Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 142) (bot
Line 407: Line 407:


Could use a few opinions; discussion is [[Talk:Piranha_Plant#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_recurring_Mario_franchise_enemies|here]]. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 19:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Could use a few opinions; discussion is [[Talk:Piranha_Plant#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_recurring_Mario_franchise_enemies|here]]. [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 19:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

== Assistance with Edge (video game) ==
Could you assist me with [[Edge (video game)]] Its currently under GA review and addressed most of the issues. the main concern I have is the reception section. I originally added scores and some quotes but that wasn't enough for GA status and had to be revised. I revised as much as I could but still need some assistance on it. I'd appreciate any help really. :) ( I already requested assistance from Masem and Sergecross on their personal talk pages as well). I'm was asking anyone with GA achievements under their belt but anyone who has experience with Reception sections can help. Its really close to GA in humble my opinion.[[User:Blue Pumpkin Pie|Blue Pumpkin Pie]] ([[User talk:Blue Pumpkin Pie|talk]]) 22:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:58, 28 February 2019

Covers for SSI games

Hello! Would anyone be interested in helping to add cover images to any of these articles, for games developed and/or published by SSI? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:L ke, do you see anything useful for any of these? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:L ke, thank you very much! :) 208.47.202.254 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) L ke (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! 208.47.202.254 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only five left, if anyone can find them! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'll try and find them Shariff Ismail (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you can do would be great, Shariff Ismail! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for gameographies table formatting

Being worked on

@Dissident93, Izno, PresN, and SMcCandlish: Following the recent problems regarding gameographies table formatting in video game developer articles such as Nintendo EAD, Nintendo EPD and Intelligent Systems and stalled result from the last discussion regarding this, I propose adding formal rules to MOS:VG. As such I propose the following rules:

Proposal for gameographies table formatting

Proposed rules:

  • Class should be "wikitable sortable plainrowheaders";
  • Caption should be "List of video games developed by" followed by the developer's name;
  • Have the following columns in this order (properly scoped with scope="col"):
  • Year - The column header should use Template:Abbr and describe "Year of first release". In content cells, years should be added with Template:Vgy, properly rowspaned and aligned to the center;
  • Title - In content cells, cells should be properly scoped as rows (with scope="row"). A title should be italicized and wikilinked to its respective articles if it exists;
  • Genre(s) - The column header should be wikilinked to Video game genre. In content cells, genres should be wikilinked. If a title has multiple genres use Template:Unbulleted list, ordered by importance;
  • Platform(s) - The column header should be wikilinked to Video game console. In content cells, if a title was developed for multiple platforms, each platform should correspond to a different cell, properly rowspaning other columns.
  • Publisher(s) - The column header should be wikilinked to Video game publisher. If a title has multiple publishers use Template:Unbulleted list, ordered by release;
  • Ref. - The column header should use Template:Abbr to describe "References". Content cells should include references and aligned to the center.
  • Note(s) - Content cells should include notes, such as major codevelopers, and aligned to the center. Codevelopers should by grouped in "co".

Proposed exceptions:

  • If the article is from a first-party developer (ex: Nintendo EAD) the publisher column can be omitted;
  • If there are no multiple references, for example if an aggregator is referenced it my placed in the tittle column header;
  • If there are no notes, the notes column must be omitted.
  • The references and notes columns can be omitted provided that references and notes are inline in the title column and doesn't violate MOS:SEAOFBLUE.

Proposed example:

List of video games developed by X
Year Title Genre(s) Platform(s) Publisher(s) Ref. Note(s)
Template:Vgy Game Title 1 Genre A Platform A Publisher A [citation needed] [co 1][a]
Game Title 2 Genre A Platform A Publisher B [citation needed] [co 2]
Platform B
Template:Vgy Game Title 3
  • Genre A
  • Genre B
 Platform B Publisher A [citation needed] [co 1]
Notes:
  1. ^ a b Codeveloped with Y.
  2. ^ Codeveloped with Z.
  1. ^ Remastered version of Game Title 0.

What do you guys think? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 21:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals to change MOS:VG need to happen at that talk page, not here. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offline TV

Could someone take a look at Offline TV? The article seems super crufty and pufty, has a quote in the lede, and just seems like a mess. I've seen some work has already been done, but I know very little about streaming. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A mess 🤔 Let me have a look Shariff Ismail (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Proposal of layout for consoles

Work in progress; comments welcome

I've opened a discussion about article layout for consoles in the Manual of Style/Video games talk page. Please head over there and leave your feedback. Thanks! ~ Arkhandar (message me) 00:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ok Shariff Ismail (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can Companies have a reception section?

I think I asked this before. Sorry in advance if this was already answered. but are companies able to have reception sections? And what kind of reception would we be looking for that can be added in for companies? I'm trying to rework Imangi Studios.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's rare for a company itself to be reviewed but I can think of instances where a "Controversies" section is justified. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I was able to find was PocketGamer.biz reviews developers and they make a list of TOP 50 Developers of the Year. Are those allowed in Wikipedia? Also, if there's normally no reception section. What do we use to prove notability?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked but EA must surely have some reception section regarding regularly being seen as an evil company. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be difficult if the company produced dozens of games (like Capcom) but I wonder if PlatinumGames could be an example to follow.Tintor2 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try to make the articles look as close to PlatinumGame's article as a start, see if that would be enough.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Companies aren't "reviewed" in a traditional sense so a reception section like we have in games articles does not really apply. You might have a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section if its warranted, or if there is lots of good publicity, maybe "Recognition" or "Accolades". TarkusABtalk 20:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can write a reception section on any subject if you’ve got reception sourcing available to you. That said, as people have noted, that sort of sourcing may be hard to come by, though I’m sure there are cases where it’s possible. (Negative publicity around mega-corporations like EA or Activision, the more progressive culture at Monolith Soft, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consider carefully the value of such sections per WP:CRITS. --Izno (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents would be that companies generally release a large array of games, and paeticularly with publishers they published games from different developers so it would be impossible to have an overarching statement on their entire work. That said, there are some companies that have released the game type of game over their history, or who at least have a brand (compare Disney to other major film players). There's a company called Cryo Interactive that I've read lots of critical commentary about that I feel would make a fair critical reception section. At the end of the day, any interesting commentary on a company's history or impact could go into a legacy section I suppose.--00:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am absolutely sure that I can write something akin to a reception section for Activision based on the yearly release schedule and their overkill (eg death of guitar hero) from RSes on the matter, just trying to figure if that's more an Activision Blizzard or an Activision Publishing thing. I wouldn't describe this as controversy however, it's just opinion. --Masem (t) 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Spider-Man (2018 video game)#Proposed merge with Spider-Man (Insomniac Games)

Talk:Spider-Man (2018 video game)#Proposed merge with Spider-Man (Insomniac Games) could use more participants. czar 05:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

🤔 Shariff Ismail (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stream sniping

Right now if you want to go to the stream sniping article it will redirect you to the video game live streaming page. I am contemplating on to make stream sniping an independent article as it is a pretty major thing. But I am afraid it might get deleted for not being notable enough. Should I make it? AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Hi. Erm, this is partly a question for Hahnchen. Why has Deus Ex: Mankind Divided apparently been promoted to GA without any warning or review? This is highly irregular. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Talk:Deus Ex: Mankind Divided/GA1 Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim: It wasn't there when I wrote the above question. Edit: Plus, if you go to the article's talk page, the review page link is a red link. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow. The GA template and its bluelinked review have been added to the talk page about 12 hours ago. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd. For me, it's still a red link. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a very odd way of doing things. Hahnchen seems to be saying that he immediately promoted the article to GA, and the (apparently on going review) are comments for taking it to FA? Note that doing things this way seems to have circumvented Legobot's normal GA promotion duties..... Either way, I see blue links, no red links. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ferret, I've solved the red link problem on my end. The GA promotion code was put in without the "oldid" value, causing an error. I put it in manually, and that fixed the issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the draft review as I promoted the article on the talk page. If it was a red link, it would be due to cache issues. I consider GA a quick process and not one where one has to go back and forth through nitpicks, being held hostage by a reviewer's subjective quirks. And in this case, the author is clearly already familiar with what a GA is, and the standards expected. - hahnchen 00:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahnchen: Yeah but the process switcheroo means the article itself still isn't tagged as GA, as the bot doesn't/didn't recognize the close. -- ferret (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Likely it's a bot error. Look at this edit, that's not typical behaviour. - hahnchen 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project

Hi, I'm a bit on the new side but I am mostly interested in books and computer games. I don't like violent computer games and prefer fun kids games to violent grown up games. I want to help out with this project. I've had a look at some of the games from when I was growing up, where can I find the rest of the pages particularly kids games? Kerouac's socks (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really keep a full list of target audiences like this, but if you are looking for articles to work on, best bet is to take a look at the categories. Something like Category:Children's educational video games will likely pull up some articles you might be interested in. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see🤔 Do u have any projects on psp games for android 

Shariff Ismail (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with dates

I'm having a really hard time finding release dates and discontinued dates for the arcade version of Temple Run does anyone know any reliable sources that have both release dates and discontinued dates? i added info on the arcade machines, but not much else.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking for Temple Run 2's arcade release date. I'm not familiar with arcade machines and how to source them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got a press release (from October 2012) saying November 2012 ([1]) and an arcadeheroes post (might be pushing it) saying that it was announced in October 2012 and would be first displayed at some arcade trade show the following month ([2]). Nothing on discontinued dates, those aren't usually advertised. --PresN 04:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me with this, i'm still not an expert when looking up info. Everything has been just a google search. I'm trying to see if i can get it GA status since there's so much coverage already. It might be a stretch, But i'm going to email the original producers and ask if they can include release dates (and possibly discontinued dates) for their products on their websites. Its crazy to think they'll listen to me.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t feel bad, there are some surprising holes in the coverage of video game release dates. Polygon or IGN or one of the major video game websites did a whole story about how it’s hard to determine the release date for Super Mario Bros., one of the biggest games of all time. It’s not always as obvious as you’d think. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full Sail University and Wargaming

On behalf of Full Sail University, I've submitted a request to add mention of the university's collaboration with the video game company Wargaming, if any project members are interested to review and update the article appropriately. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4A Games, Metro Exodus

There is a discussion on Talk:4A Games that needs more eyes. The dispute is essentially over whether to use English names as seen in several English sources, or direct transliteration of Ukrainian names. The dispute also crosses over to the Metro Exodus article. -- ferret (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusing Category:Cancelled video games?

I've managed to diffuse as much as I could of the category by removing offenders or diffusing them into the sub-categories, however, I am unsure of what to do with the remaining four articles listed on the page. The pages don't seem to list specific platforms. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cant they just...be there as it is? Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Breakaway was a Windows game. Chrono Break's designation as "cancelled" is iffy but I get why we portray the topic this way. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original models sold

Not sure
 – The infobox sales issue is still unresolved. However, a discussion to merge Nintendo 3DS family into Nintendo 3DS has started. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 14:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Why do the original 3DS sales not need to be portrayed on the infobox? Same goes for the DS and the GBA. For the PS4 it's different because the PS4 Slim and Pro do not have their own articles. The GBA SP, DSi, 2DS, etc. however do have their own pages. — EzekielT Talk 00:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • To give some much needed context to the situation above.
  1. Ezekiel removed the total 3DS sales from the Nintendo 3DS article and replaced it with sales for just the original 3DS model.
  2. I reverted him, saying that the scope of the Nintendo 3DS article is all models, and as such, should show the cumulative sales of all models. That’s how it’s handled at Nintendo DS, Game Boy Advance, and ever console I spot checked.
  3. He then went and added the 3DS cumulative sales and the original models sales to the infobox.
  4. I reverted this as well, as it both cluttered the infobox, and was puzzling to just single out some models in the infobox. As per every console article I could find, we just put total sales figures in the infobox, and place more detailed figures in sales/reception sections in the prose. We similarly don’t put regional, yearly, or quarterly figures in the infobox either.
  5. Ezekiel was warned to get a consensus because he keeps on getting caught trying to re-add it back into the article without consensus every few weeks. He refused until this attempt above.
You seem to be saying those things about what I did to discredit my opinion...? And the summary of what happened seems to be slanted towards your favour, rather than being neutral. I could say the same thing about you, you also continued to remove it every few weeks, and you were the only one who opposed my edits. And also the way you said “Ezekiel was warned to get a consensus” makes it sounds like a whole lot of people warned me when it was only you. And notice that I did not revert ferret. If it was more than just you who disagreed with my edits I would’ve tried discussing on the talk page. Also I didn’t really read WP:BRD before. And when you reverted my compromise, showing both the original and total 3DS family sales, it wasn’t very considerate and showed you’re uncompromising about the issue. And I don’t see how one sentence “clutters the infobox”. Also, we’re now discussing to change not just the 3DS but also the DS and GBA to include original models. So the consistency problem won’t exist anymore, and by the way we’d only do it to consoles whose revisions have their own pages already. That leaves out the Xbox One, PS4, etc. And “the scope of the Nintendo 3DS article is all models” - I kindly disagree, the 3DS page is clearly (at least mainly) for the original 3DS; the infobox even shows an original 3DS. The article for all 3DS models is Nintendo 3DS family. As the Nintendo 3DS page header states:
This article is about the Nintendo 3DS and its larger model, the Nintendo 3DS XL. For the current revision, see New Nintendo 3DS. For the budget model, see Nintendo 2DS. For the entire 3DS series, see Nintendo 3DS family.
Thanks. — EzekielT Talk 17:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had to explain because your original comment above makes zero sense to anyone not involved in our arguments. That’s why you had zero responses after like 12 hours. You did a terrible job of describing the situation, so I did it for you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just skimmed through the discussion but everything Serge has said makes sense. We shouldn't use the infobox as an all-encompassing datadump. Generalize the info (as long as it doesn't cause ambiguity or confusion), and write everything else in detail in the sales section. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: OK, for the original Nintendo 3DS page why don’t we just remove the total 3DS family models’ sales and replace it with the original 3DS sales. That won’t take any more space than it is currently. The total 3DS family models’ sales are already shown at Nintendo 3DS family anyway. Same thing with the original GBA and the original DS, we already have pages that show the amount of all models sold: Game Boy Advance family, Nintendo DS family. — EzekielT Talk 19:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t particularly think those “family” article spinouts need to exist at all. They’re redundant to the main articles, and don’t get many views - they neither serve a purpose nor are they comparatively seen much. The main DS page averages over 1700 views a day, while the family article is in the 300s (Which makes sense, things like “DS family” aren’t commonly used.) To be clear, since it seems to continually confuse you: the main and primary page is Nintendo DS, not Nintendo DS family, which is a sloppy spin out article largely for housing stats and comparison points. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair we do already have individual, separate pages for all GBA, DS, and 3DS variants (which some of them further contain their own variants). We have individual, separate pages for:
And the Game Boy Advance family, Nintendo DS family, and Nintendo 3DS family pages. (Just giving a full rundown). — EzekielT Talk 19:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Serge, we just had a bunch of edit conflicts and things became confusing. — EzekielT Talk 19:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re confused, Serge. I think the family pages are actually created with the intent of covering all of the models while the Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, and Nintendo 3DS pages are meant to be for the original models. Especially considering we already have separate pages for the variants. It is a confusing subject and I don’t blame you for it though. — EzekielT Talk 19:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the Nintendo DS header actually says “This article is about the 2004 Nintendo DS game console. For the entire series, see Nintendo DS family and Nintendo DS (disambiguation)“. — EzekielT Talk 19:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you’ve tried to suggest that “I’m confused” in the past too. It’s ludicrous. I’m one of the earliest and largest contributors to some of these articles. Not that this gives me some sort of special status, but come on, common sense would dictate that I understand the scope of an article I’ve been writing and maintaining for almost a decade... Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you tried to look into what I’m saying. — EzekielT Talk 19:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All those tangents aside, the main point is that infoboxes are meant to be kept simple. If you want to do a sales breakdown, just do it in the sales/reception section in the article. I only object to its placement in the infobox. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have individual pages for the variants if the Nintendo 3DS page is “supposed to cover all variants”? — EzekielT Talk 20:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Nintendo 3DS covers ever single 3DS variant. Some of the variants having their own article doesn’t change that. It’s no different anywhere else. The Xenoblade series article still covers every Xenoblade title. It doesn’t exclude Xenoblade 2 even though it has a separate article. Album articles still cover every song even if a song has its own article. I don’t follow your concern at all. All you have to do is read the Nintendo 3DS article. Every form of its existence has covered all of its variants. Just...read it...? Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note how all of the Xenoblade titles have their own page, including the original game. Think of the Xenoblade Chronicles page as the Nintendo 3DS family page, and Xenoblade Chronicles (video game) as the Nintendo 3DS page. — EzekielT Talk 21:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And? Where are you going with this? Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Nintendo 3DS family, which covers all the variants, and as the Nintendo 3DS page header states:
This article is about the Nintendo 3DS and its larger model, the Nintendo 3DS XL. For the current revision, see New Nintendo 3DS. For the budget model, see Nintendo 2DS. For the entire 3DS series, see Nintendo 3DS family.
The Nintendo 3DS family page doesn’t just feature comparisons, it also has summaries of all of the models, sales data, and even accessories. And note how “For the entire 3DS series, see Nintendo 3DS family” implies that the Nintendo 3DS page is not for the entire 3DS series while the Nintendo 3DS family page is. — EzekielT Talk 21:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained that. It’s a crappy article someone threw together after the fact that probably doesn’t need to exist, it doesn’t change the scope of the parent article that has existed for almost a decade. We’re just talking circles again. You’re never going to get more input if you keep rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact it exists. And as long as the page exists, it will serve as the page for the entire 3DS series, as the Nintendo 3DS header states. The page has been here for over 5 years since 2013. Also, multiple editors have worked on it: Nintendo 3DS family revision history. The Nintendo DS family and the Nintendo 3DS family articles were both originally created by @Arkhandar: the someone you are referring to, while @Ozdarka: was behind the Game Boy Advance family article. Maybe the users should join the conversation. BTW: I'm not advocating for a sales breakdown in the infobox. All I want to add is the sales count for the original 3DS (26.25 million), original GBA (35.52 million), and original DS (18.79 million). — EzekielT Talk 00:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Nintendo 3DS family" is the official name for the line comprising the 3DS, 3DS XL, 2DS, New 3DS, New 3DS XL, and New 2DS XL: https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/landing/p/430. — EzekielT Talk 00:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what else to tell you at this point, other than that’s not how it is, and I think it’s telling that in the many years of maintaining this article, you are literally the only person who has had this objection or proposed these changes. A simple skimming of the Nintendo 3DS counters your argument and supports mine, no matter how far someone digs into the page history. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also don’t know what else to say at this point, you aren’t understanding anything I’m saying, and I’m not understanding anything you’re saying either. I do know however that it’s silly to have an entire discussion over just one, reliably sourced sentence with some pretty good information in it. What’s to lose by having it there? It’s way too small to call “clutter”. Hopefully the two editors I pinged will give their thoughts. — EzekielT Talk 03:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s a tip - if you want others to contribute, stop giving these massive wall of text responses. It scares other people away from jumping in. Sergecross73 msg me 04:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 and EzekielT: I agree with Serge here, in that we should consider merging the "family" articles into the DS and the 3DS articles. I do have some reservations though. Although the DS and 3DS terms refer to their respective line rather than "X family" (more often than not), they also refer to their respective original models. So that should be pretty clear in the article, instead of lumping everything together and absorb the original models notability. As such, I don't see why infoboxes shouldn't discriminate sales models. For anyone not knowledgeable in the matter, it might come across as if the original DS 150 million units, which is not the case at all. To me, total sales numbers should be at the forefront, with a collapsible list with model discrimination. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 10:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arkhandar: actually I think you had a good idea when you created those family articles. Since we already have individual articles for the GBA, DS, and 3DS variations, we should have an individual article for the original model too. It only makes sense. If we move the 3DS family page into the 3DS page, then the original model would not have a page of its own. Maybe we should rewrite the 3DS article a bit to make it slightly more focused on the original model and keep the family articles. — EzekielT Talk 10:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EzekielT: The thing is that both the DS and 3DS articles are small enough (31KB and 50KB respectively) to focus on their original models and touch upon their respective families. There's no reason to have a separate "family" article for the sake of it. Even for comparison's sake, we already have the generation articles, so why bother in having yet a dozen other articles to maintain? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkhandar: It’s a bit difficult to put into words, but here it is: Since all of the revisions (e.g. the GBA SP, DSi, 2DS, etc.) have their own pages, the original models should have their own pages too, for the sake of consistency. — EzekielT Talk 10:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EzekielT: And they do. But right now, it's not justifiable to have separate "family" articles when the main article is small enough to be merged. Couple that with the fact that sources often refer to the the console's family by its original title, and you have a pretty good rationale for merging. Note: Avoid splinting a reply in multiple paragraphs. It's not accessible and breaks ping and reply notifications. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkhandar: I guess I didn’t do a good job explaining. The “main article” is the original 3DS page. And by merging the family article into the main article (the original 3DS), that means the original 3DS will be lumped in with the other models, and thus the original 3DS will not have an independent page of its own, unlike the revisions. The original model’s notability would be absorbed, and the original 3DS page would have reduced focus on the original 3DS. Instead, the page would focus both on the entire line and the original model, diminishing the original 3DS. — EzekielT Talk 12:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EzekielT: No, you've explained it quite well. The problem with your rationale is thinking that every given subject has to have it own article, which is not the case on Wikipedia. I see no problem in merging articles as anemic as that. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 13:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkhandar: the 2DS has its own article. The DSi has its own article, the DS Lite has its own article as well. So does the New 2DS XL. And so on. Each one has its own article. So one not having its own page while all the others do is inconsistent. Not to mention the original 3DS is of greater importance, as it was... well, the original, the first, and (by far) the best selling 3DS model. — EzekielT Talk 13:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the long thread above. The fact that pages exist for some models but not others is not justification to create an article. Each model must be examined independently for article necessity. Is there commentary about the original model 3DS that cannot be summarized accurately in the current 3DS article? That would justify a split. TarkusABtalk 13:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: Exactly. At this point he's just repeating himself. I'll make a merge request in the 3DS family article and based on its result we can analyze what to do with the others in the future. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 14:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: you misread. No split is being suggested. Pages currently exist for all models (except for the XL variants). However, Arkhandar wants to merge the family pages into the original models, lumping all the models into them and thus making the original models not have independent pages anymore, while all the others do. — EzekielT Talk 14:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose a merger. I would never support that idea, never. It’s a terrible idea, and I’ve only been repeating things because you don’t get it. I would rather keep things the way they are now. — EzekielT Talk 14:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EzekielT: Please take a thorough look at Wikipedia:Scope. I'll make it easier for you: Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view. Accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t get it... And did you read what I said...? The points I made...? Gave them some weight...? Just a little...? — EzekielT Talk 14:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather we just delete the family articles than move them. Not like they have much content that’s not shown elsewhere. — EzekielT Talk 14:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the constant questioning on whether or not we’re reading what you say. We are. We just don’t agree with you. It is possible for people to both understand and disagree with you. Especially considering you’re rarely citing anything other than your personal opinion, rather than any sort of policy, precedent, or guideline. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, most people don’t agree with me anyways... And I know things aren’t gonna go they way I would’ve liked them to. Rather, the opposite. Sigh... Like always. Sorry, I’m not really feeling myself right now. The pages will be merged, and we’ll end up keeping the all models combined figures, while deleting the original models’. I’m feeling these weird tremors in my heart now. That’s how much this means to me. I shouldn’t have started the discussion or reverted you in the first place. You have over 65,000 edits. You’re very popular here, not to mention an admin, everyone will take your opinion (most certainly not mine)... — EzekielT Talk 14:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EzekielT: No encyclopedic content will be deleted, that's not how a merge works. And the infobox issue has no consensus yet, so calm down. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 14:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the infobox issue is 0.0001% of my concern, and the move is 99.999% of my concern. — EzekielT Talk 14:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkhandar and Sergecross73: Sorry for my excessive defeatist speech... I guess that’s what happens when you’re extremely tired. — EzekielT Talk 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

bar codes isbn?

I was curious, why we don't add the code number details on articles? Govvy (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy source for such a thing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there's no such thing as a universal video game id number. ISBN is the international standard book number; the barcode on a video game is just a number reserved by a publisher for that product- there's no guarantee that there's only one per type of game release, different releases have different ones, and digital releases don't use a barcode at all. Besides all that, what benefit does it give the reader? ISBNs can be looked up in multiple databases to find additional details about that book, handily linked automatically; barcodes can't. --PresN 14:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a thought, I thought it be helpful to a reader if they wanted to find that game in another database. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it did, this is a better fit for Wikidata than Wikipedia articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Soccer Challenge

I created Manchester United Europe a while back which is much improved to separate two different developer games apart. However I think in my actions I may have left European Soccer Challenge vulnerable as there are no citations and just one external link. Also google likes to bring up the Atari Lynx version, so finding sources seems to be a bit of a tough call. Maybe someone else might be able to help the article. Govvy (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

commodore Format review Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that's the same game, I added the cite to the article even know it just says European Soccer on that little article. Cheers btw. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident it is the same game. The typography of the title for these games read 'european soccer' and in written font 'challenge' - it could be very easy for it to be mistaken. Everything I've seen suggests it's referring to this game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the G-Zay situation

Just recently, I've updated the G-Zay evidence page with a few new socks that were blocked back in July 2018. So, if this occurs again, should we semi-protect the articles that G-Zay edits (as listed here) to prevent further disruption and also, are there any other sockpuppets that were missed in this update? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famitsu's website:

Heads up, Famitsu's site is doing some kind of refurbishing for their game archives section (cominy). If you go to a Famitsu game archive page now, it'll redirect to a new page that has a lot less information. I have no idea if they're planning on phasing out the cominy pages, or what. The older cominy pages include which issue of famitsu it was reviewed in, the review score, an excerpt from that review, basic game info, and the Japanese release history of the game. All pretty useful stuff. The old cominy pages still exist. I've personally tried to archive them in case they're removed later on. Is there some means of telling an archive bot to archive 100% of the famitsu site?

Example of the old page and new page for Magical Pop'n

Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the new pages, click the button that says 「旧ページへ」, this will take you to the old page. I take this as a sign they intend to keep them live. TarkusABtalk 19:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And even if they don't, a regex AWB run (say (?<!\/)https?:\/\/(?:www\.)?famitsu\.com\/cominy\/[^ |}]*title_id=([0-9]+)[^ |}]* → https://www.famitsu.com/games/t/$1/) could fix this. Lordtobi (✉) 20:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest adding this over to WP:VG/S as a footnote for Famitsu (Both the on-page button and the url regex conversion). --Masem (t) 21:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions needed

I have a very hard time with 2XL Games franchise of 2XL ATV Offroad, 2XL Supercross, 2XL Fleet Defense, 2XL TrophyLite Rally and X Games SnoCross. While all of these seem to pass WP:GNG, neither of these had any signs of lasting notablity, resulting in this lack of pageviews mess [3] (note that the 60 views instance was basically me adding new sources to ATV Offroad and gameplay info due to REFUND). I thought about possibly merging (likely with some text cuts) these to 2XL Games (now a redirect) where the info would be better reserved. Coverage of these all likely happened thanks to the times when iOS and Android were the next big thing (similiar to so many reviews now for Nintendo Switch games), no such thing nowadays where it is more selective in those terms. To no surprise, their more recent releases like 2XL Racing, 2XL MX Offroad for example failing GNG completely by my searches. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's sources for 2XL Games that can add on to what's already at these pages as well as the current redirect's target? Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Games in 1994

Be Bold and change it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Warriors

A chunk of gameplay info was added to Savage Warriors (see [4]), most of which is unsourced, and a lot of which includes what looks to me like WP:OR. I tried to remove some of it, but this was reverted. Opinions? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no rule that a reference have to be a web link. You can use the game for referencing.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 12:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be fair to say that you can write "this happens, then this happens, then this happens" without including a source, but do you honestly think we can include things like "the game manufacturer promised this would happen in the game, but you can clearly see it's much more like this" without including a source to avoid at least the appearance of original research? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piranha Plant merge discussion

Could use a few opinions; discussion is here. JOEBRO64 19:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with Edge (video game)

Could you assist me with Edge (video game) Its currently under GA review and addressed most of the issues. the main concern I have is the reception section. I originally added scores and some quotes but that wasn't enough for GA status and had to be revised. I revised as much as I could but still need some assistance on it. I'd appreciate any help really. :) ( I already requested assistance from Masem and Sergecross on their personal talk pages as well). I'm was asking anyone with GA achievements under their belt but anyone who has experience with Reception sections can help. Its really close to GA in humble my opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=885580224"