Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Archives
Threads are archived after nine days.
Guidelines
Manual of Style talk
  Article naming talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
  Online print archive
  Website archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles

viewtalkeditchanges

Xbox 360 WP:Listcruft[edit]

Games - With 3D support - Kinect - Backward-compatible - Downloadable - Arcade - Arcade Kinect - Xbox Originals

I've been sitting here for a while kinda realizing the number of lists we have for Xbox 360 games have gone overboard. I'm proposing we cut it down and in my extreme opinion it can be reduced to exactly two lists. Let's talk about what we can do with each list.

  • Games: Obviously we don't get rid of this one. (I refer to this as master)
  • With 3D Support: AFD, or merge it's information with the master game list.
  • Kinect: Merge/Tag it in the master list.
  • Backwards compatible: We keep this one.
  • Downloadable: Merge/Tag it in the master list.
  • Arcade: What is the functional difference that this needs it's own list? AFD.
  • Arcade Kinect: See previous answer.
  • Xbox Originals: So isn't this just the BC list but they're available for download? Merge/Tag with BC list.

There are eight lists. With what we're doing with the Xbox One master list I think we can reduce this by a lot. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree with all above points. Lordtobi () 15:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A quick scan shows that the Arcade list is specifically titles that could only be downloaded (never had a formal physical release), whereas the main Games list is for those that had retail releases (but might have also been purchased as a download). I am not 100% sure if these can be combined, but there is cruft on the Arcade list (price?!) that can be removed. I do agree no special callout is needed for Kinect games on either, that can be a column or something in the main table. Otherwise agree on all points. --Masem (t) 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    Should we really differentiate between non-retail and retail games through lists? That does not aid the reader at all, even one table with an extra column "retail release" would make more sense there. Lordtobi () 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    We can use a tag system like we do with the XOne list (referred to as addons) for these minor items. How's that? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the bullet-points made by Zero Serenity. I think we should do the same with the ridiculously excessive PS3 themed lists as well. (Wow some people really got out of hand with these 7th gen lists, eh?) Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. There shouldn't be eight separate articles for basically the same topic. Zoom (talk page) 16:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly I don't see a reason for any of the other lists besides the master one. Stuff like Kinect features, backwards compatible, etc. can all be a field in the main list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • These and the PlayStation 3 ones need consolidated, in the style of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 lists. I think @Blue Pumpkin Pie: may be planning to look into PS3 soon. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm looking into how to tackle this huge list. I think I can manage to do it but i don't have a lot of time. I'm only on for a few hours a day and only on weekdays. If someone can do it faster than me, that'll be perfect. TLDR: I'm slow.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Merging the list together would be easy, it's the sorting that would be an issue. Howver, we undertook a similar task over at List of Atlus games, where @TheLegendaryN: found a way to sort by date after merging List of Atlus downloadable games. In this case, we'd just sort by game title instead, and manually clean up any remaining issues (which wasn't much on the Atlus page). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I wrote a small script myself, put the whole table in a file and converted that. I later edited the script from platform to date, which was a bit stupid of me, so I need to partially rewrite it. But that should be done within a day. However, I'm very busy this and next week, so hopefully I can do it this weekend; otherwise it'll be the next one... TheLegendaryN (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
          • No rush, it would be the final thing that has to be done, I still need to merge more. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Cool, I'm happy it's not the highest priority. I hope I can have it ready within 2 weeks. Please notify me when you need it. :) TheLegendaryN (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we also merge List of PlayStation VR games with the List of PlayStation 4 games master list? We could add another "add-on" description for "VR required". We merged the List of Kinect Games with the 360 master list, so maybe this would be fine also? Mordecairule 17:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Consensus[edit]

Seven votes yes (including myself) over about 3 hours indicates overwhelming consensus to me. I'll attach the major edit tag and get going with this. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Do PS3 when you're done with Xbox 360 :P -- ferret (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I can try doing the PS3 one on my sandbox. Per my response above, I believe we have a script/bot that could sort them by name all once together, which is the part that would take forever if done manually. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh I didn't know that there was such a thing. In that case it may be easier. if you want to start the draft, that will be cool.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I merged List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc and List of download-only PlayStation 3 games, should any others be included? But as of right now, the (massive) combined list is now live on my sandbox page. It now needs to be sorted by title, so then all the redundant games (which is basically most of the list) would be grouped and easily removed with VisualEditor. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: See Lists of PlayStation 3 games. 3D, Move and Now should probably be merged. Then also List of PlayStation 2 Classics for PlayStation 3... Lists of downloadable PlayStation 3 games should be nuked as well, unnecessary disamb-ish page. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
For 3D, Move, and Now, would they just be dumped into the list? Or kept as a separate section like I have the canceled games? If they go into the primary list, they would need some sort of indication of their uniqueness, meaning a new column basically. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I would add a new column and legend, mimicking what List of Xbox One games and List of PlayStation 4 games do. A column with a few keys is better than separate nearly redundant lists by far. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I can get started on adding the icons to the lists so they can be added with ease, although we would need a new column on the main list for this to happen. VisualEditor can do that, right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes it can insert columns. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
A brief interjection- for lists to meet WP:ACCESS requirements (aka be parseable by non-visual browsers for people with limited sight or be understood by colorblind people) lists shouldn't differentiate things by color alone. I noted in passing that the "kinect-enabled/kinect-only" tags are both just 'K', with a colored border or not; consider, when making these tags for these new combined lists, using different letters instead of just different colors. --PresN 21:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, luckily the three keys would all begin with different letters, so it shouldn't be an issue. We could also change the Kinect keys to read KE and KO still. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I support this however with the X360 Backward-compatible list it needs a major overall and should look similar to XOne backward-compatible list. All the extra columns like NTSC (NA), NTSC (JP), PAL 50hz & 60Hz & Widescreen are WP:OR as Microsoft never went into that much detail. (Official list from Microsoft) Also the Notes column is the same that was on the old List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 that was deleted. It was noted in its deletion discussion that the columns (that listed bugs on PS3 from Sony's old database) were original research. Again, Microsoft never released that much detail on how each game performs on Xbox 360 unlike Sony who maintained a database what bugs were present in PS2 games on PS3 until they revamped their website. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I have four PS3 lists merged now. I'll manually add the Now tags once we clean up the current list. Pinging @TheLegendaryN: to be made aware. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I started to merge the List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 and List of Xbox Originals at my sandbox. I have already fixed the tables and removed unsourced information from them. I'm in the process of trying to find sources for other information from the article that was not in the table or re-write that top part completely. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: got the list sorted (with a script?), now it just needs a cleanup with all the redundant games removed + Now tags for Now-supported games, and it should be finished. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Look down a bit. I just ran the merge program I made with nothing to merge with so it just sorted itself. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Oops, missed that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Progress[edit]

  • With 3D Support: Merged. -Zero Serenity
  • Kinect: Merged. -Zero Serenity
  • Downloadable: Merged. -Zero Serenity
  • Arcade: Merged. -Zero Serenity
  • Arcade Kinect: Merged with Arcade to make the next step easier. -Zero Serenity
Great work on this so far. -- ferret (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wii / Wii U lists[edit]

Almost all of these lists are prime candidates for merger using the now semi-standardized format from the 8th Gen lists, with legend/keys for features.

Additionally...

If someone who enjoys list work is bored. :) -- ferret (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Largely agree that most of these need to be merged or deleted. I think the List of video games using Miis can be kept though. That ones already been merged several times over - there used to be one for each platform (List of Wii games with Miis, 3DS, Wii U, etc) and I think its a subject separate to most of these game lists. I also think the bare list of "List of Wii games on Wii U eShop" could have grounds for keeping, since the various Lists of PS one Classics, List of PlayStation 2 games for PlayStation 4 etc have also historically made the cut - they're not the trivial "are they download or physical" lists, but rather a different class of game compatibility for a platform. (I'm just noticing that there are 3 separate PS1 classics articles based on region though - they should be merged into one.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Completion and the Merger Tool[edit]

Seeing this amount of work as utterly impossible for a human to do with a reasonable amount of time, I instead created a C# program to do it for me. As you can see, the results are pretty spectacular: List of Xbox 360 games

Features:

  • Takes any number of wiki lists with the same column number (or different!) and merges them to a single list.
  • Automatic alphabetical order, even if given a "hidden" name is given.
  • Finishes inside a second.

I am so excited to share this with you...tonight. This will save us so much trouble and time. To prepare, set up lists to use identical columns. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: Great job. Found one more 360 list to look at: List of Xbox 360 System Link games. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I say we add-on tag for these. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep that was my thought. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This is done! Most were already there. I added tags to ones that were missing. Mordecairule 18:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I've been off working and haven't uploaded the tool yet, but should be able to button it up this weekend. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Here it is. Should make those Wii lists much easier. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Separate F2P list[edit]

Related to the whole List Cruft above, Xbox One has a section for F2P titles in its game list, while PS4 has an entire separate article. Should these really be separate? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't really understand what the separation is meant to indicate. Seems like a key for F2P would suffice? Separation avoids being able to sort with other games. -- ferret (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see how cost of the game is encylopedic. I understand there are differences for free to play games, but we detail the game, not the buisiness practice Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, generally, per WP:NOPRICE (#5)/WP:NOPRICES, we don't mention specific prices unless its something out of the ordinary. But being free to play can be a defining characteristic for some games, so I commonly add it to the prose, with a source, in f2p games I create or maintain. That being said, I don't think its something we need a separate list for. As ferret says, seems like something that would be easily tracked in the main list. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
F2P is definitely a defining characteristic of a game. Or more specific, F2P-with-MTX. 100% free games aren't generally called F2P. --Masem (t) 19:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
But does it need to be on its own separate list, is the question. I for one think it shouldn't. Games with monthly subscriptions (MMOs), don't get separated because of their different pay model, so why do the same for F2P? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Could use a few more eyes at Kingdom Come: Deliverance[edit]

A revision of this article seemed to have positive consensus since ~March 22, a compromise that resulted from a lengthy and contentious discussion. I thought the matter settled since it stood largely unmolested for over a week until User:PizzaMan broke 3RR pushing his own version (N.B. he self-reverted his 4th revert and claimed to "disengage" at that time). This week, he again changed it to his preferred version, "per talk page", on the strength of one person's comment on the matter. I think the linked version has broad consensus that represents a solid compromise between competing interests and avoids UNDUE (the prior version was very long in the tooth). But what do I know? I'd like a few more eyes for the next time this self-proclaimed disengaged editor gets revert fever. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was for a version by Pavlor, this is not about that version. Axem added to that a remark which is about the director's political views rather than about the game. Axem's edit accuses the director of spreading (quote) "hate... harassing women, people of color, and journalists" which is in no way substantiated by the sources. The director was previously associated to gamergate, but only the part about journalism ethics. Axem's accusations don't belong on the page on the game and go against BLP.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 08:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow. Isn't it directly sourced by this Polygon game review source? They're a reliable source, directly stated it, and stated it in the context of an article centered around the game, not the creator. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This thing has gone on for way too long. Has anybody even added things about the game itself and not just commentary from a vocal minority? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
No one beyond me. Sadly, I started up an actual reception section weeks ago, because it used to be 100% "controversy" and 0% "game reception" in hopes of getting things started, and sadly no one's even touched it since. Everyone's too busy obsessing over this minor-level controversy. Yes, it happened. And yes, it should be covered. But both sides want to write a giant novel about it; one side about its wrongdoings, while the other wants to stage this big defense and debate in the article. This isn't some massive Hot Coffee mod type situation. We just need a brief "these sources noted these issues with the game, these sources refuted the criticisms of the game". That's all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I saw, and would have helped if I had played the game (helps with setting context). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I'm in the same boat - I've never played it either, nor do I have any particular plans to, and that was more than I really had interest in contributing. I've just been trying to help out here and there since people keep asking for input over there. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The version in question is about 60% shorter than it used to be and is about the same length as the main reception section now (shorter, even). The article was in a place that everyone seemed to be happy about, with adequate coverage of all aspects of the issue, until PizzaMan returned from his self-imposed exile to push his POV again. Personally, I've done all the reading and prose-writing on the topic that I care to, but I won't have it disrupted by someone rolling in and falsely claiming consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Everyone was happy about Pavlor's shortened version, not about Axem's edits on that version. And if his argument for associating the game designer with a bunch of stuff he didn't do revolves around me stepping back from the article for a while, it's not a strong argument. One might equally wonder why Axem didn't step back after a consensus was reached on how to shorten the critical response section. About the "everyone was happy with Axem's version"; just read the talk page: I'm certainly not the only one who was bothered by the smearing campaign against the designer. And about the reverting: it takes two to tango.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 11:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:VGRS[edit]

Hi, the search tool VGRS doesn't seem to be working at present, giving a google 404, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Thibbs and Czar - the main people who maintain it. It was working as of relatively recently, at least - its used pretty actively by project members. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
These are the fixed links: Reliable Sources for Video Games, Situational Sources for Video Games (please refer to the source code); Wikipedia blacklisting prevents me from saving this page with these links intact, as it does with the CSE's primary pages (WP:VGRS and WP:VGSE). If you are and admin that can get around the blacklist, please fix these links here and on the two pages linked, I inserted respective commented-out versions of these links next to their outdated spots. Lordtobi () 20:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Repaired. Whitelist updated. -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The Order of Things[edit]

Occasionally, I notice video game articles that have the Setting / Plot sections before Gameplay. I tried to do the same on Observer (video game), but was reverted because the editor thought Gameplay "should" precede Setting / Plot. It makes me think, because I just added a Setting to Cyberpunk 2077 and as it makes more sense reading the background before Gameplay, I edited accordingly. For video games with actual lore that lead into the gameplay, shouldn't the Setting / Plot go before Gameplay? Cognissonance (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The order should be whatever makes the most sense for the game at hand. Since games are about gameplay, we've loosely held that the gameplay section should go first. But if the setting heavily influences the gameplay such that it makes sense to introduce that first in order to refer to key concepts later in the gameplay section, then do that. There's no project-wide rule, nor should there be. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
MOS:VG lists the suggested order as with Gameplay first, Plot second. That is a project-wide guideline. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
But again, there are allowances if explaining the plot helps to make the gameplay section clearer, as with something like The World Ends With You; preferred though is generally gameplay first if you cannot otherwise justify a strong reason to have the plot first. --Masem (t) 19:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals[edit]

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:VG discussion concerning Metacritic usage in Reception sections[edit]

As info: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#Issue regarding "universal acclaim according to Metacritic". -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

GBA → GBA (disambiguation) discussion[edit]

Hello, would just like to notify everyone that there's a discussion taking place to remove the redirect from "GBA" to "Game Boy Advance" and instead make it a disambiguation. ~ P*h3i (📨) 01:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (April 8, 2018 to April 14, 2018)[edit]

 Generated by v1.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

April 8, 2018

April 9, 2018

April 10, 2018

April 11, 2018

April 12, 2018

April 13, 2018

April 14, 2018

Bit of a light week, with a good percentage just newly-tagged old articles. Script updates: Now handles page moves that get the 'page-move' tag + minor tweaks. Next update: handle page moves without tag, as well as odd cases where the article moves but the old article becomes a redirect to a disambig page. --PresN 04:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I created a page for Liar Princess and the Blind Prince on 13 April, which is missing. TheLegendaryN (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@TheLegendaryN: You didn't put the project banner on the talk page, which is one of the ways the script finds new content. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. Apologies. TheLegendaryN (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep, it should now show up on next week's list! --PresN 18:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Steam user reviews[edit]

Hi everyone. I recently protected the article Dynasty Warriors 9 because of a series of reverts that disagreed over whether we should mention that Steam summarizes the user reviews for the game as "overwhelmingly negative". I tried explaining that MOS:VG states that user reviews are unreliable as self-published sources and should typically be omitted, but I was hoping we could get a third opinion/consensus on this so that the article can become more stable again. Pinging Perochialjoe and Pure conSouls, the users involved, to this discussion. Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A summary of user reviews on a particular review aggregator is still not a reliable source, though if reviews are so negative, it is common for secondary sources to comment on the bad reviews. Eyeballing the VG/SE indicates nothing of the sort, so Pure is correct to remove that content entirely. --Izno (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how an aggregate of reviews from users who are required to have bought the game is unreliable. Steam only allows users to write reviews if they have the game bought on that Steam account. Several people seem to have the misunderstanding that just anybody can write a review on Steam, which is not the case at all. perochialjoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems like you have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies. User generated content is generally unacceptable, that include Steam user reviews. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
So the solution is apparently then to just completely ignore public reception to the game? That makes absolutely no sense and it's completely backwards thinking to assume that a collection of ~4,000 reviews from people who own the product is unreliable. perochialjoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
If negative user reception is documented by reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia's guideline of a reliable source, not your personal interpretation of what one is), then it can be mentioned in an article. If not, then yes it should be ignored because it is then clearly not significant enough for an encyclopedia entry. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
User reviews lack editorial oversight. They are also known to be bombarded (sometimes positively for a game; more often negatively). The former issue indicates they are not reliable, period (review WP:IRS). The second issue also indicates a lack of trust-worthiness across the board. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, to the above, we have the issues of review bombs, which even can happen with those that purchased a game. User reviews have too much influnece from only a few people, so its better to have a secondary source to acknowledge if there are legitimate concerns (like No Man's Sky, or just manufactured controversy). --Masem (t) 22:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. I have unprotected the page and removed the information in question on the basis of this consensus. It should not be restored without consensus. Incidentally, perochialjoe has been temporarily blocked for vandalism in his deleted contributions. Mz7 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(Different side question; asking from a friend.) A friend I have, occasionally plays one of the "dynasty warriors" game series. And a while ago he was looking at the page/ article and there was a link/ url in the "External links" to the "steam store". But their last game copy/ or dynasty warriors 8 does not have a link to the steam store. So, he was wondering does the link/ url have to be there? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Links to storefronts should not be in external links per WP:VG/EL TarkusABtalk 19:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Declined AfC for Cookie Run[edit]

Today I submitted my draft of Cookie Run, but it was declined by @Robert McClenon: under the basis of it being a copy of another article: Cookie Run (video game), which I moved from Cookie Run today to submit this draft. The draft was that of the Cookie Run series as a whole, as opposed to one of the games in the series. When I replied under his talk page explaining the difference, he said that he didn't understand the distinction between the draft and the standing article. I'm still confused why it was declined and how there is no noticeable distinction between the two. Zoom (talk page) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Zzzoom - If other experienced editors familiar with video games concur that two articles are in order and are on different subjects, then I will defer to their judgment. As it is, it wasn't clear to me how the draft didn't duplicate the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
After checking this - there seems to be no need for a series page. You can add the subsequent games at the article for the video game in a "sequels" or "legacy" section. Please do that instead, and Cookie Run should be moved back to its original namespace.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
But the problem is that there are three games that came before Cookie Run, then Cookie Run: OvenBreak (one of the most downloaded free games of last year), and a spin-off. I think the series is significant enough to warrant a series page. Zoom (talk page) 11:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The draft is well sourced and includes info that would be difficult/ugly to cover on a game's page; currently don't any issue in having a series article. Lordtobi () 12:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks to me like the closer confused the series article for the individual game's article. I see they replied "I read the existing article and the draft, and it is not clear to me what the distinction is.", but both pages are clearly distinguishing between "a series of online mobile endless running games" and "an endless running game". That's like confusing StarCraft and StarCraft (video game). Series' notability notwithstanding, I don't see a problem with this being an article, given it covers information about other games that doesn't really fit in the individual game's article. Although I can see that it could be covered in the game's article due not having a lot of content (at the moment). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Since Robert was okay with someone else deciding and there seems to be slight consensus that a series article makes sense, I went ahead and accepted the draft. Regards SoWhy 16:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Harvest Moon series confusion[edit]

The Harvest Moon series was rebranded Story of Seasons some time ago, but continued on as a new series also entitled Harvest Moon. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of history, changing the name of the former series to Story of Seasons feels incorrect. I think that Story of Seasons should be split - with the old portion going to the more notable Harvest Moon and the current Harvest Moon being moved to Harvest Moon (2007 series) which is somewhat less notable. I would like to see if people agree on this, and if there is a correct naming convention.

Another possibility is to move all the old Harvest Moon games back to Harvest Moon, and prioritize the series name over the owners of said series.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: There is also the possibility of returning the new series to Harvest Moon (Natsume series) which I accidentally moved it from, but I think simply redirecting Harvest Moon to Story of Seasons is overly confusing for people.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've thought (and probably talked) about this plenty of times. There is [the 1996 series] and [the 2007 series]. Without doing research, I would say that the WP:COMMONNAME for the 1996 series still is Harvest Moon rather than Story of Seasons. It is also the more notable series, but despite this there is a significant risk of confusion between the two, so I would suggest not having either of them at Harvest Moon. Rather, I suggest turning Harvest Moon into a disambiguation page that links to Harvest Moon (1996 series) and Harvest Moon (2007 series). Using "Natsume" as disambiguator doesn't work because the 1996 series used to be published by Natsume.--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

^^I really like this proposal. I support this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Sounds like the best way to solve this, considering that neither series probably is exclusively WP:PTOPIC. Regards SoWhy 15:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Also agree. The way it was handled right after the announcement of the name change was just recentism, it should have never been done like that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Mostly agree. However, I caution that whoever does this and performs the moves/splits/etcs take on the effort of cleaning up links as well. This is going to leave a lot of links going the wrong place, and the DISAMB project guys may not have the background on the article move history and renaming for this year or that year to re-point each link correctly. -- ferret (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I read through all the relevant articles and I'm still confused about the timeline of events and which name belongs to who and when. Can someone who knows the history better try to provide a more thorough explanation somewhere? Perhaps Story_of_Seasons#Naming? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's the brief history. Bokujō Monogatari is a life simulation series from Japan. From 1996 to 2014, the series was localized by Natsume who dubbed it "Harvest Moon". In 2014, Natsume stopped localizing the Bokujō Monogatari games, but continued to hold the "Harvest Moon" naming license. Because of this, the developers of Bokujō Monogatari began localizing their games themselves under the name "Story of Seasons". Meanwhile, Natsume began developing their own "Harvest Moon" games. These new games by Natsume are not true Bokujō Monogatari games, they are in-house developed knock offs just to take advantage of the naming license. It's a complete mess. TarkusABtalk 23:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Please include this somewhere in mainspace. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's confused. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
is it possible to make a page that covers both series as the go-to page? Explaining the history that belonged to one company, and then the name moved to another? they both have a shared history.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
A Harvest Moon disambiguation page should (briefly) explain the situation, and I imagine both the 1996 and 2007 articles would explain it in more detail in their respective history/development sections. Aside from the disambiguation page I can't see us having any additional, separate pages explaining the history - it's not like the "Harvest Moon" brand name itself would be viable as an article.--Alexandra IDVtalk 23:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks for letting me know. it just looked like such a unique situation that might have its own page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree on Harvest Moon (1996 series), I think Story of Seasons is a better title for that page since it encompasses the full Bokujou Monogatari series, and it is the current title. I agree Harvest Moon should be a disambig. The page for the Natsume games should be Harvest Moon (2007– series). This is because Harvest Moon (Natsume series) isn't good enough of a disambig title since the original games were localized by Natsume. TarkusABtalk 02:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
There are only 2 games out of the entire series named "Story of Season". We don't know if they'll stick with that name too. Wouldn't it be better if we kept it as Harvest Moon, at least until there is enough games under the belt of the new name? WHo knows, maybe they'll change the name again.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I preferred the old setup. "Harvest Moon" for most people really means the series "Story of Seasons", confusing as that is. I definitely 100% disagree with moving the cash-in neo-Harvest Moon series to just "Harvest Moon" [1]; it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Harvest Moon", which is the "old" series, and it violates WP:ASTONISH to see "Harvest Moon" claim to be a series that started in 2007. The confusing redirect, or at worst a disambig page, are the way to go. SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree and placed a move request Talk:Harvest Moon TarkusABtalk 21:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I wanted to just add a vote to the disambiguation page idea, for the simple reason that there is also a physical phenomenon called "harvest moon", which is the full moon seen nearest to the time of the autumnal equinox. A disambiguation page would allow us to provide a link to an appropriate article on the lunar cycle, which I would expect would cover the timing of that particular full moon, in case someone is looking for that and not the video game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Are pinball machines "video games"?[edit]

I'm pondering where to cover the two Super Mario Bros. pinball machines (Super Mario Bros. made 1992 and Super Mario Bros. Mushroom World made 1994), my first instinct was List of non-video game media featuring Mario but looking deeper into it a lot of places classify pinball machines alongside arcade cabinets more than alongside toys, perhaps especially for pinball machine including visual displays (Dot-matrix displays with a subgame in this case). I've tried to find some precedent for how we cover pinball machine versions of video game franchises but can't seem to find much. Thoughts? Ben · Salvidrim!  19:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

They'd be arcade games, but not arcade "video games". Just because a pinball machine has a video display and may have mini-games played on it, there's still the significant physical element of the table itself that puts it outside the realm of video games. Eg Baby Pac-Man is a good example of a hybrid arcade/pinball machine that makes that distinction. --Masem (t) 19:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd define a video game as having the action take place on an electrical screen that displays the play area and some sort of control scheme. Since physical pinball machines don't take place in a digital screen, I wouldn't classify them as video games. JOEBRO64 19:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, pinball games are electromechanical games and not video games. That said, WPVG covers them even when they're not linked to a video game character like these 2, because a) they're closely related (as they're "arcade games" though the term now generally means arcade video games) and b) very few of them have articles so it's not a big deal. As to what article to put these two in... I think the one you linked is right. --PresN 19:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I do agree VG project should include pinball games under its scope, as well as any old electromechanical game of the past. Those are the original of many games, so shouldn't deny that as part of our heritgate. Just that there are likely very few that are that notable on their own. --Masem (t) 21:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There is actually a fairly significant number of pinball machines with articles. There is also the mostly dead Pinball WikiProject. I think the few Wikipedians that are particularly interested in pinball machines may not like the idea of that project being usurped by VG, but adding the VG WikiProject template to all of them should be fine regardless. ~Mable (chat) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Just because we consider pinball machines within VG's scope, doesn't mean we're usurping it; we just work collaborative to combine our VG expert knowhow alongside pinball fanatics' knowhow. (eg Rampage (2018 film)]] is a shared concern between film and VG projects). However, if the pinball WP is mostly dead, there's potentially means to officially close it and/or have its content merged into VG, that's a bit more redtape involved. --Masem (t) 20:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm kinda on the fence, personally. On the one hand, a pinball machine is not generally a "video game" because of the way it's built and played. But on the other hand, this feels like a somewhat arbitrary distinction when coming up with a general classification for electronic games built for entertainment purposes. Whether you're wiggling a joystick or pressing buttons that operate physical flippers, the intent of the machine is basically the same: You're playing a game. And one could argue that modern solid-state pinball machines are a form of video game with simplistic direct controls and very complex indirect controls (all the switches and sensors on the playfield provide input to the on-board computer that then gives you video, audio and physical feedback). They've taken a similar evolutionary path to video arcade machines, as well. Personally, I would be inclined to group them under the main VG project and a pinball sub-project - if we don't currently have sub-projects for other classes like console video games and portable games as well, we probably should. (I don't know if that's been tried before.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There used to be an Arcade task force that died in 2012 (and officially closed in 2014) that could have covered pinball games, except that there's WP:PINBALL; it's been a zombie project since 2010 with a post every few years. As always, a task force/subpage may be useful for compiling resources, but is unlikely to work as a project without multiple interested editors, which is why WPVG has basically no task forces any more. The network effects of having all of us here in one place is too strong- a post here gets read by people who wouldn't join a subproject but might have something to contribute (for ex., I wouldn't join but have written GAs on old arcade games), so everything works better if we all stay at one project and chime in on stuff that catches our eye instead of splintering discussions. --PresN 18:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... "video, audio and physical feedback"? I'm suddenly reminded of those ten-pin bowling screens. Could modern bowling be considered a form a video game..? o.O--Coin945 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, laser tag is a form of augmented reality game as well no? I think the defining characteristic here must be "primarily interacted with via a an electronic display" (aka screen)... Ben · Salvidrim!  20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the primary interaction with the video screen for it to count towards WP:VG. Keeping track of the score and the multipliers electronically in pinball isn't enough. Slot machines nowadays electronically predetermine what positions to place the reels, and have the option of a mechanical lever or a button press, but I wouldn't count that as a video game unless the slot reels themselves are on-screen as with video poker. Then there's virtual golf, where you use an actual golf club to hit an actual ball against a screen with a golf course. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think in the end it's a bit of an academic argument- we can go round and round on deciding if the line is "primarily video screen interaction" games or electro-visual games or all electronic games that have or are historically linked to video screens or whatever, and put tags on them, but I don't think adjusting the margins of our scope is going to have an effect on what articles WPVG editors work on, or give any real support to people who want to work on pinball/electromechanical/gambling/non-mainstream industry games. A giant shift like upmerging with WP:GAMES and throwing the scope open wide would be interesting, but I'm completely ambivilent to whether pinball games/'gaming machines' are in scope of a 'video games' project or not. --PresN 02:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Are the Game Audio Network Guild (G.A.N.G.) and its awards notable or not?[edit]

I have a problem. I was adding the awards from the Game Audio Network Guild in the Hearthstone article, but then Frmorrison suddenly removed all traces of the G.A.N.G. Awards from the article and claimed that the G.A.N.G. Awards are not notable! Yet these awards are in video game articles like Cuphead, Horizon Zero Dawn, Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, Far Cry 3, and other video game articles that have them through the years! I can't respond by adding the G.A.N.G. Awards back into the Hearthstone article, for fear that Frmorrison will revert my edits and lash out at me! Someone needs to do something and decide whether the G.A.N.G. Awards are notable or not! I thought that these awards should be kept, but what do you think otherwise? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, on what grounds do you want to add them? What is your argument for them being a noteworthy award? Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought that these G.A.N.G. awards should have been noteworthy, as described in these two links. Are you people telling me that I should remove the G.A.N.G. Awards from all the video game articles that have them if they are not notable?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
If you're talking about me, I was merely asking for more information on the awards. I've never heard of these awards or this "www.audiogang.com". You seem to feel so strongly about including it. I was wondering what was leading you to feel this way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Angeldeb82 - Sadly, because another article has it listed isn't a valid arguement for existance in this article. However, you have taken this to the right place. (Although, I would warn against saying someone woud "lash out" at you). Realistically, if you could provide us with a good rationale for the award being notabele, then it should be added, if we can reach a consensus that it isn't notable, then it should be removed from all articles. I'm not familiar with this Guild, so could you provide us with the sourcing to show it's relevance, and notability? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The only links I can provide are in the G.A.N.G. website, their Twitter account, the Game Developers' Choice link and the French Wikipedia. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain, in your own words, why you think it's a notable award that should be included on Wikipedia though? Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
All I know is that the Game Audio Network Guild was founded in 2002 by Tommy Tallarico and other "driven industry professionals with a vision to assist those in the game audio industry to share, continually improve, and evolve their craft, and to inform both the overall game industry and enthusiasts about not only excellence in that craft but fair treatment of professionals." That's all I can tell you. You should check these links to find out more. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Angel, I think you need to step back and reevaluate your approach to dealing with conflict, potential conflict, and disagreements on Wikipedia. I've noticed that you tend to catastrophize when you encounter any resistance to your edits and end up perceiving hostile motivations when they don't exist. You're making the right move by bringing it to the talk page for discussion but you are using highly accusatory language when doing so, which is unwarranted in this circumstance. Please take a moment to consider your fellow editors' motivations and reasoning for doing what they do and you'll most likely get a better sense of what it will take to convince them of your point of view, or at least generate a meaningful discussion about it that advances everyone's understanding of the issue at hand. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
As a follower of VGM culture, I'm familiar with these awards, but I really don't think they need to be added to articles, as its such a niche thing (only game music) to add to already bloated award sections. Do third-party sources ever report on the nominations and winners, or are all your citations coming directly from their site? Also I agree with Axem, you frequently come to this talk page accusing people of bad faith. You should also really branch out of only adding awards and accolades to articles too, but that's just my personal biased opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. And I'm very sorry that I was mad with Frmorrison. I think that all the citations have come directly from the G.A.N.G. site, as I can't find other web sources that state the G.A.N.G. Awards otherwise. Do you think it's okay if I remove the G.A.N.G. Awards from all the video game articles, as Frmorrison has claimed that these awards are not notable? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, there are a few other third-party sources like this one and that one. Does that make it news? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
While the VGMO one is valid, I don't believe "warofawards" is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I'm gonna have to try reverting Frmorrison's edit and put in the VGMO link along with this one for clarity. If he reverts my edit and claims that the G.A.N.G. Awards are not notable, then I don't know what to do. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest inviting the editor to this conversation. You have been WP:BOLD, been reverted, so this is the chat as per WP:BRD. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The first edit about the Audio Guild Award was with a reference from the Audio Guild, which did not prove notability. However, if an award is reported in a website like VGMO I am fine with it. Normally, a 3rd party proves notability to know if something is worth adding, so the Guild reporting about its award is not good enough.--Frmorrison (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm very glad about your good advice about a third-party website providing notability. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Which is a general Wikipedia guideline, not just advice. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Age of Empires III[edit]

Age of Empires III, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The article does indeed need more citations right now in the gameplay section. Looks like it at least borders on WP:OR. I'd be happy to do a reassessment of the article when I get some time, but I feel it might be worthwhile to ping the major contributors to this, as they may want to simply improve the article Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer Lee. I have actually already opened the reassessment. It is at Talk:Age of Empires III/GA1. I sent the above template to the only major editor who is still active, so hopefully they are keen. You are welcome to comment at the reassessment if you want. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that! No worries. There are loads of GA nominees at the moment, so I'll do one of those when I get chance. Personally, I think the article is good, but is of serious need of sourcing for the GamePlay section. It's certainly not GA material of now. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Is sourced misleading and contradictory information preferred over all else?[edit]

If a videogame page contains basic information contradicting MobyGames catalog, Steam store page, official game webpage as well as contradicting information presented in general Wikipedia videogame articles, while also being misleading by assigning false information never advertised by the developers, but that information has a source, such being a Kotaku editorial — is such information preferred over the information the game has been published and advertised with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erquint (talkcontribs) 06:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the editorial in question and point out what the false information is? Lordtobi () 06:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

- which article are you referring to? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's this one. Forgot to mention: this is about genre. We are having a bureacrat vs common sense argument over at the game's talk page, trying to avoid an edit war.
Pardon me for not spilling the beans upfront — I was quite perplexed by the notion of perpetuating false information in favor of bureaucracy at the time of creating this section.
Erquint (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

PCGamer calls it a MOBA Is this a spill over of the Reddit "It's a MOBA" "It's NOT a MOBA" argument? Without looking into this at depth, is this the Developer/publisher calling a chicken a duck because chickens have got a bad name at the moment? - X201 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally have not been to the mentioned Reddit thread yet but you can chalk that up to controversy.
Who thinks the MOBA genre "have got a bad name at the moment"? I have yet to hear anything of such sort.
Thing is:

  • Nowhere but a few articles online and social media it gets called a MOBA
  • It was never advertised or sold as one since it was not designed as one
  • Games like this existed since long ago the term MOBA entered common gamer lexicon
  • All sources, even the Kotaku editorial describe the game as only resembling a tightly isolated set of simple mechanics(teamfight) which does not hold the complexity of the MOBA genre.
  • This is further illustrated by discrepancy with the description detailed in the MOBA article.

I am still interested in the initial question. Ultimately: is misleading information fine if it is sourced?
Erquint (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To make it easier for others to understand the disagreement here...the game in question is Battlerite, the discussion is at Talk:Battlerite. TarkusABtalk 09:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks TarkusAB - I got very confused by this conversation. Ok, so this is currently a stub article, so I'm a bit confused as to why we have such a chat over the game's genre, when we could easily improve the article in prose. The issue with the genre is that, if I understand correctly, reliable sources call it a MOBA (Which, it resembles), but the game's creators call it a "Team Arena Brawler". I mean, personally, I'd have the infobox have both included, and in the prose explain why there is confusion. The lede could write "Battlerite is a free-to-play team-based multiplayer online battle arena game, described by the publishers as a Team Arena Brawler." It's strictly speaking a Team Arena Brawler, but what that is, is very confusing. The other way to work it, is to have a Wikilink to MOBA, with the name "Team Arena Brawler", since the only other game with this genre I could find was Paragon (video game). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

My bad. This section has gone in a direction I haven't intended. Initially just meant to ask if citation has priority over factual correctness.
I'd restructure it but doing it now with other editor's responses wouldn't be very ethical.
Erquint (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth. If you have reliable sources that describe the game by another genre or that question other publications' classification of the genre, you can present those refs alongside the current ones. czar 09:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:IAR, the rules can be ignored if something has been proven factually incorrect and editors agree that it is clearly and obviously incorrect based on the new evidence. Wikipedia is not somewhere where false information gains credence simply because it has appeared in sources before, even if it currently obviously wrong. However, that's different from something being wrong "in your opinion", or something being unclear.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Except this is a game genre, something that can't ever be objectively wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Especially in the case of genre classifications, we need to go strictly with what sources say. When it something subjective like genre, if you don't go by sources, there's going to constantly be changes and fighting over it, because every has a different opinion and everyone's certain that their stance is correct and everyone else is wrong. Its a constant issue in music articles. The best way to solve it is to use whatever reliable sources say. If they say multiple genre, use multiple genre and cite each source that uses each genre. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that you should go with what reliable sources say, and also try to steer clear of controversies and message board debates as they can cause no end of trouble. If there's any worries about the genre combinations looking odd, you can see what I did with Sakura Wars. I just called it a "video game" in the lead opening and saved its "'dramatic adventure'/overlapping genres" bit for later on, which looks fine. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is how its often handled in music articles as well - often settling on a generic term like "rock band" in the opening sentence, and then later covering every minor genre deviation that reliable sources may call a band in the article's body (alternative rock, hard rock, progressive rock, etc etc). Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem stating it is a MOBA; it is in a similar situation as "roguelike-likes" for games like FTL, etc. where there are clear elements of the genre present, but it doesn't fully implement the genre. I'm sure that having Battlerite called a MOBA is ticking a few of the purists in the MOBA community, same with roguelike, but its hard to deny there's MOBA elements to the game and if RSes call it such, it should be included. --Masem (t) 13:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The term "roguelite" was widely accepted because there's no denying there was a need to distinguish it from "roguelike".
Erquint (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTBLOG Axem Titanium (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There wouldn't be any "constant changes and fighting" if Wikipedia respected authorial intent. Genre is as basic of information as the title, platform and such, and has been forever since even before Internet: how are you of all so blind to this fact?
What exactly is so impossible about accepting primary sources for basic release information?
If some source(s) decides that the developer has no idea what they are doing — why not mention that in the article, but journalistic speculation doesn't belong to the infobox and synopsis of an article except for extreme cases like an article about a fraudulent organization, etc.
Erquint (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. This finally answers my question precisely. You should definitely write that on the front page.
"Wikipedia: The Gratis News Aggregator Where Truth Doesn't Matter". That'll make sure nobody bugs you about pesky facts and truth anymore.
You can't imagine the magnitude of a diametrical change of my views on Wikipedia that just occurred.

Today I learned that:

  • authorial intent doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia, developers are considered unable to design a game of a genre they chose and one can release a Brawler titled "Battlerite" on Steam but if Kotaku reports it as a MOBA released on Nokia N-Gage as "Adventure of Gaba" — then that's what the Wikipedia page for that game will say
  • objective facts mean absolutely nothing on Wikipedia as well as factual correctness, which the editors admit freely
  • reasoning, common sense and argumentation are strictly prohibited
  • words "reliable" and "verifiable" represent the tiniest slice of reality, tailored to shield Wikipedia from any meaningful discussion, while not actually having anything to do with reliability of facts presented by its sources
  • in addition to that, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself reliable
  • contents of a source material are of low import — what's much more important is clickbait headlines and ripping words out of context: if a word exists in a source — you can completely ignore the meaning imparted onto it by the context
  • "Free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" was supposed to mean both gratis and libre but ended up only meaning gratis in the end. Dumbfounded hoops to jump through have been agreed upon by core editors circle to keep strangers out
  • Wikipedia "The Free Encyclopedia" is not in fact an "encyclopedia" but rather an extremely slow, as bureaucrats go, verbatim news aggregator
  • any meaningful explanations, reviews and curation of otherwise echoed data found on Wikipedia are a result of partizan edits gone unnoticed and without them it would be near useless. A very major part of the best information on Wikipedia is unsourced but editors will pretend this isn't the case
  • the bureaucrat core of Wikipedia disregards half of its policies and guidelines originally aimed to keep it in balance and bends the rest, while strictly enforcing the easiest to regulate, since editors are few compared to the amount of pages and get very tired. Dumbing an encyclopedia down to a simple citation book which only permits a handful of the most awkward source types ensures easy edits curation.

So much to learn in one day... You ruined Wikipedia for me. I remember it being free and factually correct.

I used to adore Wikipedia since childhood up until this day for over 15 years, and when others criticized it for being editable by anyone — I always assured them it is reliable thanks to the editors who make sure it is, but turns out the problem of Wikipedia's reliability was never in the randos but rather baked into it being a regurgitation of yellow journalism.

I can't fix this alone. Time to start looking for a Wiki-formatted encyclopedia alternative actually focusing on factual correctness.
I wash my hands.
Erquint (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

All that over a video game stub and what genre appears in the lead. The world will surely grind to a halt from these injustices. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You know, I almost agree with you. No, seriously, I do. I have been frustrated by the desire of some wikipedians to include clearly inaccurate information even if demonstrably false when it is reliably sourced and the confusion many editors have regarding the difference between "fact" and "truth." There is just one teensy weensy problem with your position: genre classifications are not objective fact, but are labels applied by the journalists, academics, etc. that examine the games. Somebody picked the wrong hill to die on today. Indrian (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so if you're going to go off the deep end and make a dramatic exit every time someone disagrees with you a minor genre classification, then just as well, Wikipedia editing will probably not be a great experience for you. It never works out well for these close-minded, self-proclaimed experts on genre anyways - they just get upset that we don't appreciate their "My word is law" approach to genre. Go start a blog where you have 100% control or something. You can call it whatever you want there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Overlink IP[edit]

Keep an eye out for an IP editor who is overlinking video game articles. The IPs geolocate to Venezuela but are a broad range and change every 3-5 edits, difficult to leave warnings the user will see... I've found 4-5 edits each morning just from where they cross my watchlist, over the last week or so. -- ferret (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Any particular topic in video games or no? I don't think I've seen this on any of my watchlisted articles... Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
See 190.206.153.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 186.94.148.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 190.78.40.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 201.210.210.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this ban worthy though? I guess if they keep being reverted for the same type of edits with no response as to why. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I would probably give a disruption block at some point, but due to the IP rotation and ranges, it's not really possible. So just something to watch out for. At least its slow moving. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
None of the IPs above are blocked (or "banned"), FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter games[edit]

Hi all, I recently looked through the games in the Harry Potter series (there are tonnes), and saw that quite a few were really poor start articles (most notably Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (video game)), which I have improved somewhat.

My question may be better brought up with information from the Harry Potter task force in the film wikiproject; but would it make sense to make a 'series' article for these games? There are 8 main series games (with the first couple having different games per Console), as well as Lego games, new handheld games and more.

The issue I was worried about creating a main article, would be that there is already a series article, simply titled Harry Potter, but the film's have an article Harry Potter (film series), but I dont want to complicate the set of articles.

Would this be a good way to go? There is plenty of information for these games. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Just expand Harry Potter#Games and the individual articles. Are there sources that discuss the series' history, development, legacy, and impact as a whole? If not, then there is no point in creating a series article. A lot of the series articles that we have are really badly written and add nothing upon the individual articles. They just take little bits of information from each individual game and combine them into a giant list-article hybrid (e.g. Call of Duty and dozens more), and this is absolutely not the way to write them properly. A series article should treat the topic as a single entity, not just rehash information from existing articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh good, a meta-list that duplicates the existing navbox. Anyways, yes, this series most severely needs a List of Harry Potter media in the style of List of Mass Effect media - so instead of duplicating all the text scattered over the articles, just have tables of "books", "films", "games", "music", "board games/whatever" to layout straightforwardly "what has been released in this series". That would replace that table at Harry Potter#Games. This would not preclude doing a game series page as well, though like The1337gamer said without sources talking about the series as a whole all you'd be doing there is copypasting bits from the individual articles and combining them; a series article should be about something itself, not just a summary of a set of articles. --PresN 21:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Go ahead, drafts in Draft space or User space are easy and free, it doesn't need to be able to justify itself strongly until it hits article space. --PresN 02:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I wasn't worried about creating an article for this, or suggesting someone else did, but I knew it wasn't a simple yes, so asked the question. I'd be looking at the potential article being titled Harry Potter (video game series), to fit in with Harry Potter (film series). The sheer volume of titled games (eighteen in total), as well as differing platform versions, I believe there is some information on the series, but if we were to create some sort of draft (Let me know where it is too), and we'll go from there. From a quick search, there is information from MTV of all places, JK rowling states she wrote all of the W&W cards for The Chamber of Secrets, and an interview with Johnathan Smith regarding the Lego Harry Potter games. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would advise against titling it "(video game series)" - it is not really one single series, but rather a number of games based on the books/films, mostly independently of the other game adaptations.--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review of Wheels of Aurelia[edit]

Hi again, I recently created an article for Wheels of Aurelia, and improved it to the point where I felt it was of GA level. I have nominated the article twice, but been denied. I have taken on board the review information and improved/removed following these instructions, but as I have never written a GA article, I'm not sure if I'm a million miles away, or if it's suitable for GA.

Would someone mind just making sure my article is worth re-nominating for GA status? I really don't want to annoy a third reviewer with a request that isn't plausible. Many thanks for your help Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • - Ideal, I can never find these development articles. I'll take a gander. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Switch Player" is a considered a reliable source. I think it's just a random fan, unless I'm confusing sources. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but I think it's just a fan run thing they crowdsourced or something. I don't think they have a legit publisher or anything. Might want to bring it up at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • - Oh really? I saw it had a print run, and assumed that would be enough. Strictly speaking, we don't need something to be published to be considered a RS; but I can see why this would be sticky. Metacritic considers it in it's evaluation, but I know it's not the be all and end all, as they do this for things like The Escapist, which we do not. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that's a pickle- it's an indie magazine, that is free online but you can subscribe to the print version (via patreon tiers). An interview with the founder says that they have 11 people, including an editor (and an art/layout guy that seems to be doing a fairly pro job at it). It doesn't say if they're all paid, but putting out a 60+ page magazine every month for a year with a dozen+ reviews in each issue and an actual staff? I'm going to go with reliable on this one. --PresN 19:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I personally agree, but I should really raise it at WP:VG/S as above, as I feel it is a reliable source, and find out if it should be added. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't need to write review scores in the prose when the review scores are already present in the reviews table. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't put reviews in the table that aren't used in prose, but you shouldn't be putting the review scores in prose at all and instead leave them to the table- the article as was had e.g. "Review magazine Game Informer were also positive about the game, scoring it at 7/10", which is no bueno. --PresN 19:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Salvidrim! - I didn't mean removing the review itself from the prose outright, I just meant the numerical review score value.
Current Setup - When reviewing the Nintendo Switch release, Switch Player gave the game a rating of 1.9/5 and calling it "too short to be engaging" and a "disappointing attempt at bringing the Visual Novel genre to the Switch",[10].
What It Should Be: When reviewing the Nintendo Switch release, Switch Player called it "too short to be engaging" and a "disappointing attempt at bringing the Visual Novel genre to the Switch",[10] Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was the way it worked. I'll remove the scores, and expand the section somewhat. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moby Games is not reliable. That was already brought up in a previous review and it's still there. Switch Player and artasgames.wordpress.com don't sound reliable. Too many quotes in the reception section. The article needs a copy edit as well as the prose is spotty at times. TarkusABtalk 14:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd actually mention that this article was recently copyedited. I'll remove that entry of Mobygames, as I thought I had removed them all! Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the last review, it also mentioned the use of fair use images-- the second one in the development section really has no good reason to exist and seems extraneous as well. Nomader (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I can remove that. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Consider adding the director/producer names etc. in the infobox. Strange how no one is listed. TarkusABtalk 15:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I've seen and added what I can from online sources. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of the games credits for the rest. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your help. If there is more, let me know. I'll try and put something together with the above. Appreciate your time. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Quantic Dream improvement[edit]

I have started a draft to rewrite Quantic Dream. With Dontnod Entertainment, The1337gamer suggested a studio profile made by Edge magazine, which added a lot of information and eventually led to its Good Article status. Does anyone know of a website / magazine that has done a studio profile on Quantic Dream? Cognissonance (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I would hold off until the whole sexual harassment allegations play out. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't work on what you like; I'm just observing that I would not pass it under stability (GA5) and comprehensiveness (FA1b) criteria until more is known about the whole situation and it gets through the French courts. I'm not aware of any studio profile pieces on Quantic Dream in English. Maybe from some French sources? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (April 15, 2018 to April 21, 2018)[edit]

 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

April 15, 2018

April 16, 2018

April 18, 2018

April 19, 2018

April 20, 2018

April 21, 2018

No script changes this week. The 17th had no new articles, just reassessments and new files, while the massive inflow on the 19th and 20th appears to be mostly taggings of tv shows/films that have 'video game' sections for tie-in games without their own articles. --PresN 05:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Suggestion Can these lists exclude newly redirected pages? I.e the page has existed for a while but the page name was changed, thereby technically creating a new page? I don't think those should be included in the list.--Coin945 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Can't they just be tagged instead of omitted? Knowing what was recently moved is solid information, to me anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Are there any on here that were page moves? I usually exclude those, actually; there's a bunch on here where the article has existed for a while and only now got a WPVG tag, but previously-tagged articles shouldn't be listed at present. --PresN 12:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
        • (18 April 2018‎) "Rehman moved page Driver (video game series) to Driver (series): per request" --Coin945 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
        • (18 April 2018‎) "Dekimasu moved page Puyo Puyo Tsu to Puyo Puyo 2: requested move; discussion at Talk:Puyo Puyo 2" --Coin945 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Hmmm. Dropped those two; there's two ways a page move shows up- in one, the article is listed by the bot as deleted/created and the page history of the new title has a line that has a 'page moved' tag; these two got the other way, where the original article doens't get listed as 'deleted' and there's no tag in the page history. There is a line of text 'so-and-so moved page [old] to [new]', though, so I'll need to scan for that. I started writing code for that last weekend, but it had some issues. Maybe next week. --PresN 15:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Aveyond and The Wizard as well. Plus Criminal Case, which was already at that location and only had its talk page moved. Reach Out to the Truth 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
              • Updated the script and re-ran; now catches 'new' articles that have an edit summary that starts with 'so-and-so moved [old] to [new]' and drops them if 'old' wasn't a Draft. It caught all of these except for Criminal Case, which was a weird one. --PresN 16:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Source query[edit]

Hi all. I've been working on articles related to CyberFlix, and there's an important newspaper source I'd really like to get my hands on, if it exists. The defunct Knoxville paper Metro Pulse did a big feature on the company's closure in 1999 ("Game Over"), but the Internet Archive version is lost past page 1. There is an intact mirror version here, but I'd rather not try to fight for that source's reliability unless there's no other choice. If any WPVG members with NewsBank or LexisNexis (etc.) access could poke around for this article, I'd be really grateful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not held widely so I wouldn't expect it to be indexed in databases, but I don't have Ulrich's access to verify. fwiw, I'd just link to that Internet Archive version as the main URL in the citation and use monkeyfire.com as the archived URL. I doubt anyone would contest that. If you want the print version, my WorldCat link has some leads but if you wanted an interlibrary loan request, would need the story's publication date since they won't page through the volumes for us. czar 20:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what the exact publication date is (no amount of digging seems to return it), but I do know that the issue is Vol. 9 No. 42, published in 1999. Hopefully that's enough. If that won't work for WorldCat, though, I guess I'll just have to rely on the web version—I appreciate the tip regarding the archive links. I've read that the Metro Pulse archives are on microfilm in Tennessee, so at least there's a chance this one's print version hasn't been lost to time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)