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
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]

176.248.107.108 (talk · contribs) has been making quite a few changes related to publishers and their categories, such as "rolling up" publisher/developer credits from the subsidiary that made the game to the parent company. I've reverted some of it myself, such as including Activision Blizzard as a developer on Blizzard games. Another example would be where they removed Sierra Entertainment from some older games as well as new ones since it's reactivation and replacing with Vivendi and Activision Blizzard. Some of their edits appear to be straight up improvements, and everything seems to be 100% good faith, though I did do a warning after they repeated some of the changes once I'd asked them to stop on Blizzard articles. The user has edited under multiple IPs and I believe maybe 2 registered accounts, based on some page histories.

The IP is also adding categories for publishers to the articles, and I'm not 100% sure what the stance here is... For example, should the Ubisoft video game category contain games developed by Ubisoft, or also published by? Category:Vivendi video games was apparently created and populated by this user, but I do not believe Vivendi was ever a developer directly.

Someone else may need to review the edits and see if any other cleanup should be made. My watch list was mostly related to Activision Blizzard games. -- ferret (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was recently having a very similar problem with 31.52.7.7 (talk · contribs), who was going about adding Nintendo as a publisher or developer to virtually every game that's ever been on a Nintendo platform. I just recently blocked them because they refused to stop or discuss, and keep introducing a lot of errors into articles. They were non-negotiably wrong, things like Nintendo developing Sonic Colors or Disney Infinity. So, I guess keep an eye out for it in generally, everyone? Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
User is now editing as Zachary rules (talk · contribs). I'm at 3RR on my watchlist articles.... -- ferret (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked both the IP and ZacharyRules, Ferret. The IP has been making the same sort of erroneous edits without stopping or discussing as the IP I came across, as is Zachary, who just happened to create his account right at the time I blocked the first IP address... Sergecross73 msg me 04:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

86.139.95.89 (talk · contribs) is now engaged in this. This time adding Vivendi Games as the developer for multiple games, even those released long after the Activision Blizzard merger. Edit history behavior suggests it's the same user. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across another one earlier in the week too. They must be the same, as I can't imagine multiple people would have the same basic fundamental misunderstandings as to what it means to be a publisher. (For instance, seemingly thinking every game on a PlayStation console should list Sony as a publisher.) Blocked both for block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

176.24.181.122 (talk · contribs) and 176.250.202.128 (talk · contribs) may be worth a look as well. Seem to fit same pattern - X201 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Crash zachary (talk · contribs) as well, though now "dormant". -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeesh, I didn't realize how much of a problem this was. Those three are all dormant now, but still, this has been going on since February... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to even begin to really clean this up. The user, over multiple usernames and IPs, has made hundreds of changes. One I just noticed on the latest IP was adding XBox 360 category to games that aren't released on 360. Finding the usernames/IPs involved can partially be solved by looking at the edit historiies for some of the (partially valid, partially not) categories they have created, such as Category:Vivendi video games and Category:Activision Blizzard games. Category:Microsoft games is another, the user has made it a sub-cat of 5-6 other categories, such as the Xbox category. -- ferret (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret and Sergecross73: Got a new one for you: 77.96.101.235 (talk · contribs). They made these changes on Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix and Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Behavior looks the same to me. Adding Sony as a publisher for games just because they are released on Playstation. I cannot block, not an admin. Probably needs entire edit history reverted.... -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Now operating as 90.220.112.68 (talk · contribs)... are these proxies or something? Exact same behavior. -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you filled an WP:SPI yet? It might be worthwhile... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. Rolled back. Salvidrim! - is this something your amazing check user/range block skills could help us with? Otherwise, everyone just keep notifying me of them, and I'll keep blocking and rollbacking... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so I'm a Checkuser now, ain't I? Bloody marvelous! I wish someone would've told me sooner, I could've squashed more ne'er-do-wells. More seriously though -- IPs are across many ranges, so a simple admin range-block won't help. Filing an SPI might help documenting things and blocking accounts, and SPPs are likely to help too. Sorry I can't be much more help! ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I was thinking you had CU rights. Anyways, if someone wants to file an SPI, that's fine, but I have no problems with blocking per WP:DUCK and documenting it here or my talk page personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Now operating as 2.126.202.120 (talk · contribs). Just started up looks like... -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted most of those edits. Found another from two days ago while checking article history: 67.255.219.44 (talk · contribs). – The1337gamer (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Blocked both IP addresses. --PresN 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone involved, I missed this one. I was about to say "you guys can just report it straight to my talk page" if you want, but I suppose if its posted here, there's a chance someone else like PresN could help. Whatever you guys prefer works for me. I'll keep helping with it regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Newest IP: 86.163.219.42 (talk · contribs). Same behavior patterns. Mixture of good category updates with bad changes to infobox fields and inappropriate categories. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was unsure at first, but then these edits cemented it for me, as this person was once again proposing that Nintendo published all these Sonic and Crash games. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: 2.126.56.27 (talk · contribs) appears to be the newest incarnation.-- 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Serge blocked him, and I rolled back all his edits. --PresN 23:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I only had time to block him and rollback a few edits at the time. Found another one today by myself - 90.195.158.128 (talk · contribs) - too. Already blocked and reverted. Same kind of issues, misguided category choices. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another: 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs). The1337gamer (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Tag teamed by PresN and myself again. Thanks all! Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible new hit, 90.222.22.159 (talk · contribs). Primarily adding Japanese publisher categories, i.e. adding "Sega video games" to a game publisher in Japan by Sega. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught that one too, since I have most things Sonic on my watchlist. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@PresN and Sergecross73: another new "90" IP 90.208.223.148 (talk · contribs). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Found another, 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs). -- ferret (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, no, I see this one is a return visitor after block expiration. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I hadn't been blocking the IPs for very long because they've never returned to an older IP/Account so far. I kind of assumed they were doing that thing you can do in FireFox where you can hit refresh and get a new randomized IP address, in which they can't/won't usually return to the old IP address. I'll start blocking for longer if they're going to return to old ones... (Also, re-blocked and cleaned up.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Another User:2.220.194.151 - X201 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

And another User:2.126.57.175 - X201 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked and rollback'd both. --PresN 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Found another today, cleaned it up already. Another returning one, so I'm starting to make the blocks longer. Also thinking of starting to protect some of the pages that are repeatedly being targeted. Some of the Crash/Sony/Nintendo related pages. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another User:94.10.4.121, could we add any of his usual edits to the edit filter? - X201 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:90.222.19.240 is today's. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted both yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:90.222.57.67 is today's. -- ferret (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Second of today, actually, I was alerted of one directly on my talk page. Both blocked and reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon! User:90.222.19.1 is today's. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. --PresN 22:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Another I think. Only 4 edits but they seem to be the same as the previously blocked users: 2.124.56.69 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, same type of mistakes in regards to video game creation, like listing listing Square Enix a developer for Tomb Raider). Blocked. (There were over 10 by the time I saw this- they move fast.) the issue hasn't been slowing down, I've found 2 or 3 IPs in the last few days. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 3 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)

Should Super Smash Bros. 3DS/Wii U somehow be exempt from article guidelines?[edit]

User:TheMeaningOfBlah insists that Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U should feature boxart of both the Wii U and 3DS versions of the game, and has been reverted by myself and other editors; despite the fact that such an inclusion would violate WP:VGBOX ("only one cover should be present, regardless of platform or regional differences").

I'll also copy-paste from his talkpage more reasons on why I believe two images to be inappropriate:

  • In other games with different "versions", precedence is that only one boxart is used. See Pokémon Black and White as an example.
  • Consensus was that they are pretty much the same game, and whether Sakurai thinks otherwise is irrelevant.
  • There is no need to violate WP:VGBOX for no reason, especially as having two or more boxart images is explicitly discouraged.
  • Multiple boxart images may violate the "minimal usage" and "minimal number of items" parts of WP:NFCC.

I have no intention to edit war over this. Should this one article somehow be exempt from guidelines that cover all other articles? Also the other party has so far provided no policy-based rationale except for "let's ignore it". Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Exempt from guidelines for the following reasons I stated on my talkpage:
Also, should does not equal must, according to the IETF standard. I'm still going to ignore it until a consensus is reached.

TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

From the NFCC side, yes, multiple covers are against NFCC; you get one cover to identify the work per WP:NFCI#1, but any additional cover-for-identification images that are non-free must be the subject of discussion (such as the Wii version of Okami). --MASEM (t) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The link you gave me doesn't explicitly state that multiple covers are against NFCC. The images used to identify the games aren't non-free, so that basically invalidates your argument. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
They are copyrighted covers and thus non-free. We seek to minimize the amount of non-free, and only allow a single cover image without discussion to identify a work. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In further response to your points:
  • Things are discouraged for a reason; it is obvious that WP:VGBOX states that multiple boxart images should not be used in the same page and trying to find loopholes around guidelines is unconstructive and undermines the purpose of the guideline in the first place.
  • This is irrelevant as I've pointed out multiple times - what Sakurai thinks isn't an argument and has no bearing on whether one or two boxart images should be used.
  • Again, irrelevant. Pokemon Black and Pokemon White are also "not the same game" as you put it, but they share the article and share the boxart - as does every other article on Wikipedia that I've seen. If the games are truly independent, than split the article, but previous consensus is against that.
Also, please don't take this as an attack against you, but referring to an IETF standard simply because not a single policy or guideline on Wikipedia supports it is an incredibly weak argument, if not a non-argument. Please provide a policy-based reason on why two boxart images should be used in the article. Saying "I'm just going to ignore it anyway" is disruptive editing. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 03:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For archival purposes, I'll point out that TheMeaningOfBlah changed their username to VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs232 (talk · contribs).-- 10:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And the user also uses the IP 71.87.73.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)-- 20:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need two box arts in this case. The only reason that I can see that being necessary would be if a second box art received critical commentary, like the Wii Okami box art.--67.68.208.170 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a strong case to be made that these are two different products, each of which are notable enough to have identifying art. Each of the games will have had a separate (but concurrent) development process, each of the games will have significant reliable coverage dedicated to it specifically. A merged article can sustain multiple cover images if each are independently notable, such as New Super Luigi U or Bastion Original Soundtrack. I find the rationale for including identifying artwork for the notable 3DS game to be a lot stronger than the rationale for the second Okami cover (which was quickly replaced, and whose only notable feature (the IGN watermark) is easily described in text). - hahnchen 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with your statement regarding this, Hahnchen. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Please point to the guideline which states how "two different products" (this is contested btw) allows for multiple boxart in the same infobox. The first example doesn't even have a boxart for New Super Luigi U, while the second is a subsection - no article shares multiple boxart within the same infobox, which frankly makes it looks like shit. And all my previous points still remain unanswered, such as VGBOX and NFCC... Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason Super Luigi U didn't have any artwork is because two hours after I made my comment, the article was split. A guideline isn't policy, template documentation isn't policy. The NFC policy does not prohibit the use of multiple identifying artwork, as you can see in The Dark Side of the Moon and other articles implementing Template:Extra album cover. That it's not something usually done in video games does not mean it can't be done. The bar for inclusion isn't whether there's a separate infobox, or a separate article, but whether the subject is notable, and it can be argued that both the 3DS and Wii U games are. I agree with you that it looks shit, it's handled more elegantly in the album infobox, but that's not a policy argument. - hahnchen 14:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, yes, WP:NFCI#1 has a footnote to this extent, in that cover art is typically presented without additional comment about that, so beyond the one image allowance for identification, all additional cover art needs to have strong demonstration for its need to be there. The WP Music project has worked with NFC to establish the limiting cases where a second cover art can be used. (And "The Dark Side of the Moon" is a bad example, because the remastered album art is discussed in the body of the article, and not just thrown into the infobox without reason). Should the latest Smash game be split between the two platforms? I don't know, but the current way the development and reception is written, I'm not seeing a strong reason to split the two since the games are very much intertwined with each other. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to split articles in order to justify multiple identifying artwork. Going back to music, you see this a lot with songs, where the original and its cover versions all have identifying artwork, and without any critical commentary on the artworks themselves. - hahnchen 17:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but more comparatively, in working with music album articles, I've seen far more situations where there is different/altered cover art for the same music album, and the extras are almost always deleted due to NFC concerns... Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Saying "a guideline isn't policy" does not mean you're allowed to simply just ignore it; especially since you haven't provided any policy-based rationale for inclusion whatsoever despite repeated requests to do so (additionally NFCC is policy, and having multiple boxart in one infobox almost certainly a violation of "minimal usage"). Saying "music articles do this so we're allowed to do it as well" is a weak argument because 1) WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, 2) the covers are never placed in the same infobox, and 3) it is a violation of policy anyway. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Multiple subjects allow for multiple identifying artwork. In this case, there is critical commentary for both 3DS and Wii U games. The examples I've listed above are not a violation of policy. NFCC has nothing to say about infobox placement, if you think otherwise, you are wrong. - hahnchen 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it "multiple subjects"? Is Pokemon Black and White also "multiple subjects" to you? How about the two different versions of Sonic Generations - do those deserve separate boxart images as well? Or maybe we should include boxart of all platforms for any game on multiple platforms? One image per infobox is a good way to ensure that the "minimal usage" requirement of NFCC is not ignored, as Masem as explained to you above.
So far, you have not provided a single policy or guideline that supports your side of the argument, despite the other side having already supplied several, such as VGBOX and NFCC, which supports theirs. Instead, your side tries to find loopholes around them, such as "we know VGBOX discourages this, but let's do it anyway!" If you choose to respond, please provide a Wikipedia guideline or policy which explicitly supports your side of the argument. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple box arts on Pokémon Black and White and there has been for years. NFCC is the policy that supports multiple identifying art for multiple subjects, I'm not sure how much clearer you need that to be. - hahnchen 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Other stuff exists isn't an argument, but for the specific case of the Pokemon (1)/(2) paired games, the idea is that neither title is the landmark one (they are meant to be equal) so to put one box cover over the other is impossible to do. On the other hand, with Smash here, the Wii U version is clearly the flagship title, not that the 3ds one isn't as important, but clearly less important than the Wii U version, so we can make a selection as to one or the other. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the argument was the second sentence, the first was a refutation. Your "which is more important" argument is off topic. - hahnchen 21:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I dunno where you pulled "NFCC is the policy that supports multiple identifying art for multiple subjects" from, especially when the page makes clear that a "minimal number of items" must be used (there is also absolutely no reason to treat them as "multiple subjects", especially since all other video games on multiple platforms are treated as one subject). VGBOX strongly discourages multiple boxart in the same infobox, as I've explained numerous times, and saying "let's ignore it" to a guideline, as you have done, is not appropriate. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


:As for Pokemon B/W, I wholeheartedly disagree with using the cover for B2/W2 in there. It won't be an issue once it's split out, but presently, there is a main subject, B/W. B2/W2 is a part of the article only because it's not yet notable enough to not be. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

B/W2 is clearly notable enough for its own article, and it has been since probably before its release. Just because it isn't in its own article doesn't mean it shouldn't have identifying art. We judge the requirement for identifying artwork on the subject, not where that subject sits. - hahnchen 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but for the record I was talking about B/W, not B2/W2. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

So what is the outcome of this? Both images are still present. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To me, it looks like there's reasons why we could allow both, but not really any saying that we should keep them both. NFC and precedent (Pokemon and Sonic games, for example) are against it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
A stronger precedent is Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons, which are two explicitly different games with only one cover. I don't see any real discussion over the second cover's design, so I don't really see why it needs to be in the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Two explicitly different games should have two explicitly different covers. Neither cover may be discussed, but a notable subject justifies identifying artwork. - hahnchen 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a limit as to how many games can be the primary subject of an article before there are too many covers? Or do you feel that if Smash 4 had 10 different versions that were equal, we should have 10 game covers?
The problem with your logic is that if Smash Wii U was notable enough to need its own identifying cover, it would need its own article too. I mean, let's take Super Mario Advance for instance. SMA is a notable game - a launch title for the Game Boy Advance and the progenitor of a series of games - but it is not notable enough to need its own cover. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If there is not a clear agreement on having both, I'll remove 3DS by default since NFCC's is quite strict.
This is just a case of a home console game that has a handheld counterpart with or without other counterpart(s) released elsewhere. These counterparts would benefit the most having their exclusive contents described in text. If these counterparts have such stark differences from the home console version to the point of critical commentary, then consider adding another gameplay image reflecting that commentary. Writing up a fair-use rationale for that is more solid than additional cover art. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
NFCC isn't so strict that it disallows the use of multiple identifying artwork, which is why I dislike how it's thrown about as a trump card. The issue is whether the two products are different enough to justify two identifying artworks. I'm fine with how the article currently is, but I'd defer decision to the editors who have contributed content to the article, not just the NFCC gnomes. If you go with one image, I suggest the current 3DS lead. - hahnchen 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Black Ops III[edit]

Activision just confirmed Call of Duty: Black Ops III. I have created the page with reference to the now confirmation article. But this page is destined to be a source of vandalism for the next few days, so any help keeping an eye on it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Chambr (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the case where this should be a redirect to the main Call of Duty series page until more details beyond the existence of trailers and release date should be done. (E3 is coming, the same thing needs to be kept in mind). It helps to reduce vandalism doing it that way .--MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In the past, Call of Duty articles have been started right at initial announcement, I think mainly due to Activision always progressively releasing new information right after the announcement, like they have already started doing for this. Not to mention, if the article is left as a redirect, then every single editor or IP that hears about it will just try and create the article anyway. Chambr (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to note, IPs can't create articles. They can only edit (unless by create, you meant edit the redirect article). --JDC808 20:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Most IPs and lots of casual editors don't even know you can edit redirects. Redirects are so effective that in many cases (and this is a negative), they actually kill what would be better off as a standalone article. In this case though, the redirect is better, it'll only last until the 26th. - hahnchen 20:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Chambr (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't agree. I think there's enough to start at least a stub. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 03:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Until there is consensus, it needs to be left as it was, a redirect. Chambr (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I would say the opposite, because there was no consensus to redirect in the first place, but that's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, the game is confirmed, the article in it's last state had not one, not two, but three reliable sources. And there are further sources, like this one, that can add to the article to extend it and add more information. A redirect in this case is detrimental to the wiki. As for precedent, which I personally always look to for established patterns, Advanced Warfare's article existed, without redirect, with not much more information that we have now, especially when you consider the supplied PC Gamer source. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 08:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sandbox your edits and then copy it over, just wait until the 26th --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? That nice, long, thought out comment and that's what I get? Not one concern/point addressed? Wow. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 11:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
CRRaysHead90, I would recommend using a more friendly and civil tone when dealing with disagreements, as stated at WP:FIVEPILLARS. BlookerG talk 11:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • there was no consensus to redirect in the first place

    Every other person who has weighed in contributed to the consensus to redirect. That's very clear. It's normal to redirect to the series article until the official unveil and subsequent substantial coverage. czar  11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@BlookerG: I was not uncivil, I was simply using my brand of humor to relay that I'm astonished that I made an argument and got brushed off. But it's easy to mistake the intentions if you don't know me, I understand. @Czar: The fact of the matter is that a binding consensus has never been formed in less than an hour, because it doesn't give everyone a chance to comment. Now I would like to point back to my second comment on this thread for the rest of my argument. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We have a title and an announcement for the upcoming reveal. It's a 2 line article with nothing more to expand on. It's also not detrimental seeing as the redirect destination Call of Duty#Call of Duty: Black Ops III covers everything in the proposed article. So for now, I would agree with keeping it a redirect. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We also have a general description of the game and know some of the consoles it will be on thanks to the provided PC Gamer article. There's plenty here to start a stand alone article. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't know which platforms specifically. Source just says "next-gen hardware". That is ambiguous and I don't think we should be making (seemingly obvious) assumptions on which platforms they are referring to if we can't verify it. The premise and description of the game we have so far is just a vague marketing statement that is covered in a single sentence. I don't see any harm in waiting until there is more concrete info. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This page receives a fair amount of traffic and it is textbook procedure to redirect vg titles until there are several different references about the game. With the dearth of material right now and likely until the official reveal, it's fine to build the article at the series article (summary style) and it can expand from there. I don't think further discussion on this matter will be fruitful. Plenty of other things to work on. czar  01:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So we're going to ignore the source provided and the snapchat videos, not to mention the fact that we can build a pretty decent pre-reveal article for a change, because you have established norms? Seems very anti-policy/guidelines to me. And I wholeheartedly don't agree. Never before has Activision done a reveal for a Call of Duty game this way. Never. We need to adapt. The article as it would stand today would easily pass WP:N and WP:GNG. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia , not a vg news site, and especially for a game like Black Ops III, an article with minimal information attracts speculation against WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL like flies. If we can't write a fair comprehensive article that is more than just release date and platforms, we shouldn't have an article yet particularly on a series that has year to year iterations with little change in each one. Contrast the little we know about Black Ops III to what Activision did for Guitar Hero Live - massive press coverage, articles covering the details of the new changes and the approach they took, etc. That's the type of information we really want when we are starting a new article so that we start off comprehensive and build from there. --MASEM (t) 12:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please read WP:TOOSOON - situations like this are basically why it was written. Take it easy, surely they'll be doing a huge blowout on it soon, at the latest by E3 which is just months away, and then it'll definitely have any article. If you're really that antsy, just build up the info at the series article, or the draft space. (Perhaps people seeing that could even persuade naysayers.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Break[edit]

There are now two teasers, 14 snapchat teasers, sources about how Deus Ex-like the game is. There is more than enough for a standalone article here 24 hours before the reveal. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 23:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the rush? It's 24 hours. Tomorrow you'll have a wealth of more details and higher quality sources to use. -- ferret (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The point is that we have confirmed information now, and enough to start an article. But fine, we'll wait another 16 hours. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 02:40, 26 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)

Calling all self-appointed experts[edit]

I'm making my way through Category:Video games articles needing expert attention (cleaning up each as best as I can and removing the tag) if anyone wants to join me. Count started around 85. Once it gets to zero, maybe we can discuss retiring it? czar  23:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

To bring some focus back to this section (since Czar's managed to get it down to 53 from 85 by himself!), I agree that the category should be retired. It's not clear how it's distinct from "articles that need attention", its sister category, for one thing. For a second, I don't know if either category should exist- any article that's less than, say, B-class "needs attention", so why are the articles in this category(s) special? Is it just that we don't have an easy way for editors to ask for help on an article (in which case it's failing, no one checks these categories before now), or are the cats added by driveby taggers who just want someone else who supposedly knows more to fix the problems they noticed, rather than people invested in the article? --PresN 18:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gran Turismo and Forza vandalism[edit]

There's an IP user that seems to disagree with Gran Turismo and Forza being described as simulators, they are changing simulator to game in the prose, and moving the category from simulator to game. Keep your eyes open for it happening on any other articles. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you check the sim racing page you will see that both games don't fit the description. Maybe there should be a new category simcade which is popular term in the racing video games communities. I might not be answering properly here but bear with me I'm a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UglyTroll (talkcontribs) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
They fit the definition on Sim racing perfectly ("...attempts to accurately simulate auto racing (a racing video game), complete with real-world variables such as fuel usage, damage, tire wear and grip, and suspension settings"), and Gran Turismo is even listed as an example. - X201 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, both titles are pretty much the exact definition of simulation racing. How much more realistic do we need it to make it be a sim? Super complicated special controllers akin to Steel Battalion? Making new terms is not an option here either - Wikipedia documents what is already in existence, it does not coin new terms or phrases. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You are using "perfectly" way too lightly. The fit would be perfect to a simcade category as these games are far from realistic or acurate. racing game is still a correct category as sim racing is a subset.--UglyTroll (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, "racing simulators" are a proper subset of "racing game", specifically focused on a game that attempts a level of realism w.r.t. driving and physics. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm positive that reliable sources much more commonly call them sim racing than "simcade", which Wikipedia doesn't even recognized as a game genre, nor does anyone outside of a few random forum posts which would not be usable as a source. Wikipedia has to go according to what sources say. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
On the same page, the games in question are listed as Semi-simulation. I think moving them to the more general "racing video game" category is valid. --UglyTroll (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Articles can't be used as sources for other articles. Similarly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As Sergecross correctly stated, the gaming press refers to these games as simulators, which makes them independent and reliable sources. Personal opinions and observations should not enter into this. --McDoobAU93 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Simcade is a relatively new term but here are some sources using it: I think isrtv invented it but not sure.

truepcgaming.com

expertreviews.co.uk

You will mostly see it used by reviewers dedicated to sim racing which are less popular than the mainstream ones.--UglyTroll (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Also interesting to note that none of these sources places either Gran Turismo or Forza Motorsport in those categories. Only one even uses the term Gran Turismo, and it's only in the sense that the reviewer wanted something similar to what was in GT. The clear majority of reviewers of both games refer to them as simulation racers. --McDoobAU93 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an appeal to popularity fallacy. And the question isn't whether the titles are in this category, the question is whether the category exists. --UglyTroll (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Category exists, no question of it. Provide a source that places GT or Forza in these categories and the discussion can continue. --McDoobAU93 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Not the same word and the site is currently down

racesimcentral screenshot However despite having sources, we can't pick an authority between them. So I think we should first get a proper description for the new category and then check which titles fit it.--UglyTroll (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I really think you should slow down and try to learn more about how Wikipedia works before you go about trying to revamp things. Your suggestions so far don't really mesh well with policy. Like I said, on Wikipedia, we write according to what reliable sources say. See WP:V and WP:RS on what that means, and see WP:VG/S for a huge list of websites that are generally considered usable or not usable. Also, make sure to stay clear of original research - we need to go by what the sources say, not what we can synthesize with our own personal conclusions. You may better persuade people once you can formulate a plan that gels better with these sorts of things... Sergecross73 msg me 12:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Fan-sites don't rise to WP:RS standards, and this appears to be a fan-site for racing games. They have their hierarchy for such games, while another fan-site may have a hierarchy that places GT and Forza in the simulation category. Neither qualify as sources, as Serge points out. --McDoobAU93 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there is no reliable source then? If all majority and significant minority views have to be covered it won't fall in any subcategory and we are back to square one.--UglyTroll (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it took me all of 30 seconds to find a reliable source for Gran Turismo being referred to as a racing simulation - see this IGN source. Also, while not directly stated literally, its pretty apparent by this GameSpot article that they consider GT a simulation racer, or the premise of the entire article doesn't make sense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
They don't cover minority views.--UglyTroll (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. And as such, neither does Wikipedia (when policy is being followed.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
From Identifying_reliable_sources "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" I don't see what makes IGN reliable and sites dedicated to sim racing unreliable.--UglyTroll (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:SOURCE "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." - X201 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment of the Sources Idea[edit]

I was originally thinking of putting this in the Sources talk page, but I wanted to run this idea through here since it'll probably get more discussion here. Now, I've been thinking about how there are a lot of sources that are used on multiple articles that are part of this project. They have either been deemed Reliable, Situational, Unreliable, or just have no consensus on what they should be marked as. A couple of these decisions were made years ago, which makes me wonder if their reliability status has changed over the years. What I'm suggesting is possibly reassessing sources to see if they still hold up on being reliable or maybe deem a site as not being unreliable anymore. Thoughts? GamerPro64 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of me says anything that would make us more accurate with our stances on sources would be a good thing, but part of me says - "If it ain broke, don't fix it" - no use reviewing non-conentious things when there's so many things out there to be done that do need attention. I don't really want to, but I know that, if it happened, I'd be there giving my two cents on the matter too probably. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There may be date issues to this. "Don't use prior to 2015 but OK after" etc. - X201 (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would think that we can do this by current mechanisms. If anyone finds a preponderance of evidence that a site is no longer reliable or unreliable (or never was in the first place), they should bring it to the Sources talk page for discussion and reconsideration. czar  16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, unless there is evidence that a significant number of sources are mislabled I don't see why the current system would not work.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Super Mario Land for Virtual Boy[edit]

Digging through the archives, I saw some Internet forum rumors of a "Super Mario Land" sequel for Virtual Boy that was canceled in development. Do any WPVG super sleuths know anything about it, or better, have some reference I can use? It would even be good to know if it was related to the Wario Land VB game. czar  14:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

VB Mario Land was shown at WCES 1995. Here's the footage, and information pages at MarioWiki and PlanetVB. TMK also has a short blurb on the topic, and a few screenshots from three different MP issues -- tracking these issues down is sure to provide a lot more information! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
List of Virtual Boy games (where VB Mario Land redirects) makes mention of a "Mario Adventure" unreleased platformer game, referencing the July-August 2000 issue of Big N Magazine (see here?) -- it's not clear if this is the same unreleased game, but surely the magazine issue must have more information. I can't view it from work, though. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I know what you're talking about, but my knowledge is basically limited to about what Salv has already provided. I looked into trying to start an article on it a ways back, but I couldn't find enough coverage to personally feel comfortable with creating it and being able to not have it be sent to AFD or a redirect discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been mulling over some sort of a "merge" of the few unreleased Mario games about which we know enough to talk about, but for which a "full article" is doomed to remain stalled -- Super Mario 128 and Super Mario's Wacky Worlds are the currently standalone ones, but there's surely a bunch of others that are already discussed inside other articles or lists.
Alternatively, since (by some accounts), VB Mario Land eventually mutated into Mario Clash, maybe it could be discussed in its own section there. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I tried that angle back in the day when I was writing it with you, actually, but it seems like I was having a hard time finding a RS speculating that. Could be wrong though, it's been a while. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There's already a small mention of Mario Clash originally being a sequel titled Mario Bros. VB, sourced to EGM's January 1995 issue. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
ONM connects the two.[1] I'm not completely clear on how list notability works (or how a List of unreleased Mario games article would go down—I would think that it isn't worth making a list unless there were articles written about "unreleased Mario games"), but I'm thinking to gather all RS that mention VB Mario Land and Wacky Worlds and just giving them two-sentence mentions apiece in the Super Mario series article. I think that's fair. There appears to be a ton more coverage for 128, so any unreleased Mario game list would be really heavy on 128 coverage. For my original question, though, there doesn't appear to be any apparent connection between the Super Mario Land series and the VB game. czar  16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The current state of shmup articles[edit]

For the past few days, I've been improving and trying to standardize the format of shmup game pages. I started with most of the games by Cave and I noticed some glaring issues. Most articles are either:

If there is one constant however, is that almost all articles are borderline unreferenced. Even if I wanted to, I can’t do all of the sourcing by myself, which is why I’ve reached out to you to see if you would be interested in helping out in this task. This is definitely where the most help is needed. Here are some websites that provide a very good source of validation for most of what’s already written are:

As a side note, it would be ideal to at least have a paragraph in the key sections of the weaker articles for gameplay (specifically scoring) and releases (arcade, console, etc). The same criteria applies to company pages. I’ve already done a fair cleanup for the pages of Cave, MOSS, Triangle Service, Milestone, and G.Rev. Unfortunately, a fair share of this genre’s titles aren’t released overseas and sometimes are even region-locked. It would be a very good resource if it could be stated on each company page which games are available in all regions, have regional locks, etc.

Finally, the other resource I wanted to start creating was a list containing all shmup developers, similar to the existing list for fighting game companies. Unlike other genres, there aren’t many developers around who produce these kinds of games anymore. It could be a valuable source for newcomers to the genre. Thanks for taking the time to read this! Jotamide (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bloodborne[edit]

There is a discussion about Bloodborne going on here and here. Feel free to take part. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Silent Hills Cancelled? Pt. 2[edit]

Well I didn't expect to make another one of these threads so quickly but it seems that Silent Hills may or may not be cancelled this time. It's really hard to tell since, While even Guillermo del Toro said it is, Konami itself has not made a statement just yet. Can we get some more eyes on this page? GamerPro64 03:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Konami has not stated if the game has been canceled. People are just assuming because del Toro isn't apart of the project anymore, the entire game must have been canceled. I'd be reverting all the recent edits, but everything is too ambiguous currently, so I'll simply wait until the dust settles before attempting to fix the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Update - It's officially canceled now. GamerPro64 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Citation needed  ;-) - X201 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I organize a development section properly?[edit]

So I started reading the dev blog for Thimbleweed Park, and realized that almost the entire development process, including a lot of detail about the budget, etc, is documented so far. I've never actually experienced that before (Broken Age comes close, though), so I'm kind of at a loss at how to organize all this information in the article. Do I do it entirely chronologically, and if so, would I make use of sub-sections such as "January 2016"? Or do I have one section about everything design related, then one about everything programming related, etc.? Are there any other games with heavily documented development processes, whose articles I could look at? --IDVtalk 07:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming/Early Access?[edit]

I was thinking about this when I looked at the page for Killing Floor 2 and it said upcoming. Since it is out for Steam early access, should it say early access instead? Has this issue been ever discussed? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I reworded it. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Remove eSports talk page redirect[edit]

Currently the eSport Task force Talk page was redirected here by @Entropy: and at the moment there are some points that need to get discussed and this talk page is already very busy. Are there any Objections to this action? CC:@Prisencolinensinainciusol, Valoem, and ImRespawn: --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The talk page was redirected as of This task force cleanup discussion last May, where it was decided to redirect all the talk pages (since so little discussion happened that didn't need a wider audience) except for Nintendo, Sega, and Visual Novels (though that one because it overlapped with the Anime project). If you guys think that you'll actually have a lot of dicussion, not just a section a week or two, then I'm fine with it; I have been seeing a lot of article activity in the eSports space (mainly because you don't rate your articles, so they pop up in the unassessed queue. Grr.) so I imagine you may have some discussions to have. --PresN 20:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If discussion is what you want, you're much more likely to get on this page than on a quiet subpage. That's the rationale. czar  20:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@PresN: I've avoided grading because I'd rather have more experienced eyes on it. I've been thankful for your grading, and to be honest this is the best project I've seen based on Unassessed/Ungraded Article being none most of the time--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Czar: I'm not concerned with eyes on discussion, I'm concerned with the fact that this talk page is stuck to the top of my 600 page watchlist and there is so much discussion smaller points get flooded out IE I'm looking for a more concentrated discussion rather than eyes --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It's easier to grade when it's easy to maintain and not hopelessly backlogged. You should be concerned with eyes on discussion—it's the only reason to have a talk page. If no one discusses changes, it's a poor place to form consensus. Considering the amount of redlinks and non-notable articles going up in the eSports space (e.g., {{Competitive Super Smash Bros.}}, {{Professional League of Legends competition}}, {{Professional Dota 2 competition}}, {{Professional Counter-Strike competition}}), I think it pays to have as many willing eyeballs as possible. czar  22:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Czar: What's wrong with templates those are the largest esports game currently, I disagree that the red links are not notable, articles should be made on some if not most of them. I personally wouldn't have done it that way, I would have made the articles first then add to the template, but Prisencolinensinainciusol has shown a willingness to do the work so I would give it sometime. Valoem talk contrib 23:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We'll know that those redlinks are notable when someone procures reliable, secondary sources for each. Most of the redlinks in the templates above will not have sufficient sourcing. It's a big waste of our time to make non-notable articles and then bring them to AfD instead of only making articles for which there is secondary source coverage. Furthermore, if eSports editors really want to make an article but can't find the sourcing, it makes more sense to ask here for help first. Just a little common sense. czar  00:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree, maybe New Age Retro Hippie can help. I think we need articles on Professional League of Legends competition, Professional Counter-Strike competition, and Professional Dota 2 competition which has the highest payout right now I believe. Valoem talk contrib 00:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see the need for esports to have its own talk page, seeing as there at most five users who regularily edit such articles. I'd imagine any discussions alternatively could be held at Article Talk pages for the time being, unless you guys think otherwise. However this is something that will definitely change in the short term future as esports grows in popularity.Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Electronic sports games moved to Category:Esports games[edit]

So Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk · contribs) has made this category move along with a dozen other esports related categories. Is this move appropriate? Per WP:CATNAME it says to avoid abbreviation and that topic categories names should correspond to their article name which in this case is Electronic sports, not Esports. He/she says that the term "electronic sports" in full has fallen out of usage but has not requested the Electronic sports article be moved yet. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the move per WP:CATNAME, but he is right that esports appears to be the preferred term now. Valoem talk contrib 00:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I could see an argument being made for the widespread use of "Esports", but the cat name must follow the article's name. Move the cat back or propose a rename for the article. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  01:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
They've requested article move at WP:RMT so this shouldn't be an issue once that's carried out. --The1337gamer (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Official "knows stuff about lists" position[edit]

This past week I was appointed one of the three FLC delegates, which means mainly that I close FLCs and FLRCs; more useful for WP:VG it means that if anyone has any questions at any point about lists, featured lists, or the featured list process, I'm not only knowledgeable but certified! Feel free to bug me any time. --PresN 17:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

wat iz list Salvidumbass! (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
list iz tabuls. chairs optionul. --PresN 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Only a Featured List delegate? Shameful. GamerPro64 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Last I checked, you were only a delegate yourself, mister! And Lists is an older, more established project than your upstart "topics". --PresN 22:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate Templates, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sidebar and Template:WPVG_sidebar[edit]

I just want to bring to attention we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sidebar and Template:WPVG_sidebar as duplicates. I'll tidy it up, but want to know wich direction --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Transcluded for now, avoiding doing an edit sweep until I've audited the WP:VG project pages --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Are the individual Beatmania IIDX and (Music of) Dance Dance Revolution articles for the newer arcades excessive?[edit]

As a quick sample, look at IIDX 20/21/22 and DDR X (music)/X2/X3/2013 (music). Recently these two franchises has dropped a lot in full coverage than its newer and more active sister games like jubeat, usually only having reposted press release of (links with IIDX20) location test and in service data announcements, but still punctually have articles made for each new installment (which [spoiler alert] is just a fancy version update on the same cabinet now), and then slops down to excessive and badly sourced gameplay details and song lists. While the series has been and will continue to be notable (WP:TEMPORARY), there is no good evidence to continue supporting new individual articles be made for each installment (WP:NOT INHERITED).

Gonna consult the good people here to see if there's any best course for action, before nominating bold mergers or AfDs. Seriously though, this will mean 30+ articles be merger-nominated/AfDed in the Bemani topic, so if there are simpler ways to save a few hundred clicks and types it is greatly appreciated. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of information on those pages, and a good chunk of it would likely be beyond the lines of encyclopedic. Are there any existing off-site wikis specialising in the series that the giant tables and other content can be moved to? We could have one article which contains short summaries (i.e. no niche details, at least a few basic paragraphs with good citations) of each iteration of the games, with the page separated into sections for each iteration, and then redirect all the individual pages (IIDX20, IIDX21, etc) to that page. You can redirect a bunch of pages based on any discussion-based consensus, it doesn't necessarily have to be an AfD. --benlisquareTCE 09:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a recommendation of what I personally might do:
  • For each IIDX page:
  • Ignore the "Unlocking System" and "Music" sections, they're too niche for such a broad encyclopedia project
  • Summarise the lead paragraph and "Gameplay" section into somewhere between 150-400 words, and find a few reliable sources to cite. Focus on what new features that the new iteration brings, and what makes it unique. This will be the summary intended to be kept, with everything else on the page to be eventually discarded.
  • Either create a new section at the Beatmania IIDX article called "Iterations" (or just use the existing "Releases" section), and move all of the 150-400 word summaries of each game that you just created over there, separated by third-level section headings. Alternatively, create a new page that will act as a dedicated single page for all of the iterations, if you want to leave the Beatmania IIDX article as a basic summary page for the entire series.
  • Finally, redirect all of the IIDX pages (i.e. 20, 21, etc) to Beatmania IIDX#Releases or wherever you moved all the summaries to, by replacing the content with #REDIRECT [[...]]. Redirection is preferable to outright deletion, as it preserves attribution, in line with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license that Wikipedia uses.
  • For each DDR page:
  • Ignore the "Characters", "Extra Stage", "Music", "Course", and other niche sections.
  • Summarise the lead paragraph, "Development" section, and the bare essentials of the "Features" section, and add citations.
  • Repeat the same with IIDX, merging the smaller summaries on one page, and redirecting all the pages to that one page.
In the end you should get something similar to this:
Of course, someone else might have a better idea, this is just a quick brainstorm. --benlisquareTCE 10:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think this can be even simpler. I saw that these articles were in bad shape with the recent DDR Extreme 2 or whatever it was AfD. If you're worried about the work going to waste, you can import to http://dancedancerevolutionddr.wikia.com/ or http://dancedancerevolution.wikia.com/ (first one looks more robust) and remember to preserve attribution in your edit summary. I would then merge all articles without secondary sourcing here to a list article (List of Dance Dance Revolution games or something of the sort) and recommend using one of the list templates that lets you add bullet points beneath each. Any major point of difference about the game can be included there. As for the music pages, if there are no secondary sources that discuss the music release, then there is no reason to keep it (WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Redirect those too or import to Wikia. Once we have agreement, I could help with some of this. czar  11:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015's TFA[edit]

We have two Featured Articles that will appear on the main page this month. On the fourth we have Secret of Mana. And on the twelfth, Batman: Arkham Asylum. Congrats to the editors who got the articles to what they are now. GamerPro64 15:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't know who those editors are, though. It's a secret. (Darkwarriorblake did Batman: Arkham Asylum - congrats to him!) --PresN 17:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Japanese sales figures[edit]

So, apparently every year Famitsu publishes the Famitsu Game White Paper book, which details how the Japanese game industry is doing. ~400 pages of analysis of the gaming industry, complete with ("estimated", but somehow out to the individual unit) sales breakdowns in Japan of the top 500 games of the year, both in total and amount sold that year. During the course of the year they publish weekly sales figures, but the book at the end gives the final counts. Here's the 2007 edition. "But PresN", I hear you saying, "I'm not so sure about spending 30,000-33,000 yen (~$250-$280), or 36,000 yen if I want the physical book, plus shipping, just to get a long treatise that I probably can't read. If only some enterprising Japanese man would buy it for me, and put just the sales data into a webpage, perhaps with sortable columns."

Well, person-who-can-talk-through-the-internet, your brief prayers have been answered, even before you knew you had them. Because geimin.net does exactly that, covering the 1996-2014 versions of the book, and the 2015 weekly numbers. They claim to have permission to do so, sales numbers only. Are you comfortable trusting their transcription of a book you'd have to spend hundreds to verify? You'll have to look inside your own soul to answer that question. All I can do is show you the door. And tell you that the reference would look like this for the 2007 edition (covering 2006 sales): <ref name="EBsales">{{Cite book |title=Famitsū Gēmu Hakusho 2007 |publisher=[[Enterbrain]] |year=2007 |isbn=978-4-7577-3577-4 |location=Tokyo |page=387 |id={{NDL|21240454}} |language=Japanese |script-title=ja:ファミ通ゲーム白書2007 |trans-title=Famitsu Game Whitebook 2007 |chapter=2006年ゲームソフト年間売上TOP500 |trans-chapter=2006 Game Software Annual Sales Top 500 |url=http://geimin.net/da/db/2006_ne_fa/index.php}}</ref>. Anything else is up to you. --PresN 21:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: I did verify that the (2006) numbers matched up with other references talking about 2006 Famitsu sales data in a few articles. --PresN 21:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This is an incredible resource. Great find—could be a minor revolution for Japanese VG articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it is useful. I've been using it for a few months where applicable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

esport players[edit]

There seems to be lots of Category:eSports players pages now, but they've been created by fans so have very few good sources. It's difficult to tell if they meet WP:GNG. Maybe get something up on WP:VGSCOPE?--Vaypertrail (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this would make sense. A spot check of a couple shows a lot just sourced to primary esport coverage (eg not something like IGN) or youtube replays of matches or events. We need these players discussed at length in our reliable sourcing. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This was my concern above (#Remove eSports talk page redirect). Anyway, VGSCOPE #1 covers it—those individual player articles should not be created unless they have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. This isn't Wikia. Burden is on the creator to show that each is notable, otherwise they're just making a mess. czar  01:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Basically, the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Moby Games getting rid of watermarks[edit]

As a note, it looks like Moby Games is removing the watermarks they had for game covers and screens. This might help for those working on older games for sources for these. (Remember that they remain non-free images in general, just that hopefully less searching now). --MASEM (t) 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Looks like it might take a while, though. But still will help out the articles a lot. Link GamerPro64 00:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Kileak: The DNA Imperative[edit]

I created the article recently with sources I found. Feel free to take a look on it. -- Hounder4 01:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Good work. I submitted it to DYK. There's a further review available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Next Generation Magazine. - hahnchen 12:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)