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
Line 197: Line 197:
So if this is the consensus, should I revert it? [[Special:Contributions/129.33.19.254|129.33.19.254]] ([[User talk:129.33.19.254|talk]]) 15:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
So if this is the consensus, should I revert it? [[Special:Contributions/129.33.19.254|129.33.19.254]] ([[User talk:129.33.19.254|talk]]) 15:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
::Come on, the original photo is now highly outdated; the Formspring account is legit, Sawyer has been using it to communicate with the public for quite some time. To someone who is wondering if it's even the same person, yes, watch some of his recent interviews, and that's precisely why we need the new photo for his article to be up to date. The photo was even uploaded by the subject matter (he linked to it and commented via his Formspring) and is not copyrighted, rarely do such beneficial circumstances happen, it's a no-brainer to use the newer one. With the bike wheel part visible and all it might not be perfect, but better than the alternative, which is more than 10 years old. [[User:TheBearPaw|TheBearPaw]] ([[User talk:TheBearPaw|talk]]) 12:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
::Come on, the original photo is now highly outdated; the Formspring account is legit, Sawyer has been using it to communicate with the public for quite some time. To someone who is wondering if it's even the same person, yes, watch some of his recent interviews, and that's precisely why we need the new photo for his article to be up to date. The photo was even uploaded by the subject matter (he linked to it and commented via his Formspring) and is not copyrighted, rarely do such beneficial circumstances happen, it's a no-brainer to use the newer one. With the bike wheel part visible and all it might not be perfect, but better than the alternative, which is more than 10 years old. [[User:TheBearPaw|TheBearPaw]] ([[User talk:TheBearPaw|talk]]) 12:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
::You guys are seriously pathetic. I've asked Josh Sawyer to come here and confirm himself, but don't be surprised if he doesn't feel like it. Then Wikipedia will be stuck with that decade old picture. QUALITY ENCYCLOPEDIA FOR THE MASSES! [[User:Melnorme1984|Melnorme1984]] ([[User talk:Melnorme1984|talk]]) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


== Title disambig for mobile games ==
== Title disambig for mobile games ==

Revision as of 22:57, 17 November 2012

Shortcut

User:Niemti

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

The user actually has been involved in similar cases in the past (See here). Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niemti's behavior aside, it looks to me like the only procedural problem here is a practical one - there's not enough reviewers. Because Niemti is making the issue arise by nominating more than the current review staff can handle, I think it is certainly fair to ask him (as Teancum did) to help with some of the other editors' reviews. Beyond this, I suggest that reviewers take the number of reviews the nominator has completed into account as a factor (along with date of nomination) in determining the order of reviewing. Perhaps the number of nom's reviews times the age of the nomination should determine the preferred order of review?
Anyway I'd hesitate to suggest that he should cease or even reduce nominating, though, because these seem to be goodfaith judgment calls and it is an important step in quality improvement. If the majority of the items Niemti is nominating end up failing then someone should explain the process to him and encourage him to perform more reviews to learn the GAN criteria, but for now I'd just adopt a policy of weighing in number of reviews conducted by the nom, and I'd send him a note that his lack of contribution to the GAN review process will result in a much slower rate of review for his nominations. If he's content to have them slowly slowly eke through the GAN process then I think it's fine. If he wants faster action then he should start contributing more. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you for your honesty, Niemti, but I think it's likely that this fact (zero reviews instead of one) actually makes your lack of contribution even more outrageous in the eyes of some of your fellow editors... -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. Some of the nominations themselves also concern me. Shank (video game) was recently nominated by Niemti, but having spent several hours on the article I can tell you it's not ready. Several claims need additional sourcing, and it needs a good copy edit. The other one that comes to mind is the Taki (Soulcalibur) GAN review. Several concerns were brought up, but the conflicting manner of replies led the reviewer to bow out, and myself to get riled up at one point. --Teancum (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think there should be any prejudice against reviewing them just because of the source of the nomination even if he is abrasive, but the speed and order in which they are reviewed should take the nominator's reviews of other articles into account. -Thibbs (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying with prejudice, that sounds more like "failing the article because you don't like how he acts", which is not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm just saying, there's an endless number of things to be worked on, whether it be WP:VG or Wikipedia in general. If you don't like what he's doing, work on something else, and let him wait on his giant stack of review requests that he was advised against doing to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misunderstood. I agree with that 100%. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this matter. Even though I find Niemti's abrasive attitude puzzling, I have not been pushing anything on the GANs. However, if he keeps up with this behavior, we should report this matter to WP:ANI. I think the speed and order in which they are reviewed should take the nominator's reviews of other articles into account as well. There's an endless number of things to be worked on here, and if anyone does not like what he's doing at the moment, we should work on something else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment, WP:RFC/U would be the proper first place to address behavioral issues that are far from immediately being disruptive, before ANI. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's probably true. I just said ANI because that's what I typically use, because I only typically report blatant, terrible offenders. It does seem that much of Niemti's behavior is closer to "rude" than any sort of blockable offense... Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. We don't want to cause drama over at ANI either, so I also think it would be appropriate if we should use WP:RFC/U to address any type of behavioral issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 3:12 pm, Today (UTC−4)

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

As a former contributor to the articles that Niemti is nominating, i'm not entirely sure what the issue is with placing sources in the talk page with intent to expand later. While I agree in looking at the article that his contributions were slim, I actually have a similar habit in "blitzkrieging" talk pages with sources while I accumulate enough information and reception like I did in the Talk:Eddy Gordo page. I believe the habit is well-founded if the user follows up in full force. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • In my opinion, a lot of these character articles should not be in the GA queue, and should have gone through peer review and/or the league of copy editors first. I reviewed some, passed a couple (after much copy editing) and failed a few: see here, here and here. Despite some drama over this, I think I'm vindicated in that two other reviewers (here and here) have brought up the exact same issues I did: in-universe, purple prose problems in the plot sections and overly-long, effusive reception sections full of quotes about tits. Kasumi and Jill Valentine at least should not be in the queue: they meet the quick-fail criteria due to unresolved content disputes, per what I said in their respective reviews. And yes, Niemti's abrasive, foot-dragging and OWN-y style is problematic, as are his arrogantly-held opinions on stuff he poorly understands, both policy, and to put it bluntly the English language. bridies (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the lack of edit summaries and more so the ownership issues are already reasons enough for an RFC. Here's the latest charming instance. bridies (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty bad. Can't believe he didn't have any repercussions for that one, he's being pretty blatant and he's working on pretty mainstream articles... Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and I have been ignoring Niemti due to his behavior. Based on Bridies's evidence, I tend to agree that Niemti's being blatant as well. Besides that, I think it's time we should get to work on my proposal for character and video game reception as well at my sandbox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we may as well work on something constructive. It's clear Niemti won't change, (and probably just thrives off of attention like this) so I'll go back to ignoring him as well, and only addressing him if issues/RFCs/ANIs arise regarding his misbehavior. I'll start looking over the proposal stuff again soon. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I'm currently reviewing Kitana (Mortal Kombat) here and I am seeing many of the same issues that bridies has previously raised. I have pointed out the issues and began work on copy-editing the article to resolve them. There is clearly a lot of work been put into these articles but much of it would be more at home on a wikia related to the game/series specifically as they tend to go into too much detail resulting in a hard-to-read, waffling article. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • And it continues: [4], [5]. The fact that this is still continuing after this discussion makes it ANI worthy IMO, but nevertheless I've created the suggested RfC/U: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti. I possibly am not the best person to have done it, but it needed doing. It also needs certified within 48h. I think anyone doing this should feel free to edit the description of the dispute. Otherwise I'm hoping it more or less reflects the dissenting sentiments here. bridies (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList. If anyone wants to do so if and when it meets the certification requirements, that'd be great. bridies (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti has conclusively and contemptuously stated he won't participate, so I've taken it to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Niemti, community ban proposal. Not sure if the RfC should be withdrawn (it should be preserved somewhere if so), but I've left it for now bridies (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the ANI discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎#User:Niemti, community ban proposal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of article contribution, I did a lot of work on this one here. But I still don't see that this automatically means it must be nominated as a Good article, just because someone has done a lot of work on it, especially if the one editing it put it up in the first place. Sound a little like favoritism to me (if that's the right word). --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. I was previously a major contributor to one of the articles that Niemti has currently nominated [6]. And it looks like I have not been surpassed in this effect. I don't agree; however, that MK9 is a GA just yet. Plot section is very in-universe, some places are missing references, there is at least one bare URL, and suffers from quite a bit of Linkrot [7] and Reception is lacking, in comparison to how gargantuan the rest of the article is (Halo 3#Reception for comparison), I highly doubt there's only a few sentences of commentary for a game that was widely acclaimed as the "Rebirth" of the Mortal Kombat franchise, although overall opinion on the video game itself have been mixed. Sorry for the tangent, but all in all, despite being a large contributor to the article makes me think that the article is ready for GA, not by a long shot. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think like Subzerosmokerain. I worked in The King of Fighters XIII and I can point out it could not become a GA due to an unsourced plot section, lack of wikilinks, poor references and small reception sections (most of which have no context). The same goes for Liu Kang. It is not strange that GA reviewers will ask for some fixes and it is difficult for a person to work on several sections at the same time.Tintor2 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on AN has been closed by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "no consensus", since the ban discussion is not heading towards consensus one way or another. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kerrigan

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

A-class backlog

Noticing how slow our project is right now, I think its a good time to mention the backlog we have for A-class candidates. The older one we have as of now is Yuna (Final Fantasy) from September 3rd with one support. If anyone wants to decrease the count on them, please go to their talk pages to vote and remember WP:A-Class. GamerPro64 23:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached out to a couple of editors to see if they could help. One is a bit busy these days, and the other hasn't responded. I've done what I can as most are my noms. --JDC808 ♫ 22:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A bit busy" has to be the understatement of the week, but I'll see what time allows me to review this weekend. :) Salvidrim! 23:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've still got 6 articles listed if anyone has some time. --JDC808 ♫ 01:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image discussion for Ayane (Dead or Alive)

Theres a discussion about which age we should use for Ayane (Dead or Alive). It would be great if we had more opinions on the matter.Lucia Black (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get some attention here?Lucia Black (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked it over some, but have nothing to contribute. Looks like it largely comes down to picture preference. Either seem useable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it has nothing to do with preference. if the reception was more based on her "Ninja Gaiden" version and development, and introduced in Ninja Gaiden, i wouldn't have a problem with the Ninja Gaiden version in the infobox. But because thats clearly not the case, i would have to say it's misleading and suggests her Ninja Gaiden version is more significant than her original appearance (in which Niemti doesn't deny).Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I think no one is commenting because either picture is useable, and it's just one giant back and forth argument between some stubborn editors. Pick one and move on to something more important. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we did. it's 2 against 1. and although its consensus by definition of wikipedia, i'm afraid if any of us make any edit, it will lead to an edit war. both images we have are useable.Lucia Black (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another opinion. I do not know what side of the consensus it comes down on but it seems like the logical way forward to me. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edge reviews

Good news everyone. This Tweet from Edge: "From today, we'll be publishing one classic review every day, building towards a complete database of Edge reviews that span back to 1993." [8] - X201 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific! I've taken the liberty of thanking them on our behalf. :) Salvidrim! 23:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is great, hopefully this will be especially helpful with the pre-PS1/N64 era, where there's not always a ton of reviews available online. Any idea where they'll be at in particular yet? (I don't usually read Edge personally.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we have Edge well covered in our underused reference library. - hahnchen 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That archive.org link is quite impressive! --Odie5533 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly are they publishing them, I don't see anything immediately? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"building towards" - X201 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read the date wrong...... I thought they had been going for a month.... Facepalm Facepalm —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first review of Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos was announced on their twitter, but I found many, many more reviews from even the first issue published on their website. *EDIT* here is an even better link to finding the old reviews. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZhenJiart DW5.jpg

File:ZhenJiart DW5.jpg (Dynasty Warriors 5 character Zhen Ji) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did some clean-up (in half a dozen edits... eek). Clarified license, reduced size, fixed the page's templating, responded to the en.wiki FfD and nominated for CSD under F5 and F6. Salvidrim! 07:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The file wasn't used anywhere. I see no reason to keep it on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping of COD series/universes in COD main article and template

Hi all. I'm excusing myself from further involvement in these discussions as I've had issues with an editor involved in the past and do not feel I can participate objectively. Input is needed at Call of Duty and Template:Call of Duty series regarding how the games are logically grouped. The particular point of contention appears to be that World at War, a game known to be in the same universe and continuum as Black Ops, is not directly a member of the series. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Hodges

I'm working on this right now, but I'd like your opinions on this. Should composer Aubrey Hodges be created? He created tracks for over 180 games, including Doom and Quake. Should this be created? Some sources here if needed: [9][10][11]. ZappaOMati 02:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's sufficient coverage in general, but I'm not familiar with BLP notability guidelines. Salvidrim! 02:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He appears notable to me as well. I wish some of the other video game music composers received that kind of attention in the media; their work usually seems to go unnoticed. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a current case, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Daglish. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good sources, but all three are basically the same thing and smell of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. So I don't know if this is enough for WP:GNG. Unfortunately, as Odie5533 says, composers don't get the secondary source attention they often deserve. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012's TFA

On November 17th, Metroid Prime will be on the Main Page as that day's Featured Article. It should also be noted that the following day would be its 10th anniversary of its release in North America. GamerPro64 15:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BlazBlue series

Anyone wanna work in improving BlazBlue series? As it stands, it's really just a dab page listing all the games in the series. However, when I found it, it was tagged as a stub instead of a dab page. Given that there are several inbound links to this incredibly short page, shouldn't it be more of a page summarizing the franchise as a whole, such as Super Mario (series)? I don't know the first thing about the series, but this just seems like the right approach to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about aggregators

While working on improving the article for Wreckateer, I added the reviews infobox and the scores from the two preferred review aggregators, Metacritic and GameRankings.com. It was at this point that I made an interesting observation - they're the same site, basically. Both are operated by CBS Interactive (the same parent company as Gamespot.com), and the only difference I've found in scores (a limited sample, honestly) is that GR takes its scores out to two decimal places, while Metacritic uses whole numbers. Is there a reason we're including both, and is there another aggregator not operated by CBS Interactive? --McDoobAU93 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of what scores/ratings to include in the aggregation differs between the sites, so they are sufficiently independent to not be considered the same site. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aggregators generally say the same thing, you don't need to double it up. I generally stick with Metacritic. - hahnchen 20:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I usually list both, since their scores and methods differ somewhat. It also never hurts to double it up and looks more professional that we don't give preference to one. Also, if one of them ever goes defunct, we'll have cited records that may be hard to obtain afterwards. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative is http://www.gamestats.com/, but it only lists IGN and GameSpy's scores. I think IGN gave up on the site. I am with Hanchen on this one; I don't think Metacritic is going anywhere so I generally just use them. edit for older games, GameStats isn't bad: see Halo. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha-ha, may be I'll start using three! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GR seems to have more older games on their database and they list more reviews for them. Metacritic usually lists more reviews for newer games. --Mika1h (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template for deletion

Seems that Template:Video game cleanup is up for deletion. Please post your comments on if it should be kept or deleted to the discussion provided here. GamerPro64 15:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Sawyer picture

Which picture is better for the Josh Sawyer article, the one that was added today or the one that was already there? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't look like the same person to me, but the second one was uploaded on Wikicommons by someone claiming to be Josh Sawyer. Of course, anyone can claim to be anyone online. I think the first one is better in terms of a simple image, while the second has a lot of extra details we don't need. The bike part is really unrelated to anything in the article. Sorry I don't have a great answer. —Torchiest talkedits 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you just said, why is why I initially reverted it. That, and we don't have to change a picture just because the subject prefers one over another. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The picture has been reverted back to the newer one.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like this would be a case for WP:OTRS. If the subject truly is the one trying to push for the newer picture because the old one isn't him (or whatever) then they need to go through the official process, otherwise anyone editing is just an editor and may only use the same considerations as anyone. We can't take anyone's word that the old picture is problematic any more than we can that the new one is better without evidence. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the person that recently readdedd the new pic it came from a request at his formspring account [[12]]. The question would be is that an acceptable source to deem that the new picture is from him or should the old picture be restored until the new picture goes through official channels? Another question could be even if this is a real picture is the original on better and should it be used instead and if that is the case should we ask for a new picture with less background objects?--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Formspring site says he responded to the question 23 hour ago. The image was uploaded to Commons approximately 23 hours ago by JESawyer1975. I think we have enough evidence and reason to use this picture over the other one. And at least this one we are sure is the right guy. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the JESawyer1975 account should still need to verify ID/photo ownership via OTRS though. Яehevkor ✉ 12:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if this is the consensus, should I revert it? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, the original photo is now highly outdated; the Formspring account is legit, Sawyer has been using it to communicate with the public for quite some time. To someone who is wondering if it's even the same person, yes, watch some of his recent interviews, and that's precisely why we need the new photo for his article to be up to date. The photo was even uploaded by the subject matter (he linked to it and commented via his Formspring) and is not copyrighted, rarely do such beneficial circumstances happen, it's a no-brainer to use the newer one. With the bike wheel part visible and all it might not be perfect, but better than the alternative, which is more than 10 years old. TheBearPaw (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are seriously pathetic. I've asked Josh Sawyer to come here and confirm himself, but don't be surprised if he doesn't feel like it. Then Wikipedia will be stuck with that decade old picture. QUALITY ENCYCLOPEDIA FOR THE MASSES! Melnorme1984 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title disambig for mobile games

The My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic mobile game by Gameloft has more than enough sources + info for an article, but obviously the name overlaps with the show which gets first billing. Applying the "(video game)" disambig would be my first inclination, and given that I've not heard of any specific console/PC type games that may make sense, but I've got a hard time calling the mobile app a "video game" as opposed to a "mobile game" or some other moniker. Any suggestions what to use for the disambig title ? --MASEM (t) 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps (mobile)? I haven't come across any dispute thus far that implied video games on non-console platforms (iOS, mobile) shouldn't be called "video games", at least for disambiguation purposes. Can you find other examples on-wiki to compare how these were handled? Salvidrim! 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to treat iOS/Android as just another video game system, so standard naming rules would apply- (video game), unless there's already an MLP (video game) article out there. Same way GBA/3DS games don't get (handheld game) as their disambig generally. --PresN 16:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"video game" seems like the best generic dab, independent of the platform. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TFA: Metroid Prime

See title. The citation is slightly on the lesser side of featured quality, imo. --Izno (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section could also use a bit of grammatical help. There's a bit of mixed tense, and the sentence or two of criticism in the second paragraph is just a mess. --Izno (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made grammatical improvements myself on the Reception section of Metroid Prime, but I need someone to review and check if there is any more mistake. I am not confident myself either. --Bumblezellio (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Sandiego‎

Do any of you want to help me out with the Carmen Sandiego franchise? Before I started work on them, only about 4 pages on CS games were created, and they were pretty bad. I have been working a lot to bring them all up to a better status, but it's rather daunting tackling this on my own. FYI (to give you an idea of what work I've been doing so far), the article I have focused on has been Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time (previously known as Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego). If this edutainment series was as much an integral part of your childhood as it was mine, please don't hesitate to give me a hand. Writing articles, gaining access to content behind paywalls that I can't, copyediting, adding images, whatever, there is a lot that can be done. I sincerely hope this project appeals to you. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Savedhits88/speedy deletion phenomenon

I have seen something very strange happening to several articles. The release dates for this and this article seems to have several 'speedy deletion' messages with each of the release dates. Meanwhile, this, and this one have this strange 'User:Savedhits88' thing in front of each date. What on earth is happening here?! --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the edit by Savedhits88, and someone else got the SD notice thing, I think. --Izno (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have suddenly cleared itself, and thanks to Izno for the help. But keep an eye out, everyone. It makes the articles both look really untidy and very silly. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=523572224"