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
Archives
1 - 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113
Threads older than 10 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk

viewtalkeditchanges

Changes to developers/publishers and related categories by IP[edit]

This one seem to have been missed. 90.222.58.107 (talk · contribs). Hasn't been active for a week but making the same publisher changes, and listing Sega as a developer on Sonic articles when Sonic Team is already listed. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, what you listed above, in addition to a number of the other edits the IP made, were all classic traits of this same vandal. I've cleaned up and blocked. Side note: I've never seen someone so misinformed about video games, yet so stubborn and adamant in trying to make their changes anyways. And they refuse to engage with any discussion beyond "I think this is good" type generic edit summaries. Is this person really that misguided, or are we getting trolled? Regardless, I'll keep cleaning this up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've collapsed the older reports, and slapped together a consolidated (and sorted) list of the past users:

176.24.181.122 (talk · contribs) 176.248.107.108 (talk · contribs) 176.250.202.128 (talk · contribs) 2.124.56.69 (talk · contribs) 2.126.202.120 (talk · contribs) 2.126.56.27 (talk · contribs) 2.126.57.175 (talk · contribs) 2.220.194.151 (talk · contribs) 31.52.7.7 (talk · contribs) 67.255.219.44 (talk · contribs) 77.96.101.235 (talk · contribs) 86.139.95.89 (talk · contribs) 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs) 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs) 86.163.219.42 (talk · contribs) 90.195.158.128 (talk · contribs) 90.208.223.148 (talk · contribs) 90.220.112.68 (talk · contribs) 90.222.19.1 (talk · contribs) 90.222.19.240 (talk · contribs) 90.222.22.159 (talk · contribs) 90.222.57.67 (talk · contribs) 90.222.58.107 (talk · contribs) 94.10.4.121 (talk · contribs) Crash zachary (talk · contribs) Zachary rules (talk · contribs)

-- ferret (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

2.124.58.118 (talk · contribs) just started. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. --PresN 15:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, he actually left a comment on his own talk page. That's the first time this person has actually tried to communicate with us, and based on how its written, I imagine its the same IP hopper. I've left a message on the talk page, we'll see if we get anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, probably not. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Move this from talk page[edit]

@Ferret, X201, Sergecross73, PresN, The1337gamer, Juhachi, and Favre1fan93: Can we either move this to WP:SPI or WP:LTA or set up a separate subpage (at e.g. WP:WikiProject Video games/Abuse) for this? Given the continuing activity, this talk page is probably not the best location for the continuing reports, which are are mostly being made experienced users. Or look into an WP:Edit filter for this continuing behavior? --Izno (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I guess? I don't see a problem keeping it here...what are we, short on space or something? I don't really see any other avenue working any better. As you said, a lot of experienced users are already on this, and no ones got anything better than this, which I don't personally mind - it's easy to clean up with rollback. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
My point is that this is becoming routine and does not (particularly) impact the work that one would use a page like this talk page for, which is for (variously) collaboration on articles and discussion of contention on articles. Since these reports/problems are routine at this point, I figure it should get its own subpage (or otherwise) for interested users to track to let the rest of us who use this talk page for more substantive stuff to do so. (If you want the really sad answer, it clutters up my watchlist with stuff I really don't care about--I suspect a number of other users don't care either--and I figure the people who do could stand to have this on its own page so they can have their regularly scheduled WT:VG back.) Besides which, a talk page really isn't the best place for this kind of stuff. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the discussion of cleaning up the work of a vandal recurring exclusively on video game related articles isn't appropriate for the WPVG talk page? If you're not interested in it, just ignore it everytime that section title shows up on the WATCHLIST edit summary. That's what I do every time someone starts up another GA Review begging thread... Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. (Don't get snippity.) My point is that the collaboration is becoming a routine factor on a day-to-day basis, making it a better fit for its own page. Other abuse might also be able to go on a page like the proposed /Abuse, though I can't think of any off the top of my head (I know we've had a few cases of continuous abuse).

I had little difficulty ignoring it when it was still a new topic of interest, but its continued presence on this page day after day is obnoxiously wearing. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any bad faith assumptions towards you, its just that I think you're way off base here - anything affecting video game related articles/issues on Wikipedia is allowed to be discussed here. Beyond that, this issue happening across such a large number and variety of video game articles, so its helpful to have a lot of visibility on the problem - moving this to a sub-page no one except a few people monitor is counter-productive to the efforts to monitor and combat this. Like I said, I see plenty of topics that come around on my watchlist that I don't care about, but I don't have the audacity to go in and say "Hey guys, don't really care about this, so go somewhere out of my sight to deal with this so I don't have to keep ignoring you." I'd understand if we were talking on your personal talk page or asking you for help or something, but that's not the case, I'm merely asking you to ignore it, which is hardly placing much of burden on you here. Just remember the section titles you don't care about, and don't check those ones pop up on your watchlist. Super simple. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

One suggestion I will make is that this should be a new topic every month. So that the older stuff gets archived. - X201 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest this because of two reasons: a) it's still on this talk page, and more importantly b) the information is not collocated. I don't think anyone wants to go digging through archives to understand the history of the problem. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Wikiproject Proposal[edit]

I have just proposed a YouTube Wikiproject that would cover any Articles relevant to YouTube People, Culture, Organisations and Business

I would love to get lots of support for this --- :D Derry Adama (talk)

Time Warp[edit]

Cor, have a look at Lost Saga, its like articles used to be in the olden days; its even got flagicons in the infobox. - X201 (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

All it needs to be complete is a Trivia section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Kamen Rider: Climax Heroes has got a massive Playable characters table - X201 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at CSR Racing: challenge list, car list, separate tier car lists, crew member lists, boss car lists, vehicle stats and upgrades listed, season rewards list, campaign tour list, bosses list, microstransactions list, achievements list. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup category of the week[edit]

Hey all, since we've done a great job in the past few months knocking out some of the cleanup categories, I thought I'd bring to y'all's attention one of the smaller ones remaining: Category:Video games articles needing attention. Only 20 articles in it! This category is intended for articles "needing immediate attention"- which means that there's some major issue with it beyond just "it's a start-class article". maybe a section needs to be deleted, maybe a table is terribly formatted, whatever. It doesn't take much to clear this category- pull up an article, look for the major flaw that requires "immediate" attention, and remove the category (or |attention=y from the talk page template). Don't see anything you think is worthy of "immediate" attention? Go ahead and remove the category anyway- it's certainly an easy category to abuse. If a few people poke at this, we could be done in a day.

On a side note- does anyone know why Category:Video games with 3D graphics exists? Ran into it when knocking off a few articles from the attention category. It's... certainly under-populated for what it says it is. And pretty unusable if it was actually populated. --PresN 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across Category:Video games with 3D graphics a while ago and thought it should probably be deleted. Seems pretty useless with the abundance of 3D games. Another one I came across that is massively underpopulated is Category:SteamPlay games. Any game released on Steam for more than one operating system is classified as a SteamPlay game I believe, so that means +1800 games, a significant proportion should have articles on Wikipedia. I was thinking it should probably be deleted as well though as I can't find many articles mentioning SteamPlay, it seems like a non-defining feature to me. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see either of these as being needed. Category:Video games with 3D graphics could have made sense in the 16 bit era where these types of games where they were quite eare but now they are a dime a dozen.--67.68.30.244 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

done – czar 15:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I finished the Category:Video games articles needing expert attention cat too. The only ones left are the Warcraft characters that I have already said I think should be merged as not independently notable. "Expert attention" isn't a great backlog category—I was cleaning out stuff from six years ago... If someone wants input, the best way to handle it is to start a thread here and ask people to watchlist the article in question or to do something specific to the article. I think we should be looking at deprecating this "expert attention" category as duplicating the function of the "attention" category (which itself should really be named "immediate attention"). My own take would be to phase out both "expert attention" and "attention" cats altogether as both poorly scoped, do not entice editors to adopt articles, and never adequately explain explain the perceived issue in need of an expert. The video game cleanup and normal tags suffice, and posting at WT:VG is even better. (Also see Template talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 10#Proposal_to_remove_the_attention_tag.) Thoughts? – czar 00:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Remove both - neither the "attention" cat nor its "expert attention" subcat get any attention at all- there were things in there from years ago, and clearly no one is monitoring either one. Additionally, no one seems to use it combined with an actual explanation of what needs attention- slapping "|attention=y" on the talk page doesn't say anything, and most of the articles I saw had the same issues as any other start-class video game article. --PresN 02:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with deletion[edit]

I have some articles that I think should go through the AfD or ProD processes, but I'm not sure what checks I need to carry out first. The articles in question are:

I feel that there is no value to having these, and that they violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I find it difficult to describe exactly why. My reasoning for picking these articles out is that they seem to just carry out the function of their respective categories, Category:Video games developed in the Czech Republic, Category:Video games developed in the Netherlands and Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom, and that having articles containing these types of list is clearly not seen as necessary for other countries. But is this enough of a reason? I felt that they might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but when I looked into that it seems that I would have to conduct a search for sources myself in order to justify requesting deletion. This seems wrong, as my issue is that I think the article couldn't be notable, regardless of sources. So is it not a notability issue? And therefore, is it even valid to ask for deletion at all? Hopefully someone here will be able to help me or take up the cause and add these to articles for deletion so it can be properly discussed.

Communal t (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Categories do not make lists redundant. Beyond that, I would strongly disagree with any deletion proposed along these lines, and I find it baffling that you think that a list of game companies from the United Kingdom would not be notable. For someone who seems to have an immediately strong grasp of Wikipedia procedure for such a new account, your interpretation of notability is miles out... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Even if I am wrong about notability, there are guidelines in place to stop lists like this from being on Wikipedia. It is the reason that the (now defunct) Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat was created, and why terms like Wikipedia:Listcruft exist. What happens in 20 years when 100 more UK developers have entered the market? I could literally incorporate myself today and produce a terrible, unlicensed copy of Candy Matcher and be eligible for inclusion on this list. And I don't believe the fact that I am new here is relevant. I've clearly tried to do some research, and posted this to what (I hope) is an appropriate place to get some advice. What happened to WP:BITE!? Communal t (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Check out WP:CLN, it has a run down on the purposes of lists, cats, and navboxes. Note that the overlapping category argument should be avoided in a deletion discussion (see WP:NOTDUP). --The1337gamer (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I tend to keep an eye on this gigantic list which has survived four AfDs. In this case lists can make finding stuff easier and having what something is known for at a glance. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"e-sport"[edit]

The stylization of 'eSport' is under discussion, see talk:electronic sports -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Video game template changed again[edit]

I noticed that the data in the video game reviews module has changed the long pipe names, so that means that I no longer have to use "width=26m" anymore, right? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You should never really have been adding such style, but sure, if you're happy now with the width, do stop. :) --Izno (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it, Izno. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Composer/credits in remakes[edit]

Quick question I wanted to confirm the answer to before I start addressing this. I've got an IP going around and removing composers from various HD/3D remakes, like this, stating that because the composers didn't compose new music for the new release, they shouldn't be listed? Is that how we do it? I wouldn't think so, as it in no way implies that they did create new music, only that their music was in fact featured, which is true. An HD/3D remake with the original game's music is still featuring the composers work, right?

Anyways, just double checking in case there's a thought process I'm not aware of here. Let me know. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Template doc says "List people who contributed significantly to the soundtrack." If the remake uses the original composer's music then I think they should be listed. Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary lists the original composers even though the music was rerecorded and transcribed by different people. Whether they created new music for the remake or not is irrelevant in my opinion. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's my thought process as well, and its also how it seems to be handled in general prior to this IPs actions, but I just wanted to double check... Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73 and The1337gamer: The template needs to be updated badly, to be honest. I think that if a composer did not directly contribute to the project, even as a supervisor, he/she shouldn't be credited. Do we add Koji Kondo to every game that has a single Mario jingle, even if wasn't apart of the project at all? Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary doesn't use any original music AFAIK, so I think it's fine they credit the original composers (same with Kingdom Hearts HD and Wind Waker HD), but if it had around 50:50 on new music, I think we should only credit the new guys, especially if having every composer listed would be more than 5-6 people. I've been trying to build a consensus regarding this field (and other personnel ones) here, so if you could leave any suggestions, that would be great. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Dissident93, my particular issue though, is with remasters. If a game is remastered, but the soundtrack isn't altered, why wouldn't we credit the composer? The music may not be new, but they still composed it. They are still credited. Why wouldn't we list it as such on Wikipedia? New or old, it's still their work. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73: Maybe I didn't word it correct, but I agree with you. Games with just "remastered" music should credit the original guys (unless it also had new music by new composers, then they would be credited as well) If a game only has, let's say, around 25-50% of "old" music, then it gets a bit difficult on keeping the old composers, especially if they didn't work on the project at all. Most remastered games these days have the original composers actually doing the arrangements themselves, or at least serving as a supervisor on the project, so it's not an issue here. I should also add that for games with many arrangers, such as the Smash Bros. series, we only list the game's original composers in the infobox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you said. I'm glad we've got a consensus going here, though the IP refuses to comment here, or stop reverting... Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Vagrant Story edit dispute[edit]

There is a dispute going on between an IP user then ‎User:Mimic716 and myself on the Vagrant Story article about tweets from the game's developer Matsuno. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the developer's statement based on his tweets. The game seems to be retconned by Square Enix as being part of Ivalice, when originally it was intended by Matsuno to be on a separate universe, and any Ivalice references made is intended as a trivial allusion or "fan service" as quoted from the developer's tweets. However, User:Mimic716 insists that "...this does NOT mean that the games take place in different worlds or universes..." but fails to cite a reference. I've been going back and forth on this, close to 3RRing. I'm requesting ways to address this dispute better. — Blue 20:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Game Club - Insurgency (video game)[edit]

I've been in contact with the Insurgency developers regarding a free media release, but have been too busy myself to write even a half-way decent article. Insurgency is a multiplayer first-person shooter for Windows and Mac, it is a standalone sequel to the mod, Insurgency: Modern Infantry Combat. The game has a score of 74 on Metacritic[1], and is quite popular for an indie FPS with 1k-2k concurrent players daily[2]. It was released in 2014 and is actively supported.

I thought that other editors would be interested in writing an article, and the developer has donated 5 free copies of the game for this purpose. If you'd like a copy, send me an email. Each key will only go to an active editor who has previously worked on video games content. It requires Steam.

Please don't send a request if you have no intention of editing/creating the article in the near future, and please don't send a request if you don't have the hardware to run it. The developers are also interested in having editors upload screenshots and video in future, and then releasing those as free-use, but I haven't formalised this yet. - hahnchen 21:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

10 Featured Topics[edit]

With the passing of Sega video game consoles, WP:VG now has 10 featured topics in total! Congratulations to Red Phoenix, Indrian, SexyKick, and TheTimesAreAChanging! (and me, I guess.) And thanks to all the contributors to the previous 9 featured topics, as well as the contributors to our 14 good topics. --PresN 05:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty impressive milestone. Closing in on MILHIST's count of 14! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Though it doesn't help MILHIST that they keep combining their existing topics into supertopics like Battleships of Germany and Battlecruisers of the world. --PresN 21:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Quality over quantity when it comes to topics here. GamerPro64 23:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Italics for websites[edit]

Casting a wider net on this issue, after a disagreement at Talk:Kotaku#Italics. Historically, WP:VG has drawn the line for using italics on print sources (magazines, books, etc.) and no italics for all websites. This is reflected in the usage of italics at Template:Video game reviews since at least 2010. Recently it has come to my attention that the line "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." has been added to the MOS:TITLE page. Should the project revise our current italics guidelines on video game websites? I don't have a strong horse in this race, other than my desire for consistency. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We should take our cue from WP:MOS regardless. And I suspect that on MOS:TITLE (or WP:Article titles?) that such a guideline may not be here to stay in that exact form. Or even, that there should be an RFC at some place more public, because that's a pretty far-reaching change. I.e., defer until the issue is certainly settled. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There isn't a disagreement. Italics have been used for Kotaku since 2014 and aren't suddenly in question because of BRD. The line at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized" has existed in the MoS since 2011, but lived at WP:ITALICS before its more recent move to the /Titles page. What italics guideline do we have that needs to be updated? The MoS supersedes any guideline we'd need. I'll add to the point that "Kotaku is a blog" that (1) it is a news blog, and (2) that blogs are still creative works like magazines and are italicized by Chicago, the only stylebook I know to address blogs specifically. And there is precedent for using italics for websites in the reviews template, though it was inconsistent before all italics were stripped in the transition to Lua. WPVG has not in any recent history drawn the line for italics at print sources, and if anything, there is an already acknowledged, clear case based on the MoS (and WTVG discussion history) to update the reviews template with italics for online vg news sources—it's just a matter of someone drafting the code. – czar 06:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not bothered which way this goes. My concern on this matter is the same one I raised ~6 weeks ago, and that was some game websites were italicised and others were not. As long as the result is applied consistently across all game websites then I'm fine. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm with The1337gamer. I was not aware of the MoS guideline until Czar brought it up, instead assuming that the precedent set at the Reviews template would hold. As I said, I'm not strongly in favor of one or the other, merely that we formalize our usage. It's slightly disappointing that The1337gamer's thread from six weeks ago did not result in a consensus; hence I bring it up again here, not knowing of the prior discussion even! Axem Titanium (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else interested in chiming in? This might have an impact on you! Axem Titanium (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for consistency, so I'm fine either way. If you're asking for my opinion, I am leaning more towards not using italics for websites, just so it easier to see in a glance what kind of source it is. --Soetermans. T / C 06:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • My proposal would be to add "* Use italics for online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content" to WP:VG/GL beneath the bullet about italicizing video games. This would bring it in line with the exact language at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works. {{vg reviews}} should be updated accordingly as well. – czar 05:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Task force cleanup re: genres[edit]

Following up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 106#moving forward on task force cleanup consensus, I see two options on ways to handle the remaining, dead task forces:

  1. Create new genre task forces, e.g.,

    Action & adventure (merge adventure, Castlevania, Devil May Cry, Mega Man, Mortal Kombat, Silent Hill, Soul), FPS (merge Call of Duty, Gears of War), Retrogaming (merge arcade, retro), RPG (merge D&D, not the separate project), Strategy (merge C&C)

  2. Deprecate the above task forces instead of merging into new genre task forces.

Salv mentioned last time that genre TFs would be vague and I can easily see the genre task forces being template work that doesn't actually help anyone. Genres TFs could be useful if editors needed to coalesce and unify article style/jargon... but I don't see a need for the above genre TFs. If there was a need (and, again, these TFs have been inactive for years so I don't believe there is one), company-based TFs would be easier to organize than franchise-specific TFs. So while I was more for option #1 a year ago, I think option #2 (deprecate the above TFs) makes more sense now. Thoughts/consensus? – czar 22:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Gears isn't an FPS. Merge it with Xbox instead seeing as Microsoft own the IP now. --The1337gamer (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Maybe not calling it FPS but Shooter, as it is much closer in gameplay and nature to Call of Duty and better handled there than by everything Xbox/Microsoft. Not that Gears games can't fall under both task forces, but I would say that the Shooter/FPS/TPS task force is much closer to task than Xbox. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Also, Arcade =/= Retro, and MK/Soul Calibur are fighting games, not action-adventure (seriously!?), and technically any of these series can be argues as unfitting to the "act-adv" genre archteype -- Castlevania is a "metroidvania", a specific subgenre with RPG elements; DMC is a brawler-adventure, Mega Man is a platforming-adventure, Silent Hill is more horror than act-adv. Act-adv is the most ill-defined archetype ever. I think some genres are explicit enough that a TF for them would work (RPG, Platformer, FPS), but then where do you stop? Are SRPG/MMORPG/JRPGs separate TFs? An MMORPG would be under MMO & RPG? These sound more like categories than useful taskforces. I would be in favor of deprecating all but the most active and current ones: Nintendo, Valve, VN, Sega, Rockstar, Indie, eSports, Arcade. The rest seems like it is more used for mere categorization than for actual project coordination. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This wasn't my idea of genres—the above is adapted from comments made in the last discussion. The "action & adventure" TF is not action-adventure but action and adventure, so as to include "fighting" and "platforming" (action genre games), which editors did not want as separate genres in the last discussion, if I recall correctly. Anyway, I don't see the use in such sorting for WPVG's purposes, which is why I agree with you on deprecating all of the block quoted, inactive TFs. (On what basis are you calling Arcade active? I've seen no activity there and its line is also blurry in including arcade-genre/style games and not just games released in dedicated arcade cabinets.) If you think we should deprecate Atlus, BioWare, etc., I say we leave that to a later discussion as they are more useful than the ones block quoted above (baby steps). – czar 04:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Salvidrim- most of the existing task forces are dead, and it would be better to just deprecate them than to try to merge them into over-broad category task forces that would then themselves die off. --PresN 04:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

All right—option two is the clear favorite. – czar 18:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Task force cleanup pt. 4[edit]

I cleaned the low-hanging fruit from last year's cleanup. Here are a few more that have been inactive for years. Should be uncontroversial, but wanted to make sure there is no final objection before clearing them out:

  • Atlus, BioWare, id
  • arcade, retro, strategy
  • The Sims, Ultima

We could also deprecate MUD, Atari, PlayStation, and Xbox, but they see more occasional activity. Thoughts? – czar 18:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a Console taskforce might be worth while as a merger of Atari, PlayStation, Xbox, especially if used to help maintain the growing number of hardware console articles and the related templates. We did a fair amount of work on the main Video game console template a few months back, but it was all on the template talk. A console task force might have been useful there as we merged and redirected a dozen or so templates in the end. -- ferret (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As a request, can you archive this/related discussion to WP:VG/IPC/WT:VG/IPC? --Izno (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure. And the Atari TF is more focused on the company than the console, apparently, but let's see if there are any takers. I'm afraid it'd be a lot of merging for a lot of maintenance (what is the scope—console hardware?) and little ultimate benefit. – czar 19:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Roman numerals vs Arabic numerals on The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt[edit]

Should the article title use Roman or Arabic numerals? An editor pointed out that cover art now uses Roman numerals so I moved the page to The Witcher III: Wild Hunt. But another brings up the point that the official website uses Arabic, I've noticed that a lot of other sources seem to use Arabic numerals so I've moved it back to its original location. Are there any other examples of this where both styles are being used in different places, which should it be here? --The1337gamer (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We do mix and match roman/arabic in running series (see GTA for example), so I would say to use the website/box cover take, which seems to be most official. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Default to what the established video game journalists use. I don't see any outlets using "Witcher III" regardless of how the box art is stylized. As Masem mentioned, the refs in GTA IV all use "IV" rather than "4". If the refs used "4", we'd go with that. – czar 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Right now, the Polish title does use Roman numerals. Not sure if that's the actual Polish title though. --Soetermans. T / C 16:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Changed it back. The Polish version of the website uses "3" as well. It seems like only the cover art uses Roman numerals. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's try this again...new Sega article structure[edit]

So my previous proposal got shut down by @Lukeno94:, due to, in his view, poor grammar and no references.

So I redid mainly the first article to meet his standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox

Purpose: Replacing content of Sega development studios, and also merging it with following pages Sega AM2, SEGA Hitmaker, Amusement Vision, Sega WOW, Smilebit. The above has a better detail and sourced content of it's material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox2

Purpose: Actual list of all Sega games, Sega developed and published, as a previous one did not exist. Highlights the above mentioned departments and studios and accompanies them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox3

A new list for Sega's arcade games, replacing the former List of Sega arcade games. This will the List of Sega arcade video games, developed or published by Sega. It has no medal games, photobooth machines and prize games, or mere distrubution of titles unrelated to Sega. These games will be featured in their own respetive articles such as medal games, where all of Sega's (and other companies) medal games will be included. Same goes for Purikara machines.

Opinions?

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Proposal 1: I'm still objecting to your arbitrary merger. Sega AM2 received coverage of their own and worked on a huge number of major Sega arcade games. You've never once acknowledged this. This means they easily justify their own article. Hitmaker are smaller, but as the developers of Crazy Taxi and the Virtua Tennis series, they probably justify their own article. Amusement Vision were owned by Sega but weren't a Sega development studio, so that's hardly an appropriate merger. Sega Wow may justify a merger, as may Smilebit. But with other companies, even the minor subsidaries often get their own articles (see EA Montreal and various other EA ones), and I see 0 value in having one ridiculously oversized article which will be poorly structured and make very little sense. Your modified article is as bad as it ever was, with dates that are absolutely all over the place, lots of single-sentence lines, tables with totally unstandardized widths and laughably obvious grammatical issues ("non-japanese company" is in the first freaking sentence of the article!)
  • Proposal 2: Terrible idea. As has been explained to you before, a list like that would be grossly oversized - and indeed, the article in your sandbox is just that. Plenty of totally arbitrary sections as well. As was pointed out before, if you must make these lists, then have them by decade.
  • Proposal 3: You're replacing a poorly formatted and thought-out list with another poorly formatted and thought-out list. Bad idea.
  • In conclusion; please make proposals with things that meet Wikipedia's standards, and please actually listen to people's responses - in the first draft, I'm struggling to see how you've changed anything since multiple editors (not just me, and stop trying to make it look like I'm the only objector here) pointed out how bad your formatting was, and even after we pointed out specific issues... issues which you've blatantly ignored. Short form; sort out your mess, or stop mucking around. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


  • For the 2 game lists (sandbox2 + 3) you should probably take PresN's suggestion from the last discussion. Break them down into multiple articles "List of Sega video games (1980–89)", "List of Sega video games (1990–99)" and so on. Might want to use a sortable table instead of just bullet points for them as well; then readers can sort by year, title, platform, development division, etc. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: Well I'm not seeing the issue with grammar and formatting in the first article, all I can do is to leave it someone else to fix that, as I pretty much did my best. Your point on "non-japanese" also makes pretty much no sense. And I did change stuff: do you not see the over 100 citations I added? Regarding the importance of each studio, AM2, AM1/Sega Wow/, Hitmaker/AM3 are all equally important in arcade games, and Amusement Vision was a Sega development studio, got a source on that? The EA studios are different, because they were always official subsidiaries, housed in different locations. The Sega studios were always in Tokyo, and effectively only the names changed, like I said it is complicated and treating it the same as Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development is the better solution. And the article does make sense, dates aren't all over the place, I already mentioned how it works. When an employee gets a producer or manager position, he gets a quick biography. I also don't see the oversized issue, I have yet to come across videogame articles or lists where this is an issue, so please point me to one. Articles that have been around for year upon years, without much complaining that you are judging as a "mess". But I already said this, like you said we are repeating ourselfes. What gives you authority on reverting anyways and judging long-standing statusquo articles such as this one as a mess? You haven't created a single video game article, and neither contribute much. My articles are sourced, and are just "different" mediocore articles, neitehr striving for GA or FA status. Nobody but you is objecting, and insist that they are objectively worse. I might have to talk to an Admin if you continue to be unreasonable.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • How does my point on "non-japanese" not make sense? Anyone who understands the English language knows that it should be Japanese, not japanese! And that's the first sentence - if you are this incompetent when it comes to writing, then what are you doing here? The issue is not your referencing, it's the fact that you are not listening to anything people have to say about the issues with your grammar and syntax, even when we repeatedly tell you what is wrong. Amusement Vision was a second-party studio as the article describes, and Sega development studios would be first-party companies. It doesn't matter one jot where the subsidiaries were housed. The dates are all over the place, and because of your hopeless formatting, it makes it a nightmare to read. "You haven't created a single video game article" - sorry, but you're totally and utterly wrong there. In fact, it's hilarious that you can say that, because it just proves your incompetence further. Colin McRae Rally (video game) - note the lack of two hundred thousand single-sentence lines there. "Nobody but you is objecting" - probably because most people have given up on you and your WP:IDHT ways, but people certainly have objected in previous discussions. You keep saying the same rubbish about GAs and FAs over and over... but your proposals are objectively worse in numerous ways that I, and others, have repeatedly described over and over. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and trying to force your changes in in the middle of this discussion is just plain dumb. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
So, it doesn't look like any of these proposal's are picking up any steam. I know there have been a lot of changes and reverts, but is it possible to bring things back to however they were prior to all of Triple ddd's changes, and just work on sprucing that up, rather than all of these major restructures? Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On the articles in question, I don't think there's any major difference right now - indeed, one of them is simply a redirect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So the articles' current status is largely how they were before Triple ddd started all of his restructures? Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Seems like you are continuening to judge things personally and not make proper arguments. You are the only one claiming that the articles are a nightmare to read (and you can't compare your game article with my article documenting employees), and you are also the only one who keeps reverting articles (with a couple of exceptions on Sonic Team and Sega AM2 articles). Also nobody else said that the article is objectively worse. Who else said so? Point me to it. You say it doesn't matter that that the subsidiaries were always first party in-house studios located in the same place, well to your standards what does matter? You are claiming that AV is a second party studio, but do not provide a source. You clearly don't even seem to care given you never give suggestions to anything, but rather just complain. Thanks tough, for pointing out the issue of capital letters in instances, that is indeed a problem, tough I can't see others.

@Sergecross73: It is not very likely that people will participate in improving the current slate of Sega articles, given their state for more than 5 years now. I hear the suggestion of making multiple articles per decade (for both lists of games and studios), which I'm seeing as inconsistent personally. No other article is set up this way. So why should the Sega ones be the exception.?

I'm saying, if no one can agree on major restructuring, then I believe the focus should be to improve the content/sourcing of the articles as they currently are. All I know is that I've seen a lot of editors opposed to your ideas for one reason or another. At least one has contacted me directly about it. There's not consensus for your proposal, and it seems you're relatively new to the website - because it takes quite a while to understand all of Wikipedia's nuances, I don't recommend new users move into massive overhauls so early on. Its not a hard rule, I can't force you to follow it (though you can be forced to abide by consensus in general), but usually when newer editors try to make drastic changes, they come up on a lot of opposition, which is pretty much exactly what's been happening here... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it is not a major restructuring really. I added to the current articles with content/sourcing, and didn't remove anything, or at least the content did not receive complaints. And then there is new one that did not exist before (list of Sega games). If I would try from sratch again (as most likely nobody else would try), the articles would end up the same as my proposed ones. @Lukeno94: has made intangible claims, such as formatting and inconsistent dates, so I can't really base anything of this. User:PresN suggested to make an a split for articles on studios and a list for games. Which is what I did. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • So let's get this straight; when presented with evidence that I have written video gaming related articles (which is what you said I'd never done - I'll quote you directly: "You haven't created a single video game article"), your defence to having your bare-faced lies called out is "not relevant"? Good one. Almost every single person who has commented on the state of the articles themselves has said your formatting is poor. I've documented multiple issues with it several times, including right here in this thread. The very first line of text in the main body had an obvious error in it, when you displayed a nationality using a lowercase letter. I've pointed that out several times as well, and not only have you failed to acknowledge it until now, the mess you dumped into mainspace (AGAIN) still had that very same error! If you are incapable of spotting such basic errors, then you shouldn't be editing. Period. Oh, and don't try and call the "no one else has reverted" card... plenty of people did earlier on, and the only reason that no one else is right now is due to the fact that I'm getting there first. Go ahead, look at the history of Sega development studios; you'll see that, in March, Dissident93 and TheTimesAreAChanging were reverting you, not me. You can also see how it didn't take me long to spot that you were adding your mess into mainspace before I reverted you, meaning no one else had the chance to. AV's own article describes it as a second-party studio, use your damn eyes for once! Stop lying, stop bullshitting, and either actually listen to people who have replied here, or leave Wikipedia to people who actually do listen. But look at this the other way - not one person has, as of yet, reverted back in any of your wholesale changes. Whilst multiple editors have reverted you across various articles. That says EVERYTHING about the mess you're making. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You are the only to revert articles that I made after PresN suggestion (who made a clear suggestion unlike you) of splitting studios and list of games. Also no proof on if you would have truly been the only one to revert these articles. Again give suggestions, on the supposed "poorly formatted article", which goes to @Dissident93: as well. Tell me, how would YOU format an article that decribes divisions and their employees and managers and what they have done?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tripple-ddd: I would format it like the Nintendo EAD article, personally. I'm aware that Sega has many more 2nd party divisions than Nintendo, but your sandbox versions are terribly formatted. First of all, list games by order of release, not alphabetically, Secondly, remove the "Western Publishing" subtitles, as only Sega developed games should be included (to simplify things). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if you look at the time stamps, you'll see that I reverted each time soon enough that no one else would have chance to. I constantly point to how many single sentence lines there are, or otherwise ridiculously short paragraphs, and you keep ignoring that. The only reason my suggestions aren't clear to you is that you're deliberately ignoring them. On one of the previous discussions, I laid out in fairly great detail the issues with your structuring, and you haven't solved any of those issues. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • How would single sentences and short paragraphs generate a problem for the person reading it? This is made to highlight each person, and not get lost in a jumbled mess. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing that is written to anything approaching an acceptable standard relies heavily on single-line paragraphs. That's "acceptable", not "GA/FA". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have yet to see a rule on Wikipedia on this. Point me to it. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's just a general English writing rule. Sentences are supposed to be bunched together on a single topic, and even they can deviate some and still remain relevant. You adding multiple single-sentenced paragraphs looks both ugly and unfinished. Try to read WP:MOS to get a better idea of how the ideal Wikipedia article should be formatted. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Silly Dissident- don't you know everything is in the MOS? WP:PARAGRAPH. --PresN 21:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Whoa, good find, I didn't know that one either, I just knew basically what Dissident said - it's basically considered good writing with the English language. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Whilst I'm not surprised at the existence of that link, I didn't know about it either - as everyone else has said, it's considered good writing etiquette to use paragraphs properly. And, I would expect, the same thing applies to most other languages as well, at least for those that use the same character set as we do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)´
  • "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." So there is seemingly still the exceeption rule; and one sentence paragraphs ARE used sparingly. Why can't my article be an exception due to the way it is structured? @Dissident93: Again, explain how the formatting is terrible. I see no particular difference between the EAD article and my articles on how the user can read out information easily. I see this Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development#Software Development Department section in the EAD article as worse. It documents departments and personell is one jumbled parapgraph, how is that better for the reader? How about bullet lists for each of the employees, would that be better? Why remove Western Publishing? This is a list of Sega games, like the Konami, Sony, Microsoft etc. lists. Why should a Sega be structured differently? It is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and would actually make it more confusing. Also it would require alot of effort from to reorganize hundred of games in chronolgical order again. The List of Sega arcade games is also in alphabetical order, and it has stayed this way for years now. Aagain I don't plan to really improve the article dramaticily, my main intent is to simply seperate developed and published games. Years ago, someone added the entire Sega development studio to the main Sega article and it has stayed there for years, why are my, in comparision, reasonable changes suddenly such an issue? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no fucking way they are used sparingly. Sparingly means once or twice in an article. Even when your paragraphs are longer than a single sentence, they're generally only a couple of sentences long, and that happens over and over and over throughout the article. Just because other articles are worse does not mean that you get to lower this article to a standard below that! We've already pointed out that there are many issues with some of those articles, and some of them, yes, -shock horror- need splitting up into smaller articles as well. I'm going to make this even blunter than usual; if you can't see just how your formatting is unacceptable after a multitude of editors have pointed it out, please go and find something else to do. You're wasting our time now by saying the same thing over and over again, and not seeing just how much of a mess you're making (or listening to 75% of what is being said). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't be asking "Why can't my article be the exception?" - you should be explaining "Why should it be the exception." Just because you could, doesn't mean you should, you know? Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: The rule is that articles can still consist of short paragraphs, if there is a good reason, and have yet to see an argument why this could not be the case of my article. And my article being a standard is hyperbole. Provide constructive arguments instead of lamenting everything as bad. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a huge difference between "short paragraphs", which are perfectly fine, and consistently using paragraphs that consist of one to three sentences, and take up one or two lines. That is not how things should be written in English encyclopaedias, or any English language source that even attempts to be of an acceptable quality. It is hardly "lamenting everything as bad", it is you consistently failing to understand how the English language works, and how you could possibly be wrong.Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: What does formatting have to do with the english language? So what do you think the Google or Disney articles with their short paragraphs around the end of their history sections? In my opinion just doing one paragraph like this Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development#Software Development Department, is worse. Tell me you think this its better. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Those articles are just as poorly formatted in those sections... as has been said multiple times, the fact that other articles have the same problems does not mean that you can make the same mess here. Oh, and their problems are still smaller than the ones you created, because the quantity of super-short paragraphs is far smaller. Quite what you're pointing to with the Software Development Department section in the Nintendo article there is beyond me, but there's very little wrong with it. Imperfect, yes, but a darn sight better than your mess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, I don't want to get too involved but short paragraphs in any article is considered bad formatting and I would certainly fail a GAN if any section contained many one sentence paragraphs, such as those in Google and Disney. Triple D, I would strongly recommend familiarising yourself with WP:PARAGRAPH or even the GA criteria to help you with formatting things smoothly. There's actually nothing wrong with that short paragraph in the Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development article as it it serves as an opening to a table section, which is the only exception. JAGUAR  16:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: So I made a revision on my sandbox. Is that better? What else would you suggest?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The paragraphs are no longer an issue. The table formatting still is; it's inconsistent in the extreme, none of the title field entries are actually sensible word choices, and the fact that they're fairly aimlessly dotted around the article is not good. Nor is the fact that there are persistently single entry tables everywhere. Whilst the tables were not great before, they are certainly more consistent and more informative. To be perfectly honest, the tables already contain all of the information that there needs to be in the original article anyway (although I'd trim the titles present); most of the studios have their own articles or would justify their own articles. There are numerous issues beyond just that, including things I've documented for a long time, but other things include the ridiculous listing of every affiliated company, which appears to be highly inconsistent with the one in the existing article; just having a plain list like that gives no context whatsoever (particularly a totally unreferenced list), whilst the existing article uses tables to give context. In my opinion, these would belong in a separate article regardless - but your version is certainly worse. Quite frankly, I don't see how your version is ever going to really be an improvement, due to excessively duplicating existing articles which have every right to continue existing. Your article is still oversized at 80kB as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94:Tables? What tables? The article consists of words, not tables. Information that is already elsewhere? The current studio list article and current studio articles document next to nothing and not as in detail as my article does (with the exception of the Sonic Team, which might be the only duplicated thing). But so what? Shigeru Miyamoto and EAD articles duplicate certain information. No context for affiliated studios? They are affiliated studios, I could add that these companies that Sega partnered up for published releases, would that be ok? Please respond back about the following things:

  • Explain yourself again, but do not use the worlds and the phrases "tables", "single entry tables", "field entries", "dotting around", so someone could make sense of what you are saying
  • What info have I duplicated aside from the Sonic Team articles?
  • Are you ok with the content of article, or do you not like the way it is written? Because I can make little sense of what you are complaining about
  • Are you actually aware that "List of games" is supposed to link to the actual list of games of my other sandbox articles?

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Anything in a class="wikitable" thing is a table. That's kinda implied by the name. It is impossible for me not to use the words/phrases that involve tables, because that is exactly what they are. Every other editor here should understand exactly what I'm saying, and it is hugely concerning that you cannot. The larger amount of detail you've gone into on some of the companies is better suited to the main articles. A list of development studios should be a summary, not in-depth. Yes, I'm aware of exactly what the List of games is supposed to link to (I'd already checked), and it's not appropriate given that the massive List of games article you're proposing is not appropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: This is a table:

Header text Header text Header text
Example Example Example
Example Example Example
Example Example Example

This is a text:

Wikipedia (Listeni/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or Listeni/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ wik-i-pee-dee-ə) is a free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Those who can access the site can edit most of its articles. Editors are expected to follow the website's rules.[6] Wikipedia is ranked among the ten most popular websites[5] and constitutes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[7][8][9]

Tables are barely relevant in my article so I just don't get what you mean, especially not in the context of what you talk (dotting around, what do you mean by that?). Also the article is not supposed to be a list of studios but more like the EAD article, which I already established.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, I know what a table is. I'm not a moron. Your article is full of those, but with only one entry. How the hell are you not seeing that? I'm aware it's not supposed to be a list of studios, I just didn't describe it properly. The article should summarize each company, not describe everything about them, and it should do so in as coherent a manner as possible. The "dotting around" is a reference to the fact that the tables are not well positioned within the article, particularly in the 2000 onwards sections. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been lurking around this conversation for a while and I'm surprised this hasn't really been brought up for a while, if at all. @Lukeno94:, while it may be frustrating that @Tripple-ddd: is breaking rules outlined at WP:MOS, you are breaking rules outlined at WP:CIVIL, specifically name calling ("if you are this incompetent when it comes to writing") and being too intense ("That says EVERYTHING about the mess you're making."). We are meant to be helping this user improve his lists, not make him feel more agitated; at the end of the day, that approach will get us nowhere. If you have frustrations, please try to walk Tripple-ddd through what you're saying calmly, and if that doesn't work, ask for some help from other editors. Wikipedia is meant to promote a cooperative environment, and your tone is going against that. BlookerG talk 20:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I tried walking them through calmly. They have selective reading. It doesn't work. Look above at what happened when I tried - their response were some blatantly ridiculous questions, such as what a table was, and when I pointed that out, they still didn't think they were relevant. Talking to this user is like talking to a brick wall, and it's been the same with everyone who has tried... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice that @Tripple-ddd: has also broken at least one WP:CIVIL rule about acting superior ("You haven't created a single video game article, and neither contribute much"). Although, I believe that @Lukeno94: should not have continued to instigate further disagreements. BlookerG talk 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Firstly, in your first response to this thread, you called one of Tripple-ddd's ideas "terrible" and said that their grammar had "laughably obvious" issues. That doesn't constitute as calm to me, and I'm sure it isn't seen as calm by others. Try saying that an idea is "flawed" or somebody's grammar has some problems. The "laughably obvious" part is unnecessary. Secondly, asking questions no matter how simple they may seem to you is never "ridiculous" as you say, and you have continued to call them another name ("brick wall"). If there is absolutely no way you can talk to this person, then discuss what action should be taken with others in a calmer manner. If you feel like Tripple-ddd is problematic, then more serious but civil action can be taken. I think you are somewhat missing my point. BlookerG talk 21:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Quite how you think doing this is going to help ease tensions is beyond me. I attempted, at points within this thread, to point out the obvious issues in detail and as neutrally as possible. I then got the responses that I mentioned above. You're not helping matters here, but are now causing another side distraction. And quite frankly, if you think that me saying that talking to Tripple-ddd is like a talking to a brick wall is "name calling", I don't know how I can help you - it's a well known phrase and has absolutely nothing to do with name calling... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that both @Tripple-ddd and @Lukeno94 need to calm down. I'm considering pushing for an interaction ban; every conversation between the two of you is incredibly heated, even ignoring actual CIVIL violations. Yes, Tripple-ddd's proposed changes have numerous grammar, formatting, and logistical errors. No, I don't think they should go to mainspace in the state they are in. No, that does not mean that either side needs to be this angry or contentious.
  • Going forward- if I continue to see CIVIL violations (from either of you) I'm going to start on escalating blocks. Given the intense opposition to Tripple-ddd's proposed changes, however, I'm also going to consider any attempt on Tripple-ddd's part to push his proposed articles into mainspace as vandalism, and react accordingly. --PresN 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban would take me out of any discussion for the future of the Sega articles right now. That would not be helpful or fair. I'm also displeased that you also appear to have ignored the fact that I have tried, several times, to recollect myself and start stating things in detail and as neutrally as possible, and yet I still have to say the same thing three times before it is actually acknowledged/understood (if it is at all). For what it's worth, if I had the time, I would set out my own sandbox proposal, but that is not something I will have for another week. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban would take me out of any discussion for the future of the Sega articles right now - yes, that's what an interaction ban means. I know that this discussion can be (very) frustrating. It still needs to stay as a (relatively) calm discussion, without excessive anger or namecalling, no matter how justified you feel you are or actually are. There is a line; don't cross it. I'm just making sure that you know what the potential consequences could be if you do cross it; it's up to you to police your own actions. It's okay to just not respond to Tripple-ddd if you are feeling angry; it's not like you're the only person who thinks his proposed articles need a lot of work to not be reverted. --PresN 22:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tripple-ddd: What sandbox did you edit recently? Your sandbox2 should not include the titles that Sega published, only developed. And why are there "era" subheaders, but the games themselves are not in chronological order? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: So I don't know what you mean with the tables, the only thing I can see is that some aren't 100% in width? Is the existence of the tables not justified, due to just linking to a list? If the latter is the case, I revised sandbox1 again, to see if you like that approach better. About the detailed "company descriptions", have you actually read the content? I might actually explain it further, in case you didn't get it. Sega has always had "divisions" not "companies" for most of it's life (which went largely uncredited, making seperate articles and attaching games dificult). It steadily grew into 9 divisions, and became "companies" in 2000, but even that is questionable as these companies were never actually officially shut down but continued to exist, just without names. Mergers that happened in 2003 and 2009 makes matter even more complicated. For example, the Initial D Arcade Stage game went through 4 divisions - first Sega Rosso, then Hitmaker, then AM3, and now R&D1. Having the information (as a history article) of a singular group that spread apart and got singular again makes sense and is coherent. Expalin to me why that isn't the case @Dissident93: The era subheaders contain games within that era. I ask again, why does Sega need a seperate list for published releases when other companies don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripple-ddd (talkcontribs) 14:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of the other big game company articles are just as badly written, it's just that nobody has gotten around to them yet. Having every game a huge company ever published seems way too bloated, especially for one like Sega. I think that info would be better suited for a Sega specific Wikia. Listing every game they developed, (based on the Nintendo EAD page), would already be big enough, but wouldn't be as badly formatted as your sandboxes are. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Once again; the fact that other articles aren't done in an optimal way does not mean that this article should be done in a sub-optimal manner. Those can be improved as and when people get around to it. The existence of the tables is justified, but the way they were structured in the existing article is much better than in your proposal, as they actually served a purpose there, and are informative - more so than your proposal is generally. The way that article is structured is generally better as a result. It doesn't matter exactly what the exact buzzwords for each division/section/whatever of Sega were; if they worked independently on major titles (not talking about gaming franchises, but individual games), as most of them seem to have done, they justify their own articles, just like the divisions of any other company. It also doesn't matter where they were based, for that matter. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: My proposal is not informative? What do you mean? It is sourced, it describes personell and the games they have worked on. The tables describe the division head and the division. Explain yourself on why you find things "uninformative" or "incoherent".--Tripple-ddd (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not as informative, because the tables give no context whatsoever, and the prose focuses far more on personnel than such an article needs to. I haven't once used the term incoherent in this particular discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: You said this: "and it should do so in as coherent a manner as possible", implying you think it is incohrent. The tables give no context? What? The table contains information about the division, the division head, and links to the list of games. What does context even mean in this case? You are complaining that it focuses too much on personell, what else should it focus on? This is a history article. Should there be a page for all thirty of producers and managers? Not every person on Wikipedia that gets mentioned gets an article. Can you explain to me how this article is more informative, or how it is better formatted? The tables aren't 100 width either (if that's what you are complainining about). I just don't understand. Am I assuming the right things? Tell me. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a history article, which means that it should focus on what was produced, not anywhere near as heavily on the people. The tables before showed exactly what each division did; right now, most of the divisions have been anonymized into very little within your version. No, there shouldn't be a page on every single person involved. I already said the tables weren't perfect in the main article, but they're a darn sight more consistent than the ones in your version are, and actually serve a purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lukeno94: Anonymized? PresN disliked the featured lists in the current version, as it overbloats the article, do you want a list in the article and oversize?. What should the tables in your mind feature? Represntative games?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As I've already said, several times, the existing tables are too detailed and the number of games mentioned should be trimmed down to just a couple of particularly notable titles, but the tables in your version are pointless and serve no purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • But you said a while ago that the existence of tables is justified? The tables should have significant games, and be more fleshed out, I can manage that. OK, now what else don't you like about my version?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the tables existence is justified. No, the versions in your version don't serve any purpose. These are not mutually exclusive things. I've already documented plenty of other issues with your version on multiple occasions; I am not going to repeat them for a third (at least) time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The only things I can understand from this far: 1. You don't like that the tables are bare 2. You don't like the excessive detail in describing different people (in which you haven't provided suggestions about) 3. Grammar issues (you say it generally, not spefically) Sorry you have to repeat yourself. Just bare in mind, you have to be clear in what you are saying, make suggestions, not generalize, and reference the content within the article in the clearest and most understandable manner possible. Thank you.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Specifics are inappropriate when there are issues that are widespread. I recommend you actually read what you've written in the article, rather than just glancing at it and deciding that everything is perfect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And you generalizing again doesn't help futher. Nobody can know what the problem is, unless you specify it. I spent several months putting and researching this together, I know it in and out. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The information is generally accurate (only had to correct you on certain things). The main problem with your proposed edits is that it's extremely bloated and contains way too much information, albeit mostly accurate, along with being badly formatted according to WP:MOS. If you just followed how the Nintendo EAD article is formatted, I don't think anybody would have an issue with that, honestly. So if you want to know directly how to fix all these issues, here is what I (and others I suppose) suggest:
  1. Get rid of all games Sega simply published. Make a separate article if you must, like List of products published by Nintendo (although this article is formatted even worse than your sandboxes, ugh. Might be the next thing we work on after this)
  2. Only keep games they directly developed for, and try to keep them grouped under the specific team if possible, like the EAD article. I know Sega's dev groups can be confusing though, so this could be a problem perhaps.
  3. Omit stuff that separate articles could handle (I.E. Sonic Team wouldn't have their games listed, so just add a redirect link to simplify things). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm going to note here that I now definitely intend to knock up a draft of my own once my exams have finished. This will only apply to proposal one, as I remain firm in my belief that neither of the other two proposals are good ideas. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Year of release in lead[edit]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before (and searching through the archives I couldn't find anything) and WP:VG/DATE didn't give me a clear answer, but I was wondering if there's a guideline or even a clear consensus if the year of release should or shouldn't be mentioned before the actual genre and before the full release date. See for instance Call of Duty: Black Ops III: "(...) is an upcoming 2015 first-person shooter (...) and is expected to be released (...) November 6, 2015" or Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag: (...) is a 2013 historical fiction action-adventure open world stealth video game (...) a sequel to 2012's Assassin's Creed III‍ (...) The game was first released on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and Nintendo Wii U in October 2013 and was later made available on the PlayStation 4, Microsoft Windows and Xbox One in November 2013", mentioning 2013 three times and 2012 too. Articles like Battlefield 4, Mass Effect 3 or Super Mario World also put the year first. A lot of articles do not have this however. Any thoughts? --Soetermans. T / C 06:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems redundant to me because the full release date is usually always mentioned in the lead and often in the following sentence. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd just omit the first "2015" so it just says "X is an upcoming (genre) game set for release on (date)". (Is the redundant wording just a leftover from an era where no release date was known other than the year?) Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't we use [[2003 in video gaming|2003]] a lot back then? --Soetermans. T / C 13:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:VG/DATE has a little bit on this. (Note that it recommends not using the full release date in the lede at all, though I imagine it is important for a game that has not yet been released.) There isn't one set style for your question, and that's all right. I prefer to put the year in the first sentence because the first sentence of the lede is where most readers and crawlers are looking for basic information. It isn't redundant because I normally put the release date after the lede's Development summary, which usually gets its own paragraph. As long as there are several sentences between the first sentence and the release date, I think it's fine. I agree on removing the release year redundancy from Black Ops III's opening sentence. – czar 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It does seem a it redundant to me as well. There are also some cases where saying "X is a 2013 game" is also not entirely helpful; games with HD remasters, or games ported to newer systems with significant, noteworthy changes being made. Describing GTA 5, for example, as a 2013 game would not fully reflect the history of the game, particularly due to the fairly major changes made when it was ported to the next-gen consoles (e.g. first person mode) in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Would the reader know immediately from reading the first sentence that it is in fact the year of release? Black Flag starts with "a 2013 historical fiction", I can imagine that for someone not familiar with Black Flag (or just the term 'black flag') might think for a second that it a historical fiction set in 2013. What Lukeno94 pointed out, it doesn't reflect the history of the game. Some are years in development, some MMO's are still actively being developed further after release. --Soetermans. T / C 13:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    The Early Access side of the coin is also worth considering, and it's a particularly pertinent question for, say, Minecraft. Is it a 2011 game, as that was when it was released on PC in a "finalized" version? Or is it 2009, as that's when the public alpha came out? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    This particular issue also extends to categories and episodic video games (Telltale stuff). Minecraft is categorised as 2009 video game, Broken Age categorised as 2014 video game even though second half came out in 2015. Many early access games are categorised by version 1.0/final release date instead. I've been thinking of creating a category for games publicly released in early access/alpha/beta but that's a different topic altogether. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Category:Video games with an open beta and Category:Video games with a closed beta, etc? Sounds like an interesting facet, but not a particularly defining characteristic. I'd like to see that information captured on say, Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To me, the year of release is an important factor as a quick read on a game particularly now that the industry is 30+ yrs old. But I do think we need to normalize it on the year of release of the first non-beta/non-early access title (eg Minecraft is 2011, not 2009). Noting things like remakes or original betas/early access, or anything else of course should be documented, and in the case of Minecraft, it should be noted as having been in beta for 2009 (or earlier), since that's a key part of its development. But the "X is a YYYY game..." that year should be a standardized pick. Noting on Broken Age above, if we follow the Telltale games example, episodic games are listed as the year of first episode release, so 2014 is fine. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If we are to retain this sort of style, then I think "2013 video game" should be replaced by "video game released in 2013", or something similar. "2013 video game" is too ambiguous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The reason that "2013 video game" came to prominence was that the alternatives are either long-winded or grammatically mediocre. "Video game released in 2013" has the second problem: it would by followed by "developed by X and published by Y"; the structure insinuates that we're talking about 2013, rather than the video game. I would be strongly opposed to any systematic attempt to retire the current standard. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • While I wouldn't mind if this stops being a thing, I'll just mention that most film articles on Wikipedia also have a year in their lead listed, both new and old. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I began noticing an IP editor going through articles adding "is a 20xx video game" about a year ago, and have typically reverted it, since the lead sentence was almost always in the format of "is a video game published by xyz in Month, 20xx." In most cases, if the lead sentence itself didn't have a date, the second sentence did. -- ferret (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy Forest land before dragons[edit]

I have made a site called Fantasy Forest land before dragons. I don't think you have talked about this game yet. Please visit the page. Click this link Fantasy Forest land before dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsliangel (talkcontribs)

Hi there. Some opening thoughts:
  1. You need to write article with the use of reliable sources. Some commonly used ones can be found at WP:VG/S. I've found one usable for you, its: http://www.148apps.com/reviews/fantasy-forest-story-review/
  2. Secondly, is the game's full name Fantasy Forest Story: Land Before Dragons? That's what its showing up as for me on the App Store. If that's correct, we should change it to that. If your title is correct, then we just need to fix the capitalization - titles are supposed to be in capitals, except for a few words, like "and" or "of"... Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and re-titled the article for you, assuming that's the correct title. Another user ended up moving the article to the draft area, as the article was pretty short and didn't have any references. You can still work on it there until you get someone to review it and see if its ready to be put in the Wikipedia mainspace. It can now be found at Draft:Fantasy Forest: Land Before Dragons Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fantasy Story, another one of your one-line, unreferenced creations, has just been deleted also. You are welcome to draft it at Draft:Fantasy Story with reliable sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeking consensus from other members[edit]

The current Infobox animanga/Game template doesn't include the same personnel fields (director, composers, artist, etc) as the normal video game infobox. As a result, I attempted to add them in, so it would be more consistent, however a user has reverted me, stating that it bloats the infobox. What I'm asking for is for VG project members to help me with a consensus, so I propose three different options:

  1. Leave it as it is currently. (Not something I'd personally want, as it's inconsistent with both the VG infobox and the main animanga infobox as well. Not to mention many games using this template already have personnel listed, such as the directors and composers, but because the template doesn't support it, they don't show.)
  2. Merge all the same personnel fields as the normal video game infobox to this one. (What I attempted to do, although the user does have a point in that it would be bloated, which hopefully brings us to option three)
  3. Only include the main roles, including the game's director, producer, and composer. (Would solve both problems of the listed options above. The main animanga infobox for anime series and films already has these three listed, why doesn't the game one as well?)

Any thoughts or suggestions? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think option 3 is a good compromise. I would go with Director, Producer, and Writer, personally. "Bloat" is a fairly valid issue with the way that animanga infobox templates get stacked on top of each other. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I still think the game's composer should be listed as well. All the other templates listed there have the "music" field, including the audio drama one. But if only these three would be included, it's still an improvement. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This is actually in the wrong venue as this is an anime/manga infobox template sub-component. This discussion should have been held at WT:A&M whom covers the primary topic area in which this template is used. Second, your only argument so far has been that these fields exist in other templates, however, you never explain why these fields are even relevant in this particular template. Unlike how director, writer, and music composer have huge impacts on the look, feel, and pacing of an anime television series, film, or OVA, this is largely not true for minor video game spin-off. I'm not talking about the various shōnen inspired fighting games that often get their own articles, but the ones that cannot meet the notability requirements or whose anime/manga spin-offs are far more notable. How is naming these individuals important for ... Shugo Chara! Three Eggs and the Joker in Love!?
Second, bloat is a very real issue for the anime/manga infobox. There could be fields in the other sub-components that can be removed to reduce the bloat. However, that is outside of this discussion and again, just because these fields exist elsewhere is not justification to include them in this sub-component. The fields that should be in any of the anime/manga template sub-components are the ones that are most relevant to the general topic. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
"The fields that should be in any of the anime/manga template sub-components are the ones that are most relevant to the general topic." So director, producer, composer, and writer? I understand what your point is, but how come audio drama gets these, when most of the time it's unknown who the director/producer were, and the music was re-used from the game/anime it's based on? Is adding three more values really adding to bloat? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on this template.[edit]

Hi, I made a template but I don't think I have made it specific enough. I want to find out if the majority of people think it should be deleted. --Anarchyte 06:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The page in question: Template:Navbox video game topics
Talk page: Template talk:Navbox video game topics

Keep[edit]

Sign here if you think it should be kept.

Delete[edit]

Sign here if you think it should be deleted.

  • Every game, franchise, company, platform and genre can be a topic in video games. If a template called "Topics in video games" is created, it should contain all articles that are related to video gaming. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – "Topics in video games" is too vague. Doesn't satisfy the guidelines listed at WP:NAVBOX. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A bold try, but it is way too broad for a functional navbox. There's already {{video games}} used in general articles on video games. --Soetermans. T / C 13:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Some offensive stuff[edit]

Wasn't sure what to do with this, so I figured I'd note here that User:Andiar.rohnds was doing some odd stuff here (where he went back and forth with some rather offensive content) and more notably, here. I'm not particularly fond of our "buzzword" articles either, but this isn't exactly the kind of behavior we want. ~Mable (chat) 18:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you let an admin know about this? I bet PresN or Sergecross73 would be interested. GamerPro64 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Blocked him for a month, though given he appears to be, like, 12, I expect he'll get a permanent block soon after showing up again. --PresN 19:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
They also have been blocked twice before. Probably for the best the next one will be permanent. GamerPro64 20:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)