Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:01, 31 March 2015

Video games Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Project

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Changes to developers/publishers and related categories by IP

176.248.107.108 (talk · contribs) has been making quite a few changes related to publishers and their categories, such as "rolling up" publisher/developer credits from the subsidiary that made the game to the parent company. I've reverted some of it myself, such as including Activision Blizzard as a developer on Blizzard games. Another example would be where they removed Sierra Entertainment from some older games as well as new ones since it's reactivation and replacing with Vivendi and Activision Blizzard. Some of their edits appear to be straight up improvements, and everything seems to be 100% good faith, though I did do a warning after they repeated some of the changes once I'd asked them to stop on Blizzard articles. The user has edited under multiple IPs and I believe maybe 2 registered accounts, based on some page histories.

The IP is also adding categories for publishers to the articles, and I'm not 100% sure what the stance here is... For example, should the Ubisoft video game category contain games developed by Ubisoft, or also published by? Category:Vivendi video games was apparently created and populated by this user, but I do not believe Vivendi was ever a developer directly.

Someone else may need to review the edits and see if any other cleanup should be made. My watch list was mostly related to Activision Blizzard games. -- ferret (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently having a very similar problem with 31.52.7.7 (talk · contribs), who was going about adding Nintendo as a publisher or developer to virtually every game that's ever been on a Nintendo platform. I just recently blocked them because they refused to stop or discuss, and keep introducing a lot of errors into articles. They were non-negotiably wrong, things like Nintendo developing Sonic Colors or Disney Infinity. So, I guess keep an eye out for it in generally, everyone? Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User is now editing as Zachary rules (talk · contribs). I'm at 3RR on my watchlist articles.... -- ferret (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both the IP and ZacharyRules, Ferret. The IP has been making the same sort of erroneous edits without stopping or discussing as the IP I came across, as is Zachary, who just happened to create his account right at the time I blocked the first IP address... Sergecross73 msg me 04:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

86.139.95.89 (talk · contribs) is now engaged in this. This time adding Vivendi Games as the developer for multiple games, even those released long after the Activision Blizzard merger. Edit history behavior suggests it's the same user. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I came across another one earlier in the week too. They must be the same, as I can't imagine multiple people would have the same basic fundamental misunderstandings as to what it means to be a publisher. (For instance, seemingly thinking every game on a PlayStation console should list Sony as a publisher.) Blocked both for block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

176.24.181.122 (talk · contribs) and 176.250.202.128 (talk · contribs) may be worth a look as well. Seem to fit same pattern - X201 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crash zachary (talk · contribs) as well, though now "dormant". -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh, I didn't realize how much of a problem this was. Those three are all dormant now, but still, this has been going on since February... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to even begin to really clean this up. The user, over multiple usernames and IPs, has made hundreds of changes. One I just noticed on the latest IP was adding XBox 360 category to games that aren't released on 360. Finding the usernames/IPs involved can partially be solved by looking at the edit historiies for some of the (partially valid, partially not) categories they have created, such as Category:Vivendi video games and Category:Activision Blizzard games. Category:Microsoft games is another, the user has made it a sub-cat of 5-6 other categories, such as the Xbox category. -- ferret (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret and Sergecross73: Got a new one for you: 77.96.101.235 (talk · contribs). They made these changes on Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix and Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior looks the same to me. Adding Sony as a publisher for games just because they are released on Playstation. I cannot block, not an admin. Probably needs entire edit history reverted.... -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now operating as 90.220.112.68 (talk · contribs)... are these proxies or something? Exact same behavior. -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you filled an WP:SPI yet? It might be worthwhile... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Rolled back. Salvidrim! - is this something your amazing check user/range block skills could help us with? Otherwise, everyone just keep notifying me of them, and I'll keep blocking and rollbacking... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so I'm a Checkuser now, ain't I? Bloody marvelous! I wish someone would've told me sooner, I could've squashed more ne'er-do-wells. More seriously though -- IPs are across many ranges, so a simple admin range-block won't help. Filing an SPI might help documenting things and blocking accounts, and SPPs are likely to help too. Sorry I can't be much more help! ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I was thinking you had CU rights. Anyways, if someone wants to file an SPI, that's fine, but I have no problems with blocking per WP:DUCK and documenting it here or my talk page personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now operating as 2.126.202.120 (talk · contribs). Just started up looks like... -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted most of those edits. Found another from two days ago while checking article history: 67.255.219.44 (talk · contribs). – The1337gamer (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both IP addresses. --Pres N 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone involved, I missed this one. I was about to say "you guys can just report it straight to my talk page" if you want, but I suppose if its posted here, there's a chance someone else like PresN could help. Whatever you guys prefer works for me. I'll keep helping with it regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newest IP: 86.163.219.42 (talk · contribs). Same behavior patterns. Mixture of good category updates with bad changes to infobox fields and inappropriate categories. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was unsure at first, but then these edits cemented it for me, as this person was once again proposing that Nintendo published all these Sonic and Crash games. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: 2.126.56.27 (talk · contribs) appears to be the newest incarnation.--十八 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serge blocked him, and I rolled back all his edits. --Pres N 23:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I only had time to block him and rollback a few edits at the time. Found another one today by myself - 90.195.158.128 (talk · contribs) - too. Already blocked and reverted. Same kind of issues, misguided category choices. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another: 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs). The1337gamer (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag teamed by PresN and myself again. Thanks all! Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new hit, 90.222.22.159 (talk · contribs). Primarily adding Japanese publisher categories, i.e. adding "Sega video games" to a game publisher in Japan by Sega. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with an editor

Several editors have been having problems with User:Spidervenom123, who has been editing since 2011. They have edited on multiple types of article, but I first encountered them editing multiple articles about the Drakengard series, generally confined to the story sections. Their edits seem to primarily be sweeping removal of content such as links and character names, along with sometimes whole paragraphs. They also seem to add little pieces of information without citing it, or changing referenced information without a whole lot of explanation. Given their nature, I have generally been treating them as possible or outright vandalism. @Tintor2: has had recent content with them, so should be included in this. If they wish to do so, @Spidervenom123: can come and explain themselves to us before any action is taken. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the first edit by them I pulled up (at Ermac) was them removing random names and words from whole sections, including references, I'm going to go with vandal, full stop. I'll give them a final warning on their talk page, and block them if they persist. --Pres N 20:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He popped back up two days after waying he would stop, so blocked for a month. Hopefully he'll find a new hobby besides removing random nouns from articles. --Pres N 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Articles (aka: Look what I found down the back of the sofa/couch)

After a bit of digging, filtering and data scrubbing, I've found 353 articles that do no have the {{WikiProject Video games}} template on them, and are therefore invisible to the statistics page. In addition, I've also found 120 redirects that aren't tagged either. I'm in the process of tagging the redirects with AWB, but I just wanted to gather opinions on the articles that need tagging. I think the best approach would be to tag them with {{WikiProject Video games |class= |importance= }} so that they appear in the Unassessed part of the stats page and then at least they are recorded and on the radar, and can then be worked through with a group effort at a later date. Let me know if you have a different idea. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably easiest; I've been keeping the unrated categories empty for a few months but I'm fine with populating them for a bit; with the Rater widget it's easy to sort them out. Shouldn't take more than a couple days, even by myself. How did you find them? Can you add 'needs-infobox=y' to the ones without a box, or was the presence of the box one of the ways you found them? --Pres N 18:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I quickly compiled a list of articles that contain any video game template but are missing the wikiproject template using Catscan. It came to 531 articles although I expect some have incorrectly used video game templates. I've been working through the list, re-adding the wikiproject template back (I've assessed some and left others unassessed). It's worth noting that a bunch of these articles had the wikiproject template removed in the past by editors because the article was redirected but has since been recreated again. So while assessing these articles it may be worth considering whether to redirect the article again and assess class=Redirect. See Category:Unassessed video game articles. – The1337gamer (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I based my list on the year categories so there will be a little cross over, but I'm picking up articles that haven't got the infobox in them or use a different template like infobox manga. yep, I'm finding a lot of Manga. - X201 (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, so many stubs. Just went through 100 of them, keep them coming. Thank the stars for the Rater script. --Pres N 02:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did another 50 or so, 300 to go as of now. If anyone wants to help out, the Rater gadget is incredibly efficient at rating articles without having to load up the talk page. --Pres N 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 100 left, though there's now ~20 articles tagged as needing infoboxes. Thanks to whoever rated ~25 articles last night. X201 was right- a lot of manga articles with a line or two about a tie-in video game, as well as tons of little minor games. On that note, there's apparently dozens and dozens of 1-2 sentence stubs about every soccer game that was ever made; there's a project in there for someone to merge them into series articles. --Pres N 18:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the football title too, I'll have a go at compiling a list of those so that I can see if I can spot a theme we can group them around e.g. Football video games of the 1980s or Celebrity endorsed Soccer video games etc. - X201 (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo NX redirect discusssion

Please, if you could, leave input at this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nintendo_NX#Redirect_discussion

People keep on undoing the redirect, so I'm hoping to get a strong consensus here to warrant a WP:SALT. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone. Please notify me if its ever recreated under some sort of different naming convention. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Melissa Batten murder/suicide

I do a lot of work on WP mostly with tabletop RPG articles, specifically those related to Dungeons & Dragons (D&D). As I was looking around, I was kind of surprised that this story was not really mentioned anywhere on WP... like, anywhere at all. Joseph Batten was the head of project development at Wizards of the Coast for online D&D content. In 2008, he murdered his estranged wife Melissa, and then killed himself. She was a Harvard-educated attorney when he was working at Microsoft as a video game developer; she also came to work at Microsoft as a software development engineer, and stayed at Microsoft when he left to work at Wizards. I think there is enough coverage out there to do... something with this, but I am not sure what. I don't really want to do just an article on him, because that would leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't think she is notable enough on her own to do just an article on her. So maybe one article about each of them and then the murder itself? I have never written an article on a crime case before, so I am not sure where to go with that. I came here since VGs are the thing they had in common. Any advice? BOZ (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. Never expected to see something like this here. Have you thought about taking this to WP:Death as well? Or talk to people who have made articles on crimes? This does sound like a rather interesting article to be made. Primarily the fact that a murder took place. Maybe just an article on that would be sufficient. GamerPro64 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daaaaaaaaamn. You can find some inspiration here: Category:Murder–suicides. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should leave a note on WT:WPBIO. WP:BLP is very important for a case like this. --Izno (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64 and Jeraphine Gryphon - thanks, I have started a quick stub at Draft:Joseph and Melissa Batten. I saw a bunch of stuff while Googling, so I will revisit this later today. Meanwhile, anyone can feel free to edit or move the page in any reasonable way. Izno, how does WP:BLP apply if they are both dead? BOZ (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it mentions or implicitly gives info about other people (did they have any kids?) then WP:BLP applies. I'll put the draft in my watchlist. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything like that yet, and no mention of kids. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What kind of sources do you have? If they're only known for their deaths and not their actual work (as in the sources only really cover the deaths) and the question is of notability, WP:CRIME will be helpful. If not, it would depend on the sources fitting the general notability guideline. czar ⨹ 19:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, thanks. I did have one print source which basically mentioned the incident as a footnote, describing it as "one of the more shocking events in RPG’s history" - I added what I could from that source to the draft page already. That led me to look around for more info. I found some interesting links on Google, although I will need to go through them to see which ones are actually reliable, for example:

BOZ (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that in addition to the WP:CRIME link that was given above, you should also be consider the policy at WP:ONEEVENT. That policy would seem to indicate for a case like this that you have one article discussing primarily the event but also the people, with possible redirects at the people's names depending on how the event page gets named. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that is what I will go for. I don't know how it should be named though. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest if the sources use a fairly consistent title to refer to the event, use that, otherwise the title you have for this section would seem to be reasonable, substituting another character for the slash. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did some work on it, and published it as Joseph and Melissa Batten. BOZ (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is a good structure for a startup article - if sources are reliable, it should meet notability criteria.

Some comments on the discussion and recommendations for further development:

"that would leave a bad taste in my mouth" - shocking/sad, but irrelevant for encyclopaedia WP:UNCENSORED WP:NPV
Unless there are sources for notability of people; I strongly support 1bandsaw - article should be about event. WP:N/CA and the rest of that page.
Would be nice, if title reflected the event, as well. Some creativity and familiarisation with WP naming conventions might be required here. However it is important to get it right initially to prevent potential future link breakages and confusion of renaming. Some possible suggestions: ---Battens' tragedy--- ---Suicide-Murder of Batten couple--- ---Tragic Battens' deaths---. Further discussion advised: possessive noun might be undesirable; and first names should be excluded for concision (unless mixup possible).
Not certain here (should compare with prominent articles Category: Events and guidelines MOS:LAYOUT WP:LEAD), but I strongly believe, that article lead should: (1) briefly present notability of the couple (VGs occupation, relationship); (2) clearly and concisely describe the event (dates, setup, location, media coverage); (3) provide summary of prehistory and consequences.
Biography/History section would use some editing and longer contextual sentences.
A couple of images (of living people and event/investigation/funeral/memorial) - highly desired.

Overall, meaningful work - wishes for continued effort --- Fakedeeps (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per common usage and BLP, the preferred title has to be Joseph and Melissa Batten. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's at AFD now... maybe I should have kept it in draft a bit longer to work on it. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Melissa Batten czar ⨹ 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prompt discussion/deletion is better than wasted efforts on non-notable subject. NPV

Adherence to BLP is always favorable; however (as stated before) it does not strictly apply here and I cannot see how the policy would support the biographical title. As for commonality, refer to subsections of Category: Events: Category:Murder in 2014 and Category:Murder in 2013, for example, and note the formatting of titles. Particularly, there is a significant amount of articles, about single person, featuring murder/event in title; therefore commonality is not established and two main subjects (Joseph, Melisa) would definitely suggest event over biographical title.

On the other hand, it ultimately rests on notability: if people lives were more significant than deaths, then biographical articles with 'Death' sections; otherwise article or section on event. This follows from WP:ONEEVENT (two subjects, again, make argument stronger):

When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.

For maximum commonality, I could suggest ---Suicide-Murder of Joseph and Melissa Batten---. However this title is long and contains ambiguity. Maybe this event could be incorporated in another article or list/timeline? Fakedeeps (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting "Aeon of Strife" redirects

Hi all, "Aeon of Strife" redirects to different places depending on whether you capitalize the S or not. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20#Aeon of Strife would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free use gameplay screenshots as alternatives

Let's say that we were to have free use screenshots from a game very similar to a major franchise, e.g., commons:Category:Socrates_Jones and Ace Attorney. Are these these accessible, free use screenshots that demonstrate the core Ace Attorney gameplay sufficient to replace the fair use gameplay images used in the current Ace Attorney article? Any other suggestions for their use? czar ⨹ 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's questionable to me, per WP:NFCC#1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Italics mine. Using a free screenshot on a page that is a non-free franchise would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. However, there is certainly precedent for genre pages as well as free video games that have been spun off from a commercial video game but we have treated in the same article as the commercial video game. (I'm thinking SimCity (1989 video game) and MOBA for example.) --Izno (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using free use images to illustrate a facet of the gameplay can work, such as File:Portal physics-2.svg in Portal. But we generally use screenshots for more than just showing a single facet of gameplay, there are usually multiple gameplay elements, and it is also used to show the art direction. The use of a freely-licensed clone image (as opposed to the clear diagrammatic Portal image) could also mislead readers. - hahnch e n 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, in genre or mechanics articles, free screenshots should be used over non-free if possible. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So should the Socorties Jones images remain or be removed from the Acr Attorney article then.--69.157.253.187 (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As supplements to talking about how the AA format has influenced other titles, they are fine within policy; I could see need to talk more about editor discretion if they are needed but there's no immediately policy or guideline against that. Replacing the original screens from AA with those, however, would not be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the discussion at hand, but Socrates Jones should probably get more than just a caption and an image if it wants to stay at the Ace Attorney series article. Images should be supported by the text, free or not. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose such an idea; the games may be similar, but they wouldn't be the same and it would be inappropriate to replace them. As an example, pretend that a free-use image for John Kennedy cannot be found or doesn't exist - we can't just go "hey, let's put an image for Robert Kennedy in the infobox instead - I mean, they are brothers and do look alike, so what could go wrong?" Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon check

I occasionally ask people in a wikiproject if they can figure out jargon that comes from an unrelated wikiproject. Can anyone tell me what "ten Barge, Tank, five tugboat Infantry" means? (No peeking, and don't answer if you already know military jargon, please.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what each of those terms means, but the capitalization is a little odd (I know why, though). Sum total of the phrase? Could potentially be referring to a marine invasion force... --Izno (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We've got a working fix for the jargon at A-class, I'll point to this survey if I need to at FAC. (The actual meaning is so dumb that I won't even repeat it here. Generally, these things are handled in the military by acronyms with meanings that have become divorced from the original words.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a general reader, I certainly would have been confused without the changes you suggested at FAC, so questioning the sentence was certainly not a bad idea. --Izno (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I looked up the Milhist review this came from, and I would not have guessed at that meaning. --Pres N 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dealing with release dates from episodic games (read TTG titles)

Currently in the infobox of episode games on multiple platforms (like for example Tales from the Borderlands) the instinct seems to be to list every release date for every platform per episode. This collapses "okay" but makes for a very incredibly messy infobox when all expanded. Add that because we treat these like TV shows, we have an "episode" table later that typically lists out the release dates.

I would like to offer that the better way to do this is that in the infobox there should only be one date per episode, the first release of that episode on any platform, and the details of release on the other platforms can be explained in detail in the episode list. It drastically simplifies the core information. I know we'd not do this on other games but other games rarely have a separate inbody table to help deal with this information for non-episodic games. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's sensible. Especially for the example above, the dates should be written in the prose anyway, if they're important. czar ⨹ 11:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem's proposal. Most (all?) episodic games also have a nice table summarizing plot/writer/director/etc. which is where the other release dates should live. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1UP.com links are online again

I noticed that 1UP.com's original links appear to be active again. Just a heads up. -- Hounder4 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit under 800 pages that have 1up links User:Masem/1up. We really should see about getting a webcite run on them given the way the archive ability comes and goes. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Template:Video game reviews in TV articles

On WP:Television, I opened a discussion about this template being used for TV reviews. Seeing as its related to this project as well, I'm posting a link here if people want to chime in with their opinion. The1337gamer (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space

An editor at the wp:Helpdesk would like to work on Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space. Can anyone here help? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Weegeerunner: Don't be shy! That article is terrible, and anything you do to it can only be an improvement. Really. Write whatever you want, then ask here and we can give you some pointers, but there's no reason to be nervous about running afoul of any rules. --Pres N 02:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, WW:RtIS is one of the first rogue-like-likes so it is somewhat of an important article, and there's a good history piece here about it. It might take a bit more digging but it definitely can be expanded. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Middleton (Minecraft)

This looks like a nice active wikiproject, so I am wondering if anyone here has participated in the deletion discussion of Daniel Middleton? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Plott

I've just copy edited Sean Plott, given it presented serious deficiencies with regards to neutrality (I wouldn't be surprised it contained autobiographical and promotional elements too), language and referencing. I'm not even convinced as to his notability to be honest. All of its references are either primary or unreliable, save Forbes'. Anyway, I'm leaving the ball in your court. Ping me if you need help. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit, but he's definitely notable, PC Gamer's Gamer of the Year 2010, a Techcrunch article, a Guardian article (calling him the "biggest star in esports"), Eurogamer, and others. Sam Walton (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure how lucrative a "Gamer of the Year" award is considered, but it is a long article by a reliable source that covers him in details, I'll give you that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italicisation of video game websites

Is there any reason behind why some game websites have their article titles italicised: Eurogamer, 1UP.com, Polygon (website), and others do not: IGN, GameSpot, GamesRadar? According to WP:MOSTITLE: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Am I missing something or do some of these need changing to be consistent? Also does Template:Video game reviews need updating to reflect this because currently only magazines are italicised and websites aren't at all? – The1337gamer (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs changing for consistency, unless the italised site names are within the "work=" part of a citation, in which case the italisation is automatic and can only be changed by deleting the "work=" part and using the "publisher=" part, which does allow the optional use of italics. I generally role with the idea that websites with paper equivalents get italised (Famitsu, Dengeki, Game Informer, Official Xbox Magazine), while those that are dedicated websites don't (IGN, 4Gamer, Game Impress Watch, Eurogamer, GamesRadar). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the convention I typically use. But I've noticed edits being made to italicise some game websites and then I checked the articles and noticed the inconsistencies. The1337gamer (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stick with the "has a paper version" convention as well, but I know @Czar holds that since all of the websites mentioned here could be included under "news sites with original content", that they should be italicized, and I'm a little sympathetic to the idea. --Pres N 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I italicize almost all video game publications/blogs as they were analogous to newspapers or magazines with original reporting. I think the above MoS guideline—which I believe was just recently moved from WP:ITALICS—makes that clear. The only really gray area is the holding out for IGN, which I would still consider a newspaper-like site and not a broadcast "network". GameSpot and GamesRadar are similar to IGN, though I italicize those. As for what {{video game reviews}} should do with italics, there is already a discussion at Template talk:Video game reviews#Loss of italics in Lua transition. (We recently had a discussion on how to use the |work= and |publisher= citation parameters. I use the work field to italicize the site names and the publisher field for the site's parent company, if different in name.) While it'd be nice to have consensus on this, I haven't pushed it and simply opt for consistency when I review a video game article that doesn't use italics. czar ⨹ 13:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"NationStates"

The usage of NationStates is under discussion, see Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible article ideas in Drafts

There are currently 122 drafts tagged for the Video Games project and possibly more without it. Seeing how a couple of them look to be abandoned but might have a chance in actually becoming an article, why not take a look at Category:Draft-Class video game articles? Might be possible to get a well rounded page from one of these drafts. GamerPro64 17:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bowser's Castle is popular. has a ton of potential, that's for sure! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Video Game Nerd

I was thinking that while AVGN should not be covered as a source for the quality of a game, the fact that AVGN reviewed a game (and the context of the review) is important to include. This would of course preclude that it be citable in a secondary source to show that the episode is in itself notable. So for instance, one could theoretically mention the fact that Castlevania II: Simon's Quest was reviewed by the Nerd in its Legacy section or something. While the episodes are all satirical to some extent, they would be at least notable than, say, being featured in Robot Chicken or something (even more so considering that he usually devotes an episode to only one game). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVGN, like Zero Punctuation, may create a legacy (in that their reviews create more buzz for a game), but I agree to avoid using these as proper review sources. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For instance, even though Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is most noteworthy for being on AVGN, that it appeared on AVGN isn't given note. Anyway, I'm gonna go through and try and add the content (w/ RSes) soon. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would AVGN count as self-published? That drove a mass purging of Anita Sarkeesian opinions from game articles a while back, despite her being clearly notable. Tezero (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published but recognized - to a degree - as an expert on older games. But the reason to disclude AVGN as a "review" is simply his are more done for humor and entertainment, so if AVGN is included, it should be about eyes being drawn back to the game due to his review (I think this can be said about Castlevania II for example, but I'm not 100% sure). AVGN should not be included as part of a critical reception. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on having Castlevania (1986 video game) moved back to Castlevania (video game)

While there was a Nintendo 64 game of the same name, people generally do not remember it well, and I often see it get the same treatment as Superman 64 or Sonic 06, where people often identify it as "Castlevania 64". As for other reasons why the (video game) disambig should be a redirect to the disambig page, I think the NES game is by and large the most noteworthy use of the name, and that people searching for Castlevania (video game) are usually going to be looking for the NES game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move Castlevania (Nintendo 64) back to Castlevania (1999 video game) to keep a consistent naming convention? After all, both games are officially titled Castlevania. The1337gamer (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I think it begs the question of how many people recognize the game as being an N64 game or being a game released in 1999. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure your proposed move is a good idea. The reason for this is that Castlevania: Lament of Innocence and Castlevania: Circle of the Moon were known as Castlevania in some markets - so that's a potential of 4 games, with the GBC one also being very well reviewed. I definitely think the Castlevania (Nintendo 64) article should be moved as The1337gamer suggested; "Nintendo 64" is not a standard disambiguator on Wikipedia for gaming articles, nor does it comply with the MOS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, we will include the platform of interest in the event that two video games of the same name with separate articles are released in the same year. --Izno (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that, with "Castlevania" (no dis) at the series, that "Castlevania (video game)" should be the first game in the series (with "(1986 video game) redirected back to that), and the N64 version at "Castlevania (1999 video game)". --MASEM (t) 23:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Lukeno, I would disagree with this move. Additionally, I see little necessity for this. Including the year in the first game makes the disambiguating phrase unambiguous, which is the point. "video game" is not unambiguous as there are at least 2 if not 4 games to go around that one might call "Castlevania". --Izno (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except, that as argued, I think it is fair logic to think that if one uses "castlevania video game" in the search bar, they are most likely looking for the original NES title, given the relative obscurity of the N64 one. Or if anything, (video game) should redirect to the NES video game page, with that page a hatnote to the N64 version. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stretch of "fair" logic, I think, mostly because there are a large number of video games called "Castlevania". And it certainly misses the point at WP:NWFCTM. WP:VG/MOS happens to be silent, though we all know the rule is "no disambig -> video game -> year video game -> platform video game -> year platform video game" as necessary. I think it's necessary here. As for where a redirect with "(video game)" might lead, I think the series article would be best since it could even be the newest version of the game someone is looking for when they search for "castlevania video game". --Izno (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, that's a fair argument that one might be looking for any of the CV games not knowing the subtitling for them. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review Thread 11: Non-April Fools' Edition

Once again, the thread is up, as it is helping cut down the multitude of GA and FA nominees that become neglected. And no, the list below is not a joke. It's virtually a copy-and-paste from the previous review thread, except that the peer reviews have closed.

FAC

Children of Mana has been nominated since March 2. It's the second time up, with one support.
God of War: Ascension has been nominated since March 4.

GAN

Beneath a Steel Sky (nom)
Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (nom)
Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time (nom)
Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (nom)
Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII (nom)
~~PewDiePie (nom)~~
Passion (Hikaru Utada song) (nom)
Saint's Row IV (start)
Lego Racers (video game) (nom)
Guilty Gear X (nom)
Halo 4 (nom)
Fire Emblem Awakening (nom)

Note: both Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children and PewDiePie have the reviewer saying that it should pass on the review page, but never actually did it. If anyone could take a look at those, that would be grand.

Comment - PewDiePie is already a Good Article. Also, I would like to mention that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests exists if anyone is interested in making new articles. There is only one more article request left before we are finished with requests with 2011. That is how backed up the requests are here. Take a look and help out with the page. GamerPro64 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Begging thread

As the creator of this thread, I'll start this off. Excepting PresN, I'll exchange any review for a review of Before Crisis or for someone to do something about Advent Children before it fails due to lack of activity. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also trade a review for someone finishing the GA review of Advent Children or doing an FAC review of Children of Mana. --Pres N 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should Super Smash Bros. 3DS/Wii U somehow be exempt from article guidelines?

User:TheMeaningOfBlah insists that Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U should feature boxart of both the Wii U and 3DS versions of the game, and has been reverted by myself and other editors; despite the fact that such an inclusion would violate WP:VGBOX ("only one cover should be present, regardless of platform or regional differences").

I'll also copy-paste from his talkpage more reasons on why I believe two images to be inappropriate:

In other games with different "versions", precedence is that only one boxart is used. See Pokémon Black and White as an example.
Consensus was that they are pretty much the same game, and whether Sakurai thinks otherwise is irrelevant.
There is no need to violate WP:VGBOX for no reason, especially as having two or more boxart images is explicitly discouraged.
Multiple boxart images may violate the "minimal usage" and "minimal number of items" parts of WP:NFCC.

I have no intention to edit war over this. Should this one article somehow be exempt from guidelines that cover all other articles? Also the other party has so far provided no policy-based rationale except for "let's ignore it". Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exempt from guidelines for the following reasons I stated on my talkpage:

While two or more boxart images are discouraged, its not a violation of either WP:VGBOX or WP:NFCC.
Sakurai explicitly stated that the games are indeed seperate installments.
The consensus to remerge doesn't matter. Nowhere in that consensus does it say that they are the same game.

Also, should does not equal must, according to the IETF standard. I'm still going to ignore it until a consensus is reached.

TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the NFCC side, yes, multiple covers are against NFCC; you get one cover to identify the work per WP:NFCI#1, but any additional cover-for-identification images that are non-free must be the subject of discussion (such as the Wii version of Okami). --MASEM (t) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you gave me doesn't explicitly state that multiple covers are against NFCC. The images used to identify the games aren't non-free, so that basically invalidates your argument. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 275: / Line 275: @@
 [[User:TheMeaningOfBlah|TheMeaningOfBlah]] ([[User talk:TheMeaningOfBlah|talk]]) 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 ::From the NFCC side, yes, multiple covers ''are'' against NFCC; you get one cover to identify the work per [[WP:NFCI#1]], but any additional cover-for-identification images that are non-free must be the subject of discussion (such as the Wii version of ''[[Okami]]''). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
-:::The link you gave me doesn't '''explicitly state''' that multiple covers are against NFCC. [[User:TheMeaningOfBlah|TheMeaningOfBlah]] ([[User talk:TheMeaningOfBlah|talk]]) 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
+:::The link you gave me doesn't '''explicitly state''' that multiple covers are against NFCC. The images used to identify the games aren't non-free, so that basically invalidates your argument. [[User:TheMeaningOfBlah|TheMeaningOfBlah]] ([[User talk:TheMeaningOfBlah|talk]]) 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)