Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:35, 4 November 2018

Video games Project‑class

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

Project

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

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) (13 participants)
Covet Fashion (4 participants)
Vector TDx (2 participants)
Fred Haslam (game designer) (3 participants)
SureAI (9 participants; relisted)
Mighty Rabbit Studios (2 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Renderware

IP 75.84.148.185 has added Renderware as an engine to numerous articles, all of them without any citations. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renderware's more a middleware solution than a true game engine. Mind you, any game using Renderware is going to say it in the credits of the game, so that technically doesn't need a citation, but I dont know how important it is to list it (it's like listing DirectX as an engine... yes, it's an engine, but not really) --Masem (t) 02:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it could be listed in the dev section, but not in the infobox as a game engine. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would say that Renderware should only be listed in the infobox if it's discussed to some extent in the development section. I think Sonic Heroes is a good example, as Sonic Team's partnership with Criterion to use it is a pretty big chunk of the development section. JOEBRO64 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's still not the base engine, which is where half the argument lies. Would you add SpeedTree and Havoc to other articles using that same logic? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - RenderWare's completely different from Havok. JOEBRO64 19:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - RenderWare was a complete game engine, including graphics, AI, physics, audio and its own development environment.[1] It powered practically all Criterion games as well as most Rockstar titles 2000–2006 (including three GTA's, Bully, and Manhunt 1), and not just as a piece of middleware. Lordtobi (✉) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD mistake

Hey all. I just noticed that the page for the Codie award, which was also the redirect for the Software Publishers Association, was deleted per a recent AfD. I wasn't aware of the nomination or I would have said something before now, but the users in the debate clearly were not WPVG members or up to speed on the history here. The SPA was among the most important bodies in the game industry during the '80s and early '90s, and the Codie awards were, at one time, a black-tie event attended by every major player in the industry. The claim that it was non-notable is disproven by even a cursory search with the correct terms—as seen here, here, here and so on. It's also possibly the oldest award in the industry, as it's still presented by the Software & Information Industry Association (the SPA's current name). Now that the Codie award page has been deleted, there isn't even a redirect page for the Software Publishers Association. The result is a gaping hole in WPVG's coverage. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable set of sources to take the item first to the deleting admin and if unresponsive or responsive in the negative, WP:DRV. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyBlackwing - talk to Michig, as the closing admin. It should be noted that a few factors are at play. Firstly, it doesn't matter if people in the AfD are in this WikiProject at all, we all have the same voice. Second, as there are what seems like enough to prove notability above, even after an AfD the Wikipedia:Deletion policy is still active. See WP:UDP for information on this. Thirdly, if this is recreated, I'd suggest the artile be moved to Software Publishers Association, as that seems to be the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, and what is actually notable (As the award rightly isn't notable on it's own.). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Linux games is being bombarded by devs trying to edit their redlink games in

Is there a policy or template that can be put in place to remind editors to only include items on a list that have their own Wikipedia articles, or have legit sources to back up their existence (and therefore legitimize the creation of its own article)?

Right now, List of Linux games is completely toast. It's about 90% redlink games with redlink developers, mostly being put in place by random IPs.

Wikinium (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to create an inclusion criteria via consensus on the article's talk page. Once one if defined, you can remove entries that don't match the criteria. Either way, any unsourced entry can be removed, per WP:V policy. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we need to standardize that for all of our "List of (platform) games" that the only games that should be on the lists are those with blue-linked, standalone articles about the game or series, or red-linked but with clearly RS, secondary sources about the game (this means no selfpromotion websites, Twitter/Facebook links, or simply store listings). --Masem (t) 16:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. This has also been discussed at the list of Nintendo Switch games page, for anybody who isn't aware. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100% disagree as likely to limit our coverage for pre-2000s games. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To somewhat echo my comment below, for pre-2000s games, complete lists are probably appropriate for consoles. For Linux, PC, and Mac? Perhaps not so much. --tronvillain (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is basically the indie side of things. On any platform or console where there's minimal oversight of what gets digitally published (so this includes PCs as well as Xbox 360/One, PS3/4, and Switch), we need this limitation. Older consoles, where publication was a significant barrier, that's less a problem. --Masem (t) 22:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is completely reasonable. The suggestion of it being being applied to "all of our 'List of (platform) games'" was just a bit worrying.--tronvillain (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious guideline is probably WP:CSC, with the types "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" and "Short [less than 32K], complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." For many console systems, complete lists are probably reasonable, but for operating systems like Linux the first is more obvious. --tronvillain (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be including non-notable releases on these "list of X games" articles. They are generally navigational articles, not supposed to be a full list of games, as that would be a pretty blatant failure of Wikipedia not being an indefinite collection of information.

WP:REDLINK should come into play with these types of articles. It should be pretty clear what games are notable like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video Poker

Are these "games" really part of our project such as Anything's Wild? I understand they are technically games, and appear on a video console of some sort, but these don't seem to satisfy a lot of our policies. Do we need to reach a consensus for these types of gambling games? I'm mostly confused how some of these fit, but say Slot Machines do not. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A video poker machine seems as much a video game as a computer or console version of poker, but the lack of coverage in reliable sources seems likely to be an issue. That example hasn't had any sources since 2010. How does it still exist? --tronvillain (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It’s not a traditional console or mobile game is that sense, but it still fits into the definition of video game. Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent AfD with these types of articles that had next to zero comments... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack listings

Hi all, can we re-address the 2013/4 policy about not using infoboxes and listing soundtracks from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_106#Soundtrack_listings and not using soundtrack artwork? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_100#Use_of_soundtrack_cover_art

Including art and tracklists for best-selling (e,g., Billboard-charting) soundtracks (e.g., Undertale, Stardew Valley) provides appropriate attribution for notable releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianWolff (talk • contribs)

...Which charts did the Undertale or SV OSTs chart on...? Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple game soundtracks have appeared in Billboard charts, iTunes soundtrack charts, Bandcamp charts. Even for OSTs with limited notability but music that experienced independent traction, does a tracklist+music sub section seem reasonable? SebastianWolff (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They require sourced commentary regardless; what we're trying to avoid is sections of track lists without prose to accompany them. Regardless, this part of the discussion strays into territory more correct for WT:VGMOS as there is an item at WP:VGSCOPE about the topic of discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Art is just about a strict no per WP:NFCC. I'm personally not a fan of the tracklists, but I don't remove them on sight. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks. What would exempt a thorough articles like Music of the Final Fantasy VII series? SebastianWolff (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When we have discussion of the music in the video game article, we already have an image which identifies the article (the cover art or main screen of the game). In cases where that same art is used for the soundtrack, that's a clear violation of multiple NFCC. Where the art is different for the soundtrack(s), we need to defend that use of the art per WP:NFCC#8: there needs to be sourced commentary about the art itself; and WP:NFCC#3, use of non-free art is minimized. Almost never is that the case, so it's correct not to include it. The reason separate articles mostly get a pass is for the "identifying" criterion in the NFCC. @Lee Vilenski: I believe that answers your question? --Izno (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a more real sense, however, even the "music of" articles have historically been restricted to a single image (usually of the OST cover). Over time (years), people add in additional covers, then an NFCC cop comes by and removes them, and repeat. Tracklists are allowed because the article is about the music/albums itself and frequently discusses individual tracks, which is generally not true of music sections within articles about games. --Pres N 14:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the policies regarding soundtracks, but why are they more strict than say a video game release? Surely we already have the information to upload these types of images? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the information, it is that vg soundtrack covers are generally duplicative of the game's artwork already shown in the game's cover, so a second image that shows basically the same thing is unnecessary by NFCC#3. --Masem (t) 13:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the tracklistings, but I think we should never have these on the game's main article. If a soundtrack is so notable, then surely it could stand on its own? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Classic topic box

I like to make these, so just sharing. TarkusAB^talk 02:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

PlayStation Classic

2 articles

Shared across regions

Battle Arena Toshinden

Final Fantasy VII

Intelligent Qube

Metal Gear Solid

Tekken 3

Jumping Flash!

Mr. Driller

R4: Ridge Racer Type 4

Resident Evil: Director's Cut

Revelations: Persona

Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo

Wild Arms

Western exclusives

Cool Boarders 2

Destruction Derby

Grand Theft Auto

Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee

Rayman

Syphon Filter

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six

Twisted Metal

Japanese exclusives

Arc the Lad

Arc the Lad II

Armored Core

G-Darius

Gradius Gaiden

Parasite Eve

Devil Dice

SaGa Frontier

I do plan on tackling Rayman someday, as part of my personal project here on Wikipedia in regards of expanding and reworking games that were released or ported to the Atari Jaguar and other things related to that particular system so, if anybody wants to help me in regards to titles for the Jaguar such as Fight for Life then let me know, as that game has A LOT of history behind it! Roberth Martinez (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting cover arts - update

Thanks again to User:Lee Vilenski for starting the thread for cover art a few weeks ago to reduce the backlog at Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art. A lot of progress has been made so far, but the old thread has gone stale, so here is the list from where that thread left off:

#

A

As per Maplestrip I think we should move these discussions elsewhere. I suggest any items that people struggle with in particular should be updated on Category talk:Video game articles requesting identifying art. I will post an update here to encourage people to upload new arts and diminish the backlog here on a weekly or so basis. I'd suggest that's better than say, updating a list with no information as to why they can't be found. Would that be a good solution for everyone? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable! Interested parties can watchlist the category page. :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Is this the correct identifier for these games:

Usually, we'd do a disambig with the game's release year, which strictly speaking is different (Activision released first in 1986, whereas Software studios released in 1987); however, certain releases of the Activision game was released in 1987, and it doesn't seem particularly unambiguous. Any ideas? Should these simply be:

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the titles Aliens: The Computer Game (Software Studios video game) and Aliens: The Computer Game (Activision video game) are better in this instance because of the mentioned ambiguity. When it comes to video games released nearly simultaneously, I would think using the year to disambiguate is not the right choice, though I can imagine others feel differently. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this as the years are far too close with games of the same franchise, particularly with the fractured releases of the latter game. Otherwise, if years are used, make sure the the hatnotes or disambiguation pages are very clear which is which. --Masem (t) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year-based DABs seem to be appropriate per WP:NCVG. I don't think there's a substantial reason to break the rule here, since the first release years are different. I think hatnotes are sufficient for any ambiguity. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably just move to year. The hat notes and article ledes clear up any ambiguity. --tronvillain (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest issue, is that if this were a person, we'd go as far as to disambiguate all the way down to date of birth. So, both of these being released in different years is enough. I don't see how the developer is the identifier, over the similar publisher, or any other disambig Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start of draft of 1993 congressional hearings

This was suggested earlier this month (see the archives), so I've started a draft for User:Masem/drafts/1993 Congressional hearings on video games, including the links suggested where existing sourcing may be found. Anyone wanting to help here, please go ahead and add. --Masem (t) 15:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting. I was just thinking about this article yesterday. Will try to help out with this. GamerPro64 17:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the title per WP:MOSCAPS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only to comment as working on this: there is potential for a "console wars" article discussing the sega v nintendo rivally. (There is a book by that same name out there that gets into details). --Masem (t) 19:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was thinking of making a console wars article a little while ago. I'll try to start a draft when I finish rewriting Deadpool (video game). JOE BRO 64 19:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you guys know this used to exist, right? Red Phoenix ^talk 16:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After some digging the state of that page was this, which I agree from the AFD that a TNT and redirect was appropriate. I know enough in research the congressional hearings that a fair amount can be written about the Sega v Nintendo console war (again, we have a whole book now on this topic), including lead-up and fall-out, more than just looking at sales numbers. --Masem (t) 16:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expert advice please

I was reviewing Gbksoft, the company that developed Defend Ukraine, a mobile game. I'm not seeing where either article meets notability requirements but before I do anything further, will someone familiar with this topic take a look at Defend Ukraine? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atsme:,

I went over Defend Ukraine and trimmed it a bit. For its notability, I get no results on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. Metacritic hasn't got a single review. Other politically motivated games (Pakistan Army Retribution, Under Ash, Bolsomito 2K18) often are mentioned in reliable sources, here I haven't been able to find any. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the game is notable. A couple Ukranian press releases are ok, but doesn't scream notability. If it went to AfD, I'd nominate Delete.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I thought the same but thought it best to ask the experts. I very much appreciate your input. The user also created a standalone for the company which was a CSD, and I’ve posed a few questions on the creator’s TP. Happy editing! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that Sulfurboy who is a fantastic AfC reviewer accepted this article originally. It's a bit of an odd one, as it does look on first scan that it's a fine article. It takes someone who's familiar with articles such as these to see that a lot of these sources don't really add much as they are mostly WP:ROUTINE, or WP:PRIMARY. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New CD-ROM2 / TurboGrafx-CD page needed.

In my Wikipedia browsing, I've come across many pages about consoles, and in a separate page we can see the add-ons, but when it comes to the TurboGrafx-16 / PC-Engine, it's a complete mess. It's confusing and everything is meshed together, makes it hard to understand at least for me. I was surprised to find that the first CD console is the only one without a proper dedicated page.

In fact, every other console is properly divided;

The APF-MP1000 has the Imagination Machine.
The Intellivision has the ECS.
The ColecoVision has the Coleco Adam.
The Famicom has the Disc System.
The Sega Genesis has the Sega CD and the 32x.
The Super Famicom has the Satellaview.
The Atari Jaguar has the Jaguar CD.
The Nintendo 64 has the N64 DD.

Heck, even the TurboGrafx-16 has a page on the TurboDuo, but the add-on itself doesn't exist.

The Japanese Wikipedia has a dedicated page though, and it looks as an English one should.

In my opinion this new page is needed. Talkkaris (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is dependent on how sources discuss the equipment. If there is enough discussion about the CD games and systems independent of the core platform, then sure, but I feel the Hucard systems and games, along with the CD systems and games, are generally discussed as one PC Engine platform and game library. Personally I'd rather see TurboDuo get merged into TuboGrafx 16. TarkusAB^talk 20:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same opinion as Tarkus but with the Atari Jaguar and the Jaguar CD, as consider them as one platform. Roberth Martinez (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The TurboDuo makes sense, because it's just a hardware revision, but merging the Atari Jaguar with the Jaguar CD doesn't. It's not the same hardware, it's a different media format, and when talking about the games, you don't say it's a Jaguar Game, it's a Jaguar CD game, because the add-on is needed, saying Sonic CD is a Genesis game is incorrect because you're missing the half of the console that makes it work. Same with all of the console add-ons where games made for it can't be played on just the base unit.Talkkaris (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a system accepts a different media format does not make it notable enough for its own page. Rather, there must be enough sources that discuss the device independently of the core console to justify. From a brief glance at the sources in the Jaguar CD article, it looks like only three sources are dedicated articles about the system. That seems to me like it would serve better as a subsection on the main Jaguar article. Now if more sources can be found, then perhaps the page can be kept separate, but I don't have a dog in the fight. If you can find enough sources to support a standalone PC Engine CD article, go for it. TarkusAB^talk 20:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Tarkus. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game mods listing

Hearts of Iron IV includes a section on game mods, all sourced to steamcommunity.com where they are hosted. Some of these seem rather unknown but have enough ardent fans to make sure they stay in the article. Are there any good guidelines on when a game mod should or should not be listed? My thought was that it needs to be sourced from a reliable source and that needs to be independent from the developer. There's a small discussion on the talk page, but beyond myself and the initial questioner, nothing else. Thoughts and assistance would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV in RSes is the usual benchmark for inclusion in the parent article, with a higher level required for a standlone list or article. I don't think independence from the dev matters, as long as there is sigcov in RSes. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ripped out anything without an obvious independent source last night per WP:WEIGHT, which included chunks in other parts of the article. Obviously no objection to reintroduction of various material should the sources exist. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game mods should only really exist like this if they are commented on by publications, no? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, or else they fail WP:N like anything else. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camping (gaming)

I am currently working on a total excision and revision of the article Camping (gaming): you can view what I have at User:Henstepl. I would be happy to place my revised article at that location with your endorsement, feedback, and contributions.

Particular grievances about the article as it is:

too much unsourced information and original research
too many terms named in quotation marks as if defin
existing terms defined too specifically, and too definitively.

I think that I have addressed these while trying to preserve much of the original text. Online RPGs and strategy games are not my forte, so I have left those sections alone; I don't play battle royale either so feedback on that small portion is welcome. Henstepl (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a brief glance, looks like it still needs better sourcing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of additional references there. The one may be useful for sourcing other spots. --tronvillain (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waaaaay too much unsourced material that reads like a wikia article. Even with sources, it doesn’t read like an encyclopedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for input and any modifications on my userpage. I have tried not to add information but rather to move around the information that is already there; still, I have removed much unsourced information and several quotationed terms, yet I do not believe I have a worldly enough knowledge of camping to remove too much. (I added a Template:Examples or two, though.) I primarily gravitate towards HL2DM these days!

I welcome any more modifications to the draft of the page! Stephen Lafleur (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image necessary?

I expanded a bit more The King of Fighters '99 and learned the English versions removed a move in which a character is holding a fireweapon. Would the shot of the original version be necessary? Still, I haven't found an actual image of the Japanese game that has the gun so I don't have the source for that. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a RS discussing the removal, then a fair-use screengrab from the surely-existing LPs of the JP version can probably be justified. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you explained the situation pretty well with text just now, so it doesn’t really seem like we need an image to illustrate the idea for the reader... Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GAN second opinion

I've requested a second opinion at Talk:Azur Lane/GA1. (The summary box above is not capable of showing this.) TarkusAB^talk 12:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape discussion is needed

Hello, please head over to Talk:RuneScape to discuss about the removal of a section. Thanks. Hayholt (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free use images from Double Fine

I thought I posted about this... but perhaps not! I'm in touch with an employee of Double Fine who is interested in providing free use illustrations from the company's games. Instead of defaulting to a plain release of press kit assets for basic illustration in the game articles, I'm thinking about requesting screenshots/footage from specific scenarios to make for the best possible encyclopedic illustrations. Depending on what assets they have readily available, it might be possible for us to capture the clips/shots we would like to use and then request free use releases. So please do share if you have any recommendations for specific scenes/settings/sections to screenshot or record. Open to ideas too! For example, if there are other gameplay concepts or related articles that could use a specific Double Fine illustration, now would be a good time to take stock. Planning to make the request in the next few weeks. czar 13:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fairchild Channel F meaning.

What does the F in Channel F mean? An option could be Fairchild, but in this commercial for JCPenny from 1976, the F might stand for Fun.

To quote the video; Channel F For Fun!

Now, I'm not sure if this interpretation is correct, or if it counts as original research, and I haven't found any sources referencing what the commercial says. I'm also not sure if using this video as a reference is acceptable. What should be done?Talkkaris (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A history of the console by FastCompany says Shortly before launch of its console, Fairchild changed the name of the console from the Video Entertainment System (VES) to the Channel F–short for "Channel Fun." I noticed it mentioned in the External Links at Fairchild Channel F, but that would make a great source for expanding the article itself. Or just citing claims in the "The console" (history) section, which is mostly unreferenced. Woodroar (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense since if the F stood for Fairchild then the console would have been called Fairchild Channel Fairchild.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 300: / Line 300: @@
 Now, I'm not sure if this interpretation is correct, or if it counts as original research, and I haven't found any sources referencing what the commercial says. I'm also not sure if using this video as a reference is acceptable. What should be done?[[User:Talkkaris|Talkkaris]] ([[User talk:Talkkaris|talk]]) 13:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 :A [https://www.fastcompany.com/3040889/the-untold-story-of-the-invention-of-the-game-cartridge history of the console by FastCompany] says {{tq|Shortly before launch of its console, Fairchild changed the name of the console from the Video Entertainment System (VES) to the Channel F–short for "Channel Fun."}} I noticed it mentioned in the External Links at [[Fairchild Channel F]], but that would make a great source for expanding the article itself. Or just citing claims in the "The console" (history) section, which is mostly unreferenced. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 14:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
+::That makes more sense since if the F stood for Fairchild then the console would have been called Fairchild Channel Fairchild.--[[Special:Contributions/67.68.28.220|67.68.28.220]] ([[User talk:67.68.28.220|talk]]) 14:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)