Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:42, 1 February 2016

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

GameRankings discussion

I think we need to talk about the use of GameRankings. With current talks about use of Aggregation websites here this one seems to be the most expendable. At least, in my opinion. OpenCritic has been the new up-and-coming site that might become more popular than industry standard Metacritic. That's speculation right now as we don't know what's going to happen in the future. Metacritic is also one of two aggregation websites we consider reliable and use at this time. The other being GameRankings. Why do we still use GameRankings? It's older than Metacritic, as well as both sites being owned by CBS Interactive, but you don't hear critics or publishers talk about its importance. So I'm wondering if there should be a cutoff of using GameRankings on Wikipedia. Just stop using it past a certain date. Any other suggestions are welcome of course. GamerPro64 19:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to set this up more like an RFC or something - this may not be as clear cut as you think, as the consensus the last time we discussed this was pretty strongly in favor of keeping it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the 18 months since the last discussion, GameRankings has continued to be an irrelevance in the games industry, its presence on Wikipedia outweighs by its presence anywhere else. It should not be used for modern games. A lot of articles probably include it just out of habit, it might be difficult to do anything about it unless someone decides to go all Giraffedata on it. We could update Template:Video game reviews/doc to recommend the use of only one aggregator. - hahnch e n 20:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"GameRankings has continued to be an irrelevance in the games industry", maybe by your opinion or the people you have around you but just a simple look at Alexa shows it's far and above more popular than a site like OpenCritic. I'm not taking a stand on the use of aggregators (although I'm somewhat against linking to them), but they are pooling scores from published sources. They don't change the scores. You not liking them doesn't make the scores they recorded any less valid. If we're going to link to aggregators, I don't see why they are any more or less relevant than MetaCritic, OpenCritic or Rotten Tomatoes for that matter. And I absolutely am against the idea of picking a favorite. BcRIPster (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still of the opinion that trying to enforce not using it will require more effort than its worth to remove something that has nothing actually wrong with it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iff we were to decide to omit GR from the table, I would consider it a deprecated step, grandfathering in all existing uses and recommending it not be used for others. But I would also insist that we should GR as an external link because it serves the purpose of being a launching board for other review sources for the reader, in addition to those by MC (and possibly OC). --MASEM (t) 22:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not done on articles on any other form of media, it shouldn't be done for games. Our reception section should already give a good overview of the critical landscape, and its references should be sufficient. We don't link to exhaustive lists of news or previews. Generally, for video games, I link to the official website(s) and to Mobygames, which itself has further links to reviews already. - hahnch e n 22:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checking a number of film articles, many include 3 or more links to aggregation sites (not just reviews, but things like RT, MC, Box Office Mojo, IMDB, AllTheNumbers, etc.) I see the aggregates that aren't used in the review table in the same way, alongside a link to MobyGames. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobygames is the IMDB equivalent. The Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes links are already in the references, we don't usually repeat these in the external links in games articles. We have removed links to GameFAQs, Gamespy, Gamespot, IGN, StrategyWiki and many others. I do not support the addition of aggregators to WP:VG/EL. - hahnch e n 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way about rounding GameRankings' scores… —zziccardi (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have nearly 12000 links to GameRankings on the English Wikipedia alone, I think we should remember that their Alexa rank may be largely determined by our use of them. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. There might be a possibility of removing a large amount from here might cause a plummet in ranking. Now that's an article I would like to see, "Gaming Aggregator's traffic plummets thanks to Wikipedia". GamerPro64 23:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Wikipedia article I would love to see: Wikipedia's impact on gaming aggregators. ;p ~Mable (chat) 11:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The indents are getting a little crazy at the top, so I'll put my response down here: For the record, when I say "not worth the effort to enforce", I'm talking about all the repetitive discussions/arguments that are going to break out over and over again.

Newbie: Hey, Serge, why did you remove Game Rankings?
Serge: Consensus is to not use GR on Wikipedia.
Newbie: How come?
Serge: Its not as prevalent as MC the industry.
Newbie: But I like GR/don't like MC. Here's some reasons why. What's wrong with using GR?
Serge: Well, there's nothing wrong, its just redundant.
Newbie: But what's the harm? And its on Sonic 2. And Super Mario 3D World, and etc etc etc.
Serge: Well, we set a cut off point.
Newbie: Why that point? What changed, and when? I want to open up a big RFC at WP:VG and get everyone all worked up over it.
(excessive arguments ensue)

Repeat Ad nauseam. Which is why I think its all more trouble than its worth. I fine with having this discussion over and over again about something like using VGChartz as a source, where there are issues that clash directly with WP:RS, and always a pretty strong consensus against it, but not this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "it is too much work to keep arguing about it with newbies" isn't really a valid argument. Shouldn't we think about what is best for Wikipedia, rather than what is easiest for us? Either way, if we do stop using GameRankings, all you need to do is link to this conversation whenever someone brings it up. There is no use in talking about it on specific article talk pages. ~Mable (chat) 16:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the foundation of my argument - there isn't any any detriment to using it. There is detriment to wasted time and effort better spent on other things though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think newbies are really the ones to bloat review tables with Gameranking scores, it's generally regulars who follow a pattern. We can refer those editors back here, and make the instructions clearer at Template:Video_game_reviews to establish that those patterns have changed. It's more important to establish a precendent rather than to look at policing. - hahnch e n 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether we should, we could remove the GR field from Template:Video game reviews such that the tables no longer contain the GR figure; this would likely discourage its use with minimal effort, while removing it from one of the prominent places it is frequently located. Sam Walton (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guilty of adding it, even when I don't like it, for this reason. The template supports it, and as long as it does, that's viewed by many as implicit approval to use GR, if not an outright mandatory requirement. In places where I only add MC, I often find that an IP editor adds GR within a day or two. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, its either drive-by IPs that are making the changes, or the type of editor that is somewhere between "newbie" and "editor who regularly edits at WP:VG. There's a lot of them - the type that are huge fans of video games, but edit WP infrequently and don't really have a vested interest in following things, they really just want to add their 2 cents and be on their way. These are the types that these arguments are going to arise with over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above dialogue has not been my experience. I remove GR whenever I see it not adding value (this is often) and I honestly cannot recall even a single article steward contesting the action. I see no issue with leaving GR in the template—it can be useful on specific, older games (really isolated cases). It just should be removed from the template default. I don't think it's a hard ask. It works the same way as the other Reception box rules and it's only unintuitive for those who have not read the documentation overview at all. I think it is fine to revisit this conversation if enforcement turns out to be a mess, but I really don't see how it will be. So the proposal is to remove GR as a default but leave it as an option if it adds value in the absence of Metacritic. czar 19:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GameRankings proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for the change. The majority opinion is that GR is mainly useful for older games and it is mainly duplication in newer ones. I do not see support for removal everywhere, more of phasing it out on newer games. It was almost clear consensus that it was useful for older games, from both minority and majority opinions. Were that fits on a timeline though isnt clear. AlbinoFerret 00:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only include GR in {{video game reviews}} when it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic (especially in the case of recent games)

Support. I'm not seeing any honest defense of GR's importance above. I haven't seen any warring over including GR—we should be basing our decision to include something based on its use and not on the perceived difficulty of changing editor habits. I haven't seen a substantive reason for keeping GR as a default alongside Metacritic when it's just duplicating its numbers and makes no characterization about the reviews as a whole ("critical acclaim"/"overwhelming dislike") for us to use in prose. I don't think it should be scrapped outright because there are some edge cases in which it provides at least some description of the sources as a whole. czar 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested tweak: Deprecate. I think there's still some value as a secondary set of numbers, and for older games, but I do think looking forward the future of our articles doesn't include GR. Rather than removing it outright I think it'd be better to no longer recommend or encourage its use but bide our time another year or so and see if another option takes its place or we agree with the sentiment previous and go ahead and remove and/or discourage entirely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, really per above. No need to remove it in articles where it is already in use, but seeing as it doesn't add anything to the article, I feel like we should discourage its use. ~Mable (chat) 15:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support, in that for any new games (not articles) since, say 2010, that GR should be deprecated over MC. GR is still rather valuable for older games that we might not have full articles yet and where MC doesn't capture the same websites that existed at that time. I would support removing it from the example at vgr but it obviously needs to stay part of the template. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As long as there's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's not worth the effort to remove/enforce. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This proposal suggests neither of those. There is no need to remove any GameRanking numbers in currently existing articles and it is only discouraged and advised against in new articles, if this idea passes. There's nothing inherently right with it either, so why should we keep adding it to our articles? ~Mable (chat) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of what? I'm saying it's not worth the effort to do anything towards making a change. Unless he's proposing changing nothing, then effort to change or enforce is involved, and in my opinion, not worth it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't feel it is worth the effort to keep adding GameRankings if it doesn't add much of anything, and would prefer this effort to go into something else. ~Mable (chat) 09:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the proposal for clarity czar 17:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I'm not seeing a strong and convincing argument for actively discouraging the use of GR. I believe that having more than one aggregator is beneficial in terms of neutrality. Overall, I'm just not seeing any harm or a need to change current practice. --Murph9000 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutrality means giving the correct weight to opinions. By discouraging Gamerankings, we're giving it the same weight as reliable sources do. Compare a Google News search for Fallout 4 and Metacritic against Gamerankings. - hahnch e n 12:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support: It still has a valid use in articles for pre-Seventh Gen games. Others after that, it could be removed unless Metacritic does not give a proper view of aggregate scoring for a title. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We should not be using Gamerankings for modern games. - hahnch e n 12:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can dig this. GamerPro64 19:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find GameRankings useful for older games, but I agree that it shouldn't be encouraged in modern games, like anything seventh-generation plus. JAGUAR 14:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - In case this proposal goes through, how should we handle series articles? For instance, The_Legend_of_Zelda#Reception_and_legacy currently uses the Metacritic and GameRankings scores of each game in the series to give a sense of the quality of the games and series. I assume for the 2016 game, we'll still add the GameRankings score here? For consistency sake? ~Mable (chat) 22:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support: per Masem and ProtoDrake (vide GR vs MC for example). Sir Lothar (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think we need to include it at all, honestly. I get tired of being one of the few that actually attempts to round the values, per the template's own documentation. Does it really add anything Metacritic doesn't? Most of the time, the numbers are exactly the same, just look at The Witcher 3 as an example. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Having GR generates more problems (e.g. rounding off the scores). It is not really that helpful for modern games, and makes the review template looks unnecessarily huge. (for games like Lego Harry Potter: Years 5–7). AdrianGamer (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A larger sample of review or aggregate scores is better. Heck, I would like to see MobyRanks added to these templates. SharkD Talk 00:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see the need to truncate review sites, but not aggregators. Nall (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GameRankings proposal implementation

I apologize if I missed where this was stated, but with the RFC now closed, how will this be documented? An addition to WP:VGSCOPE or similar? -- ferret (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that the documentation of {{Video game reviews}} would be updated (now done). --Pres N 01:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, but GameRankings is also used in prose. VGSCOPE update would give something to refer users with if I undo an addition in new game articles. :) -- ferret (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VGAGG links to the section of the documentation—that should be sufficient czar 04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also assume some changes should be made over at our list of sources. ~Mable (chat) 06:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What's the definition of "Older games" in this equation? Seventh generation and older? Sixth? Before 2010? GamerPro64 17:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hard and fast definition, but games that predate Metacritic aggregation would be the easy answer czar 18:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly assumed a "from now on" idea, that anything before 2015 can keep its GameRankings score, though mostly because it would take effort to remove the source from the hundreds of articles of games that have come out the past few years. ~Mable (chat) 18:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While removing GR from a recent addition done just today, I discovered that I had to specify gr=no for Template:Video game series reviews. Can someone look into updating this template to only display GR if populated? -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ done. And re: "from now on"—the documentation now says,

Do not include GameRankings unless it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic (e.g., games that predate Metacritic).

I don't think anyone recommends a systematic deprecation. I think the expectation is that it'll be applied through normal editing, whether the game is from 2005 or 2015. Let's move any additional discussion about implementation to the {{vg reviews}} talk page? czar 07:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That message does not reflect the consensus we reached. E.g. that it still can be used for old games. SharkD Talk 13:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, this is in response to me reverting the addition of GR to Fallout 2. While it is an older game, it has lacked GR all this time with no detriment, so I don't feel it should be added now when Metacritic suffices for this game. I also don't know how you claim it doesn't reflect the consensus. It's almost a direct copy and paste of the statement from the RFC above. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the message that started the RfC, but the result of the RfC was, "The majority opinion is that GR is mainly useful for older games and it is mainly duplication in newer ones." SharkD Talk 13:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the result is "There is consensus for the change." The rest was the closer's reasoning. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more clear. The consensus was not to disallow GR on articles about older games. It was to discourage its use on articles about newer games. Read the actual responses people made to the RfC. Or do we need to start a new RfC? SharkD Talk 13:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to make the proposed change, as stated. I believe you're editing against consensus here, and the fact that you won't wait to finish discussion and use 3RR for a shield on your edit is a bit meh. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to back off and stop making personal attacks. The fact is that @AlbinoFerret: made the correct interpretation, which was to not remove GR from articles about old games. SharkD Talk 14:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged Ill add this clarification. You cant pick and choose what part of a close best suits your position and ignore the rest. Take it as a whole, as the closer takes a look at the entire discussion it isnt based on the question itself for the most part, but the responses. I specifically add the reasoning to closes to hopefully limit this kind of thing and stop editors taking a short close and jumping off a cliff. The responses indicated it was useful for older games. I didnt read support for removal everywhere, more of phasing it out on newer games. It was almost clear consensus that it was useful for older games, from both minority and majority opinions. I will be adding the preceding 2 lines to the close. AlbinoFerret 15:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: In the immediate case, the GR sources were added just today, to an article already containing Metacritic. I did not remove long standing sources, simply reverted their new addition. I'll accept your call on that, but I was not going around simply removing GR from old articles. -- ferret (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be following the close and consensus. I think at some point a line needs to be drawn on a timeline as to when it should be added, but adding it to a game that already has Metacritic may defeat the purpose of the RFC. AlbinoFerret 15:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, is the age of the game the issue, or the age of the article? Because it's an old game from 1998, and GR MC was formed a year later and might have ~~more~~ fewer old reviews in their database. (GR has 26 reviews, MC has 15. I haven't looked at each of them individually.) SharkD Talk 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked in detail, and of the 34 reviews listed, only 7 are on both MC and GR. SharkD Talk 17:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @AlbinoFerret. Also, I edited my post above with strike through text since I got MC and GR mixed up briefly. SharkD Talk 20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know the age or year most games come out or came out. One of the things not covered well in the RFC is the cutoff date. This is going to have to be worked out amongst yourselves, I would rather stay uninvolved. But if you cant, perhaps another RFC is in order. AlbinoFerret 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is complicated. No one said anything about a cut-off date. The consensus is to use GR only when it's better than nothing. (Usually this would be the case for older games, as mentioned above.) For Fallout 2, GR adds nothing atop what Metacritic already says so there's no ready reason to keep it. czar 20:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly by "adds nothing"? Because while the scores are similar, the reviews being aggregated are mostly different. Of the 34 reviews aggregated by MC and GR, only 7 are listed at both sites. SharkD Talk 18:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GameRankings is more beneficial for older articles where Metacritic doesn't cover. Metacritic covers the more recent games, but GameRankings may have an aggregated score for something a little more older. Hence if there is no Metacritic,but ther eis a Gamerankings, thats where GR becomes more beneficial to be included in the article. Recently GameRankings has been collecting less reviews than Metacritic, so its not beneficial. On the off-chance that GR has more reviews than Metacritic, should it be ok to use GR? would it just make more sense to just go with "the Aggregating review website with the most reviews"? Lucia Black (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Fallout 2, GR has 26 reviews and MC has 15. SharkD Talk 18:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The metascores were essentially the same, so there were two rows that showed exactly the same info. GR also uses far more unreliable sites, on the whole—having more reviews does not mean the metareview is more complete. (For quick reference: GR, Metacritic) I think it would be a waste of time to have an RfC to see if GR "adds value" over Metacritic in this case—it very plainly does not. czar 18:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the GR link lists a lot of sources I have never heard of. SharkD Talk 20:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started another discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Multiple_sources to see if some of the sources in the GR and MC articles are considered reliable by this project. SharkD Talk 04:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GameRankings proposal #2

In the case of older games, if the scores are similar, GameRankings should be omitted. [edit: e.g. regardless of which sources' scores are being aggregated]

Oppose - If the reviews being aggregated are mostly different, then there's a valid reason to include GR. SharkD Talk 18:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was covered in the previous RfC. In the case of any game—old or not—if the scores are similar and there is no particular rationale for why GR's aggregation covers something more important than Metacritic's, then GR does not add value and does not need to be included. As explained above, having more reviews included in a score is not any closer a guarantor of quality—in fact, GR tends to have much more unreliable junk than Metacritic in its metascore (see the Fallout 2 example above). czar 18:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe this was actually covered by the original RfC. I think it is appropriate to discuss whether we should look at whether there's a difference in aggregated reviews or the end score. I'm not really sure how I feel about this myself right now. I would like to see this discussion. ~Mable (chat) 19:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous RfC was pretty clear about what to do in the case of newer games. But older games were singled out as a special case, and I think we need to iron out what to do with them. SharkD Talk 20:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, now I disagree. Earlier, the "older games" part was stroked through. What I want to know is simply how to deal with games that are modern enough to have an appropriate Metacritic rating (based on multiple RSes). Should games from 2005, for instance, where the Metacritic score and the Gamerankings score are nearly the same, but both use completely different sources to get this result, have both rankings listed? Is the difference in score or the difference in sources what we are basing this on? ~Mable (chat) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The result of the previous RfC was to phase out GameRankings for newer games, regardless of any differences in scores or reviews. (How new? That isn't clear.) SharkD Talk 21:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it makes you feel better I can cross out the first part again. It makes no real difference to me personally. SharkD Talk 00:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GameRanking proposal #3, or unused aggregators as External Link

Separate from the above discussions, I would propose that if GR is left out of the reviews section, it may still be included as an external link, akin to what a link to MobyGames would be providing. This presumes that the GR page for the game is "useful" and has more than a few reviews. If, for some reason, GR is used instead of MC (older games primarily) and the MC page is similarly "useful" then it should be an EL too.

I would also qualify - if we presume it reliable in separate discussion - the same would be true for OpenCritic pages as EL rather than in the review section.

In all cases, I would avoid this being spammy: if the game is out for two or more platforms and the aggregate tracks each platform separately, then the EL section should not bullet point each aggregate per platform but smartly organize them onto one. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC) --MASEM (t) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the most appropriate way to handle games where Metacritic and Gamerankings scores are nearly identical, yes. I definitely support this idea. ~Mable (chat) 21:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (Disclosure: CEO of OpenCritic here) - Just want to comment on this. Reading the discussion, I'm concerned that the "nearly identical" flag is misunderstood. OpenCritic shows the relative rankings of games, and to be clear, a small move of even 2 or 3 points can represent huge jumps in quality. Going from 79 to 82 moves your ranking from the top 27.5% to the top 15.4%. While 3 points might not look like much, it implies a significant difference in quality. Going from 72 to 74 represents a 10% swing in your relative ranking. So while scores might appear close, just remember that 75% of games reviewed fall within a 25-point window of 65-90, so even small point differences have meaning. MattEnth (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If OpenCritic is deemed reliable in future discussions, I believe that we should have many of these conversations all over again, Matt. OpenCritic isn't in any "danger" of decisions of how we deal with GameRankings. ~Mable (chat) 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic so my response is on MattEnth's talk page czar 21:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support solves at least half (if not most) of the issue at hand. Lucia Black (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This proposal gets around procedural issues, but 1) it will not decrease work, 2) it will result in more edit warring, and most importantly 3) I would rather see more cited content in articles than external links. SharkD Talk 21:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SharkD, this idea would solve the issue where the Metacritic and Gamerankings scores are nearly identical without duplicating information in the article proper. Whether or not an article should have Gamerankings in its external links should be up to personal preference and, in the end, it doesn't really matter. We don't always list MobyGames under the external links, and I don't believe there is much edit warring about that? I see this as similar as how people can pick different citation styles, with none being "preferred". This also doesn't result in edit warring. ~Mable (chat) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought MobyGames was listed in External links because it is not considered reliable enough to use as a source, and ELs get around this restriction? Otherwise it *would* be used in citations. SharkD Talk 21:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm actually not sure how it is reliable enough to have it as an external link, but besides that, wouldn't the same basically be the case for Gamerankings here? It is not useful in the article proper, but can still deliver extra content indirectly, and thus could be useful as an external link. After all, Gamerankings pages are basically lists of articles on a topic. ~Mable (chat) 21:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - How "what" is reliable enough? MobyGames or GameRankings? SharkD Talk 22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        My bad, I meant Mobygames with that remark. I believe Gamerankings (as a collection of sources) is more useful to link to than Mobygames is, anyway. ~Mable (chat) 22:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you mean by "as a collection of sources"? Do you mean the review score aggregation it does? SharkD Talk 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        this Gamerankings page, for example, lists a few dozen reviews. Not all of these may be used in the article. Not all of these may say something unique. It would be silly to put any of these specific reviews in the external links, but as a collection, it can be very useful for people who want to do more research on a specific game. ~Mable (chat) 09:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) If GR provides something useful to the article, we should cite it in the article. What would it add for our readers to have it as an external link? (2) Why wouldn't our existing ext link policy already cover this? I don't think we need a carte blanche yes/no on this, but in the off case a group of page stewards thought the ext link would be useful, let them agree and go for it. In my experience, MobyGames and GR are only useful resources when they index critic reviews that have yet to be added to the article (but once they are, there is no need for the ext link!) czar 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I still don't see what value GR adds at all, when it's almost always the same score (or within one) of Metacritic. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per Czar. - hahnch e n 13:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing which could be written in WP:VG/GL regarding this section banning the use of Gamerankings as an acceptable ELINK would be in accordance with WP:EL and so the question is moot. OTOH, I see zero reason to write anything in WP:VG/GL encouraging the practice of adding Gamerankings, as I would see that as rulemaking for rulemaking's sake. In other words, per Czar bullet #2 (but not bullet #1). --Izno (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Czar. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template display of GR

Was there a consensus to remove GR reviews from the VG review template? Lucia Black (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template module has not been changed since August 2015. -- ferret (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you meant on Banjo-Kazooie (series). The VG Series Reviews template, you have to add "GR = Yes" for GR to show. It used to default to GR = Yes but that caused the template to make empty cells for GR anywhere it wasn't used. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find this odd because not too long ago, i saw GR reviews on other articles. It wasn't just Banjo-Kazooie. It wasn't too long that they just disappeared. Lucia Black (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like GR was deliberately removed from Banjo Kazooie (@Czar). Then later, an IP added GR back to the template but did not include GR = Yes. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well as much as i want to ignore this discussion ever happened since we didn't come up with any agreements, i have to say that we should not be changing any articles and removing GR, the only thing that was confirmed was that newer games don't benefit from GR (which some of us have suggested making this generation as the cut-off point, but this has not been confirmed as consensus). Lucia Black (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be removed from any article where they aren't necessary. I don't mean we should comb through articles simply to remove it, but if an editor is cleaning up an article and does a comparison between GR and MC and decides there's no added value, they should be free to remove GR. If another editor disagrees, it should be discussed at that article's talk page on what merits GR brings to the individual article in question. -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement as to using GR is based on being less relevant in new games as opposed to older games. What you are suggesting makes things more time consuming then it needs to be. We now have to look at the scores and based on our personal ideas, we have to judge GR over MC. Lets not forget that no example was given where GR and MC would be significantly different to include both as oppose to too similar to remove GR. Both sites will essentially have the same score (despite having different review-count). The only reason why i voted to stop using them (for this current gen of games) is because GR's score has become less accurate with less reviews in more recent games. Not because their score isn't valuable. There are more variables than just having the same score. Lucia Black (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors make personally calls all the time regarding which sources to keep or trim. I'm not really "suggesting" anything outside of normal article work, and am not making a proposal of any sort. Again, no one should just comb articles and remove GR for the sake of it. Editors should, however, be free to remove GR if they feel its the correct thing to do. If I look at an article with both GR and MC, it's not about whether the score is the same or not, but whether GR provides value through different or more numerous reviews. If not, why keep it? I use the same discretion when I see a sentence with 6 references. I look at each of them, and typically trim down to one or two sources that I feel has the most value/details/reliability, etc. -- ferret (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors do indeed make judgement calls all the time, and i'm not arguing that at all. But the above consensus and what you are suggesting isn't the same. If we use GR because its so radically different as oppose to MC, then we should be using GR "more" for the newer games as opposed for the older ones. Lucia Black (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say this, yet you tried to delete GR from the Fallout 2 article. Why is this? SharkD Talk 02:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that conflicts with my statement at all. I didn't comb through Fallout 2 and remove GR after it had been there for ages. I reverted it's fresh addition when it came across my watch list, and felt my reason was clear enough. If you really want to continue on that, take it to my talk. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant to the larger discussion. I don't really think this should be continued in private. SharkD Talk 04:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in particular this part: "If I look at an article with both GR and MC, it's not about whether the score is the same or not, but whether GR provides value through different or more numerous reviews." The GR page in question had 26 reviews versus 15 for MC. Of all the reviews on both GR and MC, only 7 reviews were shared in common. This to me counts as "different [and] more numerous". SharkD Talk 04:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To go through more detail, I still believe my original Fallout 2 revert to have been appropriate, and I believe AlbinoFerret validated that I had made the correct reading of the consensus. That said, I chose not to pursue it further and let it become the defacto local consensus for that article. Local consensus can always trump project guidelines, in the end. The rest of my statement represents my current (weeks later) position on how I would decide whether to remove GR from a particular article it already exists in (Versus one where it was newly added). Editors should be free to make that call, and Lucia appeared to be arguing that editors could (should) not remove GR because the project didn't clearly state when to remove. Any editor should feel free to remove GR if they believe it appropriate, and if it's contentious, it should be discussed at that article's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misc section

This thread has been going on for two months now. What exact consensus has been made from all of this? I just feel like we need to wrap up this discussion here. GamerPro64 02:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I mostly just lost track of the discussion and stopped following it myself. I have no idea where we stand anymore... ~Mable (chat) 10:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We had an RfC. The summary at the end should explain things. SharkD Talk 04:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read books with a lower word-count than the discussion that followed that RFC. What we're asking is what came out of that discussion, not the RFC preceding it. Should we hold a second RFC to get a better grasp of the current consensus? ~Mable (chat) 11:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried with a second proposal, but I was the only person who voted on it. Here is a list of other items to consider:

Should GR no longer be added to articles about games from now on, even if the articles are about old games that predate Metacritic?
When considering whether to add a GR score to an article, do we compare GR's score with MC's, and omit GR's score if they are the same/similar, regardless of whose scores are being aggregated?
When considering whether to add a GR score to an article, do we compare the individual review scores, who made them, etc., and retain the GR score if the individual review sources are different, even if aggregate scores are similar/the same?

Maybe it's time for a ~~third~~ fourth RfC? SharkD Talk 04:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

For the last couple of months, I've been discussing the depiction of Quiet in The Phantom Pain on Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. To rephrase that: I've been repeating Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, on reliable sources, on what is controversy, on what is a decent article layout. The most active anon editor switches IP's often. @Czar:, @Prisonermonkeys: and @Sergecross73: have also responded, but this user cannot stop. It's annoying enough that they can't seem to understand that their reading of the guidelines is not the same as intended, but they're doing it constantly with a message like: "Stop trying to push your agenda. It's transparent to anyone that you try to stir up a controversy where there is none. You always do. That's your whole spiel. If it wasn't some game you could bitch about what you personally perceive to be "sexualisation", you'd find something else to be artificially offended about". Or "You folks obsess over this kind of stuff for no other reason than to be as obnoxious and supremacist as you can. What's going on in your heads? What's with this obsession? Are you incapable of differentiating between fiction and reality? Are artists not allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their characters or their work in general? Are they supposed to pander to you, the non-buying minority, simply because you're afraid of the female body?" Today: "I think we need dispute resolution here as you can't really argue with these kinds of people, unfortunately. Everything is sexist to them, it seems. Really every single thing. They can't even think of a world where something isn't sexist. Therefore, they have no endgame, no solution. The only thing they do is go around and troll/declare everything to be sexist."

This user cannot stop making accusations like this, calling people who do not agree with him "illiterate" and "trolls". I've had it with this guy. What is the right way to handle this kind of stuff? --Soetermans. T / C 10:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI. An admin there will probably be able to help, most likely by semiprotecting the article if not the talk page (given that the IP is hopping a bit, perhaps not deliberately). --Izno (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page for a month -the same length as the last time. (For the record, I'm not actually involved, I just commented on the talk page once or twice informing them how Forbes Contributors should be avoided.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an ANI discussion. --Soetermans. T / C 14:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is against the editor, you're not required to entertain their refusal to listen. Stay cool when the editing gets hot and ping vg admins to diffuse whatever you need. I suppose the page protection will do that work for now. czar 05:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me right now it's more about the constant unfair criticsm and personal attacks on the talk page. The IP does not seem to understand when a lot of experienced editors do not understand with them, they're probably not right. --Soetermans. T / C 10:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a consensus beyond the IP's stance, then just move on without their support. I'll re-protect the page if they continue to disrupt. I can also give them the "comment on content, not editors" speech, and even start reverting their comments if they're strictly rantings about editors. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:, there's a recently created user that's on the same rant as one of the IP's. With comments that are the same, without contributing anything constructive, is reverting those comments okay? --Soetermans. T / C 11:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SONIC

Someone (an inexperienced user) appears to be attempting to resurrect WP:WikiProject Sonic. Anyone have any comments? --Izno (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a relatively inexperienced editor, I'm curious how one would go about doing that. To resurrect a project, wouldn't you need a significant number of interested editors to discuss with? Furthermore, I assume any discussion related to the Sonic franchise can take place here as well. If it's about more technical aspects... as I said, I'm curious what exactly to do. ~Mable (chat) 19:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as is so-often touted, a WikiProject is the collaboration of multiple people. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should start as a VG task force first. There's unlikely to be enough editors to warrant a full WP-scope project. We've got many task forces that are larger than just Sonic franchise and they have less participation. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I doubt anything would come of it. There's really not many editors consistently working on Sonic articles beyond myself and Tezero, and even he's been MIA for a bit now. It'd probably be better to start with a task force, but even if they insist, I imagine interest will wither away shortly regardless... Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is 100% redundant and already covered under WP:SEGA, and that WP:SONIC's pages should be redirected there. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:SONIC actually does redirect there already. But WP:WikiProject Sonic does not, for the record. I thought I'd point this out, as it confused me at first. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

My comment was actually aimed at the fact that WP:SEGA was WP:SONIC at one point, and that this user would certainly benefit from that more structured WP:SEGA. I would certainly support a straight redirect, but do not want to WP:BITE the user. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External opinion needed

Talk:Naruto:_Ultimate_Ninja#Character_chart czar 07:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Excuse me, but I can't seem to log out of Wikipedia properly. I've tried clearing my cache, and that hasn't worked. Where can I report this, or if someone knows can this be explained? --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#No longer able to log out .28thank you.2C WMF.21.29.— HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're locked in here. Now get back to editing! Mwhahahaha ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is also a good venue, for the future. Depends on the urgency. czar 18:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main series and spin-offs at Template: Kirby series

Does anybody know what is considered part of the main series and what is a spin-off in the Kirby series? Its template has a hidden comment: "Only games whose Japanese name starts with "星のカービィ" [Hoshi no Kirby] are main series. All others are spinoffs, even if they're side-scrollers". The series' overview does not say anything about "main series" or "spin-off". Is Kirby and the Rainbow Curse considered a spin-off, because its Japanese title doesn't start the same as other games? --Soetermans. T / C 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to make sense to me. My WP:OR opinion is that those called "main series" are classical in their gameplay while the others (mass attack, rainbow/canvas, yarn) are based around gimmicks and special gameplay. So I can understand why HAL wishes to differentiate them explicitly with the titling scheme. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it bothers you that much, I would put forth the suggestion to replace "Main series" with "Hoshi no Kirby series" and "Spin-offs" with "Other games". It requires slightly less interpretation on our part. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't bother me, I wasn't sure if based upon the Japanese title is WP:OR. Salv's explanation makes sense. --Soetermans. T / C 10:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the video game series infobox

So for the Five Nights at Freddy's series article, Lordtobi (talk · contribs) states that we should list Scott Cawthon (the sole designer of the game) in the developer and publisher fields, simply because the video game series infobox doesn't not explicitly say that we can't. I, however think we should be going with what the normal video game guidelines state, where it says "In the case of a game made entirely by one person, use the designer field instead." If the game was created by "Scott Cawthon Games" or something, then it could stay, but we're suppose to omit individual people in the developer and publisher fields. A "creator" field already exists in the series infobox, so he will still be listed regardless. A spin-off infobox should still be going by the guidelines of the main one, unless it clearly states something else in it's own documentation, which it doesn't here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czar and I are currently discussing this topic at Template talk:Infobox video game#Developer field definition, feel free to participate. Lordtobi (✉) 13:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New articles - January 22

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

Moved into draft space: Draft:Ultima Online: Time of Legends, Draft:Kromaia, Draft:Nintendo Quest (film), Draft:School Zone Interactive, Draft:Rockman Xover, Draft:Whiteday (2015 video game)
Number of new articles redirected: ZMR, J. Bryan Bowden, Antimatter Games, Rising Storm 2: Vietnam, Fishdom: Deep Dive, The Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel characters
Moved out of draft space:
Number of new articles deleted: 9

January 16

The Battle For Midway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Jaguar (talk · contribs)
Draft:Berenstain Bears (Atari 2600 game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Darb02 (talk · contribs)
~~Ready for Math with Pooh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Moe1810 (talk · contribs) – PROD~~
~~Super Marisa Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by RhapsoDJ (talk · contribs) – PROD~~
Stolen! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Guy1853 (talk · contribs)
Draft:Dark Lord (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by ErdrickLoto (talk · contribs)
Survival Island 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Danimations (talk · contribs)

January 17

Draft:Mega Jump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Liance (talk · contribs)
Dungeon Souls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Jorkiceland (talk · contribs)
Draft:Star Warfare: Alien Invasion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by KingShoter007 (talk · contribs)

January 18

Genesis (tournament) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Prisencolin (talk · contribs)
Draft:Pixel Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Anarchyte (talk · contribs)
~~Minecraft clone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by MML Master (talk · contribs)~~ – AfD, deleted
Austin Hargrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Icecaprisun (talk · contribs) – PROD
Annoying Orange Official (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Vincent Strenge (talk · contribs) – PROD
Draft:Mel Gorsha by MachOneTon (talk · contribs)

January 19

The Big House (tournament) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Prisencolin (talk · contribs)
Draft:LucasFan Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by March Fox (talk · contribs)
Pony Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Masem (talk · contribs)

January 20

Draft:Motorm4x (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Bedivere.cs (talk · contribs)
The Deadly Tower of Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by The Editor 155 (talk · contribs) – needs unreliable source cleanup
LayaBox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by UY Scuti (talk · contribs) – COI?
Draft:Ziango by Maikel-Michiels (talk · contribs)

January 21

Natsuiro High School: Seishun Hakusho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Jdogmad (talk · contribs)
QLOC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Iseesky (talk · contribs) – AfD
Draft:Whiteday (2015 video game) by Kanghuitari (talk · contribs)
Draft:Electronicstars by 141.8.65.122 (talk · contribs)

January 22

Draft:Lemondo Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Levandoc (talk · contribs)
~~SONIKA (vocaloid) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Seth R (talk · contribs)~~ – redir
Gamer (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Кориоланыч (talk · contribs)
Atari Vault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Masem (talk · contribs)

Salavat (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the charts in Genesis (tournament) and The Big House (tournament) not excessive? czar 17:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I created Atari Vault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a stub/start on the 22nd. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the CSD->Draft space moves at Nintendo Quest, QLOC & Gamer (2011 film), following on from my reasoning at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_116#User:Czar.2C_please_stop_redirecting_stuff. Registered users have rights to publish articles in the mainspace and these are not CSD candidates (WP:NOTCSD), if you don't like them, send them to AFD where they can be dealt with by the community in a timely manner. - hahnch e n 13:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one CSD'd those... Enough with the patronizing—they're very clearly undersourced or unreliably sourced and an AfC (new article) reviewer is better prepared to make the call (or else actually help the author) rather than throwing it into mainspace to languish for all of time. No "rights" have been impinged here. AfC is dealing "by the community"—it's a review process designed for these users unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. If AfC has no issue then neither do I. czar 16:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You CSD'd them. I have an issue with you CSDing articles that aren't CSD candidates. There are plenty of options for dealing with articles which don't involve you deleting them and telling users to try again. - hahnch e n 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article to draftspace deletes it in zero ways (nevertheless through CSD). Plenty of articles get posted prematurely and Articles for Creation is designed to help/onboard those editors. I'd wager that almost all of the new editors from the above articles had no idea such a process even existed. In the end, IAR—what makes the encyclopedia better? No good comes from putting this back in mainspace, no good comes from throwing editors in the deep end or sending their articles to AfD when they need help expanding instead, and no good comes from this repeated WTVG witchhunting. czar 20:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, moving to draft space is not the equivalent of speedy deleting them at all. Not only are they not deleted, but they're still publicly available for the editor to improve, and/or to have the general populace discuss them. Hahnchen, if you're unhappy about it, bring in a third party - send a few to AFC and see if the reviewers there are deeming it worthy of the mainspace or not. The results there will be a good indicator of whether or not Czar's decisions are on the right track. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed. Moved from main to draft space is absolutely not a deletion process, since all edits are still retained. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is moved into draft space a notification on the creators talk page wouldn't hurt, just a courtesy kind of thing. Salavat (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of editors with the delete button telling editors without the delete button that using the delete button isn't really deleting it because it's still in the recycle bin. The closest analogue to what Czar is doing, is Userficiation, but sadly mostly WP:USERFY#NO. - hahnch e n 17:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're going to sway anyone with an essay about userfication, when he was moving articles to draftspace. (Even your essay points out there's a difference between userfy and drafts.) Also, the articles in question are in terrible shape, so this feels a bit like arguing semantics. Anyways, regardless, much like the last discussion on this, you're free to complain about it, but Czar's not actually doing anything wrong here, and as long as the moves are in good-faith (they are) and not editwarring (he isn't), there's nothing to be done here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just taken a look at WP:DRAFT and it turns out that yes, anyone can just move mainspace stuff into the draft space. I mean, that's bollocks, and came from a misreading of Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#Which_articles_may_be_moved_into_the_incubator.3F during a merge, but still. The "anyone can remove stuff from mainspace" clause was actually removed once, but then reverted by someone else who misread WP:AI. I'm going to continue reverting moves into draft space which aren't CSD candidates. - hahnch e n 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Or, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and announcing that you plan to perform a one-man crusade against Draft-ifying articles (but only the ones you notice, in one specific area), you could start an RfC to generate a project-wide consensus on if it's okay to Draft-ify articles. Since, you know, the rules currently state that it's fine, and you think those rules are in error. So the right thing to do is to get the rules "fixed", not declare that you're going to ignore them. --Pres N 21:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm planning to do. But for the time being, just a heads up for editors to stop wasting time with drafts. - hahnch e n 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftspace RFC

Further heads up - Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves - hahnch e n 02:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new subsection here, so that this notification isn't lost in the massive section above. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyria Chronicles series

Hello wikipedia folks, along with the Souls (series) I have now changed the original redirect page of Valkyria into it now being the page for the franchise. Just as before, the article is pretty bare bones, so please for those of you with spare time, help to fill it in. Much appreciated. Thank you. Osh33m (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media by franchise/game categories

How should video game media (generally images like screenshots/art) be categorised here? In general, there's two different systems being used currently:

Media is placed in the corresponding franchise category (Category:Fallout (series), Category:Call of Duty)
Media is placed in a separate subcategory (Category:Metroid media, Category:The Elder Scrolls media)

Which option do people think is best? 1 or 2? Personally I'm leaning towards option 1. I don't think the media subcategories are needed as media is separated from pages automatically in categories. I want to hear what other people think and get a general consensus because I'd like to fix this so it's consistent across the board.

There's also a couple of oddball cases that should be eliminated:

Category:Grand Theft Auto screenshots is the only category I've come across that is a Screenshots by franchise/game category.
Category:One Piece game covers is the only category I've come across that is a Cover art by franchise/game category.
Category:Images by video game is straight up dumb and unnecessary. All small categories with no potential growth, clearly over categorisation and all should be merged into respective franchise categories.

--The1337gamer (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

I am seeking comment regarding the translation of Super Smash Bros. (video game). Some discussion can be found in the history of the main page, while the discussion itself should continue to be held at Talk:Super Smash Bros. (video game)#Translation of title. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, the only one who edits Halo 5: Guardians?

Am I the only one who is currently editing Halo 5: Guardians? My looking at its history page, currently, no edit for this article is made by someone other than me since my first edit, and my reaction to that is that I cannot believe that I seem to be the only person who trys to take care of the article's overall quality.

So I am raising my problem here and attempting to have more editors improve this page, and I am hoping to get experienced editors such as @Ferret:, @Czar:, and @GamerPro64: as well so as to make large progress in making the article reach its GA status. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to invite @The1337gamer: to talk with us about how we can improve the article. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit on the article was a little over 48 hours ago. It's not that surprising that nobody else has edited it in this time. – Rhain ☔ 01:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it has not even reached its B-class status. I would have thought that the article would get a lot of contributors, but no. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a follower of Halo and do not have any Halo articles on watch. That said, the article is relatively complete and the game has been out for over 3 months, so edits tend to slow down after a while. Feel free to work on it and submit to GA when you feel it's ready though. As for lots of contributors, I'm not sure what you mean. That article has over 1300 edits to it from over 500 different editors, and I see several prominent members of the project have worked on it already. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that much into Halo either. Though why not ask David Fuchs? He's done a lot of the previous Halo articles in the past. GamerPro64 03:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, plenty of people, myself included, edit the article. It can only get improved so fast, and when you have other wiki-tasks or real-world projects that work slows down. It's going to get to FA at some point. I'm not in a rush. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 5 seems in pretty good condition to me. It could be improved, like most articles, but it's not in dire need of editing. --Soetermans. T / C 15:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want me to say. Just go ahead and expand the article. Coverage on the game was just as extensive as Halo 4, so there's plenty of information left to add. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

iQue Player in the infobox

So, for the 14 N64 games that also had a Chinese iQue Player release, do we the follow standard guideline and omit China as a region in the infobox (and as a result, the platform won't be listed in the "release" section), or do we make a special exception and keep it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as iQue player versions are regular ports of the game with deviations from the original Nintendo 64 versions, I don't see why it wouldn't be listed. I imagine this getting excessive if other countries started similar project with ports to "separate consoles", but the fact that The Ocarina of Time is available on this hardware should definitely be listed in some form on the game article. Whether the infobox is the best place for this... We can't even decide if the infobox is the best place for English-language release dates, so this is difficult as well, though I suppose I would think it looks better in a "release" section of some sort. ~Mable (chat) 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a contradiction. The iQue Player is a platform, distinct from other platforms, so it should be listed in the Platform parameter. However, iQue games were only released in China, which is not a majority English-speaking country so it should not be listed in the Release date parameter. The location for this information (if deemed worthy for inclusion) would be the Development or Release section of the article. English-speaking readers of English Wikipedia rely on the Release date parameter of the infobox for at a glance information about whether a game has been released in their region on their chosen platform. This is served by presenting all of the release dates for consoles in English-speaking regions and not diluting it with release dates from non-English-speaking regions (except, of course, the region where the game was developed. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say because it's a different platform and since there are only 14 games adding it to the infobox would be okay. Also considering the special status of the iQue Player in mainland China. --Soetermans. T / C 17:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoughts. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feral Interactive EL

Is having a separate Feral Interactive external link appropriate? I've noticed a link to their website a couple of times now (Tropico_4#External_links, Deus_Ex:_Human_Revolution#External_links, Hitman:_Absolution#External_links), but isn't that ELNO? Most of these have an official website, or an entry at the developer's own website. It's not appropriate to have a link to a Steam, XBLA, PSN or Amazon product page, so this is WP:ELNO, right? --Soetermans. T / C 16:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like advertising spam. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'd remove them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so too. I'll take a look at them tomorrow. --Soetermans. T / C 20:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Took a while, but I removed the link on the articles linked at Feral Interactive. I noticed that User: Eeeeeb was responsible, who also pointed out to work for Feral. They haven't edited since July 2015, but I left a note nonetheless. --Soetermans. T / C 11:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Website in Template:Infobox video game series

Website was removed from Template:Infobox video game long ago due to consensus. Does anyone recall a reason it was left in Template:Infobox video game series, or if it was even addressed? I think for consistency we should try to keep this templates as close as possible. -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nobody brought it up. In series infobox, it's even more useless for lasting material than in the regular infobox. And what is |creator= supposed to be -- isn't that the director/producer? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and simply removed it. We'll see if my edit sticks. --Izno (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God of War: Ascension Peer Review

I've just listed God of War: Ascension for Peer Review if anyone has some time. Tried getting this article to FA last year and had two unsuccessful nominations. I backed off for a bit and am now gonna try again, but taking it through Peer Review first. --JDC808 ♫ 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release chart in image

Is having an image of a release chart like this useful? I noticed it on Bubble_Bobble#Sequels. After removing it, I've been discussing it, but the creator of the image does not agree that it should be in a list or table. --Soetermans. T / C 08:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitles again

I noticed that Lego Star Wars II was moved by request from @Czar: in December 2015. @Lordtobi: moved it back to its full title Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, which was subsequently undone because of lack of a consensus. In August 2015, Czar undid my move of Eternal Darkness to its full title Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. I think it's time for another discussion about subtitles. I'll bring the discussion here, because I think this goes for a lot of video game articles.

Czar cited WP:SUBTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. I'll tackle these separately.

WP:SUBTITLE

WP:SUBTITLE is part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), the guideline on book titles. It starts with: "This is a naming conventions guideline for the naming of Wikipedia articles about books, which includes printed books and e-books. The titles of books (usually meaning in fact the title of the literary work contained in the book) are capitalized by the same convention that governs other literary and artistic works such as plays, films, paintings etc." Well, if WP:SUBTITLE is just part of the guideline on book titles, and not a general title guideline on arts and entertainment, I don't see why it mean WP:NCVG should automatically follow suit.

To continue: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles reads: "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per WP:CONCISE". I find that odd, because like I pointed out, WP:SUBTITLE is part of the book guideline, and not a general one, but here it says it does include video games somehow. So why is not part of WP:NCVG, a guideline intended for video games? Anyway, WP:SUBTITLE is based upon WP:CONCISE. The entire bit of Wikipedia:Article titles#Conciseness says:

The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area. For example:

The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject.

The full name of Fiona Apple's 1999 album is 90 words and 444 characters long, but it is abbreviated in sources (and in its Wikipedia title) to When the Pawn.... (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles.)
Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah), Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).

So the bit on which WP:SUBTITLE is based upon points to WP:CONCISE, which gives two examples and points to WP:SUBTITLE. That's circular reasoning. I find the sentence "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area" also very odd. "To identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area". Let's take Eternal Darkness/Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. I, as a gamer and as an editor of video game related articles am familiar with it. But isn't Wikipedia written for a large audience? The title by itself, shortened or not, is not sufficient information at all to "identify" Eternal Darkness is. So losing Sanity's Requiem wouldn't make any difference.

WP:COMMONNAME

WP:COMMONNAME reads: "Names are often used as article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit criteria such as recognizability and naturalness." I think WP:COMMONNAME is more important than WP:SUBTITLE. How is removing a subtitle more "common"? Because Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem is called as such by IGN, GameSpot, NintendoLife, etc. The Verge calls it Eternal Darkness in the article header, but does use the subtitle. We could try a Google test: "eternal darkness" got 450,000 hits, "eternal darkness: sanity's requiem" got 89,000 hits. And while the shortened version does receive more hits, WP:COMMONNAME say "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". So GameFAQs, CheatCodeCentral, any blog or only forum post that uses Eternal Darkness shouldn't have to matter.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

WP:CONSISTENCY is also a guideline on article titles. Should we start removing Black Flag from Assassin's Creed IV, Skyrim from The Elder Scrolls V? These might be sequels like Lego Star Wars II, but like Eternal Darkness, there are articles with titles like Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Kileak: The DNA Imperative, Injustice: Gods Among Us, Sniper: Ghost Warrior, Aion: Upheaval, Lichdom: Battlemage, Ryse: Son of Rome, Hunt: Horrors of the Gilded Age. Removing those subtitles because of a guideline on book titles is not the way to go.

To recap: WP:SUBTITLE is for books, not video games. It's based upon WP:CONCISE, but removing a subtitle is not necessarily being concise. WP:COMMONNAME does not mean subtitles should be removed; we should go by its common name, which is based upon WP:RS, not a Google test. WP:CONSISTENCY says we should be consistent, but there are a lot of articles that do have subtitles. Removing those wouldn't make sense, so I say we should keep (and possibly reinstate) subtitles. --Soetermans. T / C 11:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that subtitles that are a common part of a game (like "The Original Trilogy" on Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy) should definetly included. Counter-examples to this would be "Hatoful Boyfriend: A School of Hope and White Wings" as of Hatoful Boyfriend and "Challenge of the Five Realms: Spellbound in the World of Nhagardia" from Challenge of the Five Realms, both of which are very long and thus basically never used, neither by critics, nor by the community. Therefore those don't apply. On Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, however, most articles found give it in full title. Therefore, the two moves undone as stated above by Soetermans should always apply. Lordtobi (✉) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I have an opinion, it's that WP:NATURALDIS also needs to be considered, further lending weight against the books-only guideline. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can respond to this later if you'd like, but I think (1) it's more nuanced and case-by-case than it's presented above, i.e., the answer isn't to clear-cut all text after colons, (2) the main guideline at hand is the article naming criteria (WP:NC), from which the other parts extend, e.g., when is a name sufficiently recognizable, precise, and concise? (3) that some of the hypotheticals have already been discussed before in Archive 115 if not elsewhere (please link prior discussions) czar 14:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, because to me, we still have not reached consensus on a couple of these issues. In the discussion you brought up, you said: "If the subtitle is rarely used in reviews, it should absolutely be removed per the guideline as is established practice". Considering the fact that some articles do and some article do not have subtitles is not established practice to me. You said "reviews", but not previews, promotional material or an E3 report by a RS? And what is "rarely"? Once, twice in a piece? And how many reviews do we count? Is IGN better than Giant Bomb? And is a mainstream media outlet like a newspaper a higher ranking source? This exactly the reason why we, as WP:VG, need a good guideline on the matter, so we do not have to "borrow" a guideline from WP:BOOKS. --Soetermans. T / C 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any compelling principle to be found here. It's going to vary on a case-by-case basis via usage, and occasionally disambiguation needs. There will be games with official subtitles that rarely get used that shouldn't have them in the title, games with frequently used unofficial subtitles (e.g. Star Trek: The Original Series for a TV example), games with multiple versions or expansions where some sport the subtitle and others don't (Dragon Warrior IV vs. Dragon Quest IV vs. Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen), etc. It all depends. I will say that I think Czar's move of Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem was a mistake, if a mild one. It's fine at either title, but the subtitle is featured prominently enough for it to be legitimately included to my recollection, for all that the game is indisputably referred to as just Eternal Darkness in short. SnowFire (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling in CS:GO?

Do you think it'd be possible to create an article about Gambling in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive or the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive economy? It seems to be a pretty large part of the community, with new (gambing) sites etc popping up all over the place, plus the scandals surrounding matchfixing (such as the iBuyPower and NetCodeGuides.com one). This would also include the case-opening mechanic of the game. So far I've found these sources on gambling in CS:GO:

Listing of sources

* = not sure if this is reliable, it's not listed on WP:VG/S
^ = listed under "unreliable"/currently has a discussion open on WP:VG/S

General

Match fixing / Scandals

Valve reaffirms lifetime bans for ‘Counter-Strike: Global Offensive’ match fixers (SiliconANGLE)*
Counter-Strike Team Asked to Throw Matches, Promptly Quits (Game Rant)^
Valve bans seven CS:GO pro players from tournament play for match fixing (PC Gamer)
Integrity and Fair Play (Official blog post by Valve Corporation)
A Follow Up to Integrity and Fair Play (Official blog post by Valve Corporation)
Valve issues expanded warning against betting among pro CS:GO players (PC Gamer)

Websites

Discussion

So with this all out the way, do you think it'd be possible? Anar c hyte 09:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit: added a few more links Anar c hyte 10:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you should check the above sources against WP:VG/RS.

Secondly, it's probably a good topic, but it may be better to expand the content at eSports#Ethics first. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already checked them all against WP:VG/S, Izno, as you can see by the small text. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems. I'm collapsing the sources so people can focus on the discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree this might be a better topic under eSports (or perhaps even a new topic, "Gambling in eSports"). I don't think CS:GO is unique to have gambling, though certainly a mention on the CS:GO page and a link to the larger discussion at eSports or elsewhere makes sense. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both ethical gambling and non-ethical issues such as matchfixing are not unique to CSGO, no. The current section at eSports#Ethics notes matchfixing in StarCraft: Brood War; I'm sure there are other instances. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This all belongs in a section in the main CS:GO article, and maybe the eSports as one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, summary style in the main article. If this spirals out into its own concept, you'll be able to tell by the length of the section compared to its weight within the article czar 04:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could try writing a draft for the CS:GO article but writing one for eSports would require more references than just ones about CS:GO. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could make something of Competitive Counter-Strike, which right now redirects to an article which fails to cover professional competition. Spin out Counter-Strike:_Global_Offensive#Professional_competition and then extend it with gambling coverage. - hahnch e n 11:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about putting it under the "Post-release" section called "Gambling and betting", or just making a new section named "Gambling and betting". Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On economy, there could be a general video game economy that discusses the in game economies a lot of video games have developed, such as CS:GO, TF2, and various MMO models. Pinguinn (🐧) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinguinn: That'd work! There's references in the TF2 article about the hat market, etc. Runescape and other games might have content there, I haven't checked. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "video game economy" is a thing. If anything it'd be "economics of video games" but I think even that is way too broad to be sourced well. Unless you're talking about some institution of gambling across multiple video games (not to be confused with gambling, which it itself a game of chance), it's best discussed in the context of this single game, CSGO. czar 23:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about this article? Virtual economy. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon (yes, this again)

Hope you all didn't miss me too much! Taking a break from working on the recent blizzard and diving back into the nightmare that is revamping the List of Pokémon (sandbox here). If you can recall, I started this project back in October and reception seemed pretty positive, so I do wish for this to come to fruition. The main issue I'm running across is determining exactly what is considered valuable encyclopedic content versus unnecessary in-game information. Personally, I think including information from the Pokédex would go a long way to helping readers understand the species in their proper context. A sentence or two at most for each Pokémon would suffice in this aspect. I figure that at a minimum, a section discussing the designs of Pokémon over the generations and the general reception to them is warranted in this article and have begun compiling sources accordingly. Various interviews with Masuda and Sugimori have revealed the basic process of designing Pokémon so that aspect is covered. What's more needed is specifics on each species—that's actually provided in a reliable source...which is the main problem thus far—so every Pokémon has at least something discussed about it.

If you have any sources that can be used in this list, please feel free to drop them off here or on the sandbox talk page. Many thanks in advance!! As a side note, since the list is beyond the 200 kB mark, splitting it by generation (with a main overarching article) when it's ready to be published is probably the best course of action. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Including information from the Pokedex would likely be a WP:COPYVIO if provided for every species. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly throws a wrench in things... any ideas for a work-around? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say anything that approaches COPYVIO is not actually summarizing information, but is trying to present it all. In other words, it has gone into too much detail at that point. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno and Hellknowz:, I was thinking something along the lines of this (Bulbasaur example), though with the removal of the species name to avoid excessive quotations down the line. Leaves out some of the information provided in the Pokédex, but hits the main points about the seed and its relation to the species. The subsequent entries for Ivysaur and Venusaur would simply touch on the seed growing and blossoming. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this column format is the best way to do this, I'd consider limiting the last column to secondary source material so only the most important information is included. It's fine for some items to have little or no information, but I imagine this will collect a whole lot of cruft without a rule. I'd also avoid entries like GameSpot's Frank Provo and Kotaku's Patricia Hernandez have described Marill as "cute" because it doesn't add anything, on balance. I also think the color-coding might be overkill. The types column could just simply list "Grass, poison". czar 04:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a one or two sentence (leaning toward one sentence) limit—with an edit notice specifying this limit if/when it reaches the mainspace—on in-universe material would suffice for keeping things in check, assuming the articles are monitored regularly. Checked in with a few non-video game people off-wiki and they said something in-universe would be helpful for understanding the context of each Pokémon. Going to hold off on doing anything on that front until I get more input from here, though. Definitely agree on removing the cherry-picked reception; I think those were just added in when we started merging content that's presently available in the mainspace. I'll go either way on the coloring, it's mainly there just to liven up the look. The split columns for primary and secondary typing are for enhanced sorting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I definitely prefer the table with color-coded typing, simply because this makes the (large) table a lot easier to read. My eyes flow from left to right easily because the colors are there. It also looks prettier, but that's subjective. I think a lot of the sources Cyclonebiskit linked in the draft's talk page can be used for other Pokémon-related articles as well, so it might be worth looking through them.
  - On-topic: I don't think it is bad not to have descriptions. If we only make use of secondary sources, we can make sure that everything said about the Pokémon is notable to some degree. I honestly think it is pretty decent already in generation 1, though I am sure it can be expanded upon. Design and name inspirations, design credits, real-world influence, and cross-the-board reception is probably what we should be focusing on. It'll always be difficult to balance, but at least we won't have a wall of in-universe text forming in the "notes" column. I think that would be more unfortunate than not mentioning Caterpie is a caterpillar-like creature. ~Mable (chat) 12:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of color-coding the types, let's be honest, no one is going to come to Wikipedia to look up a type of a Pokemon; they gonna go to Bulbapedia. I think it would be easy for anyone to tag the article with {{Overcolored}}. And personally, I find it hard to see Ice, Electric and Steel since their colors behind the white text are very light, and I'm not even colorblind. How much harder or confusing would it be for someone who can't see shades of red (Fighting, Psychic, Fairy), green (Grass, Bug) or blue (Dragon, Ice, Water)?--十八 12:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Forgot about WP:ACCESS; going ahead and removing the coloring accordingly. Not going to be as pretty to look at, but it'll comply with MOS.~~ Types are still useful to readers from an encyclopedic aspect as it's a core aspect of the franchise and helps establish what the creatures are. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a note, WP:ACCESS says that color cannot be the only method to convey information; words+color is fine because it's an added visual discriminator that is helpful for readers who can see color and neutral to those who can't. I would prefer the colors to be kept and instead improve the figure/ground contrast between the text and cell color. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, well that makes this a bit more fun. I'll play around with colors in the contrast tool and see if I can come up with a scheme that's appropriate yet still similar to the colors players are used to. Definitely think the color is needed to make these tables more enjoyable to look at. Thanks for the clarification, Axem! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to do it yourself, here's some ideas, but if not you could copy the colours Bulpapedia uses in their table.

Green (#18601E) = Grass

Red (#FE2E2E) = Fire

Blue (#0404B4) = Water

Yellow (Possibly #FFFF00 or #AEB404; hard to find a nice yellow) = Electric

Pink (#DF01D7) = Fairy. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Had the colors from Bulbapedia already used, but their formatting didn't really jive with WP:COLOR. Already devised a modified color scheme that betters the contrast while mostly retaining similar colors, but thanks for the suggestions! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of accessibility, the mega evolutions might be an issue for screen readers (which read the rows directly across). I remember being linked to something related to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Data_tables in the past, but I can't find it now czar 00:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Czar: if the usage of "rowspan" is an issue for screen readers, the cells can simply be split to show the appropriate NDex number on both rows. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, rowspan, that was it. Not sure if it's still relevant, but voilà. czar 01:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, appears to be an optional thing as it only pertains to screen readers that are presumably outdated. Unless it's requested, I'd rather leave it be. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I'm big on ACCESS, and I'm a delegate at FLC (which requires general compliance), but even I'm fine with people using rowspans sensibly- I'm sorry, but if non-visual browsers a decade old support them, then they're fine. We don't support visual browsers like IE3, why would we support ancient (in internet terms) non-visual browsers. Also- my opinion is that the coloring in your test table is really great, much easier to read (as a non-visually-impaired person). You should definitely keep/use it, not fall back to plain text. --Pres N 03:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Started up an example of what the sub-lists would be at User:Cyclonebiskit/Kalos. Given the relatively limited prose, sub-lists by generation should be just fine to make everything comfortably navigable. Should give everyone a good idea of where this is heading. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New articles - January 29

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

Moved into draft space: Lemondo Entertainment, Motorm4x, LucasFan Games, Mega Jump, Dark Lord (video game), Berenstain Bears (Atari 2600 game)
Moved out of draft space: List of SAM Coupé games, Nintendo Quest
Number of new articles redirected: SONIKA (vocaloid)
Number of new articles deleted: 7

January 20

FNaF World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Lordtobi (talk · contribs)

January 22

Draft:Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea by 204.100.226.55 (talk · contribs)

January 23

Urban Games (video game developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Haroldgomez99 (talk · contribs) – AfD
Draft:Serellan by GamerPro64 (talk · contribs)
Seabeard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Jdogmad (talk · contribs)
Robbie Lakeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Fredsmith2 (talk · contribs)
Blackbird Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Joshmaul (talk · contribs)
List of SAM Coupé games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ambroginogiusti (talk · contribs)

January 24

Spider Fighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Dgpop (talk · contribs)
Miracle of Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs)
Speed Haste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Jogait (talk · contribs)
Total conquest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Bibekbhurtel5 (talk · contribs) – AfD
Nathan Grigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Czarnybog (talk · contribs)
The Tekken 5 Endurance Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Danielsolis123 (talk · contribs) – PROD

January 25

Planet Nomads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Bedivere.cs (talk · contribs)
Ace (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Hellknowz (talk · contribs)
Tim Sczerby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Arcade1134 (talk · contribs) – BLP PROD
Draft:Infra (video game) by In veritas (talk · contribs)
Draft:Taiyou Con by 68.3.150.123 (talk · contribs)

January 26

Dangerous Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Masem (talk · contribs)
The End (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Dgpop (talk · contribs)
Great Detective Pikachu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Czar (talk · contribs)
Donkey Kong high score competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Czar (talk · contribs)

January 27

Nixxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ruub1234 (talk · contribs) – AfD
Machine Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Lwarrenwiki (talk · contribs)
Live-action virtual reality game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Lv8k (talk · contribs)
Evennia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Starkiel (talk · contribs)
Electronic Entertainment Expo 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Chambr (talk · contribs)
Taco Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Zhabroah (talk · contribs) – PROD
Draft:Matthew Waterson by Secferimus (talk · contribs)
Draft:Thunder2D by Ash.Taheri (talk · contribs)
Draft:Frida Johansson by 90.236.90.120 (talk · contribs)
Draft:List of Local Multiplayer videogames by system by Guillefixx (talk · contribs)

January 28

Song of the Deep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Masem (talk · contribs)
Serdika (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Serdikagame (talk · contribs) – PROD
Shakes and Fidget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – AfD
Howard Phillips (video gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

January 29

Pocket Mortys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Nikthestunned (talk · contribs)
Crashlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Anarchyte (talk · contribs)
Circle (C418 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Blunter Mercury 6 (talk · contribs)
Minecraft - Volume Beta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Blunter Mercury 6 (talk · contribs)
SelectButton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Samus4145 (talk · contribs) – CSD A7

Salavat (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong high score competition is eligible for DYK, if anyone wants to take it there (@Axem Titanium). In general, everyone has my open invitation to take articles and GAs I write to DYK—I used to do it myself, but I prefer to write instead czar 15:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguators for video game industry BLPs

Hey'all! We need to discuss what disambiguator to use for BLPs about video game industry people. There is a lot of variety for disambiguators that ultimately don't mean anything different.

Of what I could find by quickly scanning the "(Company) People" categories for big game studios, I found:

Now, we can't use a "one size fits all" of course, but the first two mean the same thing and should be consistent, the third and fourth as well, and so do the last three (although these are not VG-specific). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe game designer, programmer, executive, and businessman are preferred over all the others mentioned. I personally prefer disambiguators to actually refer to what the topic is. David Rosen probably isn't a "business" - I assume he's a businessman. Don James is not a video game, nor is he even a "video game-related topic" in the traditional sense, like Health (gaming) is. I'd think "businessman" or "executive" would be more proper for him, as that's what his profession. ~Mable (chat) 18:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely avoid "(video games)" and "(video gaming)" BLPs. We should try to use the profession as best as possible, to make it clear the disamb is a person. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "(video games)", "(video gaming)", and "(business)" should be avoided for biographical articles. I also favor "(video game designer)" over "(game designer)", which could as easily apply to designers of board games, role-playing games, card games, mathematical games, etc.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No topic nouns like "video games" or "buisness". I prefer "video game designer", though I know we have a lot of just "game designer" and "game programmer", which is slightly ambiguous. For general stuff we have titles like directors or producers that the people are cited for. Probably up to whatever BLP guidelines are for even more generic dabs. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bluntly moved three of the above-listed articles to their actual professions (video games > executive; video gaming > consultant; business > businessman), which is definitely an improvement. I don't believe "executive" and "consultant" are the most common disambiguators, but I believe they do their job and describe the people well. ~Mable (chat) 14:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biopunk video games

Not sure Category:Biopunk video games is a defining classification. I can barely find any sources that discuss video games with this term. Thoughts? czar 20:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this really tells you anything, but I'm a huge reader (and writer) of science fiction, and I'd never even heard the term "biopunk" before now. Sources in the WP article on biopunk indicate that the term was coined in the early 1990s and hasn't entered the mainstream consciousness yet. I think that will make it hard if not impossible to find video game references which use the term, especially for games released back in the 1990s (e.g. Final Fantasy VII).--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If no sources use this term to describe video games, or only a very small amount do, than it shouldn't be a category. A lot of games may fall under this category without them ever being defined as such by anyone, making the category ultimately useless to find biopunk games. ~Mable (chat) 16:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Category:Biopunk_video_games czar 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hey fellow gamers. Anyone willing to spend a bit of their time taking a look at my FAC for Ancient Trader? I don't want it to be closed again because of lack of participation :( → Call me Razr Nation 21:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bandboxing is jargon

The1337gamer recently tagged "bandboxing" as jargon. My opinion is that the jargon is "solved" by providing the link, since bandboxing is a difficult concept to explain in a summary of an article's gameplay. Thoughts? Should The1337gamer revert his edits or are the edits fine? --Izno (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link goes to a disambiguation page... --The1337gamer (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as its 4th bullet, provides the desired definition. Should we be pointing to one of our lists of gaming jargon using something like bandbox (video game term)? (I know we have at least one.) --Izno (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a disamb. page is useless. It would be fine if the glossary of terminology article included the term "bandbox", and to link there, though it would be nice if you could find a source describing the term when you do so. I've never heard of "bandboxing" before, and wonder if it's even a real thing now... ~Mable (chat) 16:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A link to a disambiguation page is no good. The reader shouldn't have to figure out which definition for an obsure term is correct. I think rewording the sentence to not use bandbox would be best, but a creating a link to Glossary of video game terms and adding an entry for bandbox would be fine. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the term is something is also a common UI approach (drag and select), the lack of finding this term commonly even outside VGs definitely put it as jargon. There are other ways to say the same thing (eg "drag and select") that would be better here. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a generalist encyclopedia—the concept should be written out in the article in plain English. If it works, it can also link to an entry on the concept in the aforementioned Glossary, but only if we can source that Glossary entry to a secondary source. czar 18:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been playing PC games for twenty years and I've never heard of that term. I just say "click and drag" to refer to that concept, which I think is much more commonly understood. Regardless, I agree that it doesn't help to link to a dab page where the desired definition isn't even the first one! Axem Titanium (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been around computers since before GUIs and mice were standard features, right back to the 80x25 monochrome days, and used some of the earliest GUIs / window systems on the market (e.g. GEM, early MacOS, etc). I rate "bandboxing" as a highly unusual or obscure term. The first hits in Google are related to air traffic control. I recommend "drag-and-select", "drag-select", or similar; if it really needs to be mentioned. Looking at the article, it might be better to just say something like "selected with the mouse" and lose the detail (I don't see it as really necessary to have that level of detail), to be honest. Murph9000 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I've encountered the term often. I've seen it occasionally (some of usages weren't UI related). But it's not common use and we wouldn't expect general reader to know it. So it should have a description or just alternate phrasing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about StrategyWiki

Can I ask the various members of this project for their thoughts about StrategyWiki? I'm wondering if there are more possibilities for overlap between the work that you guys do here, and the work we do on StrategyWiki. What do you guys think of the site? Are there things you think we could be doing better? Are there things we could be doing better to interest you in helping out there, or reasons why you would not choose to help out there? I'm hoping to create more collaboration between the two sites, but I'm not sure how to proceed. It just seems like a missed opportunity because you're passionate about compiling info about games, and we're passionate about the same thing, and yet the two communities have little interaction. Thanks very much in advance for your responses. Plotor (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page redirected to Strategy Wiki. What's up with that? Are you trying to recruit people onto that wiki? GamerPro64 03:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His user page here isn't redirected. He just uses a sig with interwiki links. StrategyWiki is in the interwiki table. Murph9000 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm much more active on SW than I am on WP, so some time ago, I just started redirecting people there for convenience. I'll switch it back if it helps. As for recruiting, I'd certainly like to find people who are interested in writing about video games, and I can't think of a singular group of people who might be more interested than the users of this project. It seems like an obvious choice to me, but there's clearly something that I'm missing or misunderstanding, and I'm trying to discover what that is by talking to you. Plotor (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From content side, we often get overly detailed gameplay, and occasionally it's decent quality, even more occasionally it's usable guides. Those get promptly trimmed when discovered. Is StrategyWiki interested in such content? I know I've previously tried to migrate some otherwise-deleted but otherwise useful content into game-specific non-WMF Wikis, but that got promptly rejected and deleted (mainly due to what we would call WP:OWN). You could also look at article tagged {{game guide}} in case they ever have something usable, though they are usually terrible. There's not a whole lot of non-generic content here, as most users just go to individual game wikis, because we delete such stuff. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We would absolutely be interested, the issue you've described is exactly the basis upon which SW was formed, and that continues to be true to this day. SW has the same license and philosophy as WP, so WP:OWN would not be an issue, we're completely compatible. The only impediment would be where in a guide the content belongs, but that can be sorted out by an administrator.

I guess to foster more of a conversation about this, I should describe my own experience with both sites. I tried long ago to be a regular WP contributor, but I found that my desire to add gameplay to articles was too strong. I enjoy sharing knowledge such as how to perform a Shoryuken in Street Fighter 2, and where that first invisible 1-Up is in Super Mario Bros., and a good ninth key pattern for Pac-Man. Obviously, that content isn't welcome here. I struggled to find an acceptable place to put it. After trying a few alternatives (WikiBooks, WikiKnowledge) StrategyWiki was formed with the expressed purpose of housing video game knowledge and walkthroughs, and it was a perfect fit.

While I understand that WP is not the proper place for such content, nor will it ever be, I have to imagine that there are some among you who feel as I do; that it's enjoyable to share and collaborate on video game walkthrough information. I know that it takes a certain mindset to be a dedicated member of this community, and I know the hard work you all put into it. What I don't entirely understand, and am trying to get a better comprehension of, is what is the difference between the two communities that inclines some editors to prefer and stick to WP, or to be disinterested in contributing to SW? Please understand that I am in no way asking anyone to abandon WP in favor of SW. I completely understand how this kind of question may come off. I hope that you understand that I'm asking out of genuine curiosity and a desire to learn what makes us different. Plotor (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Geo sources

What kind of sources do we have for Neo Geo game reviews? The only Neo Geo GA is The King of Fighters '94, and it uses GamePro. Do we really have no other magazines or reference sources that go in depth for Neo Geo games? czar 11:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 650: / Line 650: @@
 :::Yeah, I'm much more active on SW than I am on WP, so some time ago, I just started redirecting people there for convenience.  I'll switch it back if it helps.  As for recruiting, I'd certainly like to find people who are interested in writing about video games, and I can't think of a singular group of people who might be more interested than the users of this project.  It seems like an obvious choice to me, but there's clearly something that I'm missing or misunderstanding, and I'm trying to discover what that is by talking to you.  [[User:Plotor|Plotor]] ([[User talk:Plotor|talk]]) 04:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 :From content side, we often get overly detailed gameplay, and occasionally it's decent quality, even more occasionally it's usable guides. Those get promptly trimmed when discovered. Is StrategyWiki interested in such content? I know I've previously tried to migrate some otherwise-deleted but otherwise useful content into game-specific non-WMF Wikis, but that got promptly rejected and deleted (mainly due to what we would call [[WP:OWN]]). You could also look at article tagged {{tl|game guide}} in case they ever have something usable, though they are usually terrible. There's not a whole lot of non-generic content here, as most users just go to individual game wikis, because we delete such stuff. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 13:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
+::We would absolutely be interested, the issue you've described is exactly the basis upon which SW was formed, and that continues to be true to this day.  SW has the same license and philosophy as WP, so [[WP:OWN]] would not be an issue, we're completely compatible.  The only impediment would be where in a guide the content belongs, but that can be sorted out by an administrator.
+::I guess to foster more of a conversation about this, I should describe my own experience with both sites.  I tried long ago to be a regular WP contributor, but I found that my desire to add gameplay to articles was too strong.  I enjoy sharing knowledge such as how to perform a Shoryuken in [[Street Fighter 2]], and where that first invisible 1-Up is in [[Super Mario Bros.]], and a good ninth key pattern for [[Pac-Man]].  Obviously, that content isn't welcome here.  I struggled to find an acceptable place to put it.  After trying a few alternatives (WikiBooks, WikiKnowledge) StrategyWiki was formed with the expressed purpose of housing video game knowledge and walkthroughs, and it was a perfect fit.
+::While I understand that WP is not the proper place for such content, nor will it ever be, I have to imagine that there are some among you who feel as I do; that it's enjoyable to share and collaborate on video game walkthrough information.  I know that it takes a certain mindset to be a dedicated member of this community, and I know the hard work you all put into it.  What I don't entirely understand, and am trying to get a better comprehension of, is what is the difference between the two communities that inclines some editors to prefer and stick to WP, or to be disinterested in contributing to SW?  Please understand that I am in no way asking anyone to abandon WP in favor of SW. I completely understand how this kind of question may come off.  I hope that you understand that I'm asking out of genuine curiosity and a desire to learn what makes us different. [[User:Plotor|Plotor]] ([[User talk:Plotor|talk]]) 14:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 == Neo Geo sources ==