part of me says - "If it ain broke, don't fix it" - no use reviewing non-conentious things when there's so many things out there to be done that do need attention. I don't really want to, but I know that, if it happened, I'd be there giving my two cents on the matter too probably. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There may be date issues to this. "Don't use prior to 2015 but OK after" etc. - X201 (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would think that we can do this by current mechanisms. If anyone finds a preponderance of evidence that a site is no longer reliable or unreliable (or never was in the first place), they should bring it to the Sources talk page for discussion and reconsideration. czar  16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, unless there is evidence that a significant number of sources are mislabled I don't see why the current system would not work.-- (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Super Mario Land for Virtual Boy[edit]

Digging through the archives, I saw some Internet forum rumors of a "Super Mario Land" sequel for Virtual Boy that was canceled in development. Do any WPVG super sleuths know anything about it, or better, have some reference I can use? It would even be good to know if it was related to the Wario Land VB game. czar  14:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

VB Mario Land was shown at WCES 1995. Here's the footage, and information pages at MarioWiki and PlanetVB. TMK also has a short blurb on the topic, and a few screenshots from three different MP issues -- tracking these issues down is sure to provide a lot more information! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
List of Virtual Boy games (where VB Mario Land redirects) makes mention of a "Mario Adventure" unreleased platformer game, referencing the July-August 2000 issue of Big N Magazine (see here?) -- it's not clear if this is the same unreleased game, but surely the magazine issue must have more information. I can't view it from work, though. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I know what you're talking about, but my knowledge is basically limited to about what Salv has already provided. I looked into trying to start an article on it a ways back, but I couldn't find enough coverage to personally feel comfortable with creating it and being able to not have it be sent to AFD or a redirect discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been mulling over some sort of a "merge" of the few unreleased Mario games about which we know enough to talk about, but for which a "full article" is doomed to remain stalled -- Super Mario 128 and Super Mario's Wacky Worlds are the currently standalone ones, but there's surely a bunch of others that are already discussed inside other articles or lists.
Alternatively, since (by some accounts), VB Mario Land eventually mutated into Mario Clash, maybe it could be discussed in its own section there. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I tried that angle back in the day when I was writing it with you, actually, but it seems like I was having a hard time finding a RS speculating that. Could be wrong though, it's been a while. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There's already a small mention of Mario Clash originally being a sequel titled Mario Bros. VB, sourced to EGM's January 1995 issue. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
ONM connects the two.[2] I'm not completely clear on how list notability works (or how a List of unreleased Mario games article would go down—I would think that it isn't worth making a list unless there were articles written about "unreleased Mario games"), but I'm thinking to gather all RS that mention VB Mario Land and Wacky Worlds and just giving them two-sentence mentions apiece in the Super Mario series article. I think that's fair. There appears to be a ton more coverage for 128, so any unreleased Mario game list would be really heavy on 128 coverage. For my original question, though, there doesn't appear to be any apparent connection between the Super Mario Land series and the VB game. czar  16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The current state of shmup articles[edit]

For the past few days, I've been improving and trying to standardize the format of shmup game pages. I started with most of the games by Cave and I noticed some glaring issues. Most articles are either:

If there is one constant however, is that almost all articles are borderline unreferenced. Even if I wanted to, I can’t do all of the sourcing by myself, which is why I’ve reached out to you to see if you would be interested in helping out in this task. This is definitely where the most help is needed. Here are some websites that provide a very good source of validation for most of what’s already written are:

As a side note, it would be ideal to at least have a paragraph in the key sections of the weaker articles for gameplay (specifically scoring) and releases (arcade, console, etc). The same criteria applies to company pages. I’ve already done a fair cleanup for the pages of Cave, MOSS, Triangle Service, Milestone, and G.Rev. Unfortunately, a fair share of this genre’s titles aren’t released overseas and sometimes are even region-locked. It would be a very good resource if it could be stated on each company page which games are available in all regions, have regional locks, etc.

Finally, the other resource I wanted to start creating was a list containing all shmup developers, similar to the existing list for fighting game companies. Unlike other genres, there aren’t many developers around who produce these kinds of games anymore. It could be a valuable source for newcomers to the genre. Thanks for taking the time to read this! Jotamide (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


There is a discussion about Bloodborne going on here and here. Feel free to take part. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Silent Hills Cancelled? Pt. 2[edit]

Well I didn't expect to make another one of these threads so quickly but it seems that Silent Hills may or may not be cancelled this time. It's really hard to tell since, While even Guillermo del Toro said it is, Konami itself has not made a statement just yet. Can we get some more eyes on this page? GamerPro64 03:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Konami has not stated if the game has been canceled. People are just assuming because del Toro isn't apart of the project anymore, the entire game must have been canceled. I'd be reverting all the recent edits, but everything is too ambiguous currently, so I'll simply wait until the dust settles before attempting to fix the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Update - It's officially canceled now. GamerPro64 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Citation needed  ;-) - X201 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I organize a development section properly?[edit]

So I started reading the dev blog for Thimbleweed Park, and realized that almost the entire development process, including a lot of detail about the budget, etc, is documented so far. I've never actually experienced that before (Broken Age comes close, though), so I'm kind of at a loss at how to organize all this information in the article. Do I do it entirely chronologically, and if so, would I make use of sub-sections such as "January 2016"? Or do I have one section about everything design related, then one about everything programming related, etc.? Are there any other games with heavily documented development processes, whose articles I could look at? --IDVtalk 07:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming/Early Access?[edit]

I was thinking about this when I looked at the page for Killing Floor 2 and it said upcoming. Since it is out for Steam early access, should it say early access instead? Has this issue been ever discussed? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I reworded it. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)