Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of Style talk
  Article naming talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Online print archive
  Sales charts
  Website archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Popular pages
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles


Series articles MOS[edit]

Hi all,

I recently looked at the article for Danganronpa, which I wanted to do some work on. However, the article uses the title "premise" rather than plot, which we use for games. However, as this is a series, this could be considered as good a word. We don't seem to have a MOS for how series articles should be layed out in the same way we do for games, so should this be consistent? I looked at Final Fantasy (Which is my go too), which uses "plot and themes". Does anyone have an opinion on how we should deal with these? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I quite prefer "Premise" over "Plot" in most situations, as the entirety of something's plot is often not useful to a general audience anyway. This probably goes extra for series articles like these, where the plot is particularly long, segmented, potentially inconsistent (what is the plot of all Final Fantasy games?), and already described in the individual articles. That all being said, there doesn't always need to be a manual of style for these sorts of things. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The MOS only lists Plot for these sort of sections because that's what the majority of articles use. There can be variances in the section titles if they are more helpful for readers. Perhaps we could list alternative titles in the MOS to deal with this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that's what I was looking for. I understand anything suitible is ok as series are generally quite different between games; however, preferred topic headers would be appreciated. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless the section really is describing the plot throughout the entire series, I think "premise" is more appropriate (and I think that is the most appropriate way of dealing with most series articles).--Alexandra IDVtalk 21:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (November 25 to December 1)[edit]

 Generated by hand from [1] --PresN 06:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

November 25

November 26

November 27

November 28

November 29

November 30

December 1

  • Unsure how exactly to handle this, but it’s not looking encyclopedic in its current form. Reads more like a personal essay or a report of sorts... Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, done by hand again. I rewrote the script on the weekend, but then the database page was down... for a week. It's up tonight, so I've done this and saved a local copy, but I don't have the time to finish the script updates tonight, so not doing the missing November articles yet. --PresN 04:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued work on this. It is appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. How many other Wikiprojects do this sort of thing? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Probably none. Most WikiProjects are inactive and useless though. Video games is one of the most active non-maintenance WikiProjects, only behind Women in Red, Military history, Football and Medicine. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, while a few individual editors may monitor their projects' changelog, we're the only one to have semi-automated posts like this. --PresN 03:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
To say that most wikiprojects are inactive is a bit unfair; a lot just have less activity. It's a bit of a shame that there isn't a standardized new articles list per wikiproject, as it's really a nice way of doing maintenance. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
According to the WikiProject Directory, there are 2728 WikiProjects. 1916 of them (that's over 70%) have 0 active participants. 2629 of them (that's over 96%) have less than 10 active participants. So ye, most WikiProjects are inactive and useless. My comment is very accurate. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Steam Spy[edit]

Hi everyone. A little help please. So I'm looking at the profile for Resident Evil 5 on Steam Spy: [2]. For the information on 'Owners' it states "1,000,000 .. 2,000,000". Can anyone tell me what that means? Does it mean it's between 1 million and 2 million? Does it means it hit the 1 million milestone, and then reached 2 million later? The fact there are two figures is confusing me; I'm just wanting to update the sales data at the wiki article. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Damien Linnane:, be cautious with Steam Spy, it's considered a "situational source". Better not use Steam Spy if they're guessing RE5 sold between 1 million and 2 million copies. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
SteamSpy should probably be moved to outright unreliable now. When it was deemed "situational", they had much more precise estimates. Valve shut the door on profile access though (defaulting to private), and now the estimates are much larger broad ranges. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, that makes sense. I went through archived versions of the game's profile and it had specific figures consistently up until April 11, 2018: [3], though by April 20 they had switched to the extremely broad (and somewhat unhelpful) range we see today. I've modified the reference at the RE5 article to quote the archived version, with a disclaimer that subsequent figures are no longer accurate. I'd vote to make Steam Spy considered unreliable for sales figures today (I don't see why we can't use archived versions though). Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Steam Spy is fine only for the broad analysis of the sales; should not be used for anything close to exact sales unless third-parties RSes re-iterate that info, but when they talk about effect of Steam sales or the like, that's reasonably good. (The guy that runs it has actually been with Epic Games over the last few years to help establish their newly revealed Epic Games Store, using info he's gleaned from Steam Spy). --Masem (t) 14:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't use Steamspy for sales data. It's not needed. Capcom publishes their own sales data, and it's updated periodically. According to that, it's sold 7.4 million copies over several versions. "DL", includes Steam and PC and it's lumped into the console versions. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And now that Valve is lifting sales data confidentiality, hopefully the devs will start posting more of these. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Should Skyrim mods exist?[edit]

Its only a few sentences long and after that has feature reading that don't seem to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Or at least I think they don't.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, definetly not notable. Mods are big for Skyrim but not outside of Skyrim. Consider merging the content. Lordtobi () 14:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I decided to merge it back to the main page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The sheer amount of references (Even though they are listed as "further reading"), make the subject notable... But it's not notable on it's own. It could be made into a really good section however. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
There already is a section in the main article for mods. but the further reading is just recommendations of mods to get.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The further reading is a dump of reliable sources discussing the topic, which simply have not yet been integrated into the article. In short, this was done to show it could survive an AFD. @Czar. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure this article can be notable on its own. Plenty of sources. As long as it isn't expanded, there's no point in having a separate article for it, though. Just merge it until someone decides to greatly expand our coverage on the topic. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "not notable"—the cavalcade of listed sources would contest that, representing far more than the parent section's carrying capacity. But fine to treat within that main section and split summary style based on expansion, if you prefer. Until then, all of those sources will be hidden. czar 15:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
We should drop the discussion about whether Skyrim mods are notable and focus on more if there's enough information to have a page of its own. I think mods are notable, but the further reading were mostly recommendations for specific mods. There isn't a whole lot about how much mods made an impact or how mods changed the elder scrolls community or gaming overall. Practically unusable to just passing mentions that there have been recommendations and top lists.
I do believe mods are notable a subject too eventually if people look for the right content. The community has influenced Bethesda to create Creation Club and able to have mods for console in the form of DLC and there is a long history of mods with Skyrim too. Skyrim mods have definitely left an impact, we just need enough content to have an article of its own and sources talking about that impact. In my opinion. I don't think there's a specific criteria for pages talking about mods. if there is, I'd love to read it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I added one of the references from the mod page that wasn't simply a list of mods from to the section. I'd say just attempt to expand the section and split again eventually if it becomes necessary. The "started with a punch to the face" and sex mod articles are also more than just recommended lists. And there's an entire relatively well sourced The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project article. --tronvillain (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of The Game Awards for "In the News"[edit]

Cheers folks! Your input will be appreciated here, as it's very related to the WikiProjekt video games:

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#The_Game_Awards_2018 --Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Metal Gear Nav Box discussion[edit]

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Metal Gear#David Hayter. A third opinion might be needed.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (December 2 to December 8)[edit]

 Generated by v2.0 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 05:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow that's a lot of deleted cats! Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm guessing there was a mass-CfD for "video games based on films by director" catagories last week. --PresN 17:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 8

Behold our glorious robot overlord-produced content! Today it autogenerates a list of new content, perhaps tomorrow it generates the substubs itself! --PresN 05:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, to those who were wanting to see them, the magic of technology has let me generate the new articles from the weeks that the new articles report was dormant- that is, October 5—November 17. See them, along with the rest of their calenderial friends, at the October 2018 and November 2018 archives. --PresN 06:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Autogenerated script overlords. Nice work PresN Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, PresN, which dates were those again? (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
October 5—November 17, if I read that correctly. :) (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those. --PresN 17:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback request: The Marriage[edit]

Hi all,

I've been doing a bit of work to an article I started a few years ago on The Marriage by Rod Humble. I'm considering getting it ready for GAN, and I'd like to get some feedback from people with more experience writing about video games than I have. It's an unusual game and has received some atypical coverage. As such the structure and content of the page don't seem to quite match any existing video game GAs as far as I can tell. A general sense of how close it seems to GA at this point would be useful, as well as concrete feedback about any clear issues that should be resolved prior to heading that way. Thanks! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • From a high-level structural point of view, seems reasonable. The name dropping of the analysts is maybe unnecessary. Did you feel uncomfortable without the inline attribution? The lead is too short for a GA. --Izno (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd go the other way- name-dropping the analysts feels odd because it doesn't tell me who they are. "Jane Ex says blah" doesn't mean much, "Jane X in Journal of Stuffs says X" tells me why I would care about their opinion (without having to hover over the cites). --PresN 02:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
      • We're not really in disagreement there. :) --Izno (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Izno, PresN, and Czar: I'd like to focus on the issue of quotes/attribution (expanding the lead, which is indeed something that needs to be done, is more straightforward). I have mixed feelings about this. Specifically, I'd like to talk about summarizing and removing attribution (adding additional context via the author's role or the publication is easy enough). As a matter of general principle, yes, I agree that paraphrasing is nearly always preferable, without necessitating attribution. Many of the sources attributed here, however, are academics studying the game, using language that's difficult to summarize without removing what's important and without separating it from the reason for including those sources. For example, Ian Bogost is a notable games scholar and has several notions related "procedurality" that he talks about. That it's a notable critic/academic is itself useful (and his take on the game is in turn covered in several of the other sources), but there's also the matter of, say, how he calls this a "proceduralist game." It's meaningful given his work on procedurality, but needs attribution because "proceduralist game" is not like saying "it's a roguelike" in Wikipedia's voice, as though that concept should exist without attribution to Bogost. A few of the sources use this game as a case study to develop a concept, whether simulation vs. metaphor or the gaming equivalent of high art vs. low art. Again, talking about it in the context of high art vs. low art isn't something I would expect to read in Wikipedia's voice, but is something I would be glad to read in the article. TL;DR - could someone offer examples of authors cited that could have their names omitted (and/or accompanying quotes that could be paraphrased)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Just from a quick flick through, if I were reviewing this; the lede needs extending, and would the reception section not come last? I did look for contemporary review articles, which as you stated, don't exist, although there is a brief mention in kotaku. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Since it looks like my comment may have been misinterpreted: I don't think that attribution should be removed. I'm pro putting the author's name next to quotes or paraphrases, for both reviews and academic sources. My comment was more that I (read: the reader) don't know who Ian Bogost is. And yes, for that case I can check their article, but most of the academics you cite don't have one; in either case, the reader has no way to know just by reading the article itself to know why they should care about Ian Bogost's opinion. Attribution, therefore, should not be removed, it should be expanded- say what site/journal they were writing in. If there's not a journal, say what the form was. So, "Ian Bogost, in Journal of Vidya, said blah", or at least "Ian Bogost, in a thesis on video game metaphors, said blah". --PresN 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and erred on the side of elaboration for now, adding a bit more information to conextualize those the content is attributed to. Along the lines of the above, I'm certainly not married (ahem) to that approach, though. I think it would be helpful to see examples of specific revisions folks may have in mind for what could be better presented without attribution. Perhaps a GAN would come down more to the preferences of the reviewer. Acknowledging that it could still use a bit of work, and willing to do that work, I'm going to go ahead and get it into the queue. If my past few experiences at GAN are any indication, there's still a few months to talk it through. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Test Drive games with change of titles[edit]

Some of the articles in the Test Drive games have been renamed by Luigitehplumber because "the games were developed in the UK". Is this the case or is there something more than that? Neverrainy (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Where there is clearly not a preference for a common English name for a game, the name should be based on the country of first (legitimate) publication, regardless of the developer's home. More often, that title is something set by the publisher, so we should use the one they first select if we don't have a clear better-known name. --Masem (t) 01:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
According to an Admin, they say that for WikiProject Video Games, you have to use the name that the country uses if the developer is located there, for example for TD Overdrive, that name would be used instead of Test Drive as the developer, Pitbull Syndicate is based in the United Kingdom and over there, the game was released under the TD Overdrive name. Luigitehplumber (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If both titles are somewhat equally likely to be used in English, they should probably both be listed in the series article, at least, regardless of which title we pick for the individual articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

LTPHarry - Just for reference, an admins thoughts on policy doesn't hold more weight than any other members. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who told you that, but we don't have any such guideline that says "Use the country the developer is located in". WP:NCVG makes no mention of such. WP:COMMONNAME should be followed. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I did find that strange from whoever told me that, considering some games are developed outside English speaking countries. Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The "country of developer" is generally applied to things like date formats and spelling (part of the strong national ties thing). --Masem (t) 16:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
(And in VG cases we generally don't view that as a default national tie.... See long discussion at MOS:VG from this week) -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Computer Space[edit]

Got a couple requests at WP:FFU related to this game. Looks like it was based on Spacewar!, which seems to have been especially released into the public domain by the owners. But I'm not entirely sure that Computer Space is an exact copy or if it is a derivative work. If it's derivative, then it would likely have it's own copyright protection. But if it is an exact copy on a different piece of hardware, then it wouldn't.

Figured I'd solicit some input and see if anybody was familiar with the subject. GMGtalk 15:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. There's two things here:
  • I can say for sure that Computer Space is inspired, but not derived directly from Space War! (different computer architectures at the time). And while the gameplay is derivative, at least in US copyright law, that's not a copyrightable element. Thus, assuming all other parts are free, then a free screenshot or video of Computer Space would not be a non-free work due to its inspiration from Space War! (eg: FreeCiv is a open-sourced version of the Civilization games, so we have plenty of shots of that).
  • However, the second element is the actual gameplay of Computer Space. There is a potential for the graphics to be copyrightable (regardless if they registered or not). The cabinet is a functionary thing with no art, so that would not be copyrightable. But back to gameplay, now the question becomes , does this possible meet the threshold of originality? Unfortunately, I think it's just across the line particular these being video shots to show the game's animation too. I'm not 100% sure on this, but this does need to be asked. If the TOO is not met, then these videos should be fine as free images. --Masem (t) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
non-free work due to its inspiration from Space War! No, that's got it backward. Space War! was released into PD, but I don't see that Computer Space has been. So if it were a near exact copy of Space War!, then that would be an argument in favor of it being free, and not the other way round.
As far as TOO and game play, haven't the faintest. I don't believe I've ever seen a related court case or a similar file defended anywhere here or on Commons based on TOO grounds. GMGtalk 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh hey, I wrote both of those articles. The PD status of Spacewar! has nothing to do with Computer Space, sadly- while the latter may have been inspired by the former, the dev process made it an entirely different game. Spacewar! is a 2-player dogfighting game around a gravity well on a stellar background; Computer Space is a 1-player target shooting game where you move a ship and shoot UFOs on rails. I'd love to have a screenshot in the article either way, but it's definitely not PD or derivative of Spacewar!. --PresN 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. I mean...not "awesome", but at least it's closure. GMGtalk 17:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I have uploaded several images of early video game graphics under the guise of simple geometry constituting public domain. (see these examples: [4] [5] [6] [7]). This is always a balancing act and I sometimes removed some more intricate elements of a given image to make it more generic. When I look at the visuals of Computer Space, I don't believe this argument holds very well, especially if those stars were manually placed by a person. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer review at The Binding of Issac: Rebirth[edit]

I have started a peer review for The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth. All comments at the review page are greatly appreciated. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Video game companies of Poland is missing Destructive Creations.[edit]

This category is missing the company Destructive Creations. A page hasn't been created for them yet; however, they should still be added to the list. I just don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmizerski2000 (talkcontribs) 22:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The way categories are programmed, only existing Wikipedia pages can be part of categories. You can't add a subject to a category if that subject doesn't have a page on Wikipedia. Technically, you could add the redirect titled "Destructive Creations" to a category, though I am not sure if this is generally accepted. Doing a quick Google Search, I think Destructive Creations fits the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article, so the optimal solution would probably be if someone wrote a good article on the subject. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nintendo Account[edit]

Just doing a few ratings for articles, and saw this article. Does anyone have opinion on the WP:FLAGCRUFT on this page? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The entire Availability section is unsourced. Should we even cover the subject like this? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Just about every discussion I’ve been involved with has lead to the removal of the flags. I’m honestly not sure what their legit use is at this point... Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, it's mostly only used for {{flagathlete}}, or similar, or on geographical articles. Anything with a list of countries (outside of list of countries in XXX) should probably not exist. This seems like a notable subject, but probably only a stub. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I just removed the entire section due to it being WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and unsourced). Is there not an official Nintendo site that we could instead point to for people wanting to know the exact availability of the service in parts of the world? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't really see how it's important to Wikipedia, tbh. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Relatively new Wikipedian Gold Luigi (talk · contribs) did so too on PlayStation Network. I think they're not yet familiar with the policy. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Not going to lie - I personally also hate the function style tables these articles gain - such as the PlayStation Network#Network chart. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
That looks like WP:CATALOG stuff to me. PlayStation's own websites can handle that stuff. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
It 100% is. I've just removed that entire section because of that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that you guys removed the flags on Nintendo Account and PlayStation Network. Why? (And yes, I came here because I got mentioned.) Gold Luigi (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── - see above conversation. It's not encyclopedic. It also breaks Wikipedia's guidelines regarding WP:FLAGCRUFT Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Zwei US date[edit]

Hello. Can anyone provide a source for the US release date of Panzer Dragoon II Zwei. I've got sources for the JP and EU dates, but the US date remains elusive. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Only sources I can find just mention it was in 96. Sorry Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • U.S. mag "Mean Machines Sega" (#43, May 1996) says the game had been released in April that year; unfortunately, I couldn't find a full date thus far. Lordtobi () 15:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    Wasn't Mean Machines Sega a UK mag? TarkusABtalk 15:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    TarkusAB, I believe it was American but I might be wrong. However, if I'm wrong, the currently presented PAL date would be wrong, too (since it says May). Edit: Yep, I was wrong. Lordtobi () 16:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

c:Category:Videos by Bandai Namco[edit]

Just an FYI, but apparently this company is in the business of uploading official videos to youtube under a creative commons license, meaning that there are currently 195 of them available on Commons, and not only can we use the videos in their entirety, but we can use any individual element of them for either video clips or for still images. GMGtalk 11:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I still wonder to what extent they're doing this legitimately. There are trailers for the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure PS3 and PS4 games on Commons, and although Bandai Namco is the publisher of those two games, they do not own the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure IP - that does, to my knowledge, belong to Hirohiko Araki's art studio and to Shueisha.--Alexandra IDVtalk 12:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not legitimate because they're not the copyright holders of most of the stuff they upload on their YouTube channel. Obviously some marketing intern who doesn't understand copyright and has no idea what they're doing. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Well apparently whatever internal agreement they have allows the publisher to release content for promotional purposes, since that's what they're doing, and have been for a while now. Moreover, they're doing it on an official corporate account with 0.5m subscribers, on YouTube, where there is a well established regime in place to have the content removed if it is violating.
We can always shoot them an email in the off chance that they respond, but barring that, we have no way of knowing their internal arrangements, and "bumbling intern" may be consistent with the evidence we have, but so is a company who figured that releasing content for free was the quickest way to have it as widely disseminated as possible. GMGtalk 13:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but if Bandai Namco does not own JoJo (they do not), they very probably do not have the right to release that trailer for free in the first place. The trailer even includes panels from the manga it's based on. Maybe it's different for original IP developed and published by Bandai Namco though.--Alexandra IDVtalk 14:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
We had a similar problem with some part of Ubisoft releasing gameplay stuff as CC or the like, but clearly it was not a universal decision by Ubisoft proper. Same thing here. If it were only games that were B-N creations only, like Pacman, Katamari Damacy, etc. and purposely exclude the anime games, it might pass that sniff test, but definitely not in this case. --Masem (t) 15:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Make sure to comment at the original discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#No free equivalent, but what is equivalent?, or people are going to jump on this. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion also at commons:Commons:AN#Licensing of Bandai videos probably invalid. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

FA possibility for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered[edit]


I've been a major contributor to the editing of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered's article, and last year helped get it to Good Article status. Recently I've been wondering if and how it would be possible to go a step further and get it to Featured Article status. In my opinion, it's a very nice article, but I guess it might need some work to achieve this. I'm not familiar with the whole process and had a skim through WP:GVF, but I would appreciate the assistance of an admin who has a lot more knowledge on the subject and who could ascertain the number of requirements it would need to meet. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Curious, where can I find the Newly redirected video game articles section like it is posted in New Articles posts here? If it is possible, of course. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Task force cleanup 2018[edit]

As the new year approaches, now might be a good time for another task force cleanup. The Blizzard, Indie, Rockstar, and Valve task forces do not appear to be in regular use. Is there any benefit to keeping their infrastructure or should we redirect them? I'm open to discussing the other remaining task forces too, but thought we'd start with objections to the most moribund. There's little use in maintaining pages that are not actively facilitating collaboration or contributing to the WikiProject's mission. czar 19:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)