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, 176

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Category:Vii CFD

Since our deletion subpage doesn't accept CFDs I list it here: Deletion discussion for Category:Vii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika1h (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i wonder if this discussion is ever going to be achived? Salavat (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Either Mizabot has a problem with the unsigned template and a single entry or it has a problem archiving (red)linked headings. Will unlink heading to see what happens after our comments pass the expiration timer. - X201 (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The unsigned template isn't substituted, so there wasn't a username in the wikitext until Salavat commented. Maybe that's why the bot didn't do anything, it couldn't be sure the date was part of a signature. Substituting the unsigned template probably would have solved the problem, but now it doesn't really matter. Reach Out to the Truth 03:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

When is "a game, its sequels, and its spinoff media" become "a series"

Yesterday, SCEA announced a DC comic to span the period between Infamous and its sequel. That gives the set of games called "Infamous" 2 VG titles and a comic. With that, KiasuKiasiMan went ahead and expanded a series article, template, and a few other things. My initial problem with that is that doesn't feel like a series to me. I did search further and found that there are recent sources to support the idea that Infamous is a series, so it is not so much a problem of this particular instance anymore, but it does point to a larger problem: what exactly should be using as a threshold for when a game and its set of sequels become a series?

I am not particularly thrilled on the idea that it is based on the "series" having X games and Y spinoff elements (and the immediate creating of articles/templates to support that) I'd rather see some type of sourcing aspect come into play where significant sources are calling it out. Yes, this could (but unlikely) lead to a case where 4-5 related games in title and content aren't considered a series, but I'd feel more comfortable about that. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is part of bigger issue: we're frequently trying to create articles to keep up with the ever expanding video game market. We really need to slow down on article creation and focus on improving the ones we currently have.

To answer your question, I think it needs to be questioned whether a series article is even needed. The separate title articles should be evaluated to see if they omit information or if consolidation into a single article doesn't just rehash what is already present. For example, Final Fantasy covers details that the separate titles do not. As such, the available sources should reflect this and be somewhat diversified. Three articles from the same author wouldn't cut it in my mind.

In short, any topic created should have proper sourcing that adequately covers the topic (WP:V and WP:N) and the article should not be a content fork (WP:CONTENTFORK).

Regardless of what we decide, we do need something as media franchises have been the trend the past six or so years. Many evolved into that (Halo and Kingdom Hearts), but others (Compilation of FFVII and Dead Space) were planned that way from the start and I don't see that going away any time soon. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC))

If a series article can be created with good information that can't belong in the main game articles, then it could be split. Many times, the first game in the series is treated as the series article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, I think a franchise becomes a proper series when a source specifically discusses the series as a whole, rather than having to stitch sources together for each game. This generally happens the first time a retrospective is written, as opposed to a review for the latest game. Strictly speaking, this might be the only proper way to do it anyhow since otherwise the series article would essentially be synthesis of related, but independent coverage of separate topics. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was thinking. I agree completely. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So far it sounds like we're all on the same page: proper coverage from reliable sources dictates the article creation. Should we add something to WP:VG/GL? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure it would be necessary, as the requirement of proper coverage from reliable sources applies to all of Wikipedia. It seems like it would be redundant to specifically cover it in VG/GL. However, it has been a rising problem here lately, what with the Masocore suggestion and the previous fight over Dota (genre). Perhaps something could be done, one way or another, to make it clear that articles shouldn't be written without comprehensive, reliable and specific coverage of the topic. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would help because while most of our guidelines just rehash Wikipedia's they do so in less-generalize language that is specific to our scope. It also allows us to give examples that probably illustrate the point better to those wanting to work on video game articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

That's a good point. If you have an idea of what to say, just go ahead and insert it; I don't think you'll get any objections. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Web citation formatting

A previous point of discussion was the use of the publisher= and work= parameters in {{Cite web}}. For example, when citing a page on GameSpot, is the website the publisher or the work? And if the website is the work, would the publisher be the parent company? The template's documentation previously left room for debate as to which parameter should be used. But the current version provides a clear description as to which parameters to use and how. However, the relevant discussion at Template talk:Cite web doesn't seem as clear cut to me. Any thoughts as to how we should proceed? Does the change warrant questioning or should we follow the current documentation? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC))

I generally use the website name as the work and the company that owns the website as the publisher (at least that's what the template doc implies). It gets more tricky when you have to decide which field to use if there is no parent company that owns the website. I usually go with the website name as the publisher then (though I honestly don't know if that's how it should be done). Looking at some recently promoted featured articles might help. Prime Blue (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have used that if it is an online source online (IGN, Gamespot, etc.), I will put them as the publisher. If it is a website of a printed work, like Wired or Game Informer, I will put that in the work field (which automatically italizes them). --MASEM (t) 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here. The work field applies italics automatically, so I only use it for sites where we would normally italicize their names. That's what I've assumed the field was for. Reach Out to the Truth 21:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Same as Masem and Reach Out. Documentation only applies if you read it, so I try not to, and no one's ever complained at FAC/FLC. --PresN 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the template's usage guidelines, work should be the website, publisher should be the legal owner of the website. Never mind. I see you are asking whether the template guidelines are correct. I think this is probably beyond the scope of VG. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm more or less on the same page as Masem, as I don't bother filling out the publisher field for parent companies in the case of websites (it's not as critical as in the case of {{cite book}}.) Just use work for Wired, Game Informer, et al and publisher for 1UP, GameSpot, IGN, etc. As long as you're consistent throughout the article you're unlikely to get much flak from anyone. (That's what I've done for all my FAs, for what it's worth.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well now that you and PresN mention it, I'm bringing this up because of a comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men video games/archive1. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

From what I remember, work is suppose to be for something like "Reviews" under 1UP. I mostly use this now only for pages with Flash when I need to describe where on the page it goes, FE The "Iwata Asks" on Dragon's Quest IX's website which is accessable on in flash and contains multiple videos on the same url.陣内_Jinnai 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ack! I never use "work". I always use "publisher". Is that not OK? SharkD  Talk  11:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest-ed editor

Recently I ran across some contributions by a user that seems single-purpose (see Special:Contributions/SteinlageT). After digging, I found that that my suspicious feelings on only adding content in relation to GameZone was correct; they were a member of staff (at least forum staff). I've given a warning on WP:COI, but the single purpose edits have continued. Thoughts? --Teancum (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe open a discussion at WP:COIN the noticeboard for conflicts of interest, and see if they can help. Short of that, it seems the next action would be to see about blocking the editor, as COI edits are considered disruptive. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the site is an accepted source, the edits are actually helpful. While the adding can be seen as spam and a conflict of interest, I would personally assume good faith in this case and think this is just a good-willing Wikipedia editor who takes the time to add reviews from the site he is working for. Prime Blue (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but you can see that his additions are near-paragraph length in and of themselves, and that's a little concerning. Not as big of a deal for articles that are stubs, as at least that's some coverage, but other articles tend to tip the scales in GameZone's favor. --Teancum (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Then notify them to only write a sentence or two. If they don't do it, then editors who regularly patrol those pages may trim them up. They are doing good. It's just too much good, which is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's mostly copy and paste from their articles with not much self-authored information about what the reviews actually found good or bad. A WP:CV notice might be in order here. Prime Blue (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any problem here, either with COI or CV. He's putting reliable reviews into articles that have none—or, at most, very few. When he creates Reception sections for articles with no other reviews, he adds a single paragraph that discusses the review, with quotations in line with other VG articles. In the cases where there are other reviews, he only includes a small mention of the site's opinion—again, in line with other VG articles. That he is employed by the site is irrelevant in this case. He's helping the VG project, regardless of how one construes his intentions, and there's no reason to prevent him from doing that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

COI is really only a problem when it leads to a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, or other policies; I think this is often forgotten, probably because many COI cases people actually notice are because they do violate these other policies. If as JimmyBlackwing says all the relevant policies are being followed, then there is no problem here and WP:AGF is in order. OTOH, if as Teancum says the edits are violating WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT, then there is a problem but WP:AGF shouldn't necessarily be thrown out the window. Either way, closer than normal scrutiny of this user's edits wouldn't be amiss if someone wants to volunteer, as long as it doesn't get to the level of Wikihounding. Anomie⚔ 04:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, some of the passages he copied and pasted are on the brink of the fair use policy for copyrighted text as it's literally entire paragraphs from their reviews instead of just a sentence or two (or the core statement). I'm all for his edits, but the direct quotations should be kept to a minimum. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree. The text copying he's done is no worse than what may be seen in our own featured articles. He writes an introductory sentence or two, followed by a brief quoted section. If that's a problem, then it's a problem with the entire system; not just him. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at a few of his edits and don't see anything wrong with them. SharkD  Talk  16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But now it seems that the COI message may have scared him off since he only made one edit following the note. Salavat (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, we've had other problems with GameZone COI issues before in the past. You can see the previous discussion here. Honestly, if GameZone continues to throw people at Wikipedia to copy and paste their review quotes in here, it's a problem, even if they're considered a reliable source. I do think that it violates WP:WEIGHT. Looks like this issue's dead but I figured I'd include the link to the previous issue so people know that it isn't the first time. Nomader ^(Talk) 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the editor is at it again. Given the past issues Nomader brought up, and given GameZone's responses the previous go-round I'd say they're in violation of WP:WEIGHT as well. --Teancum (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What he is doing looks fine to me. One or two sentences to small or non-existent reception sections. The problems would arise if he started adding large chunk to a developed reception section, causing GameZone to dominate the reception. Salavat (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Last year, User:BOZ went through over 100 game articles and posted clips from Dragon reviews. Most of these articles did not even feature Reception sections, and, to this day, contain only the single review he added. He created many articles, in fact, so that he could include the reviews. Does this violate WP:WEIGHT? Should he have been asked to stop?

Obviously, this case is different, but not to the extent that the comparison becomes invalid. If it's such a problem that only one review is present, add a few more to balance it out. Don't persecute someone for doing us a favor. Our time is better spent improving the project's VG coverage than it is preventing other people from doing so. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And he's back again...several GZ reviews posted in various articles last night...--MASEM (t) 14:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I went and removed a few of his edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely unjustified; I recommend that you undo your changes immediately. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking again, I see that others have been doing this without consensus. Just leave him alone; this Wikihounding needs to stop right now. The paranoia being exhibited here is ridiculous. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought we decided that it wasn't so much a "conflict of interest" issue as much as "undue weight". Just tell him to trim it down a bit. Don't just cut him off completely. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I did revert one of his edits to Raskulls, but that's because he had a 4-line edit added to a 8 line paragraph, creating a wall of text, plus it wasn't organized by elements of review as I often do when I write my Reception sections, so it didn't flow. I did, however rollback as an AGF edit so he didn't feel it was a poor/COI edit. I do think someone might mention that he could trim down the length of his additions, however. In response to commentary on why his edits would be reverted from this point on I'm simply going to do what's best for the article, regardless of AGF. I'll try to handle it in a tactful way and use what I can from his edits rather than outright removing them, but I'm not guaranteeing that I won't outright remove the edit if it's better for the article. Most times I'll probably remove his edit and replace it with something more in-context to how the Reception section is written. Some of the articles he's adding to I've put multiple hours into, and though I don't own the article, I do have an interest in ensuring that it keeps a certain quality. --Teancum (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If he feels that the GZ reviews adds seomthing new that is already in the article, he should post that on the talk page, not add it himself - if that is all the editing that he is doing. Getting us editors to act as his proxy is much much better than to force it himself. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly agreed. As anyone else with a potential COI he can suggest improvements and allow someone without that potential COI to make the edit. Non-GameZone related edits by him are welcome, but this seems like a SPA account issue, and good faith or not he needs to follow protocol. --Teancum (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a conflict of interest. GameZone is a reliable source; he is following standard editing practices; he is not acting in bad faith; he is not making contentious edits; he is not POV-pushing; he is not breaking any rules. If I worked for The New York Times, would it be a COI for me to add NYT coverage to an article? Of course not; the NYT is a well-known and reliable source. GZ, while less well-known, is nonetheless a reliable source. He's doing us a huge favor by adding their coverage, and you want to chase him away? Would that more redlink editors did so much as to improve Reception sections. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If this was the editor's first offense, of course not. But we've had problems with GZ editors adding their reviews to existing articles without considering how well the review fits into the article - adding the GZ review just to add the GZ review and link to it. We're also dealing with an editor who seems to only want to add GZ reviews. That's textbook COI/SPA. While GZ is a reliable source, we don't always need to include every reliable sources' review into the article, particularly if it says nothing new from what others have said, and that's how these GZ additions come across when I've seen them. Again, the proper action for anyone invested in GZ is to suggest that their review be added at talk pages, and if we see their value, we'll add them. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If we were talking about a controversial subject, where a user including the coverage of his/her employer would unbalance the article, then I'd agree with you. I'd also agree if we were talking about another type of section, where redundant information was not, in fact, helpful. Most of the articles he's improving had poor-to-no reception coverage, and if the review repeats information from other reviews, so what? Seeing that gives the reader a better idea of how a game was received. If we removed repetitive information from Reception sections, they would become incomprehensible.

It's unnecessarily insular to demand that he merely suggest the inclusion of the reviews. Wikipedia's bureaucracy exists to deal with threats and problems; we don't need to envoke it to shut out harmless editors. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Then what would you suggest? To say he's acting in good faith is only half-true. He's clearly doing these edits for the sole purpose of advertising GameZone, no matter whether the edits are helpful or not; otherwise we'd at least see some semblance of editing outside the GZ realm. It's absolutely SPA. As far as the "huge favor" goes I beg to differ. When we have to go back and rewrite everything he's placed there to clear obvious or potential WP:ADVERT, WP:COPYVIO and other violation that's hardly helpful. Besides, I made a suggestion already to help steer this user in the right direction, which he blatantly ignored - not even so much as responding. Given past situations I'd say it's time to take this to WP:COIN. If the editor would take a few minutes to listen and actually help rather than just spam a "[editor] from GameZone said" plus a four line quote then I wouldn't have issue. --Teancum (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I received this message from the user, and honestly I don't know that I have a civil response that the user will understand given the messages other users have used to explain the potential issues. If any other users have a civil way to say what's already been said, please do so. --Teancum (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a message explaining that he just needs to tone down the size of the reviews and they will be accepted. Hopefully he listens. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello this is SteinlageT, I am new to wiki, but I would like to announce that I do NOT work for GameZone! I do online help, but I am NOT apart of their staff. I simply am a fan of the site and like to share their reviews to gamers who are looking for reviews on games. I can shorten my contributions, but I would like to see all my old ones put back if possible. Thank you for your time --User:SteinlageT —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

I also want to apologize for being uncivil to you guys. I didn't mean for that to sound rude, I just wasn't in terms with Wiki's rules. I just want you all to know that I do not work for game zone in any way. I receive no pay from them. I am merely a fan of a reliable site who likes to share their reviews. I will definitely tone down the length of my contributions! I just want to make sure that I will not have my edits deleted anymore if I make them shorter!? Thanks guys.--SteinlageT (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tate, I think it's also important to note that a conflict of interest is not defined by whether you are paid or not. The fact that you contribute to the website in one regard or another outside of being a reader brings you much closer to the conflict of interest policy. The contributing factor that on the website it lists you as part of the "Editorial Staff" and under occupation lists you as a "forum moderator / editor" didn't help your case any. Most people are leery as we've seen it time and time again where people come to Wikipedia to reference their own work / company / bio. Let's face it, even Jimbo Wales got in trouble by the community for editing his own bio. Mkdw^talk 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Listen, the editorial staff position could be attained by anyone. It means I can just make sure the forums aren't spammed or filled with spelling mistakes. I'm a forum moderator at numerous sites, so its not like I'm just working to get GameZone views! I am a harmless editor here at wiki just trying to help pages out by inserting some passages from GameZone's reviews as they are reliable. I do not mean to be a threat at all! Am I okay to continue posting reception contributions as long as I shorten the inserts? Thanks guys.--SteinlageT (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact is (from my pov) if you work for or with GameZone, you shouldn't be adding GameZone reviews, regardless of whether they're notable, reliable or whatever. The fact you're adding them is promoting them. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to reiterate, as Nomader has mentioned above, this is the third (at least) time there have been GameZone SPA/COI issues. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All you are doing then is driving people away from wiki who are are just trying to help pages out. GameZone gets enough views as it is, I am merely here to help gamers out by giving them ideas on how games are from a website that I find to review games well. That is, as mentioned above, Wikihounding, and it is ridiculous. I actually work for/with a website called Xbox Resouce, not GameZone. I just want to help pages out, and actually, most of the pages I helped out had little to NO reception/references. I even was going to do what you all asked and cut my contributions down in length, but you guys keep acting like your still going to delete thm like you ALREADY have. I put hours into my work here just to see thm get deleted though they easily help out a page. There are worse people n wiki than a simple editor like myself trying to improve wiki video game pages.--SteinlageT (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Griffon (TurboGrafx-16)

Order of the Griffon was recently expanded significantly, however without improving its already-thin sourcing. Is there anything anyone can do to improve this one a bit more? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can find in my old magazine collection is a mention in short-lived TG-16 magazine Turbo Force that the game was set to be released in September 1992 ("Coming Attractions". Turbo Force (2). Lombard, IL: Sendai Publishing Group: 28. September 1992.). –MuZemike 01:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If you also need the game's manual to verify gameplay elements and plot stuff, if listed, there is a copy at replacementdocs.com. –MuZemike 01:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a full review from TurboPlay issue 14, August / September 1992, page 17. ~ Hibana (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool, the user who expanded the article has been working to integrate these sources. Thanks!  :) 108.69.80.49 (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I would recommend is making all those bulleted lists into actual prose (of paragraphs, that is). I think that would be better to read, and you don't have to have all those inline citations in there. –MuZemike 07:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Mission based racing games

In the Racing Games wiki article Racing_video_game this sub-genre isnt mentioned it seems. I was writing on a article about this genre on another site, but would like to add my "research" results to this article now as well but wasnt sure if its okay. Under Mission based racer i understand any racing game where it isnt the/or not only the goal to be the first of a race but to accomplish any missions. As example in 007 Racing to shoot a tank with a rocket, than trying to escape hunting motorbikes with machineguns, that all while driving on a highway. Another example would be spyhunter 2 for the ps2 etc. greets, gbk — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBK2011 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

On nominations for awards

I'd just like to bring this up for discussion - is their any reason why historically we've removed nominations from VG articles on the basis of "not-notable"? Early in my Wiki career I had nominations removed from articles I had worked on with this reasoning, and so I've followed suit ever since. But biographical articles often mention when a person is nominated for an award, as do some movies. I mean, there's definitely cases where it's not really necessary to mention nominations given the sheer number of awards won (see Red Dead Redemption#Awards), but I feel it's important to mention notable nominations in the game's scope, as often times this helps to establish the game's success and popularity as much as an award does. Thoughts? I'd really like to add nominations from reliable sources to a few games, but I don't want to get into a revert war. --Teancum (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd make sure to segregate awards that are from multiple organizations (like the Spike VGAs, the GDC Awards, etc.) and those that are individual web/publisher sites (like the Best of 20xx awards from IGN, etc.).

In the case of the more formal award processes, all wins and nominations should be included. This would be more equivalent to the movie case.

In case of the single publisher awards, I would avoid listing nominations (but wins are ok), except in the case where the game has not won anything else, in which case listing out the noms should be done, assuming we're talking about non-stupid awards. EG a game nom by IGN for Game of the Year, but getting nothing else, should mention this; A game nom by IGN for "most cleavage shown" but getting nothing else shouldn't mention this. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You would assume a nomination for a British Academy Video Games Award would be notable. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, under my scheme. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this way. I've done so with Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) with its nomination in the Games Critics Awards, which in itself is notable. But if its a random nom. for an already award winning game, it shouldn't be nessecary. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we refocus reception to do extensive sections on plot, gameplay, graphics, sound, etc., and if a reliable source nominates it for having, say, the best of one of those, we could make note of it to better demonstrate the reception for each of those? Overall though, I would definitely figure that nominatons for GotY or even specific console GotY are acceptable, and a game with few awards should allow any nomination mentions within reason. For example, Best Game No One Played should obviously be mentioned for all nominees of the award, considering that it likely didn't receive many other nominations or awards. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't like breaking up the reception section to focus on specific aspects of a video game, because half the time, the reviews really don't focus too much on this. I was able to do this for Limbo, but that was exceptional to other games where it's easy to organize thoughts by paragraph. Also, most other works (non-video game) where awards are given have sections or organization specifically to highlight awards and noms separately from other reception aspects. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, be thoughtful of where the award comes from and what it is. In a film article, the most important awards are the Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs and Festival Awards (like at Cannes). These are awards given by pan-industry groups, and the award itself is notable. Game awards don't have that sort of gravitas yet, but I would give highest precedence to the Game Developers Choice Awards (or the corresponding Independent Games Festival award), Interactive Achievement Awards and the British Academy Video Games Awards. I would be wary of publication specific awards, you might mention Empire's film of the year, or even their Action film of the year. What you wouldn't mention though, is every IGN nomination for their hundreds of categories - nominations for The most addictive PSP game of 2010 are just irrelevant, as are Gamespot's Best Expansion Pack of 2010. They're not particularly notable, from one publication only, and barely qualify as awards. - hahnchen 12:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Steam promoting?

In May 2010 user:Lthornsb went through a lot of games, noting at the top of each article that the game is available on Steam (content delivery). This seems to be nothing but advertising for Steam, and wikipedia is not a place for free advertising. I cannot see why this information is important for the articles, especially not so important as to be at the top of each article. As far as I can tell, this is the only contribution that Lthornsb ever made to wikipedia. I am not an expert on video games, so I wanted to check here before undoing it all. Any opinions? ComputScientist (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• What he's doing is fine. That a game is available through Steam is a notable fact that should be included in all relevant articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Right at the lead section? Why? --Conti|✉ 23:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

VG/GL says:

• Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first.

For VG articles, all release platforms are usually included in the first paragraph. Also, please don't edit other users' posts without their permission. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, there is an exception for games with so many platforms that it becomes cumbersome to list them all. However, there are few to no Steam games that actually fit that bill. Additionally, I can assure you that adding Steam to Wikipedia could never be construed as advertisement, even if by an employee of Valve - the service is indisputably notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Steam should not be listed unless it is an exclusive to the service (outside of retail sales) - otherwise it is just another distribution channel. So Steam should be listed for most Valve games, but not something like Civ V. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Steam is a very significant method of video game delivery, considered by many to be both destroying the retail industry for PC games (what little existed) and revitalizing the industry as well. Using Modern Warfare 2 as an example, it was particularly notable that it required the use of Steam for the PC version. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're over-blowing things. There are a lot of digital distribution services out there. It may be fairly popular, but it alone is no threat to retail stores. Remarks like these seem more like promotional material that gets repeated as fact. SharkD  Talk  08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Steam enthusiast (not advertiser; difference), I follow Steam's effect on the industry. I've seen plenty of retailers and competing digital distribution services discuss how Steam is either too powerful for other services to compete, or how it is consuming retail sales for PC games. One store in particular complains about Steam - not digital distribution, Steam - doing just that. In fact, they even threatened to not sell any games that require Steam for them to be used.[1] Direct2Drive, Games for Windows Live, Great Old Games, all may have decent sales, but Steam is - not in opinion, but in absolute fact - the by-far strongest digital distribution service for the PC. And also a fact that not one digital distribution service is comparable enough to Steam to be called competitive with them. Again, I must remind you that the fastest-selling video game ever created (MW2) would likely not require users to use Steam if Steam wasn't that much more significant than other similar services. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And I must point out that in the link provided, it attributes 80% of the digital distribution industry on PC to Steam, meaning that the many competitors to Steam are fighting over only a fifth of the industry. Steam is only 10% away from having as strong of a hold on the market as Nintendo had with the NES. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying a game is on Steam is like saying a song is on iTunes, its not a big deal. However, it should be noted for games with Steam integration, which goes beyond being a mere distribution channel. Masem is incorrect in this regard, Civ V is a Steamworks game, it requires Steam, all updates are delivered through Steam and it includes Steam achievements, so it should be noted. - hahnchen 11:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference in requiring Steamworks and being distributed by Steam - the two are not mutually exclusive. The former is more important as it implies a set of features/etc., the latter is who put the price tag on the item. A game using Steamworks should be noted as a such, but a game distributed on Steam and other means does not need special attention. This is basically akin to saying that we should highlight a game being sold at Gamestop even though other stores like Best Buy and Target may sell it, and it's putting too much emphasis on the commercial side, when we need to focus on the technical side. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you suggest, then, that we stop mentioning a game's availability on PSN, XBLA or WiiWare, in favor of "PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii"? At Hippie's stated 80%, Steam's market share is nearly as large as those other services' (100%). The competition is almost non-existent. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, because if you tell me that a game is only digitally available for the PS3, I know that you mean its on PSN, the only service that exists there. But if you tell me a PC game is digitally available, I would have to ask "do you mean, Steam, D2D, GOG, GFWL, EA Store, or what?" There is legitimate competition for Steam even if Steam is 80% or more of the digital marketplace; we should not be making the leap that they are the most important distributors and thus need mention in the field. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

For once I strongly disagree. Stating a PC release date could mean anything, particularly if there are multiple media platforms. It's important to note whether it's physical media, Steam, D2D, etc as they all quite often have different dates. Given such it should be treated similar to a regional release. On the flipside I don't think it needs much more than a mention of the platform/media outlet and date unless it makes use of more advanced Steam functions such as achievements. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Release dates should only be for when the title is first available on that platform in that region regardless of distribution; if there is a significant issue on the timing of distribution within the same platform, that's an issue to be brought up in the text of the body of the article. For example, Red Dead Redemption should only have one North American release date (may 2010) for the 360 even though the 360 Games on Demand version just came out last week.

Steam is just a storefront - the most popular, but just a storefront among at least 5-6 on the Windows side. Steamworks is important, on the other hand, and I fully support making sure this support is noted, but just being on Steam is not assurance that Steamworks is in place. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well we'll have to agree to disagree there. Unless there is a policy in place preventing such I see alternate forms of distribution as something the reader looks for in an article, particularly when we're talking physical vs digital, as such will continue to be a major turning point in gaming history for the next several years. I suppose there's an argument for having generic dates for "physical" and "digital" media, but I don't see this being something fesable to maintain. I find the one-sentence inclusion of adding, say in your example "was released via Microsoft's Games on Demand service on December XX, 2010" very worthy of inclusion. What sort of policy is there that says it isn't? If there is one I'd honestly like to know; I'm willing to put it to bed if this has already been decided, but if this is still up for consensus then let's continue discussion. --Teancum (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see where people are talking about here. I don't see a problem to enumerate what digital services a game is available on in the text of the article's body; it's likely not lede-worthy mention unless only one service (per platform) is distributing it. What I don't see necessary is assigning dates when a game appears each service. One of the problems I see here is that when a game appears on multiple services within the same week, it is completely unnecessary to iterate each date outside of the technicality of the infobox; for all practical purposes, a game that is released on different services on Dec 1st, 4th, 6th, and 7th is better stated as coming out "the first week of December". Even if there's a large gap of say a month or so, it is only the first release that is important. There can be exceptions: maybe a game with time exclusivity from one storefront for a few months, where there are sources that discuss this "injustice" (a possible example is the first ep of BTTF: The Game where the free episode isn't going to be available until Feb while those that bought it have it now).

So summary: as long as all storefronts are mentioned, I don't see the problem in mentioning steam, but Steam is only highlighted (despite other stores it is sold at) and the integration with Steamworks is trivial or non-existent, that's advertising and should be resolved (either by adding all storefronts or removing Steam - I can tell that the latter is the easier option because there may be storefronts that one is unaware of, and generally how physical media is dealt with). --MASEM (t) 17:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though typically I'd prefer the former option of adding the other services, I'd agree that there are probably several situations where articles we as individuals don't follow will require quick cleanup, resulting in the latter solution. I'm also very much ok with the idea of lumping the release dates in the lead (and possibly the infobox) into a date range of some sort when there are multiple distribution services which provide the game. I guess in the end my complaint generally is that readers are going to hit an article to know the basics of a game - how many players, what platforms, how was it received, can I get a digital copy or do I have to go to the store - and I just feel like not providing that information doesn't follow the spirit of Wikipedia. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also the issue that Steam may not *be* the dominant digital distribution channel 5 years from now. Are we going to go back through and edit all those articles that mentioned Steam to change what they say if this is the case? What about the next time after that? SharkD  Talk  20:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a very crystal ball situation, one that implies a significant difference between digital distribution platforms and consoles. We mention the Virtual Console in the lead, why not Steam? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Masem here actually, even though his Civ V remark threw me off. Steam should be mentioned if the game (the PC version anyway) is a Steam exclusive, in that it contains Steamworks integration. This means all players must install Steam, all updates come through Steam, and can also take advantage of Steam Cloud etc. (this also applies to other services) If it the game just treats Steam as any other distributor, such as Direct2Drive or GamersGate, then its not particularly important - it'd be the same as listing the shops you can buy it from. - hahnchen 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Steam is as much a place to buy things as XBLA is, but we consider the XBLA to be a platform rather than a store. Steam is nothing less than a video game platform. What if a developer attributes a game's success to its Steam release? Fact of the matter is that just because it has competing services and that it allows players to buy games off of it does not mean that it is a store first and foremost. You cannot use the shops you buy retail games from to play the games. And I will continue to reiterate that we are not listing *just any* service, we're listing the service that is 4/5 of its entire respective industry. The way Steam is treated, it would be wrong to list it as a platform released for. Steam being so much more powerful than its competitors tells us that it is that much more notable than them, and as such, it serves as an exception to the rule of "not just listing any old platform it may have appeared on," because it's one of the most significant platforms that it has been released on. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

When you use Steam as a platform (ie Steamworks or exclusive) then mention it. If a Steam release has a significant referenced impact on a developers fortune, for example - saving Introversion's ass, then mention it. If it's a shop front, then don't. We wouldn't mention the Kindle publication of The Great Gatsby, Justin Bieber's iTunes availability, or appearance of The Hurt Locker on Netflix. If it's notable, mention it, but it isn't inherently notable. - hahnchen 23:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's still not the same. If a retail release is December 29, 2010, it's December 29, 2010 at GameStop, Wal-Mart, Target, wherever. Individual digital distributors all have different release dates. People don't look at a release date to see what store to buy it at, however they will look to see whether they can buy it digitally opposed to on a disc. And this isn't a 1:1 comparison to iTunes - digitial distribution often comes either far after or far before the on-disc versions. --Teancum (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not here as a sales catalog to promote when peopel can buy certain titles. Dates are used to establish release dates for those that need to compare and contrast, but not to plan out one's purchases. Unless there is sourced commentary about the difference between the digital and retail release of a game, only the first release for that platform should be noted. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• At the very least, I think we can agree that there's no reason to assume User:Lthornsb's actions were in bad faith. By extension, User:ComputScientist will not be required to revert his changes (which occurred in May 2010, I might add). Should WPVG come to a decision about Steam's inclusion in articles, it will be dealt with at that time. The issue at hand has been addressed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I must say that the mentioning of a game being available on Steam in the lead paragraph has bothered me for some time now. It's seems out of place and unprofessional. Imagine how a lead paragraph would look like if it has to mention several other digital distribution services like D2D, impulse etc... . While Steam is a leading distribution service the availability of a game on it doesn't have a place at the leading paragraph at least not more than a game being available at Wal-Mart is. I think guidelines about this issue should be added to the project. Almogo (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wal Mart is a store. Steam HAS a store. Being able to purchase something on Steam does not make it the same thing as Wal Mart. Steam has individual release dates that do not necessarily follow any other release date for the same game, while Wal Mart's release date is K Mart's release date is Target's release date is Best Buy's release date is GameStop's release date. In all intents and purposes, if Steam was a home console and acted in the exact same fashion, it would be considered appropriate for use. It seems a little silly to say that Steam is only lesser than, say, PS3, all because it is not its own physical platform. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But Steam isn't a console. The PC (or Mac) is the equivalent of the console. Steam is the equivalent of XBLM or PSN: you pay it money to get software. It is a storefront. It also integrates with Steamworks, which is a set of networking and engine tools, which can be useful to note, but that has nothing to do with sales. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem comes down to whether you consider Steam to be a "platform" or a "distribution mechanism". IMHO, it's the latter - it doesn't provide any significant support for the game once it's installed and running. If you can get the game by other means - then I don't think we need to mention Steam at all - after all, we don't mention that WalMart sells the game - and we don't say whether a particular piece of classical music happens to be available from the iTunes store or that a movie may be seen on Netflicks. The delivery mechanism simply isn't a particularly notable fact about the product.

However, if you can't get the game any other way than Steam - then, arguably, we should mention it deeper in the article - perhaps in the info-box. Just like we'd say that a music track is an "iTunes-only release" or a "Best Buy exclusive". Even so, I don't think this information ever belongs in the lede - that's just too intrusive.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The analogy is not apt. Wal Mart is, without any argument, a distribution mechanism. With Steam, it is clearly up to debate as to what to define it as. There are many games with Steam integration, while all games on the service are played "through" it in some way. Games are patched through Steam, games are installed through Steam, games are purchased through Steam, and games are played through Steam. If you buy a game on Steam, it is always ON Steam. If you buy a game at Wal Mart, Wal Mart is irrelevant once you leave the store. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Steam is mainly a distribution platform and generally speaking does not have any feature that makes it unique compared to other digital distribution services. As things currently stand Steam receives a privileged treatment and placement on Wikipedia Video Game articles, a privileged treatment which I do not think it deserves. As I see it what needs to be determined is if it is appropriate for the main paragraph to include digital distribution release information. Almogo (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so where does the privilege exists? Why doesn't it deserve this so-called privilege? Are you implying that its competitors, which likely don't even hold 1/5 of the respective industry it competes in, warrant mention exactly as much as Steam? When I use Steam, I rarely use it for purchasing games. The vast majority of my time, and I guarantee you anyone else's time, is spent playing games through Steam. Games that, I might add, are either played with Steam or not played at all. Steam is a required component. If Steam being required to play a game does not make it a games service, then what makes the PS3 a games service? You can purchase games on it like a store, games for PS3 are played on PS3 or not at all, and it has its own XMB. What is privileged about Steam's treatment in Wikipedia articles that could not be pointed at games that give preference to, say, the NES version of it? In multi-console cases for the NES, you are likely not going to see the MSX version given any attention because the NES controlled almost every single bit of the console industry. Why is it wrong that Steam is mentioned over the less popular, less significant alternatives? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The preferential treatment is demonstrable is that the availability of a game on Steam is often times mentioned in the lead paragraph of an article. Steam doesn't deserve that treatment because the vast majority of the games available on the service - and thus the vast majority of articles on which Steam is mentioned in the lead paragraph - use it only as a distribution service or in plain words, an online video game store. Of the thousands of games available on Steam I would imagine that only a few (less than 5%) actually *require* Steam in order to be played. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines mentions "'In the article lead, release dates should be summarized to be as general as possible, avoiding specific mention of platform and region releases unless significant'" in my opinion the release date on Steam is not something that belongs there except on extreme circumstances. I think a new section needs to be added to that page that addresses online distribution services and their mentioning, or not, in the video game articles. Almogo (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as you are aware that there are competitors to Steam for the selling of games via digital delivery, any preferential treatment of the storefront is a bias that can be corrected. Mind, this is specifically for games that can be gotten other ways either due to being released before Steam or other situations (such as Telltale Games where you can buy and dl from their store). Steam-exclusivity is not in question - that should be mentioned, just like if there was other storefront exclusivity (eg Elemental through Impulse). The requirement of using Steam is also not in question - that should be mentioned too. But if neither case applies, and Steam is just one of the many ways to get and play the game, the availability of game through Steam just should not be needed. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I will also agree with the sentiments expressed by Masem, hahnchen, Almogo and others in that if we are talking about a point of sale, Steam is not deserving of special mention beyond any other store. Steam is notable insofar as Steam-specific features that are designed into the game, but merely being sold on Steam does not warrant special mention and is undue weight if we talk about Steam and not about any other store. I think Steam is one of those subjects on Wikipedia that receive favorable systemic bias due to its popularity and the nature of the wiki medium. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that Wikipedia is a digital distribution channel itself - and trends being what they are these days - probably leads to significant overlap in editors' interests, which is also reflected in the substance of their edits. SharkD  Talk  01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really getting the difference between Steam and Steamworks. Steam (software) doesn't clarify very well at all. Does Steamworks add achievements, DLC and the like? The article says what Steamworks requires and gives some examples of applications that use it, but never clearly says what it does. --Teancum (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We probably could have a separate article on Steamworks, as it is like a game engine akin to Havok or Unreal. It includes support for networking, matchmaking, interfacing with Steam friends lists, achievements, voice communications, Steam Cloud (save across multiple computers) support, and so forth. It's probably better to think of Steam of being part XBox Live's service, and then a marketplace on top of it. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case I'd agree that Steamworks support would be the only need to place Steam in an article, as at that point it's more than a distributor. Steam's article was so unclear that I didn't know there was any difference, but it seems that Steamworks is what powers all the features that would make a Steam-based title individually notable. If anyone with better knowledge of Steam has some time to at least update the Steamworks section with more of its capabilities that'd probably help with confusion in the future - sorry, here I was getting on the defensive since I was confused. --Teancum (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mario Galaxy games at GAN

An IP (86.141.186.21) added the GAN tags to Talk:Super Mario Galaxy(see dif) and Talk:Super Mario Galaxy 2(see dif). A quick glance leads me to believe that while the articles aren't in bad shape, they don't quite look GA ready. Did a user nominate them in earnest while logged out, or is this just an eager IP new to Wikipedia? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

I agree. They could easily be GAs in the near future. Maybe a peer review is more appropriate? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed this. I had the same question—about whether it's an IP or a logged out user—but couldn't decide. Perhaps a query should be made on the IP's talk page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that its an eager IP who thinks the articles are Good Article material. However, since its up for GAN, and the IP isn't returning to editing soon, anyone interested in working on them? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought IPs couldn't nominate good articles, or is that just reviewing? Regardless, if no one steps up I recommend we leave a note at WT:GAN about withdrawing the articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

GAN

It'd be great if I could get a review of Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri, which has been up at GAN since the 7th. While I'm at it, I should note that a few articles have been needing reviews longer than mine: VVVVVV (December 2), X-Men: Legends (October 26) and Development of Spore (October 25). If anyone has time, it would really help. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

On my list. Once I get some free time (probably next week), I hope to review at least one.

It looks like David was going to review the Spore article, but suggested a merger. Perhaps once that issue is resolved the review can be addressed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

I'll do Terra Nova now, if no one else is interested. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, can someone point me to the GA Review template that sets up each section on the review page? I've been doing it manually and seen others do so with a template. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

{{GAList}}? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone brought this up - I've reviewed four GANs lately hoping someone else would return the favor, but nobody has. --Teancum (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You weren't forgotten Teancum. I read through half of X-Men Legends last week. The holidays just don't allot much free time. It'll get reviewed by next week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Awesome. Thanks much! --Teancum (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Monster Player Kill

The article Monster Player Kill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference found a single published (gBooks) WP:RS mention in Geektionary: From Anime to Zettabyte, an A to Z Guide to All Things Geek, Adams Media, 2011 . Given the 2011 publication date it could well be sourced from this long unreferenced article. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed at Humble Indie Bunlde

I've run into a user that insists that the games in the Humble Indie Bundle be split off into lists despite how they are presently listed in the article within prose. A couple additional voices of which style is better is requested at Talk:Humble Indie Bundle. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions needed regarding Mega Drive/Genesis sales figures

I finally got sick of the probable WP:SYN violations relating to the sales of the Mega Drive/Genesis, and started discussions at WP:ORN#Mega Drive/Genesis sales and WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite?. Please comment there if you have any views on the matter. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 18:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Clean picture of a White or Black Classic Controller Pro needed.

File:Wii-classic-controller-pro.jpg is thought to be too messy of a picture. Can someone replace this with a cleaner picture. People have noted that the background is not good and that they don' like the wire positioning. (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 84#Someone with a camera and a Classic Controller Pro needed) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

R-Type Tactics II: Operation Bitter Chocolate

Just to let you guys know, I'm working on a text file of this and expanding it with whatever I could find online and trying to play the game. Help much appreciated, like translating the text at the Irem website. I couldn't crack some of the gameplay sections there using Google Translate. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter about ready to go

Anything else that needs to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft, particularly the "announcements" section? All I could think of that was of any major note were the new administrator/arbitrators and the recent re-launch of WP:VG/AA.

If there aren't anything else, I can load it into a new Newsletter page and send it out with my bot. –MuZemike 09:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

May be add mention of Indie taskforce? It's not very fleshed out though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I added it in there. –MuZemike 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, can you give a shoutout to WP:HORROR and their discussion that's happening. The project needs more members and some video game articles are part of the horror genre too. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFC

I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd hate to see covers—the visual aids that allow readers identify subjects beyond a shadow of doubt—removed en masse, but I don't plan on getting involved in this debate. It's a heavily-disputed issue, with vehement supporters on either side; it's not going to be pretty. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Even if you support amending NFCI it doesn't automatically mean you support blanket deletion of covers; my position, for example, wouldn't affect any video game articles as far as I'm aware of. I encourage interested parties to read the background and make your case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• I don't mean to be a jerk - but can I get that in layman's terms? I'm just not following. --Teancum (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Long story short. The question is does our non free use image pollicy forbid the use of cover arts in articles (in this case a box are for a video game) unless there is critical commentary or are we allowed to include them without critical commentary.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Or neither. See the discussion regarding the "vegan" argument, which would spill over and impact things like the use of quotes in articles. SharkD  Talk  19:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Edit conflicted Summary: We have both a legal-related policy (WP:NFCC) related to the use of non-free images, and a guideline for when it is appropriate to use them (WP:NFCI). Policy trumps guidelines. NFCI (#1) specifically gives cover art as one of the times that you can use a non-free image, without having to worry about it. The policy, however (NFCC #8) says that you can only use images "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". A few people have recently stated, notably at FAC, that these two lines contradict each other, in that putting a cover image in an infobox without talking about it in the text does not meet the policy's criteria. The RFC is looking for consensus on whether the two lines contradict each other, and what, if anything, we should do about it.

• The current main three positions are- #1 that they don't contradict, #2 that they do contradict and we should do some rewriting to fix that, and #3 that they do contradict so we should follow policy and remove/delete all of the cover images in favor of stock free images. David's position is in #2, in that they do contradict each other, but that that means we need to rewrite NFCI#1, not delete all 100,000+ images out of their infoboxes (though it's a bit more nuanced than that). --PresN 02:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read rule #1 carefully, it says that you can use cover art for some item "X" if you do so in the context of a proper discussion of "X". In our case, "X" is a game. So we should be OK with putting cover art into an article about the game from which it came - because we're discussing the game in the article. What Rule #1 says is that we have to be careful about is using cover art in an article that's not specifically about the game itself (eg an article about a studio or a game designer or a game console or in a "List of..." article).

Rule #8 is the more problematic one. It constrains us further in that we can only use fair use images (including cover art) if it "significantly" improves our reader's ability to understand our article and if leaving it out would "detract" from that. That's a much harder sell IMHO. Will our reader understand what we're saying about Mario 64 any better if there is a cover-art picture? In the case of an album, where a part of the experience is the art on the cover - then yes. But in the case of Mario, you'd be better off showing a screen-shot.

However, the dispute isn't about "significance". It is in part about the confusion some people have that makes them imagine that you have to write something that discusses the cover art itself - but that's a misreading of Rule #1...and in part people who are just upset that there is so much use of "fair use" images in Wikipedia - which is a reasonable sentiment, but not in any way related to "contradictions" in our policy.

For editors of video game articles - we should be OK to use cover art in the actual article about the game, but almost never anywhere else. SteveBaker (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the opinion statements to the actual RFC, please. That's what its there for. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Discussing it here won't help impact things in the RfC. If you have an opinion, even if you don't want to stay and discuss it, just post it and your reason. The more people who at least express an opinion, even if they don't say anything, the better we can come to a broad consensus on something that could have lasting ramifications.陣内_Jinnai 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New VG list templates

Following a previous discussion over accessibility concerns, I created new templates to emulate {{VGtitle}}.

• {{Video game titles}} is a simple table frame that accepts one parameter, which is basically whatever is put in it.
• {{Video game titles/item}} is a set of table rows that mimics {{VGtitle}} in appearance and function. Every parameter used in the original will work with

The templates are used like:

{{Video game titles|
{{Video game titles/item}}
{{Video game titles/item}}
{{Video game titles/item}}
}}

I'd primarily like some help implementing the new templates in current articles, but comments/suggestions would be appreciated before that occurs. If there are no concerns, then I'll make the documentation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Awesome, thanks a lot for doing this! --PresN 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to work fine, I replaced vgtitle with this implementation in a section of List of Final Fantasy video games and there was no visual difference in the output. Hopefully this solves the screen reader issue. --PresN 22:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, found a bug. The second item breaks, and further testing shows that it breaks if the title parameter is "|title= Running Stadium / [[Stadium Events]] / World Class Track Meet", but not if it is "|title= Running Stadium / Stadium Events / World Class Track Meet". No clue why a wikilink would break it. --PresN 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Figured out what it is. You're not supposed to wikilink the title parameter; that's what the article parameter is for. Even says so in the documentation for VGtitle. Apparently it would still work sometimes, though, and now it doesn't. So, not a bug, just something we have to watch out for when replacing the templates. --PresN 22:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that when the wikicode is changed to html, the hyperlink tags created by the wikilink brackets screws with the table tags it's nested in. Since both sets of tags use quotation marks for the "id" and "href" attributes, then the content of the attribute is prematurely ended and the remaining portion might break the nesting. I added a mention to explicitly avoid linking the title within the parameter in the documentation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

FYI- I created documentation for the two templates (Template:Video game titles/doc and Template:Video game titles/item/doc) based on the previous template's documenation. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

unofficial translations

How do we deal with these? The hidden info was removed by an IP editor in Dragon Quest VI. I re-added it for the time being per WP:PRESERVE until we can clarify this. Should we only mention it for titles like Front Mission 1 where it has been talked about by other reliable sources, or should we try to include them so long as they do not violate NFCC (ie linking to a rom? The item isn't under WP:GAMECRUFT.陣内_Jinnai 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe unofficial translations are unimportant unless it comes from the reliable source itself. Like maybe the game hasn't released in English territories and the reliable source translates it directly. But if an unofficial translation made it, and it's only mentioned in the reliable source, i think that would be unnecesary to add in. but thats just me, i have no idea what others may thinkBread Ninja (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think an unofficial translation becomes important the moment it is actually released complete and gets a lot of attention, among others in reliable sources. Final Fantasy V and – to a much greater extent – Mother 3 are typical examples of when mentioning a fan translation makes sense. I'm not familiar with Dragon Quest VI, but looking only at the paragraph detailing the translation, I would say it is not important to mention it. Just look for some independent reliable sources: if they deem it important enough to report it, it probably is noteworthy. Prime Blue (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless the translation gets notoriety in reliable sources, or is officially endorsed by the holders of the copyright (such as with Umineko no Naku Koro ni ([2]), or Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two. ([3])), then there shouldn't be any mention of it.--十八 05:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Point here - A RS can include the place that released it per WP:PRIMARY. By Wikipedian standards they are all RSes for their fan translation.陣内_Jinnai 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Even still, third-party sourcing has always been preferred over first-party. Regardless, I would feel more comfortable that a third-party reliable source be required to establish some notability. Otherwise any fan translation could be included. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

It would not be WP:PRIMARY since the unofficial translation is a different work. It would only be WP:PRIMARY within an article about the unofficial translation, and that article would need to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It's like saying the author of a fan sequel to LotR could be cited for his comments about the original. SharkD  Talk  19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary is not about the article. Primary source differs for each context. In this instance, it would clearly pass as the primary source for the fan translation as they were the one who published it. Doesn't matter that the entire article isn't about that - primary doesn't require an entire article to be about it to be primary as Yuji Horii can be the primary source on the development of Dragon Quest even if there isn't an article Development of Dragon Quest.

As for your example, no he could not be, but this isn't about commentary - its about a publication. A Fan translation isn't commentary last I checked.陣内_Jinnai 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if he's making a claim regarding similarity between his work and someone else's... SharkD  Talk  19:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Organization of characters in templates and lists

I think that in order to assure 100% neutrality in organizing fictional information such as this, lists and templates should organize alphabetically. Doing so ensures a minuscule amount of potential disputes that could occur over organization; in doing by importance, we are requiring editors to think too much about what they believe are the most important characters in a game. Alphabetization takes editor POV out of the equation. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

it's not on what we "believe", the characters listed on the navbox match the one in the Characters article. So it's not entirely based on what we believe, it's based on how the article lists them as such.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that this discussion corresponds to templates AND lists, right? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to argue whether both list articles and navbox templates should put fictional information in alphabetical order, than i'm afraid, you're arguing against something much bigger than the video game wikiproject can handle alone.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the Video games project has done more than its fair share of massive list modification. The difficulty of a task is not reason to not do it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

you're fighting something much bigger than VG in general. Fictional characters are in novels, books, comic books, tv series, films. if you want this to change, bring up to a higher stand point. which i may say, this has no chance.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What we do has, at no point, any relevance to what they do. We are not responsible for defining what other projects decide for articles. Are you going to actually argue against the merits, or are you going to continue to wall the argument? What is your argument against changing the order to alphabetical? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't seriously be asking this ONLY for this wikiproject. if so, then you're not wanting this for the good of list articles and navboxes, you're doing this for the sake of wanting to keep the edit you did within the the FFVII template. It doesn't make sense to push alphabetical order ONLY to the WP:VG's scope.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you have no interest in a discussion that involves two mature adults discussing something. If you're going to make blatantly obvious policy violations, I suggest you go re-read the basic tenants of editing before you waste anymore bandwidth by accusing people of acting in bad faith. Silly me - instead of this being an issue I've held for months - as can be demonstrated in edits from months earlier of me doing this exact same thing - this issue is due to a child's view on something. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

it's not childish, the facts only lead to one conclusion. Think about it, why would this only affect this wikiproject in particular?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to your constant accusations that, even though this is hardly the first time I've brought up the issue, my motives are to "win" our little edit war. Can you explain why I should care about the words of someone who required ad hominen attacks to even provide an argument?

Your argument requires that we demonstrate that the VG Project will always focus on changes that affect every project if applicable. In our mass-scale assessment of character articles, we focused exclusively on verifying the quality of VG character lists. Why would we focus on improving non-VG articles? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

because then wikipedia articles will get seriously inconsistent. If only the video games (which is a one of the many articles that relate to fiction) suddenly change their method, you think things would be good within all articles? seeing a big difference between other list of fictional characters compared to the ones this VG, it just doesn't help. in fact it would make things worst. unless you discuss this about all list and navboxes relating to fictional work, then i don't think this will pass only to WP:VG. if there are different formats in other articles it's because of the given scope of the wikiproject wouldn't allow it. the scope you're talking about is at a larger scale>Bread Ninja (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, your argument does not go against the quality of the proposal, merely the difficulty. The fact of the matter is that organizing alphabetically would not be noticeable to the point where, if only applied to video game articles, readers would actually recognize it. Are you seriously arguing that it is such a drastic change that it would make its style too different from other articles? If anyone is violating WP:POINT to get their way, it is you trying to keep the template where it is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying if you want this to have an affect, it has to affect all articles related to it, not just make it for one wikiproject. We already handle enough vandalism, so why make something that will instinctively cause more vandalism? that's the problem, a larger scale of fictional work is out there, and needless to say the current format also allows list of character articles to be featured aswell List of Naruto characters. So why change it for only one scope? what makes it different? this is a matter of fiction, it affects a lot of other wikiprojects. Articles aren't exclusive to one wikiproject.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would love to hear an explanation for what vandalism would result from changing the order from case-by-case editorial POV to neutral alphabetical order. And your argument holds no water. Why is it that your posts always argue this point, but do not demonstrate it to be true? We are not obligated to keep every single article of every single type formatted in the exact same way. Can you demonstrate anywhere that we are responsible for anything that isn't a video game? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about exact, but at least similar unless enough reason. Someone who lingers in wikipedia's articles relating to fiction will most likely see the sudden inconsistency between VG and other ficitonal related articles. the obvious response is to "fix it".Bread Ninja (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Break from silly argument

I somewhat agree with NaRH. But maybe this should only be done to things that get an edit war instead of doing it to every single template and list all at once. If there is a problem, then this can be a solution. But if there is no problem, then you don't need to fix it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lists of characters should not be arranged alphabetically. Some characters are clearly more notable and important than others. The main protagonist and antagonists for example. You could list the minor characters alphabetically after the major characters first - see pretty much every single film credit sequence ever. - hahnchen 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In theater and plays characters are usually listed in order of appearance. My 2 cents. SharkD  Talk  20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter that they are much more notable, though? The order of characters in a list does not have to be associated with the notability of said characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm go with the Inverted pyramid. - hahnchen 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this idea is that it still requires a POV. At what point do characters stop being important and start being minor? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's something that can easily be solved by coverage of the character and plot relevancy.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Or easily solved by taking POV out of the equation and doing a simpler, more streamlined style of organization such as alphabetical. The only people who would be affected by the main character not being first are people who play the game. Readers with no knowledge of the subject will likely not be affected in any way by alphabetical order. Your way of doing the plot order requires extensive work, and would likely get mixed results. Coverage will often vary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Do what makes sense. If having them listed by importance is better then alphabetically, then it should be done that way. In some cases, alphabeticly would make no sense. I bet you that before the end of the week an IP editor will change List of Mario series characters back to having Mario, and THEN Luigi. Because it just makes more sense that way. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)