Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.34.94.83 (talk) at 14:15, 25 May 2013 (→‎Years in Video Gaming). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Xbox (series)

About a week ago, User:Archcaster wrote over a redirect at Xbox (series). It appears that significant chunks of the text at that article (At least the sections about the individual consoles, the dashboard, Xbox Live Marketplace and Smartglass section) were copied directly from the leads of various Xbox related articles. The article probably qualifies for a A10 speedy deletion with so much copied content, but the article may have some potential use so I'm letting this Wikiproject know about it before anything else is done. --Michael Greiner 23:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on whether the series article for a console makes sense or not, but copying between articles is "okay" within WP (that's why we have open licenses). However, if that text is kept, the talk page needs to document the copying with the {{copied}} template to allow others to follow attribution of content. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note there is a request to move Xbox (series) to Xbox. So far no one has commented so some input would be useful.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it hasn't been labelled correctly - X201 (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have closed existing move (incorrectly formatted multi-move) and opened a new one, see below. - X201 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know text can be used in multiple articles, but when (roughly) more than two thirds of the article is copied content that leads to questions on whether the article adds anything. I created a version of the article without the copied text in a sandbox, User:Michael Greiner/sandbox 2. --Michael Greiner 01:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

There is a proposal to move Xbox (series) to Xbox and Xbox to Xbox (console) to bring it in line with the WP:VG naming guidelines, this is the existing format that is used on the PlayStation articles. - X201 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update everyone, the above move has been completed. - X201 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 problems with game categories

  1. A plenty of "XX-only games" are doubling in the parent category "XX games" (for example, entries in "Wii-only games" are in "Wii games" too, like if it was not totally obvious). And I talk about hundreds, if not thousands of titles. Parent cat entries all need to be deleted, maybe by some bot or whatever.
  1. All Nintendo platforms exclusively having their subcategories for every genre, like "Wii role-playing games". No other platforms are having a special treatment like that, so I propse that all of it need to be deleted too (downmerged to their parent categories, like all "Wii role-playing games" down to "Role-playing video games"). Oh, and they're often also doubling the parent cats for their platforms too (like here, "Wii games" effectively spammed a second time in a multiplatform game).

--Niemti (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate the "-only" categories for deletion, thats a ridiculous category, it's either in a console category or it's not. Same with the console specific genre categories. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only for consoles, for computers too (like Windows-only or Amiga-only Apple II-only, there are no Amiga-only games accoring to Wikipedia, huh). And actually it makes sense to have them, as we have (for example) List of Wii games, but no List of Wii-only games. --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made a similarly intentioned proposal last month: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_98#Category:Single-platform_video_games, which didn't get too much discussion. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Virtal Console and such releases should be ignored with counting exclusives. --Niemti (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I complained about system-only categories in 2007, I stated how they were an obvious hack because we have a shitty categorisation system instead of a query-able tag based one. I made a similar comment in 2013 after the New York Times spotted that our categories were shit too. 6 years later, and all we have is WikiLove.
The idea behind doubling up of games in their system and system-exclusive categories, is that a user should be able to see every game at a glance in the main system category, and every system-exclusive at a glance in the exclusives category. - hahnchen 22:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I couldn't agree more with Niemti's second point. "Foo-platform qux-genre video games" is too much; stick with "Foo-platform video game" (with or without the foo-only.) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hahnchen hit the nail on the head with the reason that games double up on the console and console only its to do with WP:DUPCAT. Because the "only" categories exist then they have to appear in the parent category so that we fulfil DUPCAT.

My own view of the subject is that we need a BIG discussion, akin to The Great Infobox Overhaul of 2010, we need to really fix the categorization problems of re-releases of ancient titles on new platforms, the categorization of PSN/XBL/VC titles and the old chesnut of is PSN/XBLA a platform or a delivery system? The "Only" categories, and loads of other things that keep popping up on this page but never quite get put to bed in a definitive manner. - X201 (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely argue that "-only" classification should only apply to games starting on the 6th Gen cycle (Xbox, PS2, GC) where multi-port versions were actually a common occurance and console exclusives became more apparent. Saying "Amiga-only" is silly as 99% of the games for such systems were exclusive. Maybe theres something to be said at the N64/Genesis aspect, but I would think that we should set what are consoles that specifically get "-only" categories based on the general exclusivity of their library. As for remakes, they should not be calculated in these categories. And by remakes, I'm talking those that jump at least one generation. So Ico, as an exactly, should be considered for all purposes "PS2-only", despite the remake to HD for PS3; at the time of its release, it was a PS2 exclusive. Okami on the other hand may have started "PS2-only" but with the Wii version in the same generation, that wouldn't apply. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we would need a PS2-only category for ICO though, why wouldn't the article being solely tagged with PS2 Games suffice? Plus wasn't ICO re-released in a HD collection or something or was that on PS2 as well?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its for game that were exclusives to a platform. Them being an exclusive is a point that differs them from other games. The question is if that difference warrants its own category. The naming of the "only" category doesn't help explain its reason for existing. - X201 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually very few Amiga games were Amiga exclusives and then stayed this way (out of top of my head I can think of only F/A-18 Interceptor and several a few Team 17 games), or at least until Commodore went out of business in 1993 (after which it was mostly German and Polish Amiga enthusiasts making Amiga games, that were most often not even released internationally). Before that, most Amiga games were also on the PC and/or Atari ST, and actually there were very many ports from the arcades and 16-bit consoles, and before that there were usually 8-bit computer versions too (most often C64 and even ZX Spectrum). Look, Amiga games - try to find your "99%" there. --Niemti (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hahnchen is correct. When a user clicks on "Category:GameCube games", she expects to see every single GameCube game, including GameCube exclusives. When a user clicks on "Category:GameCube-only games", he expects to see every single GameCube-only game. The only way to represent that functionality with the current MediaWiki software is to have stupid, seemingly redundant category tagging. Hypothetically, it we had a more intelligent category system, you would be able to tag an article as "Category:GameCube games" and "Category:Console exclusive games" and then look at the cross-section of articles that exist in both categories simultaneously to find the construct of "GameCube-exclusive games". This is actually possible using WP:CATSCAN but that's not a supported MediaWiki feature, so we can't design to it. We should definitely come to a consensus about re-releases counting for "Foo-only" categories or not though. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When one "expects to see every single GameCube game", they should rather go to List of Nintendo GameCube games. --Niemti (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that logic is that List of Nintendo GameCube games is not linked at the bottom of every GameCube game article (no, don't go do this right now). What is linked at the bottom of every GameCube game article is Category:GameCube games. A random reader won't know that "List of Nintendo GameCube games" even exists to go look for it. That's why certain lists are duplicated by categories (a fact I was extremely confused by when I first started editing seven years ago and you'll find quite a few AFDs to that effect in my edit history). Axem Titanium (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for GameCube games brings List of Nintendo GameCube games (and as #1), the category isn't even showing up on the first page and is only for Wikipedia classfication in this case. However, GameCube-only games will bring you the category (and as #1 too). OK? --Niemti (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your point? Is being Google-savvy a requirement of reading Wikipedia now? I'm not disagreeing with you that it's shitty to have this stupid redundancy. However, this is a fault of our shitty category system and WT:VG is not the venue to be discussing a change for that. There's no tractable solution that we can implement here. OTOH, we should make a decision about the within-generation exclusivity issue, which seems to be leaning toward restricting the definition of exclusivity to that generation. This might have the side effect of reducing/removing that redundancy because it requires renaming "Category:GameCube-only games" to something like "Category:GameCube exclusive games" or best proposed alternative. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that " A random reader" will simply first use a search engine before specifically going to Wikipedia and search there. And yes, the generation exclusives would be better. --Niemti (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GTA infobox

Hey everybody,

I have some problems with the GTA infobox. Rather I bring it to you kind gentle folks, instead of editing first and going into an almost immediate tug of war. Let's get to it then. Right now, it looks like this:

The subsections for 'video games' seem off to me. The two orignal games are listed as '2D'. A top-down perspective is of course 2D, but I think many a gamer and surely an average person thinks of 2D as a side-scroller platformer and/or shooter. Ya know, Duke Nukem blasting aliens, not running Hare Krisnhas over with a tank. After the transition into 3D games the infobox makes a distinction between the previous generation and the current, into 3D and HD. To me that sounds HD isn't 3D, when they of course are both. That brings up another problem, because I think it is safe to assume that every GTA title from now 'till the end of time will be in high-definition. Or ultra HD. Or megaultra HD. Or... That's why I suggest we change 2D, 3D and the current roster of HD into their respective generations of consoles, sixth, seventh, and eigth. Even if a hardcore PC gamer objects that GTA through IV also came out on PC, it still makes sense graphics and game-size wise, also with the future in mind.

Now you! --Soetermans. T / C 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, it's a navbox, not an infobox. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the term "2D" is synonymous with sidescrollers and 2.5D shooters is ridiculous, there are hundreds of other well known 2D games from other perspectives. Anyway those subsections come from official sources: Rockstargames.com Q&A and Game Informer's GTA V cover story. --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had no experience with the GTA series, but this navbox looks a right mess. Categorization run amok. I think the games should be listed by decade/year released, not by console generation or how many dimensions its gameplay features. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basing myself on the general system used in the parent series articles, this is the most logical organization I come up with. Please improve and discuss as needed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Salvidrim/Template:GTANavBox

I would rename "Handheld-only" to "Handheld" since both Stories games are on PS2. --Mika1h (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I didn't know that. The issue is that some main series games are also on handhelds (GBC, I think?). Any suggestions? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's looks fine now. Handheld section should list only games that were designed from the start as handheld games (as it does currently). Other solution would be to rename it to "Spinoff games" but I think "Handheld games" is better. --Mika1h (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I too am rather uneasy with the term spinoff in regards to these games. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the use of "handheld games" in the template per Mika1h's reasoning. It's a clear and positive solution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another vote for handheld. Spinoff conjures up images of Tommy Vercitti: The High School Years. - X201 (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Speed needs to be merged, other characters need work. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce logos

The Sega and Nintendo logos are listed on Commons as PD. Would we be able to use them as the logos for the task forces? The current Sega icon is a bronze blob. czar · · 03:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, commons images can be used for that purpose. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For Nintendo I think File:Micrologo Nintendo.svg is more suited to a logo format. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks czar; I just updated Nintendo's one. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed as PD in terms of copyright, but is it not still protected by trademark? Placing someone else's trademark on your own work is a violation of the law (see: Lanham Act). Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The logos are protected by trademark but that's not a concern of ours here. These tasks forces are not selling a product nor trying to confuse consumers. Within the Foundation's projects including en.wiki, we don't worry ourselves with trademark protection as long as its being used towards the educational purpose and obviously not to slander the branding. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I wouldn't mind the Sega Task Force using it. I'm a little surprised they even are considered free of copyright, but I'm not one to argue that. I've been working on redesigning the Sega Task Force pages and such, to essentially "reboot" the project, so I'll incorporate it into my test designs. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a concept called "Threshold of Originality" and while it varies and is a very grey line, there's obvious cases. Basically, images that are simple combinations of simple shapes and text (as sega and N's are) are considered too simple to merit copyright and by that nature, fall into the public domain. (They, however, can still be trademarked images but that doesn't copyright). --MASEM (t) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Year x in video gaming

I've noticed that since the 2009 in video gaming article, the (Year x) in video gaming articles have drifted from listing worldwide release dates to moving to a North American date list instead. I can't help but think that the articles fail the likes of WP:WORLDVIEW. There's no problem with having a list of North American release dates, but it should be named as such, and not presented as a definite version of world video games in that particular year. I've tagged the 2013 article with a Globalize tag, but I think its going to need more than that. - X201 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Japanese people have their own Japan's Wikipedia, they don't need to visit U.S. Wikipedia.--Nudervise (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except this isn't the "U.S. Wikipedia", this is the English Wikipedia (lots of countries speak English, not just the USA), and the language that an encyclopedia is written in has little to do with which country's release date is preferred for video games. I personally believe the date in which the game is first released, in whatever country, should be listed. Satellizer el Bridget ツ 11:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nudervise may have unintentionally hit the problem on the head. Looking at the article history, there are a hell of a lot of IP users creating that article (nothing wrong in that) but it can suggest that they may be people who are not as aware of WP policies and guidelines as other editors. I think we're all guilty of leaving old coolinggibbon alone as the only WPVG member actively editing that article. So how do we move forward? Its going to take a fair bit of work to check all the date and enforce a world view on the article, or do we take the easy root and rename it to 2013 in North American videogaming? - X201 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with taking the easy way out here. To make the best articles on these annual subjects, I think that we need to get back onto listing worldwide release dates. After all, we are an encyclopedia for the world here at Wikipedia and not just one region. Furthermore, if we take the easy way out, we're just going to end up deleting or merging it later and we'll have to do all the work again when it makes more sense to do the global dates, especially as Wikipedia gains a more quality and less quantity of articles focus. We'll want to save ourselves the work later. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this problem occurred to me quite a while back when I found out only the North American release dates were being listed, but since the article(s) was/were so far along, I figured it was some sort of policy change I wasn't aware of. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it happened at some point in 2010. Someone added a line saying that the dates should be North American, and that has been copied the last couple of years. - X201 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LoZ chronology

Speaking of Zelda, what do you guys think of this template?

{{The Legend of Zelda chronology}}

It seems too gamecrufty to me, to make one hell of an eyesore just to show how complicated the whole LoZ timeline is. --Soetermans. T / C 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely delete. I came across that just recently but forgot to do anything about it. It's poorly formatted and WP:GAMECRUFT, not to mention redundant to the general LOZ template which lists them in the out-of-universe preferred method. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its really really bad, and I have no idea what it is even about...and I played these games. Child Era? Adult era? It's way too in universe, way too big, has no explanation of what it means, it's poorly structured and looks dreadful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it's been nicked from the dedicated Zelda Wiki. Yes, delete. I've had my worries about it from the moment I saw it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full chronology isnt important as others make it out to be. Its important to show the template through release so it can be easier to navigate.Lucia Black (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God of War: Betrayal FAC

It's been up for almost a week now and no comments/reviews. If anyone has some spare time and could take a look, that would be appreciated. --JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been two weeks now and no comments/reviews. I've commented/reviewed the other two video games that are up for FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 05:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free, open-source video games

Please see proposal for a merger and multiple renamings at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 13#Category:Free, open-source video games. – Fayenatic London 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 - course listing

Posed this same question on that articles talk page also, but figured I'd give it a try here to. This list is quite confusing. It lists courses that are not in the PC version, so would it be possible to have say "course (console only)" "course (PC only)", or something like that so that it makes it easier to determine which platform has what courses? Or it is, like the list of golfers, listcruft? 65.24.41.31 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of golfers and courses falls foul of our guideline on lists of game items. Its just that we've never tackled the worst offenders, sports articles, I think they're the elephant in the WP:VG room, that we've never really tackled because inside we all know it would be a monumental battle across hundreds of articles. I know how tough it is from just looking after a couple of the F1 articles; driver and track lists are constantly re-added, and reverted, and re-added. I'm not criticising anyone for not tackling it (I've been here years and I am just as guilty) because it will be a pain of a job for the rest of Wikipedia's life. But leaving it untackled puts the "No item lists..." guideline into the position of having a silent "(except if you're a sports article)" on the end of it, and so compromises it. - X201 (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If our guidelines say that lists are prohibited, then our guidelines are wrong. The golfers featured may be trivial, but the courses aren't. That's the entirety of the game, there is no better way to describe the gameplay than to list the courses on offer. The reason you don't need them for F1 games, is that they're usually released by season, so linking to the season is a lot easier. Not so for other sports. London 2012 (video game) definitely requires the events list in order to be comprehensive, I argued that Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (an FA) required them too - but they seem to have gone for a compromise events-classification approach. If its a simulation, we should list what is simulated - even if that list is long. - hahnchen 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with hahnchen here. There are definite instances where lists of characters or settings are integral to the article. Such would be the case with Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, which has been touted as one of the biggest collections of Marvel characters in one game. I'd also agree that when a game revolves around a seasonal sport that readers can simply be directed to the actual sport season, and any exceptions listed in the game article. But as golf *might* be unique in that respect as to who plays and where, I see that as an acceptable exception -- as long as it's handled efficiently, unlike articles like FIFA 13. I would recommend both the course and player list make use of horizontal space, which is both more efficient and aesthetically pleasing. Footnotes can be used to list exceptions (like "not on Wii", etc). See Forza Motorsport 4 for an example. Also, per MOS:FLAG#Inappropriate_use we don't use the flag icons to list nationalities or locations. If there is a strong reason for doing so it should be attempted in prose before icons. For example "The game includes [x number] of courses in North America; [y number] in the United States and [z number] in Canada." Prose is preferred 99% of the time, which is why lists are sometimes discouraged. --Teancum (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're not prohibited if the lists are actually discussed in reliable sources (at least, the bulk of the items); game "cruft" lists are only a problem if they're just being pulled entirely from primary sources without any comment. Even if it is just a simulation, it is not always necessary to list everything that's simulated if no one else discusses that. So the lists in Tiger 08 would only be appropriate if either the included golfers or courses were talked about as part of the game's pre-release or post-release reception. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we needed reliable secondary sources to source all in-game material, then we'd be stripping out the plot from most of our articles. - hahnchen 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I said. There is general recognition that as works of fiction, VGs should discuss their plot which 99% of the time will only be sourced to the work itself. That's fine - that's a global expectation for WP. But every VG project editor knows that most video games can be distilled further to discuss all the various mechanics, weapons, enemies, in the game, and we have specifically opted to consider this beyond the usual scope of a general encyclopedic given that a combination of guide books, GameFAQS, and wikias do the job much better than we can. Thus we have opted to not include these lists on a general principle unless they are a matter of discussion from other sources. It is a problem unique to video games and thus we have opted to take this route. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an editorial decision that a plot synopsis is a requirement for comprehensiveness for articles on fiction, I understand. And we should make an editorial decision in the VG space that these lists are a prerequisite too. We're not producing game guides, telling readers how things should be done, we're detailing what the subject actually is. Currently, we see this stuff swept away as gamecruft, yet we maintain a bulging corpus of nn-character articles with snippets from previews, lists and reviews as justification. When there is real world relevance to the list entries, such as the tracks of Gran Turismo 5 as opposed to the tracks of Mario Kart 7, we should list them. If List of songs in Guitar Hero II and List of songs in DJ Hero can attain featured status, other lists can too. - hahnchen 14:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to condense it to something more definable, I'd say that when the feature is dictated by the real world, and not defined arbitrarily by the game developer, we should allow for their listing. Or at least not blanket ban them. So the list of planes in Microsoft Flight Simulator X, yes; the list of planes in Plane Crazy, no. - hahnchen 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that would mean, say, in games like Gran Turismo or Forza we'd list out every car because they're all real world cars in those. The use of looking to see if secondary sources go into detail on the list of X in a game is a good baseline, but with sufficient wiggle room. The reason the list of songs in GH got featured is that there were secondary sources that talked about the soundtrack specifically, thus the listing makes sense. But if there's, for example, a racing game that offers hundreds of cars but no reviewer or jounralist really gets into detail on the specifics of that list, then its not our place to describe it. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the DJ Hero and GH setlists, the sources are similar to what you would find for a Forza. They cover those tracks the way a typical review would cover the tracks in Forza 4. A quick google for forza 4 car review found articles such as this from Popular Mechanics. I think we should cover this, and I think the reason that the GH lists exist, is that we've also had an unwritten WP wide exemption for music (because it's real world relevant enough), and that those lists have been done well (credit to the author:)). - hahnchen 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources for the cars or tracks in racing games as described (and more than just naming dropping a specific example, but a serious attempt to list some of them out) then a list is reasonable. But this factor can be applied whether the list is based on real world simulations in a game or fictional ones. I wouldn't give any more weight to a list of "real world things", but I would say that the more real-world is based, the more likely sources could be found to justify the list. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StrategyWiki (again)

Hi guys,

I just recently saw the StrategyWiki template on the article on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. To me a EL to a gameguide seems like a huge WP:ELNO, but it was reverted later by another user, claiming that it is "An acceptable EL found in many Wiki articles" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS much? Strange enough that in all my editing of VG articles this is the first time I actually came across it.

I'm not sure why we should have those kind of links for VG articles. Actually, I'm completely against them, for a couple of reasons. 1) just as Wikipedia isn't a gameguide, we don't have to point out that there are websites like that 2) There are of course thousands of gameguide websites, the fact that we specifically point to one website is unfair 3) like all wikis it is user generated, and can't be tested 4) a Wiki dedicated to a certain series or franchise usually encompasses it as a whole (creators, characters, etc). Compare the StrategyWiki entry and the Wikia for SSMB.

I hope we can come to a definitive consensus, because what I understand from a quick glance through the archives, is that there never was a general consensus.

--Soetermans. T / C 10:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think you're right about WP:ELNO. Strategy Wiki is a fine website, but it's a user-generated wiki and there's no obvious special circumstances here. There would have to be a (pre-existing) local consensus that the link met WP:ELYES #3 or WP:ELMAYBE #4 to avoid WP:ELNO.
However I'll note that I'm usually more tolerant of external links like this on VG articles. Obvious spam and advertising material should be removed with extreme prejudice but links to wikis on the topic of the article often help deflect trivial and non-encyclopedic contributions by editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules. If these new editors are aware of an entire wiki devoted to their favorite topic then hopefully they'll join that and leave Wikipedia to cover the topic broadly.
The rationale behind the parts of WP:ELNO that would exclude links to fan-made wikis rests on a concern over the likelihood that those kinds of external links will subject Wikipedia readers to misinformation and confusion. Whereas this is a very valid concern for things like BLPs and controversial topics (e.g. scientific topics where fringe topic advocates are interested parties) for video games it is usually less of a concern.
So I'd say that you are technically right that the link to Strategy Wiki should be removed according to the guidelines. But I'm not sure it's worth going after and rooting out. In the grand scheme of things it's pretty much a neutral addition to articles in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Well, it's been four days and only Thibbs replied... So I guess I'll just leave it for now.--Soetermans. T / C 09:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaks in infobox

Should or shouldn't we add breaks in the infobox? I prefer listing platforms like so:

and not

However, I've noticed that some users go for the first, others for the latter. Consensus time!

--Soetermans. T / C 10:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think its partly because of the dodgy formatting that can arise from using normal spaces instead of non-breaking ones. You get some odd lines starting with 3 and 360. - X201 (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly mind which is used, but if it's to be a choice.... The former method. It helps keep the infobox size in check. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you do the first method, make sure to make it like Xbox 360 or {{nowrap|Xbox 360}} to avoid that odd cut. --PresN 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a platform template that does the nbsp between console terms and includes auto alpha sorting. The only question is how often there are variances in the platform list (That it, if something is on Microsoft Windows, do we ever need additional clarity?) --MASEM (t) 15:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is unnecessary. {{Infobox video game}} already incorporates {{Nowraplinks}} for the platform field. I actually don't like this that much - because Super Nintendo Entertainment System games can extend the infobox quite a bit. Which leads me to prefer using the shortened Super Nintendo instead, but our infobox documentation prefers using full names. - hahnchen 20:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Years in Video Gaming

First of all, I honestly can't edit and don't think I'm qualified that is why I bring this concern to this talk page. There are numerous errors in each "year in video gaming" article in terms of video game releases. Some notable releases are excluded and some dates of each video game released are wrong. This can be easily corrected with the right tools and proper editorial discretion (which I don't have, but I can help). These can be helpful with regards to seventh generation console games.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/xbox360/date?hardware=all&view=detailed&page=22 http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/ps3/date?hardware=all&view=detailed&page=21 http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/wii/date?view=condensed&page=9

Others reliable resources are video game websites such as the ones listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_journalism

I believe the "years in video gaming" can be improved and be listed as good articles. Robert Latik (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ties in with the discussion I started above, about the North American bias that current plagues these articles as well. - X201 (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will anyone be working on these? 112.209.145.176 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like the Year articles are high maintenance articles, they get a hell of a lot of edits and require a lot of editing time. They're not like other articles, on the Years articles you have to go and find the information and check that the earliest release date is shown, which involves trips to various websites to find the release date for each region. Even if a date is added with references it still needs checking as it may not be the correct earliest date.
Keeping an article like that in check is a full time job, it really needs multiple people to control it.
The article format also needs changing so that it has all release dates; EU, JP and NA.
In general, I don't think people are too bothered about them, as articles like this almost always end up with one person shouldering the workload. - X201 (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know if there are people "watching" such articles? Has anybody seen this post on the talk page in order for them to make a few changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.176.230 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are less than 30 users watching the 2013 article (Toolserver won't display counts below 30). For comparison purposes; GTA V has 136, List of Mario franchise characters has 135, and this page has 702. - X201 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

72.34.94.83 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Will anyone be reassessing the years in video gaming articles to find faults and improve them? 112.209.176.230 (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a partner for an article

Hi, I am working on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheUnknownNinjaNN2/sandbox

Is anyone willing to help?

P.S. I will handle citations when that time comes.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you with it, but I've done a drive by edit on it; fixed spelling and added an Infobox. - X201 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just giving a quick look at it - there's almost no way that will ever be a Wikipedia article. Has it received any coverage, anywhere? I recommend that you move onto other articles. - hahnchen 12:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree with Hahnchen here. Its not very often these "unofficial fan games" are able to meet Wikipedia's standard for notability. You need websites like GameSpot or IGN to do article's covering games in detail in order for it to meet the notability requirements. I'd start there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your user page, if you are here mainly to "create articles for games on the 'sandbox.yoyogames.com'" because "[m]ost of the games do not have decent walkthroughs and full descriptions of thier story", then you haven't come to the right place to do that sort of thing. Many high-quality VG articles don't have walkthroughs nor should they, plus, as Hahnchen and Serge have already said, the games you wish to create articles for probably lack notability. Not to say that your time/work here has been a waste, but what you wish to contribute to Wikipedia isn't what the site is looking for. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That user page is eons old. I need to change it. I only plan on writing NN. I just have a feeling that it will eventually be notable.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to break it to you, TheUnknownNinja, but you're wrong. That fanmade game is almost four years old and has been played 10,855 times, according to its YoYo Games page. It hasn't gotten any attention on a serious game website and chances are that it never will. No reason whatsoever that it will ever get its own article.
Wikipedia needs volunteers like you and me and all these other guys here, and your help would be much appreciated if you help out with other articles. Something to think about. --Soetermans. T / C 10:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have been trying to edit other pages.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you've been having a hard time with our policies of WP:VERIFY and no original research or synthesis. Please take the time to understand them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policies. I just don't always realize that I am stating OR. I actually went quite extreme with this game. Until I realized (recently) that I was wrong in some areas. In fact it was an argument of notability, and rereading the old article that I discovered that I was way off as my current fact did not match up. I fixed that by going back to square one, and staying there.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Pikmin italicized?

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin as a franchise or single game should be capitalized. Pikmin as the fictious creatures don't. -Soetermans. T / C 07:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with italicization?

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He probably meant to say "italicized" where he wrote "capitalized". Sub that in, and his message makes complete sense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Serge! In my part of the world it was still early when I wrote that :) Does that help, Ninja?--Soetermans. T / C 14:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should unitalicize it then, cause it is reffering to the creature.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what particular edit you're trying to make, but conceptually, yes, that is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on niche topic areas A user may have an interest in a topic that other users find trivial or post contents that are difficult to comprehend. Diversity in interests and inputs from specialists in many fields help us function as a comprehensive encyclopedia.

My topic is the video game storylines themselves. I try to add without using OR, but it is in its nature difficult to tell the difference. This applies here as Nintendo Nightmare is just a... favorite of mine. Could it be called that? I guess I just thought Wikipedia was more subjective when I joined. I thought things just had to be factual, and second party. I conclude that this article is for me only. I would like help attempting to find an acceptable wiki for it. Also, could someone just summarize OR in relation to my subject matter? Thanks.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is the addition of any material not attributable to reliable sources. Strictly speaking the reliable source must directly state the claim being made. There used to be an exception for logical deductions but that was eliminated due to inherent subjectivity and abuse by some editors. What this means in practical terms is that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires reliable citations making the precise claims summarized at Wikipedia.
The question of what makes a source reliable is a complex one and doesn't always demand third-party origins. If your favorite subject matter is "video game storylines themselves" then in many cases you will be allowed to use first-party material like game manuals and company press releases.
There is an important distinction between sources that can be used to support claims in the article and sources that can be used to demonstrate notability, though. In asserting notability, only reliable third-party sources can be used. So for most games an article just on the plot would be completely inappropriate for the article. For notable games, though, the plot subsection can be improved by using first-party sources. The trick to writing excellent plot subsections is a good summary style. The plot subsection should strive to sum up the whole game in 1 or 2 paragraphs. All of the most important elements should be covered and walkthrough-ish material should be excluded. There are niche-topic wikis that gladly accept material like that. -Thibbs (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the time Wikias are more lenient with referencing, and more tolerant of OR, and/or little trivial stuff only fans would care about. There's a Mario Wiki for example, though I'm unsure of their stance on unofficial fan games though. I browse wikias, but haven't ever really written for them, so I don't know their exact stance on notability, only that its far more lax than Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So let me summarize (please tell me if I am understanding right)

1. Storylines are acceptable as subsections.

2. Keep them as small as possible.

3. Quoting games is allowed but do zero deduction. Remove any possible controversy or misreading.

4. Do research.

5. (extra) Find a new wiki for NN.

Thanks.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Batman: Arkham City#Sequel section

Can I get more input at Talk:Batman: Arkham City#Sequel section. The discussion is about whether to rename "Sequel" section of the article to "Prequel". --Mika1h (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Always glad to help with consensus ;) Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Journalism

Publications of Note

Are the publications listed here are really credible and worthy to be mentioned here? Plus didn't GamePro, PSMagazine and XboxMagazine shut down already? I mean they are no longer publishing issues. Just like 1UP and GameSpy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Latik (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Latik (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2013 112.209.176.230 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 96.229.10.140 (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG/S lists in detail the sourced that are reliable. If you check the talk page, a lot of discussion are about whether or not particular sources and media outlets are noteworthy and reliable. If you feel some aren't, you could start a new topic. For the ones you mentioned, I can only say that it wouldn't make sense to mention them just because they've shut down. Their opinion mattered once and that's what matters, not if they're still around today. --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for everyone, Robert Latik is talking about the following embedded list: Video game journalism#Publications of note, and this is a continuation of this thread. This is something I wanted to bring up myself already a few months ago. Clearly what we have there is not a list of all VG journalism pieces determined to be WP:NOTABLE, but then what is it really? I'm familiar with most/all of the sources listed, but why are they singled out? Are they better than the others out there? According to who? I'd be in favor of removing this list altogether based on the model of Sports journalism, Medical journalism, Fashion journalism, Political journalism, etc., where it seems like none of these articles list their publications of note. There are exceptions like Science journalism which lists notable science journalists, but if it were up to me I'd remove this list as well. So I'd be in favor of removing the whole embedded list. -Thibbs (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would kill the list. Publications of note should be covered in the prose. Obviously, they're not all covered right now - so the prose needs work, but that list is just a spam link magnet. - hahnchen 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hahnchen that we should remove the list. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kill that list with fire. It's also inaccurate. It list Joystiq as a blog, but also lumps it in as a tabloid, something which the reference does not support (it lists Kotaku and Destructoid specifically). --Teancum (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of spamming, there should not really be a need for a list. Just tell people key words to search for, or just give a general guideline. It might be good to list members who can give more specific details in the area where you give the general guidelines. Plus, I would try to condense the guidelines. Two subjects above we ended up summarizing it to basic rules. Granted, it was a specific subject, but does it really need to be that big?

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical stuff

Hi guys,

Per consensus, we list infobox and navbox entries essentially alphabetical. You know, Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360. But thanks to the Xbox One for at least a couple of upcoming games (i.e., Watch Dogs, Call of Duty: Ghosts, Assassin's Creed IV) the platforms should be listed as PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Xbox 360. Kinda stupid, right? Shall we agree right here that we will make an exception, and make it primarily alphabetical, with a chronological twist to it? --Soetermans. T / C 11:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the official guideline for this, but I have always listed them in chronological order first, then alphabetical if it needs refined further. I say go for what looks the best (I.E. PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One) - Dissident93 12:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=556732422"