Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:47, 6 August 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

Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) (12 participants)
Covet Fashion (3 participants)
Vector TDx (2 participants)
Fred Haslam (game designer) (2 participants)
Gravonaut (3 participants)
David Scott (video game developer) (2 participants)
SureAI (8 participants; relisted)
Mighty Rabbit Studios (1 participant; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

List of fictional towns in video games

So, what's gonna happen with List of fictional towns in video games? It could use some help. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like List of fictional universes in games has a lot of the same problems. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering why they both exist. I can sort of see the universes being notable, but towns? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be list cruft, since I think we already have categories for fictional universes/towns. OTOH, this is a more interesting way to provide navigation than categories since users can get where they want to go based on differing criteria to a category. Inclination is that these need some love and not deletion. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion they're both rubbish lists that fall under WP:LISTCRUFT. Both have gone unsourced for over 3 years so clearly the authors have no intention of improving them. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could see this list getting extremely long and full of cruft, but at the moment it is not. Definitely could use some grooming, though. Might be prudent to only include towns/villages that have their own articles. Mamyles (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a notability requirement is met, specifically:

Either the location has a standalone article (blue linked, not redirect)
There are secondary sources that discuss the city beyond it just being a location, but not necessarily enough for notability. Such sources must be included to show that.

This should help keep down cruft of every random city and town being included. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a notability requirement like Masem proposes were put in place, I question the use for these lists. Would anyone actually look up a list of video game towns? If it were about towns or places or characters or whatever from a specific game or franchise, then I could see how it could potentially be useful - I can see someone wanting to look up, say, the characters in Ace Attorney (which needs a lot of work too btw), but this is just a list of things that don't really have much in common.--IDV^talk 10:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Not only that, but it's all in-universe descriptions that are probably better written/sourced in their respective articles. I too wondered if/how people even come across such an article, but it seems not many do... Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia (BioShock) and Rapture (BioShock) have articles, everything else is just a redirect. I clicked on all of them to see. Dream Focus 19:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Kickstarter game projects

For a game on Kickstarter that doesn't end up being funded (looks like Red Ash: The Indelible Legend is going to be the prime example, as it's only around 50% funded with just over a week remaining), do we delete the article since no game will be made, or keep it and re-word it as a "canceled" game? I had thought the previous policy was to hold out until the game officially met it's funding, to avoid situations like these. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is why we generally don't do articles for in-progress kickstarters. Looks like the game got a bit of attention, but I'd redirect it to Comcept if the developers don't announce that they're still developing the game pretty soon after the kickstarter ends. An article on a cancelled project that got a lot of development is one thing, but a project that never even got funding? --Pres N 20:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree, though I think this particular case could be an exception - it's been getting a lot of coverage due to its comparison (and difference in success) to their first project, one of the biggest KS projects - Mighty Number 9. I think if someone put work into it, even if its KS fails, it'd probably survive an AFD or merge discussion. Sergecross73 msg me

Cancelled things have their own category. Category:Cancelled projects and events may help with guidance. - X201 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not funded in most cases it can be merged with the developers company page, the head of the project biographical page, or if it's sequel or part of series, one of those pages.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of relevant, but do we remove all instances of the game from the people who worked on the game's worklist, if it fails? I.E. Manami Matsumae wouldn't have Red Ash listed, right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If she did any work on it, I think it would still be listed. If it was only a failed Kickstarter idea with no real work done, then I wouldnt list it. My 2 cents, ignore me if there's some guideline out there saying otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I was going to do, but Wikipedia doesn't have any official policies regarding these types of things, as far as I am aware. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another "sort of relevant" thing, in that it's also about Red Ash. Today, an editor added furigana for the Japanese title in the article's lead. I've never seen this done before on Wikipedia, and I'm just barely able to make out the small characters - aside from very distinct and simple ones like ん, it's hard to see anything but clusters of pixels. So... what I'm asking here is, is this an okay addition? We already write out the romanization, so I don't really see it being useful.--IDV^talk 09:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested article - Roundabout (video game)

Roundabout is a comedy action video game for PC and current-gen consoles. There are 20 reviews on Metacritic.[1][2][3]. It has been on our requests page since September 2014, I'm asking again here because the developers recently released images under a free use license.

Another reminder is that I still have Steam keys for Insurgency (video game) to give away via email if anyone would like to take that article on. Insurgency is a PC multiplayer shooter with an active community.[4][5]- hahnch e n 09:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of work on Roundabout (video game) but I have to step out now so if someone else wants to keep working on it (and maybe grab a DYK?), be my guest. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Roundabout from the request page. But I did add sources from PC Gamer and Polygon in the articles talk page that can be of use. GamerPro64 00:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VG articles.

I'm not sure why articles like THIS are being redirected. I think it's extremely sad. --Kaysser (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czar attempted to find reliable secondary sourcing covering the topic in detail, but failed. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's sad, but considering the low amount of sources covering it, it's probably the right decision. I did find these, but they're clearly not enough.

I'm guessing you might be able to find some coverage of it in Japanese video game magazines from 1999, but... I can't help out with that, as much as I'd like to. My Japanese is very limited, and I don't have access to any Japanese magazines or whatever from that time period. I also imagine it would be a quite time-consuming project to go through magazines from that time, even if you did have easy access to them.--IDV^talk 13:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least there's the Japanese Wiki article plus other sites. I think this policy leaves much to be desired. --Kaysser (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, well, it's the foundation of the entire website though. You can try to rewrite the concept of the entire website that has been in effect for many years...or you can follow it, and try to find some reliable sources for it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect, you're free to revert it, like I have done here and [6]. If whoever redirected it disagrees, it can go to AFD. Redirects act as a quick and easy deletion-lite, bypassing any formal process. User:Czar has redirected a lot of articles recently without discussion, they might not be right. Being unsourced is not a criteria for speedy deletion, if you feel any of these redirects should be discussed, just revert. - hahnch e n 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've objected to at least one myself. But not being able to provide many/any sources won't hold up well if he sends it to AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a bunch. Some of them were just wrong, Nintendo Super System is not a Super Nintendo Entertainment System accessory. Others can be expanded, or had sources, and I'd err on keeping articles as articles to preserve the external links and identifying artwork. I'd much rather have a half-assed article than a half-assed redirect. - hahnch e n 00:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't happy with his decision to redirect Tuper Tario Tros either, considering the last discussion was an unanimous stance to keep the article. He's making some good calls, like the redirecting of all of those excessive system software articles, but he's had some missteps as well... Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I love a communal effort! Here are three AfDs based on Hahnchen's reverts:

And here's the TTT merge request: Talk:List of unofficial Mario media
And I'm sure we'll have an easy time translating the four known sources from German so that Rackets & Rivals isn't completely unsourced
I'll nominate Nintendo Web Framework—all of its sources are descriptive or really about "Wii U development" rather than a Framework—for merge when the system software procedural discussion ends
So maybe someone can find a single review source for the 2006 Project Hacker
And meanwhile, I'll expedite my Nintendo arcade games draft unless someone can find sources to independently justify separate articles for [7][8][9]

You know I am everything but thorough, so I'm sure we'll fix my "half-assed" "missteps" with your help. Thanks for having my back. – czar 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it so personally, you've just been a bit hasty/heavy-handed on a few of these. I've been supporting a number of them as well... Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see I'm not the only one who disagrees with the user who is reverting stuff like that... :\ in fact I already sent him/her a polite message few months ago showing my disagreement. "You're free to revert it" - too much trouble, not going to do it.

And I fully agree with this: "Others can be expanded, or had sources, and I'd err on keeping articles as articles to preserve the external links and identifying artwork. I'd much rather have a half-assed article than a half-assed redirect." --Kaysser (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of perspective. Key to surviving the whole inclusionist-vs-deletionist thing is to recognize the legitimacy of both perspectives. Czar's redirects may in some cases be hard to swallow for those who lean inclusionist, but it's only fair to recognize that they are conservative steps (hiding rather than obliterating articles). Redirects (especially undiscussed/no-consensus ones) can be reverted and the material expanded/improved at any time. As such they could be regarded as a middle-ground between the two camps of "Keep" and "Delete". For what it's worth, my personal practice when dealing with potentially touchy issues like redirects and merges is to proceed at a snail's pace starting with a suggestion on the talk page and continuing with "suggested merge" templates when I'm pretty confident that it's the right thing to do. These templates and talk page posts often provoke significant improvements. Another thing that I find helpful is to use the {{R with history}} template to indicate to future revert-and-expanders that there is an older version that could (I'd even venture should) be used as a starting point. -Thibbs (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who generally tends towards inclusionism, Czar's redirecting work sometimes pains me, but realistically I know for a lot of it he's doing the sensible thing, and it's hard to object and revert when you only have a feeling to justify your position. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with these going to AFD. Redirecting Sky Skipper to (the end result of) User:Czar/drafts/Nintendo arcade games I can understand, but no one is going to expand Sky Skipper in a summary style at List of products published by Nintendo as stated in the edit summary. It just looks like you're removing verifiable information without discussion. - hahnch e n 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Czar is wasting his time by redirecting these articles, but well, only time will tell. The most important is living the present and enjoying what you are doing. Oh life! --Kaysser (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pix'n Love books

Does anyone have books by Pix'n Love (histories of Nintendo, Mario, Sonic, Gunpei Yokoi)? No hits in reference. – czar 02:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher of digitally released games

If a game is released digitally (no retail available) on services including GOG.com, Steam and Origin, who is described as the publisher? All of them, none of them, or self-published?--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three list the publisher of the game on the game's store page, so it should be whatever is listed there. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fire Emblem Fates#RfC: Inclusion of the "LGBT-related video games" category on this page

To all interested editors on Wikipedia. There is a rather heated discussion going on on the talk page of Fire Emblem Fates about the inclution of the category "LGBT-related video games". This is the first game in its series to feature the option of a same-sex relationship, but some editors feel that there is not enough content or relevance to merit its inclusion. Can you please come to this RfC and give your stance or opinion. If there are valid, Wikipedia Policy-related reasons for its removal, please cite them fully so there will be no further confusion or argument. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humble Bundles category

Why does Category:Humble Bundle games exist? If a company that sells games includes a game as a bundle, does that mean its notable enough to have every game put in that category? Is someone going to read about a game and see that category, and think hey, I need to click it to see what other games they sold at discount in a bundle? What about the other companies that sell games, alone or in collections? Do they get a category too? Walmart sells games in bundles now. As do many others. Dream Focus 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define these games as Humble Bundle games? If not, then it is a non-defining characteristic and probably should be listed for WP:CFD. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the early days of the Humble Bundles, a game being in a bundle usually helped to see a spike in the game's sales and attention; thus the aspect of knowing that a game was featured in a bundle was considered important. That said, the frequency and number of Bundles has clearly diffused over the last several years, but I don't think this is sufficient to say the categories is important. Remember that this is different from being featured at the Humble store, but the limited time sales that go to charity. --MASEM (t)

CFD it. And while we're on the subject, CFD all of those minor categories about non-defining fictional vg characteristics – czar 20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List which ones you mean. Anyway, I went ahead and nominated this one. Dream Focus 22:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about a few in Category:Video games by theme ("comedy video games", "affective video games"), but here's my dump of running cats that I found questionable as "defining"/lede-worthy characteristics: Category:Video games featuring protagonists of selectable gender, Category:Third-person PlayStation 3 shooters (three-way cross-section), Category:Games for Windows certified games (distribution service). I'm also skeptical of "Fiction with alternative endings" and "comic science fiction" as defining characteristics, though I haven't looked into the specifics. Then there's also FIFA 15-type games having a zillion "Video games set in X country" and the indecipherable Category:Lua-scripted video games (none of the games I spotchecked even mentioned Lua...) Feel free to look into any of these if you agree. – czar 23:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes these are useful categories if the aspect is a major fundamental part of the game that it becomes impossible to describe the game without that aspect. For example, Half-Life and Portal fairly fits into Laboratories in fiction since the entire game is set in one, but I would not consider, for example, a game where one level just happens to include a lab (I want to say a game like F.E.A.R. would have one of these). Blood in fiction might apply to a game like Killer 7 where the blood aspect is a central mechanic of the game and story, but should absolutely not apply to a game like TF2 where the characters happen to bleed by taken damage. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not categorically (pun intended) against these, but at the very least there should be documentation in the categories that reminds when it isn't appropriate to apply them. They've been spreading like a rash for the last year. – czar 00:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOLD addition to Writing about fiction to cover this. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should Category:Fictional characters who use magic really be used for Harry Potter titles? I've had the impression that those categories are meant for articles about characters with property X, not for articles about works of fiction featuring characters with property X.--IDV^talk 06:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is Niko Bellic in Category:Soldier characters in video games, has someone put him in there because we don't have Category:Former soldier characters in video games? or did they not understand the characters lifestory? - X201 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Nathan Drake is in the same category!? - X201 (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is Ellie from The Last of Us, which I'm not sure is entirely accurate. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I didn't mention that so everyone could share the surprise, there's another in E as well that I think is even more surprising. - X201 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of intersection categories, is there are reason why the genre/release year crossover only exists for Category:Role-playing video games by year and Category:MMORPGs by year. Are these even necessary? --The1337gamer (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope – czar 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its useful to see what games came out each year. You see how many are in each year category on the category page, and its useful to find other games of that type. One genetic category would be flooded with things, but having them divided by year helps you find what you are looking for, be it games too old for anyone to play anymore, to games with modern graphics. Dream Focus 03:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue is that there should be an easy way for users to find intersections of categories- "RPGs" && "2010 video games" - so that we don't have "2010 RPGs" as a makeshift solution. --Pres N 03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:CATSCAN does it. There are nine articles missing from the manual MMORPG in 2010 category - X201 (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're needed, it seems like a redundant intersection to me. As X201 said Catscan can already intersect categories. If they are kept then a case could be made for creating "genre x release year" categories for every game genre, or for other intersections, such as "developer x release year" or "publisher x release year". Just another case of over-categorisation as listed at WP:NARROWCAT. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expect the average Wikipedia user to waste time going through a tool like that to find what they are looking for. This is just easier. Dream Focus 14:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the other part of my point. They may not find what they are looking for, the manually maintained category is missing nine articles. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The average Wikipedia user doesn't even have to "waste time" using Catscan. Assuming you're not looking through subcategories, you can type incategory:"CategoryName" and incategory:"CategoryName2" in the upper right search box it will intersect the both categories and show you all the articles in both of them. There are also an existing series of list articles dating role-playing video games: List of role-playing video games. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, TIL about that functionality (I've never seen it advertise, or advertised well) nor is it a easily to remember feature, but good to know it exists. On the fact we have lists, Lists and categories can co-exist and there's no logic saying that if we have one we should not have the other; it is just that some things are better for categories than lists. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to be fair, distinguishing a large cat like RPG by year is a relatively natural sorting (consider GOTY awards in how they go by game genre at times), and we do allow such cats (that could otherwise be created via category intersections if WP had that functionality built in) to be created. (eg we have "American male film actors", "American female film actors", "British male film actors", etc.) --MASEM (t) 14:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actor categories are entirely diffused by nationality. The genre categories aren't diffused by release years. Male film actors contains over 28000 pages, so it makes complete sense to form subcats and that is already outlined at WP:COP. MMORPGs is less than 800, it's a relatively small category. And RPGs should already be split into subgenres categories. Why have release year crossover categories for only two genres? Either do it for all of them or don't do it at all. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Humble Bundle games

Category:Humble Bundle games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dream Focus 22:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Oh boy... Check this merge discussion at Talk:Ash Crimson#Merge. First Luke Fon Fabre and now this? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your red-link scared me for a second - I thought the Luke article was deleted. Then I realized it's located at Luke fon Fabre. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Bit odd to say "First Luke fon Fabre" when that merge discussion was over a year ago... Anyways, the article's a bit borderline for me- I'm not a fan of the short fighting game character articles, with reception that is mostly pulled short quotes from reviews of the game or inclusions in "top 10 Blah characters" listicles, but I guess the developer interview keeps it on this side of the line? Not convinced that it's GA-quality, either, but I doubt I'll review it so that's as may be. --Pres N 19:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please revisit our guidelines as they relate to fictional characters? We have a proliferation of FC articles with really poor sources. Their Reception sections consist not of in-depth coverage but small (usually listicle) mentions. In turn, that section coatracks for a full character article almost entirely sourced to primary sources. As an encyclopedia, we should only be writing about characters that get actual coverage about them as individuals (notability). It has little to do with what you feel has sources/worth, but more with what the sources have had to say about it. Ellie (The Last of Us) is an excellent example of a character that has been discussed in depth by sources, and it shows. Any secondary source coverage of Ash Crimson is not on his own terms but in the context of other series characters (thus those sources count as being about "series characters" and not "that mentioned character"—warranting an article on "series characters" and not "that one mentioned character"). I do not see why we as a project defend the practice of dragging out entire articles full of video game universe trivia (based in primary sources because secondary sources do not find it important) and listicles. Sometimes the best possible resource we can provide to our readers is not the long and drawn out lists of in-universe minutiae and complete sets of release dates but the information that our vetted, secondary sources found noteworthy enough to cover (and just that information). – czar 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I would propose for a WP:VG/GL addition:

Individual fictional characters rarely warrant their own articles. When characters of a series are consistently covered as a group, they are best covered in a list-formatted article on Wikipedia. Individual characters warrant their own articles when they meet the general notability guideline and are the subject of sustained and dedicated (in-depth) coverage such that a full article can be written about them with little reliance on primary or self-published sources. Otherwise, they are best covered in lists of series characters.

I believe this follows from (1) how the rest of the encyclopedia treats their character articles, and (2) our policies on notability, specifically the general notability guideline. Open for workshopping. – czar 21:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally there is a related and unanimous proposal about overuse of primary sourced fictional elements at Wikipedia_talk:What Wikipedia is not#Expanding NOTPLOT – czar 01:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Ash Crimson and Ellie are quite comparable articles except for the amount of awards Ellie received. But I think both are okay and then I think I'm consistent. However, I don't think you are, czar. Your rationale on interviews is that an interview only matters if it was done by a secondary source (I interpreted you correctly, right?). If so, you are using double standards... both have interviews done by secondary sources (interviews that show some notability for Ash are conducted by Diehard GameFan and Kotaku) but why the problem only with Ash Crimson? Also, you say the character is not treated as a character but as part of the series. And you say Ellie "has been discussed in depth by sources". Well, I don't see this way. Only the first paragraph of "Reception" treats her as a character, while the other paragraphs only discuss her, in your words, "in the context of other series characters" (i.e second is Ellie and Joel, and third is Ellie and Riley). Except for the analysis of sexism and female characters in game (I suppose in your terms you couldn't say its about her too), there are only GamesRadar "listicles". The most detailed article is perhaps her comparison (emphasis on comparison) to Elizabeth of BioShock. Again, I would like you to clarify what constitutes (here and in general) a "depth" discussion about the character because if comparisons are not valid for Ash Crimson I don't see why for Ellie it is. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with DHGF & Kotaku interviews. There's a different process for deciding what sources should go in an article (due weight and verifiability) and determining whether sources make a discrete subject worth its own article (notability). There is a clause in notability that requires in-depth/significant coverage and it's what protects the encyclopedia against me plastering together all kinds of mentions and writing an article about any prominent but incidental feature of a game. Sure, it's verifiable and the sources may even be vetted, but if the idea itself is not significant enough to warrant its own article. Dedicated coverage is when I can ask, "what's this reference about?" and the answer is "Ash Crimson" rather than "video game characters" or "X series characters". Ellie has multiple articles about her[10][11][12]—she is the subject. And there are many backup sources that are specifically about Ellie's character development and conceptualization, not in passing. Look at the percentage of the article's sources that are primary as opposed to secondary and compare it. Topics like "Ash Crimson" have to string together a line from an interview, a sentence from a listicle—there is no significant coverage. The DHGF and Kotaku interviews are about The King of Fighters. Crimson's relevance is literally a single response in a long interview. But this comes down to practicalities of writing: Crimson, most Pokémon characters, minor series characters all don't have actual in-depth analysis so their Reception (their only section with secondary sources) is a hodge-podge of single sentences and it makes for bad reading. In three sentences we go from "no one likes Ash" to "most androgynous" to "top 10 deepest voices" (trivia!)when we should really be saying that the character is androgynous, period, with two footnotes. In essence, this drawn-out article (mind you, at no fault of the writer but at the lack of in-depth coverage) could better be said as a single paragraph describing the character's key features in a list rather than an exhaustive, difficult collection of their every mention in video game blogs. Secondary source content only forms a third of the Crimson article—it shows how secondary sources regard the importance of this character. And it's not just video games: look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_elements and its archives to see almost all characters redirected/merged to lists because they were not the subject of independent analysis. Our project's attitudes towards fictional character notability are completely out of sync with the rest of Wikipedia. That's my point in a nutshell—we're an encyclopedia and we do our readers a disservice when our character articles dive into minutiae at the expense of the general picture. Wikia has already been designated as the better venue for that finer level of detail. – czar 04:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ok, now your explanation is much better. Nevertheless, I have a problem in concluding wheter Polygon article is about Ellie as a character or Ellie as the protagonist of The Last of Us. Still, it's an interview with producers and not something about her impact—which, of course, is not discusable as I said before; HardcoreGamer Awards and other awards show it. However, you can't be seriously saying a montage of Ellie cursing is "in depth"... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it the minimum of "depth"—I'd take it over a blurb in a listicle any day. The Kotaku article indicates that the character is sufficiently important enough for its own article/headline, and the listicle indicates that the character can only be discussed under the pretense of being hidden along with 20 other minor characters. Depth for notability is really about whether RS indicate that the character as an individual stands on her own—not with other series characters, not only alongside the game. Ellie's certainly not the pinnacle of coverage—I think of the article as the threshold for what "enough" coverage looks like. – czar 05:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend specs for computer games

Can somebody link me to the Wikipedia policy on including recommend specs for computer games? I know they are not wanted in articles, but I can't find and link to it for another user who wanted to know why I reverted an edit for Rocket League. Thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Rocket League but I believe you're looking for WP:VGSCOPE #12 – czar 07:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015 on the main page

This month on the main page we'll be seeing Arbiter (Halo) on the 11th for Today's Featured Article. Been a while since we've seen an article on a video game character for TFA. Congrats goes out to David Fuchs for his work. GamerPro64 13:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, thanks for reminding me. Want to give it a spit-shine before it hits the big time. Got a few sources to improve it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I want to join the WikiProject where I sign up. Junior Dedinho (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To join this WikiProject, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox backlog

It's been a few months and we now have almost 80 articles sitting in our Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes. I just killed about 25. Feel free to join in – czar 01:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done

Started work on Category:Video games game guide cleanup, if you want to try your hand at the surgical knife – czar 00:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

100% complete

(155/155)

The Joker has been nominated for Featured Article

The above Featured Article discussion has begun and may be of interest to this project. It is focused primarily on the comic character but falls under the purview of video game characters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation for visual novels

Something that has bothered me for some time is how, when a visual novel article's title needs disambiguation, editors often seem to choose "(visual novel)" rather than "(video game)". No one would do the same thing to, say, fighting games or platformers, or even the similar genre adventure games, so why should we do it with visual novels? Would anyone be opposed to moving articles like Clannad (visual novel) and Snow (visual novel) to Clannad (video game) and Snow (2003 video game)? On a similar note, the disambiguation used for Christine Love (visual novelist) has bothered me for ages.--IDV^talk 15:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts: One, the notion of a visual novel is fairly distinct from that of the typical video game. The other is that the phrase "visual novel" is much more likely to be recognized. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but it is still avideo game genre.--67.68.162.187 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is an Kindle, choose-your-own-adventure ebook, a video game? They're just as interactive, digital, and text driven as a visual novel. I agree with Izno, it's distinct enough to not change it, especially as it's been this way for years (2004 for Clannad). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not but the issue regarding Visuel Novels being a video game genre has come up before with a clear consensus that they were video games due to several reliable sources as well as the industry itself calling them one. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 95#Visual novel as a genre. Unless there has been a seismic shift in coverage since that discussion the case for visuel novels being video games is clear and we should not try to use personal opinion to overrule reliabke sources.--65.94.252.40 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are called visual novels. Dream Focus 23:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think (visual novel) has been used so widely because visual novels, while sometimes also having more conventional gameplay elements you'd find in video games, are much more dependent on the novel aspect of reading the text. Some visual novels also have no other gameplay than simply reading (no choices given, no additional minigames) as in Planetarian or Mahoutsukai no Yoru, so it would be very hard to call those "video games". Similarly, Wikipedia has done other things like this before, such as when (EP) is used to disambig extended plays because EPs are somewhere between a single and an album. I would argue that a visual novel is somewhere between an interactive novel and a video game, thus the need for (visual novel) to disambig the articles.--十八 00:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last point- I'd be fine moving Christine Love (visual novelist) to Christine Love (video game developer) or whatever; she's best known for her visual novels but I guess she's developed some other smaller games. --Pres N 01:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be Christine Love (video game designer), since "developer" normally refers to a group/company. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't read the article yet, but I would expect "(video game writer)" to be more accurate, depending on how she self-identifies. Someone with very little skill in developing or designing capital V Videogames can still create amazing visual novels. It's a really difficult question, though: how do reliable sources refer to "visual novelists"? ~Mable (chat) 07:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - After reading the article, Love seems to identify as a writer first and foremost ("a writer first, and a game designer second"). Video game developer/designer wouldn't be perfectly accurate, it seems, but I think we have a pretty strong case to turn it into "video game writer" if we want to get rid of "visual novelist" altogether. Question, though: do we have any guidelines in place on how to disambiguate video game industry people? If not, we might need to get something going similar to what we have for video games themselves (as Czar pointed out in the P.T.-section below). ~Mable (chat) 12:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, that's right. I was just pointing out the fact that, at least on Wikipedia, single personnel can not be "developers" (which are reserved for groups/companies) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.T. (demo)

Not entirely related to the above discussion, but something that has bothered me a little bit for a while and could help with the discussion if video games should always be disambiguated as "(video game)", there is P.T. (demo). It seems a somewhat silly disambiguation: it is very often referred to as a demo specifically, but does that make it any less of a video game? Also, are there other articles disambiguated as such? ~Mable (chat) 07:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(video_games)#Disambiguation: it should be "video game" – czar 07:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a video game game first foremost. The fact it is a demo of a larger game is secondary in this case. - X201 (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review Thread: Anniversary Edition (#16)

So it seems its been over a year since Review Threads became a thing. I myself unintentionally starting them. With that aside, here are some things that you can take a look at.

GAN

Development of The Last of Us (nom) (May 3)
Persona (series) (nom) (June 18)
Kreia (nom) (June 18)
Your Diary (visual novel) (nom) (July 29)
Ash Crimson (nom) (July 31)
Blast Corps (nom) (August 1)
R.C. Pro-Am II (nom) (August 1)
Slalom (video game) (nom) (August 1)
Kirby's Block Ball (nom) (August 2)
Cobra Triangle (nom) (August 3)
Jetpac (nom) (August 3)
Killer Instinct Gold (nom) (August 4)
Lunar Jetman (nom) (August 5)
Satoru Iwata (start) (August 5)
Grabbed by the Ghoulies (nom) (August 5)

Peer Reviews

L.A. Noire (rev) (June 18; two comments)
The Last of Us (rev) (June 19; two comments)
Avalanche Studios (rev) (July 23; no comments yet)

GAR

Team Fortress 2 (nom) (July 6; two delists)

And, of course, new month means an increase in the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests. Come take a look if you're interested in making a new article for the site. Contributions are always appreciated. GamerPro64 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Anniversary! Just wanted to note that I'll happily trade someone's review for a review of the GAN for Development of The Last of Us (I know it looks long and boring, but you might learn something!). Comments on the peer review of The Last of Us would be greatly appreciated too. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up "Development of The Last of Us". In return, I'll ask for a review of Persona (series) once my review is completed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ProtoDrake. I've been looking at Persona (series) for a while now, and I was planning on reviewing it, but I never got around to doing it. I'd be happy to review it for you within the next week or so. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell from the above, I'm working on the Rare Replay articles with @Jaguar. (The compilation releases tomorrow.) All are welcome to join in the effort, but let us know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Rare Replay so we're not duplicating work. – czar 23:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going to get this out there and say that the Rare Replay nominations are starting to get out of hand. Currently we have eight nominated and I'm not too positive if some have enough substance to pass a GAN. That's just me. GamerPro64 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GamerPro64, which? Some of my noms for 80s games don't have Dev sections because Dev info plainly didn't exist (or is really buried even after dozens of searches), but I don't think that would preclude them for breadth. Would you elaborate? – czar 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think I'm just a bit concerned about the sudden influx of GANs all of a sudden. Though I think there has to be more info on Grabbed by the Ghoulies. I remember that being a big deal back then, being Microsoft's first Rare title and seeing in on The Electric Playground. Maybe I'll let the reviewers just handle this stuff. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games adjustment

Just letting everyone know—even though I know pretty much no one cares—that I went through and adjusted Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games to split games up by half-decades rather than decades. Other than to cut down the impressive walls of text that were the 1990s and 2000s, it also highlights just how few GAs we have on games pre-1985: just 16 from 1980–84, plus 2 from the 70s. On the other side, it's kind of neat that we already have 4 GAs on games released in 2015. --Pres N 02:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks hugely. It's so much easier reading it now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamescom 2015

So just a thought to keep an eye out for Gamescom announcements. With the confirmation of a new Halo Wars for example there might be possibility for higher activity on certain pages. And possibly vandalism and edit-warring. GamerPro64 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of games renames

Issakenta appears to be going through and renaming the lists of games, like List of Dreamcast games, to e.g. Dreamcast game library. There doesn't seem to have been a discussion about this beforehand, and the name is certainly non-standard- opinions? --Pres N 04:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely non-standard, nor have I seen discussion of it. --MASEM (t) 05:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard (WP:LISTNAME) and needs the RD of BRD. Can't see how this change is a better description of the contents of the article. -X201 (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely wouldn't pass consensus to change either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about these moves. Mostly, I do not see how "game library" is common outside of particular distribution systems and so I believe it does not treat the topic from the encyclopedic viewpoint re WP:JARGON. These moves should be speedily reverted by the nearest available admin. --Izno (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. – czar 08:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a number of topics about video games, I often read and hear the term "library" when referring to the games released on a particular console. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the list of albums for a musician is called discography, and the list of films involving a character or person is called filmography, then game library might be for games of a console. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there could be an argument made to make "game library" standard usage for such lists - if discussed appropriately, of course - though it completely depends on how common the usage of the term is. I've seen it in use and have used it myself a lot, but as someone interested in the video game industry, that might not mean much. Video games have the issue that people with little interest in the topic might not know such term (while the term "discography" is somewhat difficult to miss as an English-speaking human being). ~Mable (chat) 16:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If video games had a similar term for collections of games (gameography?) then I could see the argument for moving to that, but "game library" just isn't descriptive enough for me. Given that there's no standard term I think we should default to list of. Sam Walton (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the term will get better known in the future, but until then, it seems "list of __ games" it will be, judging from the current opinions. ~Mable (chat) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with "game library" is that it's not only "the library of games for system X" but also "my game library, aka the games that I personally have". Discography, etc. don't have that overlap- they only refer to the works by the creator/publisher. I don't think there's a good word for games- gameography? Ludography? --Pres N 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be against gamrography since I have played video games for years and this discussion is the first plsce I have ever hrard that term. I highly foubt the term has entered common usage.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gameography refers to a list that a person has worked on (I.E. director, producer, composer, etc). In this case, it's actually better to use the term game library to refer to a list of games for a system. Of course, the page is still best left as "List of *** games". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet & Clank

I am definitely against the recent "nuking" of the games in the series, Ratchet & Clank, they are now too summative. A game should not have to be especially noted in "x", for "x" to have a detailed area in Wikipedia. People should be able to go to the "Plot" of a game on Wikipedia that wasn't praised for the story, and find the basic story. It is not like "Reception", where the reception of the story would matter for how much information of the story should be within "Reception". The games' articles were better before they had their stories altered. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up! As a reference to others, I based my decision to plot-trim on this discussion I had here a little while ago. I'm willing to talk about it further if it's a point of contention. I guess my main concern is treating a Wikipedia plotsummary like Wikia treats its plotsummaries-- several seemed of the opinion that it's mostly the main premise should be all a layperson needs on a WP article, unless the plot itself discussed by a lot of RSes as remarkable. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 19:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Can you provide some link to examples of what you're talking about? You're talking in such a generalities that it's hard to argue for or against what you're saying... Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, they're probably referring to this, this and this sort of thing I was up to. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support your edits then, and empathize with your plight - I've been going through the same thing with with the Sonic the Hedgehog fanbase for years. They always want to play by play commentary on trivial things, and reference all sorts of in-game detail without any context for the general reader. It's supposed to be a short overview, not a novelization project, especially when its something not focused on plot, like Ratchet or Sonic. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the cut-down too, though I might not have got that brief. But R&C-style games lead to type of brief overall plot (with many smaller plots that do not affect it due to being confined to one of the worlds or the like), and because these plots rarely get external coverage, a shorter version is appropriate. (I do wonder if like the film project we can push on a word count for plots that can only be sourced to the game itself). --MASEM (t) 20:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if like the film project we can push on a word count for plots that can only be sourced to the game itself Whole-hearted support. I'd even go further to ask why we even need to source to the game when every game's important plot elements are noted in secondary sources. (And in the most extreme cases, we can source to the manual—but as a last resort!) Our sources are already telling us what's important to include. – czar 20:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not necessarily. Sources can make it very clear that the plot is very important to the game, while they at the same time refrain from writing "spoilers". I've been working on the Soul Hackers article at svwp, and while reviews consistently talk about the plot as a central element, there's almost no information at all available about the plot itself. It would be ridiculous to not write anything about the plot, while also dedicating a decent portion of the reception section to talking about how reviewers enjoyed the plot.--IDV^talk 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally be fine with a caveat that allowed plot details omitted from sources due to spoilers (but I'd also question how much those spoilers add to the article if no later source ever discussed them or their importance). And Soul Hackers seems to have a fair amount of intricate plot details from RS already. – czar 21:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Czar and agree with IDV. And about "I do wonder if like the film project we can push on a word count for plots that can only be sourced to the game itself" that's not a problem. But within the numbers of 500–700 words, they should be able to summary the whole plot. If we only reproduced what sources say, maybe not every film would be able to do so. So it doesn't fit with Czar's idea of adding only of what sources say. Of course a plot is more important for a film than for a video game but wouldn't we be neglecting major facts or details and places the subject in context? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reception/coverage of "x" (in this case, the story) is "immaterial" for deciding how much information under "x" to include. "Plot" is part of most games' articles, and with full summaries. "Plot" is useful information that shouldn't be withheld if people didn't significantly cover it. Should games that aren't significantly liked and don't have high reception/coverage of their gameplay, have "minimal" sections on their gameplay? No. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, policy says that we should cover topics in proportion to how reliable sources cover them. Now, we do recognize plot doesn't get as much coverage as gameplay, graphics, and audio, and we do recognize that a complete article on a topic should include a plot summary. But plot summaries should be concise particularly if they are only sourcable to the primary work. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the details of such a guideline may be, I'd definitely like to see something more firmly laid out in WP:VG/GL about how plots should be summarized, just so there can be some consistency on how we tackle this. I can see the rationale behind relying only on secondary sources for what to mention in such a plotsum, and I can also see the rationale behind summarizing the plot start-to-finish where the game is considered a primary source-- although personally I think the latter choice, while informative for an interested reader, still doesn't have a good supporting structure in terms of verifiability and a solid framework of reliable sources to hold up what is being written into it. I also think having a word limit could be helpful too, depending on what approach to the guideline we take.

Generally speaking I'd just be game all around if we could nail down some good proposals for how to handle plotsums, and maybe run an RfC either here or on the WP:VG/GL talkpage to poll for what proposal the community thinks is the best practice. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 11:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that I'm going to see is that one solution is never going to fit all for video games in general, since you span the spectrum from where there is zero plot (like Pong) to where we have visual novels where the gameplay is all plot like 999.

I would start from the idea that if the entirety of the plot of the game is not subject to significant secondary coverage (knowing that most reviews start "You play X doing Y" to establish context but that's not a plot summary), it should be kept in the FILMPLOT range of 400-700 words. In such cases the plot summary should focus on major cinematic points as opposed to blow-by-blow breakdown; a summary of "The hero goes to X to do Y, and then goes to P to do Q..." is bland; "The hero visits several locations to learn more about Z" instead is better (and in the R&C games, this is the right approach). It is very easy to be blinded by the fixed level/stage/zone/city/etc. divisions of most video games in writing to the plot. This is particularly true of RPGs (both Western/Bioware style and JRPGs) where that 40hrs of gameplay they sport can translate to a lot of side plots but not much to a main one.

When the plot overall is subject of secondary source discussion (as would be the case for games like BioShock, Portal, The Last of Us, etc.), the plot summary should still be concise but sufficient to support the secondary coverage. An example is that in Half Life 2, Ravenholm is basically horror-themed mid-level of the game, without any major revelations, and in such a case, I'd simply have left it out. However, as an area of the game it has been critically received, we should mention its relevance to the plot (which our present article does with one whole sentence, which is appropriate). --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edited plot section of The Witcher 3 is 2000 words. Apparently, it needs to be this long. - X201 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeah, that needs a very much more broad-strokes summary. I see tons of "optionally" and what look to be side quests with names that appear once or twice and are never mentioned again. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. & C. 1, R. & C. 2, and R. & C. 3, now are extremely unexplained in "Plot". Sure, adding to "Plot" based on reception/coverage can be useful because it provides context, but even if a game recieved "minimal" coverage on the story, it should still have the "Plot" with the main points of the story. The articles of Ratchet & Clank currently don't include the ends of any of the games' stories. They should be restored to how they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshness For Lettuce (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. A plot summary can cover the overall work and still be concise.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World's FAR

I have nominated Empires: Dawn of the Modern World for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 22:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sega and related articles - source concern

This isn't something I'm able to do with the kind of time and computer access I have, but I've found reason to believe that a lot of the citations on Sega that use the SegaSammy powerpoint PDFs as sources might not actually support the statements they're being attributed to. For example, in this set of edits, I identified a statement about Phantasy Star Online 2 that was attributed to one of these PDFs and did a ctrl+F for "phantasy" to check what page it was on so I could make the citation more than just a bare URL, and it turned up nothing. I'm not sure if these documents were being used before he showed up or not, but User:Tripple-ddd was adamant on using these in a lot of places in Sega, and potentially on other Sega-related articles like their development studios, and I'm suspicious that, WP:PRIMARY issues aside, that these sources aren't being used properly at all.

I can't do more than a cursory ctrl+F on any of these docs to spot-check, and this dinosaur of a computer forces me to download them directly to view them all. I don't have the time to do more than a few just before I go to bed, so I would really appreciate it if someone could help me check these. Even if they're correct, they were just plonked in as URLs; they still need page numbers and titles to clarify just what the hell these sources are when someone hovers over the citation. Thanks, ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 18:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Types of claims like Sega's "biggest successes" should not be sourced to internal PowerPoints. That's the type of stuff where we require the editorial distance of secondary sources. – czar 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be used in the right context and wording - like if it was made clear that it was a judgement call made by Sega - but it shouldn't be used as a source for calling it a success as a hard fact though. (It's not something I do, and I noticed a lot of times where Tripple ddd used sources incorrectly, or disregarded them entirely, but it could be done if done right.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 299: / Line 299: @@
 R. & C. 1, R. & C. 2, and R. & C. 3, now are extremely unexplained in "Plot". Sure, adding to "Plot" based on reception/coverage can be useful because it provides context, but even if a game recieved "minimal" coverage on the story, it should still have the "Plot" with the main points of the story. The articles of Ratchet & Clank currently don't include the ends of any of the games' stories. They should be restored to how they were.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Freshness For Lettuce|Freshness For Lettuce]] ([[User talk:Freshness For Lettuce|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freshness For Lettuce|contribs]]) 19:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+::That is a good point. A plot summary can cover the overall work and still be concise.--[[Special:Contributions/174.91.187.234|174.91.187.234]] ([[User talk:174.91.187.234|talk]]) 19:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 == [[Empires: Dawn of the Modern World]]'s FAR ==