Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

We're editing 42% of all WP:VG articles

One of the biggest clean-ups in the history of WP:VG is starting.

User:TeleComNasSprVen had the idea of adding a tracking category to the Infobox template, to categorise all articles that contained infobox code for defunct fields. With additional technical gubbins by User:Technical 13, we now have a very large administration category that contains 0 articles.

Help is required in a number of ways.

1. There is an AWB file available so that any AutoWikiBrowser users who want to help can get straight to work.
2. I'm fairly new to RegEx, so anyone who can provide technical help to improve the above file is welcome to do so.
3. Check the infobox on pages you watch for the following fields (picture format, aspect ratio, input, license, resolution, ratings, requirements, version, preceded by, followed by, latest release version, latest release date, latest preview version, latest preview date, website) and remove them.
4. Bake a cake for when we cross the finish line sometime next year.

My main reason for taking part is to make life easier for new editors, templates are confusing for new editors, and having loads of redundant fields around only makes it harder for them to open an existing article when looking for a few pointers.

Please help if you can. The AWB code is available here. - X201 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm kinda wondering why some of these fields have been deprecated. Ratings, website seem moderately useful and informative, preceded/followed by is very useful for series Infoboxes... were these all discussed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Were all discussed and have been dead fields for between 1 and 3 years. - X201 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Pass. Why can't we have a bot do something like this? Editors shouldn't have to waste their time on monotonous tasks about parameters that are no longer seen anyway when they can be adding real value to articles. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because not all editors are good at creating article content. If the Gnomes find nothing to do that interests them, they wither and die. - X201 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A bot definitely could do this, though I would have the bot leave any of these old alone if they contain references or links, so that we can then filter the much smaller set to make sure if there's anything to keep worthwhile. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree a bot should be doing this once the rules have been properly vetted and debugged (there are still a couple minor issues according to X201). I wonder if any of the bot writers I know (Theopolisme—Hasteur—Legoktm—SigmaWP) could write up this bot for this and get it through WP:BAG since there seems to be a consensus here for that. Technical 13 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I could do this manually, I like such projects. If BAG will take a long time to clear, why not just do it manually - saves hassle in the end. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I could also probably run an AWB routine for the simpler cases over the weekend (such as simply removing fields with no information to keep). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of them are simple removes, it just needs the human eye to spot the oddballs. - X201 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 Definitely doable with a bot. Just enumerating the requirements so far

• For each transclusion of {{Infobox video game}}

For each parameter in the template

If the parameter is on a blacklist of "deprecated fields" fields

If the field's "value" has a URL, reference, or internal wikilink, don't strip

Else strip the parameter

Save the modified template with a summary that is distinctive, and gives a link to the consensus for removal. Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:X201 for his work. Someone who is familiar with the videogame infobox issues should look at the last hundred entries in Special:Contributions/X201 to see if those changes look correct. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Hasteur: I don't think internal wikilinks need to be included; for example, see this edit which removed defunct parameters and plenty of wikilinks that didn't need to be kept. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Do it with a bot". I've done about 400-500 articles with AWB while testing my RegEx code. I think a bot could do a large proportion of the fields, the problem I have with letting a bot loose on it is that users have come up with their own styles for actually laying out the field data, - especially in the requirements field, where I've had to rely on the fact that its usually the last item in the infobox and implement an open bit of RegEx to select everything between the field start and the end of the template. - and I'm fully expecting to find more. Plus I'm also finding totally made up fields like site, time limit and numerous others where people think that just adding something in the correct format will make it appear in the template.

I'm fully in favour of the human approach to this, checking as each edit is made and spotting anomalies. There is no urgent reason that means the job must be done in a week, I'm fully happy to do the whole 12,000 myself with AWB, I've done similar with large categories before, its not a problem for me. The main reason I posted here was to let everyone know what was happening and get a bit of help if anyone is interested in joining in. - X201 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know There is a new version of the AWB code on the template talk page. It contains a bug fix for the website field and Izno's template suggestions below. - X201 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do not remove deprecated parameters - In many cases, they contain accurate referenced material, which although decided that they are unsuitable for the infobox - may still be useful elsewhere. If not on Wikipedia, then on Wikidata. - hahnchen 16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I won't remove deprecated parameters in the future, I can't promise I'm going to go back and restore all the ones I already removed. :S — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The 600-ish articles that I've so far processed don't back up the claim that many contain accurate referenced material. On the rare occasion anything has had a reference in it, it's been the Ratings field. - X201 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Lists of age ratings are exactly the type of thing that Wikidata can and should cover. - hahnchen 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

They rarely have a reliable reference. That was one of the reasons the field was removed from the template. Is WikiData just being populated with whatever happens to be in Wikipedia when it makes a pass? Surely they would be better off doing a look-up to the actual source of the info, the ratings bodies? - X201 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to scrape Wikipedia than it is to scrape external sites. Each video game article already has a link to Wikidata so you know you're dealing with the correct subject. And a lot of system requirements information never needed sourcing because it was taken as read that the source was the game itself. Wikidata is still in its infancy, it'd be better to keep the information stored in deprecated infobox fields until that data is transferred across. - hahnchen 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if its possible, but a better solution would be to remove the deprecated fields from the Infobox, and put the ones that do have data in them into an invisible template at the bottom of the article. That way the template is cleaned of redundant code and Wikidata still has the info to mine at some point in the future. - X201 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That would work. - hahnchen 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Anything else that could piggyback

Is there anything else that WP:VG could use this large a run to do other changes with, besides gen fixes? Running it over 12k articles is an excellent time to poke away at other things that could use a mass-tweak and which are otherwise banned as "solo" edits per WP:AWB#Rules of use #4. The example off the top of my head would be to change all instances of Infobox VG to Infobox video game. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Good thinking Batman. How about sorting the fields into the same order? - X201 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice, but there are some who would see that as controversial, which would fail rule #3. --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Izno: Isn't bypassing template redirects part of AWB genfixes? I see it happen all the time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

T:IVG isn't one of them apparently (though it's not the only template I have in mind)! We can add templates to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects so long as we can show consensus. On that note, I'd probably say that the following are good ones to add: {{Video game reviews}}, {{Infobox video game}}, and {{System requirements}}, with their respective redirects. (I would expect T:System requirements not to be removed in an AWB run per AWB usage rule #3.) --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And I've gone ahead and added the above three. Are those replacements taking place? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What about <!-- Deleted image removed: tags? - X201 (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That might be controversial, though it's a good suggestion. Who to bug about it? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How about converting all of the image field mark-up from the old px method to the [[File:name.ext|frameless|upright=1.15]] method that allows user preferences to work? - X201 (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

Sorry I got a bit delayed with this. I'm ready to make the bot request for this and I just wanted to make sure everyone was OK with the plan and that we had a consensus for the changes to be made. The request will be; that in order to aid users in editing the infobox code, and at the same time preserve data, any populated defunct fields should be moved from the template on existing article pages, to a new hidden template at the bottom of the article, so that the data in those fields can be harvested later by WikiData. Any field that is blank can just be binned.

Is everyone OK with the above? Any other tasks need adding that can be completed at the same time? - X201 (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

YouTube series up for deletion

Hi guys,

I don't like to canvas, but I've nominated I Misteri dell'Area 51, an Italian language YouTube machinima series for deletion. It uses Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for its material, and I guess that's why somebody thinks it should be included in the {{Grand Theft Auto}} template. The article has no reliable sources and with six videos in total, I don't think it is notable in the slightest. --Soetermans. T / C 13:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not really canvassing to let the project know that you AfD'd something; in fact, I think that's what you're supposed to do. Thanks for letting us know!_{Sorry, this is too late for that AfD, but thanks anyway and let the project(s) of future AfD's know in the future!} Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal of GameStats references

I wanted to get wider input on this before doing anything. ASOTMKX removed about 150 links to GameStats pages a few hours ago. I don't see any previous discussion, and it seemed like a pretty big swath of changes to make all at once. Some of the articles with the links contained archived links, and some contained multiple uses of the reference, which a bot went back and repaired afterward. I personally think a better solution would be to undo all the changes, and try to get archived pages for the links that don't already have them. I haven't undone any of the edits yet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed their edits too, but I don't have any problems with these edits because I don't see the purpose in having GameStat mentioned any longer. GameSpy or a magazine of yesteryear might've had impact on a game's reception when it came out, but since GameStats was pretty much the same as Metacritic and GameRankings (that is a video game review score aggregate site) it didn't have any substantial impact on the reception of games. --Soetermans. T / C 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Same as Soetermans. Its a ranking site so no massive loss. But if they're breaking named references they should take more care, or stop. - X201 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I understand the logic in removing GameStats references. Are they now considered unreliable or something? If they were acceptable at the time, then they were an indicator of average reception. There is absolutely no reason to remove old references simply because the site is defunct. If that were the case, we'd be removing half our references. So if Metacritic or GameRankings closes down, we will go around and remove all those entries? Then why are we adding them to begin with? We should be archiving the urls instead of deleting them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Gamestats was just an aggregrate review site, so it was not offering anything new in criticism or the like. Further, its use on VG was far far less than that of MC or GR, and in both of those cases, we have good ideas of what's going on behind the scenes with their aggregation system (for better or worse) so we want articles to have these. If it were the case MC or GR were going down, I am sure we'd make an effort to archive their pages due to their widespread use and importance, compared to the small number of cases GameStats has been used. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a question: did GameStats aggregate reviews that Metacritic or GameRankings currently exclude? For instance, say that a game came out in the first year that Gamestats was in operation and the site aggregated reviews that came out the same year. Would Metacritic or GameRankings, which came out a number of years later, create aggregate rankings that included those older reviews? Put another way, is GameStats a subset of Metacritic or GameRankings, or a completely different set? -Thunderforge (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed in some cases if I need Famitsu scores, that would be the only place to look. Annnd its gone. [1]. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's no good. While I might be able to agree that the VGR template shouldn't support the aggregator scores anymore, ASOTMKX should not be unilaterally engaging in mass-removal of links to those sites. If there's a consensus to pull the fields from the template, then someone can AWB them away, but removing references is unquestionably bad. This may merit a trouting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, something about this edit and this edit suggests that he might be doing this in a semi-automated fashion (that and he goes in bursts of about 1.5 articles/minute). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove GameStats, Game Ratio and GameTab from Template:Video game reviews aggregators

I first proposed this in 2009. None of these aggregators have any kind of relevance or importance in the video game industry. Metacritic is the standard, and Gamerankings is our fall back. GameStats is so irrelevant that we're just removing the links without any archiving. GameTab is so irrelevant that we didn't even notice it go down. - hahnchen 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In 2010, we actually had consensus here to remove these aggregators, but we never carried them out. Can we act on that previous consensus now? - hahnchen 02:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Gamezone spam

Sockpuppet investigation started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.60.143.188. I've recently been seeing Gamezone pop up in reception sections of recent games, they're an WP:VG/RS, but not a particularly prominent gaming website. Taking a look at page histories, it looks like we have a sock campaign to promote the site. It doesn't look too widespread, but you can see the behaviour in accounts such as Special:Contributions/Wizcheeson, Special:Contributions/Wakawikiwaka & Special:Contributions/Leetlbeetl. Block/warn/revert away. - hahnchen 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait. Should we revert this, even though its a reliable source? Would seem counter-productive in doing on. GamerPro64 22:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Depends. I submitted the SPI to get the socks blocked. If they were legitimate edits, there's no need to hide behind a sock wall. Edits like [2] add nothing to the article, but some others might be useful. We might value the message that this behaviour is unacceptable over the value of the edits. I've not reverted any, wouldn't oppose it though. - hahnchen 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.60.143.188 - 20 socks blocked. No confirmation on the IP though. - hahnchen 15:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't gonna be a popular opinion, but who cares? In a way, my editing career here has for several years been a promotion of the Sonic series (and to a lesser extent some other games): I like the games and want people to learn more about them. If these IPs are adding constructive information, why does it matter that it's all from one site and they appear to be the same person? The info looks to be formatted correctly (aside from the somewhat familiar "GZ") and the IPs don't seem to be using their status as multiple entities to effect a consensus. I guess I don't see the problem. Tezero (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - until it's unconstructive I don't see a need to revert the edits. The sockpuppetry is a different matter. --Teancum (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, even that I don't mind. They're just a bunch of edits to add GameZone reviews. It doesn't look like the ringmaster is using the accounts to feign communal agreement on a controversial issue or anything; hell, all of the edits have been in mainspace and none have been vandalism. Why not let them continue? Tezero (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

These were single purpose accounts using socks to evade WP:COI oversight. I spotted the behaviour because I came across one too many Reception sections quoting Gamezone, and my first thought was, why does anyone care what Gamezone have to say? And it turns out that we don't, their prevalence on Wikipedia is artificial. - hahnchen 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, why do we care what IGN, GameSpot, Game Informer, Destructoid, or GameSpy have to say? GameZone's an established reviewing agency as well. As long as GameZone isn't being quoted to the point of drowning out the other sources or making redundant points, I don't see the problem. Tezero (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Never mind; I thought you were going after GameZone rather than the editors. Nevertheless, the edits don't look problematic to me and I don't see any reason to assume that the users are going to head into non-encyclopedic promotion of GameZone. If that happened, I would support blocking them. Tezero (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing spam behaviour since 2010

This isn't the first time that Gamezone have been caught spamming Wikipedia, in the sockpuppet investigation I initiated above, I noted that User:SisterSister00 exhibited the same behaviour in 2011. I just came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DarkBlade4658/Archive, in that case, the sock admitted to being Michael Splechta - editor at Gamezone. Despite blocking 20 socks in the most recent investigation, spamming persists, every single big release has a GameZone quote and the only people adding these quotes are single purpose accounts. I've not initiated another checkuser yet, because I'm sure more accounts will come out of the woodwork once Titanfall hits. - hahnchen 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not if I can help it czar ♔ 18:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Stubs Checked

After almost 2 years, the increasingly-inaccurately named 2012 Stubcheck is now finally done! At least 15000 stubs were skimmed through since April 2012, resulting in thousands of classification changes to Start, C, Redirect, and Disambiguation. Thanks to all who helped out over the years! --PresN 03:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wish I had had time to do more, especially I was helped in the creation of it. The least I can do now if give it a more appropriate title. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the articles listed here were meant to be reassessed as Start but that was never done? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we never went with that, as far as I know, and instead manually changed the ratings. --PresN 04:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That someone followed through with this is amazing. Good work. I think it'd be more productive in future to have a bot do some of this work, if a page is at a certain size, and contains no stub templates - then it should automatically be marked as start. This might result in errors, but is probably worth it in terms of time saved. - hahnchen 14:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@PresN: Yea, but the ones that were put on the list by MuZemike were never actually changed as far as I can see... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How exactly do we even determine the ratings? Stubs are pretty obvious and it takes a review for GA and FA, but what about all the in-betweens? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the list with the requirements, etc. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Forest draft article opinions wanted

I've created a draft article for upcoming game The Forest and am considering moving it to article space. My concern, though, is that it's entirely based on news articles which discuss screenshots, trailers, or are interviews. The coverage would suggest the game is notable but the in-depth coverage isn't really there right now; should I publish or not? Samwalton9 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the sources' reliability push it into the okay zone. Tezero (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the Firefly Online pushback was a fluke. My personal litmus test is whether I can get 1500 B of original prose on the topic. With the addition of a sentence or two, I think it'd be fine in the mainspace. (And if not, I'd have your back.) czar ♔ 01:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

On second look, the prose could use some cleanup and concision. If the text is shortened to omit needless words, it might come up too short. This said, if you trim the excessive words and add a few more sentences and it's over 1500 B, I think it'll be fine. Also no harm in leaving it in draftspace for now. czar ♔ 01:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014's TFA

Coming up on the main page tomorrow, March 5th, Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri from the sadly defunct Looking Glass Studios will be on there for all to see. GamerPro64 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

VG external links templates

Hi everybody,

This has come up once before, but I'll try once more: should we or shouldn't we keep using the templates intended for use in the external links section? I'm talking about these three two:

• {{MobyGames}}. WP:VG/RS says: Game synopses, credits and aggregate review scores. Relies on user-submitted content. While it demands reliable sources for all contributions and all contributed information undergoes scrutiny by experienced users before publication, its info has been shown to be often erroneous and the sources provided by contributors are not publicly displayed.
• {{GameFAQs}}. WP:VG/RS says: Walkthroughs, cheats and release dates. Relies on user-submitted content with no apparent editorial oversight.
• {{StrategyWiki}}. WP:VG/RS says: Wiki websites such as StrategyWiki and Bulbapedia can be openly edited by anyone, and they do not have sufficient fact checking or editorial oversight in place.

The last two are essentially gameguide websites, that we link in a template form no less. At the same time, other gameguide websites (and fansites and the like) are discouraged (see WP:VG/EL).

• WP:VGSCOPE on External links: (...) Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of sites to be avoided. We've established that they are in fact not reliable, so why are they still around?
• WP:ELNO No. 12: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors (...) Even if there is stability and that there are a substantial number of editors working on StategyWiki, the template links one game, not to the entire wiki. Besides, how do we even know that the information presented is helpful at all?
• WP:VG/EL further states: If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, a video game's page at MobyGames, Allgame or the Internet Movie Database may be added on a case by case basis. Considering that MobyGames and GameFAQs aren't considered reliable and StrategyWiki works as a gameguide website, I don't see how the information on those websites is relevant. --Soetermans. T / C 14:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about the last two, but MobyGames has valuable content, even if it's not perfect. For example, they often have numerous screenshots, something Wikipedia seems to hate. There is no standard stating that external sites we link to need to be infallible. I don't think every game article needs to link to MobyGames, but if it has additional information, I think it's a boon. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that the entirety of WP:VG/EL seems to be conflating policy about external links used as reliable sources and policy about external links used as external links. This is problematic to me. Example: Whether a site is self published should not mean that the site is banned or strongly discouraged from being used in an external links section, only that it should be used cautiously as a citation, and nothing more. Quite frankly, that section looks like scope creep and additionally appears to be at odds with the sitewide guideline of WP:EL. I would nominate the entire section for deletion....

On the point of ELNO, that seems like an article by article use problem. As it is, the template is actually useful because we can point to references to an a particular external web site trivially.

On the point of "Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of sites to be avoided", I'm not even sure you read the cited sentence. That plainly states that I am permitted to link to an external web site of a particular quality (with caution). The templates exist because I am permitted to do such. QED. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:Frecklefoot, thanks for your input. Concerning screenshots, a dedicated wiki usually has those too, not to mention the internet itself... I'm not too familiar with MobyGames, is there something else that really makes it worthwhile to keep using it? And you said you don't care about GameFAQs and StrategyWiki, does that mean you don't have an opinion on them or that you could see them go?

@User:Izno, I appreciate your input and respect your opinion, but I have some trouble with the tone of your response. "I am permitted..."? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort so that should be "we are permitted". And understand I am trying to come to consensus, I'm not dictating the rules here, I'm asking whether or not these links and templates are useful. "I'm not even sure you read the cited sentence." I don't find very friendly. I assume you didn't mean to come of that way, but remember you could've said whatever you wanted to say in lots of different ways. "I disagree because...", or "I think what that says means..." or even "I think you misunderstood", which still doesn't say I didn't read it.

Anyway, back to the discussion: I'm not disputing that we could like to websites that offer "substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature", such as dedicated wikis, developer blogs or ARGs. But the link should relevant, and I have yet to be convinced that these three actually are relevant. StrategyWiki works solely as a gameguide, which there are hundreds, if not thousands of websites that do the same, and we don't allow those to function as ELs either. GameFAQs functions as a gameguide and a forum, but we've already established that as it is user generated it is not reliable. Forums as ELs aren't allowed either, even when they are official. MobyGames is a video game database, but is also user generated. --Soetermans. T / C 11:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Soetermans: First off, I don't think Izno was being particularly hostile. And his use of "I" versus "we" is just semantics. Of course this is a wiki and we're all contributing. When I say, "I wrote this article," I mean, "I started this article and the community helped bring it to where it is now".

Now, that aside, I find MobyGames particularly useful in some cases because it has screenshots with accompanying text explaining what I'm seeing (e.g. "Opening video with Ziknorf talking to Wamboom", "Tactical screen of a battle between The Kingdom of Zimloff and the forces of Beelnord"). It bridges a huge hole in Wikipedia: most articles about video games--very visual subjects--have few to no screenshots. This is not because editors aren't willing to contribute them, but because of our incredibly restrictive policy about image use. But I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. The Internet at large, as you state, may have numerous screenshots of gameplay and other information. But I prefer MobyGames rather than just Google Images, for example, because it is moderated and usually pretty reliable (but not perfect, as I stated earlier). And their moderation is pretty good. I contributed information about one game to it (because I was the Lead Programmer on it), but they required evidence that what I was contributing was correct; they didn't just take my word for it. That seems pretty responsible to me, and what we strive for here on Wikipedia too. FWIW, the discussion of whether or not to link to MobyGames comes up every so often here on the project, and the consensus is always to allow links to it, but makes sure it has additional information (or content, like screenshots) that's useful.

As for the other two sites, I don't have an opinion. Sorry, mea culpa, I wasn't clear. I don't normally refer to them or use them. I really don't care whether we allow links to them or not. In general, I don't think they should be banned, but I don't think we should link to every single entry they have either. If they're used extensively, then having templates for them is useful. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That part was and still is meant for Izno. I appreciate your effort to help out, but I didn't say they were hostile at all, I said I had some trouble with their tone. Maybe you don't agree, but if someone suggest I didn't read a sentence I don't think that's fair to me or helpful in a discussion. Maybe I should've switched the two bits around, because that's what bugged me the most.

Thanks for elaborating on MobyGames. You've made a good point and you're right, in that case it is worth keeping. I'll strike out MobyGames. --Soetermans. T / C 14:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Video game series leads: include country/state/city of origin or not?

User:69.165.246.181 recently did an edit defining the Halo series as an "American multi-billion dollar military science fiction video game franchise". I reverted the edit as I felt, and still feel, that such an addition is not needed, at least for a video game article. The user has just contacted me, asking why I did the revert. I responded, citing multiple video game series that did not have such an addition, but I also found and cited for balance's sake video game articles which did. That has got me thinking: what should be the general rule about this? Or if there is one, can someone enlighten me? Should we include the franchise's state/country/city of origin as part of the article's lead or not? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First: is it notably American? Secondly: it can cause confusion: was the game made in America? By Americans? For Americans? Does it happen in America? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In response: it doesn't seem to be notably American, and there was no definition beyond what I copied and pasted for people to see. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unlike films or TV Shows, Video games don't have nationalities, but their developers do. The example is better stated as "Hallo is a multi-million dollar first person shooter video game franchise developed by American studio Bungie." (Yes, note we place more weight on the gameplay genre over the thematic one). --MASEM (t) 23:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Salvidrim. Unlike film articles, which do state the country in the lead, that is done based on the location of the production studio, if there is one studio. Otherwise, the country is not included. But in the case of video games, I think it is harder to classify. Would all Nintendo developed games be Japanese, when they have strong claims in North America and Europe? Or, with Assassin's Creed. Would that be Canadian when it also has a strong global reach? I think if anything, if it were to be adopted, we should look to the Film project and follow their classification, and adapt it to by developer. But that still introduces the issues Salvidrim stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think games are as nationalized as films. Film's are identified by their famous directors and cast and crew, games by and large are not, and a lot of games are international projects, either by location or talent. Mentioning the studio nationality I don't see as a bad thing but for body prose, in the lead it is far less notable that it requires mentioning. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While I largely agree with this discussion, I do believe an exception would be mentioning if a role-playing video game is "Japanese" or "Western". That goes beyond just "location", its literally a difference in genre, game development philosophy, etc. It definitely seems noteworthy to state that, for instances, a Tales game is a "JRPG". "American FPS" isn't really terminology that's typically used/articulated, but something like Japanese role-playing game, is. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the Japanese label really only applies when talking JRPGs because that's how that genre has come to be known. For example, Mario is not a "Japanese platform game", it's just a "platform game". That is, the way to read "JRPG is not as a "Japanese" "role playing game" but a "Japanese-style role playing game", though we do add that the developers need to be from Japan too (Anachronox may be a JPRG at its core, but we don't call it as such, for example). --MASEM (t) 01:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's really the only exception I'm arguing for. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Sergecross. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it, I also agree with Sergecross' point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be called American. Microsoft is an American company. Besides it's not just a video game, it's a franchise that spawned out of a video game and as PD pointed out some video game franchises have nationality attached to them such as hitman, so we should not be selective. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the majority opinion that the dev/publishing company can be mentioned as American/whatever, but the franchise itself shouldn't be- Halo is an international franchise that isn't set in America. I also agree with the JRPG exception (reluctantly) - both western and JRPGs are covered at role-playing video game, and the line gets a little blurry sometimes. (I guess we have history of Eastern role-playing video games as well). I wish we collectively had a better term for RPGs with a linear, story-driven gameplay than "Japanese" RPGs, since they're more and more cropping up in western releases, even as JRPGs borrow ideas from western RPGs. --PresN 22:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, by all means, if a better term exists/arises, I'm all for using it. I don't have a particular love for the term JRPG, in fact, sometimes, it has a negative connotation for being unoriginal or unpopular in current days. But right now, it seems to be the only appropriate term. I support using it because that's what its called, not because I feel the need to delineate all subjects by their origin country or something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, yeah, I didn't mean "I wish Wikipedia had a better term" I meant "I wish the video game community at large had a better term". It is what we've got, though. At least we've stopped also calling them "console" RPGs- that got really confusing, really fast. --PresN 05:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Channel

I'm thinking of just taking the article to FAC in a few days if no copyediting is done per my request at the appropriate page. (I don't mean this as a threat or passive-aggressively; I'm just impatient.) Is this a discouraged behavior? Tezero (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no requirement that you get a copy-edit prior to FAC, it just tends to cut down on the long lists of grammar issues reviewers bring up, and makes it less likely that someone will oppose over poor prose. I've gone both ways, especially if I'm impatient to get the review started. --PresN 00:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I know it's not a requirement; I've gone through several FACs before. It does help, though. Maybe I'll just run through the prose myself. Tezero (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll just do it now and see how it goes. At the very least, if this FAC fails, it'll probably be over more quickly than it'd take to get a thorough copyedit in the first place. #yolo Tezero (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Template layout and double asterisks

Hi guys,

I noticed that on editing video game templates we've yet to establish a commonly agreed way to list games, in case of DLC, subseries or compilations. I've seen that some editors prefer using the double asterisks method to list DLC (see {{BioShock series}} and {{Elder Scrolls}}. On {{Metal Gear}} and {{Lego games}} however, they are used differently. MGSV consists of two entries: Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain, but they are then shown in brackets. Yesterday I edited the Lego template and removed those asterisks for this reason, but that was undone by @User:Izno. I think that most readers will understand that if we list Harry Potter: Years 1 - 4 followed by (Years 5 - 7) that Harry Potter: Years 5 - 7 is meant. But would that be the same case if we show Batman and its sequel Batman 2: DC Super Heroes as Batman (DC Super Heroes)? --Soetermans. T / C 10:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Or Lego The Hobbit, sure, it's part of the Lord of the Rings franchise, but the game is based upon The Hobbit film and not just a sequel to the Lego Lord of the Rings video game. --Soetermans. T / C 14:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code (video game)

Hi all. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a quick look at the reception section in The Da Vinci Code (video game) article. This is how it existed after I did an overhaul of the article a few months back. And this is how it exists now. The number of reviews in the review table has jumped from 12 to 28! Now, I was under the impression that the recommended number of reviews was around 5-10. Certainly by looking at some VG FAs, I don't see any with more than 10 or so. The 16 new reviews have been added in the last 24 hours, and I'm somewhat loath to simply remove them, but 28 reviews seems ridiculous, and the table has also been collapsed, which I think is a really bad idea for people who only scan pages, as it's easily missed. I'm going to leave a note on the article talk page in a few moments, so if someone could comment there one way or the other, that'd be great, as it would avoid two people just arguing back and forth. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Without even looking, that's far too many. A key point is that every review listed in the table should be discussed to some degree in the text about the reception; if it is included and only used in the table, that's a bad use of the review. You can include other reviews in the prose that aren't in the table, that's fine (we have the aggregators for the big listing), and this is even preferred since the table should not be a crutch to a properly written prose section. There never should be a need to collapse the review table for a single game. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And now looking, yes, cut the crap out. Stick to: IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, Eurogamer, Edge, Game Informer, OPMUS, OXMUS, and PC Gamer (the last three for platform specific), since the platform differences in scores are negligable. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. That's pretty much what I thought. I've left a note on the talk page, so I'll give the user a chance to respond before I delete anything, for the sake of diplomacy. Cheers Masem. It seems strange to be talking to you about something other than images and fair use :) Bertaut (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This issue has already come up about this user. Judging by the recent edit history and articles like Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Terminator Salvation and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, the advice given at that time was not heeded. I also note that since Bertaut has added a comment on the talk page of The Da Vinci Code, more scores have been added to the table. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notifiying User:Angeldeb82, you really should comment on this. - hahnchen 16:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. But I want other things too, like Nintendo Power, GameTrailers, GameZone, Game Revolution, Allgame and 1UP.com. As for non-videogame publications, like The A.V. Club, Detroit Free Press, The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Sydney Morning Herald, do you think these are okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

They're fine in the actual text of the reception section, but the reviews table should never be that big- as said above, it should be 5 to 10 reviewers. I usually shoot for 7. If you're only doing 5-10, then you have to pick the 5-10 most relevant- the biggest names, the ones with outlier scores, ones that give you platforms not otherwise covered, etc. Masem's list is a good one to start at, and then you can swap out reviewers- like GameSpy for 1UP.com. But no, it's not really cool to have a table of 20 reviewers. --PresN 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To restate - the review table should not be a place to slot in reviews - instead, the reviews should be selected to allow the reader to see at a glance how the review scores break down from a representative selection of sources. For 90% of games, the score variance is going to be small, so the list I put above is generally the best and highest-reliable sources. However, there will be rare cases, like Space Giraffe where there is a huge variance from reliable sources, and that is what the table should highlight, possibly opting to omit a source like IGN or Eurogamer which may have an unremarkable mid-point score in favor of one of the less-common but reliable sources that put the score at the extreme. Now I do note that DaVince Code's scores have variance, but most are middling scores. So definitely trimming can be done to capture the distribution with maybe 7-8 entries in addition to aggregators. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Metacritic. It is not an exhaustive list of all coverage, but an overview. Because the reviews table at The Da Vinci Code (video game) is so ungainly, it is hidden, so that I didn't even spot it the first time around. - hahnchen 18:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So does that mean that I can't use GamePro too? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've trimmed down the reviews on the chart to 14. Do you think this one is okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In GA standard, the gameplay and plot section should be provided refs?

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

---

If do not compare with other video games, the two sections usually don't need any refs, because "the source is the game itself, and GA do not need in-line citation"?--Darkness607 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific criteria for GA, but external references are always a good thing. Usually there's websites and player's guides and all kinds of other stuff dealing with the gameplay, so shouldn't be that hard. If it's an in-game thing like the Pokedex, there's websites and sometimes books that have the entire thing right there. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviews normally provide most of the gameplay analysis. Plot is commonly sourced to the game, its manual, or other official primary materials. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay definitely has to be sourced. With Plot, it's more or less up to you. Tezero (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I generally try to source gameplay with recent previews of the game, general gameplay impressions, accurate interviews with the people behind the game, and reviews if that is necessary. For plots, I don't tend to bother except when it's something rather large like an RPG or (one I haven't worked on much) Asura's Wrath, in which case a few book, quote and external references references are very handy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay sections absolutely require references, there's no exemption for that. Unsourced plots are acceptable for any fiction work, but sourcing is good if you can. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a coincidence that Niemti was blocked on March 5 for complaining that citations should not be necessary in plot sections and a completely new user with no Wikipedia experience registers on March 7, goes straight to WT:VG and asks about exactly the same thing. Cite the plot, cite the gameplay, even if it is to primary sources. - hahnchen 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Niemti was blocked because he's topic banned from the GA process, yet took it upon himself to jump into a GA review and extensively argue with the reviewer. Lets do try not to feed his persecution complex by pretending he was blocked for his opinions on editing. --PresN 16:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Here-here, for all our sakes. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow diff

Guys, any comments ? I've added recently GameRankings reception, Hahnchen considered it as "bloat". Sir Lothar (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding GR isn't bloat at all for the table at its present size, and actually should be used alongside MC to show another way aggregators break it down. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree; it's a rather small table even with GR. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you add Official PlayStation Magazine or PC Gamer or Kotaku? At least those would be introducing new opinions from reliable sources. Metacritic is the industry standard. In the discussion above, editors are implored to stick with the industry standards, the most influential opinions. So why is it that we keep on pandering to GameRankings, CBS's secondary aggregator.

• '"Metacritic" video game' on Google News - 9 pages of hits
• '"GameRankings" video game' on Google News - 0 hits
• 'GameRankings' on Google News - 6 hits

It's Metacritic ratings which developer bonuses rely on, it's Metacritic that is quoted in corporate earnings reports, it's Metacritic that sits on the Steam product pages, it's Metacritic that reliable sources complain about as a shorthand for review aggregation. I wrote about about how Gamezone spam gives undue weight to Gamezone's point of view. Yet we do the same thing on almost every video games article when we place GameRankings alongside Metacritic. Metacritic is a reliable source, it is the industry standard, we should trust it to do its job - we don't need to hold the readers hand and show what is almost exactly the same score from another source. In almost all cases of a game released today, Gamerankings is redundant. - hahnchen 23:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic is certainly the most important for the industry, but a key factor that everyone knows about MC is that they weight scores depending on sources. Gameranking may not have the weird of being a source, but it is much more obvious they do not employ any weighting in their score balancing ([3]) while MC does have some unknown factors. As such MC is important as the industry metric, but GR's better as the balanced average (it's also part of gamespot's network so it doesn't have the GameZone issue. This is why both should be used. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) GR introduces more opinions from sources (in that it tends to contain reviews Metacritic doesn't, and vice versa), if the user cares to click, and calculates its scores differently, as Masem mentioned. It's not as widespread as Metacritic, but by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine as long as there are a couple of reviews by IGN and GameSpot. Tezero (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How does it not have the Gamezone issue? Gamezone is a reliable source, but whose opinion is over-expressed in our articles, same with GameRankings. That GameRankings does not weight results, or contains sources which Metacritic omits is irrelevant, because the industry has decided on a standard, while the use of GameRankings is just down to the OR whims of Wikipedians. The aggregate score is there to show the critical consensus, and the critical consensus is Metacritic. I'm not against using GameRankings if there is somehow a disparity between the two, there are games pre-Metacritic for which GameRankings is the only option. But for every game coming out now, GameRankings is bloat, you might not add much to each article, but you're doing so across the entire encyclopedia. - hahnchen 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

GameRankings is providing no opinion on the reviews, just a summary of scores and because it catalogs scores differently, provides a different way for a reader to look at other reviews for the game. GZ is providing opinion, so whether we include it should be based on whether their review offers anything new (and certainly not on it being forced into the article by a COI editor). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

GameRankings is providing an opinion, it has an inclusion criteria. It's decision not to weight those scores is an opinion. We give GameRankings significantly higher weight than the rest of the world does, we shouldn't. - hahnchen 23:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

GR has a very straightforward, mostly fair objective means to include reviews, see the link above. They are not subjectively selecting sites, though they do want to make sure they are dealing with professional sites and not blogs. However, they aren't excluding sites that otherwise meet their requirements. That's objective for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As for "by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine", we wouldn't use those if they did not add any specialist knowledge or unique opinion to the article. If RPGFan said the same thing as IGN aside from a few words every time, we would never use it, it would be redundant. I asked at the beginning, "Why don't you add Official PlayStation Magazine or PC Gamer or Kotaku?", because at least those would be original. - hahnchen 23:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you just add new sources and let others add GameRankings? It doesn't hurt the articles one bit. It's not a commercial site either. My two cents. --Soetermans. T / C 23:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite having written the reception section and cleaned up the article, I'm told by User:Sir Lothar to start working on articles. This is despite Lothar's only contribution to the article being the addition of GameRankings to the template. There's a 0.71% difference in the PlayStation 3 score, and a 0.31% difference in the Xbox 360 score. Undue weight given to an opinion which is largely the same as the Metacritic standard. Why should I let others add Gamezone spam, any other table bloat or any other instances of undue weight? My argument for Metacritic is that it is the industry standard, the argument for including GameRankings too is ILIKEIT. - hahnchen 00:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that using both MC and GR is a standard for most VG articles, and thus the addition of it to a table that is not bursting at the seams is not hurting anything. If GR was not a standard across most VG articles, yes, that would be possibly pointy, but really, this isn't harming anything. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The argument that I am making, is that ILIKEIT is a poor standard and one that should be changed. GR should not be standard, giving it undue weight across the entire encyclopedia is damaging, in the way that undue weight is damaging anywhere on the encyclopedia. This Wikipedia standard was set, when? 2007? Maybe before Metacritic had established itself as the industry standard. I removed GameRankings from Lords of Shadow 2 because the critical consensus had already been provided by the industry standard, an industry standard that is not being challenged. I'm challenging tradition, the argument "it's traditional" is not much of a counter-argument.- hahnchen 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fair to challenge the tradition - I'd start a separate subsection to call for removing GR links. But it is standard tradition to include them so until you can should consensus is against them, it's not harmful to add the link. Remember, MC is criticized at times for bias, this is why a site like GR which does not bias scores at all is also useful to show what an unbiased score aggregiation is compared to MC (and the industry metric) --MASEM (t) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I disagree with plenty about WP:VG's current standards (I think it should be okay to add as many reviews to a table as are available as long as it fits in a reasonable-length Reception section, for example), but I'm not about to challenge them on a pointy basis. Tezero (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I won't argue. Removed GR from table - ain't gonna provoke conflicts. As I see Hahnchen still hasn't read those pages WP:CIV, WP:AFG and of course WP:EQ. Sir Lothar (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to call you on that one, Sir Lothar. What we have here is a standard editorial dispute-turned minor scuffle, and you're just as guilty of etiquette violations as he is. I recommend you leave a comment at the "GameRankings standard" section below, and then walk away. Hahnchen would probably best be served doing the same. What's needed, I feel, is for the two of you stay away from each other, and this discussion, for a few days. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

GameRankings standard

• Make GR optional (i.e., based on the article's local consensus). I've never seen it differ significantly from the MC score and have always added it begrudgingly. czar ♔ 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Discourage the use of GameRankings - Template:Video game reviews/doc is out of date, which is why it suggests using the standards of 1UP.com, GameSpy and GameRankings. In general, tables should have one aggregator - Metacritic, which no one doubts is the industry standard. GameRankings should only be included on an individual basis when there is a strong consensus to do so - such as for old games, or in a case where there is a wide disparity between it and Metacritic that is noted in reliable sources. Arguments for GameRankings seem to stem from an ILIKEIT principle, but its use is not supported by reliable sources (compare the Google News hits above). For too long, Wikipedia has given undue weight to GameRankings, it's an anachronism, it's inertia. - hahnchen 12:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep GR Standard - This is one of those "we need to pick and choose our battles better" type scenarios. It's always going to be a uphill battle to try to remove it, and there's nothing overtly against policy with it. I prefer being more productive with my efforts, rather than trying to constantly enforce/explain such a stance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

With you there, Sergecross. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:ProtoDrake, your first userbox is User:Axem Titanium/User nospoilertags, Wikipedia has made bigger changes. - hahnchen 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hahnchen Erm, I don't follow. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler tags used to be everywhere. And in this case Wikipedia is behind the rest of the world, if they can move on, so can we. - hahnchen 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is to make it optional, which doesn't require removal or enforcement. It just kicks it down from a WPVG standard or expectation to a local consensus discussion. czar ♔ 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Even that's going to lead to extra arguing and debate over something that has no real detriment to article if it's there. Subjective arguments over whether it necessary in one scenario, but not another. It's a timesink with no real benefit. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy, our continued inclusion of GameRankings is ILIKEIT. I'm not proposing systemically wiping all uses of GameRankings, just that removals aren't reverted without a consensus reason. That "it might be difficult" doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, I'm proposing that we rewrite the guidelines at Template:Video game reviews/doc (and possibly introduce clearer guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Review_sites). So that if anyone removes a redundant GameRankings link, we don't get this pointless back and forth - and can just point to the guidelines. I'm giving solid arguments that we change our guidelines to reflect policy. The counter-argument has to be more than just inertia; the rest of the world has accepted Metacritic as the industry standard, we should. - hahnchen 18:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't personally like or use GR, so to keep quoting "ILIKEIT" isn't my point at all. (Though if we were to play that game, your stance could just as easily falls into "WP:IDONTLIKEIT honestly.) My point is that, while less popular, there's no actual problem with it. If you find an actual fault with it - flawed calculations, incorrect info, etc - that would be one thing. But your argument seems to be largely "its less popular than Metacritic". Valid point if we were using it instead of Metacritic. But no one wants that. Its not that it's "too hard", its that its not worth the effort. In fact, its probably pointless to argue about, because it'll be borderline impossible to enforce. Kind of like not using Gamefaqs for release dates for games in the 1990s. Regardless of what we deem here, its use is so widespread that its not like a divided fragment of WP:VG could ever really enforce it. I imagine any supporters of what you're saying will largely get burned out, or lose out to consensus most of the time. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• No actual problem (apart from the WP:UNDUE). Placing GameRankings alongside Metacritic is exactly undue. The same reason that adding GameZone to every table is undue. We wouldn't accept the latter and we should treat GameRankings the same way. From the outset, my argument has been THEGAMESINDUSTRYDONTLIKEIT, which is significantly different to IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think anyone disagrees that Metacritic is the industry standard. The reasons for giving GameRankings equal prominence stem from Wikipedian's original arguments about aggregator quality, arguments that the rest of the world have brushed past. We shouldn't use GameFaqs for release dates, WP:VG/RS states this explicity. Even if it isn't actively enforced, it's better than having a guideline that states the opposite. - hahnchen 02:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Um, there is zero UNDUE aspects here, and the GZ issue is far far far far different from the GR issue. Your argument is more akin to "Why should we include a Eurogamer review if we have an IGN review?" which of course is not going to happen. GR is a different way to finding reviews from MC. Just because the game industry doesn't hang its hats on it doesn't mean it is a bad source. There are other valid reasons for not including it, but is has zero comparison to the GameZone issue. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I just don't see it as much of a UNDUE problem when its usually a fraction of a sentence and a place on the review chart. Its effectively a very tiny part of the reception section, which is a small part of the overall sentence. Its not like we have a "Gamerankings" section or analysis or something. And yes, I know Gamefaqs is unusable, I'm relatively active at WP:VG/S - you missed the point. Its was an example of something that goes so strongly against a vast majority of editors in VG articles that its rendered useless. Much like this proposal would be. But you don't seem bothered by creating standards that aren't actively enforced, so I suppose you don't fear time wasting like I do. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a fraction of a sentence across the entirety of the encyclopedia, which our guidelines actively enforce. I'm not asking you to actively enforce any new standard, just for the standard to be removed, so we don't (even on paper) unduely endorse GameRankings. There are valid reasons for including GameZone, it is not a bad source; there are valid reasons for including Eurogamer, it is not a bad source. But neither of these are given the kind of "protection" that GameRankings has. Template:Video game reviews reads "Every single-site review source should be used within the reception section", but GameRankings gets a free pass. - hahnchen 12:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

GR is not providing a review, however. They are a neutral aggregator, with a better-documented process of how the review scores are included and aggregated compared to MC, but they make no subjective claim about the work. As such, aggregate scores do not have to be cited in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) GR is providing an opinion, there is no such thing as a neutral aggregator. Its criteria for reviews is subjective, sites "must be visually appealing", sites "must publish a minimum of 15 reviews a month", yet they include Edge scores, which this month published 8 reviews. Regardless of Metacritic's opacity, the games industry has adopted it as a standard, if the games industry is not calling for GameRankings, we shouldn't, we certainly shouldn't give it special protection. - hahnchen 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Weak Support to keep GR as a standard when it exists. Starting from the point that MC is necessary, I've pointed out my arguments how GR is a more objective, though less industry-significant, measure of aggregate score, I agree when there's 20+ reviews the numbers difference is statistically insignificant, and thus would be duplicating the MC, hence why I won't strongly defend retaining GR. However, that said, this should either be "must be used" or "never to be used", and not an optional thing, only because I can any "optional" option leading to editing warring on people inserting GR where it was chosen not to be used, or removing GR where it is used, based on their opinion. If we have have to spell out cases where its use must be or must not be used, that's fine, but this is a situation to avoid sitting on the fence towards. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned - "GameRankings should only be included on an individual basis when there is a strong consensus to do so". If there is an individual case where GameRankings should be included, it can be, but the default position is for it to be excluded. (this is the same as any other website parameter, you wouldn't go adding GameZone to everything - default is excluded) We should state this in our guidelines so we can refer to it hereafter. - hahnchen 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on bold text - @Czar, Hahnchen, Sergecross73, ProtoDrake, and Masem: Normally bold text is used to let people know, at a glance, what the opinions are. In this case, however, it's rather confusing because people are answering the question from different standpoints (I 'oppose' getting rid of it and I 'support' keeping it are opposite bold texts that mean the same thing). Can we relabel the bolds to "Keep GR as standard", "Make GR optional", "Discourage GR", and "Disallow GR", so that we can go back to knowing what everyone is saying from looking at the bold texts? Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep GR Standard I often hate how Metacritic weighs the scores giving more weigh to some sites than others. I find that GR is a safe and healty alternative that provides an actual averaged score from all the publications which reviewed a game. I do find the argument that GR is less reliable than MC a bit empty. Both websites belong to the same company, CBS Interactive, and so they should be held to the same standard. → Call me Hahc21 02:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of reliability. My argument is that the games industry (reliable secondary sources - Metacritic vs GameRankings) do not value the alternative that GameRankings supplies, and it is only included per the whims of Wikipedians. This whim should not be enforced as a standard. - hahnchen 12:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep GR standard per GR's different methodology, potential addition of further reviews not suitable for the table, and minimal bloating effect. Tezero (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep GR standard. Until there is a demonstrated harm that comes from its use - actual harm to the article, not minuscule maybe harm - I can't see the justification for this proposal. If we make it optional, it's just going to make the video game articles worse because all that will happen is that editors will focus more and more on bureaucracy and arguing than content creation - and Wikipedia could use far less as it stands. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Every single review source in the table is optional, and should generally only be used when cited in the text. I don't believe removing the special protection for GameRankings (and it's the only website that gets special protection, because unlike Metacritic, it is not the naturally used industry standard) would not add to the bureaucracy, any more than adding a new parameter would. - hahnchen 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep GR standard. If we are talking industry standard, then besides the aforementioned sources using MC as a benchmark, there are many articles criticizing MC and how it hurts the industry and its employees by their magical "number". Reliable sources that call out on over-reliance on MC! Exactly what we should avoid -- preference to and over-reliance on MC. If anything, I consider it biased to only including MC over other aggregators. There is nothing wrong about GR and it is a healthy alternative. Or, from the other view, GR should be as optional as MC should be. I even wish there were more aggregators with different criteria to place as a summary. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I linked to critiques of Metacritic above, showing how Metacritic for good or worse is the industry standard. None of those critiques suggested the use of GameRankings as a solution. Your solution to the industry standard aggregator is to use a non-standard aggregator - a Wikipedia-original solution. It's not much of a solution either given how similar the GameRankings score is. But this Wikipedia-original solution is enshrined at Template:Video game reviews. No other parameter on the table gets that level of protection. Removing it from an article where it adds nothing and essentially duplicates Metacritic should not be as painful or contentious as it currently is. - hahnchen 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Come on, stop hounding every single editor. Its pretty clear there's no consensus for this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding to arguments made that have already been countered and are yet still proposed. My reading of Hellknowz argument above would be ILIKEIT, is yours? I'm considering opening this up to a wider RFC - I do not believe the wider Wikipedia community would allow their personal appraisal of specific aggregators to override secondary sources, I don't think any other project on Wikipedia offers special protection to a non-standard measure to the degree that WP:VG has. - hahnchen 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it was starting to look a bit like badgering. And I still don't understand why you would even care that much, but to each his own. Good luck with that. If this discussion is any indication, you'll need it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"I do not believe the wider Wikipedia community would allow their personal appraisal of specific aggregators to override secondary sources" -- uh what? If we were saying, "Screw MC, we only using GR", then that would make sense. We're talking about adding a second aggregator which is known to be reliable but not as much of a standard compared to MC to be included on review tables. You're overthinking this way too much. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, but "Screw MC, we'll force GR" seems to be a prevailing argument at WT:VG. If it's not a standard, why is it deserving of special protection? - hahnchen 17:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not saying that. We are saying you should use both, not GR over MC. MC is clearly the standard, but GR provides a different cut of the scores (including reviews GR might omit) so it's a reasonable resource for a reader to look for more reviews. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's what I'm saying too. Just use both. Its really not that crazy of a prospect. WP:FILM does it the same way - they use Metacritic, and the more movie-specific Rotten Tomatoes. (MOS:FILM for details.) We use Metacritic and GameRankings. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to use both, I want to use the industry standard, which if sufficient for the industry, should be sufficient for us. Rotten Tomatoes does a different thing. It categorises reviews into Y/N rather than coming up with a weighted average. And both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are cited by reliable sources - Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic. Metacritic and GameRankings do pretty much the same thing, only one of them is the standard, yet it is forced because you have to go through this entire wall of text to remove a redundant score only for it to be reinstated in a drive by. The wider Wikipedia community decided that Infoboxes were optional, yet GameRankings isn't. - hahnchen 02:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why categorizing reviews as Y/N vs. gradient scores is so much more significant than weighting them by perceived use vs. not. And are you criticizing the fact that WP:VG consensus gets reinstated quickly and efficiently? Tezero (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You might not see that, but it's there. Compare the scores, they're different, the two scores tell you something different about the film. If everyone rates a film 7/10, that's a 100% fresh, but a 70 Metascore. If everyone rates a game 7/10, that's a 70 Metascore and a wasted row for Gamerankings. - hahnchen 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

RT has to do some OR for some reviews to decide if they are fresh or not, so that's a lot more subjective than GameRanking's neutral approach. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OR is exactly what reliable sources are allowed to do. It's what we trust them to do. GameRankings value Digital Chumps opinion the same as IGN's, it might be more transparent (despite an arbitrary application of their approval criteria), but it isn't neutral. - hahnchen 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You do know that RT also consider small newspapers and magazines on the same order as NY Times and the like too, right? And unlike most VG reviews which have some type of score, RT frequently has to read between the lines to determine the fresh/rotten rating since many film reviewers have forgone the star rating system. Am I saying that RT is a bad source? No, it's a good companion to the MC rating for a film. My problem is if you say RT is "fine" and then complain that GR is introducing OR and opinion and shouldn't be used, that's hypocritical, as GR is far more unbiased and objective than RT. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You have totally misrepresented or just plain misunderstood my argument. My argument never had anything to do with OR - only yours did, and I punched a hole in it when I showed that GameRankings was subjective and non-neutral. Rotten Tomatoes is not fine because it has its own methodology, we're not in a position to appraise methodology, Rotten Tomatoes is fine because there are reliable sources that say it is. The only OR that GameRankings introduces is that reliable sources never mention it because it's not the industry standard. It's not GameRankings OR, it's yours. - hahnchen 15:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown anything how GR is subjective and non-neutral, and to say that it is more than MC or RT is a very large stretch based on GR's published metrics for inclusion and calculation. And it is not OR for us to use a source that reports exactly how it is compiling scores as an aggregator alongside the industry standard as to provide a second reference for these scores for a video game article. That is the flexibility we have as WP editors in choosing what we consider as reliable sources - those decisions might involve some original research but that's not the OR that WP:NOR disallows. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You point out GameRankings objective selection criteria - I point out how they're not objective and unevenly applied. You point out how RT weights each score equally, which is their judgement call - I point out how GR does that too. Not a single reliable source mentions Castlevania and Gamerankings. Plenty of them mention Castlevania and Metacritic. Who are we to say that GameRankings is mandatory? How can that possibly be construed as flexibility? - hahnchen 04:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) GameRankings also sees some use by companies like Take-Two and Activision. source Tezero (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice find. It further drives the point home that both are valid. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And it even further emphasizes that both should remain mentioned until a time at which a specific, significant reason is presented to remove either MC or GR. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep GR Standard because there is nothing against policy in keeping it and there is no obvious reason to remove it, thus every time you were to make an edit to remove it, you would need to explain why. That is neither productive, nor is there a serious reason to perform this change. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Every time you make an edit to remove it, there would be no need for an explanation. You would need an explanation to add it, just like the rest of the reviews. - hahnchen 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree with that. For instance, GR adds to an article, many articles already include it and it is an improvement to having just Metacritic as it provides a different view. If you remove that, you are taking away from the article, which needs explanation. Either way, there is no serious reason that I have seen provided that would make me want to remove GR. Just like the point made above by @Sergecross73:, whereas movie articles include both RottenTomatoes and Metacritic, I think it is an enhancement to the article to have both GR and MC, whereas removing GR detracts from the article. I also dislike how every time a USER makes a vote, you decide to refute it. It seems like badgering. Agree to disagree, I guess. It just doesn't seem at all productive. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken Sword's GTRC

The Broken Sword topic is currently a Good Topic Review Candidate. If anyone is interested in voting in the review, you can go right here. GamerPro64 04:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Expanding "Portrayal of men" section and other issues

I have issued a Request for Comment concerning the issues above on the talk page of Gender representation in video games. The article needs a thorough sort-out, but I don't want to just barrel ahead on an article like this. Comments and opinions requested, needed and appreciated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• You should propose changes to the structure to help guide the conversation. As an aside, do we really need an RFC to discuss the possible restructuring of a C-class article? --Odie5533 (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Channel's FAC

Anyone want to comment on the FAC? It's gotten very little attention so far. Tezero (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: I was avoiding doing so as I had contributed to the peer review and other parts of the article and didn't want to come off as biased, but seeing as this hasn't gained any traction in the past few days I'll see if I can find some time tomorrow to look through and leave some comments on the FAC. I'm not sure how fruitful it'll be, considering I've already gone through the article a few times before, but I'm happy to help. --Nicereddy (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Anything's appreciated; maybe you'll find something new. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Nihongo foot usage in articles

Discussion is here. It is a template which is used for Japanese game articles with related media (Tales of Symphonia, Tales of Graces, and Tales of Xillia), so opinions from this project would be helpful, though I could be in the wrong place. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) merge discussion

I'm requesting that editors come in to resolve the discussion about whether or not to merge Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) into Grand Theft Auto V. I have the article up for FAC and want to make sure we don't have this active discussion going in the middle of it; editors have been voting on it in dribs and drabs for nearly two months now. CR4ZE (t) 06:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Gamification of learning page

Hello all. I am new to Wikipedia. Last month I started a page on the gamification of learning, and it was classed as "within the scope of WikiProject Video games." I was very excited about this! I have worked hard to add a lot more content to the article, and hope some of you will have time to check it out. --Heatherjsb (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Heatherjsb: Just skimmed through the article a bit. I find this concept really interesting for its potential in getting kids more interested in learning, I'll have to take a longer look at it later when I have more time!

As for comments on the article, I'd see if you can add some images to the page, as it's lacking them at the moment. Maybe you can see if there's a relevant image in Wikimedia Commons' Category:Classrooms? Unfortunately it's a somewhat specific topic, so pictures may not be found as easily as they could be.

The citations are really well-done, although I do suppose I have a thing for good formatting. It looks like you've put a lot of work into the article, nice job! --Nicereddy (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Heatherjsb: Very nice initial article! Most editor's first attempts tend to be soapboxes for their personal agendas, but you've created a well-written, clear, balanced, neutral, well-sourced article from scratch. Really nice work! I made a few edits, but nothing major. I nudged the opening sentence a bit and changed all the direct extern links to refs (direct extern links in the article proper are discouraged, and their subjects are fine as redlinks since they encourage new articles). Really nice work! I hope to see more valuable contributions from you going forward. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrating cite AV media notes (aka cite album notes) to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

Please comment regarding the migration of {{cite AV media notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here: Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are similarities, your thoughts regarding the migration of {{cite DVD-notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here: Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are a few video game people listed as Top-importance?

I don't fully agree with this project's importance standards, but they are fairly consistent and well-maintained compared to those of most other WikiProjects. One garish oddity, though, is the inclusion of a few individual people, such as Nolan Bushnell and Shigeru Miyamoto. I advocate partitioning these real-life figures off into the High- and Mid-importance classes for the following reasons:

• They are not well-known outside the gaming community – certainly not compared to subjects like certain individual consoles (Xbox 360, Nintendo DS), games (World of Warcraft, Super Mario Bros.), and characters (Pac-Man, Yoshi, Link), all of which are High- or even Mid-importance.
• Because of the limited amount of media it is humanly possible for one person to work on, none of these people have the extreme influence within the industry that seems necessary for Top-importance. Sure, Ralph H. Baer created the light gun (Mid) and worked along with others on the Magnavox Odyssey (High). What else? Even if he had not only created the Odyssey by himself, but was literally synonymous with both products, he wouldn't have any more influence on the industry than, say, Super Mario 64 (High) or Grand Theft Auto III (High), games that are brought up near-constantly when developers discuss what inspired their creations.
• I contend that most of these people aren't even that well-known inside the gaming community. I hadn't even heard of most of them before browsing through WP:VG's Top-importance articles a while ago, and I'm fairly knowledgeable about games. The only Top-importance people I've ever heard mention of in a conversation or even gaming publication are Miyamoto and maybe Suzuki once or twice. (This is also true of Will Wright [High] and Phil Fish [Low]). If the rest of these people can really be quoted without hesitation by any segment of the game community, that segment consists of veteran executives and maybe some well-educated older players.

I propose that each Top-importance person be reevaluated. Tezero (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - I don't necessarily know all the people listed in Top, but reading their contributions, we're talking key figures that have helped to shape the nature of video games (hardware and software) today. I'm not saying all the present top-listed ones need to be there, but I think there really aught to be more - eg Will Wright, Sid Meier, Ken Levine, Gabe Newell, and I'm sure there's plenty of others. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They're not at all insignificant; I just dispute that any of them alone have changed the industry more than things like Super Mario 64, which we can't list as Top-importance right now as it's an individual product. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that Miyamoto's page starts off by saying that "Sometimes called "the father of modern video gaming," he is best known as the creator of some of the best-selling, most critically acclaimed, most enduring, and most influential games and franchises of all time.", yes, I think we can say that he has changed the industry more than one of his creations alone. On the flip side, though...

Does it matter? I mean, I've never once seen the importance ratings have any effect on any editor's work. People might be more or less inclined to work on an article about an important figure/game, but they determine that based on what they hold important, not what the tag actually says. We could downgrade all 30k articles to Low, and nothing would really change for us. (the WP1.0 project, on the other hand, might complain) --PresN 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Therein lies the caveat; since WP1.0 is intended for students and laypeople, privileging certain game designers and other people as Top-importance is even more egregious, though I'm not sure how much time they actually spend looking at our importance categories. But if it doesn't matter that they're Top-importance, surely it wouldn't matter if we changed them.

As for your first point, though, I contend that some of Miyamoto's creations are more influential (as well as—and I don't see this being contested—more well-known) than the man himself, because he didn't create them himself, and because it's entirely possible (and likely common) to be influenced by something like the level design, gameplay, and open-ended structure of Super Mario 64 without knowing or caring what Miyamoto or anyone else contributed to the project, or even that they did. And Miyamoto's probably the most influential and well-known of any of these people.

The "father of modern video gaming" bit is important, but similar accolades have been bestowed on Mario and Super Mario Bros., for example. Tezero (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason we opted to keep any specific video games, characters, and hardware out of the top tier is to have this project keep its focus more on the history of the medium, and less "games", making the overall effort more encyclopedic. No one doubts the importance of Mario the character, or Super Mario 64 to the overall industry of VGs, but it's not those games but their creators that are the ones that should be the focus of the education of VGs. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But we're allowed to list specific people, companies, and console brands? (But only some brands: PlayStation > Xbox/Game Boy line?) That seems really screwed-up. Tezero (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would remove all individuals from the Top importance. - hahnchen 02:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Since we have this much, and I don't see any strong opinions against de-Topping these people, here is my proposition:

Ralph H. Baer → High

Nolan Bushnell → Mid

John D. Carmack → High

Ken Kutaragi → Mid

Shigeru Miyamoto → High

Yu Suzuki → Mid

I'll just change them to this at an appropriate time if no one objects. Tezero (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea and list. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Done it. Tezero (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mid-class is way too low for these. They all belong to at least high-class. Nolan Bushnell, one of the fathers of video game industry, mid class? Same assessment for Kutaragi who changed the whole industry with PlayStation? Suzuki has worked on 9 mid-class games and 1 high-class game. I think that makes it a high-class article. Sorry but you don't know anything about the history of video games if you haven't heard about these people. --Mika1h (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I already changed Nolan to high. As for the others, It depends on how other designers on wikipedia are rated. Ken Kutaragi and Yu Suzuki are both extremely important, but they are less important than Nolan Bushnell or Shigeru Miyamoto. If other designers of similar stature are rated as high though, they should be too. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ridiculous succession boxes

I just removed a ridiculous succession box on the Doom article. Talk:Doom_(video_game)#why_is_there_a_succession_box_for_a_minor_achievement.3F I'm wondering if there is a bot to remove this pointless succession box from all pages its own, to save time. Does anyone believe that mentioning what games were number one for a single month in the UK should be in all of these articles? There are dozens of other game articles that have it still in it. See Alien Trilogy, etc. I don't think that's a significant achievement, and if we had one for every nation it was number one in for any month, and for each platform it was released on, it'd take up a lot of space. Dream Focus 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I also removed it from Ridge Racer Revolution Alien Trilogy Actua Soccer FIFA Soccer 96 and finally Tekken (video game) since I also don't see that as necessary. I lost track after Ridge Racer since the entry after that was a siccer game thot does not have an article so there may be more.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I managed to find out that all of them were added by the same IP address in June 2012 meaning that I was able to find all of the pages with box. Some had already been removed some time ago but I did remove the rest. This should be over unless the user in question decides to return. however, since they did not readd the box to the articles where it was previously removed I think there is little to worry about.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion 1, Previous Discussion 2. My tuppence on the matter is that they should be binned; and that we need a consensus and a note in the guidelines to stop the damn things coming back. - X201 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Count me in for removal. They were added over a year ago so hopefully that peraon has moved on.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Screenshot

I've come across a few pages for MMO's that want screenshots and I can take care of that, but what sort of CC license are we bound to by doing that? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless we know the MMO's publisher has given us a free license, we assume that screenshots of video games are under a normal copyright license and fall under non-free images, and should be licensed as {{Non-free video game screenshot}}. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Alright, thanks. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You can still include a screenshot on these articles if you have sourced discussion about its gameplay to describe the interface and the like, but I'd recommend using the "Upload file" link in the left menu to get you to the upload wizard that helps you guide all the information you need. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, got Supremacy 1914's logo on. Doubt I'll be doing any other site, tho. Thanks for all the help! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced/unnotable mention of composer at Warlords of Draenor

Could someone visit World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor and review the talk page section about Jason Hayes? Jason Hayes originally worked on World of Warcraft, left Blizzard, and later returned. There are no reliable sources or any real notability attached to his involvement with the new expansion, as he is not the lead composer or any such. It was removed after a short talk page. The original editor who inserted it returned today and re-added it. I cannot violate 3RR, but an IP has just added it back (I suspect the same editor, logged out, attempting to circumvent 3RR, based on contribution history). The latest edit rationale is that it would "boost sales" ... which would make the edit promotional as well, I guess? -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What do other WikiProjects think of us?

If they're even aware. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to ask them, I imagine. -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I've always been impressed with the WikiProject. Our talk page is far more active than many I've looked through or been a part of. I've come across many where they are relatively desolate, and there's little answers to questions or concerns. Almost everything here gets responses/discussions. Also, I don't believe its very common for a project to have such an extensive list of reliable/unreliable sources like we do at WP:VG/S, or one at all. (There is WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, which I've tried to help them with some in the past, but its far behind what we have here.)
• That being said, in passing, I've somewhat gotten the sentiment that what we consider a reliable source is a little too loose compared to other projects. I feel like sometimes someone from somewhere like a literary background would scoff at us using sources like Kotaku or GameZone. Just as well, I'm not sure I'd care about Kotaku's thoughts on Shakespeare - but that being said, sources need to be experts in their field, not necessarily for everything. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've never noticed that about sourcing, but now that I think about it, our guidelines are fairly loose, in that a source doesn't have to be too well-established. I can't speak for literature articles, but I know that biology ones, particularly about diseases and disorders, have extremely strict guidelines. (Not only do sources have to be from widely known, reputable, and old publications; they have to be secondary, or in some cases have to be primary.)

My overall impression is that our project is rather centralized; while ones like Military history and Film also get large numbers of GAs and FAs, they appear to run on individual members doing their own things rather than consulting one another like we do. I could be way off-base on that, though. Tezero (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, the statement about sources, seems to occur more so at AFD. So it could be just more of a "they wanted the article to be deleted" than anything personal against our source standards. And as you were kind of getting at, we don't need sources written by scientists or anything, because most of our article don't have any danger of falling into pseudoscience or fringe theories quite like other topics.
• You're right, I think we collaborate/consult a little more than other WikiProjects, but I think there's a number of reasons for that. 1) We're very active, so there's many people there to consult, or be a hindrance and need consultation on. 2) I'm not referencing anyone in particular, but to be quite frank, I believe that, with the subject matter, we deal with a lot of immature adolescents that are either out to start trouble, or have strong (yet questionable) opinions on things. The console war-mentality of the industry doesn't help either. So I think we need that sense of collaboration to keep our articles from constantly being in the state of an edit war. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm really not sure any WikiProject worries about the others. If you're not interested in, say, movies, then you probably won't pay the respective Wikiproject much attention. The biggest visibility factor is the ratings on the talk pages, but past that? I don't think so. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The rest of Wikipedia looks down on us in the same way we look down at those who work on Pokemon articles. - hahnchen 04:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*cries* Tezero (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously though, unless there is a case of overlap and or a case whete there is a direct conflict brtween different Wikiproject rules I doubt that other Wikiprojects give us much though and vice versa.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Editor dispute - Knuckles in Sonic the Hedgehog 1

There is some dispute on the Knuckles the Echidna and Sonic & Knuckles pages. A user is claiming that Knuckles was playable in Sonic the Hedgehog 1 by locking the cartridge onto Sonic & Knuckles, citing a scan from a 1994 issue of MegaZone as evidence. However, another user asserts that Knuckles was not playable in Sonic 1 via lock-on, and that the only feature the two games unlocked when combined was an expansion to the Blue Sphere special stages. Until the first user's edits, all prior revisions of the page have only stated that Knuckles could be used in Sonic 2 and 3, not 1, supporting the second user's claims. Please advise: which user is correct? -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Retail copies will only use the bonus stages by design (iirc sonic 1 is supposed to offer 1000 of them or something like that). I have a feeling Sega made some form of statement to say Sonic 1 wasn't technically possible, but unfortunately I can't provide evidence. A scan can be used as evidence they attempted it, but it wasn't present on retail copies. The mag scan is clearly from before the game was finished so using it as proof of a feature that was never released publicly is a bit odd. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to add it to the article as a planned feature. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty essential if the article was to be properly improved. I would imagine there should be another magazine with a similar aspect, much how we learned a little about the Sonic 2 beta partly because of magazine coverage prior to release being rediscovered through the internet.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm the user who added the Knuckles in Sonic 1 claim; I did add it newly to Knuckles' page, and I thought Sonic & Knuckles' page already did, but looking at it now I must have misinterpreted what was said. However, I do recall there being a screenshot of Knuckles in Sonic 1 on Wikipedia—I'm not sure which of the three articles (Knuckles, Sonic 1, Sonic & Knuckles) it was in—circa 2008-2009, though that may have been with modding. Further research (into clearly non-reliable sources like old forum posts and user-made guides) gives conflicting information.

And it is essential, since I'm working on Sonic character articles for a likely Good/Featured Topic in the future.

What seems like the least offensive option is to simply say that he was playable in Sonic 2 and 3 and appeared in some promotional screenshots of 1 released around the time of Sonic & Knuckles. Tezero (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Early development screenshots" seems a bit closer to the truth. Promotional screenshots is a bit of a minefield and could easily suggest they were marketing materials, which is jumping the gun.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that all the game cases (JP, US, EU, AU for example) only advertise lock-on functionality for Sonic 2 and 3, while ignoring Sonic 1 in any capacity. If Knuckles was playable in Sonic 1 via lock-on, it seems odd that they would omit that from the box. Additionally, Sonic Mega Collection features Blue Sphere, Knuckles in Sonic 2, and Sonic 3 and Knuckles, but no Knuckles in Sonic 1, and the Wii Virtual Console version of Sonic & Knuckles can "lock on" to the three numbered titles to unlock the same three bonuses, but (again) not Knuckles in Sonic 1. Given this, combined with the existence of the scan, it's probably best phrased as such:

"Early development screenshots suggest Knuckles was planned to be playable in Sonic the Hedgehog via Sonic & Knuckles' lock-on technology, but this feature was removed prior to release. However, Knuckles was later added as a playable character in the 2013 Remastered release for iOS." -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"but this feature was removed for unexplained reasons." - implies that the reasons aren't explained, but it's really just that we personally don't know. Better I think to say "but this feature was not present in the released game." --PresN 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Edited accordingly. -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This source seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the lock on situation. Яehevkor ✉ 22:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning 2014

Spring is coming soon so we might as well get some cleaning done. Currently we got:

• Six articles up at FAC: Dishonored, God of War III, Proteus (video game), Pokémon Channel, Grand Theft Auto V, Menacer. The Dishonored review being up since January 24th.
• A FTC for the Sega Genesis.
• Ten articles at GAN: Big the Cat, The Castle Doctrine, Drakengard 2, Blood Knights, Charlie Murder, Tales of Xillia, Invader (artist), Development of Grand Theft Auto V, Seiken Densetsu 3, Yu Narukami. Blood Knights and Charlie Murder articles are currently being reviewed.
• Two Peer Reviews: Drakengard 2, Nuon (DVD technology).
• And there is an FAR for Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening and a GTRC for Broken Sword.

GamerPro64 00:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If it matters, I've given my thoughts at all of the FACs except Menacer's, and that's because I passed its GAN and feel strange about the prospect. I agree that this is quite a backlog. Tezero (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)