Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ESPORTS)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk


Unsourced reception[edit]

I found a number of articles that have unsourced reception sections. As I understand it, including anything in the reception section without a source is a no-no. In some cases, what people posted there is probably just WP:OR that can be removed, and hopefully there are real sources out there that can be used to build a legitimate reception section. In other cases, someone added mentions of legitimate sources, but did not actually include any citations - so it's impossible to tell if those are truly legitimate, or if the person who added it was just being lazy or careless. (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Of these, I would note that Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror is up for AFD, although based on the discussion it looks likely to be kept. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all statements are supposed to be supported by sources, per WP:V. It's up to individual editors to decide whether they want to delete it, find and add a source, or tag it as "citation needed", often depending on the ability and likelihood of finding a source. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Good list to work through, should be useful :) ~Mable (chat) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed! I'm sure some that the reception sections of a lot of these articles can be sourced! (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
More for the list: The Adventures of Robin Hood (video game), Army Men: Major Malfunction, and Avalon (video game). (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed Sonic Pinball Party and Namco Museum Battle Collection from the list as they have been addressed, although the latter could certainly use more sources. (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I also removed Mayhem in Monsterland from the list as it has been addressed. (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Double Dungeons was much improved, so I removed that one as well. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The unsourced opinions were removed from Tweenies: Doodles' Bones, but the article is still lacking sources. (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of sources were added to Yoot Tower, so I removed it. (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of sources were added to Lemmings Paintball, so I removed that one as well. (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Several sources added to 180 (video game), so I removed that one. (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed Pac-Man World from the list because a couple of sources were added to that one. (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hollywood Mogul now has one source at least, so I removed it. (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You might want to double check that list. For instance, The Adventures of Robin Hood (video game), the first article I looked at *is* properly sourced. It just doesn't use *inline* citations. The references are at the bottom. SharkD  Talk  21:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A PROD has been placed on Back Track - if deleted, I will remove it from the list above. (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (19 October to 27 October)[edit]

19 October

20 October

21 October

22 October

23 October

24 October

25 October

26 October

27 October

Salavat (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced articles[edit]

There are currently over 1600 unsourced video game articles, so I am looking to reduce that list bit by bit. I'm hoping there are reliable sources to add to these articles to improve them. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:414:9EFC:879B:A1ED (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 1987 in video gaming and other articles like it, can't you verify the dates by simply visiting the games' individual articles? There are not a lot of redlinks as far as I can tell. SharkD  Talk  02:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. There's more in those articles than just names and dates. SharkD  Talk  02:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking for a review of 180 and I found this which will come in useful for Spectrum games. It holds transcripts of reviews. Useful for page and issue numbers. - X201 (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks X201, that's great! I found one of the three reviews listed for 180, as well as three more reivews that were not already listed in the article, so I removed that one from this list. None of the reviews listed a Title so I left that blank, and some of them did not give the name of the reviewer. (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
2017 League of Legends World Championship actually had three sources before this list was even posted, so I removed it. (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
8 Eyes has a few references now. --Teancum (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Great! I removed it from the list. (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Release dates in the age of early access[edit]

I would like to bring up a detail that I find troubling with how we report release dates. Certain articles such as Arc: Survival Evolved and Minecraft have release dates given for their final release, which is in both cases around two years after the game was made available to the public. In the Minecraft article I believe someone actually tried to correct this but it was reverted here citing the "infobox documentation". Searching through the project archives it seems the agreed upon approach is to only use such "early access" release dates until the final product is out, which seems misguided. The rationale seems to be that if the article states within the article the early release that it's ok to have the infobox only list the "official" release date, however this is disenguine and assumes everyone who looks at the infobox also reads the entire article. \

My main issue is that this gives provides an incorrect view of the events that surround it, for instance Arc: Survival was pretty influential in the gaming culture circia 2015, or 2016, however you wouldn't know that if you just did a glance because the infobox states "2017" as a release date. I propose that if a game had been released through a type of early access program and that reporting on that has been significant that we should also include that date as well. --Deathawk (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that early access or similar means do not always end up in a fully released game. The final release demonstrates a released title. If the early access release is important (as it is at least for Minecraft, ARK, and PUBG) that can be outlined in the lead. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that these dates should just be listed as the general release date, what I'm suggesting is that they have some type of clarification with the "official date" listed below, for instance Arc Survival would look something like
Release Date: Early access: June 2 2015
                August 29,2017

The format clearly establishes that A) The game was available to the public prior to 2017, and B) that the version provided then was not the final version. --Deathawk (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Deathawk, as I have always found the listed release date for Minecraft incredibly misleading. Perhaps an early access release date parameter would be useful? ~Mable (chat) 06:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Early access dates can be covered in the article body. Not every bit of information needs to be added to the infobox. The release date field is already a mess for games that released on multiple platforms at different dates. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The way I see it is these pre-release dates (especially when they're years ahead of actual release) are as important as the actual release date, and just ignoring this as a factor is not a valid solution for the problem. --Deathawk (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Excluding it from the infobox is not ignoring it. Video game articles typically have an entire section dedicated to the release information. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with Masem and The1337gamer, if the early access date is in fact notable (such as with Minecraft) it should go in the lead instead. We don't need to mark this in the infobox for 99% of cases, and we surely don't need a dedicated parameter for it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There's some arguments here that the info should appear in the article itself rather than the infobox. The problem with this, is that neither the articles for Minecraft nor Ark Survival list these early releases until the "development" section. If one were to take a glance at the Minecraft article page on their phone, and weren't that invested in it, they would leave believing that the game was first released two years after it was out, which as another editor said is misleading. We should not be allowing that kind of action to occur. The argument that the infobox is overcrowded, thus does not particularly strike me as a valid reason for exclusion. --Deathawk (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The problem with this, is that neither the articles for Minecraft nor Ark Survival list these early releases until the "development" section. So add it yourself? Nobody has been against the mentioning of this in prose, just the infobox. Also, the argument that the infobox would be overcrowded can be valid, and having EA dates for something like PUBG for two or more systems is just messy and better covered in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not specifically talking about those games here, I'm talking that there's no policy for it, so if I were to change both of those game, those games are covered, but there's still the question of everything else that had a stagnate release schedule. The infobox should ideally serve as a way to correct this. I do not think you realize the options that could be done to alleviate the problem. For instance, I do not think it necessary to reveal the early access date for each platform, just that there was an early release available. I would say that the info by platform could be covered in prose. There are other ways to avoid cluttering the infobox as well, I'm sure. My thing is, that this isn't just select games, this is a new way games are released and we should update our infobox policy accordingly. --Deathawk (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the infobox should "serve as a way to correct this." However, I do think that the first/initial public release date of these kinds of games should be listed in the infobox, perhaps even moreso than the "version 1.0" release date. An infobox serves to "summarize ... key facts that appear in the article," and I believe this is one of the more important ones. ~Mable (chat) 09:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mable. Not only is it a key fact, I find it misleading to leave out the early access date. "It's in the prose" sounds fine, but a lot of people only read the infobox and possibly the lead. The key facts need to be in those two places.--IDVtalk 09:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps as a note after the official release date? Just listing it in the open can be messy if the game had versions on other platforms, which could potentially have their own EA programs too (like PUBG, which would have four release dates for only two platforms). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing listing it as text above the actual release date, which clearly labels it as "Early access". If you scroll upwards, you can see my very rough example of what it might look like for Ark. I'm primary concerned more about listing the fact that it had an early release over listing it for every platform. That, I would say we can do in prose. My chief concern is letting it be known that the version released of, say Minecraft, on it's "official release" was not the first time it was released to the public. --Deathawk (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, and I disagree with that proposal. In terms of the infobox, a game being available in open beta shouldn't be considered as important its official release date. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a difference between an "Open Beta" period as it is defined in games such as has been traditionally applied to MMO's though and how Early Access releases are handled. For one, Betas for MMO's usually occur a few months prior, while the examples I've given both had such a period being years long. --Deathawk (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but that doesn't change my opinion any. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Open source games/software have a similar issue, in that they report much lower version numbers as the "release version". We tried to address this on Infobox software, but there was no consensus. SharkD  Talk  21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I still oppose adding this, in part because what defines "early access" is not clear. Is it an paid-closed beta period that a game like Fortnite or Dauntless is having? Is it an open beta? Is it being put available on a site on (as something like Loot Rascals had) before being "fully" released on Steam early access. There's far too many variabilities in what this is to include in the infobox. Again, where it is notable, as with Minecraft or PUBG, the highlighting in the lede makes perfect sense. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously one of the challenges that we have to face, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. I imagine we could open a seperate discussion here to get input about what we should include. Me? I think that it should defined as "A paid stand alone release or a release that large scale release that occurs multiple years prior to the "official" one. --Deathawk (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the footnote idea Dissident suggested. Reminds me of country infoboxes, where the government type or national languages are often footnoted because they need further explanation. This would also help account for all "early access" cases like Masem said. TarkusABtalk 22:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So what would one of these footnote sections looklike? Can I get an example? --Deathawk (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I fully support this idea, I always have. If this is added, it should be how the devs identify the game's state. Simple as that. If a dev company says the game is in early access, you say its in early access, if they say it's a paid-closed beta, it's a paid-closed beta. For example, Faster Than Light was released as an E.A. title in 2011, but was released as a full game in 2012. In this age of sneaky devs we really should add an Early Access date just simply because some never release their games, its also a very important time in the game's development that should be highlighted. Blod722 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (25 October to 3 November)[edit]

25 October

27 October

29 October

30 October

31 October

1 November

2 November

3 November

Salavat (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Decksplash demands 100K players[edit]

Would this be an appropriate source for a possible article on Decksplash, an article I requested at WP:VG/R? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just that one single source? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a step in the right direction - a detailed RS - but the GNG requires multiple, and it usually takes 4 or 5 to keep an article safe from deletion at AFD in my experience. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
So far, I also have 2, 3, 4, and 5. Is this okay? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Probably the bare minimum now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yup, I'd say that good enough to keep it from being deleted at an AFD or something. However, if you go for it, I'd recommend writing as long of an article as possible - not just one of those "2 sentence, 5 sources plastered after it" type articles - or, as you can see by Masem's comment below, people may be in favor of a merge/redirect situation for now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not just add to Bossa Studios; if the game fails to make the count, it can live there; if the game makes it, then we'll likely be able to move that eventually to a stand-alone article? --MASEM (t) 18:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And game is cancelled, according to this. Still though, I'd rather wait for RS before adding it to the page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • RPS. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If this publicity stunt is all we have to say about the game, it makes more sense to me to cover it in the developer's article.--IDVtalk 17:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
There is, or at least should be, more to say about the game, such as Gameplay and Developent, like it is presented in these sources [1][2][3][4][5][6] (and there is more). Lordtobi () 17:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
As creator of this article, I am unopposed to any willing editor adding this information to the article. Face-smile.svg jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it an RPG?[edit]

Should Virtual Woman be considered an RPG? It seems more like a dating sim or virtual "pet". Is anyone familiar with this software? Is it even a game? SharkD  Talk  06:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I wouldn't consider it to be a game. What do reliable sources call it? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I mean, I we've got to go by what reliable sources say, but skimming over the article's current text, I wouldn't expect video game specialist sources to call it one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
None of the sources used in the article - including the software's own website - call it an RPG. SharkD  Talk  03:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dead Ahead[edit]

The September 1996 issue of EGM has a full-page article on a Nintendo 64 game in development called Dead Ahead. It's supposedly a combination of fighting game and action-adventure, a la Tobal No. 1 I suppose, though oddly the article claims Dead Ahead is the first game to combine these genres. The developer and/or publisher is Optical Entertainment, though the article notes "Programming work is being handled by Software Creation, one of the original members of Nintendo 64's 'Dream Team'." The music was composed by David Newman. Planned release date is Christmas 1997.

I can't seem to find this game mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, which I would expect it to be even if it was cancelled. My guess is the title "Dead Ahead" is either wrong or was changed later in development. Anyone have any idea what game this might be?--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that looks like the only name, nice find. I think normally you're right that a game far in development would have a mention of it on WP, but I think since it wasn't a part of any well known series or from a renowned developer, it got missed. TarkusABtalk 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting! I've never heard of it, and I'm usually pretty familiar with most N64 games, released or not. Smuckola, how about you? I know you've done some pretty deep dives into N64 research. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't ever heard of this lol, sorry. However, I am looking for sources for Mario no Photopi but I think that a relatively unpopular Japan-only release sometimes wouldn't have any coverage at all outside of Japanese print media. :-[ — Smuckola(talk) 17:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Czar! For whatever reason, I didn't think to check on Unseen64; I'll try to keep that site in mind when and if I run across something like this again.
Smuckola - Actually, I've found that most major American gaming magazines in the 1990s provided coverage on Japanese games before anyone began localizing them (and of course in some cases such games were never localized at all). Naturally not every game got covered, but with "Mario" in the title I'd be very surprised if the game didn't get at least a mention in Electronic Gaming Monthly at some point.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Super Hydlide wikidata[edit]

Should this and this be combined into one record? The latter is a remake of the former AFAIK. Both are discussed in Super Hydlide on English Wikipedia, but French Wikipedia has two separate articles. SharkD  Talk  03:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

These kind of topics don't really belong here and should be asked on Wikidata. Since frwiki has two articles though, there should be two items. Wikidata does not follow enwiki notability guidelines, and treats these as distinct topics, which they are. -- ferret (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
My question is more about whether these games should be treated as the same topic, not about how wikidata works. I've been reviewing a long list of RPGs, and this is the first time (so far) that I've encountered a game and its remake that were split into two separate records/articles. Wikidatians will be hesitant to answer this, or topics about video games in general. SharkD  Talk  07:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the original release and the remake are two distinct entities. Wikidata is about data points. On enwiki, we combine them into a single article topic, but they ARE two separate things. -- ferret (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (28 October to 10 November)[edit]

28 October

2 November

3 November

4 November

5 November

6 November

  • Article accepted as one of the first AfC submissions I've reviewed as a new member of AfC. @Izno: How did I do in comparison? (You can always respond in my User talk if it's appropriate.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

7 November

8 November

9 November

10 November

  • Start-Class article Super Mario 64 HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs)
    Concerned that this overlaps greatly with Super Mario 64. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Also agreed. @TheJoebro64: should understand that just because something is covered by reliable sources, doesn't mean it should belong as an independent article. All of this can be condensed and included as a single paragraph in the main article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    That's an incredibly weak argument. You're basically saying "just because it meets the GNG doesn't mean it meets the GNG". It has development articles, reviews, and playthroughs, all published by RSs. Plenty of results show up in the CSE too. JOEBRO64 23:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, List of unofficial Mario media#Super Mario 64 HD Ben · Salvidrim!  20:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    But this has plenty of coverage to exist as a separate article. It had plenty of reviews and development articles published, and it's often cited as a good example of Nintendo's stance against fangames. JOEBRO64 21:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I looked at this case a while back and didn't feel that the independent coverage was significant. I did throw together User:Czar/drafts/Super Mario 64 mods, though, which does have sufficient scope. Feel free to edit/expand it czar 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Czar I also found some coverage when I looked into famous SM64 modder Kaze Emanuar ([8]) but not enough for a standalone BLP. For now he's mentioned on the unofficial list but if there ever is an article about SM64 modding he should definitely have his section! Ben · Salvidrim!  22:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Just as a general point of order, user-mods should default be part of the article about the game they mod before considering making secondary articles. It may take time (eg List of Source mods took a bit of time before it made sense to split out, and even with some of the mods, only a few are considered key notable ones (critically, with both development and reception sections). Just because a mod is noticed doesn't make it a standalone for us. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I too feel that there's not enough for a stand-alone article here. Kind of surprised there's so much pushback here - this is exactly the same as what just happened with JoeBro's creation of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 HD. Fans making largely straight HD conversion of a game doesn't usually warrant a stand-alone article. There's so little to actually be said, as all the coverage it receives just amounts to "Watch this video to see this fangame in HD" and "Whoa, can you believe this corporation sent a cease and desist to a random guy trying to profit off of IP they don't own?" bare bones articles. The rest is just rehashing info already present at the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't create Sonic 2 HD. I just began contributing to it because it seemed notable. This is definitely notable -- it's often cited as the most infamous example of Nintendo's stance against fangames. Also, the gameplay is different in the remake; you have unlimited lives and can collect 100 coins to become invincible. JOEBRO64 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Slight gameplay adjustments are trivial. If that weren't the case, we'd have individual articles for every single enhanced/director's cut/GOTY version of a game. Over half of the used sources are simply the cease and desist announcement from different publications. Of course a company is going to do that to an unauthorized fan project like this, especially Nintendo. What exactly about the game is notable besides that? Anything else can simply fit into a section on the main article, as was the case with Sonic the Hedgehog 2 HD. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, but you were a main contributor to the Sonic 2 HD page, and didn't support it's merger. And its not like its the first time this has happened. Episode Shadow is another example. Seems like there was another one too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    That sounds an awful lot like a personal attack. I didn't oppose the Sonic 2 HD merger, either. JOEBRO64 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    I think "Of course a company is going to do that to an unauthorized fan project like this" is a bit presumptuous (it's not like companies have to polarize their fanbase), but it's true that all DMCA announcement articles released in a short period of time should probably be considered a single "news" item, and Wikipedia isn't a news website. It's something, but it shouldn't be 80% of the article. That being said, in this case, most of the sources aren't about the DMCA. The Verge, Kotaku, and Nintendo Life articles greatly aid in notability here. Differences (or lack thereof) in gameplay and plot are mostly irrelevant, as an encyclopedia should primarily document the development and real-world impact of a work, not the content. ~Mable (chat) 14:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    I'm saying that there's little real world impact though. Every source can be classified as either a short blurb saying "Look at this!" or "It's cancelled", and each source is largely redundantly saying the same thing. If you streamline the info, that's all that's there, and if that's all that there really is to be said, then its better as a small part of the parent article - there's not enough to write a decent stand-alonearticle about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • B-Class article Development of Overwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Masem (talk · contribs)
  • Unknown-Class article List of Western Role-Playing Video Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by TheFantasyChronicles (talk · contribs)AfD
  • Symbol question.svg Draft:Bay Route (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Betarage64 (talk · contribs)

Salavat (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Wolfenstein series article name change[edit]

Wolfenstein (series) was moved to Wolfenstein (video game series) by In ictu oculi without discussion or consensus—the reason for the move was that "series means tv series to most people". The article title was fine before: "(series)" is the preferable disambiguator per WP:NCVGDAB. Looking for other opinions. – Rhain 13:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well I didn't know about Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(video_games)#Disambiguation but clearly that guideline is wrong. Otherwise all the (TV series) articles should have "TV" removed and just be series. The word "series" on its own is clearly more likely to mean "TV series" than "Video game series" as TV series are more popular and more culturally significant than video game series. Presumably there are also series of books, magazines, physical games, etc etc. The term "series" does not indicate that the a video game series is meant. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
In a sense, In ictu oculi is correct. Just using the disambiguator "series" by itself on an article title is confusing at first, because it's not clear to the reader just from looking at the title what kind of series it is. This disambiguator issue can be expanded to other media types as well, for example, books. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The term in the disambiguator doesn't need to be 100% crystal clear, just that it provides a reasonably descriptive term that makes the disambiguation work, and thus as short as possible. "Series" works for video games, books, comics, movies, etc. The only reason for where it stands out in television is that a TV show is not a series of works, but a series of episodes, making it a unique type of serialization and hence why "TV series" is used there. Whereas for most games, these are games that typically share the same name, so "series" works just fine as long as there are no other series of the same name to worry about. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
What Masem said. The whole point of the disambiguator is to disambiguate, not to precisely identify the nature of the article subject; otherwise, we wouldn't have so many articles which have no disambiguator at all!--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
As per Masem. Additionally, series also there because not every item in a video game series is a video game. Series is there to cover various spin-off media. - X201 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The move has been undone. The guideline is clearly not wrong, and there's no reason to make a title unnecessarily long. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Were any WP Television editors consulted in this decision by WP Video games? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
They're not contradicting approaches of titles. Like @Masem said, the term is "TV series". Compare "Twin Peaks is a TV series" and "BioShock is a video game series". While we can also say "BioShock is a series of video games", we wouldn't say "Twin Peaks is a series of TV episodes". Does that make sense at all? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense no, the term "a new series on CBS" obviously means "TV series". TV series is the usual and main meaning of series in English. This really looks like a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about what the word series means to one project. What about sports series? Other series? The term "series" alone would never suggest "video game" to someone not involved in video games. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
"TV series is the usual and main meaning of series in English." No it isn't. It really isn't. - X201 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It reads like you have the opinion that the Video Games Project has claimed "series" for itself. We haven't. Other projects can use it too. Series doesn't have to suggest video games to anyone, all series has to do is tell people that the subject of the article is part of a series. - X201 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Well we can try that. Are you happy for "TV" to disappear from all (TV series) articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No opinion, don't care. Video game series have long been at (series) unless there was a competing topic that required further disambiguation. We then use (video game series). This isn't anything new or controversial. -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. Exactly my thoughts. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there some issue regarding video game article titles we're not aware of? I find your reading of Wikipedia: CONSISTENCY too narrow; we're not suggesting to change TV series articles at all. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes there is an article for a series of manga, and another article for the series of video games based on the manga. Can't think of an example right now, but I ran across one this past week. I'm not sure what was done in those cases. SharkD  Talk  01:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wolfenstein (series) should be moved to Wolfenstein and the latter should be moved to Wolfenstein (disambiguation). The other three pages on the disambiguation page receive an average of 5-12 views per day while Wolfenstein (series) receives over 2000. TarkusABtalk 03:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • No. We do try to avoid recentism and popularity in names particularly when we are talking pop culture (eg , when Avatar the film was out, we opted not to move that over avatar, the religious concept). While the other pages that are off the Wolfenstein page are not that major, they are more permanent in encyclopedic information compared to the VG series. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Eh, page views aren't the reason but looking at the other options, the game series appears to be the primary topic for "Wolfenstein". But that's a matter for another talk page. czar 05:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree with this. Wolfenstein the video game series is definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I will make a move request for that shortly. (That said, I disagree with adding "video game series" or "TV series" per WP:PRECISE.)ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of religions probably started out as pop culture at some point in time. SharkD  Talk  00:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm responding to Masem, who said the religious meaning of the word avatar is more "permanent" than the meaning viz-a-viz computing/gaming/movies/pop culture. I don't want to predict what will be considered "permanent" in the year 3017. Maybe Mario will be a deity and Vishnu forgotten? Masem explained why the "permanence" of an encyclopedic topic versus "recentism and popularity" is important to this discussion/policy. SharkD  Talk  22:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That all wasn't exactly clear in your initial comment... Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
See religion and video games, and "Video Games Are The Next Big Religion". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Football (video game)[edit]

If it was released as NFL Football, shouldn't the title and article name be NFL Football? Having the title as Football seems a bit ambiguous to me. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and the sources all list it was NFL Football (Or in one case, Super Challenge Football). -- ferret (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the name is definitely "NFL Football", but I don't know if that's the best choice for the article title. I really don't feel like this video game from the 1970s is what most people who type in "NFL Football" in the search bar are looking for... Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
NFL Football (video game). Just overwrite the redirect. "Football (video game)" should probably redirect to the list of football video games. ~Mable (chat) 14:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be my suggestion as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe NFL Football (1979 video game)? I don't think I can perform page moves, Hopefully a more sensible naming solution is found. Govvy (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The year should only be included if there was another video game to distinguish it from. (So, for example, if there was any article for something like a NFL Football (1983 video game) video game. Since there isn't (to my knowledge), the year wouldn't be necessary. I can perform the page move, but I wanted to confirm that everyone was on-board first. Sergecross73 msg me
k, cheers, on a side note, would you call the Atari Lynx version a port of the game or a separate game? I was deciding if I should be linking to this article as a port, but I think the Lynx version was built from scratch. Govvy (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
How do sources describe the relationship between these two games? ~Mable (chat) 18:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, IGN reviewed the Lynx version and didn't mention the original. 1. The 1992 Lynx version says trademark and copyright Atari. The original is Mattel, do you think should be on the same page or separate articles? Govvy (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
So technically the Atari Lynx version is not a port, do you think they should be be on the same page? Because they are the same title game. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If there isn't really a relation, no. Is the Lynx' game notable as well? ~Mable (chat) 15:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it was notable for being bad and unplayable, as I pointed to in one of the links above IGN reviewed it. I can try and work on something in my sandbox at some point. Govvy (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game)[edit]

Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game) needs more eyes, reddit controversy. Mostly been constructive but starting to veer off. -- ferret (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and protected it as the edits picked up to continuously re-add variations of "pay to win" (as the most innocent) to the genres and lead. -- ferret (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, probably warranted, I've seen a lot of negativity about the reddit controversy/microtransaction stuff online today. FYI, to you or anyone else, I'm not really into Star Wars stuff, so feel free to contact me if you need an uninvolved admin to intervene. I have no interest in editing personally, so I have no issue in holding out. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Negativity? That's an understatement... HalfShadow 21:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Did it need full/admin protection though? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm honestly not surprised at the continuous refactoring of my post on the article's Talk page after full protection. Please continue to keep an eye out for that. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Including date of discontinuation of game's required servers in infobox?[edit]

So as more and more games switch to a service model, we're going to start seeing games become unplayable with servers that support them disabled by the publisher. (eg just today we have Marvel Heroes being shut down).

Would it make sense to include these discontinuation dates in the infobox? Keep in mind a few pointers:

  • These have to be issues related to servers necessary for gameplay. This should not DRM-related issues.
  • If any part of the game is still playable without the servers, this shouldn't qualify for the infobox. A game without multiplayer features due to the lack of servers, but still can be played single player is still playable, and thus not discontinued/shut-down.
  • We can acknowledge that current exemptions in US Copyright law allow for people to run their own servers to play such games that are not official, but as these are unofficial, that still means the original game is unplayable.
  • The game no longer being for sale or supported by the dev/pub is not a milestone here for this purpose. Eg the Deadpool game is being pulled from storefronts, but that's not anything like the game's servers being shut down. Similarly, Battleborn entering it's post-support phase doesn't mean anything here.
  • The game should still be treated as a present-tense title even if discontinued. It is the same way we'd treat something like a television show which there is no present way to get a copy of but still otherwise existed. (As the possibility that the show can be brought to current media/broadcast).

I know right now there's not that many cases, but this does seem to be a direction in the future to be aware of. Obviously, this still qualifies as lede info. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - its crucial to mention when it's required in order to play the game. It's happening in the mobile game area too. (Sonic Runners comes to mind.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 What about peripherals like PlayStation Move (Sorcery), or additional hardware like the Expansion Pak (Perfect Dark)? They can't be played without, but they're not mentioned in the infobox. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that's worth adding too. I don't share the concerns about the infobox being too cluttered like many of the WP:VG regulars do. But I know it's not a commonly held sentiment either, so it's not like I'm pushing for this real hard or anything. I just voice my support when someone makes a suggestion like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you clarify what you mean by "This should not (include) DRM-related issues?" For example, Darkspore is no longer available for sale, and the DRM servers shut down so existing owners can no longer play it. Would that count as servers necessary for gameplay or a DRM related issue? CurlyWi (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm conflicted on the second bullet point. Phantasy Star Online can still be played single-player, but the game was primarily built for online play, making it notable enough for infobox inclusion IMO. Maybe the field could be titled "Server discontinuation" or "Server termination" and include games like this. TarkusABtalk 01:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Opposed At this time. I'm concerned the rules for the field are already too complex and will require lots of effort to enforce, as well as opening a new avenue for vandalism, i.e. marking games as discontinued that are not. There's certainly good examples where it could be used, especially in the MMO areas, or like Firefall, but... we should be careful that it doesn't become like the released field, which big set of guidelines around that one field. We've already got two examples above that would "violate" the rules at a quick reading but seem very legitimate. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess I should clarify that while I support documenting this in a general sense, the inclusion criteria are a bit strict... Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The "criteria" are meant here as points of discussion. We can readily simplify those if this were to be added as a parameter, primarily to stress that post-discontinuation, the game is 100% unplayable anywhere, barring copyright-questionable user hacks. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Another thing we should keep in mind are that this refers to all servers (globally). So what do we do if the servers of an American MMO are terminated everywhere except for in Korea, for example? That being said, I believe this kind of information would definitely work well in the infobox. I'm currently on the fence, but strongly leaning into support. I'd love to discuss some more odd edge cases first. ~Mable (chat) 08:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose. I don't see the benefit of adding this to the infobox, with already those exemptions. The discontinuation of a particular game seems more important to me, than just the official servers being accessible. The game, whether or playable or not, exists. If we're just adding this to see if some games are still playable, that borders WP:CATALOG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • You don't see the benefit of noting whether or not a subjects entire purpose of existence is functional or not? Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying we don't need to mention the discontinuation of servers in the infobox. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But how is that not a key overview point that infoboxes are supposed to capture at a glance? Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll rephrase: oppose this current proposal. I'm not opposed to adding a parameter like this, but I don't agree with the narrowness of it. We could add a "availability" field, where we could mention multiplayer servers taken down, being pulled from digital storefronts altogether (P.T.) or servers being discontinued. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's fair, that's probably closer to my stance anyways. I support the premise, but not necessarily all the particular criteria put together. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The issue I wanted to stress above was that "completely unplayable" sets a bar that is difficult to argue past so that editors aren't adding in dates that do not reflect this. If you start going in other directions, like not being available on digital storefronts ala PT, you start opening the door to gaming that - "Oh, I can't go out and buy the Zelda CD-i games, guess we list them as discontinued". Discontinuation of required game servers is a very hard line that cannot be gamed. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • My issue is that as soon as the field is added, regardless of the guidelines, that's exactly what it will be used for. Even without it being a field, I occasionally have to cleanup users who just add |discontinued or |offline or |closed to articles, usually on games that aren't. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, and I guess that's kind of the grounds on which I "supported" - it's not such much that I say "let's use these criteria", it's more of a "at the very least, lets do this for the ones that are literally unplayable". If we were coming up with inclusion criteria, point #1 should be "Completely unplayable" should be an "always include" scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I oppose adding it to the infobox. 1. It will only be used on a small proportion of articles. 2. It will be widely misused due to most editors not being for familiar with the criteria. This will lead to us having to spend more time removing incorrect usage of the parameter than inserting correct usage. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per The1337gamer's comments. While in the right case I would support it, it's actually more likely to be harmful than it helps. Also, this would only really be used in MMOs and other online-only games. Perhaps they could use their own split-off infobox that does include this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Merging the Tails Game Gear games[edit]

Hi everyone, I wanted to discuss this here. I was looking for sources on Tails' Skypatrol to see if I could get it to GA-status but there are virtually no reliable reviews, save for an old issue of Famitsu and passing mentions for compilation releases. Would anyone support merging it with Tails' Adventure (A game with far more coverage) redirecting it to List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games? JOEBRO64 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with czar. I don't think merging into Tails Adventure makes much sense. Yes they were both Game Gear games starring Tails, but the games have completely different gameplay, plot, development, etc. and were made by different developers. I understand your concerns with being unable to flesh out the article, so maybe merge into List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games. TarkusABtalk 22:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose this. It makes no sense at all. This is one of the reasons I don't bother with all the GA stuff. People get so obsessed with getting stuff to GA level that they start proposing redirects/mergers/deletions that don't make any sense. You're losing sight of what we're truly trying to do - build an encyclopedia, not "reshape things so it's a GA". Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I've changed my stance to redirecting it, per czar and Tarkus. (And getting stuff to GA/FA is "building an encyclopedia") JOEBRO64 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • EDIT: I've just boldly redirected it to the list. JOEBRO64 01:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
      • As a side note, you seem be to trying to mass nominate all these Sonic games recently. While that isn't bad per-se, it's more preferred if you focus on a single article and improve that as much as possible. Quality over quantity and all that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
        • What do you mean "mass nominate"? Like for GA? Because I think it's better if I broaden my scope since I've turned Sonic Advance, Sonic Adventure, and several others to much-better looking articles now. JOEBRO64 11:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Fox McCloud's legs - were they amputated? (OR discussion)[edit]

As per Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Fox_McCloud.27s_legs_-_were_they_amputated.3F

The question is whether you can use artwork alone to argue whether a fictional character (Fox McCloud) had his legs removed despite statements from the Star Fox's programmer (Dylan Cuthbert) and the game's main producer (Shigeru Miyamoto) saying the legs were not amputated. Please see the thread at: Talk:Fox_McCloud#Legs_not_prosthetic WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sales figures outside the UK[edit]

Does anyone know good sites for sales figures? I can get fairly detailed information for games in the UK (in this case South Park: The Fractured but Whole) but I can't really find decent information on areas elsewhere. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Japanese sales are documented by Famitsu and Media Create and pretty frequently covered by English websites like Siliconera and Gematsu, but anywhere else, it seems like figures only really come from the publishers themselves, if they chose to announce them or put them on their quarterly reports. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Alright thanks, felt a bit awkward having a beefy UK sales section for a US game, but eh. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
South Park seems like major enough of a release that they'll probably announce figures eventually at least. Looks like they did eventually with The Stick of Truth but it, looks like over a year after release, according to the article? I feel your pain though, I'd report sales on video game articles all the time if I could, but the video game industry is way less open about that sort of thing than film or music... Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (7 November to 17 November)[edit]

7 November

9 November

10 November

11 November

12 November

13 November

14 November

15 November

16 November

17 November

Salavat (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)