Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Backwards compatibility

So, since a user is making changes amongst a number of articles in regards to this, I figured it might be better to come to a general agreement here, rather than starting up several concurrent discussions at the respective articles.

Okay, so sometimes, Backwards Compatibility is pretty clear cut. A Wii plays all Gamecube games. 3DS plays just about all DS games. But User:Arkhandar, I believe, is being too loose with the defintion. For example, he wants to put Sega Game Gear as a backwards compatible platform for the Nintendo 3DS just because Sega has digitally re-released a handful of titles for the system. I feel that label is misleading, backwards compatible seems to imply you can dig out all of your GG cartridge and plug them into a 3DS, or play most/all of the libary of the system. The truth is, Sega made 5 or 10 out of a library of 100's playable. We don't list that the PlayStation 3 is backwards compatible with the Sega Genesis because you can download Sonic 2 on PSN, right? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on this? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

System Y is backwards compat with System X iff one can use (most of) X's original game media (physical, not digital) in Y's hardware. Having a game from X available digitally on a storefront to be downloaded to console Y is not backwards compatibility, that's just a port. (The "most of" is a qualifier for the Xbox 360 b.c. with Xbox 1 titles, and I'm sure there's some games that simply just don't work right in the newer system). --MASEM (t) 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the user is definitely confusing backward compatibility with porting. Backward compatibility means, as you said, that the hardware inputs (or equivalent) on newer consoles are the same or similar enough to accommodate the discs or cartridges of older consoles. Porting means that the game has been rewritten or recompiled or reissued to work on incompatible hardware. Essentially, they are the opposite of each other: backward compatibility suggests that the newer product was designed to work with the older, whereas porting suggests that the older product had to be remade in some way because there was no such backward compatibility. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've been researching this myself. I would agree that "backwards compatibility", in regards to gaming consoles, implies that Console B will run Console A's games whenever a Console A game is inserted into Console B. Consoles that emulate or run ported versions of earlier games, such as Wii's Virtual Console or the various classic game ports for everything from PCs to tablets, should not be considered backwards compatible. If we said it was, the Xbox 360 that runs a ported version of Streets of Rage would be considered BC with the Genesis, and since I can't plug a Genesis cart into my Xbox 360, that comes across as overly stretching a point, at best, or inaccurate, at worst.

That said, and speaking of the Xbox 360, I'm having a time rationalizing the Xbox 360 being backwards compatible with the original Xbox since (a) not every game can run and (b) a downloaded software emulator is required. Then there's the BC obtained by addition of a special device, such as the Power Base Adapter that allowed a Genesis to play Sega Master System games, and the Super Game Boy that allowed a Super NES to play Game Boy titles. So, by these standards, is an SNES backward compatible with a Game Boy? --McDoobAU93 19:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's still, for the most part, using the same media (which did differ between consoles); the small patches are to fix some issues but otherwise you're still using all the assets from the original game media. If anything, it would be partially BC since not every Xbox 1 title works on it. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at the definition of Backward compatibility before making any assumption. As for your example, being the PlayStation 3 backwards compatible with the Sega Genesis because you can download Sonic 2 on PSN is just pure nonsense because that's ultimately considered a port for both Sony, devs and consumers since it doesn't fall into any kind of re-releasing universal service (like Virtual Console) . As for the Sega Game Gear being a backwards compatible platform for the Nintendo 3DS "just because Sega has digitally re-released a handful of titles for the system" is still considered backwards compatibility no matter the number of titles Sega decides to support it with. As Iwata himself said, in E3 2005, Virtual Console is redefining of the hardware backwards compatibility, and since every system I've categorically put on the pages I edited belongs to the Virtual Console service, then it should be considered as such. --Arkhandar (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So, your stance that if a digital re-release is on PSN, it's not considered "backwards compatibility", but if it's released on VC, then it is? That doesn't make any sense, they're virtually the same type of release! Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What Masem said. Basically, to be called backwards compatible a system has to be designed to be able to run the majority of games without modification. Re-release is a re-release/port and nothing to do with backwards compatibility. If the game's code has to be changed to fit a newer system, it is not backwards compatible on those grounds. If this reasoning fails, there is of course WP:V and WP:BURDEN, so one has to show a reliable source that says a system is backwards compatible. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the SNES is not backward compatible with a Game Boy. The SNES is compatible with a Game Boy, since they're from the approximate time frames / belong to the same generation so you can't really say it's "backwards compatible" but "compatible" instead. As for Sergecross73, yes, you're right. In PSN it shouldn't be considered backwards compatibility because there's currently no reliable source that says so. --Arkhandar (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also no source calling Game Gear is Backwards Compatible with 3DS, unless you'd like to present that... Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, but there's this (pro tip: it applies to GameGear on 3DS too): "Finally, I'd like to give you one full answer to a piece of the Revolution puzzle I talked about recently: Backward compatibility. As I said, the disk drive will accept GameCube games, but we are redefining the term "Backward Compatibility." That is because we have designed the Revolution to be a Virtual Console, with the ability to download 20 years of Nintendo content. You will be able to purchase games originally created for Nintendo, Super Nintendo, and Nintendo 64. It is accurate to say that Nintendo Revolution is technically capable of playing virtually every Nintendo game ever created." - Satoru Iwata @ IGN.com (http://uk.ign.com/articles/2006/02/08/looking-back-e3-2005?page=3). Isn't this the reliable source thing you taught me in the other talk page. So, there it is. What now? --Arkhandar (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nintendo can "redefine" all it wants. In that case, Nintendo becomes the source, and per WP:SELFSOURCE, there are limits to what kinds of such statements Wikipedia will allow. Item 1 under that guideline reads: "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". This comes across as marketing-speak from Nintendo touting its own system. If other reliable sources say the same thing, then it might be something to consider. However, the published gaming community widely regards Virtual Console as a legal emulator, not a means to make Wii (or 3DS) backwards compatible. --McDoobAU93 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Marketspeak. It's like car makers saying "We are redefining elegance with our new model." No, they aren't changing the definition of the word "elegance". Similarly, Nintendo is not changing how BC is defined, but what one would hope to expect with their console in considering playing the past library of games. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's exactly as Masem and McDoob say. The very fact that they say they have to "redefine" the term just goes to show that it doesn't in fact fit in the actual definition... Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This definitely sounds like someone not putting in a proper piece of info. It could be disastrously misleading for anyone reading it who wants to, say, play Resident Evil Code: Veronica on their 3DS, but can't because they have a Sega copy, to give a possible example. Yes, this has me more than a little worried. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why there's been the title "Virtual Console" before compatible systems and it has been added in parenthesis "(limited tittles)" to avoid situations like that. McDoobAU93 says: "However, the published gaming community widely regards Virtual Console as a legal emulator" - please give us a source to that. --Arkhandar (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it just seems you misunderstand the concept of backwards compatibility and porting or digital re-releases, and are just clinging to a misinterpretation of a Nintendo marketing buzzword/catchphrase. I'm going to remove it from the article because there has never been, nor is there now, any consensus or agreement that it should have been added like this in the first place... Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

As requested (properly) by Arkhandar: here's my source. Please note the first and last paragraphs of this story. As noted earlier, Gamespot's descriptions carry more weight than Nintendo's, in this case. --McDoobAU93 20:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There's zero mention of "backwards compatability" in that article. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I think we can all agree that "Virtual Console" and other downloadable titles from legacy systems should not be considered "Backwards Compatibility". This includes, of course, every platform to be released after 2005 (release of XBOX360). Does anyone oppose to this? --Arkhandar (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On principle, I wouldn't oppose that. But I'm curious as to why your redline is the Xbox 360. --McDoobAU93 20:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about that, it's just a placeholder since to my knowledge it was the first system to introduce official software emulation. (To clear things up: This whole thing started because the PSVita page had downloadable software as backwards compat. That's why I edited the other articles.) --Arkhandar (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Backwards compat offered as a feature where the user still put in the original disc from the older console and was able to play it on the newer system - regardless if that was directly through the hardware or as an immediately available software feature for the console - is still backwards compat. That is, the little wrappers one may have to dl for Xbox 1 games on the X360 to play the disc-based versions doesn't equate to emulation as would normally be considered. Similarly, the second run of PS3 units where there was software-based backwards-compat support for PS2 games is still backward compatibility even though it was an emulator to do that -- to the user sitting behind the controller, they put the old physical disc in the new system and began to play it. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just thought this would help. CHCSPrefect (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not as simple as that. This would make the entire Virtual Console library form both Wii, Wii U and 3DS backwards compatible with their supported systems.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

PSP/Vita situation

Okay, so for the most part, it seems like we're at an understanding regarding backwards compatibility. What about the PSP/Vita relationship though: Basically, the Vita only allows PSP compatibility through download only, as it doesn't have a UMD/disc drive. However, there's an endless list of sources that refer to PSVita having PSP backwards compatibility.(1UP.com, Siliconera, Eurogamer, etc etc.) I'm inclined to think this is an exception to what we're saying below, due to the sources, and because the systems are literally successors to one another, but I wanted to get input on this one too. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Although this is true to some point, the issues discussed in the argument above are still present in this situation. You still can't physically take your PSP games and play them on the Vita. Like it was already said above, these are re-released legacy titles, and shouldn't be considered true backwards compatibility. --Arkhandar (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I realize this, but it's also called backwards compatibility across the board by sources. And thus, the asking for more input. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Check the dates of those articles - mid 2011. I know for certain (as an avid PSP fan), that what was "backwards compatability" of the vita changed as the release date neared. Today, no one would call the Vita backwards-compat with the PSP, since you have to re-download the title to it as it uses no physical media. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, I think that's coincidence. Also, the 1UP ref is from Feb 2012, and I'm sure I can find more if I were to pay attention to the dates... Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless we're going back to the "redefinition of backward compatibility" argument, though, it seems like inter-article consistency should be the order of the day and perhaps we should avoid calling it backward compatible. Considering the term to be a redefinition, I think the general rule to avoid neologisms would apply, but is this is becoming an established usage in the RS realm then it might be best to use a prose subsection to explain exactly what is meant by "backward compatibility" in this sense. It might also be worthwhile updating the Backward compatibility article to reflect the new usage of this term if it is/becomes established. -Thibbs (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but that is not the point. The point is that is the PSVita is to be considered backwards compatible with PSP, then all other Virtual Console tiles should be considered as such since it's the same situation here. the key aspect here is how are we going to manage the definition of "backwards compatible". --Arkhandar (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If a new definition is emerging then we have to proceed with caution. Recognition of the new usage must be based on reliable sources, and I'd say that if the new definition grandfathers in other systems that previously wouldn't have been considered "backward compatible" then we'll still need sources saying that the older system (Virtual Console for instance) is backward compatible with the NES or whatever the specific claim is. I too am a big fan of consistency between articles and I appreciate what you're saying, Arkhandar, but it's tricky when we're talking about new definitions. Since they did away with the logic caveat, I think it would probably be original research to say that a system is backward compatible based on just our understanding of the term's new usage and our (personal) logical extrapolation to other systems. -Thibbs (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, we should proceed with caution. Since there are little to no reliable sources explaining this new concept as it is, than we should only consider as "backwards compatible" as it has been all these years, hardware compatibility that is, no emulated software included. --Arkhandar (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's all based on RSes in the end. If a direct case can be made through RSes then it may be worth mentioning in the article. If the evidence is indirect, though, (e.g. by comparison and extrapolation only) then we should wait for the world of RSes to catch up to the modern definition and we should only start using the term on WP if a direct RS-based case can be made. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Until then, "backwards compatibility" should stay as hardware compatibility only and no emulated software should be included in the definition. Does anyone oppose to this? --Arkhandar (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I won't push the topic if it's not supported here, though it's definitely not something I'm willing to try to explain/defend/enforce/clean up at the article either, as I'm sure this is something that will be re-added time and again, with all the sources that call it as such. If anyone feels strongly about it, you'll probably want to monitor it... Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if multiple RSes directly say that the Vita is backward compatible then this should be discussed and probably added to the article in some form (probably with an explanation of the repurposed term). And in that case the "backward compatibility" article could probably do with an update. I don't think that any amount of RSes stating the Vita to be backward compatible can be used to support a claim that the Virtual Console is backward compatible though. -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why can't RSes stating the Vita to be backward compatible be used to support a claim that the Virtual Console is backward compatible if it is literally the same process in those systems? --Arkhandar (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it would be considered original research ever since they did away with the deductive logic caveat. We now have to have sources that explicitly state the claims they back up. A source stating that the Vita is backward compatible with the PSP directly supports that exact claim, but it cant be used to extrapolate the definition to other systems even if it's just deductive logic. What can I say? Wikipedia has weird rules. -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because it would be our conclusion that it is the same process. No proof has been provided that it is. And let us not forget that the PSP had downloadable-game support natively. If anything, the Vita's closest analogue would be the PC ... software written for earlier operating systems can often (but not always) run on newer operating systems (a game written for Windows 98 may run on Windows XP if XP is told to mimic 98), provided you can get the software into the system. --McDoobAU93 14:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Then again let us not forget that the Wii had downloadable-game support natively too. So by this philosophy, the Wii U would be backwards compatible with Wii's Virtual Console, making it backwards compatible with all these systems:

• NES/Family Computer
• Super NES/Super Famicom
• Nintendo 64
• Sega Master System
• Sega Mega Drive/Genesis
• TurboGrafx-16/PC Engine
• Neo Geo
• Commodore 64
• MSX
• Virtual Console Arcade
  

You can't play these games with their original cartridges, but you can play them with your original purchase (downloads). --Arkhandar (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A key difference though is that no third party sources are defining the VC at backwards compatibility. All there has been shown is that one marketing-ploy by Nintendo, and even that claimed they were "redefining" the term, which kinda goes to show it doesn't fit the definition outside of that statement... Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Forget that marketing-ploy thing, we already got past that. What I was talking was that like the PSP, the Wii had downloadable-game support natively. So if you consider the Vita backwards compatible with the PSP, then it would made sense that the Wii U would be backwards compatible with the entire Wii's virtual console. And, like I said, in both systems you can't play these games with their original cartridges from older systems, but you can play them with your original purchase (purchased downloads). I know that this is considered original research, but there aren't many RS's justifying that PSVita is backwards compatible with PSP too. --Arkhandar (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There are tons of RS's calling PSVita backwards compatible with the PSP. I stopped at three because I thought listing more would be overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And like the Playstation Vita / Playstation Portable backwards compatible relationship between them, there are also tons of RS's calling Wii U backwards compatible with Virtual Console / WiiWare(Inside Gaming, GenGame, ScrewAttack, Edge, etc.). --Arkhandar (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I read each of those articles you cited. Each one refers to the Wii U being backward compatible to Wii, something that was already known. In other words, the Virtual Console emulator will also be available on the Wii U, allowing users to bring their emulated software over to their new console. None of that proves that emulated and backward compatible are interchangeable terms. --McDoobAU93 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And where does it say that emulated and backward compatible are interchangeable terms in the PSvita sources? Take ScrewAttack for example, it specificaly says: "Wii U to be backwards compatible with old Virtual Console titles". --Arkhandar (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your'e not proving the right point with your examples. You're giving examples of the Wii U being backwards compatible with Wii features, in this case, the VC. It's still not saying that the VC itself is an example of backwards compatibility. The only thing you're proving is that the Wii U is backwards compatible with the Wii, which so far no one has contested. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point the ScrewAttack article could just as easily be interpreted as the Wii U being backward compatible with the Virtual Console service and not the individual consoles the games that can be purchased on that service originally appeared on.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

So just so there's a clear answer either way, should the PlayStation Vita backwards-compatibility list include digital downloads, like minis and PSone content from the PS Store? I'm running into trouble again with User:Arkhandar who is rejecting sources that I include to back up the inclusion of minis and PSone classics as "backwards compatible," but they continue to revert the changes I make. I'm at a dead end here and would like a clear answer either way. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean, I support what you're doing, but I guess there really hasn't been a consensus for Vita/PSP yet... Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a PlayStation Vita myself so I can be of help here. The Vita does not have a UMD Drive so the games and movies are down to downloads but as big as the downloadable collection is on the PlayStation Store there are games that have not made it on there such as Secret Agent Clank and no doubt there are others. This also covers movies since the Vita currently only has games on the shelf. CHCSPrefect (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I think it's reasonable to say that the PSVita has limited backwards compatibility with the PSone and PSP, just like the Wii, for example, has limited backwards compatibility with Virtual Console tittles.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, regarding the Vita, no towards the VC. As we've already been through, there's pretty strong consensus against that wording regarding the VC. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's just a naming difference. Both systems literally work the exact same way.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You can come to whatever personal conclusions you want, I'm just reminding you that both consensus and sources don't support altering the 3DS or Wii U articles to say they're backwards compatible with any system that games originate from on the Virtual Console. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, yet again myself and others have added that PSone Classics and PS minis are backwards compatible with PS Vita, and yet again, User:Arkhandar has reverted. I suspect this will continue to go on indefinitely. Can we get some sort of clear answer to refer back to in future situations like these? Should these be added to the backwards compatibility section of the PlayStation Vita article or not? --GSK ● talk ● evidence 21:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I've said before, while I personally consider PSP, Mini's, and PS1 games all to be "backwards compatible, it's hard to get the literal wording on the last two. (There's plenty of sources for PSP, like this CNET carticle, but there's never that explicitly says "backwards compatible" and "ps1" in them. If one can be found, I'd support it. Otherwise, I'd say leave them out and only list PSP. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This should avoid any future conflicts.--Arkhandar (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not agree with this decision, but I will respect it. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Platform(s) field in infobox

I've just had a disagreement with an editor over whether appearances in compilations should be included in the "platform(s)" field of the video game infobox. I am of the opinion that a compilation including the game's content being released for a platform is not the same as the game itself being released for the platform. I checked the documentation at Template:Infobox video game for guidance, but it has nothing to say about compilations, so I'm asking you all here if there is a consensus on the issue one way or the other. If so, I think it should be added to the Template:Infobox video game documentation.

Another thing to consider is that, if a compilation including a game's content being released for a platform is considered the same as the game itself being released for the platform, this affects some non-compilation games by extension. For example, Space Harrier should be listed as being on the Dreamcast (which it currently is not) since its content is included in Shenmue, and Deep Scan should be listed as being on the Saturn (which it currently is), since its content is included in the Saturn port of Die Hard Arcade. And Doom II should be listed as being on both the Saturn and PlayStation, since their respective ports of Doom include the vast majority of Doom II's levels and other assets; currently, the article doesn't even mention this fact, much less reflect it in the "platform(s)" field.

Obviously there's not much consistency on Wikipedia on the subject, so any thoughts you guys have would be appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Platforms listed should be for those where the game got a standalone release, nothing more. The more complex situations you describe can be discussed in more depth in the body, but there's already little room in the infobox to assert a game on a system it was never released as a single title for but being as part of another. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Without too much digging, I would say yes, games in compilations ported to another system should be considered as games for that platform. These are ports after all, no matter how they are presented (e.g. in compilation). Technically, most compilations are just pretty marketing wrappers with game code being stand-alone and gameplay-independent. That said, I don't think they should be listed in |platform= field, because those are not discrete/stand-alone releases, which I would assume the field is for. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is used as a summary of the article itself; if the game is available on that platform, it makes sense to list it in that field, unless some reliable source can be found which dictates what is considered "on a platform or not", it seems like removing them from the field based on criteria that we came up with would be out personal interpretation of it. If a given game is available on a platform, it doesn't make sense not to include it just because it was a port of that game or isn't a standalone release. I think it would make more sense to list them and explain the standalone aspect as opposed to not listing them. I see two scenarios here: one of them where a reader looks at the platform field and sees that a game is listed on a platform they own. If clarification is needed, the reader can look in the article for an explanation of the summary given (similar to the lede). In the other scenario it isn't listed in the infobox, and the reader would have to read the article in-depth to see the information. A reader doesn't in-depth read every article they come across, so that might be overlooked and makes the article seem incomplete if the summary is half-correct. Including the information in the infobox would be a benefit here, and I don't see any reason not to include it. - SudoGhost 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I kind of have to agree. And it gets a bit tricky when you try and define what constitutes a compilation. Metroid Prime was on the Wii. Space Channel 5 was on PS2. Do they not count because they came with 2 and 1 other games? (Both are currently listed in their infoboxes as I type this). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost - First of all, you seem to have misunderstood my last edit summary at Shining Force II. I posted on this page in hopes of finding that there was already a consensus on this matter; since there is not, I just linked you to my rationale here, since it was too long to fit in the edit summary. In any case, there is no "after the fact" - this is not an AfD or merger proposal. Anyway, as for your two scenarios argument, you're assuming that Wikipedia is a buyer's guide; in fact, it is an encyclopedia.

Melodia - I don't see the problem with the two examples you cite. From what I understand, Metroid Prime Trilogy contains remakes of Prime 1 and 2, not the original games, so it's clearly not a compilation. And Space Channel 5 on the PS2 was a standalone release. In general, when it comes to video games, there is a very clear line between compilation/not compilation. In the meantime, no one has addressed the examples I brought up which make the inclusion of compilations in the field problematic.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no issue, "Is the game available on a platform?" If the answer is yes, it makes no sense not to include it in the infobox, and if it needs to be explained in the article proper, that can be done but not to the exclusion of information in the infobox, because that's the entire point of the infobox. When you decide that editor interpretation of what "counts" dictates the article's content, that becomes a mess because what you call "clearly not a compilation" I would say clearly is, and "it's a compilation so it doesn't count" isn't a very compelling argument, it's not as if a game does not exist on a certain platform just because it is not a standalone User:Martin IIIa approved version. - SudoGhost 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that attitude is that by saying the game can be emulated on a different platform than it was actually retailed on, then we start to basically include platforms the game was not designed to run on but hacked to do so. EG: I could claim every Wii game should have Microsoft Windows due to the Dolphin unofficial emulator, which no, doesn't make sense.

It would make sense to include all original retail platforms as well as platforms for which the game was released for as part of a larger collection (eg: the God of War games being on the PS3 due to the HD collections). When a game is an easter egg or equivalent inside another game, that's far different and I would not include that platform. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's anywhere near the same logic, not only is that a legally questionable action but companies do not offically license emulators or sell them for public consumption. You cannot go purcahse a Wii Game for Microsoft Windows, so perhaps I should have said ""Is the game officially licensed for and available on a platform?" - SudoGhost 20:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think easter eggs would apply here (for example I don't think the best game ever being included as an easter egg on Call of Duty: Black Ops would make it appropriate to list Xbox360/PS3 as a platform for Zork, but this also very good game being included in this collection is not an easter egg; the game was released for Xbox 360/PS3 and I don't think it should be removed from the infobox just because there are other games bundled with it. - SudoGhost 21:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Collection games - sold as retail - are fine, hence why I suggest that God of War being on PS3 is fine as part of the GOW collection for it; the infobox should clearly identify the release as part of the collection in terms of release dates, platforms, etc. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

...oh...well then we may have been agreeing without me realizing it. Just so I'm clear, you're saying that this would be appropriate since the game was part of the above collection? - SudoGhost 21:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For me, that's fine though I would add in your example something as "(as part of Collection"). Without that clarification it looks like I can go to the PSN/XBL store and find the standalone title, which is of course not the case. Adding the collection clarifies - without having to read the text - it's not a standalone title but can be found on the collection. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have phrased my question in more general terms to begin with; looking at the posts from Masem and SudoGhost, it seems they have strong thoughts about what should be listed in the field but not much idea as to why. Ultimately, what I want to know about the platform field is: Are we looking at the game's content, or the game's actual release? If the game's content, then obviously releases such as Space Harrier on Shenmue and Sonic the Hedgehog and Shining Force II on Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection should be accounted for. If the game's actual release, then clearly Space Harrier should not be listed as being on the Dreamcast and Sonic the Hedgehog and Shining Force II should not be listed as being on the XBox 360/PS3, since they were never released on those platforms. The suggestion that compilations should be accounted for but not Easter egg games seems obviously inconsistent (and it certainly involves more grey areas and personal interpretation than the simple rule, "If the game wasn't actually released on the platform, don't list it.").--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What is a platform?

While we have a platform discussion open. The infobox guidelines about a platform being "The console or operating system the game was released for." are still current aren't they? as I've seen an increasing number of articles where PSN and XBL have been listed as platforms, when they're obviously the distribution method.

I'm also a bit puzzled about categories like Category:PlayStation Network games. In their current form they're turning into categories where almost any digital (re)release is added to them (eg Command and Conquer Red Alert). This is effectively making them "Things for sale in Store X" categories which we don't do for Amazon et al, so we shouldn't do for PSN and XBL. The categories would be more use if they listed games that were only available on PSN or XBL. Opinions on both points? - X201 (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The category: make it Category:PlayStation Network-only games. As for the Infobox listing, I would say if re-releases of old games on the Wii's Virtual Console are included (and they should be as it is a notable release), then games released on PSN (either for PS3 or Vita) or XBLA/XBIG should also be mentionned in the Infobox. Any argument for or against has to include all relevant release systems. There are also cases (Legasista comes to mind) where the PSN and PS3 (disc) releases are completely distinct; different dates, different regions. Salvidrim! 08:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Those should be |distributor= if at all, definitively not |platform= (or |distribution=). Perhaps we should get a consensus and finally fix all the articles? Unless, that is, we want to change the purpose of |platform=, which I don't think is a better option. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with moving the category to PlayStation Network-only games. The infobox field is a tougher call, but I lean towards listing such releases by the platform name; e.g. a Super Nintendo game re-released on the PlayStation Network should have "platform(s) = Super Nintendo, PlayStation 3". I strongly agree with Salvidrim that the release is notable and should be listed there, but I don't think distinct digital and physical releases are a problem. After all, we have to deal with distinct releases for the same platform even on systems without a digital distribution system. For instance, several Saturn games (e.g. Sega Rally Championship) have a Netlink Edition and/or a Saturn Collection edition in addition to the regular version of the game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

At the same time, Satellaview and SNES are considered distinct platforms, so personally I'd tend to consider PS3 and PSN (for example) as separate also. Salvidrim! 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PSN is the distribution channel. I generally place Steam/PSN/XBLA/OnLive in the distribution field. - hahnchen 22:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure (video game) for example, should not be merely tagged as Category:PlayStation Network games, which it is right now. The infobox also only mentions the PlayStation Network, so we don't actually know which Sony platform the game is for. It should be tagged as Category:PlayStation 3 games, with the infobox showing "platform=PlayStation 3", and "media=PlayStation Network". (I disagree with our current infobox guidelines, I place service names directly in the media field) - hahnchen 13:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Third quarter's issue

So when exactly is the new issue of the Newsletter supposed to come out? GamerPro64 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the previous couple issues, it looks like it would be due this week. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It was due 2 days ago, but we're a smidge behind. Like Torchiest said, it's usually out within the week though. Do you know if anyone has any features (interview or article) for it this quarter? -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone else wants to take a crack at a feature within the next couple of days, I can hold off sending out the Newsletter until then. (I've written the last two, so I think it's someone else's turn.) Unless we just want to send out one sans a feature or an interview. --MuZemike 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at something in one of my sandboxes, but I'd like some review before it's accepted at face value or rejected. I've never written anything for the newsletter before so I don't really know what I'm doing here. Anyway you can see the details in talk here. -Thibbs (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Last call. MuZemike is likely to show up any minute and then I think the newsletter will go out. We've added a small section at the end of the feature to cover "News in Brief" this issue. As of now we only have one brief news item. Can anyone think of anything else very brief (1 line or so) that needs to be added? Contests or competitions? Important ongoing RfCs? New consensuses formed regarding interpretation of the rules since June? -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody verify the number of GA's that we actually have? I added Category:GA-Class video game articles and Category:A-Class video game articles, which I get 583. However, counting all the articles on WP:VG/GA, I only get 577. The number of FA's and FL's are correct. --MuZemike 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That's puzzling but think about it. We're in October and there have been more articles promoted to GA and A-class status. As well there have been some demoted. But I don't really know a clear answer. GamerPro64 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd go by the category count. Since the VG/GA list maintained by us manually, it's likely a few are missing, due probably to what Gamer said, that articles have moved up or down and someone forgot to change the list when that happened. As far as I know, there's no way to check except to painstakingly compare the list with the category. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Genre War time!

Hi everybody,

We need some help. Resident Evil 6 is considered a 'dramatic horror' title by its developer Capcom. Should Wikipedia call it as such, or go with the more accepted term 'survival horror'? Please join the discussion over here. Thanks guys. --Soetermans. T / C 11:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting dialogue. I'll bite. Thanks for x-posting it for our attention. czar · · 06:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nintendo Direct artcle input

Please see my concerns at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nintendo_Direct#Major_issues_to_be_addressed - Any input is welcome. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No thoughts? Anyone?? My inclination is some major cutting down, or merge/redirecting. But I'd like to have some consensus on my side. (Or conversely, someone to tell me that's not a good idea.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ace attorney aticles

Recently the article for the 3 three Ace Attorney games had the English DS covers removed and replaced with the Japanese GBA covers (The first 3 games were originally on the GBA and were later ported to the DS but were no English language version was released until the DS versions). I think I know what covers should be used due to the DS versions being the first official English release and the fact that the current boxarts titles no longer match the article title but I want to have more input before making any drastic cases. I should also note that the first game now has the Japanese GBA boxart as well the Japanese DS boxart which I am quite sure should be changed regardless of whether or not the we keep the Japanese boxarts.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure the general rule is to use an English version's box art if there is one (with no bias toward which out outside of whatever was put there first). So yeah, probably should be changed back. Dragon Quest V for instance uses the DS version. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted them. Thanks for the heads up. « ₣M₣ » 02:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I was quite sure that the English boxarts were the correct choice but I wanted to make sure.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, you need WP:VGBOX - X201 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Or WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. --PresN 05:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with a peer review

I recently put up Transformers: Fall of Cybertron at peer review here, but haven't received any feedback as of yet. Is there anyone who can give the article a once-over and help me to find any glaring issues I may have missed? Sometimes you look at "your own" article too long you start to glaze over the imperfections and omissions. (not claiming ownership, just a little lite humor) Thanks to anyone who can help! --Teancum (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Xbox → Xbox task force

I have initiated WP:RM on the inactive Xbox WikiProject. The Project would become a task force within WP:VG. See the thread for elaboration. czar · · 04:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability standard for video games

Is anyone else interested in establishing or collaborating on a notability and verifiability standard for video games? The Project page says we follow WP:GNG, but most of our deletion cases are linked by common threads (un-"published" games, esp. shareware, backed by self-published links with no independent, reliable sources, homebrew games without critical foundation/reception or cultural influence). An established N/V guideline would be helpful for triaging such articles. Likewise, our WP:VG/RS could use some updating, especially to help with game platforms/genres that tend to rely on self-published links. So I am interested in attempting to define these areas for VG similar to WP:NF and WP:NM—any thoughts? Is this a good idea? (Somewhat relevant old threads: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].) czar · · 17:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We really don't need a separate guide for video games; nearly all require GNG coverage, and the common links you mention all can be justified on the GNG. We can provide some notability considerations in our guidelines, but most importantly, we don't have any criteria that we can use that presumes notability. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah,that was kind of one of the problems I was starting to feel we were having with the VG character notability guidelines Sjones and I were mainly working on. Outside the big debate on using "Top X Lists" as the sources, it kinda just felt like we were basically just compiling a list of rules from elsewhere. (Follow the GNG, abide by NPOV, etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Relatedly, I recently re-discovered WP:VGSCOPE, which does a good job of covering most of my quick use cases. czar · · 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Are game reviews from listed RS alone enough to establish notability by GNG? Or, if a game's only available sources are self-published/official and a handful of reviews, is the game still notable? What if the reviews are half-reviews (not full)? I know this can depend, but I want to make sure I understand. Here are a few examples of games I'd consider non-notable: Hammer of the Gods, Guardian Cross MC, and Mall Tycoon. They all have RS reviews (ranging from sparse to a few) but haven't won awards, made a mark on the field, or passed any test of critical import (other than accruing number rating/text review). If any of them are indeed notable, what about their sourcing makes them pass GNG more than the others? czar · · 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Significant coverage by an independent, reliable source. A review ABOUT the game is significant coverage, reviews from a general gaming site are assumed independent, and reliability of the site has to be established. Salvidrim! 18:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Disclosure: I've edited a few of those and related AfDs.) For GNG purposes, a review is real-world critical reception and thus a well-suited source for GNG. It is editor judgment if reviews alone make a game notable, but that seems to be the case for almost all released video game AfDs I can recall -- two in-depth quality reviews pass GNG, usually with "weak keep"s. I would hazard a guess that at least a third of our games have only reviews as broad coverage sources. Of course, awards and cultural impact would erase all doubt of notability concerns. However, consensus (that I've seen at AfDs) has been that this is not a requirement. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I defer to your experience here (and the norms of AfD), but I can't help but feel like the bar for quality/notability is set very low (much lower than that of similar media: WP:NM, WP:NB, ~WP:NF). Yet it doesn't appear that many share my sentiment or have made an effort to change that. czar · · 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think the same thing of albums, singles, and films, which outnumber video game articles more than 3:1 each per year. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to explain the low bar for WP:Notability is that it is ultimately only a guideline and while it is clearly a very important one, any perceived weaknesses in its strictures can be attributed to the fact that it is not a hard rule (policy) like WP:V. I think the balance may be struck slightly in favor of over-inclusion currently, but as long as deletionists exist to address the most egregious cases I think that this may be the best case scenario for an encyclopedia that hopes to stay relevant. -Thibbs (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel like I'm almost constantly running into opposition saying that the inclusion criteria is actually too strict as it is right now. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I'm saying it does come down to who's writing everything, and who's enforcing these guidelines. In my experience, it seems like a vast majority of users/IPs aren't very familiar with most policies/guidelines, they just casually write what they know or what they can prove with any old source they can find. If we make things too strict or convoluted, no one's going to take the time to learn it (It's just a volunteer effort after all.), and even fewer people will even have to know-how, or motivation, to enforce increasingly unpopular ideas to increasingly rising opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Level Up! Games

Nominated for deletion, but it seems borderline salvageable. 15:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tijfo098 (talk • contribs)

Persistent edit warring/vandalism in Otomedius Excellent. Request for indefinite time protection.

Since more than one year ago Otomedius Excellent is suffering edit warring and/or vandalism. In August 2011 I asked for protection, getting it for two weeks. However, this issue keeps on being unsolved, and while I add info supported by official references (as the fact that it is a sequel and not an alternate version of Otomedius), I keep on been reverted without any reason by anonymous IPs or recently registered users. That's why I think that this article should be protected for as much time as possible. Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a talk page—did you mean to post this on WP:RFPP? I recommend avoiding this WP:EDITWAR and leaving warnings on user talk pages of those who make disruptive, undiscussed major edits so as to create a trail of attempts to stop an edit war. czar · · 03:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think those warnings would be useful considering how rude their edit summaries are? Through my summaries I have underlined that, unlike him/them, I do show references, but I am ignored by him. Besides, he (or they) is probably using a dynamic IP. Anyway, I guess I will post on WP:RFPP as you advise. Thank you for your suggestion. --Canyq (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume best intentions. I don't know of the official way to bring soft sanctions on IP-hopping unproductive edit-warring like that you saw, but I know that a trail of warnings across multiple IPs fares better when requesting mediation/blocks. Also there's a chance that engaging the user calmly via her talk page could defuse the situation. The edits look more misguided than intentional vandalism—I'd WP:AGF in those cases. czar · · 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Engaging the user calmly? In my edit summaries I've written things like

"It's a sequel of Otomedius, not an alternate version. Official references from Konami with quotes are given."

while he/they writes

"Stupid Wikipedia Contributor.", "AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!", "AHA! I KNEW IT!", "HOW ABOUT I THRASH THE BAD FAITH FOR YOU?!", "YOU Will Respect For MY Capacity!", "It's an alternate version of Otomedius, not a sequel!", "NO! NO! NO!"

What kind of conversation am I supposed to have with someone like that? By the way, my request on WP:RFPP has been declined and I've been sent to WP:DR, so I'm invited to discuss with... whom? dynamic IPs? Anyway, I'm fed up with this, so I'm afraid I'll remove that article from my watchlist and let them write things like Konami Okinawa and so on. Anyway, thank you again for your ideas. --Canyq (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest you did anything wrong—adding warnings is just best practice, as I understand it. I'll keep an eye on the article if you want a break from the nonsense. czar · · 18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you. Maybe I sounded a bit harsh; I'm very sorry if that is the case. It is just that, after more than one year, these situations end up being tiring. Thank you again. --Canyq (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've warned the ip, on the one they seemed to be using the most- if they continue I'll block them all for a couple weeks. Process is nice at times, but this guy is contributing nothing and is wasting other people's time. --PresN 07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Canyq (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

User's back. czar · · 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Their penchant for all-caps screaming edit summaries makes it really easy to see all the ip addresses/accounts they're using. Blocked 'em all for 2 weeks. I'll keep an eye on the page in case they hop to a new one. --PresN 01:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Thank you both. --Canyq (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Broken Sword 1

I have one featured article (Ed, Edd n Eddy) and one featured list (List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes), but a put Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars through FAC 4 times and it never passed. While the first 3 times was long ago, and it really wasn't ready yet (backed then I was at the start of my Wiki-Journey), but the fourth time was only a few weeks ago, and I worked on it for a very long time. - But it didn't pass. Now, after some more work, I'd like to see what you think of the article currently. - One of the issues will probably be the long plot, but I'd like some assistance on that - I can't seem to make it any shorter. You should've seen the plot way back though, it much, much longer than the current one... --Khanassassin ☪ 14:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you gotten the article copyedited? GamerPro64 15:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

PR request

Hi, I've listed God of War (video game) for peer review if anyone would be willing to post comments/suggestions. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 01:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

New cat proposal

I'm considering creating a new category consisting of games to which Famitsu gave a perfect review score (there's only 19, it wouldn't be excessively huge). There doesn't appear to be anything in the way of a notability guideline for categorization, but would the review scores of a single magazine, regardless of how well regarded it is, be seen as too trivial/subjective/non-notable for a category of its own? danno_uk 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember there being a template like this in the past. I can't tell you where I saw it, but I believe it was decided that it was inappropriate. The majority opinion was that templates like that are for navigation, and no one could give a good reason that someone would be looking for games that got a perfect score from Famitsu. If anyone knows the case I'm talking about, feel free to correct any bad information I might have given. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks like an overly specific criteria. If Famitsu was one of the very few worldwide importance magazines and their 10 had an award-winning significance, then yes. But it's just one of many outlets, region-specific, and their score is listed on equal grounds with any other notable review. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And the list is available on the Famitsu article (for now at least—it doesn't explain why a perfect score matters). czar · · 09:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that category would be a little too subjective. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 08:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the category isn't subjective at all. "Games with a perfect review score" is an objectively determinable criterion. We just look at the score printed in the physical magazine itself. Subjective editorial interpretation would play no part here. The underlying concept of the score may be subjective, but probably not more so than Academy Award winners or any of the other notable subjective awards that do have cats currently.

But I also think that this is the sort of thing that is best presented in a list form and as Czar points out, the small list already exists in Famitsu. A perfect score for that magazine was at one time quite a notable thing, but this has changed through time. It's still rare and noteworthy, but less jaw-dropping today as perfect scores are given every year and can come as often as three times a year sometimes now (2011). And it's not necessarily more notable (especially anymore) than the "Game of the Year" designations from a number of magazines. Just like with chart-position succession tables, I think it would invite the creation of many similar categories that could lead to unhelpful bloat. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It was purely a navigational thing. I was reading one article about a game that noted it was one of those which had a perfect score and wanting to be able to quick find the others out of curiousity, thought it might be helpful. However I am aware that the list is available on the magazine article and also of the risk of setting a precedent for an influx of new cats, so on balance I won't go ahead. Many thanks for the feedback. danno_uk 22:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy check?

Is there a way to formally request an accuracy check on an article, or is that largely left to individual editors? I ask because there seems to be some factual disagreement between editors of The Legend of Dragoon concerning the names and roles of characters and locations. I've never played this game, so I can't dispute either side. There's no mention of the dispute on the talk page and half of the editors in question are unregistered. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No one really gets around to it, and outside mediation is a last resort (though there are other in-between steps). Per WP:AD, I added a template message ({{disputed}}) and a comment on the article's talk page. I'm watching the page and will send the IP users warnings if the edit war continues. Feel free to do the same. Hopefully they'll chill out. czar · · 09:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Niemti

I know that its been said before but I find that his nominations at GAN are getting out of hand. He now has over 25 articles on the block with his oldest article nominated (August 10th) just now being reviewed. Has anyone talked to him about all of this over saturating he is causing to the project's GAN section? GamerPro64 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I also found him insulting other users (Examples one and two) which I find unprofessional. GamerPro64 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The user actually has been involved in similar cases in the past (See here). Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Niemti's behavior aside, it looks to me like the only procedural problem here is a practical one - there's not enough reviewers. Because Niemti is making the issue arise by nominating more than the current review staff can handle, I think it is certainly fair to ask him (as Teancum did) to help with some of the other editors' reviews. Beyond this, I suggest that reviewers take the number of reviews the nominator has completed into account as a factor (along with date of nomination) in determining the order of reviewing. Perhaps the number of nom's reviews times the age of the nomination should determine the preferred order of review?

Anyway I'd hesitate to suggest that he should cease or even reduce nominating, though, because these seem to be goodfaith judgment calls and it is an important step in quality improvement. If the majority of the items Niemti is nominating end up failing then someone should explain the process to him and encourage him to perform more reviews to learn the GAN criteria, but for now I'd just adopt a policy of weighing in number of reviews conducted by the nom, and I'd send him a note that his lack of contribution to the GAN review process will result in a much slower rate of review for his nominations. If he's content to have them slowly slowly eke through the GAN process then I think it's fine. If he wants faster action then he should start contributing more. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. More GA noms are coming though. You only review if you want, you know? --Niemti (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As of "and that user has only ever completed one GAN review" - no, i didn't complete it. I only wanted to comment on the article, I didn't know that it would make me a reviewer for this.[1] Also nah, most don't "end failing". --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty, Niemti, but I think it's likely that this fact (zero reviews instead of one) actually makes your lack of contribution even more outrageous in the eyes of some of your fellow editors... -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Some of the nominations themselves also concern me. Shank (video game) was recently nominated by Niemti, but having spent several hours on the article I can tell you it's not ready. Several claims need additional sourcing, and it needs a good copy edit. The other one that comes to mind is the Taki (Soulcalibur) GAN review. Several concerns were brought up, but the conflicting manner of replies led the reviewer to bow out, and myself to get riled up at one point. --Teancum (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

His condescending, abrasive approach to interaction bothers me as well, though I haven't had to deal with him lately, so I haven't been pushing anything there. If he keeps it up, it could be worth bringing to WP:ANI though. As far as his GAN's go, if you don't like how many he's nominating, just don't review them. Let him rack up as many as he wants, and let them just sit there. You can just move to ones you think are more justified, and wait for someone else more sympathetic to his work review his GANs. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any prejudice against reviewing them just because of the source of the nomination even if he is abrasive, but the speed and order in which they are reviewed should take the nominator's reviews of other articles into account. -Thibbs (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying with prejudice, that sounds more like "failing the article because you don't like how he acts", which is not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm just saying, there's an endless number of things to be worked on, whether it be WP:VG or Wikipedia in general. If you don't like what he's doing, work on something else, and let him wait on his giant stack of review requests that he was advised against doing to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood. I agree with that 100%. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with this matter. Even though I find Niemti's abrasive attitude puzzling, I have not been pushing anything on the GANs. However, if he keeps up with this behavior, we should report this matter to WP:ANI. I think the speed and order in which they are reviewed should take the nominator's reviews of other articles into account as well. There's an endless number of things to be worked on here, and if anyone does not like what he's doing at the moment, we should work on something else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As a comment, WP:RFC/U would be the proper first place to address behavioral issues that are far from immediately being disruptive, before ANI. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably true. I just said ANI because that's what I typically use, because I only typically report blatant, terrible offenders. It does seem that much of Niemti's behavior is closer to "rude" than any sort of blockable offense... Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. We don't want to cause drama over at ANI either, so I also think it would be appropriate if we should use WP:RFC/U to address any type of behavioral issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 3:12 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Also, maybe you should consider his habit on this page of blitzkrieging sections he created on subjects with all references and no explanation on how he wanted to use them. I had to do the work, for goodness sake! All he did afterwards was do a little editing for grammar and to expand on detail. We have been working on the main page for a few days now to get it into better shape, which is how I came into contact with his apparent working methods. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As another point, I think if a user is nominating an article for GAR, they should be fully ready to be knowledgeable about everything in the article, and be able to tackle any problems brought up by reviewers. I don't see how Niemti can stay focused on improving 30 articles at once and allow them to be the same quality as if he was only taking care of 5. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I would expect a GAN nominator to be familiar with the topic enough to respond to issues and to fix the article in a timely fashion. Nominating only as many articles as are ready and as nominator can devote time to is just common courtesy and etiquette, not to mention much desired quid pro quo. I'm not against any of these nomination per se, but I have doubts they have all been thoroughly reviewed by the nominator. My experience is that articles that are GA ready would have been nominated by the editor who wrote them up. I don't see many GA-ready articles just sitting about requiring no further improvement. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note on that, I think it's sometimes an editorial style preference. Some editors prefer not to nominate their own work for advancement on DYK, GA-class, FA-class, etc. for some reason or other. Personally speaking, I don't even like removing refimprove tags on things I've worked on since I feel biased toward my own reffing efforts and for all I know more and better sources may exist. But yeah otherwise I agree with the above 2 comments regarding requisite familiarity with the details of the article nominated for advancement (e.g. in GAN). -Thibbs (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you guys just don't realize that I've been working on these articles for many months or even several years (and most of them have most edits by me even if you count only current account since March of this year, and which you can see by checking Contributors, like in this very article which I'm going to nominate next when I'm done with it) and only started nominating them like 2 months ago. Also lol at "I had to do the work, for goodness sake!" You know what? Well, this: [2] --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I can vouch for this claim as Niemti has listed roughly 150+ articles in the past two months to WP:VG/A/R, all of which he has worked on. It is A LOT of work. --JDC808 ♫ 23:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologies for my attitude there. But it did feel like it at the time. Actually, you have helped me a lot with getting the Prince article in a fit state (considering what it was like before). Please accept my apologies for a hot remark when seeing so many references with not much guidance on how to use them. Wow! You do a lot of work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the original from April, I think we're missing the Prince from the graphic novel thing (I didn't even know it exists, apparently it does[3]). --Niemti (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with Niemti's Good Article noms, I've taken a quick look at some of them (not enough to review), but its clear that he's done good content work. - hahnchen 01:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with an editor submitting many articles for GAN. If the majority of them reach GA status then there is no issue. If they fail a lot the perhaps we can take the time to assist Niemti with the aspects that are causing them to fail. I've started a GA review on one of his articles and would encourage other editors to assist with clearing the backlog too rather than simply complaining that there are too many. We should not discourage editors from making prolific contributions so long as they are productive and benefit Wikipedia. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, a lot of these character articles should not be in the GA queue, and should have gone through peer review and/or the league of copy editors first. I reviewed some, passed a couple (after much copy editing) and failed a few: see here, here and here. Despite some drama over this, I think I'm vindicated in that two other reviewers (here and here) have brought up the exact same issues I did: in-universe, purple prose problems in the plot sections and overly-long, effusive reception sections full of quotes about tits. Kasumi and Jill Valentine at least should not be in the queue: they meet the quick-fail criteria due to unresolved content disputes, per what I said in their respective reviews. And yes, Niemti's abrasive, foot-dragging and OWN-y style is problematic, as are his arrogantly-held opinions on stuff he poorly understands, both policy, and to put it bluntly the English language. bridies (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think the lack of edit summaries and more so the ownership issues are already reasons enough for an RFC. Here's the latest charming instance. bridies (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Can't believe he didn't have any repercussions for that one, he's being pretty blatant and he's working on pretty mainstream articles... Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, and I have been ignoring Niemti due to his behavior. Based on Bridies's evidence, I tend to agree that Niemti's being blatant as well. Besides that, I think it's time we should get to work on my proposal for character and video game reception as well at my sandbox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we may as well work on something constructive. It's clear Niemti won't change, (and probably just thrives off of attention like this) so I'll go back to ignoring him as well, and only addressing him if issues/RFCs/ANIs arise regarding his misbehavior. I'll start looking over the proposal stuff again soon. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"And he's working" haha, sure I am. About 85-90% of all content in this "pretty mainstream article" (of 362,427 views this month) was written by me (and same for the related articles of XCOM, X-COM, UFO: Enemy Unknown, X-COM: Alliance, etc.), and the remaining 10-15% was all re-written lol. Pretty blatant indeed. :3 --Niemti (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction, Alliance is pretty much 100% (unless one counts copy-edits). And The Dreamland Chronicles: Freedom Ridge (the original would-be reboot) is 100%. --Niemti (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't doubt that you contribute a ton. My problem with you is that there's no reason you can't contribute at the level you do and also respect others. There's no legitimate reason for you to talk to people the way you do, and it's your own fault when that overshadows the good things you do. Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"List of Spyro Voice Actors" article

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_voice_actors_in_the_Spyro_the_Dragon_series

Suggestions? My first inclination is that it needs to be sent to AFD because it's one giant example of WP:GAMECRUFT. But browsing through it -- I hadn't realized how many medium-to-high level voice actors had done work for them. Maybe it's not a clear-cut delete? (Though, the sourcing is just terrible, so at the very least that would need fixing.) Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this pretty interesting, but I think WP:VGSCOPE #10 applies—the notable parts of this could be worked into the articles (again only if a game's voice crew is "particularly notable"). I could be swayed, though. I'd like to hear what others think. czar · · 19:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was the very part that made me question things. Usually I hate these types of article; listing off VA information for a game that isn't really based around dialogue or story. (I easily had a similar List of Sonic VA's article deleted a ways back.) But these are bigger names than with Sonic. But even with that, there's still the question of whether or not this belongs as a standalone article, or just part of a subsection in the individual games too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Lists of VAs should be a thing. The information should just be in each game's article- we don't have "list of actors in movieX", and actors are generally more notable than VAs. There's also generally nothing in these lists' lead that talks about the voice acting itself- in this one, it just mentions which languages it was in. That said, I notice that one of the links at the bottom, List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series, is a Featured List- if we decide to not do this type of list, we should deal with that as well. --PresN 22:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If these kinds of lists are to be worked into the game article, I'd also suggest that they be worked into the VA's article if they have one. Rules aside, I actually have no real problem with this kind of article. They are a bit crufty, but at least they're self-contained and have a distinctly limited scope. If there's RS coverage and notability is established, what's the harm? I realize of course that the VGSCOPE guideline trumps my opinion and it looks like it would bar this kind of thing. And I'm not actually suggesting a change in consensus to allow it at this time. -Thibbs (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a merge too. I think the key is that none of these guys (as far as I can see from the article) are notable solely for their voice work on Spyro, and the voice work from Spyro is not a critically notable subject on its own. The good content should go in the respective game and VA articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have started a merge discussion here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• I would remove the article, but as said, work the notable ones into the actual games. I'm also sure there's a series article where a brief mention of some of the talent can be addressed. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Kerrigan

Sarah Kerrigan, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Darksiders

I have been hearing all this stuff about Darksiders being a franchise. Also, about DLC and other stuff. Why can't we have an article for the Darksiders series as well as the two individual articles for the games. So, is it feasible or should we wait a year or two until any Darksiders 3 is announced or discarded? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Two, even 3 games, doesn't necessitate a franchise - though it also can be as simple as two games. The question to ask is if sources have discussed the two games as a series, or that DSII is just a sequel to the former? As a counter-example, Portal (series) is basically 2 games, but more than enough about the two as a whole have been written. On the other hand, there's no way to put Ico and Shadow of the Colossus into the same article due to weak connections between them. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read the Darksiders articles, the two games run parallel to each other, and are very closely linked. Yes, I see that 'franchise' might well be the wrong way of referring to it. But it a series, and there has been info released that indicates that there will be a third game if the second sells well enough, that there is still good enough chance of that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have enough RS to establish notability for the novel, comic books, merchandise outside the individual games, you may have a case. I'm personally not finding much more than announcements—nothing that would warrant more than a small mention on the individual games' pages. czar · · 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)