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
Undid revision 581436359 by Piotrus (talk) / and many, don't. Like this one.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{shortcut|WT:VG}}
{{shortcut|WT:VG}}

{{WikiProject Video games}}
{{to do}}<!--
{{to do}}<!--
Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line)
Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line)

Revision as of 14:11, 13 November 2013

Shortcut

Assassin's Creed and parkour?

Hi everybody,

This discussion concerns having this Template: Parkour and Freerunning on video game articles. I've removed them from those listed, but Jasca Ducato (talk · contribs) reverted my edit.

Original discussion on Jasca Ducato's talk page:


Hi Jasca,

I'm not really sure why you are convinced why we should include the template on the article on Assassin's Creed. Parkour might've influenced one particular element of gameplay (which would be running and jumping over obstacles and buildings) and that is the reason why someone put into the parkour template. But does that necessarily mean it should be put on the respective article also? --Soetermans. T / C 09:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that if an article is included on a template, said template should, in turn, be included on the article. That is, after all, the whole point of a navbox... That said, if the link was removed from the template, there would be no reason to have it in the article. However, if somebody were to remove the link from the template, they would also have to remove all the other links in the 'games' section of the template, by the same justification. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, because it is linked on the template, the template should be on the article? I guess that makes sense... But to me, parkour and Assassin's Creed (or those other games linked) aren't that connected. Assassin's Creed is about the struggle between Assassins and Templars, not about parkour. Shall we take this to WT:VG? Maybe with some input we can come to a general consensus. --Soetermans. T / C 11:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I really have to get to my study books, I'll check again later this day (it's half past one where I am).
Respectfully, I must disagree; Parkour and freeruning is a fundamental part of the Assassin's Creed IP, and has been since the start. (Indeed, the original idea for the series stemmed from creating a parkour-based game, not an historical one.) That said, you are correct that the story is centered on the Assassin/Templar war, but the template is not disputing that. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I won't contest that freerunning is a major element in the game (although I have to point out that neither Assassin's Creed nor Assassin's Creed (video game) say anything about being originated as a freerunning game). However, it is just a gameplay element, should we blindly follow the rules that we have to have that template here? There aren't that many games influenced by parkour and freerunning, and it might be helpful to point out the couple of games that have been in a template. If that's a no, I would think that removing the games in its entirety from the template is the best solution and let category listing be sufficient. --Soetermans. T / C 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(To note that Soetermans also contacted me before this about Infamous). I would think we need to be clear that if the developers made a big deal about the game being around parkour or free running, then that should qualify it here. You can certainly parkour in something like , oh, COD, but the game wasn't built to do that, while something like Mirror's Edge is all about the free running. I would argue that much of AC was designed with parkour in mind (the idea of free running across buildings, etc.) even if not the sole focus of the gameplay, similar to Infamous.
But then that brings us something like "Zombie Parkour Runner", which just seems like an endless runner - so would not Canabolt or Temple Run apply? I agree that there's a lot of OR and possible borderline inclusion that may occur if we're not careful here. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Parkour template should be reserved for games in which Parkour is the primary focus, if you ask me. Assassin's Creed certainly has gameplay elements that include a touch of Parkour, but it's not the central focus. If one were to argue that it is, then one would also have to consider stealth, horse-riding, swimming, knife fighting, knife throwing, poisons, virtual reality, puzzle solving and extensive dialogue as other focuses that would require similar templating. IMO, this makes about as much sense as adding "Template:Video games with arm-mounted energy cannons" to the Metroid series. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freerunning is a major element in the AS games, but that doesn't make it a notable example of parkour. The template lists games like Infamous but doesn't list Prototype, for example. Those are major themes in the games, but they are not the only central element. And endless runners are certainly not proper freerunning examples. If in doubt, sources should describe the game as freerunning/parkour-based, not just central theme being that. All that said, there really aren't many parkour-based games. If we really do need examples regardless, then I guess AS might pass as one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posit that if we don't have very many good examples of parkour-based games, widening the net to bring in more not-quite-examples is a bad idea. It calls into question whether the template is appropriate for the video game genre. (However, since the template doesn't strictly apply to video games, having just a few true examples would be just fine, provided they're still properly sourced.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a large hand in Parkour#Popular culture, and due to personal experience, including "media influenced by parkour" is a bad idea for the template. It promotes spammy templates, at the very least, and at the very worst, bloated ones. I would suggest removal of both the "films" and "video games" influenced by parkour section. They are only loosely related to the core topic, at best. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about we help test WP:FLOW?

I briefly and casually discussed with User:Okeyes (WMF) the possibility of WP:VG being part of the test group for the eventual beta deployment of the new WP:FLOW software. I think it'd be a great thing... after all, gamers love take part in beta tests, for the exclusivity... and even the bugs and glitches are fun. It's basically a talk page overhaul. WT:VG would evolve to its next form entirely. I think it's a fun, adventurous project and ultimately would help the software be as bug-free as possible before it is released to the general public. What do you guys think, any objections to being the first to test something that will happen at some point anyways? Is it just me who's excited to maybe be a part of this? :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objections to testing WP:FLOW here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have personal reservations about Flow (or at least how its deployment plans seem a bit forced) but that aside I can agree it would be fair for us to help test it and maybe prove my reservations wrong :) --MASEM (t) 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better we help test it on our own terms instead of waiting until it's deployed to the community at large, to avoid repeating the VE situation! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by forced? Happy to discuss this, obviously. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, mostly the same at the initial phase of VE testing and comments made back then (that VE and Flow was going to be forced, removing the ability to edit text directly which for me would slow me down), but I know the WMF has heard these issues and working to improve the projected rollout. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with testing it out here. --PresN 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with this. Let's do it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine with this. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine as well. Agree with Salvidrim that it'd be better to test on a project page on our terms, and get many of the bugs out, instead of it being forced on us like VE was. And I do have some reservations like Masem, but hope to be proven wrong with this testing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the whole point is to address those reservations! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the current Flow prototype at http://ee-flow.wmflabs.org/wiki/Sandbox I don't think it's the right format for this page - the amount of whitespace is ridiculous. - hahnchen 22:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, this is a prototype of Flow itself, not in any environment; there will be ways to format other templates in/around the main area, as is the case currently. Note that the other big Wikiproject part of the Flow testing group is WP:MILHIST, which have a lot of weight to throw around and a lot of templates and boxes on their talk page also; testing with Wikiprojects is intended and managing whitespace and the placement of other templates is one of the challenges that will have to be worked on. Don't expect a fully functional product to be released to WPVG right off the bat; the whole point is to get beta software to play around with and test and discover and adventure with. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Are we going to be debriefed on how the implementation will go? Also I'll echo the white space concerns from that sample page. I hope there's a more efficient skin for power users in the works, ideally with few visual changes (baby steps). czar ♔ 02:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any specifics whatsoever. I just casually discussed with Oliver the possibility of WP:VG being part of the Flow test group, but I wanted to get some feedback from other members before "officially" doing anything. Seems that most are in favor, so I'll let Oliver knows (although I assume he's reading already). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "debriefed on how the implementation will go"? There are some good reasons for whitespace, but at our end we know there's far too much of it: the design itself needs less, and the prototype actually has far more than the design dictates it should ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debriefed as in told how we should be using it, specific things to give feedback about, an overview of when it'll go live and other milestones, etc. I have faith in whoever's on the project, but I really hope that sections such as this very one will display less like a news site's comments section and more like these compacted comments as usually required for our conversations. czar ♔ 19:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gotcha. Yeah, things like when it'll go live and what the milestones are will be broadcast (can I advocate signing up for our newsletter? Hint hint ;)) and I'm sure we'll specify things we're specifically looking for feedback on, although obviously any and all issues are welcome. Honestly, I think how users need to use talkpages is more important than how we want them to, so we probably won't be specifying that sort of thing. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking aligns with Masem--I've got concerns about Flow, but I think that VG would actually be a good place to test it in action and see how bad (or good!) it is in practice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got any specific concerns, we'd love to have them :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When is this likely to be put in effect? -Thibbs (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is planned for December, but a clearly timetable will probably be decided as they get closer to having the MVP ready to deploy outside of the sandbox. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're doing a big design and bug cleanup push in the next two weeks, so assuming that's all done in a timely fashion, we should have something to showcase on the second week of November. Specifically, we'll invite users from WikiProjects who have expressed interest in being part of the beta trial to come test out all the features on our test wiki and let us know if it's ready to be released here, or if it has critical issues that need fixing before it goes live. That's not to say that what we'd release here during the beta trial would be the finished product, of course! Flow will change and grow during the beta trial, based on your feedback and needs. We just want to make sure you know exactly what you're signing up for with the beta trial, and that you let us know if there are any dealbreakers we need to fix before we proceed ;)
So, assuming there are no major issues and you guys are happy to give it a shot, we could release something as early as mid-November. But it's entirely possible that you'll identify some critical issues that need to be fixed first, in which case early December is more realistic. Obviously, the Flow team would love to see our product go live and start getting some real user feedback! ... but we're not going to push anything on you guys until you're ready for it. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Masem and Favre1fan93 I also have reservations, but they are vague and amorphous. Whenever Wikipedia has rolled out a new layout or other significant change I've hated it at first, but I always force myself to live with it (rather than using legacy skins and such) and in the end I become completely used to it and it makes sense to me. For example if we went back to the search bar on the left side again I'd be just as unhappy at this point as when they first switched it from the left to the upper right. Anyway the reason I bring this up is because assuming that we do serve as a beta community, I think a lot of us will have to fight against our natural "I hate change" gut reaction. We should keep in mind that we're testing functionality and giving feedback on concrete concerns. I'm in favor of the test and I'll be trying to keep an open mind. -Thibbs (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very happy to help test this. When I first joined Wikipedia, I was prepared for (and somewhat enjoyed!) editing Wiki Markup for articles, but I was surprised by the way discussions were handled in the same way. It seems kinda archaic to have discussions by repeatedly editing a page, but I got used to it quite quickly. Anyway, I personally am happy to be an 'early-adopter' of things and take the good and the bad that comes with them. It seems strange that I'm positive about this when I didn't really think much of VisualEditor, though! DarkToonLink 13:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org Historical Software Collection

Archive.org just announced this: The Historical Software Collection. This is a bunch of OLDER games (atari 2600, or even early Apple machines) that has been given to Archive.org to host legally, with an emulator that one can play these games. Note that copyright remains with owners, so this is not a source of free imagery.

However, that said, I would offer that if the game exists there, it would be a completely valid external link in the respective articles. Eg: for ET on the 2600 we can link to this landing page which is one click from the playable emulator. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It clearly meets WP:ELYES Point#2 and there's no promotion or advertising consideration to take into account. I think we should emphasize the point that the "landing page" is the only thing that should be linked, however. Per WP:ELNO point#8 we would never want to link directly to the embedded emulated game. -Thibbs (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, agree with that on the landing page since that has more useful details. Do we want to have a template for this (something like "hsc_link")? --MASEM (t) 00:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we can use it only as EL in articles, not as reference base ? Sir Lothar (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's details on the landing page that could definitely be cited, so yes. It would still sit as an EL (it would be like quoting a game's FAQ in citation, and then linking to the game's website in the EL). --MASEM (t) 12:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, check that. I was about to add Karateka's page as an EL (I still will) but I note that the content there seems lifted from WP, so I would be really careful about using any of the landing pages as a source. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would like views on localized title vs "Official Japanese English title"

Sorry if this is too off-topic for the video game project, since the discussion is about the television series Case Closed, but this project does deal with lots of localized Japanese games. A user is claiming that following WP:TIES, an article should use its Japanese English title. This is the same as saying The World Ends with You be moved to It's a Wonderful World. I would appreciate views and comments at Case Closed#Requested move. Thanks everyone. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also sorry for it's not related to English Wikipedia's policies:) In my home wiki (Chinese Wikipedia), for article titles of Japanese anime, manga and video games, we have a policies. For one region, there are three kinds of Chinese name - common Chinese name, formal Chinese name (defined by factor or so which was authorized by original copyright holder), and official Chinese name. If three are the same, that's okay; if "common name" is same as "formal name", but different with "official name", we choose the "common name and formal name" as the page title. --Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the month

I've noticed very little activity on the collaboration of the month articles for the past many months. What do you say we actually pick articles people want to collaborate on, or instead just scrap it? Even if you're working on an article and want more eyes to see it, we're better off checking out that one than whichever ones randomly generated now. czar ♔ 01:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed: if developer is planning to support a platform, is it noteworthy information?

The reason I'm asking is because I ended up in a disagreement with another editor. Please provide your opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Secret_Ponchos --Sapeli (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Video game multiple platforms reviews

Template:Video game multiple platforms reviews has been nominated for merging with Template:Video game reviews. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Cky2250 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over Panel de Pon and Tetris Attack split

A consensus is required to determine whether or not the two articles are both notable and whether the content between the two of them that they can justify their own existence without repetition. The discussion can be found here, and the consensus from 2008 can be found here. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commend NARH for sparking up a discussion; sorry if my initial comments seemed overly negative. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI at Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted

I'm looking for outside opinions at Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted. User:Virtrium is controlled by one or more people at the company Virtrium, which is the developer of Istaria. The editor(s) have since 2009 repeatedly added material outside of VGSCOPE—such as detailed version histories with links to their own press releases—and ignored my requests to use the article Talk page to suggest changes. Recent additions (and my reverts) center on a more simple version history but (again) with press releases masquerading as reliable sources. I don't have an issue with the simple list (although a properly referenced prose section would be more appropriate, as I suggested to the user at User talk:Virtrium) but the press releases really seem like under-the-radar refspam simply because they're being added by someone/people with a clear conflict of interest. If an uninvolved editor feels different, feel free to revert my changes. Woodroar (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Virtrium has been blocked as a username violation. A new user User:Riktor75—I'm assuming a person behind the original account—has admitted a COI and suggested article changes at Talk:Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted#Content Updates Suggestion per policy. I've chimed in there, but would of course welcome other opinions. Woodroar (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Amos

Polygon ran an article about User:Evan-Amos's video game-related Wikipedia work recently. Thought y'all might be interested. czar ♔ 23:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Script error help

On the God of War II page, Reception section, there's a script error with the reception chart. I don't know why or how to fix this. When clicking on "script error", it brings up a box and I don't know what it means. --JDC808 ♫ 03:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking into a fix or a rewrite of the code. Also any script errors for video game reviews post to the talk page on that template so I know about it. So far I have only mentioned the bug on the doc page.Cky2250 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue is the GameInformer ranking is now missing. --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was using the wrong code. Fixed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Didn't see the stray |. --JDC808 ♫ 05:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Good article semi protected

I would like to start this idea here then take it up to a better wikiproject if it sounds good. So good articles get revoked overtime is it due to constant IP edits? Even if not I think once an article is considered good IPs should not be allowed to edit it and IPs should use feedback feature -- if active -- and talk page to get the changes they want.Cky2250 (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a WikiProject would be able to decide that on their own since protection decisions are not made here. I think Wikipedia:Protection policy is likely a better place but I doubt that it would get enough support.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as one of those proposals that could be helpful, but would never gain support because it goes against policy. We're not allowed to protect article pre-emptively. Also, as the IP above suggests, this wouldn't be a Wikiproject-level decision anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice idea but it'd be sort of akin to grouping all editors in the same class. Editing anonymously makes it easier to vandalize and experienced editors tend to use accounts, that is all true, but that doesn't mean that all anonymous editors aren't acting in good faith and making good, helpful edits to articles. What does degrade these articles over time is a lack of an active, maintaining editor to keep things clean and make adjustments as the standards of Wikipedia improve and change. On a personal note, I tend to use of the case of Crush 40 as an example; I got it to GA status years ago and retired later, and due to poor maintenance it's an article that's completely fallen apart. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sometimes the IP editors make quite good edits that registered users may never do. You could say "they could always create an account", but so can vandals. They just don't out of convenience. If they had to register, the edits may never be made, and articles would be stale. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition - forums as sources?

Would these additions[1] be a case where using forums as sources be acceptable? 2601:D:9400:3CD:2166:6994:9940:DCF5 (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forums are almost never acceptable as sources except for when they are official forums and the author undoubtedly represents the subject. It's still a primary source then, so a secondary is preferred, but with discretion it can be used. It seems the above uses official BD forums and the poster is Dee Pennyway, PR guy of Overhaul Games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Country of Rockstar North in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas article

Hi, I would like to start a discussion because myself and an another user have started an edit war and a argument on the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas article and talk page about having to mention the developer Rockstar North being based in the United Kingdom on the game's article. Myself opposed in having this because it doesn't add any real significance to the article as it's trivia for Rockstar North while the other user thinks it's appropriate information because not everyone knows the series is based made in the UK. Should the country of the developer be included in the article?, I would like this to be resoled on the article talk page. TheDeviantPro (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swapnote

Referenced content at Nintendo 3DS and Nintendo Network regarding the recent events surrounding Swapnote is being removed repeatedly. In the Japanese reports, the phrase "わいせつ画像送受信" (transmission of obscene imagery) is used, which specifically refers to pornographic imagery, and not simply any kind of "offensive material". Certain editors insist on using the phrase "offensive material" (in scare quotes), which is very vague and imprecise, and can refer to insults, racism, and the like, all of which are not as serious, and do not carry as much of a heavier connotation than pornographic imagery. I get the feeling that people are whitewashing and blanking content simply because they might not like it. I think it is poor form to downplay and sugar-coat this incident with scare quotes and lightened euphemistic terms such as "offensive material" like a Nintendo marketing team in damage control mode, as Wikipedia is not censored. The sources in question, Asahi Shimbun and Mainichi Shimbun, are major Japanese newspapers (akin to the New York Times), and are as close to a Japanese-language WP:RS as you can get. --benlisquareT•C•E 15:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current version I'm seeing ([2]) uses the phrasing "after discovering minors were sharing Friend Codes with strangers who had exploited the messaging service to allegedly exchange pornographic imagery", which is how it is written in the letter from N support here. That avoids the "offensive material" issue and directly states the problem. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has since been removed by the same user.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An update on the lastest events: It is now confirmed by police that this is a pedophilia case involving men in Japan targeting 11 and 12 year old girls, and getting them to send nude photographs using SwapNote on their Nintendo 3DS. Refer to this Mainichi Shimbun newspaper article. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain

Now that the release date for Ground Zeroes has been released, I think the question of whether it should be treated as simply part of MGSV: Phantom Pain or a game on its own must be raised again. This Kotaku article includes a press statement from Konami that is treating the games like two closely-linked but different entries in the series. Also, this Siliconera article from earlier this year has Jay Boor, Director of Public Relations for Konami, stating that the two games, although closely linked, are two different entities, not two halves of the same game. This is reinforced by the fact that Ground Zeroes is being released as its own digital and hard copy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having no idea on this, a quick question to ask is, how similar is the gameplay? Are we talking a Pokemon X/Y type situation, the Zelda CD-i games (two effectively different games but with nearly the same gameplay mechanics) or two really separate games? Likely as it is MGS, two separate articles may make sense at this point. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, Masem, the press release states that Ground Zeroes eases players into gameplay mechanics that will be fully utilized in Phantom Pain. I doubt the gameplay will be detail-identical, but they will be similar. It's, to use an old saying, straight from the horse's mouth. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having quickly looked at this, it appears that there's two separate games, but because of a mistranslation/misunderstanding at GDC, the idea started that they were the same game. I read several of the sources originally reporting them as "the same game" but all of them appear to have updates along the lines of "Kojima clarified later that Ground Zeroes is a prologue to MSG V".... They are certainly closely related products, but clearly are two games. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are different games. Each deserves its own article. — Mr. V (t – c) 10:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a problem

I've just blocked Kevinfrombk (talk · contribs) as a sock of a prolific disruptive individual. Looking at Special:Contributions/Kevinfrombk it appears that several untoward page moves were executed over the last few hours. Knowing very little of the subject matter I'm reluctant to undo the edits en masse. I'd appreciate more informed folks check this out and take whatever action is appropriate. Thanks Tiderolls 03:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, Salvidrim. Tiderolls 03:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure to play whack-a-vandal. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would like some cover art clarification

Hey, fellow video game editors. I've gone through the archives of this talk page and researched what I could about WP:NFC and the use of multiple cover arts in an article for a game with multiple releases, but I haven't really found a clear answer as to what I'm looking for. Pretty soon here, I'm looking to rewrite Phantasy Star Online, and I'm pretty sure I'll have enough to make it at least a GA, if not even better (FA anyone? I'm quite familiar with the game as someone who's logged at least 300 hours into it). However, although a couple of artworks are used in the article, the game was re-released so many times as to be ridiculous, and oftentimes the re-releases had different cover arts. All of those re-releases are covered in the article, as it's really all one game. Here's a brief short list:

  • Phantasy Star Online (Dreamcast)
  • Phantasy Star Online ver. 2 (Dreamcast)
  • Phantasy Star Online Episode I and II (GameCube and PC)
  • Phantasy Star Online Episode I and II Plus (GameCube) - worthy of note, on this one only the background changes and turns blue instead of white
  • Phantasy Star Online Episdoe I and II (Xbox) - completely different cover art from Gamecube and PC version
  • Phantasy Star Online Blue Burst (PC)

So here's my question: There are currently three arts in the article: the original release, Version 2, and the PC version of Episode I and II. Is three cover arts in the context of this many releases too many, not enough, or just right? I don't think there's really a lot of commentary to be said about the changes in cover arts notably, but there is in terms of how many versions there are of the game, of course. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purely from my opinion, aside from the infobox image, the other images seem more like decorations for the article and I would remove them. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think video games should have a maximum of two non-free images -- cover art for visual identification of the subject, and a critically-discussed screenshot. Throw in the occasional free image of a developer or something of the sort and you've got a good amount of media in the article. Media is fun, but not the main point of the articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would say just have one cover unless a second, third, etc, is drastically different and worthy of more than just a passing comment, but from what Red Phoenix said above, I think the fact that there are so many different covers for the same title has the potential for its own coverage in the article. I'd still limit it to two images though. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that generally one item of cover art is not inappropriate for identification purposes. The addition of a screenshot also puts the prose into context and illustrates the game, adding obvious value to the encyclopedic content. Inclusion of any further depictions of cover art can arguably be occasionally justified if the artwork itself has elevated notability, as discussed in multiple reliable sources. Otherwise, inclusion would lend undue weight to this aspect and would also not be in accordance with WP:NFCC. -- Trevj (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as others have said, from an NFCC standpoint, a second or additional cover art image is going to need critical discussion about that art cover to allow for its inclusion; just because a game gets so many rereleases is not sufficient for that. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a PC and ver.2 cover. their virtually the same game (unlike episode 1+2 that expands the story and adds more missions and i highly recommend it be split to give further focus and understanding of the topic.Lucia Black (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's necessarily warranted; the development and reception are going to be virtually identical, and only really a paragraph would need to be added to gameplay and plot to explain Episode II and modes such as Challenge mode. The basic core concepts of the game itself are all the same, so I don't see a split as being warranted. I do see a complete and total rewrite necessary, though, not unlike a few articles I've done before. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I do want to thank everyone who answered my question and helped out. WP:NFCC is still an area I'm trying to get my head around, especially since I tend to use free images a lot more than I do fair-use ones. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theres not much to rewrite....but i did start a sandbox for the artice. it may not be substantially big, but there is enough differences to separate them.Lucia Black (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can see quite a bit to rewrite, and even if there is enough to possibly separate them, I think better quality can be achieved by not separating the article and sticking with one article. I always prefer the "ultimately one game, ultimately one article" mentality, like the recent debate over Panel de Pon and Tetris Attack, I think they should be one article. There's a lot more that can be said for development, and coincidentally the two sources used for the Development currently are pretty deep but aren't used as such. The basic structure doesn't need to be redone, but I think Development and Reception, as well as Legacy, could use some enhancement, as well as the Release section needs redone to explain more real-world aspects of each release and what is actually brought to the table with each new version. Finally, Gameplay and Plot need a serious trim and restructuring to be more encyclopedic. Even in an RPG article, in-universe aspects should always take a backseat to real world elements, and due weight should be given to each section. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two images not in the infobox per the consensus here. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the idea of critical discussion regarding the use of a second box art, an example is the Wii port of Okami. In that case the Wii version's cover art was actually taken directly from IGN and included their watermark. To make up for that error Capcom for a time allowed players to order on of three free high-resolution covers to replace the watermarked version.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Total War: Rome II (how appropriate)

Hi guys,

Could you give some input on whether or not a list of in-game playable factions is appropriate or not on Total War: Rome II? I'm having a hard time convincing two users that just listing factions is not a reason to include them. Discussion can be found here: Talk:Total War: Rome II# Factions Section Removal. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

System requirements

Hi guys,

Since user Cky2250 (talk · contribs) asked me to put a notice on the {{Video game requirements}}, I decided to RfD it. Past discussion have shown that the template shouldn't be mentioned any longer. Please drop by for input. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 20:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology templates, again

Great, now we have {{The Legend of Zelda chronology Sealing War timeline}}, {{The Legend of Zelda chronology Adult timeline}} and a {{The Legend of Zelda chronology Child timeline}}. Should we have these things, or not? Because the GTA and Call of Duty ones were removed, but the MGS one was allowed to stay. --Soetermans. T / C 20:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear, and {{Mass Effect chronology}}, have a solid line of events that's easily traced. Zelda has three timelines with any amount of alternate events, while Call of Duty and GTA are mostly only linked by themes and common elements. It all depends on the series the chronology is made for. And in Zelda's case, a chronology is just not applicable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more likely to consider the chronologically if there is a long running serial nature to the games, such that a reader needs to understand that the game is in the middle of a long narrative (eg: like Assassin's Creed). Metal Gear has that, same as Mass Effect - things that occur or will occur in other games are repeated brought up, and not just a loose offhand order. The templates there help the reader to know where the title sits in the well-established history. That's the problem with the Zelda, GTA, and COD templates - I recognize that there are some serialized elements but you have to get really into the mythology of the game to appreciate - as such you can enjoy each game as a standalone piece without understanding rest of the series' fictional history, and as such , these templates are not useful. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed these being added today too. I'm also for removal. These timelines are such minor aspects of the games, that go largely unnoticed if not for the most hardcore fans and Nintendo's additional materials such as Hyrule Historia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the removal of the templates regarding timelines as well. They are just an indiscriminate list of information. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal when they are added to every game in the series, but I think there may be a valid case for it being on the series article as a standalone. - X201 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they would be fine on the series article talking about the overall plot/setting/theme, with the expectation that the games in the series are subsequently listed in release date chronological order later in the article. If there is a series where the games' release order exactly matches the story order (eg something like Sly Cooper) there's no need for such templates. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD'ed. --Soetermans. T / C 20:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RfD'ed. --Soetermans. T / C 20:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the three templates have been combined into one. Could the single template be kept and placed in the series article, while removing it from the game articles? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the only place the template's going to be used is on one article, you don't need the template. Just drop the wikicode into the article directly. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Mosqueira

Can anyone tell me if Josh Mosqueira, a game designer who has worked for Relic Entertainment, is the same person who also worked for pen-and-paper game company Dream Pod 9? I was trying to look for a source online to confirm this - as I am certain they are the same person - but I haven't found anything yet. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A-class assessment request

Could use any and all feedback for Neverwinter Nights 2 on its talk page. Thanks! — Mr. V (t – c) 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone review a few edits?

I'm kind of sensitive to date-related vandalism as I've seen an awful lot of it on Wikipedia. I worry that I'm too sensitive to it, though - seeing patterns and connections where none exist. One of these patterns is the noncommunicative IP or new user who is spending an inordinate amount of time changing date-related information on articles without using sources as backup. A good recent example of this comes from X201's post on this topic Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 99#IP user changing dates a few months ago. At the time Salvidrim had drawn comparisons to the work of a vandal named User:Controls007.

I'm now seeing at least superficial similarities between that matter and the edits of User:Casper10. I am worried that I may just be assuming bad faith, though. Could someone check out this guy's edit history? If he's adding bunk dates then this should be stopped immediately. If not then he needs to be encouraged to identify his sources. I've been unsuccessful in communicating with him so far. Thanks for any help. -Thibbs (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ripper - help

The Ripper (video game) was announced in 2009, and apparently cancelled the same year. Sources are few, but may be reliable within the videogame subject domain, even though they're discussing rumor and circumstantial evidence. I fixed and added some refs, but it could use more help. But as it stands, it may not meet WP:GNG until some books are published which discuss its history. So - should it be moved into a list of cancelled games? Or improved? Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging the content to Visceral Games. It's short enough that when you strip out all the wikipage stuff, you have a decent paragraph that affirmed the game was in development at one point, was about Jack the Ripper, and then was cancelled. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VG requirements TfD input needed badly

Guys, remember when I said I TfD'ed {{Video game requirements}}? Well, I could definitely use some other opinions (not canvassing here, but I do recall more people being on board). Otherwise, maybe someone can shed new light, because I'm running out of things to say. Please, your two cents here. --Soetermans. T / C 14:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, when did all this happen? I suppose I should have been more active, but I'm totally opposed to this. That being said I'm not an active enough editor anymore to make the argument one way or the other. --Teancum (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, your opinion matters as anyone else's. Join the fun! --Soetermans. T / C 12:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline

Additionally the discussion on the original guideline has re-opened. Feel free to chip in. - X201 (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name dispute at Ninja Cop

There is an issue with the article Ninja Cop. It was recently moved from Ninja Five-O to Ninja Cop by the argument that it was the first name given. I've disputed this move both due to Google results showing Five-O in the lead for hits by hundreds of thousands (and also the fact that Ninja Cop's Google searches are far more likely to have irrelevant results thereby widening the gap) as well as the fact that the article had been stable at Ninja Five-O for many years. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had many issues with the editor and naming policy. He really struggles with the more advanced Wikipedia article naming policies, like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH, and WP:RETAIN, and instead just tends to argue "No, this is the name on one of the boxes, we use this." type arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Uh, I don't know how much input you'll get if you don't start a discussion over on its talk page, describing the situation, providing policies or difs, etc. I know you probably know this...but...you haven't done it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Considering the low level of activity - not even 50 edits in six years - I doubt that it would accomplish much. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box says Ninja Five O, that the official name of the major English release for the game, and that's the name used for all of the links in the reference section. Obviously that should be its name. Dream Focus 00:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that it was released 11 days sooner in the European market than the North American one. When its released in Europe, does that mean all nations in that group at once? Dream Focus 00:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's usually my experience with it, Dream Focus. I'll admit I'm American, but I've never seen a game with multiple release dates in European countries in my entire time as a Wikipedian (since 2007). To me, that would indicate that European releases tend to be at least close, if not exactly the same pretty much every time, and that makes a lot of sense since a lot of video game companies don't have independent divisions for every country in Europe. The fact that most of Europe also uses the PAL standard, with a few exceptions, also helps to establish that point. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking they wouldn't have a costly release of something in multiple languages and nations at once. The cost of advertisements and all, they'd not take chances, and would just test it on the largest markets first. That's why they usually do America in their first foreign market. Rather odd they'd release it in multiple European languages on the same day, and this timed to be before the American release. How fast can they produce copies of the game, and how many would they have made for each market before releasing it? Dream Focus 08:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a lot of European releases come with a language selection so it's really one release across the region, I believe. Still, I do see what you're saying. Any European gamers care to comment here and catch us up? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katamari Damacy

I was wondering if anyone would be willing to copyedit this article once I'm through referencing it and updating it in the near future. Otherwise, I fear that it would have to go to FAR. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it already went through a FAR in 2008 (one that I had to source extensively for) Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katamari Damacy/archive1. Not much has changed about the game since, it's mostly what sequels came out since. But we'll have to see with what you add. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general I just think that there's more to be said about Katamari, and I'm fairly certain that Takahashi has made comments that aren't mentioned in the article (for example, Katamari was intended to be about capitalism). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convert List of Super Game Boy games to a category

I feel that the list is not notable enough and could suffice as a category. Comments? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list. Lots of unlinked games on the list, so information would be lost converting to categories. You can create the category anyway though, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. - hahnchen 19:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, but I think that being unlinked means that the loss of information is arguably negligible. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article hasn't been created about the subject or it is non-notable enought not to get its own article doesn't mean it's nonexistent. Although the actual article can be slimmed down, especially the "Notes" section. KonveyorBelt 21:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How much of this list duplicates with the Game Boy and Game Boy Color lists? I can understand the Super Game Boy is not a console to itself; it'd be akin to making a list of games for the Sega Nomad. If there is significant duplication and the material has notability issues (i.e. it is trivial or directory-like, perhaps a good way to tackle this would be to add a column to the respective game console lists with a box to mark if it has special effects with the Super Game Boy or not, and a short explanation in the lead. As it stands, I do worry if this list meets WP:N or ever could by itself, independent of the individual game lists for each handheld. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birdo

The manual image continues to be contentious. Despite the fact that three users have supported the image's removal and only one user supports its inclusion, that user refuses to acknowledge the consensus. Can I please get an administrator to give the "final word" as to whether the consensus is valid? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To note, the user has in his most recent edit attempted to remove the lead image (a 3D rendering of Birdo) and put the manual scan image in the lead. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are professional models in costumes cosplaying?

Notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, Talk:Cosplay and Talk:Promotional model.

Articles Cosplay ("a performance art in which participants wear costumes and accessories to represent a specific character or idea") and Promotional model ("A promotional model is a model hired to drive consumer demand for a product, service, brand, or concept by directly interacting with potential consumers") link to one another only through see also. But on Commons, there is an interesting category: commons:Category:Promotional models at video game trade shows, which is very much a merger of those worlds: models hired to, well, cosplay. But the said commons category has no intersection with cosplay. Let's consider a specific image: commons:File:Tekken cosplay models at E3 2012.jpg. Those are promotional models, cosplaying as Tekken characters. The picture is categorized in commons:Category:Ling Xiaoyu, which in turn is in commons:Category:Tekken characters, which is in commons:Category:Tekken. It is not, however, in commons:Category:Cosplay of Tekken. Now, I think that professional cosplay is still cosplay. There are also "booth babes" at some anime or mixed conventions, and as far as I know, based on Commons categorization practices, they are usually categorized as cosplaying (heck, sometimes it's anyone's guess if a cosplayer walking at GenCon or such is an amateur or a model, unless you can see their badge...). Now, I am not proposing that we should remove any existing categories, rather I want to check whether we have a consensus that professional models, dressed as video game/anime/manga/movie/etc, characters can also be categorized (in their Commons imaginery) as cosplayers. For example, I think that all images in commons:Category:Ling Xiaoyu should be in commons:Category:Cosplay of Tekken (or better, in not-yet-created but clearly justified commons:Category:Cosplay of Ling Xiaoyu); with the professional models of course retaining their professional model category. In other words, I am arguing for inclusion of professional models dressing up as fictional characters in a larger cosplayers category as a clearly defined subcategory of it. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only when they make their own costumes and/or are known as cosplayers (and get hired). I actually know some personally. Otherwise, it's a promotional model (hired just to wear stuff). --Niemti (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on if its for promotional reasons or not. If not, its cosplay. If it is promotional it isn't. I guess the exception would be to promote an event dedicated to cosplay.Lucia Black (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Cosplay is very much an amateur hobby; the moment you started being paid, is the moment you start being a promotional model (which is what a booth babe is anyway). Also, I wouldn't reference Commons categories as part of your case here, because they're often ridiculous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're still a cosplayer if you're being paid for your cosplay ("professional cosplay", which is not a real term btw, caughjessnigricaugh). You're not a cosplayer if you're being paid to just show up and wear what you're given to wear (being just a model). Also, "booth babe" is any chick hired to wear anything (even random bodypaint in Russia, or whatever) for promo purposes, not even a cosplay-ish costume of any kind. --Niemti (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole "cosplayers can't be paid for cosplaying" thing is a western fandom thing only. For those who are familiar with Comiket, there are "famous" (at least in otaku circles in Japan) models who cosplay and sell softcore erotic cosplay photobooks of themselves, for example Lenfried ({NSFW}: I have no idea why she's so popular, she's like 30+ years old, and al her photobooks are photoshopped to hell and back) and Iiniku Ushijima ({NSFW}: who really isn't that better, but at least she's not a 30+ pretending to be a 15 year old girl). I think that in western "anime cons", cosplay is associated with being some kind of DIY hobby. --benlisquareT•C•E 15:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just follow the cosplay definition from Wiktionary, so I also agree Models can cosplay, even if it includes promotional purpose. However, it makes me wonder weather professional wrestlers do cosplay as well, like Kane. --(,･∀･)ノシ(BZ) (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In cosplay community, you've got to: 1. make your own costume (at least partially) 2. dress up as a specific character (not as yourself). --Niemti (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Professional/competitive Japanese boxer Yuichiro Nagashima frequently cosplays as Touhou Project or Vocaloid characters prior to boxing matches. "Cosplay", at least in the original Japanese sense, essentially just means "costume play", it doesn't matter whether or not you get paid for it. There are "cosplay shops" in Akihabara where you can spend a few thousand yen to purchase a pre-manufactured costume and dress up as the flavour-of-the-month anime character. It might have different connotations in the western world, though (e.g. making your own costumes, etc). --benlisquareT•C•E 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Going by definitions, there's nothing to make professional modeling not cosplay. In other words, the definition of cosplay does not require being an amateur (define it...), or doing it for free; nor does the definition professional model preclude cosplaying (for profit).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that their not official promotions. that's what cosplay is about fanwork. so even if done competitively or for profit or for hobby, as long as the original creators/owners are not involved, its cosplay.Lucia Black (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive and classify any costume-wearing activity as cosplay but I'd describe the amateur hobby separately from other cosplay activities like e.g. promotion or paid modeling, perhaps in the same article though, so I'd have a sections named "cosplay (hobby)", "cosplay (modeling)" or "cosplay (promotion)". There also cosplayers who get paid by photographers to dress with costumes they make for a photoshoot session, sometimes the payment is with money but very often the payment is with the photos themselves (they get the resulting photos, which is called TF or "trade-for"). We can use this analogy to make a decision: Britannica is still an encyclopedia even though it's commercial, and an artistic photo is still art even when used in a commercial advert. But I might be wrong, I never thought about that before. Cogiati (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we could distinguish between this in our article, if we can source such distinction to reliable sources, but I don't think we need to do so on Commons. Professional models will be in both categories, the rest will be just i the cosplay one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, here are two pictures of mine which I think might portray professional models: File:Otakon 2012 220.JPG and File:Otakon 2012 392.JPG. But I cannot be sure; the first girl was simply hanging out near the Street Fighter booth (was she hired?), and the second one had a more professional photographer organizing shots (but that is not conclusive). Point being, it's often hard to distinguish between people being paid and not, both on the scene and in the photos. Next, consider those two photos: File:Kristina as Triss from Witcher 3 at Igromir 2013.jpg and File:Vladislav as Geralt from Witcher 3 at Igromir 2013.jpg. They are tagged as professional models, not cosplay, but nothing in the description or the source suggests why. I think that a category for Cosplay of The Witcher should include both of those images - not only because it is a not-100% clear case of whether this is or isn't cosplay, but also because cosplay category should include all example of people dressing up as a certain character (I guess outside of clearly identified actors, who would classify as a source material...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Kang in other media

What's with Liu Kang in other media? It seems completely unnecessary to have. I think there wasn't even a discussion to split it from Liu Kang.Tintor2 (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to see more of these like Ryu (Street Fighter) in other media.Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Niemti is making them today- there's also Raiden (Mortal Kombat) in other media, Chun-Li in other media, and Scorpion (Mortal Kombat) in other media. These absolutely do not need to exist; they're pointless content forks from the main articles. --PresN 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Missed some- Sub-Zero (Mortal Kombat) in other media, Kitana in other media, Sonya Blade in other media, Scorpion (Mortal Kombat) in other media. --PresN 19:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Completely unnecessary. A subsection in the original article with the same title is more than sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:X-Men_in_other_media and everything else in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comics_characters_in_other_media this stuff is mostly completely uncanonical and not belonging in the articles about game characters (while just 1 click away in case if anyone's interested). Some articles in the franchise oriented series are really bloated with this off-topicish content which is not actually about game characters. Also, this content may be now properly expanded without keeping it so short (and still failing). --Niemti (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is material that stays in character articles, and should be trimmed of trainspotting elements as well when merged back. A separate article is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use "canon" as a determinant for notability or whether or not an article is split out or not. Its still the same subject. As Masem says, if bloat is an issue, looking at the recently created article, there's plenty that could be trimmed... Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I'm sure a plenty of third-party sources exist and are easily available for it as an independent subject (including reception if you want, and actually there's reception in some of them already). Also, the idea of this came to me while splitting Psylocke in other media (as part of the above-mentioned Category:X-Men in other media) - do you think it is also "inappropriate"? Also, why were these articles already reviewed, without anyone voicing such (or any) concerns? --Niemti (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All sorts of articles are reviewed, and then sent to AFD. Besides, you can hardly play the "They've existed this far without concern" card when these articles are being questioned on the very same day you created them... Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kitana, Sonya, Sub and Scorpion were actually split about 1 week ago, unless today is also Groundhog Day. Btw, the base Liu Kang is my GA, and I think it's now so much better. Anyway, If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is recommended that a split be carried out. (...) The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article, are size and content relevance. (and welcome to Wikipedia). You guys might help with expanding it, or better yet, sourcing the content (not a particular hard task, it's notable characters in often notable works, and the sources exist a plenty, especially for the recent stuff such as MK Legacy). --Niemti (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liu Kang is presently only 22kb of prose text, far below where spinning off material is necessary. Trim out the trainspotting on the appearances and you'd still be far under 50kb (where splitting starts to be recommended). You also avoid notability issues that way. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liu Kang's article is relatively small, while for example Kitana's much larger. Anyway, the second issue is "content relevance" (of non-game content for game characters). --Niemti (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is where the disagreement lies. We don't think there's a "content relevance" issue. It's all the same character, and should be placed together, regardless of thigns like "media" or "canon". Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The few I sampled were started today, but it doesn't matter, a week is pretty short in the whole scheme of things. (It's not like there's a time limit anyways. It can be legitimately questioned in 2 years from now.) Everything else you cited was completely subjective. You thought it was too long, you think it looks better, etc. That doesn't really combat the concerns of it being an unneeded spinout. They're all aspects of the same character. The articles need trimming and combining. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "was completely subjective"? Wikipedia:Splitting? Eh. "This page in a nutshell: Splitting means performing a non-automated procedure by which the contents of a page are split into two or more pages. There are two main reasons for splitting content: size and content relevance. For uncontroversial splits, no permission is needed to split; just do it. If unsure, use one of the tags/templates below, and start a discussion on the talkpage." Was sure it's uncontroversial (and it's a long-standing and accepted policy to do it with comics articles in such a case), but well I guess with WP Vidya you just never know. --Niemti (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subjective part was the very two things you bolded: "size" and "relevance". There is no objective point in which it is deemed "too big", right? Its a subjective call. Or is there some sort of 40k limit or something that I'm not aware of? Also, I'm not questioning you're right to "just do it". That's fine you did it. You thought it was uncontroversial. However, judging by the response here, you were wrong. And that's the problem - that you're not okay with changing it back once its challenged. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I should totally answer "I agree. Completely unnecessary." too, otherwise that's the problem. Why am I even watching this page again. --Niemti (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was likely, I'm saying that's what the issue is. You're the one who brought up "just do it" comment unprovoked. No one said you needed permission. They just think it was a bad decision to make. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, there are guidelines on size at WP:TOOBIG; split a sub-40k article is generally not recommended. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Didn't realize it. None the less, I don't think any of the splits were in the 60-100k range, right? Most of his were 20-40ish range, that I checked, which puts it in the leaning towards not splitting, or highly subjective decision range... Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article before the split had 26k of readable prose. Again, that's guidelines and I wouldn't hard enforce that split if it was 40-50k, but this is really a case that splitting makes no sense particularly when the second article fails general notably (Lui is unquestionable notable, but his appearances in other works, not so much). --MASEM (t) 21:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "generally not recommended", but "at 40 kB and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues". And for example Kitana actually was "in the 60-100k range". --Niemti (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that's where we disagree. I don't think anyone else sees your "content issue". Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See below. (And the editors of the comics articles actually see it, otherwise they would trim the non-comics stuff to a bare list of appearances or something, instead of the scores of splits like that.) --Niemti (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a "comment" but just a quote, all of split "in a nutshell". What happens in the adaptations is very often just not relevant to the subject of game content, and if there are too many of these adaptation appearances (major ones), this is unduly prominent in the articles. At least for me. This content can be also discussed further in a variety of ways and in its own right now without limitations - because sources (reliable, third-party) exist. Take for example just the subject of Liu Kang in Legacy - you have many interviews (like [3][4][5] etc.), analysis, reviews discussing this version of the character, whatever you want. The subject (collective, it's not just Legacy but also the films and everything else) is Wikipedia notable, just the article is brand new and obviously still incomplete ("you can help expanding it"). --Niemti (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these articles aren't that large, and there's no reason "non-canon" or "other media" content can't be covered in relevant subsections in the original article. I don't know how to break this down any further for you. I guess I'll let someone else try, and/or let consensus just take its natural course... Sergecross73 msg me 21:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canon has nothing to do with what's important to include. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also to note that OTHERSTUFFAPPLIES is not a good argument. The comic book project is working at reducing largely-primary content across its articles, as before notability, many of these character articles were far too large and fanboy-ish, so the fact that other "in other media" articles exist for these is not an implicit sign the idea works across the board. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the "content relevance": Liu Kang (Chinese: 劉康; pinyin: Liúkāng) is a fictional character from the Mortal Kombat fighting game series. And no, this (still tahe same example) Liu Kang of Legacy isn't "all the same character" (to cite one of you above). It's actually a brand new character with the same name - with all-different looks (other then being also Asian), a completely different backstory, and is not even a hero but a sort of tragic villain. (In comics articles, such reboot characters get separate articles all for themselves.) Which is not an isolated case. --Niemti (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then reword the intro to say "MK franchise" or something like that, and describe some of the different appearances of his. Maybe add a second image for the radically different designs. I feel like there are ways to address this without a whole second article... Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious notability, should be merged back to main article, there's ample space in it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Witcher (video game)

The use of the cover art for The Witcher: Enhanced Edition is in dispute; I would like to get a third opinion on the matter. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=581479745"