Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 334: Line 334:
:I would really only use material as back-up for actual claims (textual or verbal) requiring no interpretation at all. Not even obvious-to-the-world interpretation. It's simply too easy for strange misinterpretations to creep in otherwise. If in the intro to a game, the voice-actor explicitly says "In the 21st century, ... China would invade Alaska, the US would annex Canada, and the European Commonwealth would dissolve..." then the game could be cited for the on-wiki claim that the game is set in a future time when the US has annexed Canada. If in the in-game weapon description the words printed on the screen read "10mm SMG: A medium-sized SMG, capable of single shot and burst mode." then the game could be cited for the on-wiki claim that the 10mm SMG can be used in single shot or burst mode. But I don't think it is appropriate to cite the game for the claim that the game offers the player a variety of weapons. Even though simply playing the game will allow the reader to come to the same conclusion as the writer of the Wikipedia article, it's still an interpretation. Maybe it's a really obvious interpretation. In that case I'd argue that it needs no citation at all. If it's so obvious then it is not likely to be challenged. But if it were challenged it would need a better source than the game itself because ultimately the game really makes no such claim. An element or aspect of a game is not the same as a claim regarding the element or aspect of the game. -[[User:Thibbs|Thibbs]] ([[User talk:Thibbs|talk]]) 17:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:I would really only use material as back-up for actual claims (textual or verbal) requiring no interpretation at all. Not even obvious-to-the-world interpretation. It's simply too easy for strange misinterpretations to creep in otherwise. If in the intro to a game, the voice-actor explicitly says "In the 21st century, ... China would invade Alaska, the US would annex Canada, and the European Commonwealth would dissolve..." then the game could be cited for the on-wiki claim that the game is set in a future time when the US has annexed Canada. If in the in-game weapon description the words printed on the screen read "10mm SMG: A medium-sized SMG, capable of single shot and burst mode." then the game could be cited for the on-wiki claim that the 10mm SMG can be used in single shot or burst mode. But I don't think it is appropriate to cite the game for the claim that the game offers the player a variety of weapons. Even though simply playing the game will allow the reader to come to the same conclusion as the writer of the Wikipedia article, it's still an interpretation. Maybe it's a really obvious interpretation. In that case I'd argue that it needs no citation at all. If it's so obvious then it is not likely to be challenged. But if it were challenged it would need a better source than the game itself because ultimately the game really makes no such claim. An element or aspect of a game is not the same as a claim regarding the element or aspect of the game. -[[User:Thibbs|Thibbs]] ([[User talk:Thibbs|talk]]) 17:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Purely desciptive material (gameplay descriptions), or bits of dialgoue, say, can be cited to the game, I believe; if it starts to get subjective (difficulty, strategies etc.) it needs a secondary source. There's arguably also a concern over detail: if there's no secondary source for something, maybe it's not necessary to understand the game. I think basic descriptions sourced to the game are less of a headache, though, and fine at least until FAC. [[User:Bridies|bridies]] ([[User talk:Bridies|talk]]) 17:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Purely desciptive material (gameplay descriptions), or bits of dialgoue, say, can be cited to the game, I believe; if it starts to get subjective (difficulty, strategies etc.) it needs a secondary source. There's arguably also a concern over detail: if there's no secondary source for something, maybe it's not necessary to understand the game. I think basic descriptions sourced to the game are less of a headache, though, and fine at least until FAC. [[User:Bridies|bridies]] ([[User talk:Bridies|talk]]) 17:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

== Article on Gamergate? ==

As this article from the Guardian [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn] appears to be the first major non-game related source to cover the whole recent issue of Zoe Quinn/Anita/etc., I wonder if we should consider an article on it. It would clearly need to be under BLP-levels of scrutiny in sourcing, but there's enough from the traditional VG press that describe the basic end results without going into opinion on who's right or wrong. A more minor issue would be on the naming as "Gamergate" is a term in biology already and I would dare not say ours is the more common version. "Gamergate (video game controversy)"? --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:35, 3 September 2014

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None FA

Taking upon a pre-2008 FA review, I have serious concerns with Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None's status as an FA, noted here. I have an inkling that this is unfortunately destined for FAR. What's a good time to wait for responses to my comments before moving to the next step? If anybody has further concerns with the article, please feel free to add to the discussion. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its undergone a lot of changes when it was promoted in 2007, until now. I know FAs aren't preserved in aspic, but this is a different article. - X201 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even the 2007 version would have passed by today's standards. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I wrote down those initial comments at the pre-2008 FA page. While we're at it, have you had a look at BioShock's sources lately? Tezero (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to FAR. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of exclusive games articles

Articles like List of PS3 exclusive titles are excessive, right? A few of them have popped up, in about 90% incomplete form, in the last few weeks. I was about to redirect it or something, but It seems like I'm always the bad guy around here lately, so I thought I'd get input on this one first. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 3 games already documents this already too, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. It is completely redundant. Chambr (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also completely agree with you Sergecross; I thought about proposing the same thing here but I guess you beat me to it :) They are nowhere near complete, not to mention redundant, and they should all be redirected. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, redudant to the full list of games by platform. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention List of horror games, a needless duplicate of List of horror video games. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this user's list Comparison of gaming platforms seems debatable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, it's good to see editors working on vg-related lists, but it's important to get them right from the outset to avoid redundancy and work being thrown at dead-ends. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is ja:WP does not have a grudge with primary sources?

A bit inspired to try fixing up Puyo Puyo Tetris article. Went to check ja:ぷよぷよテトリス to see if any sources can be paralleled across, and found that they can have 3 out of 6 references (Nos. 5-7) being primary sources from SEGA while not gaining any tags like {{primary sources}}. I note that there could be policy differences, and understand that Puyo Puyo can easily achieve notability easier in Japan with its popularity, but is that simply bad form unchecked, or I just misunderstood some fundamental thing about primary sources and it's totally OK? Thanks for your answers in advance.

PS. Docking some sources here. If any of them are not WP:RS please do advise.

野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 09:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4Gamer and DengekiOnline are reliable sources. And all that they're doing at ja.wp is pointing out obvious things in the text that don't need 3rd party stuff like gameplay details, I'm guessing. Honestly, the same thing flies here. Third party sources are needed to establish notability and support critical reviews and such. Not gameplay details, unless there's some sort of metagame that only gets touched upon in third party sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese Wikipedia has completely different standards and is almost universally obsolete in references, sourcing and "encyclopedic content" by English Wikipedia standards. WP:VG has done a much better job in covering the content than our Japanese counterparts. However, much of plot and character details exist undisturbed there when they would be removed on English Wikipedia because they comprise the entirety of the article. JA is a good starting point, but not every page is going to be equivalent, useful or a undisturbed gold mine of sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted, other language Wikis may have different rules/standards. But on the other hand, a lot of that is similar to what can be found on here when hitting the "random article" button or browsing pop culture/fiction articles; it wouldn't be surprising to see it at least as prevalent on smaller WPs with less manpower. bridies (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and sometimes it all boils down to if there's anyone there to enforce things correctly too. For example, in 2008 when I first started, there was all sorts of in-universe, garbage fancruff across all the Sonic articles. It's not that it was okay, it just that it was overrun by fans who we're writing it more like a Wikia or a fansite. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mostly this. If there is no admin/dedicated by the rules user(s) around what can happen is that articles become tripe. In the foreign Wikipedias this happen a whole lot more, as there is just not enough dedicated man power. It's one of the reasons why I mostly do not visit the dutch Wikipedia anymore. I do not see a point in struggling with certain articles if there is no hope for improvement on the long term. NathanWubs (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but you also see the Japanese Wikipedia deleting pages wholesale where we'd just revdel stuff out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest issue here is WikiProject populations size. jp.wikipedia is a volunteer project just like en.wikipedia, and with something like 5x fewer editors at ja.WP:VG and 30x fewer subpages (this was covered in WP:VG Newsletter Q1 2013), the sourcing in their articles and the enforcement of their policies are bound to be less rigorous. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with jawiki is partially that there are too many content pages and active users (including both IP and registered), and disproportionately fewer people cleaning the usual trash up. As a result, jawiki has accumulated all sorts of trash and fancruft since no one's there to attend to it, and now it's essentially become a norm there to have lots of cruft in articles. If someone points out that an article is full of cruft, another person would probably say something like "but so and so article is also like that!", leading to a never-ending cycle of more inaction. The cruft simply accumulates, and no one is motivated or interested in cleaning it up. If someone breaks the status quo, they would probably face opposition against the old norm. This is not just for videogame articles; even country articles and articles about historical scientists are full of unencyclopedic tripe, and there is a huge ton of articles on the Japanese Wikipedia with zero citations, inline or otherwise. No one bats an eyelid, because nobody cares. Keep in mind that jawiki is one of the larger Wikipedia projects, despite being smaller than enwiki; there's still a large amount of content involved.

The English Wikipedia has 1,400 sysops responsible for covering 4,588,506 mainspace articles, and 130,663 active users. This amounts to a ratio of 3,277 pages per sysop, and 93 regular users per sysop. Meanwhile, the Japanese Wikipedia has one of the largest sysop-user and sysop-article disparities among the larger sized (500,000+) Wikipedia projects, with only a figure of 53 sysops covering 923,564 mainspace articles, and 11,655 active users. That's a sysop-article ratio of 1:17425, and a sysop-user ratio of 1:219. No one is there to clean up all the unencyclopedic shit on jawiki, because there just simply aren't enough admins to handle such a workload.

On the English Wikipedia, we see sysops as glorified janitors, not people of power or prestige. As long as someone is able to demonstrate that they are willing to have professionalism and competence in contributing to the project, we hand out the mopbuckets on a regular basis. Over on the Japanese Wikipedia, however, the community is shy about handing out sysop privileges, because these positions are still viewed as holding power. The amount of bootlicking and asskissing for sysops on the Japanese Wikipedia is far greater than what we have over here. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your input. Cleaned up the article some and will continue into the future. Should also try to read the policy text for ja:wp because I foresee myself having to parallel quite often. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of fancruft, ja:wp's coverage of Puyo Puyo has full pages of character info for even the most minor of characters and very disproportionate size of sources. Just saying though, not going to incorporate into any en:wp pages. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The largest group of video gamers are adult women. Could you feature an explanation?

There are groups like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force who give Wikipedia an earful because of a gender gap in our participation and coverage. But I was just floored to read [1] which says that there are substantially more adult women than teenage boys who play video games. Clearly neither our coverage nor the image in the media gives this impression - the article mentions that advertising is generally targeted to the young boys, not so much why.

I think it would be useful for your project to identify something to feature which gives people more of an understanding of what the women are playing and/or what the state of art in its development is. I'll add that I've never personally been fond of featuring single-product articles, so my wish would be that you can feature an overall category or type of game that gives us some insight into "how the other [larger] half plays." Wnt (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This'll get really dirty really quick but I'd just like to quote what the article says about it; The spike in the number female gamers is likely tied to widespread smartphone adoption. In addition to traditional PCs and the Nintendo Wii game console, women were more likely to game on their mobile devices, So rather than playing 'heavy' games, they're playing games on their phones more than boys who would traditionally use a console/PC gaming machine. That's my understanding of it, anywho. Oh, the article also mentioned 'in app purchases' which would be indicative of mobile gaming even more so. Flurry found that on average, women spent 31 percent more money on in-app purchases and 35 percent more time within mobile games as compared to their male counterparts. So yeah. Tutelary (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Id agree with that explanation as well. Wii and Smartphone games expanded the audience, while games like GTA, and the general aging of the NES/Genesis era of gamers has skewed the demographic as older in general as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been pointed out, but again - that stat (and similar, like the c. 50% of all gamers now being female stat) includes all the various simple games being played on smartphones, tablets and social media (tactile, Wii-type gaming may also account for some of it, but probably increasingly less so as tablets have gotten more popular). If you're able to get stats for people playing games on consoles and especially desktop computers, and even more especially games that cost a significant amount of money (say, more than $10), I'm sure it will still be male dominated. Even if tablet/phone/facebook games are nominally "video games" and "gaming", IMO there's a real dichotomy between that and the more trad games we tend to cover, and am not really bothered by any lack of coverage on our part. bridies (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Women and video games would be the obvious article, in reference to the latter part of your question. bridies (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a welcome article to have, currently listed as B-class. I think it would be exceptionally welcome for the readers to see your project work this up to featured status. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "exceptionally welcome"? We work on whatever we want. If for someone here that happens to include the Women in video games article, so be it, but we're not obligated to get any specific page up to a certain recognized status just because others want that. Currently, FA video game articles don't represent visual novels, traditional sports games (Madden, MLB, 2K, etc.), The Sims, Tetris, etc. at all; what's so special about representing middle-aged women? Sure, they're an important demographic that the industry could probably do a better job advertising to, but FA status doesn't make a given topic any more important, and this article in particular would be difficult to because of its massive, nebulous scope and strongly controversial nature. Tezero (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy. He didn't say "Do it now, or there will be consequences!" He's saying it'd be nice if it happened. If you don't want to do it, then don't. But it's nothing to get mad about. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has spent time improving the "Women and video games" article I'll note that those of us who have worked on the article would always appreciate further improvements if you are interested in helping, Wnt. -Thibbs (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as evidenced by my surprise here, I really don't know the industry, and honestly, I haven't focused on getting even an article on a familiar topic through the featuring process in years. I was just hoping someone here would think it was an interesting thing to do. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for the suggestion. There's actually been a bit of attention on the article recently so we may see some improvements soon. There's no obligation to assist of course, but often I find that the more participation the faster the improvements take place. So no pressure, but feel free to join in. -Thibbs (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RESCUE discussion notification

As a heads-up, I've started a discussion at WP:ARS about Dancing with the Stars (video game), since it is, in my view, at once an article on an interesting topic (see the ARS thread for details), and also an aricle that risks being deleted if nominated for AfD. Please feel free to join the discussion there if you have any thoughts. It Is Me Here t / c 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiplayer and single-player video games

You might have seen this new category in your watchlists recently. I'm not so hot on the title, but I don't have the time right now to really think about it. Wanted to bring the recategorization to your attention since it will undoubtably affect thousands (a sizable minority) of our articles.

Discussion at Category talk:Multiplayer and single-player video games czar ♔ 17:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was also added to a video game on my watchlist that's exclusively single player.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Shadows Unsalt

  • The game has been successfully funded on Kickstarter.
  • It has received national coverage by WHNT News.
  • It has set the record for highest funded Kickstarter from Alabama.
  • It has also set the record for highest funded game from Ouya Free the games fund.
  • It has also been on the August cover of Indie Game Magazine.

Elysian Shadows reality series AiGD has also earned a partnership deal from YouTube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cube_b3/Elysian_Shadows All of this information has been updated to the page in my sandbox.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who salted the article, because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Shadows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Shadows (2nd nomination). Still uncertain if it's WP:TOOSOON or not, and tired of being the bad guy all the time, I suggested it be brought up here, to let the community decide. (EDIT: Nevermind, I didn't salt this one, I was thinking of Heaven Sent Gaming, another article that was being repeatedly recreated around the same time. I was merely a recurring proponent for this article's deletion in the past.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're concerned with "being the bad guy". You're only enforcing policies; it's not your fault that there's a strong correlation between experience on Wikipedia and deletionism. I don't involve myself in notability discussions anymore, but if they want to plaster up the article and it's not to your liking, as an admin, tough beans. Tezero (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WP:TOOSOON. Their kick starter has not even ended yet. I do not think It has set the record for highest funded Kickstarter from Alabama. is all that notable. Unless you could show that there are a lot (higher the average) kickstarters to start with in Alabama and I suspect that is not the case. Would still make a nice detail in the article once it can be created. NathanWubs (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Ouya free the games fund exponentially more notable than anything else. That is a video game industry milestone in general! Additionally the biggest problem with Wikipedia is that no Ouya specific website is on the approved list. Not even Ouyacentral.tv
Also note the game has received significant coverage from all notable indie websites including the ones on our list.
Lastly 801 projects have been Kickstarted from Alabama. That is a significant number. EIGHT HUNDRED AND ONE. Reference is on the page.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing that the admins are not keeping into account is that the development of the game is actually more important then the actual game. You know the old saying it is not the destination, it is the journey that matters. Well that is exactly what AiGD is and it is a series that has been on for 7 years.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://whnt.com/2014/08/20/two-madison-county-engineers-leave-jobs-to-make-video-game-close-to-funding-their-dream/

http://kotaku.com/a-16-bit-rpg-that-promises-a-modern-twist-1626228329 http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331672688973/elysian-shadows-kickstarting-a-new-dreamcast-game

These are all websites that are main stream, reliable and notable. Please let's expedite this process. I have been working on this page for months and I really want to move on to some other articles.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why it's the projects fault that there are no known RS's for dedicated to the Ouya. Is it our fault that the system apparently hasn't generated enough interest to have one arise? Is it our responsibility to create sources? Or ignore RS guidelines because there aren't any yet? What exactly are you suggesting with that? Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you evaluate the Ouya scene. The system has made national headlines and it has fundamentally redesigned game development, distribution and financing. Given it's business model it has changed the way a video game platform is supposed to interact with the community. I think Admin's need to explore the Ouya thoroughly and prioritize an investigation on how that community is ticking because it is a significant part of video game history and notable anyway you look at it. You are an admin, spend some time on Google and do your own research. When you do you will find that Elysian Shadows has been covered on every Ouya website official, professional or fan sites.
Coming back to the subject of Elysian Shadows please explain how the following things are exempt from notability?
  • 1) It has set a record on Ouya on Free the Games Fund.
  • 2) Record holder for Alabama's highest crowd sourced project on Kickstarter out of 801 projects.
  • 3) Secondary news coverage from main stream media outlets on national television such as WHNT News (owned by CBS).
  • 4) Original secondary coverage from main stream gaming outlets from the approved list of secondary references such as Destructoid, IndieGames.com (owned by Gamasutra) and Kotaku. You can use Wikipedia's own custom search engine to find a whole lot more.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Admins have no special responsibility to do research on what OUYA sites are notable/reliable over regular editors. They have a mop, not the keys to the car
  • 2) Yes, OUYA is notable. That's why it has an article. That does not in turn, however, mean that any in-development game for the system is de facto notable prior to release.
  • 3) The guidelines for what is a reliable source have nothing to do with a specific site being the largest in (insert niche here). If Ouyacentral.tv is reliable then it is, if not then it is not- what the site covers has nothing to do with it.
  • 4) As to your points- #1 isn't the FtGF just a matching program? So that's just another way of saying it's made a lot on its kickstarter, #2 is meaningless trivia unless there's something special about Alabama vs the other 49 states; there's likely been 1000+ kickstarters from Seattle alone so 801 isn't really impressive, #3 WHNT is not national news, it's local Huntsville news, though it could certainly go in any article about the game, #4 sure those are RSs, and I'd be fine with those supporting notability.
  • 5) No, the development journey is not more important than the game itself, especially when its just a minor youtube channel that wouldn't support an article on its own.
  • 6) You're allowed to work on multiple articles at once, you know, so this certainly isn't blocking you from working on something else.
  • 7) I'd be fine with unsalting based on the references, but I don't think it should have an article regardless- this really seems like some minorly notable kickstarter that managed to get 2 or 3 sites to pick it up. It's importance to the OUYA scene aside (since that doesn't actually matter), there's nothing special that separates it from a dozen other kickstarters that look kinda neat- Heart Forth, Alicia still doesn't have a page, and it's at a comparable level, though missing a tiny youtube channel or a desperate console fanbase
  • 8) Really, the biggest issue here is that you're approaching this whole thing from the mindset of an OUYA fanboy, not from an editor who's genuinely interested in documenting a notable game. This is, incidentally, exactly why the article got salted after the last AfD- your attitude pushed people away, and made them want to keep the topic from coming up again anytime soon (like, 1.5 months later...) You're twisting notability to support every detail you find interesting, and pushing sites based on the content rather than their inherent notability. All that's going to result in is one more stub/messy start packed with detailed trivia that no one will ever clean up, and we're always leary of that around here. --PresN 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the insights. Some things have been misunderstood and I should offer some clarification but let's start with what we agree with.
  • 1) Please use the Custom search engine, I can not share the link here. You will find several websites that have written original articles covering the game. You will also find international coverage in foreign languages. So you can go ahead and unsalt and we can call it a day.
  • 2) I have approached this article neutrally and made my original article based on technology but it was all primary references it got deleted and I actually understood the rationale. My second attempt was to make a case of notability via Dreamcast and secondary references. As a professional journalist who frequently writes for Sega websites I automatically view something for Dreamcast with the utmost notability maybe i'm biased but I have successfully created articles on all indie Dreamcast games released in the last 5 - 8 years years without running into any problem. I assure you none of those projects have attained the level of publicity or notability then Elysian Shadows.
  • 3) I have OCPD and this article has significantly effected my mental health I can not work on another article until this issue is permanently resolved.

Writing here is a labor of love, not as a gamer but as a Wikipedian it is my duty to spread information. I believe in reciprocity I learn a lot from Wikipedia and I believe in positively contributing. This has been a rewarding and relaxing experience I would edit articles to unwind from a stressful day and now this has become a source of stress.

  • 4) I am being driven insane by the double standards refer to Ghost Blade's talk page. Once I am done with ES I would like to go in and fix that because despite all high and mighty none of the admins have taken positive action to wikify that article.

Best Regards--Cube b3 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mistake to automatically view something for Dreamcast as having the utmost notability. The term "notability" on Wikipedia means something rather different from what it means in common speech. It's a term of art that describes significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources. As editors we are not allowed to make claims of notability based on personal opinion of a topic's significance or real-world importance, and we're not allowed to use Wikipedia as an original publishing venue to cover topics until the rest of the world takes notice. You can read more about the topic at WP:N. -Thibbs (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Thibbs' points, a few points of order that you seem to still be missing:
  • It is not the responsibility of other editors to find the sources you are talking about- we know how to use Google and the VG custom Google search as well. If you have reliable sources, include them in your draft you posted. Simply stating that they exist does not actually prove that they exist.
  • It is not the responsibility of the "high and mighty admins" to fix every article you come across. Admins don't get special editing tools, and with 30,000+ video game article alone there's far too many for anyone to jump whenever you point out a poor article- I could find 10 video game articles just as bad in under 60 seconds. Everyone just works on what they want to work on, and may help if asked nicely- I don't expect anyone to jump in and work on Legend of Mana just because I've taken an interest, so why would you expect people to jump in on an article that you've taken an interest in?
  • In general, you seem to misunderstand what admins are: we're editors who can protect articles and block users. That's it. If we enforce article standards, it's only because it's the job of every editor to enforce standards- we don't have any special power to make the rules that were formed via consensus stick, and we don't have any special mentor powers beyond any other long-term user.
  • TL;DR: if you have reliable sources, use them in your draft. Don't just tell us that they exist. Don't just tell us that the article's subject is important to a niche field without proving it with reliable sources. Use the sources and show us. --PresN 04:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Thibbs: My point exactly that was the whole point of approaching the article from multiple perspectives.
@ PresN: I already have. Please check the article. I have not included every reference just for the sake of including it for example Kotaku doesn't really share anything that wasn't already covered on the page. I could include it just for the heck of it would you like me to include references from a Russian or German website just because they are on the list of approved websites? I try to include references that actually reveal new information.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't realize this was your third attempt. Regarding whether or not you should include coverage in German and Russian RSes, I'd say go for it. See the third bullet here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I keep trying to tell you people, Wikipedia sucks for comprehensiveness about most things "low-culture"; there are plenty of other ways, as most gamers already know, to learn about their industry of choice than through Wikipedia. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort to fight the tides. Tezero (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Thibss: DONE. Added 2 German and 1 Russian reference. I just took the results from the first 2 pages. In my last search I did find Italian and French references as well. So can we unsalt the page now.
@ Tezero: Yeah man, it can really break your spirit fighting with mods but overall I did learn a few things so that makes me a better Wikipedian.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over your 21 sources and here's what I see:
  • Explicit non-RSes: 3 (Niche Gamer, seganerds.com, TwoDashStash) - These are on the WP:VG/RS list as non-RSes so they probably can't be used in the article.
  • First party sources: 5 (kickstarter.com, twitter.com, and the 3 press releases on Gamasutra, MCVUK, and GamersHell) - These could perhaps be used in the article, but they can't be used to demonstrate notability.
  • Sources of unknown reliability: 7 (GamingEnthusiast.net, retrogamingmagazine.com, socialblade.com, igronews.com, the two dreamcast-scene.com sources, and nexgam.de which was previously discussed unfavorably/neutrally here) - Hard to say without further evidence that these can be used in the article let alone to demonstrate notability.
We can split the remaining 6 sources into clear RSes and situational or quasi-RSes.
  • Situational and quasi-RS sources: 3 (Destructoid, University of Alabama in Huntsville, whnt.com) - These may be able to demonstrate notability.
  • RSes: 3 (Game Revolution, IndieGames.com, gamestar.de) - These are at the heart of the notability question. Of the three, the coverage by Game Revolution is probably going to be found to be insubstantial and thus unable to confer notability. The other two do look plausible to me, though.
So what's my conclusion? I see notability pretty clearly demonstrated in 2 third party RSes (namely IndieGames.com and gamestar.de). The minimum threshold is "significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources." Two sources is multiple sources. So I think it meets the minimum threshold. I'd remove the 3 listed non-RSes and carefully examine the reliability of the first party sources and sources of unknown reliability to clean it up a bit, but otherwise I'd say it's OK. I don't have the power to unsalt anything though. I'm also sympathetic to the WP:TOOSOON argument as this may not be more than a stub for a while until the game is close to release or until some time post-release. -Thibbs (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which 3 references would you have me remove? I have not used any primary references in the article. We are actively discussing the notability of SegaNerds in WP:VG/RS.--Cube b3 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested that you remove the 3 listed non-RSes. See my above comment on "Explicit non-RSes". And you have clearly used primary sources as references in the article. Press releases are primary sources because they are issued by the company who are close to or directly involved with the work. You've used three of these press releases in your article. See above. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This should just be unsalted. There might be COI issues and it might not be that notable, but it's notable enough and whatever they come up with is sure to be better than the majority of unreferenced/cruft/bullshit/substubs that populate Wikipedia. - hahnchen 12:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and unsalted, since a few people seem to be in favor. --PresN 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm fine with that. If people could help keep an eye on it though, I'd appreciate it. I have a feeling I may be back here soon if he's as difficult with the content as he has been with the notability discussions. He seems to be having a hard time with recognizing what constitutes a reliable source, and has been slow to remove them from his drafts, as Thibbs pointed out... Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've already followed this through two AfDs and lengthy conversations whereof (and apparently we're back where we started), I'm going to request that someone else address the cavalcade of unreliable sources in the new article you just unsalted. czar ♔ 22:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on doing a bit. There's still some unreliable sources in there, and it's organized weird (bullet point list that reads like the back of a game box, weird section titles, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and moved the page out of my Sandbox and removed 3 press release based secondary articles from MCVUK, GamersHell and Game Revolution. I am done with the page for the time being. Who knows, maybe in a month or so I would like to work on it again but now it is time for actual fans of the game to work on it. I have been working on this article for over 2 months and I really am itching to move to something more exciting. Maybe my next article would be RedBull Games or something more fun and exciting.--Cube b3 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential FPCs from commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar

Seeking potential featured picture candidate (individual and set) ideas from my collection of free use uploads, including hundreds of videos, screenshots, logos, sprites and character assets, and animated GIFs.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar czar ♔ 04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review update

The old review thread is pretty out-of-date, so I thought I'd take a turn creating one.

  • FAC:
  • Squall Leonhart has been nominated since July 4. It has one support and an unaddressed source review. It's almost certainly going to be archived unless the nom sees activity in the next few days.
  • Flight Unlimited III has been nominated since August 19. It has two supports and no outstanding objections. Currently not a high priority.
  • Sonic X has been nominated since August 22. It has one support and no opposes.
  • Fez has been nominated since August 25. It has no comments whatsoever.
  • FLC:
  • GAN:
  • Peer review:
  • Deus Ex has been nominated since July 31. It has received input from three editors, none addressed.
  • Andrew Sega has been nominated since August 7. It has received input from one editor, none addressed.
  • FAR and GAR:
  • Midtown Madness has been nominated since May 1. It has two delists. Thanks to improvements during FAR, the article isn't in terrible shape and could probably be saved with a little more effort.
  • Ada Wong has been nominated since August 14. It has one downgrade and one neutral. The article dates from Niemti's GAN-flooding period, so the nom could definitely use more input.

As always, there's a lot to do. Most pressing noms are Squall Leonhart at FAC, List of Bleach video games at FLC, Enter the Dominatrix at GAN and Midtown Madness at FAR. Please give them some love if you have time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, anyone who can help, please show these articles some love! Ceasar (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me throw Payday 2 at it since I just revamped quite a bit of it. At least change it out from "Start". Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updates: I've given some comments to Squall, put Mikengreg on hold, supported the Bleach list, and given the GTAV list a source review. Might change priorities a little. Tezero (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early access/beta games

Do we categorize early access games as released or upcoming? My edit was reverted at Spacebase DF-9 and was told that other articles like Hack 'N' Slash use this format. But there are articles like Dota 2 and Minecraft that use the official release in the infobox and category. It would be nice to have some consistency in these kinds of articles. --Mika1h (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say they are not, based on the fact that most of our review sources do not review Early Access games - if they do they are clear it's not a final review and tend to not give scores. Once the game is out of Early Access, then it's released and fair review game. --MASEM (t) 04:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this more, reviews help to determine notability, but they really don't have a bearing on encyclopedic content. If a game is available for sale, and is playable upon purchase then in encyclopedic terms, it's not upcoming, but released. JenniBees (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's "released" to be played but not released in its final state for regular player consumption. A current concern in the video game field are early access games that are never "finished" (even Steam/Valve warns of this [2]) --MASEM (t) 23:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic. Whether a work is finished or not, does not change the fact that it can still be notable, and thus if it is deemed notable by wikipedia standards, it's release to the public should still be listed in an encyclopedic article. There are plenty of unfinished creative works on wikipedia that have the year of the public release associated with them. JenniBees (talk)
Well, of course. The date of early access release should be mentioned in the prose, no matter what, and I'm fine with it being in the infobox under the header "Early access release". Minecraft doesn't have it's alpha/beta release dates in the infobox, but it did prior to full release and they're still mentioned in the development section. --PresN 15:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that, is exactly how this should be approached. Chambr (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you, Masem. A game is released upon the official release date. It is still upcoming for the general populous. Chambr (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I've always considered a "Release date" to be the day that its released to the general public without any "Early access" tag on it. - X201 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If early-access counts as a release, Minecraft is five years old. Tezero (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't have to be at our discretion. Do the reliable sources list or refer to a "release date"? There's the answer. Sometimes the early access is the release date, and if RS change their minds later, so changes the article. czar ♔ 00:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox One (XONE, XBONE, etc?)

What is the project's preferred short hand for Xbox One, especially in say infoboxes and release date lists? I've got at least one article on my watch list were a couple editors are changing from XONE to XBONE to Xbox One, etc. -- ferret (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "XBONE" is a fan name. Most of the articles I've seen where it applies use "XONE", but that's only in the review tables. In the main text, it's referred to by its full name. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stick to XOne or the full name. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see a consistent abbreviation for the console, and agree that XBONE is a some negative fan name that's stuck from its reveal and should be avoided. I would keep spelling it out for now until we find some consistency in sources. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wanna know what I think? I think neither this WikiProject now Wikipedia should "decide" this. We should go with whatever is commonly used in reliable sources. Xbox One is not unmanageably large, so not abbreviating may be the best option if we can't determine what is the abbreviation generally favored by media. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, but the project can help narrow down and "decide" what the majority usage in reliable sources is. I myself don't know so this is the best venue I think to figure it out. Somewhere along the way we settled on X360, even though "Xbox 360" is no longer than "Xbox One".. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a couple of users quote the Infobox guideline for the released field (Platforms can be abbreviated to fit in one line, and should be listed as bolded section titles without colons, separated with commas (e.g. PS2, GCN, Xbox).) when changing the platform names in the release date field. I think "Platforms can be abbreviated..." is being read as Platforms must be abbreviated..." because the changes are happening in articles that don't need it.- X201 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sal that "Xbox One" is hardly unwieldy, although no issue with XONE being an appropriate abbreviation when called for (such as in tables). "XBone" is right out. --McDoobAU93 14:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funnily, I tweeted about this over a year ago, cheekily suggesting (in French) "X1" or "X-One". I haven't seen any of these used in the media though, so we should either abbreviate to XONE or avoid abbreviating altogether. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
X1 is also a content delivery system from Comcast's Xfinity cable operations, so maybe best to avoid that one. Personally, I've taken to calling it "the One", but that's hardly encyclopedic. --McDoobAU93 15:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
XBO might be my favourite, it's only 3 letters and doesn't sound like a joke. Although it's only 1 letter from becoming XBOX which might be confusing. --Mika1h (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there one the company or the video game industry has adapted yet? Part of the credit to abbreviations like "PS4" and "360" is that they're used in video game publications. What does the industry use, if it uses an abbreviation at all? Red Phoenix let's talk... 15:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that I see most media calling it Xbox One, I am for just keeping the full name. If it really needed to be abbreviated probably would be Xone. As XBone ifor example is just a plain weasel word which we should be avoid almost at all cost. NathanWubs (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brave Frontier

Well I am having a problem regarding the article I created, which is Brave Frontier. IT seems that the page I wrote lacks a lot of things especially first party sources and anything else. If someone can cover this thoroughly please do.

Sega Pico and how to handle its issues

Hello, fellow project members. In going through my quest here to complete reworks of all of the Sega console articles (and eventually maybe all of the "console" articles), I've decided to take a look at Sega Pico and Advanced Pico Beena next, just to get them knocked out. I've already done some source work, and there's a lot missing, but I can see that as its definition as a "video game console" is sketchy at best. It's referred to as one in a few sources and sites like Allgame have listings for it, but really it's more like a Leapster. In any regard, I could use some second opinions on a few things as I try to redo this one. The following are my questions I'd like some consensus on:

  • The games list in the article is incomplete; Allgame shows 20 or so games in North America/Europe, but the article indicates almost 300 games in Japan. I couldn't find that reliably backed up, but Sega Toys' website in Japanese indicated at least 170 titles, and I've seen games lists on unreliable sites which list a bunch, possibly close to the 300. Should this be separated out into its own list of games, given this? There's no way 300 games will fit in this article if the list is expanded.
  • Does Advanced Pico Beena really warrant its own article? A search for coverage has been light at best; I'm of the opinion it may be best to just make as a subsection in Sega Pico.
  • What's the necessity of having technical specifications for it? I'm also having trouble finding those reliably sourced; everything I'm finding came from us and ultimately from some fan site in Japan.

I appreciate all thoughts and opinions. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why isn't the Leapster a video game console? Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it was strictly an educational tool, and no sources refer to it being part of any gen. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've said some of this before at WT:SEGA when I was making List of Sega video game consoles, but to try to consolidate it here: 1) Pico is definitely a console; it's a stand-alone device that plays games (in the form of cartridges). The fact that those games are meant for children and that the hardware for the device has always been way out of date is immaterial. We don't need an RS assigning it to a generation to make it a console. 2) Beena can totally be merged into Pico; it was clearly meant as an upgraded version of the Pico and while it's still a separate console there's no law that says that it must have its own article if it can't support it cleanly. It's up to editorial discretion. 3) 300 games might not fit into the article, but I don't think you even need to list them out if you don't want to. If you wanted to I'd split it into its own list, but if you don't want to try to source a complete list of crummy edu-games, you don't need to list them anywhere. Just slap a link to a list of them in the External links section. --PresN 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Beena and let it expand out summary style (if it gets to that). Support not having to source entire lists of questionable value—external link to something comparable should be fine. Don't let your fine wikiwork become drudgery. czar ♔ 01:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I took care of all of my major rewriting today with these in mind. Thanks, guys. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo archive

Is there an archive of Yahoo games articles somewhere? Once in a while I run into a http://www.videogames.yahoo.com/ article and it redirects to a special 404 page but I've never looked this in depth into recovering them. I'm specifically trying to access [3]. czar ♔ 17:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's anywhere, it will be in the Wayback Machine. That particular print-view link brings up no results, but another version might be available. I really couldn't say without knowing what's supposed to be at the other end of that link. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[4]. (Assuming this is coming from the Earthbound 64 article) --MASEM (t) 22:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff Edit: I think you got it, Masem. Looks like the later edits messed with the citation. Thanks! czar ♔ 23:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, at least for that Iato quote. I don't see it in the IGN article that appears to be what was original at Yahoo. Where it's cited in the reception it appears correct, but not for that quote. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Dog series

I recently redirected the Sleeping Dogs (series) article because (1) there is no series, (2) there is no coverage of a series, and (3) anything that needs to be said about a potential series can fit easily within the parent article. My edit was reverted (history). If you'd like to weigh in, go for it. czar ♔ 00:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't we gotten one single comment on the peer review? @Czar URDNEXT (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
URDNEXT, sometimes it takes time for comments to come. The WP:VG to-do list is kinda out-of-date, though, so maybe people just aren't aware of it. Tezero (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero Alright, let's see what happens. URDNEXT (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, have you heard the news?

World of Warcraft is not part of the Warcraft series: Talk:List of best-selling PC games#Wow and WarCraft. It's true. See for yourself. Bye. --Mika1h (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Draft-Class video game articles

I think that this category should probably be looked at. This project doesn't normally use drafts anyway so maybe there's a chance that whatever is part of this, there's already an article made for it. GamerPro64 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This project doesn't normally use drafts anyway" - Where do you gather that? I have seen and used many VG Drafts. Your statement surprises me greatly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine. I guess that comment was strictly opinion based. I apologize. GamerPro64 17:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't apologize. I was just surprised that maybe there was consensus not to use it and I was unaware! Most VG-related AfC submissions are methodically moved to Draftspace and tagged with a project banner these days, and incubated drafts also are. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the rest of the discussion, I think it may be worth going through the category and cleaning it up- looks like there have been a few drafts that got moved to mainspace but left the talk page behind- Draft talk:Civilization: Beyond Earth jumped out at me, for one. --PresN 02:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be an article?

Should this really be an article? I haven't much experience in nominating articles for deletion, but this seems really unnecessary. Chambr (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Maybe. It doesn't augur well when an article cites itself, but there surprisingly are a few usable sources that aren't present: Escapist (I can't remember; is this the blacklisted one, or is that The Guardian?), Kotaku, Pulp365. I find PC fanboys to be some of the most obnoxious, unlovable people on the planet, right up there with Brawl-bashing Melee fanboys, but they certainly do have a documented presence. Tezero (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I AfD'd the article (before seeing this discussion, FWIW). I also think it might be time to take a proper look at Wikinium's other articles following the section above and this one discussing their importance. Sam Walton (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Revenge of the Colons

Currently we have Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Justice for All and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Trials and Tribulations but also Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies. I, personally, think the double colon is a bit tacky but don't have a strong opinion on the matter, other than we should pick one naming scheme and stick with it. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'm glad it's the custom to defer to the sources. Good riddance. Tezero (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games featuring female antagonists

Hello. Apologies for spamming this talk page, but I don't see instructions for how to list categories on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games (despite it having links to CfD), as it seems to be AfD & MfD specific. Anyway, there is a discussion of possible interest to this project at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_2#Category:Video_games_featuring_female_antagonists. Input would be appreciated. Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cite games to source the Gameplay section, or only their manuals?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Sourcing_Gameplay_sections czar ♔ 09:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how it's being cited. Citations are used to back up claims. Citable claims can be either textual or verbal, but they can't be implicit claims. So elements of the plot from Doom can be cited to the game because it is printed on the screen as intermission text. And the fact that the US annexed Canada in Fallout can be cited to the game because the speaker in the intro says so. But a claim like "Mewtwo is twice as tall as Popo from Ice Climber" could not be cited to SSBM even if it's based on a measuring tape or counting of the actual pixels of the game. An explicit claim is the only thing that can be cited and any explicit claim made in a video game is fair game to cite. -Thibbs (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So regarding the gameplay section, the game would have to make gameplay-related claims. I can imagine citing the game itself in some situations like citing claims made in the omnipresent FPS training missions. But the game probably couldn't be cited to support the claim that Half Life is an FPS because that requires the player to evaluate the game and conduct OR. An important caveat, though, is that not every sentence needs to be cited. All claims must be verifiable, but citations are only needed for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. In the case of Half Life there is probably no need to find a source claiming it's an FPS unless someone challenges the claim in good faith. -Thibbs (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With manuals going the way of the dodo, I would say that if the game gives a very specific claim that can be made (which is stated by a narrator/character or printed on the screen so there is no interpretation whatsoever) which needs to be cited somehow, then yes, the game should be cited for that. I can't think of a good example of this offhand, but I'm sure there is something. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited the game itself for Sonic: After the Sequel (an FA) and Freedom Planet (a GAN). These are both (the second only in origins) Sonic the Hedgehog fangames, so naturally there are no manuals and they don't get a whole lot of third-party coverage to source every detail. I agree about citing that Half-Life is an FPS to the game would be OR unless it describes itself as a first-person shooter at some point, but you could use the game to cite that it involves shooting enemies with guns in first-person. Tezero (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good hypothetical example that came to mind:
Appropriate use of game to source: "The player can activate a temporary shield generator that reduces damage they take."
Inappropriate use: "The player can activate a shield that lasts for five seconds that halves the damage they take.", assuming that "5 seconds" and "half damage" are not directly mentioned by the game's instructions. While any player can experiment to figure out those timings, that's editing into WP:SYNTH territory. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would really only use material as back-up for actual claims (textual or verbal) requiring no interpretation at all. Not even obvious-to-the-world interpretation. It's simply too easy for strange misinterpretations to creep in otherwise. If in the intro to a game, the voice-actor explicitly says "In the 21st century, ... China would invade Alaska, the US would annex Canada, and the European Commonwealth would dissolve..." then the game could be cited for the on-wiki claim that the game is set in a future time when the US has annexed Canada. If in the in-game weapon description the words printed on the screen read "10mm SMG: A medium-sized SMG, capable of single shot and burst mode." then the game could be cited for the on-wiki claim that the 10mm SMG can be used in single shot or burst mode. But I don't think it is appropriate to cite the game for the claim that the game offers the player a variety of weapons. Even though simply playing the game will allow the reader to come to the same conclusion as the writer of the Wikipedia article, it's still an interpretation. Maybe it's a really obvious interpretation. In that case I'd argue that it needs no citation at all. If it's so obvious then it is not likely to be challenged. But if it were challenged it would need a better source than the game itself because ultimately the game really makes no such claim. An element or aspect of a game is not the same as a claim regarding the element or aspect of the game. -Thibbs (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purely desciptive material (gameplay descriptions), or bits of dialgoue, say, can be cited to the game, I believe; if it starts to get subjective (difficulty, strategies etc.) it needs a secondary source. There's arguably also a concern over detail: if there's no secondary source for something, maybe it's not necessary to understand the game. I think basic descriptions sourced to the game are less of a headache, though, and fine at least until FAC. bridies (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Gamergate?

As this article from the Guardian [5] appears to be the first major non-game related source to cover the whole recent issue of Zoe Quinn/Anita/etc., I wonder if we should consider an article on it. It would clearly need to be under BLP-levels of scrutiny in sourcing, but there's enough from the traditional VG press that describe the basic end results without going into opinion on who's right or wrong. A more minor issue would be on the naming as "Gamergate" is a term in biology already and I would dare not say ours is the more common version. "Gamergate (video game controversy)"? --MASEM (t) 17:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=624039862"