Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:47, 14 January 2016

Shortcut: WT:VG
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 Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style Article guidelines talk Templates talk Sources talk
Departments Assessment talk Reference library talk   Print archive talk   Web archive talk   Top video games talk Newsletter talk   Current issue Draft
Articles Article alerts talk Pages for deletion talk New pages talk Article requests talk Essential articles talk Most popular articles talk Featured content talk Good content talk Recognized content talk
Task forces Blizzard eSports Indie Nintendo talk Rockstar Sega talk Valve talk Visual novels talk WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk Project members talk
Project watchlist view • talk • edit • changes

GameRankings discussion

I think we need to talk about the use of GameRankings. With current talks about use of Aggregation websites here this one seems to be the most expendable. At least, in my opinion. OpenCritic has been the new up-and-coming site that might become more popular than industry standard Metacritic. That's speculation right now as we don't know what's going to happen in the future. Metacritic is also one of two aggregation websites we consider reliable and use at this time. The other being GameRankings. Why do we still use GameRankings? It's older than Metacritic, as well as both sites being owned by CBS Interactive, but you don't hear critics or publishers talk about its importance. So I'm wondering if there should be a cutoff of using GameRankings on Wikipedia. Just stop using it past a certain date. Any other suggestions are welcome of course. GamerPro64 19:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Might want to set this up more like an RFC or something - this may not be as clear cut as you think, as the consensus the last time we discussed this was pretty strongly in favor of keeping it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In the 18 months since the last discussion, GameRankings has continued to be an irrelevance in the games industry, its presence on Wikipedia outweighs by its presence anywhere else. It should not be used for modern games. A lot of articles probably include it just out of habit, it might be difficult to do anything about it unless someone decides to go all Giraffedata on it. We could update Template:Video game reviews/doc to recommend the use of only one aggregator. - hahnchen 20:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"GameRankings has continued to be an irrelevance in the games industry", maybe by your opinion or the people you have around you but just a simple look at Alexa shows it's far and above more popular than a site like OpenCritic. I'm not taking a stand on the use of aggregators (although I'm somewhat against linking to them), but they are pooling scores from published sources. They don't change the scores. You not liking them doesn't make the scores they recorded any less valid. If we're going to link to aggregators, I don't see why they are any more or less relevant than MetaCritic, OpenCritic or Rotten Tomatoes for that matter. And I absolutely am against the idea of picking a favorite. BcRIPster (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that trying to enforce not using it will require more effort than its worth to remove something that has nothing actually wrong with it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Iff we were to decide to omit GR from the table, I would consider it a deprecated step, grandfathering in all existing uses and recommending it not be used for others. But I would also insist that we should GR as an external link because it serves the purpose of being a launching board for other review sources for the reader, in addition to those by MC (and possibly OC). --MASEM (t) 22:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not done on articles on any other form of media, it shouldn't be done for games. Our reception section should already give a good overview of the critical landscape, and its references should be sufficient. We don't link to exhaustive lists of news or previews. Generally, for video games, I link to the official website(s) and to Mobygames, which itself has further links to reviews already. - hahnchen 22:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Spot-checking a number of film articles, many include 3 or more links to aggregation sites (not just reviews, but things like RT, MC, Box Office Mojo, IMDB, AllTheNumbers, etc.) I see the aggregates that aren't used in the review table in the same way, alongside a link to MobyGames. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Mobygames is the IMDB equivalent. The Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes links are already in the references, we don't usually repeat these in the external links in games articles. We have removed links to GameFAQs, Gamespy, Gamespot, IGN, StrategyWiki and many others. I do not support the addition of aggregators to WP:VG/EL. - hahnchen 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel the same way about rounding GameRankings' scores… —zziccardi (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that we have nearly 12000 links to GameRankings on the English Wikipedia alone, I think we should remember that their Alexa rank may be largely determined by our use of them. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. There might be a possibility of removing a large amount from here might cause a plummet in ranking. Now that's an article I would like to see, "Gaming Aggregator's traffic plummets thanks to Wikipedia". GamerPro64 23:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a Wikipedia article I would love to see: Wikipedia's impact on gaming aggregators. ;p ~Mable (chat) 11:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The indents are getting a little crazy at the top, so I'll put my response down here: For the record, when I say "not worth the effort to enforce", I'm talking about all the repetitive discussions/arguments that are going to break out over and over again.

• Newbie: Hey, Serge, why did you remove Game Rankings?
• Serge: Consensus is to not use GR on Wikipedia.
• Newbie: How come?
• Serge: Its not as prevalent as MC the industry.
• Newbie: But I like GR/don't like MC. Here's some reasons why. What's wrong with using GR?
• Serge: Well, there's nothing wrong, its just redundant.
• Newbie: But what's the harm? And its on Sonic 2. And Super Mario 3D World, and etc etc etc.
• Serge: Well, we set a cut off point.
• Newbie: Why that point? What changed, and when? I want to open up a big RFC at WP:VG and get everyone all worked up over it.
• (excessive arguments ensue)

Repeat Ad nauseam. Which is why I think its all more trouble than its worth. I fine with having this discussion over and over again about something like using VGChartz as a source, where there are issues that clash directly with WP:RS, and always a pretty strong consensus against it, but not this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think "it is too much work to keep arguing about it with newbies" isn't really a valid argument. Shouldn't we think about what is best for Wikipedia, rather than what is easiest for us? Either way, if we do stop using GameRankings, all you need to do is link to this conversation whenever someone brings it up. There is no use in talking about it on specific article talk pages. ~Mable (chat) 16:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

But that's the foundation of my argument - there isn't any any detriment to using it. There is detriment to wasted time and effort better spent on other things though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think newbies are really the ones to bloat review tables with Gameranking scores, it's generally regulars who follow a pattern. We can refer those editors back here, and make the instructions clearer at Template:Video_game_reviews to establish that those patterns have changed. It's more important to establish a precendent rather than to look at policing. - hahnchen 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we should, we could remove the GR field from Template:Video game reviews such that the tables no longer contain the GR figure; this would likely discourage its use with minimal effort, while removing it from one of the prominent places it is frequently located. Sam Walton (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm guilty of adding it, even when I don't like it, for this reason. The template supports it, and as long as it does, that's viewed by many as implicit approval to use GR, if not an outright mandatory requirement. In places where I only add MC, I often find that an IP editor adds GR within a day or two. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, its either drive-by IPs that are making the changes, or the type of editor that is somewhere between "newbie" and "editor who regularly edits at WP:VG. There's a lot of them - the type that are huge fans of video games, but edit WP infrequently and don't really have a vested interest in following things, they really just want to add their 2 cents and be on their way. These are the types that these arguments are going to arise with over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• The above dialogue has not been my experience. I remove GR whenever I see it not adding value (this is often) and I honestly cannot recall even a single article steward contesting the action. I see no issue with leaving GR in the template—it can be useful on specific, older games (really isolated cases). It just should be removed from the template default. I don't think it's a hard ask. It works the same way as the other Reception box rules and it's only unintuitive for those who have not read the documentation overview at all. I think it is fine to revisit this conversation if enforcement turns out to be a mess, but I really don't see how it will be. So the proposal is to remove GR as a default but leave it as an option if it adds value in the absence of Metacritic. czar 19:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings proposal

GameRankings proposal implementation

I apologize if I missed where this was stated, but with the RFC now closed, how will this be documented? An addition to WP:VGSCOPE or similar? -- ferret (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I figured that the documentation of {{Video game reviews}} would be updated (now done). --PresN 01:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that, but GameRankings is also used in prose. VGSCOPE update would give something to refer users with if I undo an addition in new game articles. :) -- ferret (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VGAGG links to the section of the documentation—that should be sufficient czar 04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also assume some changes should be made over at our list of sources. ~Mable (chat) 06:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Question. What's the definition of "Older games" in this equation? Seventh generation and older? Sixth? Before 2010? GamerPro64 17:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a hard and fast definition, but games that predate Metacritic aggregation would be the easy answer czar 18:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I mainly assumed a "from now on" idea, that anything before 2015 can keep its GameRankings score, though mostly because it would take effort to remove the source from the hundreds of articles of games that have come out the past few years. ~Mable (chat) 18:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

While removing GR from a recent addition done just today, I discovered that I had to specify gr=no for Template:Video game series reviews. Can someone look into updating this template to only display GR if populated? -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ done. And re: "from now on"—the documentation now says,

Do not include GameRankings unless it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic (e.g., games that predate Metacritic).

I don't think anyone recommends a systematic deprecation. I think the expectation is that it'll be applied through normal editing, whether the game is from 2005 or 2015. Let's move any additional discussion about implementation to the {{vg reviews}} talk page? czar 07:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That message does not reflect the consensus we reached. E.g. that it still can be used for old games. SharkD  Talk  13:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For completeness, this is in response to me reverting the addition of GR to Fallout 2. While it is an older game, it has lacked GR all this time with no detriment, so I don't feel it should be added now when Metacritic suffices for this game. I also don't know how you claim it doesn't reflect the consensus. It's almost a direct copy and paste of the statement from the RFC above. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That was the message that started the RfC, but the result of the RfC was, "The majority opinion is that GR is mainly useful for older games and it is mainly duplication in newer ones." SharkD  Talk  13:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually the result is "There is consensus for the change." The rest was the closer's reasoning. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me be more clear. The consensus was not to disallow GR on articles about older games. It was to discourage its use on articles about newer games. Read the actual responses people made to the RfC. Or do we need to start a new RfC? SharkD  Talk  13:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was to make the proposed change, as stated. I believe you're editing against consensus here, and the fact that you won't wait to finish discussion and use 3RR for a shield on your edit is a bit meh. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to back off and stop making personal attacks. The fact is that @AlbinoFerret: made the correct interpretation, which was to not remove GR from articles about old games. SharkD  Talk  14:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I was pinged Ill add this clarification. You cant pick and choose what part of a close best suits your position and ignore the rest. Take it as a whole, as the closer takes a look at the entire discussion it isnt based on the question itself for the most part, but the responses. I specifically add the reasoning to closes to hopefully limit this kind of thing and stop editors taking a short close and jumping off a cliff. The responses indicated it was useful for older games. I didnt read support for removal everywhere, more of phasing it out on newer games. It was almost clear consensus that it was useful for older games, from both minority and majority opinions. I will be adding the preceding 2 lines to the close. AlbinoFerret 15:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: In the immediate case, the GR sources were added just today, to an article already containing Metacritic. I did not remove long standing sources, simply reverted their new addition. I'll accept your call on that, but I was not going around simply removing GR from old articles. -- ferret (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be following the close and consensus. I think at some point a line needs to be drawn on a timeline as to when it should be added, but adding it to a game that already has Metacritic may defeat the purpose of the RFC. AlbinoFerret 15:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So, is the age of the game the issue, or the age of the article? Because it's an old game from 1998, and GR MC was formed a year later and might have more fewer old reviews in their database. (GR has 26 reviews, MC has 15. I haven't looked at each of them individually.) SharkD  Talk  16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I just checked in detail, and of the 34 reviews listed, only 7 are on both MC and GR. SharkD  Talk  17:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @AlbinoFerret. Also, I edited my post above with strike through text since I got MC and GR mixed up briefly. SharkD  Talk  20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont know the age or year most games come out or came out. One of the things not covered well in the RFC is the cutoff date. This is going to have to be worked out amongst yourselves, I would rather stay uninvolved. But if you cant, perhaps another RFC is in order. AlbinoFerret 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think this is complicated. No one said anything about a cut-off date. The consensus is to use GR only when it's better than nothing. (Usually this would be the case for older games, as mentioned above.) For Fallout 2, GR adds nothing atop what Metacritic already says so there's no ready reason to keep it. czar 20:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "adds nothing"? Because while the scores are similar, the reviews being aggregated are mostly different. Of the 34 reviews aggregated by MC and GR, only 7 are listed at both sites. SharkD  Talk  18:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings is more beneficial for older articles where Metacritic doesn't cover. Metacritic covers the more recent games, but GameRankings may have an aggregated score for something a little more older. Hence if there is no Metacritic,but ther eis a Gamerankings, thats where GR becomes more beneficial to be included in the article. Recently GameRankings has been collecting less reviews than Metacritic, so its not beneficial. On the off-chance that GR has more reviews than Metacritic, should it be ok to use GR? would it just make more sense to just go with "the Aggregating review website with the most reviews"? Lucia Black (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Fallout 2, GR has 26 reviews and MC has 15. SharkD  Talk  18:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The metascores were essentially the same, so there were two rows that showed exactly the same info. GR also uses far more unreliable sites, on the whole—having more reviews does not mean the metareview is more complete. (For quick reference: GR, Metacritic) I think it would be a waste of time to have an RfC to see if GR "adds value" over Metacritic in this case—it very plainly does not. czar 18:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the GR link lists a lot of sources I have never heard of. SharkD  Talk  20:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings proposal #2

In the case of older games, if the scores are similar, GameRankings should be omitted.

• Oppose - If the reviews being aggregated are mostly different, then there's a valid reason to include GR. SharkD  Talk  18:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• This was covered in the previous RfC. In the case of any game—old or not—if the scores are similar and there is no particular rationale for why GR's aggregation covers something more important than Metacritic's, then GR does not add value and does not need to be included. As explained above, having more reviews included in a score is not any closer a guarantor of quality—in fact, GR tends to have much more unreliable junk than Metacritic in its metascore (see the Fallout 2 example above). czar 18:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't believe this was actually covered by the original RfC. I think it is appropriate to discuss whether we should look at whether there's a difference in aggregated reviews or the end score. I'm not really sure how I feel about this myself right now. I would like to see this discussion. ~Mable (chat) 19:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The previous RfC was pretty clear about what to do in the case of newer games. But older games were singled out as a special case, and I think we need to iron out what to do with them. SharkD  Talk  20:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, now I disagree. Earlier, the "older games" part was stroked through. What I want to know is simply how to deal with games that are modern enough to have an appropriate Metacritic rating (based on multiple RSes). Should games from 2005, for instance, where the Metacritic score and the Gamerankings score are nearly the same, but both use completely different sources to get this result, have both rankings listed? Is the difference in score or the difference in sources what we are basing this on? ~Mable (chat) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
      • The result of the previous RfC was to phase out GameRankings for newer games, regardless of any differences in scores or reviews. (How new? That isn't clear.) SharkD  Talk  21:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
      • If it makes you feel better I can cross out the first part again. It makes no real difference to me personally. SharkD  Talk  00:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

GameRanking proposal #3, or unused aggregators as External Link

Separate from the above discussions, I would propose that if GR is left out of the reviews section, it may still be included as an external link, akin to what a link to MobyGames would be providing. This presumes that the GR page for the game is "useful" and has more than a few reviews. If, for some reason, GR is used instead of MC (older games primarily) and the MC page is similarly "useful" then it should be an EL too.

I would also qualify - if we presume it reliable in separate discussion - the same would be true for OpenCritic pages as EL rather than in the review section.

In all cases, I would avoid this being spammy: if the game is out for two or more platforms and the aggregate tracks each platform separately, then the EL section should not bullet point each aggregate per platform but smartly organize them onto one. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC) --MASEM (t) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is the most appropriate way to handle games where Metacritic and Gamerankings scores are nearly identical, yes. I definitely support this idea. ~Mable (chat) 21:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (Disclosure: CEO of OpenCritic here) - Just want to comment on this. Reading the discussion, I'm concerned that the "nearly identical" flag is misunderstood. OpenCritic shows the relative rankings of games, and to be clear, a small move of even 2 or 3 points can represent huge jumps in quality. Going from 79 to 82 moves your ranking from the top 27.5% to the top 15.4%. While 3 points might not look like much, it implies a significant difference in quality. Going from 72 to 74 represents a 10% swing in your relative ranking. So while scores might appear close, just remember that 75% of games reviewed fall within a 25-point window of 65-90, so even small point differences have meaning. MattEnth (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    • If OpenCritic is deemed reliable in future discussions, I believe that we should have many of these conversations all over again, Matt. OpenCritic isn't in any "danger" of decisions of how we deal with GameRankings. ~Mable (chat) 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is off-topic so my response is on MattEnth's talk page czar 21:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support solves at least half (if not most) of the issue at hand. Lucia Black (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This proposal gets around procedural issues, but 1) it will not decrease work, 2) it will result in more edit warring, and most importantly 3) I would rather see more cited content in articles than external links. SharkD  Talk  21:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • SharkD, this idea would solve the issue where the Metacritic and Gamerankings scores are nearly identical without duplicating information in the article proper. Whether or not an article should have Gamerankings in its external links should be up to personal preference and, in the end, it doesn't really matter. We don't always list MobyGames under the external links, and I don't believe there is much edit warring about that? I see this as similar as how people can pick different citation styles, with none being "preferred". This also doesn't result in edit warring. ~Mable (chat) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I thought MobyGames was listed in External links because it is not considered reliable enough to use as a source, and ELs get around this restriction? Otherwise it *would* be used in citations. SharkD  Talk  21:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm actually not sure how it is reliable enough to have it as an external link, but besides that, wouldn't the same basically be the case for Gamerankings here? It is not useful in the article proper, but can still deliver extra content indirectly, and thus could be useful as an external link. After all, Gamerankings pages are basically lists of articles on a topic. ~Mable (chat) 21:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
        • How "what" is reliable enough? MobyGames or GameRankings? SharkD  Talk  22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
          • My bad, I meant Mobygames with that remark. I believe Gamerankings (as a collection of sources) is more useful to link to than Mobygames is, anyway. ~Mable (chat) 22:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
            • What do you mean by "as a collection of sources"? Do you mean the review score aggregation it does? SharkD  Talk  00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
              • this Gamerankings page, for example, lists a few dozen reviews. Not all of these may be used in the article. Not all of these may say something unique. It would be silly to put any of these specific reviews in the external links, but as a collection, it can be very useful for people who want to do more research on a specific game. ~Mable (chat) 09:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• (1) If GR provides something useful to the article, we should cite it in the article. What would it add for our readers to have it as an external link? (2) Why wouldn't our existing ext link policy already cover this? I don't think we need a carte blanche yes/no on this, but in the off case a group of page stewards thought the ext link would be useful, let them agree and go for it. In my experience, MobyGames and GR are only useful resources when they index critic reviews that have yet to be added to the article (but once they are, there is no need for the ext link!) czar 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I still don't see what value GR adds at all, when it's almost always the same score (or within one) of Metacritic. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per Czar. - hahnchen 13:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Nothing which could be written in WP:VG/GL regarding this section banning the use of Gamerankings as an acceptable ELINK would be in accordance with WP:EL and so the question is moot. OTOH, I see zero reason to write anything in WP:VG/GL encouraging the practice of adding Gamerankings, as I would see that as rulemaking for rulemaking's sake. In other words, per Czar bullet #2 (but not bullet #1). --Izno (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Czar. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Template display of GR

Was there a consensus to remove GR reviews from the VG review template? Lucia Black (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The template module has not been changed since August 2015. -- ferret (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I see what you meant on Banjo-Kazooie (series). The VG Series Reviews template, you have to add "GR = Yes" for GR to show. It used to default to GR = Yes but that caused the template to make empty cells for GR anywhere it wasn't used. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I find this odd because not too long ago, i saw GR reviews on other articles. It wasn't just Banjo-Kazooie. It wasn't too long that they just disappeared. Lucia Black (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like GR was deliberately removed from Banjo Kazooie (@Czar). Then later, an IP added GR back to the template but did not include GR = Yes. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well as much as i want to ignore this discussion ever happened since we didn't come up with any agreements, i have to say that we should not be changing any articles and removing GR, the only thing that was confirmed was that newer games don't benefit from GR (which some of us have suggested making this generation as the cut-off point, but this has not been confirmed as consensus). Lucia Black (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they should be removed from any article where they aren't necessary. I don't mean we should comb through articles simply to remove it, but if an editor is cleaning up an article and does a comparison between GR and MC and decides there's no added value, they should be free to remove GR. If another editor disagrees, it should be discussed at that article's talk page on what merits GR brings to the individual article in question. -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The above statement as to using GR is based on being less relevant in new games as opposed to older games. What you are suggesting makes things more time consuming then it needs to be. We now have to look at the scores and based on our personal ideas, we have to judge GR over MC. Lets not forget that no example was given where GR and MC would be significantly different to include both as oppose to too similar to remove GR. Both sites will essentially have the same score (despite having different review-count). The only reason why i voted to stop using them (for this current gen of games) is because GR's score has become less accurate with less reviews in more recent games. Not because their score isn't valuable. There are more variables than just having the same score. Lucia Black (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors make personally calls all the time regarding which sources to keep or trim. I'm not really "suggesting" anything outside of normal article work, and am not making a proposal of any sort. Again, no one should just comb articles and remove GR for the sake of it. Editors should, however, be free to remove GR if they feel its the correct thing to do. If I look at an article with both GR and MC, it's not about whether the score is the same or not, but whether GR provides value through different or more numerous reviews. If not, why keep it? I use the same discretion when I see a sentence with 6 references. I look at each of them, and typically trim down to one or two sources that I feel has the most value/details/reliability, etc. -- ferret (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors do indeed make judgement calls all the time, and i'm not arguing that at all. But the above consensus and what you are suggesting isn't the same. If we use GR because its so radically different as oppose to MC, then we should be using GR "more" for the newer games as opposed for the older ones. Lucia Black (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Release date reform

Let's talk release dates. We agreed fairly recently that we should not be dropping aggregator percentages in the Reception section a propos of nothing because it was devoid of context, signified little on its own, and made for terrible prose. What about release dates? We tend to dump every date into the late Development or early Reception section for all sorts of regions and for what? If, for example, a game released on January 1 in one region and in all the others within the month, why not just say it like that and let readers follow the source if they want more specific dates? This is also connected to the infobox, which collects all sorts of release date cruft. Is listing each specific date a form of overinformation? I know my eyes generally glaze over when I hit such a section and I actually try to be interested. Readers generally want to know when each port of a game was released—do we really need to specific each specific date or can we generalize? czar 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've been doing this exact thing for a while without any controversy, so I had thought it was an unwritten guidelines. For example, when a game is released worldwide over the course of a month, we really should just state it was "released worldwide in December 2015" instead of listing each individual date, as the infobox covers that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The way that I've dealt with this, in the case of The Last of Us Remastered, is to place the separate release dates within a footnote. This hasn't been challenged in the past, and I consider it a good way to approach it. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

How do other WikiProjects deal with this? I checked some albums, but they only list one release date in the infobox, which I assume is the first release date. Same goes for film. This seems to be the case for American and Japanese material (the ones I checked). May it be proper to only list the original release date - leaving out all (other) English language releases? I suppose translation is often more a thing for video games than it is for film, so a localized release may be vastly different to the original and this leads to an "extended development" before a second release. That may be an argument to keep the first English-language release date in for non-English-games. Other than that, I really don't know a reason. If this were the German Wikipedia (for example), it would make perfect sense to list the German release date, but as the English Wikipedia, we should either list all English releases or none of them. I understand where this cruft idea comes from.

I definitely agree that specific release dates should generally stay out of the prose, but I'm still on the fence on whether we should be listing secondary release dates in the infobox. ~Mable (chat) 00:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with the idea to keep specific release dates out of the prose unless notable, but they definitely should be in the infobox. Video games, maybe more than any other media, are affected by regional release dates. While I can import a novel from, say, the US, instead of waiting and hoping for it to be picked up by a local publisher, I couldn't do the same with a region-coded video game. It would not be helpful to tell a European reader in 2013 that yes, Shin Megami Tensei IV is available in English now, without mentioning that it had in fact not been released in Europe yet. I think this is interesting with already released games, as well - at least I personally find it interesting to look back on when a game was first released and how long it took for it to make it to other regions. I am not sure if I'm making a particularly strong case for this, but I do find infobox release dates useful, and often go to Wikipedia to check when a game came out or will come out in my region.--IDV^talk 00:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Film project uses the following format: for the infobox and the lead, the earliest cited released date, plus the release dates for the country of the production company are featured. If there are additional notable release dates for a film, they are written in prose in a Release section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In prose, absolutely trim down. In the infobox, while we get specific on region and platform, I also see a lot of cases where, say, different platforms in the same region are marked even though the difference is just a few days. That's spammy. A difference of a month or so is definitely worth to point out but not a few days. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would say the exact opposite. In the hierarchy of data, I see the infobox summarizing the lede, and the lede summarizing the body. The body should include any detail worth mentioning, and the other two should summarize that information. Unless I'm reading your post wrong, you seem to be suggesting the opposite. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So you think writing "was released in Japan on December 1, 2015, in North America on December 2, 2015, and in Europe on December 3, 2015" is better than writing "was released worldwide in December 2015"? I disagree, and it seems others do as well. Exact dates should go in the infobox and release section, but having it in the lead? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the generalizing of release dates. Wikipedia is not paper; there is no need to be stingy with our documentation. Wikipedia should serve as an historical record and maintain the existence of this information. Just look at Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System#cite_note-NAReleaseDateNote-1---information from as recent as 25 years ago is already being lost to the digital aether and if it isn't Wikipedia's job to counteract this, then whose is it? We already have two perfectly suitable solutions for so-called "infobox release date bloat": using a footnote and using Template:Collapsible list. There is absolutely no need to excise this information completely. As someone who has spent countless hours tracking down specific reliable sources for actual release dates, no easy task for some older games, this proposal spits on that effort and I can't abide by it. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I should mention that I am referring only to preserving data in the infobox. In prose, use your best judgment w.r.t. "brilliant prose". Axem Titanium (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly what the release section is for? A lead should cover all information in the article, but in a generalized style with the detailed info in the sections below. Anything wrong with that? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Release sections are useful for this, but only if the releases are somewhat notable. Release events or long lines - stuff like that - is usually listed in such sections. If the only thing that is in the "release" section is three or four release dates, you might as well just keep that in an infobox. ~Mable (chat) 08:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The release section should be specific, unlike the lead and the infobox. That's the point of the release section. If the main article doesn't include all these release dates then the lead and the infobox shouldn't, as they are there to summarize the article. All release dates are notable as they are covered by reliable sources, and they shouldn't be excluded because they make for terrible prose. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the person who forgot to sign their post ("So you think writing ...") that the infobox should be there to deliver specific kinds of data regardless of whether it is also described in the prose. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sorry, that was my comment. Anyway, the best example of this in my opinion is Bloodborne. The lead says "worldwide in March 2015" and the release section gives the exact dates for each region. The game was released in successive days across global markets, but it's a mouthful to have that in the lead, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia

I think the bigger point to be made here is that we are an encyclopedia and not an archive of every release date on every platform. We are data in reader-friendly context, not every data point. This like when we realized that our articles should stop being gameguides and do the harder work of actually summarizing gameplay, development, and reception so as to tell the story of each release: our articles should be the simplest way of learning about each topic and not a collection of every technical detail. There are (or else, will be) other sites to fill the functions that WP does not. But we're more realistically looking at paring down our leviathan lists of release dates on some articles to reader-friendly prose. This might mean only including the first major releases (for each platform?) in the infobox and otherwise elaborating in the appropriate section and, as Rhain suggested, relegating nitty gritty date-by-date differences between regions to footnotes (or excluding them altogether) unless a source makes a point about their temporal difference. Something as simple as not giving the specific date of release in the lede would be an improvement here—we put more importance on saying it's December 17 in the first sentence than on saying what the game is actually about. Also, to be fair, we're not even that great at collecting the original release date for every platform in every region—but it's not in our mission and would be best left for some other site to handle. czar 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. In nearly all the articles I wrote, the only importance on the release date is the month/year (which gives a rough idea if its timed for the holiday rush or in the winter lull, for example, and gives an approximate time frame when the game was released on one platform or region.) We don't need this level of exactness in prose, and even in the infobox, trying to document every date for every release becomes silly. For nearly every game the key dates are the first release of a game in a region that seems to matter most. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So... Only list the initial (non-English) release and first English-language release in the infobox? Thus, for example, almost never listing Australian release dates? ~Mable (chat) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Australia/NZ should be singled out. This is more about using Wikipedia as a repository for exact release dates, when that is not the function of a general knowledge encyclopedia. I'd say that, like film and music, we should only include the original release date as a reference point in the infobox. Later releases, if important, can be elaborated in the Release section as appropriate. Some might propose, as a compromise based on how WP is currently used, that we pare down only to the original releases on each platform, to which I'd say that could be better described in prose in the lede and Release section. There are other sites better equipped to be almanacs for release dates—but it's beyond our scope. (If we can, however, reliably source release dates for multiple regions and express them in reader-worthy prose, I think they are usually best put in a footnote, as Rhain recommended above.) I'll add that most of my article steward work is watching IPs futz around with dates in the infobox instead of actually improving the article text. The proposal would be (1) to put less emphasis on specific release dates in the lede and Development/Release sections, so as to express the release window in more context-rich, reader-friendly prose, and (2) to use only the original release date in the infobox. My main example for the former: does it matter more, when explaining the Rise of the Tomb Raider development cycle, that we are providing the specific release dates for each region or that we are explaining the context of its release—before the holiday season but cannibalized by being released the same day as Fallout 4.[1][2] It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, but the latter is much more conducive to what we are trying to do with an encyclopedia. czar 22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I "singled out" Australia/New Zealand because it just happens to get games the last, while either Europe or the United States get games first. I believe listing the first English-language release of any game is definitely notable, especially if a longer amount of time was between a (for example) Japanese release and the first English release.

I completely forgot about multiple platforms, though. This complicates the matter quite a bit. I'm really not sure how to cut down on those. Of course, they should not be written down (in its entirety, anyway) in the prose. "Summer 2015 on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One" would do just fine, for example, as would not mentioning the release date at all in prose. However, I think they need to be there in the infobox... ~Mable (chat) 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SEASON ;) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Second quarter, 2015. ~Mable (chat) 22:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Release date proposal

The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. {{Film date}} should be used for the film's release dates. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article (example). ...
— Template:Infobox_film#Release_dates

Original album release date, formatted according to the Manual of Style for dates ("December 14, 2003" or "14 December 2003" depending on the article style, without the quotation marks). The {{Start date}} template may be used here. If the day is unknown, indicate only month and year ("December 2003"); if the month is unknown indicate only the year ("2003"). Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section.
— Template:Infobox_album#Released

Proposed for {{infobox vg}}:

List only the first major release in the infobox. Put other notable release information (e.g., major ports) in prose in its respective Development/Release section or a footnote thereof.

• Support. As discussed in the section above and as standard in other infoboxes, we shouldn't have endless lists of dates in our {{infobox vg}}. It's beyond our scope as an encyclopedia and we've proven quite poor at maintaining them. If later releases/ports are notable, they should be worth summarizing in the lede (in reader-friendly language). This change should also encourage editors to focus more on the port's development and release in prose in the appropriate section (rather than slapping unsourced dates for every region in the infobox). I contemplated an addendum to add the first major Western release if the primary release date is somewhere else, but I don't think it's necessary. When we collapse our giant lists of dates, only one date shows on the outside of the list and that has been sufficient. Open to friendly amendments. czar 04:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment i may be late on this, but i don't see video games. Most games tend to be just fine. I do agree some articles get so cluttered with release dates, but most times they don't. Just the initial release date from the initial platform that it was intended (and additional platforms if they were close together). The ones that do get cluttered are the episodic release and the games that get ported every single time. Example of this is Final Fantasy (video game) and Super Mario Bros.. Video games aren't exactly like films where DVD, VHS, and maybe Blu-ray are practically irrelevant. Same with Albums. For the most part film/albums tend to have simultaneous releases. I would suppport this only if A) we keep all the initial release dates, and include the region releases in the infobox. I also think episodic games are becoming the norm. I think we should implement a parameter for these type similar to that of the TV series infoboxes or Series infoboxes where we just list the first and the last release. Lucia Black (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support, according to the guidelines of the other WikiProjects. However, I'd like to note that if a video game's first English-language release was multiple years after its initial release, it is definitely worth noting in the article's prose. Subsequent English-language releases are probably rarely notable, unless they were ports or remakes. "Release" sections are proper for this information, but should also consist of more information about why these specific releases are worth mentioning. ~Mable (chat) 10:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply When are release dates not worth mentioning in prose? Lucia Black (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Basically whenever the release is no different from another release. For example, if a game is translated to English and released in America, and then a month later released in the UK and Australia as well, those two are completely irrelevant. As always, almost all international releases are irrelevant. If a game is released on multiple systems during the same month, or a translated version of a Japanese game is released in the west within the same month, there is no good reason to list them all. ~Mable (chat) 06:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
      • This is why i opposed. Right now things are too simple. We need to put real clarifications. Albums and Films are really easy to do.I think if we want release date reform, we actually need to reform on the whole infobox because release dates are tied to consoles and publishers. Lucia Black (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
        • How would one explain why releases, besides the original release, are notable to list? Currently, we list all English-language releases on all platforms, but are any of these dates notable? Listing notable release dates only in the prose of an article creates context for said release dates. How do you suggest we cut back on arbitrary release dates? ~Mable (chat) 09:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is essentially why i'm suggesting to look at the "entire" infobox, not just release dates, because release dates are attached to region, publishers, consoles. If we single out one release date just because it was a week, 2 weeks or even 1 month away, this also means we have to remove the next publisher of that region as well. Also what if the console release was only one month away? Timed-exclusives are a thing now, so now matter how big the gap is, that gap is wha makes the other release dates notable too. Instead of proposing something right away, why not make it a discussion first. Lucia Black (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As for how to deal with region-specific publishers... I don't know, and that's a good thing to ask about. I'd like to see input from other people about that. About month-long gaps: those are irrelevant in the long run. If reliable sources talk about the difference in release dates depending on platform or region, we can talk about this information in the Release section. The only release date that is always important regardless of the state of the industry is the very first release date. ~Mable (chat) 09:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Infobox isn't mean to be all encompassing. But if this passes, we have to change 1000s of articles, which will be a hassle. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support but with grandfathering. That is, if this gets consensus , then GA/FA/A-class should require this to be done to pass, and we should go through at least our FA articles to fix those up, but should not force it on older articles though editors are free to do this if they want. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose only because lack of clarification. Albums, and Films are far different from video games. We're asking to ignore simultaenious multi-platform releases. If there was more clarification on how it would work, then i would be happy to support. But its far too simple as it stands now. Lucia Black (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Question - I guess I'm okay with this, but just out of curiosity, something along the lines of what Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward, would that work? It only lists the initial release date, and states that the game was released later that year in other regions. Also, my apologies for using this article, as I've put a lot of work into it over the last few months (along with IDV and Thomas01989), and I'm planning on nominating it for FA status soon. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I would personally recommend that we limit infobox dates to solely the main date and eschew all date lists (alternatively, we could relegate the dates to a footnote, as noted above), but I think there's room for discussion once we find consensus on the proposal as stated. czar 22:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just use the collapsible list template for the infobox. With that, the very first date will be shown while the rest will be hidden unless you click "show". Like Dissident93 said, that's 1000s of articles that would have to be changed. I do agree with only putting the first major release in the lead and the other dates in the Release section prose, but as per the infobox, what I said previously. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - per JDC808. Port releases are significant, and the situation can be improved by having a collapsible list that can prevent the infobox from being clunky. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer and JDC808, collapsible lists, or any effort to systematically collect all release dates on a multi-plat release, are almost always incomplete or unsourced (which is partly why it's beyond our scope). Here are three basic examples of collapsible lists that I can't ever see not being clunky without wholesale removal: Another World, Doom, The Walking Dead. czar 22:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The collapsible list has already solved the problem. If we are not listing dates in infobox or in the prose, these information (which is notable) will be lost. They are unsourced and incomplete, but that doesn't mean that we have to ignore them. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment For those concerned on port dates, what if we used right-aligned, collaspable tables in the development section that detailed port releases, presuming that there is sourcable information about when ports were released? Once outside the restriction of the infobox, that type of table can be more useful when, most often, the ports and re-releases are described in detail in the Development section. Possibly a inter-page link in the infobox to an archor for that table could help too. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per others. I want lists of dates kept out of the prose, in the same way I want lists of review scores kept out of the prose. - hahnchen 22:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • So having them all crammed in the infobox is better? They'd have to be put into a collapsible list, else I don't see how that's a better idea. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. It is better. - hahnchen 23:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

      @Hahnchen, the idea was to not have lists of dates anywhere—not in prose or the infobox. Where do you think that was misconstrued? Removing release date dumps from the infobox forces editors to actually write about the ports in prose (when they're worth mentioning). Lists in prose wouldn't make sense. czar 22:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

      • I believe this approach was tried years ago, and failed, with WP:ALBUMS, which has the constant battle of WP:GENREWARRING. They tried to remove the "genre" tag out the infobox, so people would stop edit warring over, and be "forced" to write prose about the genre. But then people just wrote stuff like "Metallica is metal. Metallica is also hard rock. Also they are progressive metal." - like the lowest end prose possible. And the arguing ensued still remained, and ultimately the scrapped the plan. Similarly, I think this proposal will just push the clutter off to other parts of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I believe this is yet another effort to impose unintuitive standardization upon articles. Maybe I'm just getting a little burned out, but I'm tired of all the reverts on my watchlist over these things that aren't obvious to people who haven't studied the massive WP:VG Guidelines page. Too much counter-intuitive standardizing is just going to be ignored by anyone outside of the core 10-15 WP:VG editors, and those core editors are going to have to clean it up for everyone else all the time. I'm more of JDC808's mindset - if the lists are too long/unwieldly, collapse it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I also reject the notion that only the initial release date is worth noting. I find them equally important, and sometimes, even more important. For example, I would think that the release window for the iOS/Android release of Sonic CD in 2011 would be of more significance to many readers than the release on the tiny userbase of the Sega CD over two decades ago. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• i agree that all release dates are worth mentioning in the article, just not in the infobox. Lucia Black (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• See my example above with WP:ALBUMS and genre. They're going to clutter up somewhere regardless. To me, it may as well be in a collapse-able list. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia is not paper and we already have a way to declutter the infobox: collapsible list. This is a solution in search of a problem. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal No.2

I propose we only keep the original major release date(s), original console(s), and original publisher(s), and instead create a new parameter called "other releases" where we only list the consoles it has been moved to. We do however keep re-releases, ports, and remakes separately from the infoboxes, especially if they have an article of their own and simply put it under some form of "Related" parameter. Lucia Black (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

How does this deal with English-language releases in the USA/EU/Australia, which seemed to be the primary reason to discuss this? ~Mable (chat) 17:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We keep NA, EU, and if it distinctly noted by well known sources, we add in AUS aswell. But only if its scheduled as part of the initial release. But with that said, we don't add in NA/EU/AUS release dates after the initial release. Meaning if there is a game that came out on PS3/Xbox 360 and there will be a PS5, Xbox two, Nintendo NX2 or whatever future console re-release out there, we do not give it high-priority in the infobox. Instead we mention only the console its been released in in the proposed "other releases". we still have to give proper release information for them in prose. Lucia Black (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - per my reasons above for proposal 1. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment unlike the other proposal, this one simplifies the infoboxes while new and old members can easily adapt to it. But, i'm not going ot push it for anyone, if they oppose, oh well. Not like its a huge deal for me. But i thought it was a nice compromise. Lucia Black (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The encyclopedic value of release dates

I think that before we can cement how to handle what goes on in the infobox, we should step back and reassess what importance release dates in general are, and which specific release dates are most important.

Let's consider a game that comes out for PC, Xbox 360, and PS3, then much later for Xbox One and PS4, and has different release dates in the three major English markets (NA, EUR, and AUS). Strictly speaking, that's 15 release dates, though there will be times they might double up, but for sake of argument lets assume due to circumstances these are all different. Further, assume that as commonly happens, the PC/360/PS3 release in one region is all within the same week due to timing of being on the respect storefronts, and same with the Xbox One/PS4 release (eg these two in the same week); just that the various regions get these at different times.

Are all those exact dates necessary for en.wiki to document exactly so that all 15 dates are represented? I don't know for sure, but figuring this out would help to define better how to fix the dates in infobox. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I just want to say other areas such as WP:TV and WP:CARTOON have been using DVD region code such as (Region 1, 2, 4). I don't see it any different for WP:VG to mention all the relevant regions. However, the problem is giving proper weight to each individual console release. And that's what my proposal aims to fix. There's nothing wrong mentioning each individual release for each region. Any Wikiproject can do it, but that's not the problem for WP:VG. the problem is having large details all for the infobox. The infobox is suppose to be concise and only gather key information (but not all) of the article. Your hypothtical is extreme, but i would say still very manageable with my proposal. If we were to use my proposal, we would only have 9 specific release dates while having Xbox One and PS4 listed as "other releases". I know its not "perfect" the way it sounds, but it definitely cleans it up without too many glaring issues. Lucia Black (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel that they're all necessary. People keep making comparisons to other media like films and music, but video games are different in that they are re-released through different non-compatible mediums far more than film or music. There's far more conditions for compatibility with video games. For instance, in Film, DVD was the primary format for at least a decade, and every single DVD played with every single DVD player. That's not the case for something like Sonic Adventure, which went from GD-ROM to GameCube Disk to PC Disk release to digital releases through things like PSN. Not a single release is compatible through another platform. This makes the release dates and platforms much more important to note. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You gave a great explanation, but it doesn't exactly tell us why "release dates" are important. It only tells us why the "console" is important. I agree, and shared similar sentiment that the a console isn't just another format like albums and DVD. it's not simple MP4/MP3. However, that doesn't exactly tell us why we have to list every release date into the infobox. There has to be a better and easier way. Again, my proposal cleans it up pretty well. Of course not every infobox is gong to reduce. For example Final Fantasy (video game) has been released on several platforms. that doesn't mean all of them have equal weight. Lucia Black (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Its just that, if each release on different platforms are more significant in video games than other media due to compatibility, more frequent technology changes, etc, then the release dates would be more significant to note as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Serge, but you actualy dodged the point. I'm saying that yes, you gave the answer as to why each console needs to be in the infobox, but you didn't answer why the "release date" of the platform it released on needs to be in the infobox. Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't have any more rationale other than "if the separate releases are deemed to be of more importance in video games than other mediums, due to compatibility, changing technology, etc, then the release dates of said changes would also have an increased importance, because availability is an important part of a products release". Furthermore, I see no compelling reason to remove them from the infobox. It's already there and implemented. The "collapse" option hides the content from people who have a problem with the clutter. Its the type of information reads clearly in the context of a list (context or description is generally not necessary, just the platform and date conveys the message). Its the type of information that infoboxes were made for. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think the reason why its because for WP:VG, one release date does not give strong encyclopedic value as a "set" of releases. But again, i dont believe "All" releases are valuable. There's two sets for me "original release" and "everything else". Lucia Black (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to Masem's original question, this cluster of release dates provides a good "at a glance" summary of a game's availability in English Wikipedia's major readership areas (NA/EU/Oceania) both temporally and platform-wise. I believe this easy summary is valuable in and of itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well put, this is sort of part of what I was driving at... Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I expressed my thoughts on this at length above, but two other relevant points for this section:

1. Other major game encyclopedias (slightly different from WP but our closest equivalents—Giant Bomb and MobyGames) only put the first release date in the main infobox (as proposed). I would think this is because...
2. Very, very, very rarely are the release date lists (the one's we're proposing to collapse—read: hide) sourced. It would be fine to leave them unsourced if they are cited in the article, like the lede, but they almost never are. So instead we become a repository for dubious release dates and throw verifiability into the wind. Another major reason for cutting back on release dates is that we don't do them well (scope issue).

For those who opposed the above proposal, if we're keeping the status quo, what do you propose we do about unsourced date sections? (Remove them? And is that effort more manageable than keeping the infobox smaller in the first place?) czar 00:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The simple answer, source them. --JDC808 ♫ 19:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it should just be handled in the same manner we handle all unsourced information. Similarly, we don't necessarily need to go and remove every single unsourced release date you see, we can focus moreso on ones that seem particularly questionable or unlikely, and tag plausible with CN tags. Also, at the very least, you can usually narrow it down to a particular year, from first party accounts like manuals or title screens. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In considering collapsable lists

I am in general agreement that if we are going to keep all the dates for each platform and region, a collapsible list is appropriate. If the game has 2 or more different release dates of concern, I would argue you should use a collapsible so that the date line only takes up one line of the infobox when collapsed.

But what I would like to offer is considered having multiple collapsed lists when the game has a specific remake/remaster, as opposed to when it is just ported. So, taking something like The Stanley Parable (where it is clearly a remake, not a port), the infobox would have two collapsible lists, one for "Original" with the first date of release, and "Remake" with the first date of that release in it. This unfortunately begs the question of a difference between a simple port, an enhanced port, or a remake. But I do believe that we can establish rules of thumb here to make 90% of the cases of port vs remake easy to clarify, while the remaining cases would be one for discussion. And it should be noted that regardless of original or remake, re-issuing of a game on a storefront ala how PSN is doing with PS2 games on PS4 right now, is not a new release date for any system. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to this. I don't even have a problem with the PS2 re-releases on PS4 - I think a game's first release in often a decade, could be of note. But my main concern is the massive effort that would be involved in the removing of a ton of good information in the prior 2 proposals. I'm less concerned with things that would be adding more content in. (The current guidelines don't allow for PS2 to PS4 or Wii to Wii U digital re-releases, do they? Theyre re-added to articles I maintain/come across so often I forget which way is the wrong way...) Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think i'll leave it up to other members to work on this. TO me, its just another way to micro-manage. Lucia Black (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything that comes out of this section should automatically have grandfather clauses : existing articles do not need to be rapidly conforming to this decision, though any new article or new GA/FA nomination going forward should be tuned for whatever results. And if an editor feels compelled to then work out those articles that do fall into the grandfather clause, so be it. But absolutely no way this should be considered a mandatory change that must be enforced immediately. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried to ignore the subject but i can't help but still want WP:VG to be easier to use, not follow trends that the WP uses to compensate. So here are my thoughts on the matter: I hardly ever see an infobox with a collapsible list other than in WP:VG. I believe if there is an option to hide details in the area where its suppose to show key info, then its clearly doing something wrong. That said, i believe holding value to every "release date" int he infobox is a form of systemic bias, rather than something we need to improve the article. Whats the point of collapsing it if we can present the exact same information in a separate table somewhere in the general prose of the article? With that said, i like the idea of a section dedicated to remakes/remasters. But for re-releases, perhaps a more generic section in the infobox that doesn't demand so much details. Such as only the console, not the release dates of them.

If i could update my proposal before to include that, then i'm sure we would have the best possible infobox. but i ultimately reject anything to not giving the key information to the reader in an easy to access format. Remember that the criteria for GA articles is accessibility, and collapsible is often rejected (but I've been gone, so who knows if this is still relevant). re-releases just don't have that strong value in the grander scheme of things when all it does is add more and more tiny, unnecessary details to the point that a collapsible list is being demanded when in reality we can avoid it. If we just list the consoles rather than the dates, we wont need to collapse anything. Here's another piece of perspective: VG franchise infoboxes summarize articles far more efficiently and they also just list the console, not the release dates (they do show timeline and release dates in the article). Lucia Black (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• A potential solution could be what Masem proposed earlier:

  For those concerned on port dates, what if we used right-aligned, collaspable tables in the development section that detailed port releases, presuming that there is sourcable information about when ports were released? Once outside the restriction of the infobox, that type of table can be more useful when, most often, the ports and re-releases are described in detail in the Development section. Possibly a inter-page link in the infobox to an archor for that table could help too. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  I am much more amenable to this solution than the collapsible list in the infobox. Such a template could have a space for citations baked right into its setup, so you can have your lists of dates while our concerns about indiscriminate additions and verifiability are allayed. czar 20:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I like this. Especially if we could wrap the table into a template similar to Template:Video game timeline, so that the manual table formatting isn't required. -- ferret (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Solves virtually nothing of the original problem and is essentially the same thing. But sure, why not. I "like" it too. Lucia Black (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm all for it as well. I don't think such tables should be mandatory when a game has multiple release dates, but I think it's an improvement over listing multiple release dates in the infobox. ~Mable (chat) 09:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't personally understand how this would be more or less acceptable than having collapsed lists in the infobox... Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Referencing" synopses

I've been looking at some video game articles lately and noticed that many still "reference" the article topic itself for plot synopses. Just like with other works of fiction, the article topic is its own source and nothing in WP:V actually calls for additional specification.

Any transcription of dialogue adds nothing in the form of verifiability. If you want to provide readers with something that is actually useful, add links to video walkthroughs. They would provide a quick, convenient way of checking up plot details. Text references of game plots, though, are essentially just decorative.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide an example? SharkD  Talk  04:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the game. Not all plots need to be sourced if the story is within the game, but for certain games where the details are in the manual or instruction booklet. I think its important to source. Other exception is if something left to be interpret and is confirmed outside the game. In my opinion i believe. Lucia Black (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Anything "confirmed outside the game" is de facto not part of the plot. Articles about works of fiction are supposed to be are self-contained in terms of plot summaries. If there is additional information added on, it should be treated separately since it would be the same as adding information from sequels or works on an expanded universe. This is explained in detail in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction.

Even if we extend a game's plot to include DLCs and the like, any detailed references would for the most part be unnecessary. Except for really complicated narratives, it's simply enough to specify the DLC (or the likes) in plain text. Articles about franchises and series might be more complicated, but they oughtn't contain much in the way of plot details anyhew.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A few points: 1) ShardD- like Seiken Densetsu 3, I'd imagine. 2) I hardly think that linking a random teenager in Norway's 12-hour-long playthrough youtube video is appropriate 3) Yes, it is just decorative. Plot citations are optional. Decorative things, like free-use images of developers or plot quote citations, that are of some limited use or interest to readers are not banned. A link to a youtube video would be just as decorative. --PresN 05:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It always pains me to see a wall of the same video game citation repeated over and over again with different quotes. It adds absolutely nothing to an article. That being said, I also believe that articles should only describe the plot as much as reliable sources do, but oh well. ~Mable (chat) 10:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

When I was working on Ryse: Son of Rome I found Crytek making their own cutscene movie that was age-restricted. Therefore, linking to walkthrough isn't really a good idea given that viewers may not even view the content of the source. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no issue using an age gated source, see WP:PAYWALL.--MASEM (t) 12:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The only two times I see a need to include a quote cited to the game if it is content not explicitly encountered by every player that supports details of the plot, such as the audio recordings of the Bioshock games which are optional things to find; or in which there is a complex plot point that editors agree is not readily apparent from a standard playthrough (eg The World Ends With You). If it is obvious plot point, the citation quote is unnecessary, though a level, chapter, or act location cite can help. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

For plot and gameplay, primary sources (i.e. the game itself and its supporting documentation) are usually perfectly fine. Of course, reliable secondary sources make for much better sourcing and we don't have to choose which plot elements or gameplay features to include or exclude. And, of course, should there be disagreement, such as plot point interpretation, we would need sources per WP:BURDEN. In case of controversial material, they would also need to be non-primary. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Referencing requirements will not improve plot summaries. First off, Wikipedia's goals are completely different from virtually any secondary sources related to video games; secondly, interpretations of plot point is WP:POV or WP:OR and does not belong in a plot summary, ever; and thirdly, no summary of fiction could conceivably be "controversial" since it's a self-contained narrative. Occasional exceptions and disputes may arise, but asking for additional references every time editors disagree is pointless. People should work these things out on the talkpages between themselves rather than attempt to convince each other with dinky notes in article space.

If there are complexities and problems that apply specifically to video game plot summaries, then there ought to be better guidelines (see my comments below).

Peter ^Isotalo 14:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't say we need references for plot/gameplay. Your initial comment asked if they add value. Yes, they do. How much value -- usually not enough to justify them. Occasionally during disputes -- they are key to what gets included. WP:BURDEN is key policy -- sources determine what gets included if editors disagree. And if we use sources, then might as well cite them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

SharkD, the most recent example I've encountered was P.T. (video game). See the quotes attributed to "Fetus", "Paper bag" and "Voice". That was promoted as a GA in July 2015.
As for of what's of limited interest or not, I'm of the opinion that notes containing plot quotes are actually somewhat harmful. These notes contribute to an illusion of verifiability but are in reality a waste of time for everyone, both for contributors and reviewers, and for casual readers.
Considering how different video games are from print works or films, there ought be better guidelines. What's currently stated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines is quite vague. There's also this unfortunate statement:

It is very hard to find proper sources for sections about the plot or setting of a video game without using the game itself.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any requirement to reference plot summaries. That's kinda obvious when you think about it. No one who reads an article about a work of fiction needs to be informed that they have to actually read, watch, listen to or play that work of fiction to verify claims about the plot. I think we can safely assume that readers of video game articles are just as capable of understanding this.
Peter ^Isotalo 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources do not discuss plots and settings that much is, in my opinion, a reason not to go into much depth on plot and setting here either. That being said, per Masem, video game quotations can be useful if used sparingly. Having ten of such citations in a row is a waste of everyone's time and frankly, a waste of bandwidth. ~Mable (chat) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't stress this enough: there appears to be no requirements to reference plot summaries. Reviews of films and books don't go into much detail either, but that hasn't stopped anyone from writing perfectly good plot summaries without resorting to secondary sources. Video games are in many ways different from books and films, but they don't require completely divergent rules.

Both WP:N and WP:UNDUE seem to be applied here, but neither are relevant to plot summaries. There are separate guidelines for this, like WP:PLOT and WP:FILMPLOT.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm fine with completely unsourced plot synopses. If an article has a plot that isn't particularly complex, it can easily reach FA without any sources whatsoever. However, I've seen many plot synopses becoming rather big and unfocused. Citations to video games themselves really don't help against this issue, but citations to reliable sources may. ~Mable (chat) 14:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I, more or less, agree with Peter. The practice of putting lots of in-game dialogues as "quote cites" into plot sections is something I used to revert, but eventually gave up on as it just kept spreading. -- ferret (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Archive 3 #Unusable plot summary referencing which you primarily instigated. Nothing has changed since that discussion, so this seems almost forum shopping. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, I completely disagree with Peter, but the discussion you linked is literally from three years ago. Consensus can change over time, it doesn't take a specific, quotable event to permit a new discussion at a wider venue. --PresN 19:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A) It's the same editor, B) it's basically the same venue (a handful of new faces above), C) the same arguments are being presented, and D) I've observed no other change in our understanding of plot sections, leading me to believe E) consensus has not changed enough to suggest that the subject needs to be rehashed. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

But I'm happy to ping all those from the previous discussion whom have not participated already: @David Fuchs, Torchiest, Odie5533, and ProtoDrake:. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the consensus of the above discussion is, actually. Are video game citations discouraged or not? ~Mable (chat) 21:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I remember of the last discussion on this subject, video game citations were purely optional or discouraged for things like action games/first-person shooters/other things like Journey, but for much larger games like RPGs/JRPGs, they are more permissible within limits (don't cite every sentence, things like that). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this I completely agree with. (Happy new year, btw) ~Mable (chat) 22:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I also belive that a three year gap is enough time for this discussion not to be considered fourm shopping even if it was the same person.--67.68.163.229 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the "almost" phrasing for the time and location piece of my original comment for a reason. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion. Maybe the synopsis citation stuff should go in a "Footnotes" section instead of "References"? I would support this, and leave it up to editors to decide if they're desirable in a particular article. SharkD  Talk  22:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I love it when people do this and have done it myself for webcomics-related articles a few times. However, this shouldn't really be a guideline, and I wouldn't call it a "footnotes" section. ~Mable (chat) 22:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment i do believe just like images, even though some are decorative, they can also be informative and give further support. For example: Glover (video game) plot makes references to "Crystal Tower" and "Crystal Kingdom". The Story of Glover is completely silent so it doesn't tell us the story. Sometimes there is a game has all the details in manuals or outside of the story. When it comes to upcoming games, sourcing the plot is generally the standard option too. Most likely because the game has not released. I just want to say that adding refs to the plot (especially if we're using sources outside of the game) strengthen the articles.

I'm not saying all plots need sources. But some of them get more strength out of them than other. Lucia Black (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing better than citing a manual, as you generally get the setting and characters down perfectly and exactly according to author's intent, without going into too much detail about the plot. ~Mable (chat) 10:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding the abrasive meta-commentary about my engaging in "forum shopping", there's seems to be a pretty substantial problem with diffuse guidelines relating to plot summaries. Since video games are so inherently different from one another, there ought to be a minimum of suggestions on how to deal with, for example, non-linear narratives.

As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be overwhelming support for the idea that plot sections actually require referencing, but the current recommendation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Sources says pretty much the exact opposite. If you actually relate this to WP:V, transcribed quotes are pretty much useless to readers in terms of verifiability. Pointing to specific instances in a game (chapters, scenes, whatever) could serve some purpose, but they'd be no more reliable than simply linking to walkthroughs on YouTube.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It could technically be more verifiable, however, as video games themselves usually do not suffer from linkrot. However, you're right that the statements on WP:VG/GL#Sources are not entirely in line with what is being suggested here. ~Mable (chat) 18:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources do not discuss plots and settings that much is, in my opinion, a reason not to go into much depth on plot and setting here either.

Mable's got it right here. Our "plot guideline" is a travesty. We are the encyclopedia with verifiability as a core principle, but unlike all other encyclopedias, we concoct full plot summaries when no reliable source (or hell, even the manual) provides further detail. Player's guides are another thing—if they exist and have plot details, go for it, but source it. But most games don't have player's guides, most games don't have significant plots, and that is measured by its coverage in reliable sources. Sourcing to game dialogue is neither here nor there—it misses the larger point: "The fact that reliable sources do not discuss plots and settings that much is, in my opinion, a reason not to go into much depth on plot and setting here either." czar 18:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And when sources do go into plot in detail (as would be for a game like BioShock Infinite), then that's where more details can be added. But these points are right that secordary sources rarely drill further before the base details and as such as we should aim for our plots to be within FILMPLOT lines (700 words or less). --MASEM (t) 19:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Czar, what you're claiming here is not relevant to WP:V. The source for a plot is always the work of fiction itself and nothing else. How secondary sources choose to summarize a plot has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability; it still goes back to the same work of fiction. Different individuals can always disagree whether a plot is summarized appropriately, but that's a purely editorial issue. We deal with those kind of editorial issues all the time when we summarize sources we use for statements of fact or opinion. The only exception to this rule would be if parts of the plot are somehow hidden or if the work of fiction is extremely difficult to access or obtain. But claiming that a plot summary by Wikipedians is automaticall WP:OR makes no sense whatsoever. If that really were the case, it would be WP:OR to summarize any external source.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the type of "original thought" (not so much research) that we are required to employ to properly summarize a topic for an encyclopedia. While we require some original thought (such as for article organization, paraphrasing, determining which sources are reliable over others, predominance of what parts of a topic are more important to cover, etc.), too much original thought can give way to explicit WP:OR, and with plot summaries of any type, the longer the summary is, the better chance that OR can occur. Thus we prefer to have secondary sources to back up some points to help reduce that chance of OR but its not required; but if you can only summarize from the primary source, you should aim to keep the plot as concise as reasonably possible to remove any chance of OR leaking in. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering how varied game plots, there should be better guidelines for how they should be summarized. Adding notes doesn't solve the problem. Is anyone interesting in writing dedicated guidelines for plots?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is all plots are different, and how much detail you'll need, as well as what reasonable viewers/players would consider contestable, varies. No guidelines are going to really address the tension here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not going to solve all disputes in one fell stroke, but simply acknowledging that game plots highly varied is a good start. We could certainly provide some general hints on how to write on different types of plots (non-linear, user-generated, story arcs across sequels, DLCs, etc). Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines doesn't even have a section about plot summaries and very few suggestions on how to deal with them. Compare that with WP:FILMPLOT which has a very good summary of how to deal with film plots (which are usually far less complicated).

Peter ^Isotalo 18:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick project related question

Do we or has there been any coordinated gaming sessions or groups between us VG project editors? I'm talking more than just having editors on friends lists or the like. (I hope I can share the reason for this question soon) --MASEM (t) 12:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there ever has been one. Are you proposing something such as a gaming session? Lucia Black (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically for historical reasons. Perhaps this may prompt us to make something, but that's not the reason I am asking. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

can you elaborate a little more? correct me if I'm wrong but it seems you are suggesting a group of editors working outside Wikipedia and donating/borrowing games in order to get first hand experience? Lucia Black (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I just mean us as editors, playing games together in a common manner for fun. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such occurrences, but I'm "game". (chuckle chuckle chuckle). -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this thing you call "fun"? Can you edit it? In seriousness, I would be interested in such a thing, though I'm not much of a gamer, oddly enough ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 16:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I rarely play multiplayer games. SharkD  Talk  01:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I volunteered at Wikimania 2014 (so I have one of the WP:VG leaflets IRL). There was a video games night during the event, but I don't think I came across any WPVG people. - hahnchen 12:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it funny how it turns out that Wikipedia's elite VG project core don't play many video games. I like this idea, but it sounds like someone would have to do some organising. JAGUAR  15:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt most of us don't play video games, but i don't believe anyone seeks out a play session with fellow members. Just like other projects. WP:NOVEL don't read novels together and WP:COMICS don't read comics together. But they must have some interest in them by first-hand experience in order to be in the project (i assume). Although, i think its about time we got an idea of what Masem was planning or what idea he had. As fun as this sounds, it sounds like a bigger distraction. Everyone is free to make their own choice, but i don't believe it should be a Wikiproject-sponsored idea. Lucia Black (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but I think video games are more interactive as opposed to the solidarity of reading a novel. I don't know how such an idea will work but considering this project is one of the most successful on WP, it might be a good idea to bring out the fact that some of us aren't cold editing warriors. It might even boost productivity. JAGUAR  15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many reasons why WP:VG is successful. Almost universally accepted, easy to find sources (for more modern games), easy to find exemplary articles to imitate and a strong community to support in finding sources and clarification. None of it has to do with actually playing games together. And i don't think anyone is calling anyone here a cold editing warrior. Let's be realistic. We all want to have our fun, editing Wikipedia is a hobby in itself. But if we really want to pursue this, its best to do it privately. Lucia Black (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason or harm in asking the the project if there's anyone who'd like to be involved. Though of course, we need some more details from Masem at this point. -- ferret (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked not for purposes of setting up anything, but just to determine if anyone was aware of anything that we've might have had organized in the past. I wasn't planning on setting up anything as a result, though I see there does seem possible interest if anyone else wants to organize such an event. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Way to kill the vibe, LB. Masem, I think this is a nice idea. czar 17:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to discuss these plans somewhere that isn't WP:VG's main talk page. ~Mable (chat) 18:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, its not like i'm against people doing this on their own accord, i just think its a bad idea to try to make it a main project for WP:VG. It can be a bigger distraction than you all realize. Heck, even trying to defend this is a distraction. Lucia Black (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Distraction from what...? Freely volunteered time on Wikipedia..? -- ferret (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I will not clarify what should be painfully obvious jst to justify what you all want to do. You can do whatever you like, but lets keep this project strictly to editing articles. Lucia Black (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• There's no fun in working and collaborating on articles about video games if we can't play and discuss them every once in a while. I also may or may not have opened a Steam group that anyone is welcome to join. Whoops. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There, problem solved. Anyone interested can hang out there. But wikipedia is about fixing articles, if certain times you dont feel like editing articles or improving them. Then you can go there. Lucia Black (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject talk page is totally fair game for discussing off-wiki activity. There's no need to reply in the thread if it doesn't pertain to you. (In fact, as goes in Robert's Rules, the best way to move a conversation to its conclusion is to not say anything.) czar 02:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The wikiproject talk space is for things related to the Wikiproject. And the wikiproject is to Working on video game-related articles. If you want to make a proposal to focus on things outside of Wikipedia, then make a proper proposal. Otherwise, please keep this in your own personal talkpages if you truly want to pursue non-Wiki related. Policy is policy. Lucia Black (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, there is a place for people who want to pursue non-wiki related things in the depart of fun WP:FUN. The only place dedicated to not do anything to improve wikipedia. If you want, you can propose a Video game play-session there. Lucia Black (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I've sent a friend request to Rhain. I'll see you guys on Steam ;p Let's get out of this page, though, Wikipedia is not a forum. ~Mable (chat) 10:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to have a WP:VG subpage where we can write our usernames and the platforms we use? Maybe also put down with what games or game genres we're most familiar with. Not for gaming together necessarily, but to look up possible collaborators. For instance, Rhain and I worked together on having a good gameplay images on The Last of Us. I made the two gameplay images, Rhain uploaded them. If we have subpage like that, interested editors can also add each other for possible coordinated gaming sessions. --Soetermans. T / C 14:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a pretty good idea, especially for collaborations. I'm worried that less active editors would also add to the list, however, causing it to get rather large. Listing specific games one is familiar with would also result in a pretty long list. ~Mable (chat) 18:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose listing games isn't necessary, if you were to add me on PSN you'd see my game activity. I don't think having a long list would be an issue. There is already WP:VG/MEM, perhaps expanding on that list could work? --Soetermans. T / C 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Is anybody interested in possibly working together like this? I think Rhain1999 added me on PSN (for the other PlayStation users, my username is Soetermans there too). I started a PSN community called WP:VG, feel free to join. --Soetermans. T / C 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd join, but is the community stuff PS4 only? Vita is the only modern PlayStation console I use at the moment. If I can't do it through that, then I'd only join when I get a PS4 someday... Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not much of a Steam guy (not at all actually), but I'm on PSN, Hearthstone and Smite daily, and WiiU/3DS every once in a while. See my userpage infobox for all my usernames. I'm always down to game with anyone! I only have Jaguar and Serge on my various friend lists, AFAIK, but anybody here is especially welcome to add me on any gaming network I'm on (or any social network really, I'm very open). Definitely add me on PSN, I'll join the community later tonight when I get home. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only schmuck without a PlayStation or Steam account? Anyway, I don't mean to add more to this topic, since some people already voiced their dissent at this topic, but for any Xbox gamers out there, my gamertag is also on my userpage infobox. Don't do much during the weekdays thanks to school related work, but I'm pretty active during the weekends. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I only play games from the fifth generation, so I'm probably the most backward one here. Still, my names are on my userpage, and I do go online almost every day. I'm 'Jaguar' on everything on the internet, so I'm easy to find. JAGUAR  23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I received a couple of friend requests (and accepted those too of course). Is having a WP:VG subpage or expanding on the members list a good idea? I believe I added @X201: on PSN too, but not sure if they're up to for that. --Soetermans. T / C 15:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say make a subpage or members list subpage. It'll keep people from complaining on the main page here. I think that, if someone ever pushed for deletion, we could argue it is project-based (Like fact finding for video games for the articles - it really could be used like that. Or maybe even just as the equivalent of a "work retreat/morale improving/teamwork building" type thing you hear of in the business world, haha.) Worst case scenario, it gets deleted, no big loss. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I joined the Steam group. I don't think discussing this here or on a subpage is really a problem, the project guide seems to support it: A WikiProject may also be a focal point for building ties between Wikipedians interested in a certain topic area, and the broader community interested in that topic area. Projects aren't 100% solely black and white about editing, it's about the editors too. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It is. WP:NOTFORUM. Essentially, Wikipedia should be focused on improving articles. I don't need to point it out. I know we all know this. As much as you hate that I'm pointing it out, it has been said to take it upon your personal talk page. Lucia Black (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Carmen Sandiego Returns

Half a year has gone by since this article was turned into a redirect, and a bunch of new sources have come to light as a result of the game being released on iOS during the interim. So I buffed up the article a tad. Still not a perfect article, but now I think its notability is proven. Still, I wanted to run it by you guys to get your opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I took a glance at it and did some editing, like having a VG layout and trimming here and there. I do think notability is proven, thanks to The Huffington Post and VentureBeat, but the sources used for reception aren't notable. --Soetermans. T / C 12:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Without too much digging, it looks like it easily passes WP:GNG. And there's enough material to warrant a stand-alone article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any notability concerns, though as mentioned above, some of the sourcing and content in the reception section is pretty rough. It kind of devolves into "And then website X said Y.". Like literally, some are "TouchVision called both the PC and iOS versions "ehh". or " AppleGazette wrote "Who wouldn’t want this app? Seriously." What's the point of content and direct quotes like that? Is that all that was gotten out of those source's views on the game? Direct quotes are really just supposed to be used when its saying something that couldn't be conveyed with paraphrasing. Could we really not sum those sentiments up? Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Would this website be a good reference?

This is the page in question. Seeing as it's a blog, I don't think so but I'd like to get some more opinions. Anarchyte 12:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Read:"Members are responsible for their own content, where applicable, and may update their Content at any time without notice and at their sole discretion." and "We do not represent or otherwise warrant that the information available on or through our Website will be correct, accurate, timely or otherwise reliable." make it pretty clear that the website has no editorial oversight. It's not reliable. ~Mable (chat) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As Maplestrip says, Blogjob is a hosting website and has no editorial control. So the One Angry Game is self-published and without any author (Billy D) credentials, unreliable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, Billy D writes for Cinema Blend, which we found to be unreliable. So that answer reliability here. GamerPro64 18:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration - Women in Video Games

Also posted at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Women in Red#Collaboration - Women in Video Games

Fellow editors,
I have been working on improving our coverage of notable women in the video games industry, but have made slow progress as an individual editor thus far. I am seeking your collaboration, as well of that of the editors at WP:WikiProject Women in Red, to develop articles on the 20 women listed in two Fortune articles:

• The 10 most powerful women in gaming
• 10 powerful women in video games.

The influential women listed are:

Hope Cochran, Stephanie Barish, Holly Liu, Emily Greer^, Jessica Tams, Kate Edwards, Kiki Wolfkill, Amy Hennig, Lucy Bradshaw*, Jade Raymond, Kirsten Duvall, Tracy Fullerton, Chelsea Howe, Pauline Jacquey, Blanca Juti, Amy Jo Kim, Cathy Preston, Siobhan Reddy, Bonnie Ross, Margaret Wallace.
^ redirect to article on related subject; * link to article on similarly named person.

As you can see, we have articles on some, but not yet all.
To facilitate the collaboration, I will create stub or empty articles in Draft or Sandbox space. Editors can then add links to any promising sources to the Talk pages of those drafts. When we have enough, we can start working on the article text.
Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

First off, no Roberta Williams? What the heck? Secondly, I feel like the best to work on is Jade Raymond. She's possibly the most well known woman in gaming right now (in my opinion) so I expect she has the most coverage. GamerPro64 02:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

List of notable women in the video game industry is a relative new article, so any that are on these lists should be added to here once they have their article completed. Perhaps those two sources should be added to that list article too --MASEM (t) 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of those red links deserve to stay red. Business magazine listicles aren't the best place to start. We don't have an article on the Rovio CEO, let alone the CMO. The executives should generally just redirect to the article on the corporation, their "power" and notability is an extension of the corporation. You're more likely to find reliable sources profiling creatives in depth, not their managers; despite the latter having more power, it's the creative that will have the notability. Everyone knows who Hideo Kojima is, but do you know the Konami boss who fired him?

So, ignore those lists and start looking elsewhere. We definitely have gaps in our coverage of women and video games, here's some ideas off the top of my head -

• Cibele (video game) - Semi autobiographical video game by Nina Freeman, a designer at Fullbright. Nominated at the The Game Awards 2015.Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Requests#December_2015[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
• Redshirt (video game) - A satire of social networks by Mitu Khandaker.[11][12][13][14][15]
• Sophia George (game designer) - Victoria and Albert Museum game designer in residence in 2013. BAFTA One to Watch.[16][17][18][19]
• Luxuria Superbia - Video game as sex by Tale of Tales.[20][21][22][23][24]
• Videogames for Humans - Book on Twine games by Merritt Kopas.[25][26][27][28][29]

hahnchen 20:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Side-issue: Men and video games

Bear with me, but why isn't there Men and video games? There's dozens of sources that focus on men specifically. (And there would also be a far longer List of notable men in the video game industry, for example). Having just one side feels WP:UNDUE even if women in video games has been focused on by the media. There's a lot of sources that focus on gender minority in industry, but we seem to focus on women entirely because of this, rather than people and their actual contributions. Take, for example, The 40 Most Powerful People In Video Games -- unsurprisingly, very few women. Yet, we don't cover the list to the same extent. When we say "notable in industry", too often gender is added even to people whose contribution has nothing to do with gender. I'm not saying to not cover women specifically, but purely objectively, there are more than enough sources for articles on both genders. I don't want to create it now WP:POINTily, but wouldn't it make sense? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fond of our recent "List of women in the video game industry" list either, but that discussion is for its Talk page. Whether we should have a "Men and video games" article... what would you even write on that? Can you give me an example of source that focuses on the relationship between men and video games? ~Mable (chat) 17:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't an article like gender and video games be an idea? --Soetermans. T / C 17:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that's a redirect to women and video games. Hm. --Soetermans. T / C 17:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah having gender and video games being a redirect to the women and video games page isn't a good idea. Maybe the redirect should be deleted. GamerPro64 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not fond of it either and I originally intended this for list's talk page, but my question ended up broader. There's many articles with "men" and "video games" about various topics, stats, preferences, players vs developers, etc. in our reliable search. Less than for women, because men is status quo and there's not much to say. It would take some effort to sort through them and pick useful ones. Plus, many of the articles about women would have accompanying stats about men. I'm sure there's also plenty features in gaming magazines. It just seems like it wouldn't put WP in such a biased light if we at least attempt at coverage of both sides. The closest I can find is portrayal-specific Gender representation in video games#Portrayal of men. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that when it comes to content, Wikipedia is allowed and encouraged to have biases that match those of the RSes. In other words we can only report on what the RSes are reporting on even if that leaves us with much more coverage of one side than the other. You see a similar effect with Women in mathematics (covering women in a traditionally male-dominated sphere), Parental leave (covering the male side of a traditionally female concept), Domestic violence against men, etc., etc. Of course we also see articles like Men in nursing (covering men in a traditionally female-dominated field) coexisting nicely alongside Women in nursing, so if there are the RSes to support it then I'd say go for a "Men and video games" article. Just make sure the sources supporting notability address the topic of "men and video games" directly so we stay away from WP:SYNTH. -Thibbs (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Honestly, I think its because there's really not all that much focus on either side of it right now, or people in general in the video game world. Even a lot of video game company articles are in pretty bad shape. I think its kind of similar to the problems we keep having with eSports related articles - there just aren't many experienced/dedicated editors working on it. I don't want people to think I'm blaming anyone or "Wikipedia" or anything like that though, its more like I speak out of experience - I'm not particularly interested in writing about any of these things myself either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that Women and video games is very focused on the women aspect, in such a way that it couldn't easily be turned into a "Gender and video games" article. If someone wants to write an article on Men and video games, or wants to convert the "Women and video games" into "Gender and video games", feel free to start a draft. I guess I agree with Sergecross that this would be a difficult change to make unless someone is very interested in working on it. ~Mable (chat) 17:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that raises an argument on how much information there is on men in video games. Let's be honest, its s stereotype that video games are for guys, which is why there are so many articles about women in gaming. I can't recall any articles focused on men in gaming because what's the point in doing so? I don't think there's enough material for the subject, as ironic as that is. Obviously I can be proven wrong. I hope I can be proven wrong. This subject doesn't seem like something that would interest me anyway so I expect someone more interested would take the helm. GamerPro64 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A way to put this is that (ideally), X years in the future, the gender of game developers and the like won't matter. But today, it's clear there is attention on the impact women have in the gaming industry, given that it has been male-dominated. Our article on Women in video games will at some point be talking historically about this period where there was an heightened awareness of gender issues, so the article will always be okay as long as as the situation improves in terms of gender balance, that the articles becomes more a historical document than an ongoing one. To that end, it might be more important to focus on female developers (and perhaps male ones?) that specifically contributed to helping to improve the gender balance in the industry as key figures in this area, rather than just influential females. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If there's an article about them, we can assume they're notable, right? I am all for more female representation in the industry, but isn't a list like List of notable women in the video game industry arbitrary? We could have lists of notable Christians, notable Japanese, notable artists in the video game industry. Women and video games is a broad topic, and women especially notable could be listed there. There's also Gender representation in video games. --Soetermans. T / C 21:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from its first section, the content in Women and video games is really Gender and video games (gender-based disparities) and I'd support a rename accordingly. (There is room for plenty more subarticles on gender in the games industry, in the content itself, in the advertising.) As for this thread, the topic isn't "men and video games" but "masculinity and video games", for which there are also a ton of sources, but that then would fit easily as a section within the scope of gender and video games and can spin out summary style as needed. (We already have a discussion of List of notable women in the video game industry's inclusion criteria on its talk page, so let's keep that conversation in one place.) czar 22:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just a general suggestion: if it isn't already mentioned, it would be very good if top-level articles on video games (not just gender and video games) could have content relating to demographics. I know there are at least som surveys and studies regarding this. I seem to recall that women are overrepresented as players of mobile games while men are overrepresented as players of computer games. The latter group is those who are often presented as "real gamers" and are the basis for most stereotypes of players. Peter ^Isotalo 08:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

i personally recommend having a main article summarize both male and female, but have each one in detail have their own article. the previous article of Women in video game was a load of synthesis. Lucia Black (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for articles to create:

The 2016 IGF award nominations have been released [30], and of the non-student games (which are always iffy), we lack articles on GNOG, Oxenfree, Panoramical (presently a redirect to Phil Fish), and Lumini (video game). A spot google check shows potential sources for all of these, they are just not yet released. I've tagged all the other games with their IGF noms. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread 21: Enter 2016

We're in 2016 now so we might as well get the ball rolling with reviews.

FAC

• Seiken Densetsu 3 (nom) Up since 15 November
• Jumping Flash! (nom) Up since 19 November
• The Last of Us (nom) Up since 6 December
• Killer Instinct Gold (nom) Up since 6 December
• South Park: The Stick of Truth (nom) Up since 16 December
• Persona (series) (nom) Up since 10 January

GAN

• Golem Arcana (nom)
• Ever 17: The Out of Infinity (nom)
• Video game rehabilitation (nom)
• Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist (nom)
• Evolve (video game) (nom)
• MediEvil (series) (start)
• Counter Logic Gaming (nom)
• Swords and Sorcery (video game) (nom)
• Cathode ray tube amusement device (nom)
• Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (nom)
• Guitar Hero Live (nom)
• Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter (nom)
• The Last Story (nom)
• Alien Soldier (nom)

PR

• Phantasmagoria (video game) (rev)
• Shenmue (rev)
• Sword Art Online: Lost Song (rev)
• Knight Lore (rev)

Good Topic

• Key video games

Featured Portal

• Portal:Halo (nom)

And, if one is interested in creating new articles, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests which is now at a four and a half year backlog for requests. There are also nearly 300 drafts at Category:Draft-Class video game articles that has possible articles to be made. GamerPro64 20:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll trade a review of any type in return for image/source reviews on the Seiken Densetsu 3 FAC. --PresN 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PresN, I'll be happy to expand my review on the FAC to an image/source review, if you like (assuming that's permitted). I don't expect a trade either, but it would be great if you could leave some comments on The Last of Us' FAC too, if you have time. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: It is permitted, and that would be great! --PresN 18:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killer Instinct Gold/archive1 is just about wrapping up now—waiting on a source/image review, if you have a moment to drop one (very easy, take a look at the FA criteria and spot check that sources match the content and that the image rationales are complete and in-policy; for other examples see the current candidates at WP:FAC) czar 17:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I left some comments. – Rhain☔1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm doing a review of South Park, but if someone wants to prompt me to take a look at their FAC/GAN/PR/whathaveyou, an excellent way of doing that would be participating in the FAC for "Rejoined": Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rejoined/archive1. Not a video game, but other media needs love too :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

David Fuchs, I'll have a look at that FAC in exchange for you taking on the GA for Bionicle: Mask of Light. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take up your offer with Rejoined. Don't have a video game related GAN right now, but I currently have a peer review you can look at. I'll mention it on that page. Also, to throw in some video game stuff in here, I'll take a look at The Stick of Truth when I can. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, Famous and ProtoDrake. Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

SNES FAR

After being on hold for almost 3 months, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Super Nintendo Entertainment System/archive1 has been un-held... If anyone can help put some eyes back on it. The original FAR was opened without proper notifications in response to a large number of tags through-out the article. Those were resolved with the exception of Unreliable Source tags for the site "romhacking.com", which Anomie had uploaded technical information to... We need to either clean up the deep technical details or find new sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

MUD template

Is {{MUDs}} worth having? The template mentions programming languages, concepts and terminology, people and games. That's way too broad for a coherent navbox, right? I mean, Sherry Turkle, Dark Age of Camelot and Fazuul don't seem to have anything in common. --Soetermans. T / C 16:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely remove the list of games. A list of works of a specific genre, even if it's a "dead genre", should be outside of the scope of navboxes. I'd remove all the people as well, for similar reasons. However, once that is done, I think the navbox gets pretty reasonable. Articles such as "Chronology of MUDs" and "Comparison of MUD clients" are obvious ones to put together in a navbox like this. The minor branches, programming languages, and most of the terminology may be a difficult fit. "Lag" and "Kill stealing" are general online gaming concepts and are not MUD-specific. The template can use some trimming, but is definitely worth having. ~Mable (chat) 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

On a related note there is a proposal to rename Chronology of MUDs to List of MUDs.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

New articles - January 8

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

• Moved into draft space: Quest of Dungeons, Joseph Rye
• Number of new articles redirected: Shinya Takahashi
• Number of new articles deleted: 2

December 28

• Draft:Joseph Rye by Heidski (talk · contribs)

December 31

• Sairu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Wikisaichan (talk · contribs)

January 1

• Strikefleet Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk · contribs)

January 3

• Contradiction: Spot the Liar! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by The true iMAniaC (talk · contribs)

January 4

• Luminosity Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Prisencolin (talk · contribs)
• Divine Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Xezbeth (talk · contribs)
• Always Sometimes Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by VagabondDog (talk · contribs)
• Dracula (1982 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Virtival (talk · contribs) -- PRODed
• Freefall 3050 A.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs)
• Call of Duty World League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Prisencolin (talk · contribs)
• Draft:Gaming Uncut by Barnettxxx (talk · contribs)

January 5

• Inuyasha (Video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Fffdiesel (talk · contribs)
• Power & Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Kevin editor1 (talk · contribs) -- AfDed
• Telesys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Dgpop (talk · contribs)
• Draft:EA Sports UFC 2 by 99.178.132.20 (talk · contribs)

January 6

• Pillars of Eternity: The White March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Markhoris (talk · contribs)
• List of Indie Royale bundles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Anarchyte (talk · contribs)
• SimplePlanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Anarchyte (talk · contribs)
• List of IndieGala bundles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Anarchyte (talk · contribs)
• Order Up!! To Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ghazlan-airplanes (talk · contribs) - Redirected to Order Up!
• Michael Schiffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs)
• COGnitive Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Prisencolin (talk · contribs)
• Draft:Taco Master by Zhabroah (talk · contribs)

January 7

• Tomás Boonty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by BaronVonBAMF (talk · contribs)
• 2016 Smite World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Prisencolin (talk · contribs)
• Revenge of the Apes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Cuchullain (talk · contribs)
• Nina Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Czar (talk · contribs)
• Cibele (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Czar (talk · contribs)

January 8

• Gunjin Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Stebo148 (talk · contribs)
• Bubsy (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Rattatast (talk · contribs) - Redirected to Bubsy
• Rondo Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by GrafikaAXL (talk · contribs) -- PRODed
• G2A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Anarchyte (talk · contribs)

Salavat (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this alerted me to the fact that a new user disregarded my advice and made a lousy Bubsy character article... Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

At least there's one source, and that's better than none. If there's content some users are doubtful of, they could at least put a ^{[citation needed]} on some of the statements. And rather than removing an article, they should correct its contents. 208.54.4.130 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you have to establish notability to keep an article in existence, and Bubsy as a character isn't notable. Anything notable to say about him as a character could fit easily in the series-article. ~Mable (chat) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The series-article is mainly about the games. The article for Bubsy is strictly about the character. The Bubsy article mentions brief things about the character's creation, personality, and abilities. 173.55.37.52 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason for creating an article. It needs many, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail. See the WP:GNG. You can always create a section about the character at the series article if you feel the series article does not discuss him enough (though even that should be written according the sources, not personal observations.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• My first time on there! After Back to Stone, and now Freefall 3050 A.D., I seem to have found a niche in shitty games nobody has played. :p Also, just wondering Salavat, do you intentionally sign your post in a separate diff to avoid sending out pings? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nar I just forgot to sign off on the post (my bad). Salavat (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Mable, when you say not notable, do you mean the character doesn't appear in enough games or isn't publicized enough? 172.56.41.206 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

With lack of notability, I was referring to how there are very few publications that discuss the character of Bubsy in any depth, and those that do exist probably mostly discuss the entire series or all elements of a specific game. I think it would be very difficult to create a meaningful "Reception" section without taking snippets from various game reviews, and I doubt anyone has ever said more than a few sentences about the character's design. It's interesting that "The way Sonic goes airborne and lands safely was the inspiration for one of Bubsy's moves," but can you tell me anything else about how the character was designed? Of course, if you can find such sources, then I would be very interested in looking into it, but if you can't write more than three sentences that aren't in-universe, then there's no reason not to write those sentences in the series article. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Destructoid website is down!

Someting is terribly wrong with the Destructoid website! When I tried to go to its review here, I discovered that the website is down. In fact, it's been down for hours! When will it be back up? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Websites commonly mention this sort of thing on their social media. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see that the website is finally back up for a server migration. Thanks. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead or Alive 5 discussion on "Sexualized boobage"

So there's a discussion going on at the DOA5 page talking about "Sexualized boobage" in the game. The article contains a section on Objectification of women which includes a link to a video by Anita Sarkeesian. Might be worth checking out and discuss. GamerPro64 21:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Is a tv show about video games covered under WP:VG?

The show Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything is about a sitcom about professional gamer and gaming culture in general. Just wondering if WP:VG covers this subject and other "game culture" related articles.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I would think so, as would any movie or work centered on video games (eg "The Wizard", "Tron", etc.) --MASEM (t) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Pretty sure yes, we're usually pretty generous in what we cover. Though I have to say, reading the episode descriptions in that article, that sounds like an absolutely terrible show. --PresN 00:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I watched an episode. Makes me miss X-Play to say the least. GamerPro64 02:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it thanks for the answer. I gotta say parts of the show are actually portray the esports world surprisingly accurately. Worth a watch even if you're not a 10 year old.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian has shut down video game reviews pre-2015!

Now it seems that The Guardian no longer keeps video game reviews up to 2015! I tried getting to the game links like these two, but they all returned with a message of "Sorry, an error occurred"! Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be a temporary issue as trying to just go to any older page is screwed up. While Archive.org doesn't have this stored, I see Google does. [31] and [32] Note that you might have to look at the source to get the text but it is still there. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Archive.org has the archived versions seen here: [33] [34] Just trying to tell you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Just following up, it looks like it is back now, so it was a glitch like I suggested. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"

I noticed the article What Could Possibly Go Wrong? has been redirected because someone deemed it to be not notable. I don't think it isn't notable. I mean the article is about a TV cartoon that's based on a video game. Also there's a source used. 208.54.4.130 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's standard for having a standalone article. You need many third party reliable sources that cover it in significant detail. The article merely had one first party interview present. 90% of the article was unsourced and/or excessive plot summary. So basically, the sourcing and the content was in awful shape, so I redirected it to the series article (which has a section on it already.)

If there was better sourcing is found, maybe it could be written into a proper article, but a few years ago, I tried to find sources to make this article, and I wasn't able to find enough to feel confident in putting it into good enough shape to avoid deletion.... Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If some things require sourcing, rather than removing them right away, a {{citation needed}} could added to those words. That way, the creator of the article will have the chance to work on them. 208.54.4.220 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's more of an approach for an unsourced idea or sentence, not a almost entirely unsourced article. It was also almost entirely plot summary, which is not how articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be written. Plot sections are generally only a minor part of the article. If you or anyone want to work on the article, that's, fine, but it's definitely not ready to be in the main space. You can always start up a WP:DRAFT. If you do it through WP:AFC, they'll even review it and pass/decline it based on Wikipedia standards. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016's TFA

This month on the 11th Dishonored is will be that days Featured Article. Congrats to Darkwarriorblake for getting the article to that status. Also that makes it the first video game article at TFA for 2016. GamerPro64 04:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just an update, Mass Effect 2 will be at TFA on the 26th. Cheers, Niwi3. GamerPro64 01:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like that's the date when the game was released 6 years ago. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Rareware categories

Anyone know why Category:Rareware, Category:Rareware stubs, Category:Rareware games, Category:Rareware characters aren't named Category:Rare, Category:Rare stubs, Category:Rare games, Category:Rare characters. Is this a case of confusion with the adjective rare or did nobody really care about moving it to the correct name? --The1337gamer (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they're old. They should all be moved to Category:Rare whenever possible. I'm always having to correct 'Rareware' to 'Rare' in prose as well. JAGUAR  16:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

List of fictional universes in games

This article is a mess. Does anyone want to try to save it? You could start with finding sources that explain why fictional universes in video games are important to list in the first place. czar 21:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be deleted. If it's including the GTA world and the Half-life world, then it's really just a list of video game franchises, not even just fictional settings. Which, itself, would be an unmanagable mess of most every sci-fi/fantasy game series ever made. --PresN 22:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Would agree with deletion. It's not really a notable subject in of itself. --MASEM (t) 02:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Same as above, there's no possible way for this article to be sourced adequately. ~Mable (chat) 07:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'll just comment again with a keep vote if it ends up coming to a AFD, but do note WP:CSC "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". In this case most of the constituents meet GNG, and perhaps the items that don't have articles can just be rooted out during the cleanup process. There's not question that this article is pretty embarrassing but I don't think that's the solution is to just delete the page.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

For what its worth though, a number of the entries are redirects - for example the first 2 entries. A number of other ones have been tagged for major cleanup for years, and may not survive an AFD themselves, should someone go through and nominate it for deletion. Something to consider as well. I'm personally undecided... Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists questions

1 About List of million-selling game consoles

Isn't that a clunky title? Compare to List of best-selling game consoles by region and List of best-selling video games. There isn't a List of game consoles selling less than one million, so wouldn't List of best-selling game consoles be a more approriate title, with an explanation that sales from 1 million are mentioned?

2 About List of longest-running video game franchises

Is a list like that notable? If having a list of longest video game franchises is useful, why does List of video game franchises say "This list does not include non-gaming intellectual properties that have been adapted for use in games (such as James Bond or sports leagues)", but why does the longest list have Star Trek, X-Men or NBA? We could change the title to List of longest-running video game series of course. The lead says the franchises should have seen "regular releases for the last twenty years", but what should we consider "regular"? It mentions the Kid Icarus series, which has three games, with twenty years between the two latest. Why is the cameo appearance of Alex Kidd in Sega All-Star Racing seen as a continuation of the Alex Kidd franchise, but another cameo appearance of a character in King of Fighters is not okay? --Soetermans. T / C 10:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

At least for the first one, I agree that's poor language. "List of video game consoles with over one million in sales" while longer is also more readable, and still likely to be as searchable as the current.

On the second, I do agree there's a bit of OR going on, but I think it's repairable. "Video game franchise" is clearly a notable topic and listing the longest-running ones, even if we are talking the Kid Icarus type approach, is still fair, but perhaps this should be offset with a similar table for franchses with the most entries (video games only) in it. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

1. For what its worth, many of the best-selling game articles per platform, like List of best-selling Nintendo 3DS games, use 1 million sold as a cut-off point for inclusion criteria, so I support your proposed renaming.
2. I agree with Masem, it needs fixing, but I don't think it should be deleted. I've noticed that, in general on Wikipedia, there's a lot of questionable "drive-by" IP edits in regards to series/franchises. Stuff like proposing that Sega Racing is somehow a part of the Alex Kidd series, or that Splatoon or Eternal Darkness is a "series". (Maintaining the "Nintendo series" template was a nightmare.) It needs constant maintenance - I'd chalk up inconsistencies largely due to this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll request a technical move. What should be the criteria for the longest-running list? Should we keep it as "video game franchises" and remove IPss that started as other media, or move it to "video game series"? There's a new Shadow of the Beast in development, is that a continuation of the franchise? Are cameos seen as a continuation of a series or not? --Soetermans. T / C 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For the franchises, I'm hesistent to discount the Star Wars or Star Trek games, only because while they are based on an existing IP, they are generally developed as brand new stories using that IP, in contrast to the Bond games which are generally adaptions of existing stories. But if we can't make a bright line between these cases, I would agree with leaving them out or sorting them separately. Cameos should not be a "brand new" entry (eg Parappa appearing in PS All Stars does not make for a new Parappa game), and entries should be clearly sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, or the like, so the new SotBeast is definitely extending the series. But again, keep in mind I think you want to possibly sort both on longevity and number of games. A 2 game series split by 20 years is somewhat dishonest to call a long-running franchise because there were no entries in between, it wasn't "running". --MASEM (t) 15:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Banjo-Kazooie content dispute (GR content issue)

A discussion of whether this series article needs GameRankings scores listed could use new voices: Talk:Banjo-Kazooie_(series)#Review_scores czar 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the one and only known consensus that i see above with the following closing statement:

There is consensus for the change. The majority opinion is that GR is mainly useful for older games and it is mainly duplication in newer ones. I do not see support for removal everywhere, more of phasing it out on newer games. It was almost clear consensus that it was useful for older games, from both minority and majority opinions. Were that fits on a timeline though isnt clear.

After that, there was an active discussion on how the wording was done, but it was not universally accepted. Nor does it follow or support the conclusion of the initial consensus. This is where i'm saying this is "misleading". And we need a proper consensus on "how" to word and change the rules based on that. My changes were completely made based on what the above consensus was. Not just because i believe GR rankings are relevant to Banjo-Kazooie. Czar wants to focus on strictly why Banjo-Kazooie needs the GR based on the new changes made to WP:VGAGG, but those changes were never fully supported nor are they accurate to the reached consensus. TL;DR : Per status-quo, a solid consensus to use the wording has to be done before discussing Banjo Kazooie. Lucia Black (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep the discussion at the talk page. – Rhain☔1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont think you are listening to what i'm saying. We "can't" discuss it there, if you read my comment (specifically TL;DR section in bold), you would know why. Lucia Black (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)