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
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk


New Articles (26 August to 3 September)[edit]

26 August

27 August

28 August

29 August

30 August

31 August

1 September

2 September

3 September

Salavat (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Notability discussion at Talk:Runestone_Keeper#Notability, a mobile game with few dedicated reviews czar 17:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • That's the sort of article I had in mind a few weeks ago talking about having a bit stronger notability for video games. It just squeaks by the GNG (with two sourcable reviews) and thus we can have a standalone on it presently, but will it ever be possible to expand on that beyond that point? If not, should we ultimately delete it? I'm not saying we need to do anything about this idea at this time, just an example of a case that I think we aren't here just to document every game that gains a RS review or two but really should look to something more to justify encyclopedic articles on video games. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
      • If we make our standards strict enough that even fully referenced, Start-class articles are not allowed, then it will be somewhat ridiculous. Deleting Start class articles because they can't be expanded further while there still exist Stubs to be expanded is hypocritical, and Start class articles can still be of help to people, as opposed to Stubs. I do think such things should be discouraged in, say, requests or lists of potential articles to be created, but they are not harmful in particular.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't be used to prevent start class articles as long as the GNG is met (eg two reviews in this case). But keeping in mind that the GNG is a presumption of notability, if after a year or so, all that can be shown to be said for this game are two reviews, that's probably a sign its not notable in the larger picture of video games and within WP's goals, and merge/deletion may be possible. For video games, moreso than any other area, we should have it easy to see if any modern game has articles to support it by online searches, as we have very few print-only sources now. Again, not saying that these articles shouldn't be created based on passing the GNG, but we as a project can say that in the long-term this may not be the type of things for standalone articles. But we'd need to flesh that out greatly before doing so. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
          • In terms of video games, notability needs to be interpreted differently. A vast number of games, while having a large subculture impact, are only mentioned by notable publications before or upon release. It's rare that games receive constant coverage and that is usually a factor of advertising budget, not encyclopedic value. Your proposed guidelines vastly favor AAA games with big budgets, not imparting encyclopedic value.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately, WP's core policies, alongside the way the VG media works, means this is always going to happen. We're supposed to summarize what RSes provide and if there are no RSes to provide that, we shouldn't be covering it. It is a clear systematic bias against smaller games, and we're unlikely to change WP policy to correct this, nor are we going to be able to affect the VG media. But also to that end, our goal is not to catalog every game, but to provided education content related to video games, focusing more on development, reception and legacy of games rather than just that a game exists. When you consider the number of indie and mobile games out there, only a small minority of games are going to receive this level of coverage, which is probably a good thing. So we can be a bit flexible at where we draw the line. I fully agree not to spite start-class articles that meet the GNG, but we could 'opt to if we want have a stronger requirements if after time a game simply doesn't show much more coverage than a few reviews. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I get that "significant coverage" isn't a bright line, but "two reviews" certainly is no community-set bar to cross that line—it's closer, in practice, to three solid reviews, which this doesn't have. In this case, I think it's generous to even call the 4gamer source a review (note too that the Softpedia "review" is of a demo...) And that's not even mentioning how the 2015 game has no claim to fame or any consequential/noteworthy impact apart from receiving brief classic games PR-style news announcements. I don't buy the systemic bias argument here as we keep all sorts of similarly non-noteworthy games because they at least get reviews in TouchArcade/Gamezebo/Pocket Gamer. The discussion about this specific game belongs on its talk page, but this title hasn't even received reviews in those mobile game specialty sites. czar 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know, I'm with ZXCVBNM on this one. Yes, there's probably 10,000 games out there that aren't realistically ever going to get more than a start-class article, and most don't have a handy series to merge them all up into. Does that mean we delete them, because we only want B+ articles? I say no. I think the mission of the VG project is to crate articles covering every notable subject, just like the goal of wikipedia at large is to create articles on every notable subject, and neither should limit the scope to "notable+" articles. Even at start-class, to the few readers that want to find those articles it's still a useful resource. Instead, I think that editor attention should be biased towards the more notable articles- and what do you know, that's exactly what happens (with the major counterpoint that of the super-notable-but-super-difficult articles). Pretty much everyone who posts on this board spends their time writing lengthy articles based on tons of sources (with whatever quality it shakes out to be); very few spend their time beating their heads against articles on barely-notable 10-year-old games that only have 2 reliable sources in existence. The problem, therefore, solves itself, to a large extent. --PresN 21:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately the definition of a "solid" review is subjective. It's a reliable source mentioning the game in a significant way, and giving their opinion on whether the game's good or not. There's no requirement that it get a large amount of critical analysis, the mere existence of it being mentioned makes it notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Never said it wasn't. But I don't think that anyone is arguing that this game has been mentioned in sources in a significant way. The coverage is as routine as it gets, and the review coverage is unexceptional. czar 07:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (4 September to 8 September)[edit]

4 September

5 September

6 September

7 September

8 September

Salavat (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yooka-Laylee again[edit]

Another IP is causing disruption at this page and claims that everyone at the active consensus, listed here, says the subject of the consensus is wrong and should be used in quotes. Pinging Sergecross73 as the last admin to protect this article and @IDV, Grayfell, Dissident93, and Masem: as other participants in the original debate. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ignore this, nor did I, I just forgot to respond. The IP is in the wrong, but he stopped after 3 reverts, and has been appropriately warned, so there's really no action to be taken yet. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine FAC[edit]

Hi everyone. I've currently got Jill Valentine nominated for FAC: see here. I'm in pretty much exactly the same position I was when I last nominated it, being that I have seven votes of support and opposing comments from only one feminist editor.

I didn't post on here at all at the last nomination because even though I'd never ask for support as I believe that would be unethical, I still didn't want to contact any particular group of people on the grounds it might be interpreted as canvassing. However, I'm now at my wits end so I'm going to ask for your comments on the nomination.

At the last nomination the feminist editor insisted I remove pretty much all references to Jill being perceived as physically attractive, on the ground that women should not be sexualised, and when they are, it should be ignored on the grounds it is sexist. It was also demanded that I quote heavily from a feminist blog which complains about Jill being sexualised (Incidentally, an editor at the current nomination thinks this blog may not meet WP:RS). Despite conceding to these two demands, the feminist editor still opposed the nomination on the grounds that I should have already used the specific feminist blog prior to nomination, and that there shouldn't have been any coverage of Jill being perceived as attractive in the first place. Just to make that clear, the main reasons this editor gave for opposing the nomination was how the article looked in the past. To be fair I will mention that in retrospect I did have too much coverage of Jill's attractiveness and it would have been appropriate to reduce the amount (as opposed to removing it entirely), and a second editor also opposed on the issue of sources. However, I was more than half way through addressing the source concerns when the nomination was closed abruptly. I continued to address all the concerns regarding sources after the nomination was closed.

The article currently contains the text 'One of the few personal details given about Jill in the original game is her ethnicity being half-French, half-Japanese; in 1996, Computer and Video Games said this detail "doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her".' The feminist editor is complaining that it is too sexist to mention this. That's an example of the kind of thing they have continually asked me to remove. The editor has also demanded I remove any mention that Jill has been included on top character lists (such as that she was "ranked Jill 30th on the list of greatest heroines", on the grounds that even if the author and source are high-quality, the "list of greatest heroines" hasn't had any secondary coverage commenting on it, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned. I would actually find these concerns humorous, if it wasn't for the fact the coordinator gave this editor's arguments a surprising amount of weight at the previous nomination.

I would strongly appreciate any comments on the article, regardless of whether they join in on the current debate or serve as a new, independent review from yourself. Freikorp (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Someone is opposing your article from becoming a Featured Article because its "Sexist"? GamerPro64 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Short answer: yes. That was the feminist editor's main concern at the first nomination.
Long answer: I think they're coming up with every imaginable reason to oppose the nomination because they just don't like it. This editor cited the fact I hadn't personally checked the offline sources added by other established editors at the previous nomination as a reason for opposing its promotion. Now that I've done that and have offered to email scans to her to prove it she's come up with new bizarre reasons to oppose, such as the fact my high-quality sources don't have secondary sources commenting on them. Freikorp (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • All of her points are worth heeding. There are plenty of changes I would recommend for this article, especially in the Reception. And I'm extremely dismayed to see SV's detailed bullet points being shouted down rather than accommodated. czar 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: That's not a fair comment. I addressed most of her bullet points. The only one I could be accused of shouting down was her complaint about the reception area, and the reason I did that was because, at the time, she was the only person who had a problem with it. After what happened at the last FAC I am hesitant to completely rewrite something to address the concerns of a lone editor. Now that other people have given more detailed opinions on the reception section, rest assured I will happily work on the issue. Freikorp (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't singling you out, but if her bullet points were addressed, the responses read as quite dismissive of her message. I think it's surmountable, but if there's bad blood, it's more productive to extend the olive branch than to dig a deeper hole. czar 19:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Another person chiming in that SV has some valid points. Pretty shady coming in here trying to paint it as some sort of "Feminism POV pushing" or whatever that above stuff was supposed to be. Really disappointing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that some of SV's concerns, the ones about what information "should" be included, could have been debated- as in, a reasonable argument could have been made that regardless of how pointless or sexist they were, it would be accurate to the state of video game criticism to note that that was what they focused on, so context could have fixed the issues. The others- choppy flow, overreliance on listicles instead of reaching harder for better sources, etc.- are pretty on point. However, you didn't debate the debateable ones. You got your back up, and made weak arguments and snide remarks, in both FACs.
  • The FAC process isn't perfect by any means- it's annoyingly uneven between candidates and reviewers. But there's one way that it's not technically perfect that's in keeping with any other review process in life- the moment you insulted SV, there or here, was the moment that the whole candidacy was doomed. (And yes, since you obviously consider it to be one, "feminist" counts as an insult). SV is never going to support now, because why would she put up with that? You could probably drive her away, except now the coordinators will never promote unless she supports, because there's not much they hate more than nominators being rude to reviewers as the reviewer pool is so stretched as it is. Take this as a life lesson: don't do that. Regardless of how annoyed you are by what they're opposing over. --PresN 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all you admins want to look out for one another, but read this and tell me the Jill Valentine FAC hasn't descended into farce. It's beyond a joke at this stage. I was planning on getting several other articles to featured status over the next few months but, after all this, I don't think I'll bother. This whole website has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare! Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
That's just a dif of you complaining about "farces" again. Still unclear what I'm supposed to be outraged about here... Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Another snarky comment from another admin. Heaven forbid you actually read the content of a diff. *eyerollemoji* Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Dude. It's not your FAC. You're just the reviewer. Why are you having a drawn out, multi-venue, multi-hour tiff about Ealdgyth giving you suggestions about how as the source reviewer you should either save yourself a ton of time and only discuss the sources you have issues with, or else dig even deeper and find out if each source is "high-quality" instead of explicitly deferring to VG/RS. Like, source reviews are usually just "Why are sources a,b,c good enough?" "Because x,y,z." "Ok." I don't even agree with her about the distinction between RS sources and "high-quality", as separate from the concept of the "best available" or the content of the source being high-quality, but I still find the angry, personal way you've taken any criticism over an article you aren't the nominator for really... odd. (Also, accusing people of blindly supporting fellow admins is such an eye-roll-worthy attack. There are multiple people who I highly respect who are supporting that FAC. Perhaps instead of clumping everyone who doesn't agree with everything you agree with as "enemies", you should actually read what they wrote.) --PresN 02:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I did read your dif - you're missing my point. Your dif is very vague and doesn't articulate the issue at all. All it shows is you complaining about sources. Doesn't show the specific sources. Or the issues with them. Or any context at all. It's nothing but you making vague grievances. And as much fun as it would be to wade through a ton of text to figure out what in the world you're worked up about up about, you kinda threw any of my motivation out the window when you start off with your "admin sticking together" garbage. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@PresN:@Sergecross73: Believe it or not, I actually consider myself to be a feminist. Here is an article I created and wrote entirely by myself (save for copyedits), which is completely full of feminist themes: Murder of Leigh Leigh. Here are three where I am by far the main writer and have gone out of my way to add coverage of feminist themes to: Isabelle Eberhardt, Dark Angel (TV series), The Fifth Element. I do not, however, identify as a feminist editor, because I am not here to promote any agenda. I actually take pride in finding new topics to write about; I do not limit my editing to even one category of articles. Based on SlimVirgin's actions and comments, I consider her to be a feminist editor, because it's my interpretation of her actions that she is here to promote a feminist agenda. You are welcome to disagree. You are welcome to consider "feminist editor" to be an insult, however, that was not my intention. My intention is to call a spade a spade. I am always polite to people if they are respectful to me. As far as I am concerned, SlimVirgin set the tone for out conversation at the first nomination. I don't suppose you read it? She cited several specific problems with the nomination, and I undeniably backed down and submitted to her requests. To be fair, there were other concerns of hers that I didn't address, some because I disagreed with, and other because I requested clarification on exactly what she wanted, yet such requests were frequently ignored, such as this one [1]. I addressed specific concerns, yet she still opposed on these specific reasons, on the grounds of how the article looked before I made the changes. I think you're failing to understand the gravity of those actions. When you back down to someone's requests, and the person still opposes specifically because of how the article used to look before you addressed their concerns, it becomes apparent that they are not going to support your nomination regardless of what you do. In any case, my objective by posting the above comment was to get more people to comment on the nomination. That has now happened, so I'd rather focus on addressing concerns at the nomination and not continuing to reply here. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I just read through the first FAC and I both completely agree with SV's points and definitely would not have been as patient as her, especially after being continually insulted. What's rich is that SV points out POV issues with the sourcing/presentation but she is painted as an activist editor? How is it her fault and not the non-neutrality ("activism") of the article authors? Lack of humility aside, if the intractable end of the last FAC was for want of sources, (1) that's a sign to recruit a third party (through forums like WT:VG, WT:FCHAR) for help, and (2) you can't be faulted for sources that you cannot find (well, unless someone finds those sources easily and thus reveals laziness)—if you show your good faith attempts to find those non-existent sources and simply have no results, then the FAC has to continue past those points. Lastly, replace "feminist" above with "COI" or "Christian" to see how any descriptor used in that manner is made into a pejorative, no matter your personal inclination or intent. SV didn't dredge up the last FAC and gives no appearance of itching for a fight, but I see plenty of that from other parties, which brings us to the realm of projection and hypocrisy... When it gets that bad, the best recourse is usually a sincere mea culpa (without the hand-wringing) and just moving on. Here's the writing on the wall from a month ago, excellent observations worth repeating in toto, emphasis preserved and italics added:

Straight away, I have to say that it is extremely unhelpful for reviewers to post comments such as "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" and "Surely it would have been speedier/more appropriate to take the 30 seconds required to investigate for yourself if a source met the notability requirements, rather than simply asking multiple times: 'What makes X a high-quality reliable source?' or 'What makes X writer so important as to have their opinion featured on the article?'" No-one is required to do anything here, we are all volunteers. Alienating reviewers is an absolutely certain way to make sure that others steer clear of these articles at FAC, and without reviewers, nothing is going to pass. Simple. Another point that I am repeatedly labouring is that video game reviewers are often their own worst enemy, both in terms of cursory review and in what appears to be happening here: closing ranks. I'm absolutely sure that this is not the intention, but it is certainly coming across that way. And I would recommend not trying to tell source reviewers how to do their job: Ealdgyth has been doing this for years and years, and you will not find a better source reviewer here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

czar 15:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to keep debating this, but after reading that I feel the the need to mention two things. Firstly Ealdgyth also opposed my nomination, but I never lost my civility with her (and actually consider myself to be on quite good terms with her) because her criticism was the only criticism I got which I consider to have been constructive. She actually explained why she wanted me to do things, she didn't just tell me to do them and assume I would figure out what the problem was. For the record I also feel the need to state that those comments Sarastro1 was complaining about (such as "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" were not made by me. Happy to just move forward from here. Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (8 September to 16 September)[edit]

8 September

9 September

10 September

11 September

12 September

13 September

14 September

15 September

16 September

Salavat (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Which pronouns should be used for Zoë Quinn's biographical article?[edit]

Hi all, just wanted to garner more input in this RfC located on the talk page for Zoë Quinn's BLP article. Not sure if this is your department or not, let me know if I'm overstepping.

Normally MOS:GENDERID would be very easy to apply, but unfortunately in this case some circumstances have made this difficult. Add in the inherent controversy and inflammatory nature that follows anything to do with Gamergate and you have the stew we now find ourselves in.

Can your editors provide some input so we can get this cleared up? Thanks. --Shibbolethink ( ) 19:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"Quinn has also self-identified as a woman and as feminine.[3]‪[4]‬" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow mystery solved. GamerPro64 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If only these things were so easy! I agree with your assessment, but a viewing of the page's history would find this has been a somewhat contentious issue. Mostly because Quinn in 2016 posted a blog post requesting they/their/them pronouns. Discussion has been reignited with the publication of Quinn's recent Gamergate book. Hopefully this is over soon and we can all move on with our lives. --Shibbolethink ( ) 20:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the talk page I'd say it's pretty open and shut. She never said "I want to be called they", she said that she didn't care what pronouns people used. That isn't the same as saying "I self identify as they, never call me he or she."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was very clearly reached. Thanks for your help, all! --Shibbolethink ( ) 14:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Pac-Man Arrangement merge[edit]

Outside feedback requested in Talk:List of Pac-Man video games#Proposed merge with Pac-Man Arrangement. It's been open since January. czar 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones up for deletion[edit]

Opinions wanted here. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, most of the regulars here already subscribe (or should) to WP:VG/D, where they are automatically notified of any deletion discussion tagged as video game related. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Jay Obernolte[edit]

So uh, anyone wanna even try to touch this article? It's been sitting in our GA nominations tab for a while now. Don't have much experience with political articles, but from what I've seen, the article appears to have way to many short subsections. Also, the article has way too many "In 20XX, Obernolte did such and such." I could be missing some huge details, but this is what I've gathered from my editing experience, stuff that should apply to any GA article. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: My guess is that having to adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it implies a more complicated review than regular video game articles require. However, it is also a Politics and government nominee, so we're not the only ones not touching it. Cognissonance (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Enhancing Xbox One games list[edit]

So now Xbox One games comprise four separate lists.

Its a bit out of hand, and I was looking at the other side of the coin and thought it might be a good idea. So instead of four lists, we might be able to at least eliminate one (the last one) by using the tag system PS4 uses. Since this is across pages, I wanted to bring it here. Any thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was also thinking of eliminating List of PlayStation 4 games with 3D support by denoting supporting titles in the add-on column. Similarly, you can use a plain [x] to denote Xbox One X enhanced games. — Niche-gamer 19:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
For the two backwards compatibility lists, I would just make that a column in the original platform's list. I.e. List of Xbox games should denote it. -- ferret (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Friendly reminder to all that this problem is present across the board, especially with Wii/Virtual console lists, PlayStation lists, and Xbox. See Category:Video game lists by platform, Category:PlayStation (brand)-related lists, and perhaps the granddaddy indiscriminate lists of them all: Category:Lists of PC games. TarkusABtalk 22:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(series) dab[edit]

I though there was an agreement between projects not to use the bare (series) dab. Isn't it supposed to (book series) (TV series) (game series) and so on? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that. If there's no other types of series to disambiguate from, it doesn't make sense to use "video game series" when "series" is shorter and works just fine. That's just basic WP:ATDAB, unless I'm misunderstanding your question? Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Same position as Serge. If there are no other series, then the video game naturally falls to (series). However, soon as another series exists, it would move to (video game series) and the original would become a dab page. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

On a mostly-unrelated note, I've been wondering if "(series)" really does a topic justice. A number of our series articles are actually about franchises in that they discuss non-video game content, such as toys, other works, non-digital games, promotion, profits, and so forth. --Izno (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There's an valid argument probably that (franchise) or (brand) might be more appropriate, depending. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It does seem like "series" is being used less overall anyways, because the "series" ends up being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (For example, a discussion dictated that Sonic the Hedgehog (series) be moved to Sonic the Hedgehog.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
That should be what happens, and the old criteria for it used to be that it required a set number of games AND non-video game content like books, toys, DVDs, or towels. - X201 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Right, that's another point. It's only necessary if there are unrelated series of the same name. The basic guideline is at WP:NCVGDAB. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Importance of Raiden[edit]

Sorry for bothering again, but unlike with Jin Kazama, I wasn't sure about Raiden's popularity. It was initially so negative that there are articles dedicated about his lack of appeal. However, following his debut in Metal Gear Solid 4 (supporting character) and Rising (protagonist), the response changed a lot from negative to positive. Despite joking about how bad was his debut, GamesRadar and another site called him one of the best heroes and soldiers in gaming. Do you think article should be rated mid? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to relative importance compared to all video game topics... Well, Raiden isn't even among the most "important" characters from his series. Solid Snake is currently mid-importance, which sounds about right. Big Boss and all other Metal Gear characters are rated low. I'd personally keep it that way. That all being said, it really doesn't matter much. It's all subjective and not particularly important. I doubt you'd get much resistance if you'd be bold about it, because arguing about the importance rating is just not worth the effort. ~Mable (chat) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, I believe the only article I've ever changed the importance rating on was for Cave Story, which I personally believe is a vital linchpin in the history of indie games. The vast majority of the articles I've written happen to be of low-importance, which I suppose is natural. I enjoy the importance property. It doesn't have much use, but thinking about the notability and importance is what initially got me into Wikipedia! Importance gets a bit more useful with 'high' and 'top'. Still, subjective, of course, but it may get people to edit broad, important, historical topics. When it comes to the difference between 'low' and 'mid', it's really not worth arguing about, as I mentioned earlier :p ~Mable (chat) 20:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I personally believe that Raiden is Mid importance, as he falls under "playing a somewhat less major role in a more major series" as per the guidelines. I also think that Solid Snake is actually High-importance, as he has become "widely recognized or significant" on the level of someone like Master Chief.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing Famitsu scores from Japanese ports of American games?[edit]

Lately TheDeviantPro has been removing all traces of the Japanese ports of the games in the Skate franchise, including Skate (video game), Skate It and Skate 3, by removing Famitsu scores and links! He's always acting as if the Japanese ports of games never existed at all! These GameFAQs links are the only proof that the games were ported to Japan, and yet he denies that proof by erasing all Famitsu reviews from American games that were ported to Japan for release! Why? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is some unique aspect of a Western game being released in Japan (or any other non-English region), we generally do not include the release there or reviews related to it. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And GameFaqs isn't a reliable source, not sure why you mentioned that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that we should, when possible, cover a game's international reception as well. GameFAQs is not usable as a source on WP, though - look the game up in Famitsu's database instead and source the review from there.--IDVtalk 18:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Removing GameFAQ sourced information is valid. Removing Famitsu is not. Famitsu is a reliable source and accepted parameter for {{Video game reviews}}. -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seconding ferret on this one. This is how I handle it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Secondary note: I agree with DeviantPro's edit here. @Angeldeb82: Could you please consider following the standard two column layout? Many editors find the multiple system format to be cumbersome and poorly formatted. Honestly, I think the option for a multi-system table should be removed entirely. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it's only useful when two different versions of a game (think Genesis and SNES) both got their own separate reviews. But even with games that do use this format, 90% of them only uses one of the two options anyway, defeating its entire purpose. As for this topic, I don't see any issue with adding Famitsu reviews on non-Japanese games. The fact they even bothered at all on something foreign to their culture should be considered notable, and the current guidelines do not prevent this (only release dates in the infobox and lead). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, ferret, I consider it done. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Third bullet at Template:Video game reviews says Only include reviews if they are cited within the text., and this doesn't just mean the review score is cited in the text. The text should include some of the opinions/conclusions that were part of the review. I frequently see Famitsu scores added to review boxes with additions made to the text. Likely because they are taken from other sources (NeoGaf, GameFAQS, Gematsu), which just post scores and don't translate the actual review. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That's valid enough and I agree, but it was not the reason given for the removals here. -- ferret (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay I'm a bit confused, I've been under the impression that we don't usually list Famistu reviews on the review table because majority of articles for western games on Wikipedia don't have Famistu in the review table (example: Grand Theft Auto V ect). Also why include Japanese reviews in article of an western game, if we not going to include the Japanese release date in the infobox? it seems to be pointless excluding the release date but having an Japanese review. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, we Americans have been including American and international reviews of games that were first made in Japan before being ported internationally, all of our lives. Would you then call including American and international ports of Japanese games "pointless" if you were living in Japan? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What does the infobox have to do with the reception section? In any case, I'm a fan of including Famitsu reviews in prose when available- it's a data point for reception of the game outside of America/England (aka English-speaking). While this may be the English wikipedia, if a game has a high percentage of players in non-English Europe and Japan, then it's useful to include what they thought of it (and for countering for countering systematic geographic/language bias. That said, I wouldn't usually include Famitsu in the reception table, as I usually limit those to 7/8 reviews, even if there's more in the prose, and it doesn't usually make the cut for non-Japanese games. --PresN 02:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • However, per our guidelines on the review box, we need to have prose from the famitsu review included in the prose. Yes, this can be done, but most of the time it is not, because of the translation issue. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Angeldeb82 If was living in Japan then I would learn how to read basic Japanese then I might not need to use the international port of a Japanese game, but that not what this discussion about isn't? This discussion about including Japanese reviews in an article for an non Japanese game in an English Wikipedia which I don't mind. But like I said, I was been under the impression that we don't usually list Famistu reviews on the review table because majority of articles for western games on Wikipedia don't have Famistu in the review table until Ferret corrected me by pointing me to Template:Video game reviews. But my point is with the release date that If we going with the international coverage that should we cover both the release date and the review, I mean we have Europe release date in the infobox and reviews covering the Europe region in reception same with the North American release date, so not the Japanese release date? But that's just my opinion. @PresN I highly doubt that the Skate series have a high percentage of players in Japan as skateboarding isn't popular there than in western countries. @Masem that's why Gematsu and Nintendo Life only include the scores it saves them the trouble of translating the whole review. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I tend to only include Famitsu if a western game has a significant impact in Japan. Besides, if there is no translation of Famitsu reviews around, then what we can write in prose is "Famitsu's four reviewers collectively awarded the game a score of x out of 40", which is considered as a bad way to write a reception section according to our guidelines, I'd say we should only use Famitsu if the review is worth noting and that it uses actually has substance to it. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Answers above are sufficient—I don't think Famitsu's perspective is crucial for the Skate series—but wanted to add that, in general, it's worth digging up the Famitsu review when the game's Japan release was significant. In terms of looking it up, I've had more luck with fan communities and reqs at places like Retromags than going the academic interlibrary loan route (which works too but good luck). But as someone who has had over a dozen reviews translated from several other languages (much appreciation to the Wikipedians who have helped with this)... the results are often only useful for a quip or two. Concepts are better sourced to English-language refs when available, which are less ambiguous to paraphrase and easier for readers to verify. And the shorter the review—as typical for Famitsu reviews—the slimmer the chance of extracting a useful comment. Perspective from non-English speaking locales often ends up as lip service.
But more importantly, I use the Famitsu website to easily look up awards ("Gold/Silver Hall of Fame") and scores. (examples 1, 2) The award fits into the first paragraph of the Reception, giving the de facto mark of quality for the Japanese-language market when relevant, and the score can be dumped in the usual template. I'd at least try pursuing the article text translation for purposes of FA reviews, but otherwise, the online listing is sufficient. czar 05:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


I don't recall the last time we talked about GameTrailers. All of their videos are back on YouTube these days, under an official verified channel, which redirects to. Should we see if it might be possible for a bot run to correct existing dead links? is of course useless for old Flash player based videos like GT hosted. -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not all their videos are there - I recall not being able to find some episode of their podcast GT Time - but yeah, most of their modern stuff seems to be available. Would a video's title be enough for a bot to find the equivalent video on the GT Youtube channel, though?--IDVtalk 00:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The ones I was looking for tonight had the same title (Final Fantasy Retrospect Part-##, in this case). It was a 2007 video. -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (16 September to 22 September)[edit]

16 September

17 September

18 September

19 September

20 September

21 September

22 September

Salavat (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • PSA: Please move articles to their proper titles before nominating them for deletion. This puts the page history in the right location if or when it needs to be referenced in the future, e.g., if the article is recreated czar 05:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Coin945, you really gotta slow down again - you're really scraping the very bottom of the barrel with some of these articles you're creating. They're extremely short and devoid of hardly any content at all. Icarus: Sanctuary of the Gods is a mere 6 sentences (3 unsourced) streched out across 3 sections. Riddler's Den, is in a similar state. Articles like this aren't helping anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Whoa there. I disagree. Creating subs (even substubs) with one or two lines and a handful of sigcov in RSes is not only constructive, it is desirable. I encourage Coin945 to continue to do that. I do it too -- I have created many substubs in fact! A little is better than nothing (as long as it's not promotional and it has a few sources). Sometimes a small article is more conducive to iterative improvements than a redlink. Take the first step and others will follow. WP:PUTEFFORT. Ben · Salvidrim!  20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor Infobox Video Game update for Wikidata[edit]

Mike Peel updated {{Infobox video game}} today to use Module:WikidataIB, which is more tailored for use with infoboxes. In general, this result in no change in use or display. However, it adds a few new features. For brevity, I'll just link the template doc changes here. The short version is its now possible to selectively fetch Wikidata properties, or suppress particular fields from being fetched, or to only pull data from Wikidata if it has a reference, and so forth. Otherwise, the infobox functions the same as it did before. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Is the large link to Wikimedia Commons meant to be there too? Seems distracting, and not really needed if so. Some articles, like Dota 2, also show two cover images now. Dota 2 also shows some old citations used in the infobox, not even sure where its calling them from. As far as I can tell, this is worse off than it was a few days ago, pending any fixes to it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Dissident93: The two images thing was caused by adding support for logos, which I've reverted. The commons link is what I normally include with astronomy articles, it can easily be disabled if needed. The references are being fetched from Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I keep wanting to like this idea, but it keeps not being thought out all the way when implemented- it now autoimports fields even if you were overriding them with a blank line (e.g. "engine= "), which worked last time this was tried. Which means that you get, for example, The Last of Us Part II linking to an unitalicized series page that doesn't exist, or Wolfenstein 3D linking to Wolfenstein 3D engine, an unitalicized circular redirect. Since this change effectively changed thousands of articles with no discussion or testing, I'm considering reverting. --PresN 12:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    @PresN: Please can you check again? This should now be fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Mike Peel: This appears to be fixed, thanks! --PresN 15:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: It's only fair that we ping him as we're talking about his edits. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of a logo, and blank local values not causing suppression, have been addressed by Mike. Please use Template talk:Infobox video game#Arbitrary break - new issues? if you notice anything else. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

IP addition of categories[edit]

Is anyone able to check this IP's edits here? I've already reverted category additions which I believed were implausible, but can anyone double check the other additions? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

They all seem to make sense. Those games do have procedurally generated levels. I'm not sure about the multiplayer but I'd assume it's the case.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Guide For Making Abandoned Articles Good Articles[edit]

I don't expect a set degree of importance given to this. Everybody does their own work differently.[citation needed]

  1. Source formatting — I tend to start implementing a reflist using the |refs= parameter so that the article is consistently formatted in one style (it also makes the source easier to read).
  2. Source additions — Reading through the article to see which claims are unsupported, and adding reliable citations there.
  3. Source checking — Checking original sources against the claims they are cited to support.
  4. General expansion — Once the above is accomplished, it will be easier to expand the article. Not just because you've taken care of the sources, but having read it through, you know what is in the article, so no information will be repeated.
  5. Copy editing — Either copy edit yourself, or get the Guild of Copy Editors to do it.

I'd also like to know how other editors do stuff, or get advice on how to improve the list. Cognissonance (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I rewrite them entirely from scratch. Examples: Burnout 3: Takedown, The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds. I will read through the original article but I usually don't use much or any of the material from it. Start with nothing. Gather all the references and sources I need. Order them chronologically. Read through all of them. Sometimes I'll make notes before I start writing so I have rough framework and key points for the article. Then start writing. I usually begin with Development (because that's the most interesting part), then Marketing and Release, then Gameplay, then Plot/Setting and lastly Reception (I always leave this section last because I hate doing it). I'm pretty spontaneous when it comes to writing articles up to GAN. Writing doesn't take too long but gathering and reading through all the sources before I start can get tedious. If I can't finish an article in a day, I usually end up leaving it and never returning. I have several dozen incomplete drafts for video game articles that I wanted to get to GA. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to try that sometime. Seems like a more rapid version of what I usually do, using sources over time. Cognissonance (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless the article's already in pretty good shape (like Sonic '06 or Somari), I usually make a draftspace where I can work on it by myself. That saves the pain of getting into edit warring over removals/additions, in my opinion. JOEBRO64 22:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm also going to put it out that I start at gameplay, then work down from there. JOEBRO64 23:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I always dread the Gameplay and Reception. Development pertains to me, so that's the most fun to write. Cognissonance (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with some new eSports articles/categories[edit]

So Afrogindahood (talk · contribs) just created a bunch of new eSports related categories, navboxes, and articles. However, many of them are redundant, such as Category:International eSports competitions hosted by the United States when we already had Category:eSports competitions in the United States, or badly sourced and a better fit for Liquidpedia like ESL One Hamburg 2017 (which I moved to a draft for the time being). Is there a better way to handle this outside of taking them all manually to AfD/CfD? If you check his recent contributions you'd see that most of them would fall under the same issues, and it was clearly done with good intent so a mass revert/ban isn't the solution. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged the new ESL One Hamburg redirect for R2 speedy deletion, mainly because there would need to be room for the article to return to the mainspace when it's ready. The categories, meanwhile, I'm not so sure about: are there enough articles to at least make these categories work? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, in regards to the categories, the newly created category can easily be deleted under C1 if no article fits it. If a group of articles do fit it, the category can become a sub-category of the latter. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)