Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:VG)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
1 - 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115
Threads older than 10 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
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


Infobox backlog[edit]

It's been a few months and we now have almost 80 articles sitting in our Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes. I just killed about 25. Feel free to join in – czar 01:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done
98.1% complete
  • Done! thanks to @AdrianGamer and all who pitched in. There was some really old stuff in there—lots of 2008 tags.
Maybe Category:Video game cleanup next? Could we knock 150 down by the end of the month (or before this thread gets archived)? These requests are a bit more vague, so I suspect that many articles won't need much cleanup at all (besides the maintenance tag removed). – czar 07:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
146% complete
  • All right, another milestone down! Do you think we can kill the whole Category:Video game cleanup queue (400 articles) by the end of September? Feel free to jump in wherever: just make the article minimally presentable, remove uncited text and trivia (or add citations), and remove the cleanup tag. – czar 08:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
17.3% complete

Non-free video game screenshot rationale[edit]

The template for the canned NFC rationale for video game screenshots has been nominated for deletion [1]. However, I think I've offered arguments for why it needs to be kept which the nominator has agreed are reasonable, which boils down to the fact that the "purpose" (the part for meeting NFCC#8) of this template is terribly poor and while the intent is there, it really should have a stronger "default" position. So I don't think this will be deleted (so this is not a call to participate there), but instead that we do need to come up with a better "purpose" rationale language or choice of language that is better than "to show what the game looks like". This is based on the fact that nearly every video game article, that as long as it is notable, has sourcable discussion of gameplay, and for that, the image helps to explain gameplay. There may be more reasons beyond that in other cases, obviously, and when better rationales can be provided they should be, but the default gameplay-demonstration reason needs to be much better. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the discussion, the purpose of this template is to fill out a main NFCC template - not to replace it. The NFCC template is the canonical template used for all fair-use images, and this template is simply a helper to reduce the amount of work required to generate a rationale for images that are being used in common ways. Used properly, this template results in a real NFCC template, and any editor can then go and alter the text in the resulting template. As such, improving the generic descriptions will affect future images that are rationalized with this template, but would not affect existing ones.
I think that we can go one of several ways with this:
  1. Simply improve the text or add more options to make this helper more specific - we should be careful not to make it too complex, because at that point it would be easier to just manually type the entries into the main template than to use this one.
  2. Turn this into an actual template that is intended to partially replace the NFCC template. This would involve getting approval from the folks who monitor image use so they can include this template in the set of allowed templates when they patrol images.
  3. Delete this template outright and instruct users to go back to filling out the NFCC template by hand.
Given that the need for this helper has likely waned quite a bit since I first wrote it, and it was intended just as a way to save time and effort, I don't feel too strongly that it needs to be kept. I think it served its purpose when we had a huge surge of images without proper fair-use rationales and apparently looser rules on what text was acceptable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think #3 is reasonable considering how often this same rationale is invoked. I'm for a combination of the first two, and would prefer not substituting the template (#2) so as to make future maintenance easier. – czar 15:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think #3 is fair too - or at least deprecating it. Unfortunately, because the template is linked in the screenshot license template, I can't easily tell how many instances of the template are not subst (as they were supposed to) to know how many to fix as to "freeze" this template before we consider deletion and switch over to recommending just using a standard NFC approach. (Though we should adjust guidelines to explain what to include in such rationals specific to video games). If this was a small task , like under a 100 images to fix this way, we could clean that up quickly and move to deletion. But right now I'd recommend deprecation until we have a better handle. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Can articles with in-game screen snaps be FA?[edit]

I was under the impression that articles can only go to FA if all the images in it are permissive. Halo has a number of screen snaps that are clearly marked Fair Use. Is there a special-case rider for these articles? Or is the article in question from before the permissive licensing became an issue? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The featured article criteria states that "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly". As long as the fair use rationale is completed fully and appropriately, I believe non-free media is allowed. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no requirement that a FA VG article has to only use free media. NFCC has to be met, meaning that typically only the game cover and one screenshot can get by as somewhat standard elements, any additional screens need to have clear context to be included. We'd like you to try to get free media particularly if it is a small indie studio in control of their own work, but there's no requirement for that. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. I've actually removed some images from FA entrants because I was told otherwise as part of the FAC. I'll wise up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
What FACs were those? I'd be curious to what the reasoning was. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a requirement for any image appearing on the main page to be free-for-use, which may be a/the point of confusion. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is that one. But when that's the only one you have... in the case of Halo, what would be the solution? No image at all? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture of a key develop or development team? In the case of Halo, pictures of people cosplaying as Master Chief? (Which we do have at commons, I know there's some guidance on where and when this is not a copyright issue). --MASEM (t) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There have been FAs with no image on the Main Page. Seorsumuscardinus was the most recent. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread 17: Er... we don't have anything applicable yet[edit]

I think we know the drill for now: listed below are all the unclaimed GANs, featured content reviews, and other objects such as peer reviews. As a matter of course, and hoping this continues to whittle the list down, users willing to reduce the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests are welcome.

Peer Reviews/Other

Begging thread[edit]

I'll begin this by saying that I'll leave comments on anyone's Peer Review for comments in the Peer Review for Persona. Still a little flaked from a bit of a recent GA marathon, so not feeling fit to take on reviewing GAs at the moment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I know it's only been up at GAN for a couple of days, but I'd love it if someone could take a look at Labyrinth for me. The article's pretty clean—it should be a fast review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not have much things to trade, but I have few articles sitting at the reassessment category. Would be great if someone can carry out a reassessment for them. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have potential Featured Articles on the docket. Take a look gang. GamerPro64 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

IGN wiki and date reliability[edit]

I sometimes see IGN wiki landing pages (e.g., [2]) cited for release dates, and I usually see them removed. Where do these release dates come from? Are they reliable or are they coming from a user-submitted database? Are they coming from the same database that IGN uses in its own article review infoboxes? The same database that lists all games made by a dev/publisher? I don't recall seeing a discussion about the dates provenance and whether they should be cited as reliable. Was the site redesigned recently? I remember the dates appearing much more obvious as user-submitted, but I'm not that familiar with IGN's backend – czar 17:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know myself too, if anyone finds out. I've only used it typically when working on things like 90's video games, where it can be hard to track down release dates that don't trace back to Gamefaqs, and its varied from exactly right to "obviously wrong", so I've tried to use it sparingly... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they are "user-submitted" but it doesn't mean they should be taken as true without exception. I've seen "fudged" dates; such as games which were released, say, "Fall 1996" but we don't know when exactly, but for which IGN presents a specific date such as "September 1st, 1996". I don't trust this date specifically, but this mistrust is definitely OR, so unless we have better sources, Wikipedia policies probably say we should use and cite that date.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


Given a recent republished post-mortem for the game on Gamasutra, I've been able to fill out Psychonauts's development, and have done a whole bunch of other cleanup, so it should be rather close to GA. I'd like a tiny bit of help trying to flesh out the review and award sections (including if necessary trimming out non-notable/sourceable awards), but this should be pretty much it of any difficulty within the project's guidelines. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A thought: Using non-breaking spaces in console/platform names[edit]

AFter coming across an article where "Wii U" was line-wrapped at the space between those, I checked that the MOS does suggest that in some cases like this (their example is the Boeing 747) that we use the NBSP character to avoid this break. I would argue that this definitely applies to the Wii U, but would also apply to any console name where the second word is four letters or shorter, so Nintendo 3DS, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, Playstation 3, 4, or Vita for example. It should not apply to longer names like the Magnavox Odyssey. This might be something to stick into our guidelines to be consistent. (I'm sure that for FA and PR this is picked up but doing it from the start might help). This also should apply to game titles where the last word is short or often a number (ala Mass Effect 3). --MASEM (t) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't see why not. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Support, but could we make a template for that? {{NBSP|Wii U|Magnavox Odyssey}} -> Wii U, Magnavox Odyssey? --CAS222222221 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I could see doing this for the console/platform names via a single template, maybe {{pl|Wii U}} --MASEM (t) 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
How is this going to be different than {{Nowrap}}? --PresN 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Right; {{Nowrap}} not only does the same job, but does it much more easily and with fewer keystrokes. And it can be even fewer (Template:Nowrap/doc § Usage): «The template names {{j}} ("join"), {{nobr}} and {{nobreak}} redirect here (Template:Nowrap), so may be used instead of "{{nowrap|…}}".» --Thnidu (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Scope question[edit]

Does this page fall under the scope of Rockstar wikiproject? Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the article certainly falls under the scope of the WikiProject, but I'm not quite sure if it's suitable for Wikipedia yet. A lot of it reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedic article (particularly sentences like "Their effect ... varies from mod to mod. For example, a specific mod may replace the model of the player's character with a fire breathing cat, while some other will spawn unfriendly zombies"), and there's quite a few grammar mistakes. I also think that the "Favorite GTA mods" section is a bit unnecessary. However, the references are pretty impressive, and there's a considerable amount of coverage there, so I think the article might meet the notability guidelines. I think we might be able to determine its standing on this site after a basic copyedit. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. I'm pretty much wikipedia noob so I probably did do a lot of mistakes when it comes to copyediting. I'll be looking to fix it. For Favorite GTA mods, I added it to provide some sort of list for most media coveraged single mods, but it might be unneeded. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean when an article is bolded on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts‎[edit]

Some articles have their links bolded and others don't, why is this? Anarchyte 10:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think any new additions since the previous edit are bolded. Also any alerts that have their status changed (AfD closed, GAN promoted/failed, PROD deleted/deproded, etc.) since the previous edit are bolded. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Freedom Planet[edit]

Is anyone willing to help bring Freedom Planet up to date? I left a message on the talk page a couple of weeks ago expressing my concerns, and Tezero hasn't been around. I tried emailing him as well. I hate to bring it to WP:FAR based on what shouldn't be too much work, so I'm asking here before going there. --Laser brain (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take care of it. JAGUAR  12:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've addressed all of the initial concerns. If anybody else here would like to add any additional insight to the talk page, that would be great. I'm surprised how rapidly a Featured Article can become out of date in just a few months... JAGUAR  15:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit extreme to suggest FAR based on something so minor. Most of WPVG's FAs have gotten into way bigger problems since they got their bronze stars. Glad the issue's been resolved, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Scare tactics get the job done it seems. GamerPro64 18:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation help[edit]

I stumbled across an archive link to this Edge making-of, but only the first page is live. An early version of the post is available ([3], [4], [5]), but you can't access each page by clicking "next" or the page number. Instead, you have to work through Wayback to read all three pages. The question is this: how is it possible to cite three separate archive URLs? I considered using the |pages parameter and adding external links from there, but that's not an ideal solution by any means. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't you just make three refs, one to cite all content on page 1, one for all content on page 2, and one for page 3? That way you can use the three archives, and whatever you are citing are from the actual page it came from not the article as a whole. At least that's how I'd do it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a possibility, actually. If there isn't a better way, I'll do that. Thanks for the tip. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that's your only option, besides dropping the cite template altogether and just manually writing out the ref+formatting inside the <ref> tag. --PresN 00:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Might get hassled over that at FAC, unless I drop citation templates across the board, which would be a mess. It's probably best if I use Favre's suggestion. Thanks guys. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've always either (1) set a ref for each page (identical citation with different |page= params, e.g., Fez_(video_game)#cite_note-1UP:_review_p1-12 and #cite_note-1UP:_review_p2-11) or (2) used short footnotes {{sfn|Edge|199X|p=Z}} in a "Notes" section (with other short footnotes) separate from a "References" section with full citations (e.g., Knight Lore#Notes). The latter works better when there are multiple sources (e.g., instruction manual, individual book pages) that need to be cited this way. – czar 03:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Forgot (3) You can also forgo the citation template, and manually list the page links (e.g., Deathrow_(video_game)#cite_note-IGN_review-3). I think this is the worst solution as it's the most imprecise. – czar 03:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Polygon's Provisional Review[edit]

So I was looking through Polygon's review of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and was thinking about how their review was being used in the article, yet its filed under "Provisional Review" currently. Since that means that score isn't their official score yet, should that mean their reviews should be held off from being used until they finalize their score? Comes off as an incomplete opinion on a game when its added in that state. GamerPro64 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd treat it like any other site—content/scores change over time and someone invariably updates the article accordingly. Their "provisional" status mainly stands to reserve judgment on the launch multiplayer (see the SimCity 4 debacle). – czar 03:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember, did Polygon "keep" their preMP-fixed SimCity review? I know their numbers changed, I just don't know if they appended or overwrote. If they appended, then its find to include the prelim review (possibly noting it was pre-MP) and then include the full review when its completed; if they overwrote, I would wait until the final review is out since that original text may disappear and fail WP:V. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that text was only appended and that no major changes to the review itself were made. SimCity review, provisional review policy – czar 03:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Then it should be okay. I recognize that these sites may make small updates (and generally if it is a correction will indicate that), so a small discrepancy from when the WP editor looked at it and the reader looked at it might crop up but should be easy to figure out. On the other hand, if massive swaths of review text are replaced for a later review, and we included material from the earlier, "removed" parts of the review, that's a bit harder to justify, hence that would be better to wait for the final. This doesn't appear to be the case here but caution should always be exercised. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Automatic citation archiving[edit]

Heads up: User:Cyberbot II has a new task that automatically adds (Internet Archive) archival links to citations! I inquired for more details on how to invite it over to your article, but thought y'all would want to know as this has been a perennial concern of ours. (User:WebCiteBOT is still down.) – czar 03:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please let us know how to do this once you get info back, as this definitely should be done for nearly all of our articles that are based on web-based sources. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:VGRS question[edit]

Already posted something at RSN but I wasn't sure whether here was the first venue I should go to or not; suppose discussion could continue there. What is the general opinion on these particular VG news sites (news items provided for context):

They're not mentioned on VGRS, whether as sources to use or sources to avoid. As I mentioned on RSN, I can't check them in detail right now because I'm at work and site blocks suck, but I'd love to hear whether or not I should nuke these from my current source list. Thanks!! BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 15:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On the top of my head, Technology Tell is considered reliable, Kill Screen might be reliable but no real consensus on that. And Niche Gamer is unreliable though that might be because its a relatively new site. I'm not sure about GameSkinny though. GamerPro64 15:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Technology Tell is already listed as reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#General and Niche gamer as unreliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Checklist at WP:VGRS. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, geez! Thanks for nothing, ctrl+F. But thanks, guys, I'll have to strike out those ones at the RSN post for sure. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 15:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • GameSkinny is user-submitted: "Easy posting. Say your piece in a few minutes. Instant audience. You’re not posting to the void." They say editors look it over, but there's still no reputation for accuracy/reliability. I'm of mixed minds on Kill Screen (I could have sworn it was already in the list?) I've seen them mangle facts, though I believe it's generally trusted. I'd be more conservative on that one. – czar 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thought we had a discussion that was sorta inconclusive about KillScreen, either here or at WP:ALBUMS, but I'm not finding it. Their about us section looks like there could be some potential, being founded by a former Wall Street Journal reporter and all... Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I almost want to call Kill Screen situational. It has potential. But I'm not really seeing what it has to offer in terms of use. GamerPro64 04:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Kill Screen is one of the most respected publications in its field (alt VG coverage), at the moment. I can't believe Wikipedia doesn't have an article for them yet, let alone consider them a reliable source. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If anything, what is the actual argument against KillScreen? The only one I've seen so far was from Czar, which, I can't really confirm or deny, as I don't really know much about that Cuphead game... Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't really have a problem with Kill Screen. Their Vision Statement is pretentious to the point of hilarity but they do seem to know what they're talking about. Their staff seem competent. I know Chris Priestman wrote for IndieStatik before its controversy and also writes for Silliconera. GamerPro64 14:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note for anyone who wants to cite a KSD review: as far as I can tell, the number in the badge only vaguely corresponds with the text of the review. I've seen 12 and -1 on pretty cheerful reviews, and 80's on dismissive ones. My best guess is it's a subtle dig at the idea of a scored review- the number literally tells you nothing, even when you think it does. Metacritic does not include them. (Also, on the subject- their Infinity Blade review is one of my favorite reviews anywhere, though I'm not sure it makes sense if you never played Infinity Blade.) --PresN 03:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The KS issue is more editorial control. I definitely removed another one of their links for factual inaccuracies compared with other sources, but I don't have a record of it. KS's Cuphead article spawned this debacle, which was incorrectly blamed on Polygon. (Trust but verify and never retract incorrect, sensational headlines) – czar 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • By that standard, we should probably blacklist IGN as a source. They've had a track record of posting misinformation for around 15 years. (See this as a recent example.) Fact-checking has rarely been the strong point of games journalism in any form—I've had to deal with flatly contradictory sources basically since I started editing VG articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So far I'm getting that there is no real consensus on Kill Screen's reliability. Being straight up reliable seems to be off the table. Would just being Situational fit the bill? GamerPro64 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's about right. Another one of the sources where it's usuable, but maybe not for controversial statements. The type we avoid if there's other options, but still use it to prove notability at AFD and whatnot. Another Siliconera or Joystiq type. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Joystiq, how does its rationale even work since its been dead since February and it got absorbed into Engadget? GamerPro64 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't understand lumping KS in with blogs like Siliconera and Joystiq given the stuff I linked earlier. Siliconera and Joystiq have not partnered with Pitchfork, The Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal, nor have they been profiled by Fortune magazine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That is true that linking KS with Siliconera is like apples to oranges (Even though, again, someone writes for both sites). Maybe we should all put it up to a vote? GamerPro64 01:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm personally fine with calling it reliable, but consensus at the moment, as mentioned above, is looking closer to "situational". In respect to Joystiq, I'd assume we'd treat it like any other defunct source - by the same standards as we had when it was active - though in all actuality, people always seemed to treat it as a full on reliable source. I don't recall any particularly controversial statements or huge screw ups from them really... Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Steam Spy as reliable source?[edit]

Relatively recently a site called Steam Spy ([6]) has appeared, and sponsored by The site polls user profiles on steam to estimate the number of game sales (or at least owners) on the Steam platform. Obviously only useful for PC/Mac/Linux games, this would be mana from heaven for any Steam-based PC article where sales numbers are lacking. That said, I do think if we want to use this we need to make sure it is included carefully. As the programmer that developed the tool warns, it is only an estimate based on user profiles and not directly from Valve's internal sales database. So we should be using statement like "As of such-and-such-date, Steam Spy estimates that 500,000 copies of a game have been sold", instead of "...Steam Spy saids that 500,000 copies..." In contrast to VGChartz, I think the method of the collection of data is very open and technically reproducable (he used open Steam APIs for this), so doesn't have the VGChartz stigma. The site has been covered from other RSes so I'm thinking if we're going to say this is an okay source for estimated sales, we should create the article on it so that an interested reader can learn how the data is collected. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

To add, the programmer notes that games with low sales values (as of about April, where the game is owned by less than 0.1% of all steam profiles, or about 100,000 units) there could be great error, so we should be careful only to use this for larger game sales, 100,000 or above. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Steam Spy figures are statistically accurate reliable within their given margin of error and should be used unless a publisher or developer has given more accurate, up to date numbers. These figures are almost always uncontroversial and can be used. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think it could be of use. The articles they give out are on a thing called Medium. Is it possible to use those as sources as well? GamerPro64 19:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Medium remains a questioanable site since as I understand it they invite writers to write but w/o editorial oversight. But here , we have Polygon, Gamasutra, and Ars Tech all providing coverage on the site's announcement and explaining the algorithm, so I think we're good with both how it is seen by other journalists and for notability for an article. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Medium is not an indication of reliability, anyone can write for it. There are some reliable sources on Medium, as they have an editorial staff on Matter and other such magazines/collections. Treat it like Forbes. - hahnchen 21:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I found the medium piece was a republished article from a different print journal, so I was able to grab that and avoid Medium. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll see if I can dig up a verifiable source to support the assertion I'm about to make, but: SteamSpy's numbers, from what I've heard from multiple devs, are sometimes incorrect beyond the provided margin of error. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Although, thinking about it now, I can't remember if they were comparing sales or comparing users, so 4-packs could have been throwing them. Still, that's another issue, since Steam Spy can only determine that a user owns the game, not how they own it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Reading the about page, I would say no, we shouldn't be using to cite sales figures. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am presently writing the basis for a Steam Spy article, irregardless of the issue here (it's notable), but I think it could still be used if we are careful to attribute it to Steam Spy and say "an estimate". The key is the method is very much open and anyone else could technically do it too with access to enough computer processor and stats. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with 1337. I actually think it's quite accurate, but none of the reliable sources that have covered it have offered a clear indication of its accuracy. Steam Spy is a poll of only one channel, this post by Wadjet Eye Games states that sales figures are actually "much higher" for the games as a whole. The Witcher 3, while it may be an outlier, sold half its PC copies on GOG. - hahnchen 21:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The site owner is very clear that numbers don't include GOG, and there's no dollar figures here (so you can't just multiply # and cost and get revenue). There are definitely cases I would avoid like Witcher 3 (which had huge promotion on GOG) or at least be clear that estimated Steam sales were X but did not include GOG sales. But yes, there are a lot of caveats to include there. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, it doesn't measure Steam sales, it measures Steam ownership. It can estimate ownership numbers for games sold elsewhere if they're distributed only on Steam. It can estimate sales if every sale only includes a single license -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with Samus Aran[edit]

For some reason The Mary Sue wrote an article calling Samus Aran a transwoman and shits gone ape. The page is protected now but the talk page is already going downhill. Help. GamerPro64 01:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • HAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK  · Salvidrim! ·  02:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That was pretty my much reaction as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This is literally the most insane thing that has happened to me on this site. I blame it all on The Mary Sue. GamerPro64 02:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I've honestly had worse. This is a bit below "IGN calling Poison a trap" and "The Final Fantasy Legend's japanese name" in terms of my tenure here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I just got Metroid 2 on my 3DS. I didn't need this in my life. GamerPro64 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There must be other sites covering their article too, because I had heard about this earlier in the day from my Twitter feed, but I don't follow The Mary Sue Twitter account... Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe check your feed again to see if it was related to TMS article. Because that's all I'm seeing on Google. GamerPro64 02:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it was signal boosted by one of the authors, Brianna Wu, so it makes sense for this much of a reaction to such an article all at once. I see it flash in the pan at most.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Looking back, it was the Neogaf Twitter account that posts every time someone makes a new thread, not an actual article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

JRPG template input[edit]

This template, by Misconceptions2, has been showing up on some articles on my watchlist. Wanted some input - is this appropriate in template form? I feel like this template would be downright massive if it was actually filled out in its entirety... Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I plan on filling it out to ts entirety, it is filled out to 30% of what is on the article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That's actually my main concern. Once you add them all, it's going to be far too large. It'll be very difficult to read or navigate. Sergecross73 msg me 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably not. Navigation templates are for grouping related links. As noted at WP:NAV, "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." I think JRPG is too broad to be used as a grouping. The articles in this template aren't even closely related. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I see it as no different than Template:UEFA associations which is on every European "Football Association" (FA) article. Articles on Template:UEFA associations are related only on the simple fact that each article is about a "European FA", in this case each article is about a "Japanese RPG", so it follows the same relation standard as Template:UEFA associations , Template:AFC associations e.t.c .--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a bad counter example. Each national football association is part of and an official member of their respective continental association. The relation between these organisations is far less trivial than you're suggesting seeing as operate together in many ways. Meanwhile, the articles in this template are grouped by a vague and broad criteria with members that are not related to each other in any meaningful way. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, not a great example. A more comparable example would probably "Comedy film series" or "Horror book series". They'd be unmanageably large or terribly incomplete. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • GTFO, Zelda isn't an RPG. Both this template and my own disagreements are WP:OR, though -- this should (and already is?) a category, not a navbox.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Legend of zelda (LOZ), the LOZ is a very special case for this template and its inclusion is explained in List of Japanese role-playing game franchises, it is because some reliable sources as well as Shigeru Miyamoto himself (the creator of the franchise), considers LOZ an RPG.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
They're wrong or misusing the name of the genre. I am a fan of both Zelda and RPGs and I will never recognize LoZ as an RPG. >:(  · Salvidrim! ·  21:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this perfectly illustrates the next issue I was going to bring up, if consensus had somehow been to keep the template. If it was kept, we'd need to organize by something more objective than the extremely subject area of genre. There would be too many arguments like this if done be genre, whether it be Zelda, (which isn't labelled a JRPG anywhere on Wikipedia) or long running series like Final Fantasy, which straddle multiple categories. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This is what categories are for, not templates. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. List alone is sufficient. – czar 23:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Also agreed. The list is fine, but this template doesn't seem appropriate. The Legend of Zelda is not an RPG as far as I'm concerned; as Serge stated, if the template is kept, it'd likely be subject to recurring debates.zziccardi (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


Should this be a category or a template? Currently theres about 25 games on the list. I I included all the games it would be about 90, so I included only the best selling ones. Or another solution could be to rename it "JRPG franchises with over 10 million units sold"??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably neither, the list is sufficient. If you are going to create Category:Japanese role-playing game franchises, then you should do the same for every video game genre and create a parent Category:Video game franchises by genre. But then you run into the problem where many video game franchises span multiple genres. E.g. Halo has FPS, RTS, Top-down shooter, so in this case categorising the entire franchise as one genre is misleading and categorising as multiple genres might be confusing. The additional units sold condition doesn't make the articles in the template any more closely related. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I wont create a sub category for other genres like FPS, Racing games e.t.c and then go around categorizing all the games if that's what your proposing. I do not have any interest or respect for any other genres to invest any time on this proposition. People usually interested in 1 topic on wikipedia only edit that 1 topic. I am no different. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely not a template. As far as categories go, even that seems a bit unnecessary. We've already got various "JRPG" categories, and some series have series categories like "Final Fantasy games". Do we need another? Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


I will remove the template from the articles I put it on, there will be no categories either.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Creating an article for an upcoming game[edit]

A game will be released within a month. It has been mentioned on several occasions on IGN, is mentioned by Gamestop and has a Steam page. It was featured in Gamescom 2015. Should it have a page? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • ... Tell us what game you're talking about and maybe you'll get an answer.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Grand Ages: Medieval. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
A quick search tells me there should be plenty of sources to create an article with.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
So, it is notable enough for creation? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes yes yes yes. On wikipedia you can make an article about the flying spaghetti monster so long as you have reliable sources to establish its notability--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You can always look at WP:VG/RS for more information on which sources are considered reliable enough to hold up an article too. Nomader (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, in general, if you can find 4-5 sources from that list that have articles dedicated to the game, and can write 2-3 solid paragraphs in the article, you usually are pretty safe and unlikely to get your article nominated for deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to delete genre and video game engine navboxes[edit]

Recently I've come across a couple of navboxes, which to me do not seem necessary. I would like some input before I nominate them (and if they can in fact be nominated, have some help in doing that all at once). I'm talking about navboxes that are based upon genres, like {{MMOs by Sony Online Entertainment}} and {{MMOs by Electronic Arts}} (which I've nominated for deletion already) and the ones listed here: Category:Video game engine templates. I think that these kinds of templates fail WP:NAVBOX and are more suitable for a category. For instance, Grand Theft Auto V and The Force Unleashed both use the Euphoria game engine, a certain technology, but that's it. Two MMOs by the same company can be widely different too: Need for Speed: World and Star Wars: The Old Republic. --Soetermans. T / C 13:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree that navboxes based on game engines is not really something one would navigate, and I would also tend to agree that the "genre by publisher" (rather than by developer) navboxes aren't the type of thing you'd navigate. Games by the same developer, yes, but likely that would have a general developer navbox that would include all of those. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you both sum up my feelings on this as well. Especially the one on game engines, I feel like Masem hit that right on. That's not really something readers are likely to browse by... Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I mostly agree, but I think there is a place for Navboxes like {{Freescape engine}} which with a few tweaks and links could document the entire topic of Freescape. - X201 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I should add having categories for either situation is fine (well, a category for game engine; you'd have a category intersection on the genre by publisher area). --MASEM (t) 14:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the Daybreak template should be deleted, since the scope could be pretty easily expanded to include all of their games. --Mika1h (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, make sense. I'll edit it so it'll include the rest. --Soetermans. T / C 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved {{MMOs by Sony Online Entertainment}} to {{Daybreak Game Company}} and included their other work. --Soetermans. T / C 15:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Title of Ingress article[edit]

This is about the "augmented-reality massively-multiplayer online role-playing location-based game" Ingress (video game). To most people, "video game" suggests a game that's played at the console, or possibly moving around on a mat. There's already a redirect from Ingress (game); I propose swapping the titles: moving the article to Ingress (game) and making Ingress (video game) a redirect. There's a Category:Pervasive games that includes the Ingress article, but that term's unfamiliar to most non-gamers, including most Wikipedia users. --Thnidu (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

We typically use "video game" to include mobile games when a disambiguation is necessary, so I'm not seeing that a special case is needed here. If anything "mobile game" might be okay, but "game" generally is too generic as to separate it from board games or other more physical-based games. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)