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
Esc0fans (talk | contribs)
71 edits
→‎TerraGenesis: new section
Line 445: Line 445:
There's a [[Talk:Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012 video game)#Requested move 20 July 2020|current move discussion]] to move the articles of [[Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2005 video game)]] and [[Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012 video game)]] to [[Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2005)]] and [[Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012)]] with two users arguing because there's no other media named ''Need for Speed: Most Wanted'' the word video game should be removed for the article title. Any input to the discussion will be appreciated, Thanks. [[User:TheDeviantPro|TheDeviantPro]] ([[User talk:TheDeviantPro|talk]]) 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a [[Talk:Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012 video game)#Requested move 20 July 2020|current move discussion]] to move the articles of [[Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2005 video game)]] and [[Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012 video game)]] to [[Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2005)]] and [[Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012)]] with two users arguing because there's no other media named ''Need for Speed: Most Wanted'' the word video game should be removed for the article title. Any input to the discussion will be appreciated, Thanks. [[User:TheDeviantPro|TheDeviantPro]] ([[User talk:TheDeviantPro|talk]]) 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
::I think the consensus is shaping up to oppose, as it should be. I have also noticed [[Shadow of the Beast]], which should absolutely move to the year disambiguation. 2016 game still gets tons of views, and the original is not overwhelming it in views per day basis, even 4 years later. [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-year&pages=Shadow_of_the_Beast|Shadow_of_the_Beast_(2016_video_game)]. Any opinions on this? [[User:Jovanmilic97|Jovanmilic97]] ([[User talk:Jovanmilic97|talk]]) 08:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
::I think the consensus is shaping up to oppose, as it should be. I have also noticed [[Shadow of the Beast]], which should absolutely move to the year disambiguation. 2016 game still gets tons of views, and the original is not overwhelming it in views per day basis, even 4 years later. [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-year&pages=Shadow_of_the_Beast|Shadow_of_the_Beast_(2016_video_game)]. Any opinions on this? [[User:Jovanmilic97|Jovanmilic97]] ([[User talk:Jovanmilic97|talk]]) 08:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

== TerraGenesis ==

Hi everyone!!! I'm to ask you if I can Create the page about TerraGenesis, a videogame that is in Italian, Japanese and Dutch wikipedias. i don't know about Encyclopedicity in en.wiki. Can You help me? If you give me yes I start to Traslate this page [[it:Utente:Esc0fans/Sandbox0]] (i put the sandbox because the italian page will probably cancelled, and I want to told you because you have an other Encyclopedicity policy. --[[User:Esc0fans|<span style="color:#00B000; font-weight:bold; font-family:Cambria;">Esc0fans</span>]]&nbsp;-[[Discussioni utente:Esc0fans|<span style="color:#A0A000; font-weight:bold; font-family:Cambria;">and my 12 points go to...</span>]] 06:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:37, 22 July 2020

This exploded rather fast since Sunday, but a number of streamers were accused of abuse by several ppl on Sunday, and that's since led to a few others, in particular Chris Avellone as one those accused (to the point he's been taken off Dying Light 2). Probably a good heads up to watch. I've had to add to Chris's page since that meets the necessary threshold (RS + impact on career) so just want to make sure eyes are on it. --Masem (t) 00:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any notable others? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None that I've seen so far but these things tend to build slowly then break quickly. Thanks for the notice. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen posts about Chris Avellone, Angry Joe, some folks at Weta Workshop, and Tom Cassell. Sam Walton (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't sure which of the numerous allegedly shitty YT and Twitch people we actually had articles on. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Twitch is also facing some accusations of "covering up" for these people, both from creators and users, so there may be backlash on that page. Also, this appears to have touched into the comics world, Warren Ellis has gotten some, so just a general heads up to be watchful on these stories. --Masem (t) 16:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Definitely worth covering in the article on Twitch itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Max Temkin. CAH's statement. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our general page on this is Sexism and video games, and I've added a brief section for the twitch-related ones as well as Avellone and Temkin (as named/linked people). I know there's a couple Ubisoft people that were named but we don't have articles on them so I don't think its appropriate to get into those details yet. But there still may be more fallout in next few days. --Masem (t) 00:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An observer is cataloging this round of accusations here. Do NOT cite to this directly; use it to guide your search for references as news sources are also using it to guide their reporting. Remember BLP and use your best judgment. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary article (includes comics and tabletop). Twitch is finally banning people. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in this subject. However, I think a new generation of Wikipedians is going to say that Avellone is sexist, and that the news media lied about it. What's the difference between us and the upcoming new generation? Iias!:postb□xI 03:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add that with Evolution Championship Series getting cancelled over this, we may have problems there so just a couple eyes too... --Masem (t) 02:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And just adding more that Ubisoft has had yet another major shakeup with several big names voluntarily taking leave after a French newspaper reporting on internal problems. [1] --Masem (t) 23:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incentive for GAN reviews

In my humble opinion, we should actively incentivize editors for GAN reviews. It is a lot of work and effort just to review one article and in certain times, most editors get is just a "thank you" if the result is to pass the article. I think we should start handing out Barnstars every time an editor helped review an article, regardless of what the outcome is. And if the VG barnstar isn't enough for that, we can invent a "Thank you for reviewing" Barnstar (don't take the name so seriously). What do you think?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 06:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought this was to get editors to review the (already massive) GAN backlog. Anyway, I don't think I agree with this. There's a lot of really terrible articles that get reviewed really poorly by those that don't really look at the article much. We shouldn't reward this kind of behavior. It's really why I think we need tighter guidelines regarding GAs. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 06:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that there are bad GA reviews out there that just give it a pass without fully reading it. I still think those who do take the time and effort to review the articles and make sure these are quality articles should be rewarded for their efforts. And yes, obviously the goal is to thin out the long list of GANs we have.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's best you guys deal with the current GAN backlog but that's just my opinion... Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do think people who review GAs should be shown more appreciation. As far as strengthening GA criteria, I do not agree with that. The GA process is meant to be a little looser than the FA process explicitly so that people are incentivized to promote them. FAs becoming more difficult to achieve has only made people less interested in them, and I do not think that this is something we should be worrying about too much. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 14:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can agree with that. I'm still waiting for more reviews for Squirm and the whole process is stalled right now. I think that if you can an article out for review you should review someone else's article. Might get things done quicker. GamerPro64 18:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm always silently side-eyeing people when they nominate articles but never review, haha. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "we should tighten the GAN guidelines", by no means do I think they should be like FACs. I'm referring to ideas like "having a max number of articles that can be nominated" or have the process be a Quid pro quo deal where an editor has to review an article after nominating one of their own. There really should be something in place, it's annoying to see the GAN backlog continue to bloat out further and further with no reviewers. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah I agree that nominators should be expected to help out, though "max number" doesn't jive with me as much; for instance, if I worked on 10 articles and brought them to GAN at the same time, but reviewed 12, I think that would be an okay thing to do. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there needs to be a quid pro quo, there's a simpler answer: when I'm reviewing, I prioritize noms by people who have reviews by their name. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you happen to know how Legobot keeps track of how many reviews you've done? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you look in the GAN list, it will say. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: and how do you verify they have reviews on their names? I've reviewed a handleful of articles in the past and no one bats an eye on the very easy to review articles.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 05:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, it's automatically tracked and displayed by people's noms, for example from the GAN page now: Elsinore (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d)) (discuss review) (Reviews: 7) Nomader --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This can be found at WP:GAN#VG. IceWelder [✉] 13:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: My problem is that the moment the GA is complete, there's no real way for you to track it afterwards because the nomination goes away. yes you can click on the "(nom)" link when its nominated, but that works only if you're actively paying attention.
@IceWelder: that doesn't show who is reviewing the article. Regardless of how you want the GA reviews and how we can get more people to promote them. I still 100% believe the way we show appreciation for GA reviews is not enough.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually only linking to what I believed David Fuchs was referring to ("nominator X has previously done Y reviews", based on which they prioritize reviews), as it had not been linked to previously. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue at hand at this time because I really only started doing GANs late last year and have only done one reivew myself (which Legobot is even missing because that was prior to my name change).
My 2 cents would be that review trades are the most effective measure: two editors commit to reviewing an article and get one each of their articles reviewed in return. Pre-emptive QPQs would be more likely to deter people from creating GANs in the first place because reviews are much work and QPQs do not guarantee you a review (in due time) in return. IceWelder [✉] 18:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review trades is a form of QPQ. I just think we're so close to write this off before ever giving it a real chance. Right now Review trades is being done in practice and we have a backlog now, so to say this is the most effective measure is false. When people give GANs, and it passes, the editor gets notified and although they don't get a barnstar, legobot does in a sense congratulate them. This makes sense, that's why we have a backlog. There is a real incentive to nominate, there's not a real incentive to review other than hope someone reviews your article.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm certainly ngl, the reason I stopped reviewing and nominating articles as much is because I felt like people didn't reciprocate in that way. That said, I'm not sure how that could be fixed without making a bigger problem than a backlog. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said this a few times, but I've been willing to help out at GAN. I haven't because I take the standards seriously and I would want to be sure that I'm being firm enough with them, without being a WP:DICK. I don't mind doing the work if someone wants to be my mentor / quality control. I'm willing to bet you'd have more reviewers if we helped train each other. (I'm working on my first good article in a decade and hope to learn a lot from that process.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember it being discussed some time ago at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations of some kind of limit of 2 or 3 articles per nominator before the nominator must fufill a review in order to reduce the backlog but nothing ever came of it. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely be in favor of this. This rule has been instated for both peer reviews and featured content candidates, so I think the same could work here. It would help cut back on the backlog and give others a chance at reviewing each other's pages. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult to instate for the main GAN process but we could always try to implement and enforce a local QPQ system for VG GANs. It could be an extension of the semi-regular review begging threads that show up here. It could look like the existing begging threads except you'd also link to the GAN that you reviewed (doesn't have to be a VG GAN) to signal that your nom is ready to be reviewed. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with requiring a QPQ. For people who might want to make GA but don't think they're qualified to review one, it will discourage people from making GA's in the first place. So, yes, you are solving the problem of the GA backlog being too large, but not in any way that is beneficial to Wikipedia. It will just turn into more of an insulated walled garden of people who specialize in GA's.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that everyone's reviewing VG GANs recently, I just nom'd Beatmania IIDX (video game) for GA status this time and I think I'm gonna receive a review quickly. This is so very fun! ias:postb□x 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this wikiproject is very active in terms of GA reviewer, but until this happen as a bad faith [2] and revertions on just about article's class. Disgusting. 221.157.183.109 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because me failing a poor GA for being far from meeting all the criteria is "disgusting", and as a result I single-handedly killed all interest in this wikiproject. Come on, really? Are you for real? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 13:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its a bit too far reached to think that review killed interest in this sub-project. Namcokid didn't reviewed Rad Racer's article out of malice. I know the Square-Enix project wants to have all of the company's article on the GA level but a little bit of more effort to improve it in a good way, as he suggested in the review process, doesn't hurt in the slightest. And I say this as a fan of the original Rad Racer. Speaking of SE, I want to say that if somebody has the strategy guide for it, expanding Alcahest's article would be cool to see, since it was a HAL Laboratoy-developed RPG published by Squaresoft. Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with ZXCVBNM. When I started out with GAs, I was feeling unsure about even just submitting an article to GAN - if I had been then required to review an article, too, I would probably have held off on doing GA work at all. Reviewing others' nominations should be encouraged, especially when you submit articles to GAN yourself, but absolutely don't make it a requirement imo.--AlexandraIDV 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (June 29 to July 5)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 05:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

June 30

July 1

July 2

July 3

July 4

July 5

Characters in the Mario Kart series seems trivial WP:GAMECRUFT to me. Just x character appearing in x game. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I've redirected MeepCity to Roblox. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Characters in Mario Kart article is a repost of the character table that has been discussed to death and removed from Talk:Mario Kart. I don't think it technically qualifies for speedy delete as a repost... but it should be speedied if we live in a just universe. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does Cat hair mustache puzzle need to be a separate article from Gabriel Knight 3? Cut down the plot from the latter, there's plenty of space, and that's probably the game's most notable facet. Individual levels getting articles makes sense, but individual puzzles really really need a huge amount of justification and I don't see it here. --Masem (t) 13:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, from what I've looked at of the article I think a merge is warranted. It doesn't look like a single reference is solely about the puzzle itself, it's mostly sourced to just "top 10 bad puzzles" listicles. JOEBRO64 14:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There's one listicle in the entire article. In addition to the other sources, it was also specifically called out as being responsible for the death of adventure games. For instance, designer Erik Wolpaw devoted an entire article to it (which I didn't source directly because I was not aware at the time that "Eric" was him). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't agree at all that Gabriel Knight 3 is only notable for this puzzle. It was a game that, despite the image it has now, was well-rated at launch and has numerous articles talking about it without mentioning the mustache puzzle at any point whatsoever. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it meets GNG as a standalone article. It has legendary status among adventure game designers as an example of what not to do (the cross stitch pattern referenced looks like this). Axem Titanium (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be merged. Popcornfud (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The puzzle does probably meet the GNG, but keep in mind the GNG is still a presumption of notability and can be challenged later. Nor meeting the GNG necessitates a standalone article. On the other hand, GK3 isn't going anywhere, the article is not super long, and thus there's plenty of space for a section to talk about the puzzle itself and commentary about it. You supply better context for the puzzle there. That's all I'm saying is that its odd to separate that one facet out for a game. A single level or character usually can be justified but not a puzzle. --Masem (t) 21:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is a level in an adventure game if not an individual puzzle (or set of interconnected puzzles)? Axem Titanium (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta the same thing too. Typically the only element of a game that gets any type of attention outside it tends to be an individual character, things like weapons, levels, puzzles, etc. typically remain confined to the scope of the game and rarely touched upon outside. There are limited exceptions, such as World 1-1 given how much attention that has been given for teaching the basics of how to play the game w/o tutorial messages, and that's the type of stuff we should look for before breaking out any gameplay concept that's not a character out from a game article into a separate article. You can always create a standalone section to talk specifically on the level or aspect that gained more attention in the game's article, and if that creates size issues, we can figure out where to break articles apart to maintain summary style then. --Masem (t) 14:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with that mindset much. I don't think an article's existence should be dependent on whether it can't fit in a parent article. So long as it gets adequate coverage about its existence, that should be enough. Also, it is not as though Gabriel Knight 3's article is a stub, and I doubt it is as fleshed out as it could be, even if the puzzle is independent. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be so evident in the video game area, but there is a general larger resentment that pop culture can get so much coverage and have so many articles compared to any topic pre 1950, particularly in minority areas, that we should be very aware of given excessive attention to small singular aspects of one video game just to do our part to avoid feeding that problem. Absolutely this puzzle surpasses the GNG and a standalone is possible but there is no requirement that a standalone be created on passing the GNG, particularly when talking one facet that only has relative importance to the game itself. I can't make anyone merge it - there is no absolute policy or guideline here I can point to to say to do that, but I really think in the long run it is better suited within the game article. --Masem (t) 20:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2¢: I usually view it as WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NODEADLINE. Yes, there are many many topics Wikipedia hasn't covered while almost all notable pop culture content from Western world from the past decade is covered. But that's not a problem with current content and I do not believe current content should care that other stuff (doesn't) exist. Yes, it's systematic bias, but it's not malicious bias, nor does it make content mutually exclusive. Adding 1 or 100 new video game articles makes no difference to whether another article can be added. I believe any merge/split decisions should be based solely on how much sense it makes for the reader. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this mindset can be extended to video games period, honestly. How often does a video game article get taken the piss out of for being Today's Featured Article? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 6 to July 12)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

July 7

July 8

July 9

July 10

July 11

July 12

This is like the third or fourth time that somebody has decided to recreate the Bullet Bill article. It doesn't meet notability and probably won't ever. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the creator was a sock of Raymondskie99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has this bizarre obsession with constantly recreating articles about non-notable Mario stock characters. The user in particular who created it is globally locked (but not blocked) right now. I think SALTing/protecting them is the best way to prevent recreation. JOEBRO64 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got asked to recreate the same article. Maybe he asked him as well.(Oinkers42) (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Tyldesley

I was wondering whether to tag his talk page with the VG project template, also, the video games section, on his bio feels a real mess, I've done a little bit + one cite. I wanted to find some good citations for the VG projects he has done. Just giving a call out for a little help to help clean it up. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion of where to place information

As there's evidence we're to see a bump of console game pricing with the next console releases, I've been able to find enough sources to document the general trends on console game pricing (broad strokes) as I do feel this is an important part to track the industry, but I'm not sure where the best place to put this would be. My initial gut is at Video game console (which I'm still working to merge up with a few articles as noted above), but it could also go into into Video game industry#Economics or elsewhere. Ideally I'd want to also add discussion of the incorporation of DLC, special editions, season passes, and so on with that to explain the value , and we technically already have that at Video game monetization too. Maybe that article's the better one, but just trying to get opinions of, if you were a reader looking for this, where would you start and how can we get them there. --Masem (t) 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the monetization article is the way to go. The retail box price falls outside of what we generally think of as monetization but it's absolutely a part of it. I think having a description up front about retail game prices would serve as a useful contrast to the other forms of monetization discussed later in the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should note that I did put it there already as it tacks on well to the history of monetization already Video_game_monetization#Historical_pricing_of_games. I'd *like* to see if we can talk more on the costs that go into the pricing on games but that's not as critical now. --Masem (t) 00:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would too. Something about how development costs have ballooned even as the retail price has stayed the same. Maybe AAA (video game industry)? Since that's probably what it would primarily be discussing. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox

Several updates to Roblox recently are tied to a Dubit Limited presentation, a marketing firm specializing on how to market to children. I feel this is an unreliable source to be relying on, looking for other opinions on the talk page. -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about GDC licenses and free images

So I've been looking around for a free image of Yoko Taro to add to his article and have come up empty. I checked all the usual suspects including GDC's Flickr, which has a CC compatible license. I was wondering if anyone knew what the story is on other GDC content. Who owns it, technically? Does GDC own the presentation you give at GDC or do you own it or do you agree to release it under some license when you give your presentation? I ask because I could take a screen cap of Yoko from his GDC talk, which is freely available (also available free on Youtube), and use that. What to do? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is a free license we can use is the GDC photostream at flickr. Stuff from the GDC Vault is stored there but doesn't become GDC property and retains copyrights of the original presenter. That video would be the GDC themselves but as you can see on the Youtube version it lacks any CC markings and knowing that the GDC Vault does have areas that require membership login to access, I am sure they are not giving that away under a free license. Photos, yes (and thank goodness for that).
You can look at those GDC talks and ask yourself if there's a possible non-free that is useful. For example, one of the images on Inside (video game) I took from their GDC talk which describes how they made a specific creature in that game. But that falls under the non-free that you have to use with caution.
Also keep in mind about the use of copyrighted images that may appear in displays and the like in the GDC photostream. Whomever the photographers are they usually do a good job to avoid including too much of game screens/etc beyond de minimus that keep their images free but once in a while they will have too much of a screen in view that we can't use then as a free image directly. --Masem (t) 00:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up finding a different image on GDC's flickr. The background is a bit garish/distracting so I've got a lead on another one as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about gnaw titles

I noticed that we have articles titled Punch-Out!! (arcade game), Super Punch-Out!! (arcade game), and Punch-Out!! (NES), my question is should they be at those titles or we be using the year of release to distinguish the titles? They were all released in different years so there wouldn’t be an issue there.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding Super Punch-Out!!, the article title for the SNES game, should that title be moved as well due to the article for the arcade game of the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.254.92 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCVGDAB, aka "what to put in the (disambiguation) bit for video games if you need one", titles should use no disambiguation if possible, then fall back to (19XX video game), then fall back to systems. So, Punch-Out!! (1983 video game), Super Punch-Out!! (1984 video game), Punch-Out!! (1987 video game), Super Punch-Out!! (1994 video game). Also Punch-Out!! (Wii) should be at (2009 video game). Punch-Out!! is the series page, which is fine, while Super Punch-Out!! should redirect to Punch-Out (disambiguation), as that covers both Super and non-Super titles. --PresN 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please may we have some help with Draft:Simon Belmont ?

It is at WP:AFC and has been reviewed as not yet appropriate. The creating editor (Oinkers42) could do with some additional advice. Video games are not an area I am used to reviewing Fiddle Faddle 19:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Identity for Mortal Kombat characters

Discussion moved from my talk page:

Hey there, Tintor. Thank you for the links and keeping in touch with me despite my ignorance in replying in a timely manner. I might add the picture of Boon into the Ermac article sometime in the future. Liu Kang's looking good, and I want to try to get Johnny Cage into GA nom territory soon after putting it off for more than a year.

While I'm here, I would like your opinion on a couple things. During the GA process for Ermac, Freikorp advised I restrict the infobox to game-only appearances. I wholly agree with that because otherwise boxes just get way too cluttered, plus they were game characters first and every alternate appearance doesn't need to be listed; that's the purpose of the article itself. I've been removing non-game voice actors but keeping/re-adding live portrayals (movies, TV), as that seems to be the unwritten consensus nowadays. Second, I've had issues with user PizzaTime04 reverting my MK edits without explanation (i.e., my removing an unneeded quote and content from Sheeva's article that I myself had added years ago, and him instantly reverting it) and repeatedly inserting content such as Clancy Brown voicing Ermac in DotR (no source proves this) and Ed Boon co-creating Quan Chi (not true). He hasn't edited anything MK over the past few days, either to take a break or to avoid 3RR, but the nonsense will inevitably start again. This leads to one last thing: in Noob Saibot's infobox, he keeps adding Sub-Zero from MK1 as the character's first appearance, which is both false and in-universe as his official debut was in MKII. I'll go ahead and ping @Freikorp: because I value his input as much as yours. Cheers and sorry for the lengthy ramble. :) sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: The whole SubZero's identity is a bit confusing to handle. It's like writing an article like heroes like Grayson who is the first Robin and then becomes Nightwing. Maybe we could ask the project for help.Tintor2 (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a second there I thought you were issuing WP:VG a warning, Beemer69! :D soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Tintor2. For readability, I removed the 'July 2020' section heading, if that's okay. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ninth Generation" heads up

Microsoft has announced that the Xbox One X and the S All Digital Edition are discontinued. The Xbox One S still in production. These are NOT signs we take as the end of eighth gen or start of ninth but you know non-regulars will jump on this. So heads up on the usual articles on this stuff. --Masem (t) 19:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also heard speculation that this supports the existence of the rumoured Lockhart so we may need to keep an eye on that as well.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of League of Legends champions

(heads up DRV) An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of League of Legends champions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls disambig

Hi everyone, I stumbled upon The Elder Scrolls (disambiguation), created in February this year by Werldwayd. With main article The Elder Scrolls and List of The Elder Scrolls video games, is an additional disambiguation page necessary? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a brief version of the series article. We don't need it. IceWelder [✉] 09:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we do need the disambiguation. List of The Elder Scrolls video games is so long, it is a distractor and the disambiguation becomes a real time saver. This way you don't need to read the whole article to have a listing. Take it like the "list" is a full book, the disambiguation is a summary. Let's try one. You are searching for the one to do with "Oblivion". In the listing, you go up and down the loooooooong page to find it. In the disambiguation: one second and it's there. I think both should stay. werldwayd (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided at this point, but in the meantime I did make it chronological with piped links for downloadable content / expansions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If size is the only issue, the games list article should be fixed/altered. The disambiguation page is just duplicated content tailored to specific needs (and the same timeline is already present under The Elder Scrolls#Development history). There is also no real disambiguation here, as we have only one full title match in the entire project. IceWelder [✉] 14:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward it's fine to leave as is with the (disambiguation) tag. It's not unfairly occupying the main undabbed slot so it's hard to get up in arms about it. Sometimes it's useful for navigation to just have a basic-ass list of articles you might want to get to in one place. See also Super Mario Bros. (disambiguation), Street Fighter (disambiguation), etc. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I aligned the TES dab to be more dab-like, without unnecessary timeline fluff, as when compared to Axem's examples. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet/troll alert

User:Mariyaismail appears to be a new user who is making deletion discussions about obviously notable pages with little rationale, including video games, any admins able to assist in reversing this disruptive editing?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my nomination, It was not a trollMariyaismail (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for withdrawing, but stop removing other people’s comments. You are not allowed to do this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OkayMariyaismail (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve issued a final warning on edit warring and bad deletion noms. I don’t know anything about potential socking so I can’t do much there. May or may not be around to do anything else for the rest of the day, but any admin would be in the right to issue a block if there’s any more issues. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as sockpuppet. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

magazine source

Hi guys, has anyone got a copy of video games magazine from 9/2000? Looking to source the only review I could find for Jimmy White's 2: Cueball, but the link I have is dead. Any help would be appreciated Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, the site has switched to TLS/HTTPS. Changing the protocol fixes the link: [3]. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Whatlinkshere functionality to find sources in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library. Because of covid, I do not have access to my sources, but they're mostly online now anyway. - hahnchen 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milestones

Why are milestones removed from WikiProject page when they are reached? I think it's always better to have them visible. There are multiple reasons, such as a better understanding of WikiProject progression, as well as the planning of future actions. EchoBlu (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Mini coming today

Just thought I'd put this notice here. Also, in case the 3D Mario remasters are announced in it, I've already started a draft at Draft:Untitled Super Mario collection (so no need to start a separate article, just flesh out the one that's existing). JOEBRO64 11:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They've said it is only partner games and only updates to games previously announced, so its like only 10 minutes long. Not expecting anything big from it. --Masem (t) 13:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characters tables

@Srwseki: Are tables like this really necessary for video game characters. I fear it's quite undue weight.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its iffy. For the Super Smash Series, a similar table is at Characters in the Super Smash Bros. series but as nearly all of the games' characters are notable ones on their own (standalone, with the # of standalone outweighing those that aren't) and the amount of attention the game series has gotten, this is reasonably justified and easily sourced to third-parties to show that this type of list is significant. KoF, outside of a few titles, draws far less attention and few of its characters are notable on their own, and as such, I think that table is overkill, particularly its "sparseness". It is better to list out on each character what games they appear in. --Masem (t) 15:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it. List of The King of Fighters characters is in dire need of some good trimming and will need sources that aren't in-universe as it is. A whopping 37K on a huge table is WP:GAMECRUFT and adds nothing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related, but character lists tables for fighting games seems to be some grandfathered clause we kept for them. Personally, I think we should enforce consistency and remove them from the most articles (with the exceptions being ones like the Smash Bros example). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 13 to July 19)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

July 14

July 15

July 16

July 17

July 18

July 19

Looks like someone went through a bunch of technical computer graphics articles this week and tagged them for this project... --PresN 03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to it. These are terms that I constantly see thrown around these days when discussing PC gaming and new consoles. A lot of people (me included) heard about or saw in the settings of games things like ambient occlusion, ray tracing, chromatic aberration, supersampling, with no idea of what they meant other than "fancy graphics". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the need to have a separate article on the unreleased HL games - the current series article is not suffering any size issues. Same with D2: Beyond Light (though if that ends up getting standalone reviews when it actually comes out, that'll be different). List of BR games can easily fit into the current BR genre article. We need to think a bit more comprehensively here, we don't require separate articles for every "concept". --Masem (t) 04:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, another editor has already expressed concern about the HL page, so you could add to that discussion on the talk page at that article if you want. Popcornfud (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: All of Destiny and Destiny 2's major expansions have received standalone reviews, this one should be no different, especially with the major changes it's bringing to the game (and actually, the two smaller ones for each game have also received reviews, so literally every release for the franchise has received standalone reviews). I should say, however, that the last couple need updated to include said reviews (although other editors could have added them, I personally have slacked off on maintaining them as my focus had shifted elsewhere, but I'm going to be doing some cleaning up to all of them hopefully soon). The annual major expansions for the Destiny franchise are also basically treated as if they were an actual game release. --JDC808 ♫ 07:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a similar concern about List of League of Legends comics. --Izno (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same. It's referenced by announcements, not actually about the comics. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prisencolin doesn't seem to understand the difference between WP:V and WP:N. I'd also bring up Draft:League of Legends lore as something that isn't fit for Wikipedia, as it suffers from many of the same issues and would be considered WP:GAMECRUFT on its main article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:League of Legends lore is a split/refactored version of Runeterra, which was closed as a redirect at AFD, and I believe he understands that situation. We've made quite a bit of progress in cleaning up and making some updates to the parent article since then, though there's more to be done. -- ferret (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2005 and 2012 article move

There's a current move discussion to move the articles of Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2005 video game) and Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012 video game) to Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2005) and Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012) with two users arguing because there's no other media named Need for Speed: Most Wanted the word video game should be removed for the article title. Any input to the discussion will be appreciated, Thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is shaping up to oppose, as it should be. I have also noticed Shadow of the Beast, which should absolutely move to the year disambiguation. 2016 game still gets tons of views, and the original is not overwhelming it in views per day basis, even 4 years later. [4]. Any opinions on this? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TerraGenesis

Hi everyone!!! I'm to ask you if I can Create the page about TerraGenesis, a videogame that is in Italian, Japanese and Dutch wikipedias. i don't know about Encyclopedicity in en.wiki. Can You help me? If you give me yes I start to Traslate this page it:Utente:Esc0fans/Sandbox0 (i put the sandbox because the italian page will probably cancelled, and I want to told you because you have an other Encyclopedicity policy. --Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 06:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=968902992"