Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 360: Line 360:


I recently noticed that at [[Talk:Final Fantasy IV]] that the article is labeled as a Sports and recreation good article. Is there any reason that it is not listed as a video game one or is there something that I am overlooking?--[[Special:Contributions/76.65.40.44|76.65.40.44]] ([[User talk:76.65.40.44|talk]]) 05:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I recently noticed that at [[Talk:Final Fantasy IV]] that the article is labeled as a Sports and recreation good article. Is there any reason that it is not listed as a video game one or is there something that I am overlooking?--[[Special:Contributions/76.65.40.44|76.65.40.44]] ([[User talk:76.65.40.44|talk]]) 05:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:I managed to do a bit of digging and found out how to change the listing for IV. If someone thinks it should in fact be listed as a sports and recreation good article rather than a video game one fell free to change it back. Otherwise this issue has been fixed.--[[Special:Contributions/76.65.40.44|76.65.40.44]] ([[User talk:76.65.40.44|talk]]) 06:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:05, 26 July 2018

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

KSP genre

I have a question about Kerbal Space Program. Do you think this game's focus is more on construction and management, or more on vehicle simulation? I have only played a little bit - long enough to build a ship capable of escaping Kerbin's gravity, but that's all. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  20:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the sources call it TarkusABtalk 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what do the sources say? SharkD  Talk  21:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. What I'm trying to say is, it's not for us to decide. TarkusABtalk 22:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wanting to edit the article. The question was an idle one. But on the topic of the article, I looked at the first four references and they don't agree on a genre. In fact, I would bet that zero of the cited articles use the exact words, "space flight simulation game". And I'm fine with that. SharkD  Talk  22:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do the sources say, exactly? If there was some examples of what we being used, I'd be more comfortable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all the citations right now. I just wanted to know for personal reasons. SharkD  Talk  19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental, competitive, stats-raising gameplay

Is there anywhere we're covering the concept of gaming in which the primary activity is incrementally raising a large number of complicatedly-interacting stats against those of other players doing likewise to remain competitive? This is a common feature of many MMORPGs (especially "freemium" ones intended for player addiction and the buying of "optional" upgrades), and is also a feature of some solo games like most of The Elder Scrolls series, where one is competing with AI enemy stats increasing on a curve based on player level (e.g. TES IV: Oblivion is unusually difficult to do well at if you do not carefully study the stats system and manage player-character stats with near-religious devotion, including "efficient leveling", and avoiding the counterintuitive negative effects of picking and focusing on starting stats that best match those of the character class). I've encountered this called "isometric gameplay", but the term seems rarely used because of the ambiguity with isometric computer graphics (e.g. isometric RPG and isometric platformer refer to the latter concept).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I'm familiar. Do you have any sources? Googling "isometric gameplay" shows gameplay with isometric graphics. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another helpful term would be micromanagement, but that's just close management of any game element and doesn't apply to exclusively stats or competitive games. I think the concept you are describing is so broad and viable between genres that there is no word. What you are saying could also describe 4X games like Civilization, or tower defense games, or nearly every RPG. TarkusABtalk 11:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I understand. Another example of level scaling is Final Fantasy VIII. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If managing your power curves or whatever is really really tedious, then the term Grinding (gaming) may be relevant. (Especially in an freemium MMORPG.) SharkD  Talk  21:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard the term "MinMaxing" used to refer to video games that require a superfluous amount of grinding for this purpose. FF8 is a great example of level scaling (And, is actually significantly harder on level 100, than on level 1, as stat gains are only slightly done by level, and more by the amount of magic the player has drawn. A game like Diablo would be a good example of "Stat farming", as the original question, or the Disgaea series (Which relies very heavily on grinding towards the end of the game.) That grinding article is pretty poor, and in need of updating! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about Dynamic game difficulty balancing? - X201 (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a similar concept, but the above is generally based on game completion, rather than how good the player is. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good stuff, and it seems we are covering the concept, just in a very scatter-shot manner. That's probably resolvable by better cross-referencing between these articles.

Relatedly, I see that Efficient leveling and Efficient levelling are redlinks, which is probably not desirable. Not even listed at Glossary of video game terms#Min-Maxing. I'm mostly familiar with it from the Elder Scrolls gaming community but have encountered it elsewhere. It applies to any game in which levelling up of your character depends on multiple stats that aren't easy to control, and in which game difficulty goes up notably with level increases. I.e., if you are careless, you can end up unable to complete the game because everything kills you due to your player char. being too weak for your level, a common problem with TES IV: Oblivion by around level 10–15 even with difficulty left at medium; or if you're a hard-core min-maxing grinder, you can wreck the game balance and end up one-shotting even the boss monsters, a common problem in TES III: Morrowind by around level 20-something, even with difficulty set to max).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actors in plot summaries

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty certain the VG consensus falls on the “not” side, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we? I know we don't like using tables and lists, but I've seen this done in GA/FAs and just assumed that's the proper way we should handle it for VG articles. Either way, I think we should follow whatever the other MOS decide on, as there is no reason to have separate consensus here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may have been a general lean here at WT:VG to exclude but it has certainly crept into many game articles, including GA/FAs, and no one has really made an effort to do anything to remove. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reading any particularly strong opinions on the matter here either, to be honest. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have actors names in the plot summaries in a single one of the hundreds of articles I’ve created or maintained, and would generally uncontroversially revert if anyone would attempt to do it, so these sorts of responses are surprising to me. Sergecross73 msg me
Really? The Last of Us (a FA) and Horizon Zero Dawn (a GA) immediately comes to mind. However, I don't think I've ever really seen it in Japanese game articles, which is what we both seem to prefer editing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only time we really include VAs is if the game includes people from outside the usual stable of VAs (eg Brutal Legend), 3rd party RSes draw attention to at least one or two (by then where the rest are included for completeness), or when we've got sourced content focused on a specific character so including the VA for that character is necessary for comprehension. As such, most of the time those names do not need to enter into the plot for any real reason. --Masem (t) 17:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think it's necessary in any instance for it to be used in a plot summary. If it's important, it should be more highly mentioned in the gameplay and release sections. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is cast information relevant for gameplay, i.e. how the game is played? Personally, I think the way Brütal Legend does it with a characters sub-section before the plot section in a synopsis section makes the most sense. Regards SoWhy 10:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake, that was supposed to read "characters", not gameplay. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point was to add your views at the MOS:FILM thread, since it may impact the matter cross-genre/cross-medium, rather than fork a new thread here. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Windows or Windows 10

Has the consensus changed on listing platforms as Microsoft Windows? I saw these edits ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5])this morning and wanted to check before I revert. - X201 (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Judd (producer)

I restored the article, as it was previously a redirect. I discuss on the talk page why I feel it's notable. Talk:Ben Judd (producer). My focus was to create a skeleton page as a start, rather than to create a fully fleshed out page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a copy edit, as it wasn't written particularly well. I also moved the quote that you had, as it wasn't about the subject, simply a game he was involved with. I'm not sure it makes sense as a note, either... Perhaps inserted as one of the references Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the entire project is his brainchild. He convinced Inafune to go ahead with it, and he did much of the planning in regards to the kickstarter. Then when the game is actually released, he went through reasons why the game had problems in development. The whole livestream was sort of the devs explaining why it was bad and apologizing for it. I've never seen devs do that. It's highly unusual. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have seen, Rock, Paper, Shotgun redesigned their website earlier today. However, I'm not sure whether their new logo still fails the threshold of originality. Here's the SVG. What should we do? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that RPS is British. The Commons advice is that most UK logos are not acceptable on there. - X201 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go down the same route as the Edge logo, Same tags etc - X201 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems comparable, yes. Regards SoWhy 13:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the Threshold of Originality even in the US. Those aren't standard characters for those icons, and the application of defects is not an element of the typeface (compare the P's in Paper). Would be non-free. --Masem (t) 13:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll upload a new version to enwiki with all the relevant tags. @Masem: That was my main concern. The fact the characters were modified (even if slightly) and the iconography of the rock, paper, and shotgun. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game within a game cat?

Was there a category for games that reside in a game?? Govvy (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Category:Minigames.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
k, cheers, not many games in that category, I added two Atari Lynx games to it know, surely there are a lot more games with mini games built in. Govvy (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That category should probably specify if it includes articles on games that have minigames or if it's just for articles on minigames. If the first, it's very underutilized; if the second, it would likely be empty. --PresN 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How would you categorize something like Day of the Tentacle that contains the whole of Maniac Mansion in it? It's not a minigame. - X201 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would also apply to Zork 1 which is playable in its entirety in Call of Duty: Black Ops.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ye, it doesn't exactly have an explanation with it, it just points to the Minigames article, because you do get these games with in games every so often so I was surprised the lack of category use. Are we establishing a mini game or a game within a game? Would a game from the 1980s, 1990s attached to a modern game be classed as a mini game? Govvy (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this is a defining characteristic of Zork and Maniac Mansion, and I wouldn't describe them as minigames regardless (but rather as a rerelease within a different video game). The best thing that came to mind for this category is Gwent: The Witcher Card Game, but insanely popular minigames have a habit of turning into full titles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2064:Read Only Memories back to Read Only Memories

I made a topic to move 2064: Read Only Memories back to its original name Read Only Memories in the talk page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

Reference 1 link is broken. Please link to the Australian Government's website on legislation instead. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Search/interactive%20gambling%20act 165.12.252.211 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devil May Cry: 3142

Hello. Does anybody has access to the guidebook Devil May Cry: 3142? It has a lot of information about the series' first four games as well as other related games. I'm from South America so I can't buy one. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artbooks are some of the best sources for video games, as they are published, and often incldue interviews and notes by the creators of the game. Try to see if you can order it via amazon or something like that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. 3

The 30th anniversary of its release is on October 23, 2018. This would be an ideal time to run this on the front page as a FA. It's currently a GA article. With work it could be FA before October. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Nintendo Life review [6] that should be added to the reception (6 reviews seem super small.) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also retro nintendo reviews, Flying Omelette if these are RS Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, and a cool Kotaku entry on the legacy of SMB3 [7] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking contemporary coverage. Seems there are only two reviews in the article, CVG and Mean Machines. Definitely need more than that, and the retrospective reviews should be separated from the contemporary ones. TarkusABtalk 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added Famitsu's score of the game. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - It's slated to be one of the game's that comes with the new Nintendo Switch Online service as well, so there's bound to be an influx of interest in the game soon too, in terms of both source coverage and readership of the Wikipedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In-game commentary as source

Hi. I'm planning an expansion/rewrite/clean-up of the article for Tomb Raider: Anniversary, with the future aim of making it a GA. The game itself contains developer commentary for each level and even areas within a level, done by the game's director Jason Botta and its cinematic designer/co-writer Toby Gard. Due to a variety of circumstances, this game is lacking in sources for its development. Would this in-game commentary be considered a suitable source for a GA-level article? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's any different from character quotes, personally. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think definately- it would be totally fine if it was a video of the devs talking while playing the game, (I've used a source like that in an FA), so i don't see that changing the format would be a problem there as far as reliability goes. --PresN 15:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: It's player-activated audio-only commentary using icons within the levels which can be turned on by the player. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured so (though I thought it was auto-played instead of triggered); physically writing the citation is going to be a pain but I'm still confident that it's acceptable. --PresN 15:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smart thinking, @ProtoDrake:! Portal and BioShock Remastered comes to mind as well. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So does Rare Replay. JOEBRO64 23:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To the above end, (And provided this is something that would be used more than once), would it make sense to add a field to the Template:Cite video game? One that stated "commentary", or similarly that added a note to the reference explaining where the information was inserted from? Simply saying (From Directors Commentary) after the quote. In the likes of Portal, the commentary is different depending on the scene, so the rest of the identifiers would be right. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see this template fixed up to be more useful, because it's only ever really been used for citing quotes from story heavy games in the past. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dissident93 - What other used could we also add? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be more versatile and allow things like game personal (staff listing) to be properly cited, among other related stuff I can't recall at the moment. Doing so under the "scene" parameter is awkward. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to use that technique of citing credits for several articles I've worked on (Drakengard 2, several Fire Emblem titles). Usually there's no other way of citing which personnel worked in what capacity. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a script

Is there a script that will automatically reorder footnotes so that they appear in the correct numerical order. For example, fixing [22][20][21] so they are ordered as [20][21][22] Thanks TarkusABtalk 19:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? Consensus at VP is quite a bit stronger than "enough people crying about it", a phrase that is also needlessly condescending.
Tarkus, to your question, I imagine you can customize AWB's genfixes to reinstate the ReorderReferences fix. czar 00:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've never used AWB so maybe I should give it a try. TarkusABtalk 02:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zarlor Mercenary

Okay, I am totally confused, I put two categories on Zarlor Mercenary, the first being Category:Cellular automata in popular culture, well I didn't put that category in originally as User:David Eppstein did that who knows about cellular automata, as I mentioned Zarlor on Conway's Game of Life as a cheat code, so it made sense to be in that category, and as of above I also added Category:Minigames per suggestion, for a mini game being in a game. But User:SnowFire has removed both categories which I was sure was correct. Could I please get some clarification for those categories use on the article please. cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Zarlor Mercenary, but unless this easter egg is somehow incredibly pivotal, it seems super distant to qualify for the category. Think of it this way: many, many, many games have some sort of side gambling minigame where you play memory and match like cards, or roll dice, or play slots, or play poker, or bet on gladitorial combat. There's no way that means all Dragon Quest games qualify for Category:Slot machines, or Super Mario Bros. 3 for Category:Matching card games, or the like. In the same way, a game with a Conway's Game of Life easter egg doesn't qualify for the cellular automata category. And that's for much more famous games than an obscure PC game. As for category Minigames, that seems a category more about entire minigames itself. It's not "games that contain minigames", which would be a bad idea for a category anyway as it'd be incredibly subjective and certain people would "help" by adding it to every game imaginable. SnowFire (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the Cellular automata in popular culture category clearly says "This category lists novels, artworks, computer games, etc., in which cellular automata such as Conway's Game of Life feature prominently." And Conway's Game of Life is certainly a feature of Zarlor! Govvy (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keyword is prominently. Is it particularly known for this in any way? Critical to the story? -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prominent is open to interpretation, does everyone who ever brought the game count as Prominent? This is a category which is rather obscure in it's self. What about the couple of million people that brought the Atari Lynx, maybe they are interested. Having Conway's Game of Life on the atari lynx cartridge as a bonus hidden game is pretty unique. How about we remove the word prominently from the category description!! Govvy (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow where you went with that. Prominent is certainly open to interpretation but it has nothing to do with who or how many bought a game. In this case though it's pretty clear it's not a defining characteristic of the game, simply a trivia easteregg. -- ferret (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's prominent enough as a side game to be mentioned in this article; that's why I listed it in the category. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, SnowFire removed the category saying "very very distant connection here." Which makes no sense to me, it's a perfectly clear connection of being a sub-game within a game. I don't understand why ppl are saying prominent, I bet more ppl know about Conway's game of life on the lynx on this game than some of the few entries on the category. Govvy (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source that discusses the importance of this version of the Game of Life (aka not [8], a text file written by an unknown person hosted at a random website), please feel free to stick it in the article, and I won't complain. For an example of what we're looking for, see Poole versus HAL 9000, which while a very minor part of the movie it is in, has reliable sources discussing it. For an example relevant to cellular automata, Permutation City's miniature "Game of Life" is a very important part of its plot that all readers will see, not a secret easter egg that many players won't know about. (Good book, too, you should read it.) SnowFire (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dam, talk about over analysing a use of a category. You're applying a way over-extended use on WP:N on a category. Categories just need to be correct. I feel your argument is completely floored. An admin included the game in the category, I feel it should be restored into that category. Categories are there to show the collection of shared information, not to over-extended into Notability. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have a different stance on what deserves a place in these categories. Let's take a different topic: should Category:Coca-Cola in popular culture feature every movie / TV show where there's Coke in the background or somebody drinks a Coke? Or should it focus on media that is explicitly about Coke or has it as a key plot point? I say that the category is far more useful if it's curated and only hits the latter, not it-has-a-coke-somewhere. You haven't really sold that this easter egg isn't the equivalent of "people happen to be drinking Coke in the background of a shot." This wouldn't fly on TVTropes, let alone Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And how about The Mutant Virus: Crisis in a Computer World, there is no source for the category inclusion, you have failed to remove the category from this game. How is the game any less of an impact as any of the other entries in the category? Each other item, game, book or person, how do you way up their inclusion over WP:N? There is a extreme lack of citations throughout, yet you choose to remove Zarlor Mercenary from the category without any due weight on the other topical entries? I am not a lawyer, but I way in that you have a biased point of view. Also, not actually pointed out in the game, but in fact Zarlor Mercenary uses a short timer of cellular automata dispersal code for enemy ships when blown up. There is multiple uses of this type of code among a lot of games, however I am drawn back to the fact that, Conway's Game of Life is available to play on the Atari Lynx in a very pure form. I would say that is prominent to the Atari Lynx, can you get the game on any other hand held games machine?
And a cheat code is to cheat in a game, loading up the sub game, via a coded set of button pressing? This is not an easter-egg either. The citation for Conway's Game of Life associated with Zarlor tells a reader how access this other program, and how the instructions on how to use the software. AtariAge.com is a very good source for Atari Information, yes it's community based, but generally I consider it a reliable source of information. Govvy (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a non-defining trait of other games, it should be removed from those articles too. czar 04:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 8, 2018 to July 20, 2018)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 8, 2018

July 9, 2018

July 10, 2018

July 11, 2018

July 12, 2018

July 13, 2018

July 14, 2018

July 15, 2018

July 16, 2018

July 17, 2018

July 18, 2018

  • None

July 19, 2018

July 20, 2018

  • None

Changelog: Split deletions and redirects into two sections. Events conspired to make last week's report so late that I just let it wrap around back to the right day, so it's 2 weeks' worth this time. --PresN 04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

andriasang.com

It's cited on many pages, they give summaries of Japanese language articles in English. WP:VG/S lists it as reliable. My question is: Wouldn't it just make more sense to cite the actual original Japanese article directly? andriasang isn't really reporting anything, just translating and summarizing, thus it isn't really a news source at all, but a translation service. They're also giving condensed summaries rather than direct ones. They also appear to only be using the online versions of the news sites, so these can be accessed by anyone.

So if we were to just replace andriasang reference with the original Japanese news article, nothing would be lost. It would contain the exact same information, and Famitsu, Game watch, etc are all high quality reliable sources. None of the in-article text would need to be changed.

For example, on the MT_Framework article, the andriasang article could be swapped out for the Game Watch original, and none of the article's text would need to be changed.

The site can provide a valuable resource by giving summaries and news from Japanese sites, which are difficult to navigate and search for non-Japanese readers. So I feel the site should play a support role, rather than a direct one. So use the site to look for news articles and sources, and to give some understanding of what the original Japanese article stated, but don't cite the site directly, and instead use the original source.

The site is now dead, and appears to be a self-published blog. All the posts are listed under the "blog" section of the site, and it appears to be written by one person. I have a real wariness about using self-published blog type sites in general, and would prefer to avoid that. The original Japanese sites are very high quality, and I also feel that the original Japanese sites should be given more credit on Wikipedia for their reporting. And I feel that WP users should try to get more out of their "safe zone" and use more sources from different languages.

This may result in new users having more difficulty verifying the sources. Ease of verification is not a strict Wikipedia rule that I'm aware of per se. Any reliable source in any language can be used anywhere on any language Wikipedia. It just tends to be that the language of the sources tend to correspond to the language of the Wikipedia due to the user-base and ease of use. In any case, I don't think it presents an impossible barrier. There's tools like Google translate. Though it is imperfect, it can give you enough of an idea about an article and basic facts cited to ensure that it is not being mis-used. And since the WP user-base is big enough, there will be enough users who speak English and Japanese so that if there is a dispute over a translation of a news source, that user can then investigate.

So I propose that the links to andriasang.com should be replaced with links to the original Japanese language news articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9: The principle is sound, but there's an immediate problem. Several of the times I've used Andriasang, they have A: used print sources such as Famitsu and Dengeki which are now difficult to track down for proper citations, and B: given more concrete and accurately translated information than other sites reporting the same story from the same print source. I'm aware about the issue with self-published blogs as a source (had to negotiate that during my work on Titan Quest), and - I think this was discussed before - Andrisang was allowed because it was the work of a noted video game journalist rather than a different individual. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about reduce the reliance on the site unless needed? If no other source can be found keep it. I have nothing against the site itself, I just feel that the original source should be given priority over translations. I consider it more of a translation tool than a news site in itself.
I've noticed that there seems to be two types of articles on the site. One in which the author directly links to a news article on a Japanese language site, and then gives a summary, and another one where the author does not seem to site any source. For the first type, it makes sense to just link to the original article. For the second, it seems the author is relying upon print sources. It might make sense to keep the Andriasang site.
As an experiment, I checked a few pages to see how Andriasang is actually being used. I'm finding it's used often to cite rather readily available information that can be found elsewhere. Two examples.
The two examples above the citation can be swapped out for something else without any loss or changes to the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine. It was just the idea of replacing all the Andriasang links that was ringing bells. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of principle, I think it's good practice to include a reliable translation of any non-English language source, if available, within the citation, even if it's not strictly required. As for Andriasang in particular, it's not merely a "self-published blog" as you say. It was a well-respected source used within the industry and run by a well-regarded member of the industry (Anoop Gantayat) who has years of experience and credentials to show for it. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Anoop has a lot of experience writing for RS’s like IGN prior to branching off to start his own website, and was frequently cited by other sources in the industry. Im also very against removing all links. It’d be a lot if work to fix something that isn’t broken. There’s so many more productive things to be worked on... Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit: Become Human

There is a content dispute regarding Detroit: Become Human which has spilled over to ANI. Please help resolve it at Talk:Detroit: Become Human. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone from here could help resolve a 50/50 split in achieving a consensus over at Talk:Detroit: Become Human#Adam Williams would be much appreciated. I'm not advocating for any outcome in particular I would just like to see the content dispute be closed before anyone gets in trouble with excess reverting, etc. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Re)assessment request and GA nomination?

Quick question: Say if I expand a Start-class article and nominate it for GA, should I also request reassessment from the VG-WikiProject-template (since the Start-rating no longer applies) or should I wait for the GAN to be decided and then request reassessment if the GAN failed? Regards SoWhy 10:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it. I can't see why we'd want it reviewed twice. If someone reviewed a GA, but failed it, I'd like to think they would update the assessment to B or C, if it met those criteria. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GA is GA. An article ought not be a GA and also be another lower rating for a particular project. If an article does pass GA, but fails say, B criteria for a project, then the GA was probably lax, and the article should be reassessed and the issues fixed or the article demoted. If the article fails GA initially, I would recommend WP:PR and then renomination. For article ratings below GA, IMO they're as often as not mostly arbitrary, and have as much or more to do with the rater as they do with the article. Whether the article meets GA, A or FA is really the only thing that should be the least bit concerning to most anybody. GMGtalk 10:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was told over a year ago that the reassessment tag is unnecessary for GANs because someone's going to review it either way. JOEBRO64 18:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can reassess articles in the wikiproject tags without a second opinion. You shouldn't set it to GA/FA without it actually passing that process, but anything short of that is fine. Reassessment is specifically if you're unsure of what the rating should be; if you're pretty confident that it's a B-class (and if you're nominating it for GAN then I'd presume you are...) then you can just make it a B and move on. --PresN 03:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

snesmusic dot org

It's used as a citation on something like 200 pages, mostly for composer credits. First problem, is that it's a fan site. The bigger problem, is that it contains downloads of the game's soundtracks in SPC format, which is part of the rom. Thus, it violates copyright law, and can't be used as a citation on Wikipedia. It's a kind of romsite, one that's stripping the rom down to just the music. The information is likely correct, so it should remain, but the site should be purged from Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the site is WP:COPYVIOEL, then all the links can be removed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is. But it's like 200 something links. I've removed one, but it'll be a chore to remove them all. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just how it goes. There's just not enough of us to policy every non-RS usage on the site. Same problem with Gamefaqs and MobyGames. Both are uncontroversially unreliable sources by anyone who understands policy, but they're still used all over the in all sorts of obscure video game articles. You've got to make a choice on whether or not its important enough to take on the chore of removing them all, or just opting to remove them as you see them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you mention that since, I planned to phase out Mobygames and gamefaqs later on. Mobygames is really kind of a fan-wiki. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure we've long agreed Mobygames is a no-no as a ref, but perfectly fine as an EL, especially for older games. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is correct, I believe that there's loose support/apathy for it being allowed as an EL at least. Good point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If every movie article can have its IMDb link...... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting it, I fall more on the apathy side of things. I just meant that it did seem like there were a few opposed, but overall, it had support. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the information to be credible but simply lacking a better source, you can try using WP:AWB to replace the references with {{citation needed}}. I have done that before with an unreliable source. There are some gotchas where you have to be careful with the regex find/replace (notably, re-used references). --Izno (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the VGM community, I'd say the credits actually being cited there are usually correct (as people have to play through the game to know where the musical tracks are, therefore confirming the credits if they play through it fully). However, it is user-generated and outdated with some errors, so it shouldn't be used as a source here. I'd instead use it to get a general idea who the composer should be, then find a better source confirming it. Also, I don't think the fact it hosts SPC sets (basically ROMs striped of everything but the music data) is relevant here, as you could use this same logic for any article that has copyrighted photos or videos. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LINKVIO, the first two paragraphs address what you're talking about. The short version is that, no, we should be linking to websites that are illegally distributing content like music or roms. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, even though the content being cited has nothing to do with copyright. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 'em. It's clearly a fansite that doesn't have editorial policies or credible writers. If the information is accurate, remove it and either find a reliable source that verifies it or cite the game credits themselves. And speaking of ROM distribution, Nintendo just sued LoveROMs and LoveRetro! JOEBRO64 17:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a database of SNES soundtrack dumps that articles are using to cite composer info, it has nothing to do with editorial writing. But yes, if the information is accurate (which it mostly is, see my post above), then it shouldn't be too hard to find reliable sources for the same info. Failing that, you could always just cite the game's OST or ending credits as a last resort. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

Change the line "Forsaken will have a large overhual on gameplay" in Release to "Forsaken will have a large overhaul on gameplay", please. 79.234.148.161 (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant the typo in Destiny 2? Fixed. Regards SoWhy 16:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese sources:

I'd like to see users make more use of Japanese sources in their articles instead of relying only on English speaking sources. Here are a few readily available online sites:

- Has an online database of games since the magazine started. Good for basic information about the game (Japanese name, release date, company, genre, etc). Also many include the review score. Their archive goes back very far, so it's nice to get review scores for games from the 80's or 90's, that often have few magazine reviews in the article.

- Newer game news site.

- Noticed the archives only go back as far as the PS2 era. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Famitsu is pretty heavily used in JRPG articles in my experience, though that’s generally just whatever English sources cover of it. I think it’s just a practicality thing. We should use sources of all languages. But most of us just understand and read English, so that’s what we add to articles. Also keep in mind that you can preach as much as you want on this talk page, but you’re really only reaching out to the most hardcore 15-20 video game editors active and monitoring this at the moment. There’s hundreds of casual mid-core editors that don’t read this or even know what a Wikiproject is. So requests like this are often hard to get anywhere with... Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I second Sergecross's suggestion to chill the f out with the broad sweeping policy edicts on WT:VG (this is your 3rd in 3 days). If you want to meticulously comb through and replace ain't-broke-don't-fix sources, be my guest, but you're not deputizing me and unlikely to galvanize anyone else without a Strong Policy Reason like copyvio or BLP. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I third that. You're welcome to incorporate reliable sources in other languages, but imploring others to do so is somewhat odd. Maybe by phrasing it differently ("I am going to add more Japanese sources, what do you think?" - "awesome, good idea!") might help. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the English Wikipedia, so English sources will always be preferred over non-English ones. What even is your issue here? How does using 4gamer or Famitsu over any English RS that covers the same topic benefit anything? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no issue with using other reliable sources not written in English. But, I'm unsure of what the request is. If there is a source from a reliable source, add it. We shouldn't be removing reliable sources, simply to have these websites listed instead. There's an argument for SP:SODOIT here, if something is unsourced, and you can source it, do so. The exact same thing could be said for print sources, we should, potentially use more of these. However, practically, it's hard work to do this, which is the same with other language sources.
I'd also mention, that Famitsu is used quite a bit as a source already. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable page move

Would like some more input over at Isometric_computer_graphics. The result of the discussion was 2 in favor of moving to Isometric computer graphics, and 2 in favor of moving to Isometric video game. I.e. no consensus. The move seems kind of rash. SharkD  ☎  08:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions aren't based on amount of votes, but the discussion. Technically, if one person has a good enough argument, they could overturn a big majority. The argument you've had is regarding a lack of sources at Platform_game#Isometric_platform_game, which has no bearing over a move of this particular article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Netoholic: and I both argued that the move would confuse people interested in CAD and descriptive geometry. SharkD  ☎  09:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It technically ran its bare minimum week of a week, though personally, I would have "relisted" or let it go longer to get a bit better of a consensus. It doesn't help that the closer didn't explain their close at all either, which you should definitely do in close calls where a consensus isn't readily apparent. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're being told to start a new RM, which I guess would be okay as long as the article were returned to its original title prior to the beginning of the new RM. SharkD  ☎  19:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ark: Survival Evolved

Tisquesusa continues to add a "list of creatures" to Ark: Survival Evolved, accompanied by 130 unreliable references from a wiki, violating WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:RS. Alongside some other minor things, the edit also violates the infobox documentation by (a) adding the Early Access release date for PC instead of the final date, and (b) listing the date before the platform, for some reason. To avoid breaking WP:3RR, I figured I'd bring this issue here. – Rhain ☔ 12:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them the 3RR final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pure fancruft. The user seems like a good Wikipedian, so I have no idea what's going on. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
50k+ characters on what is GAMECRUFT material, that's crazy. Unnecessary fluff in infobox as well. I agree, Tisquesusa, you seem like a good and constructive editor, but this is inappropriate material and inappropriate behavior. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Including pictures and diet of each respective animal too? Ark is a fictional video game and not a educational product about prehistoric animals and thus should follow MOS:VG. This may well be some of the most fancruft ever put onto a video game article here (and if not, I'd like to see what was). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a well established consensus on it. It's not wanted in articles is the blunt answer. - X201 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: After their 3RR/EW warning, the editor decided to revert a 4th time, without even attempting to discuss, so they've been blocked for 2 days. You can alert me on my talk page if they continue to edit war after the block expires. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the user's account be compromised? I find it highly unusual for a long-term editor who makes many good, constructive edits to topics completely unrelated to video games suddenly add a massive, Wikia-level, 50k character list of dinosaurs to a video game article. It makes absolutely no sense. JOEBRO64 18:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I have no idea, I don't recall interacting with this editor in the past, so I don't know if they were acting/writing different than before or not. Their block log was clean prior to this, and they started a little over 2 years ago in 2016 - experienced, but not super-long term or anything. I guess we'll see if/when they actually ever address any the content dispute or 3RR comments left to them... Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Difficulty" redirect target

Difficulty level redirects to Degree of difficulty but Difficulty levels redirects to Game balance#Difficulty level. Which is correct? --Mika1h (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer looks like neither, since it looks like the two sections are covering the exact same content? The content needs merging (with some summary style pointer in one or the other) and then we can fix the redirects. --Izno (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this merger discussed before? Unless I'm thinking of something else. Anyway, the section in Degree of difficulty is basically only about different type of names for the modes and not explaining what it's even about, so I've gone ahead and just deleted that section and changed the redirect to Game balance#Difficulty level. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Final Fantasy IV

I recently noticed that at Talk:Final Fantasy IV that the article is labeled as a Sports and recreation good article. Is there any reason that it is not listed as a video game one or is there something that I am overlooking?--76.65.40.44 (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to do a bit of digging and found out how to change the listing for IV. If someone thinks it should in fact be listed as a sports and recreation good article rather than a video game one fell free to change it back. Otherwise this issue has been fixed.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=852035181"