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
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


Question on the difference between a video game controversy vs criticism[edit]

I've started working on Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and I had a question on what is technically defined as a controversy. Obviously, No Russian, and the allegations of homophobic content with the F.A.G.S. video and Don't ask, don't tell easter egg were controversial, but the article also lists three other "controversies". One was that the PC port didn't support dedicated servers, which led to boycotts from the PC community; another was the Javelin glitch, which rendered the multiplayer unplayable for the first few weeks, and cost $40,000 to fix (at least according to this); and the third is a painting in a bathroom that had to be removed when the words "Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty" were discovered, which is forbidden in Islam. Are these three controversies or just criticisms. Even though just about every major game site covered these stories, I always thought that controversy meant that journalists outside the video game industry found it to be controversial. Just wanted to make sure. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If it has been covered outside of the usual circle of video game sources, then its reasonable to address it as a controversy, but I don't think this is a requirement to be something considered a controversy; there are ones that occur w/o outside sources commenting on it. But I would be careful to label things that involve player expectation (like the dedicated PC server thing or the Javelin thing) as "controversy", since this can be easily overblown by a few articles. It would be a controversial issue, but not necessary a full-blown controversy. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, anytime it sounds more like its just the fanbase whining. (No dedicated servers, small gameplay tweaks, etc), I relegate it more to a criticism description. (If sources can be found at all - frequently you'll see its just unattributed complaints from "fans" that didn't even get coverage from sources, its just whining from user reviews and comment sections. I tend to not use "controversy" unless sources are literally using the term, but as Masem says, if it seems like issue is getting a lot of sources dedicated to it from outside the smaller video game websites, that's probably a starting point for an argument for it too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
To your point about sources, the PC port was well documented by sources, with 2 Game Informer articles, 2 by Ars Techia, 3 by Kotaku, 2 by Destructoid, as well as a, 1UP, and IGN article. So I feel as though it may have received enough coverage to constitute a section in the Controversies article. The Javelin glitch was coverage by 6 sources, but 4 of them just say that the glitch has been patched, and given the fact that major glitches are bound to happen in the multiplayer mode of big games, I don't see it as a controversy. The final topic was the Favela painting, which, while covered again by a decent amount of sources, most of them just say the map was removed over criticism and then replaced, without giving their opinions on the matter like the F.A.G.S. video. So with that being said, I'll remove the Javelin and Favela painting sections, but keep the PC port section for now. It can always be removed later. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Just rereading the PC server aspect, I agree it is a controversy, in that it appears that most at the time considered the locking down of server control on the PC side to be insulting, and not just an aspect of gamer entitlement, so it is proper to include. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Masem and Sergecross73: So something just came to my attention. After the release of Modern Warfare 2, Infinity Ward founders Vincent Zampella and Jason West filed a lawsuit against Activision. While I haven't looked too much into the lawsuit, it appears that it's focused on Zampella's and West's roles in the company, not on the game itself. So I'm assuming that it shouldn't go in the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree the Zampella/West lawsuit was broader than just MW2 , so should not be included. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I know this is a strange scope for an article, but what are the grounds for splitting it out, exactly? I'm not seeing coverage that discusses "controversies of MW2" as an independent topic, so we're looking at why it was split summary style from the article. The controversy article appears to consist of major post-release events that should all be covered within the main article (and not as a "controversy" section, which we avoid) and only split out summary style as necessary. The No Russian split was certainly warranted, but I see the best endgame for the rest of the content merged into the main article. czar 23:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, this one's a tough one for me. I personally feel that article is justified, since a number of the sources used also mention the other controversies, and how they just kept on piling on top of each other. There's even this Daily Telegraph article about how the game managed to sell well despite the controversy surrounding it. Personally, I'd like to keep it. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Czar, Masem, and Sergecross73: Just wanted to make sure you guys saw this. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, the issue is that "controversies of MW2" is not an independently notable concept discussed by sources (perhaps the topics are individually discussed but not as a group) so this is a split. But then the main article doesn't actually cover this stuff in detail, which it should before it's split out. On my last read, I remember seeing extraneous info that would only be relevant if the minutiae of the events were important... but in any event, the topics should only be split out if they can't be given due weight (proportional to the coverage) in the parent article. czar 21:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, which articles do you want to split? The GA review of the controversy article is on hold and awaiting the outcome of the merge(?) discussion. The article meets the 'broad in scope' part of the criteria IMO, given how many sources there are for it. For future reference, I am really really tired when writing this and can't bring myself to understand anything. JAGUAR  22:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The controversy article is ostensibly a split from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2#Controversy, though the latter section is gutted. I suggested merging the controversy article back into the section and see what actually remains. If everything fits in the section, we don't need a separate article. The question becomes whether there is too much necessary content to not split out the concept. I'd wager that "MW2 controversies" is not an independently notable topic. No Russian definitely is, but the other stuff appears to be jammed in (a.k.a. the controversy article functions as a coat rack) czar 20:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread (Missing) No. 26[edit]

Since we've got a severe backlog of stuff, here's a new review thread to bring things more to the fore. Some of the GA nominations here have been hanging around for over two months!

  • Ellie (The Last of Us) (nom): On its second FAC, active since 27 June, and currently has four supports.
  • Rare Replay (nom): Active since 4 July, and currently has one support and three sets of comments.
  • Dota 2 (nom): On its second FAC, active since 12 July, and with no supports and a lot of comments. Closed.
  • Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward (nom): Active since 20 July, and currently has one support and two sets of comments.

I hope anyone here is willing to contribute to clearing the backlog here. I don't have anything I can offer personally at this moment, but as per usual, I'm creating a "Begging thread" for editors to exchange reviews/comments/ect. I am barred from the currently-nominated Deus Ex, Shin Megami Tensei and Fire Emblem games due to them being my own nominations. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Begging thread[edit]

  • I'm getting a bit worried about the lack of activity on the Virtue's Last Reward FAC. If anyone would be willing to do a review of it, I'll do a review of any video game FAC or PR of your choosing, or any GAN except Fire Emblem Fates, Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne and Deus Ex: Human Revolution (I'm okay with doing The Missing Link, however).--IDVtalk 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain, Czar, Omni Flames, PresN, Anarchyte, Gamingforfun365, ProtoDrake, GamerPro64, and AdrianGamer: Pinging people with current nominations, as I don't know how often everyone checks the WikiProject talk page.--IDVtalk 16:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I owe a review on Zero Escape; I'll try to do it tomorrow. Famous Hobo already reviewed my last FLC, I don't need another trade (unless you just love Commander Keen games, of course, like all right-thinking people). --PresN 01:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Fighting game tournaments[edit]

As some of you may have noticed, I've spent the past two weeks creating articles for more recent Street Fighter, like Evo 2016, Capcom Cup 2015, and even NorCal Regionals 2016 and Stunfest 2016, proving that these events are ripe for getting their own articles. I've been annoyed for a long time how an event like the Evolution Championship Series had only one article for all of its events, while many of the newer ones easily meet GNG. Of course I understand why this is: no one ever wanted to come forward to write such articles well. My works aren't Featured Articles by any means, but I think I managed to describe these events completely as they are covered by reliable sources. Now the question remains of what to do with these articles in the future. I have no idea if I'd be up to creating Capcom Cup 2016 or Evo 2017 when these events roll around, knowing how much work they are to create and how busy I tend to be during actual tournament season. I hope someone would be able to create at least C-class articles for these events once they roll around, and maybe I'll be that person. I don't think it's too important to start creating articles for older tournaments (though it could be pretty awesome), but these are the things that have been going through my mind lately. I was wondering if other people on WP:VG have any interest in this subject area, so that this gap in our coverage could be covered even if I weren't around... I'm open for ideas, anyway :) ~Mable (chat) 12:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

To expand on how these tournament articles relate to notability guidelines: all major Street Fighter tournaments seem to be covered by Steve Jurek from The Daily Dot and Michael Martin from Red Bull since the second half of 2015 (making it fairly easy to find sources for Premier Events of the Capcom Pro Tour). If a tournament gets coverage from multiple reliable sources outside of these two, it is likely that it meets GNG. ~Mable (chat) 12:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I even created the following navbox which illustrates the kind of coverage we can give to the larger Street Fighter tournaments:
I am planning on creating the article on Final Round 19 today/tomorrow, so don't worry about that. I don't know if all Capcom Cup 2016 Premier Events are/will be notable, but quite a few are :) ~Mable (chat) 17:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like some input over at Talk:Community Effort Orlando, as @UltraDark: created some really cool tables that may be rather excessive. I'd like to know some opinions. ~Mable (chat) 19:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

On gaming website italics or not...[edit]

I noticed while editing an article with the vg reviews template that we have a mashup of styles that doesn't feel consistent. Sites like Polygon are italized in there, while IGN and GameSpot are not. I've seen a few other cases where this has happened in prose. Since all these are websites I feel they should be similar, but at the same time, websites like MetaCritic or don't feel right to be italized.

I would like propose that we standardize this in the project (grandfathering existing articles, so we're talking only about making sure these are set on GA and FAs going forward) , following this piece of advice from MOS:TMMOS:TITLE "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized ( or The Huffington Post)."

For us, this means video game sites that are aimed to provide original content (IGN, GameSpot, Polygon, Eurogamer, Gamasutra, etc.) should all be italicized. If the site's primary purpose is for any other reason but just happens to include original content in the form of developer blogs, etc., they should remain non-italicized - MetaCritic, Twitch, YouTube, etc. This should be consistent in prose and in the reviews template. This also means we need to be careful in cite templates: "website=" or "work=" (they are aliases) will come up as italic while "publisher=" will not. This probably means a MetaCritic reference needs to include the italics marking so that in the final markup when used as "website=", so that that effect is cancelled out. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • On the topic of the citation formatting, I was under the impression we only ever use website= for the source of the citation; publisher= is for something like "website=GameSpot|publisher=CBS Interactive", i.e. the owner of said website.  · Salvidrim! ·  01:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • These fields have metadata equivalents too, so it's not a good idea to force/unforce italics as a hack. The standard book citation includes the book's publisher in non-italics alongside the italicized title—that's the precedent for using that field. Metacritic, Twitch, etc. should use the publisher field. Also it's not a good idea to use both website and publisher fields unless the website on its own is somehow ambiguous (and since the website is wikilinked to an article most of the time, it rarely is ambiguous). I was one of the bigger proponents of the dual field format (doesn't really matter as long as you're consistent), but it really just adds unneeded clutter to the citation section if it doesn't give information the reader will need. Also we typically get the publisher wrong since they change so often with companies buying websites... But the proposal? Yes, a thousand times yes czar 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve. I've been italicizing (if that's a word) website nans forever now and it's always annoying when someone else doesn't, and I agree that Metacritic, etc, shouldn't be in italics. ~Mable (chat) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why does WP:MOSTM have any comment on whether to italicize a work's name? --Izno (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • My bad, I meant to type MOS:TITLE as where that advice comes from. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also agreed. This practice is in compliance with the MOS, as well. MOS:ITALIC (but strangely not MOS:ITAL) notes Medium of publication or presentation is not a factor in italicizing the titles of magazines, journals, newspapers, and other publications. —zziccardi (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So unless there are any other concerns, I'll add this to VG/GL, and update the reviews template to use the proper italics in a day or so. The "work=" vs "publisher=" aspect for the cite web templates is something else beyond our control and needs to be something discussed at the cite template talkpages to resolve that issue if we don't want to use "publisher=" for works like Metacritic. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I should note that, after having been part of this discussion, I've changed my habit of writing "publisher=SiteName" to "work=SiteName". Regardless, I've always used italics for such websites, so no concerns here. ~Mable (chat) 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't want to put a bold "oppose" here, so I'll not... Please review Help:CS1#Work and publisher. While the help page isn't the MOS, the choice of the citation templates to italicize always the work's name should be respected (if users here are going to use them), rather than worked around (as suggested above by Masem at If the site's primary purpose is for any other reason but just happens to include original content in the form of developer blogs, etc., they should remain non-italicized - MetaCritic, Twitch, YouTube, etc.), since the MOS specifically doesn't say what to do when the content is not "original" (only if it is original). Basically, the MOS leaves it open on what to do. The citation templates in this case obviously go beyond that, and that is permissible by the MOS. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • What I think is at odds between the MOS and the citation templates is how to work with a website that otherwise does not offer normally original content. (As noted, MOS positively says when to use italics which the CS1 work= parameter follows, but not when not to use them for websites). And we should have consistency between prose and references when it comes to the style of a website's name. I think that if that if we recognize that sites like Metacritic are generally not italicized, they should be treated as publishers within the cite templates, and that respects the styling. (I spot-checked a few film articles of FA quality and Rotten Tomatoes is neither italicized nor use the work= citation). Also in reviewing this I do note that the CS1 templates also have a "via=" parameter for legit-published videos or other media that sites like Youtube only act as the hosting provider, and that field is not italicized either. So we can still make this work as long as we agree that Metacritic and similar aggregators should be treated as unitalic and as publishers for citations, so that that should all work. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

      We agree on what the MOS says, but I'm puzzled why you think that Metacritic is undeserving of italics. So let's hash that out. "It feels wrong" to italicize such isn't sufficient to me to suggest that they should/should not be italicized; similarly, films and video games which currently do not italicize them don't make me feel squishy inside. So then, are they publishers? I'm not sure. I think we can also look at them as the equivalent of anthologies or collections of works, which would put them squarely in the italicized vein.

      Regarding "via", this is a freeform parameter--you can put whatever you want in this, so looking at that parameter isn't relevant to this discussion. "Via" is there to take care of the "republisher" scenario, as with e.g. JSTOR.

      Maybe the above needs a wider RFC, or it needs to be taken up at WP:MOS to see if they have opinions, since I am not convinced they are solely publishers. --Izno (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

      To me, the difference is between "website as a creative outlet" vs "website as a service", and what Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and others are are services. It's like there's IGN the website and IGN the network. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
      A "service" is still a creative work. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      Not really, as implied they are only doing a service, not creating original content. The thing is is that through WP, we don't italicize these types of sites despite the lack of any specific MOS advice positively suggesting this. (MOS:TITLE only suggest when to italicize, not when not). And it's also worthwhile to consider that in the CS1 templates, for what they are used for as inline cites, 95% of the time (if not more) when you have a work= field, it will be a site that MOS:TITLE recommends should be italicized. It is the sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes that CS1 and MOS:TITLE and current practice on WP conflict on when it comes to references. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      Here's another data point [1] A discussion/RFC from last year about the work=/website= parameter and non-italicized sites (and italicization being forced on them by these parameters). While there was no conclusion about this about changes to CS1 templates, one this is clear is that editors readily accept that sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo should not be italicized in prose. This should apply to our similar "service" websites like Metacritic. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      Just want to reiterate here that there is no style guide that would italicize Metacritic, especially as a "creative" work. And re: services—Xbox Live as a service is not italicized but a news website called Xbox Live (e.g., an official blog) would be. A radio station WXYZ is not a creative work but its WXYZ Morning Show is. Tumblr and Medium and other blog services are not italicized but an individual blog is a creative work. It's grayer when Metacritic publishes an original post, but that doesn't make the website itself a "creative" outlet. It's like a music radio station publishing a page on an event—is it being used as a creative outlet or is it a single informational post from a website? That's how I'd approach it. And if you doubt the definition of creative, use other style guides as a precedence, as we did with our own MoS. czar 04:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      Which style guides did you check before making that rather authoritative statement? :) There seems to be come fairly clear dispute on the question in the RFC that Masem links (thanks for helping me support my point! :) about e.g. Rotten Tomatoes. SMC (who I would say is knowledgeable on such things as style) makes his opinion rather clear in the first couple of responses that RT is a work and should hence be italicized... Lapidite a bit further down agrees with him and even extends his comments to Metacritic. So really, I think for these sites, there's no consensus, and this place isn't the location to attempt to get that consensus. --Izno (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      There are published style guides that do recommend italicizing all websites, irregardless of their nature, but WP's MOS does not necessarily follow these guides. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      The only major style guide that appears to do anything like this is MLA because Metacritic would be a "container" (which means that all kinds of things are italicized that aren't usually so). But to the point, (1) the other major style guides distinguish between blogs and regular websites, and (2) our MoS is just based on this precedent—we have no language that advises for MLA-style italicization of all "containers". The working consensus, based on the current usage, is to not italicize "Metacritic"—I'm not sure how you could call that in contention as I've rarely, if ever, seen Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes italicized. If you wish to clarify that further or change that practice, I suggest starting an RfC in a centralized forum, otherwise I'd consider the consensus clear enough as existing practice. The point of this thread, as I saw it, was in consistently italicizing IGN/GameSpot when they are used as blogs/creative outlets and not "networks". I don't see any contentions on that front. czar 15:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      Masem: I think you're pretty clearly playing with words there. As I noted above, there is no (obvious) consensus whether to call Metacritic a work or a publisher. That said, I think it's rather telling when there's a "© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc" at the bottom of the front page of the website in question--we could either suggest that CBS is the author (fairly ludicrous, but why not?) or we can suggest that CBS is the publisher. I suspect I will find a similar statement at the bottom of RT and others. And indeed I do, at RT, find the statement "© 2016 Fandango and Flixster". Gamerankings the same as Metacritic (oh wow: © 2016 CBS Interactive Inc--that should be most damning of any reason to have both Metacritic and GR for most games :D). --Izno (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      I would consider Metacritic a work in terms of where to put the name in the CS1 template (as for wikidata purposes) because exactly as pointed out its published by CBS, but it's not a creative work , and in most running prose on WP, Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes or other sites are generally not italicized. It's just that the work= field in the CS1 template is italicized by default, because for about 99% of the use, we are going to be filling work= in with a creative work that there is no question should be italized; the amount of times that we use a non-creative work like MC or RT is very few as to make carving the exception unnecessary. But the RFC did show that its unclear how this should be hanlded in CS1 templates, hence why I don't think we should be considering what CS1 done as the rule for all of WP. As I noted before, we can still use the CS1 templates and put Metacritic in as a a work=, it would just need to be italicized in the entry so that the HTML cancels out in presentation (eg "work=Metacritic"). --MASEM (t) 15:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      The problem is that the CS1 templates do not strip the italicization before adding it to the COINS metadata. {{cite web |author=Author |work=''Work'' |url= |title=Example}} produces HTML of (snipping the irrelevant bits): <span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;;rft.atitle=Example&amp;;rft.genre=unknown&amp;;rft.jtitle=%27%27Work%27%27&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&#160;</span> wherein rft.jtitle=%27%27Work%27%27& is the metadata. Without italics, this would be Work&</nowiki>, which is correct. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      Yeah WT:CS1 would have a conniption if we advocated for a hack to get around automatic styling. Existing practice has been to use "work" for italics and "publisher" for non-italics. The main trade-off is that you can't include a higher-up owner/publisher if you put a website's title in that field, but I'd advocate against that sort of redundant practice anyway. I don't see the issue. czar 15:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      To me, the simple fix is to have CS1 have a "workni=y" parameter to simply disable italics on the work= name if that should be the case, so that the work= field still properly feeds to wikidata/html, and that existing use for 99% of the cites where the work is creative should be italics would not break (as default should be "=n"). Everything is otherwise respected and gives the necessarily flexibility on website names that MOS:TITLE doesn't prescribe. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This really isn't difficult once you sort it out[edit]

Short version: If you're addressing a website as a publication, it's italicized. If you're addressing it as an organizational entity, a service, a redistributor, or an intellectual property, it's not italicized.

Examples of the major distinctions in running prose:

"According to a GameSpot review" (publication), "before working for Sony's games department, she was a website developer at GameSpot" (intellectual property or corporate entity, as you like), "CBS Interactive purchased the GameSpot company and brand" (both entity and property), "first mentioned in GameSpot user forums" (service), "As Garcia wrote in a piece called "Frag Antics" in GameSpotting, his official blog at GameSpot" (the blog is the |work= title, is the |via= vehicle (service) for it, and CBS Interactive is the |publisher=; for pre-CBS material, GameSpot Inc. might be the publisher, but we would omit that as redundant with the GameSpot or |work=, in a citation template). "She is a writer for Salon" (publication), "the webmaster of" (property/service), "on the board of directors of Salon Media Group" (legal entity) – you can use name distinctions, like domain name format or formal corporate designations, to make the distinctions clearer.

Distinctions checklist: We've been over this before with regard to other topics.

  • If you're referring to published material (a review, editorial, database, press release, documentation, whatever) at a site, you are addressing that site as a publication. This goes in italics, even if you think it shouldn't. (In a {{Cite web}} template, the site is the |work= a.k.a. |website= parameter, and the specific piece being cited is |title=.)
    • If the site is just a distributor, re-distributor, archiver, mirror, site hosting multiple publications, site inlining something from someone else's RSS feed or YouTube "studio", or is some other form of "pass-through" host, then it is not a publication, and not italicized. In the template, it is a |via=. We use this parameter for WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT reasons, and this is important because intervening re-distributors often modify things from the original.
    • Wikis and other "databanks" (to use a funny 1960s sci-fi word), even if user-edited, are publications, thus are italicized. (If they're pages on a larger website at the same hostname, use |via= for the main website).
    • The case above that I see has raised some confusion: A developer blog is itself the publication and italicized. (it's |work= if put into a cite template), while the specific post's title is the title of the minor work being mentioned (in quotation marks, or |title= in a template), and the company website through which it is being published is just the "vehicle" for publication, and not italicized (e.g., | in a template; do not use |website= for this, which would conflict with |work=).
  • If you're mentioning a site as a service (in a role other than some kind of published work), you are not addressing it as a publication, and it doesn't go in italics.
    • User forums, social networking sites, mailing lists, etc., are not publications, they are services, thus not italicized. (You and me yakking about something online may be textual, but it's not a published work.) In the uncommon event that a post on such a service is validly being used as a primary source, treat the post as |title= and the forum, list, or other website-hosted service as |at=, and the website as |via=, with no |work=. If the service has its own hostname, e.g. then put that in |via= not |at=, and don't add |, since it's redundant and incorrect.
    • If you cite documentation of a service, you're citing a publication, however, so the title of the piece goes in |title=, and the site goes in |work= a.k.a. |website=.
  • If you're mentioning the company/organization itself as a corporate, nonprofit, or other collective entity (e.g. an employer, a publisher, an open development project), you are not addressing it as a publication, and it doesn't go in italics. In a cite template, this is the |publisher=.
    • If you cite published materials on the company website (e.g. their "About Us" page), you're citing a publication; the title of the piece goes in |title=, and the site goes in |work= a.k.a. |website=.
  • If you're mentioning the name as a piece of intellectual property, e.g. a division or trademark name that was sold or acquired, you are not addressing it as a publication, and it doesn't go in italics.
  • If you're citing product packaging, it is technically a publication, after a fashion, but this comes up so infrequently we don't really address it much. The cleanest way to do this that I know of is: {{Cite book |title=Blood Monsters of Goreland |edition=Game of the Year |at=Back of product packaging |id={{UPC|732302715039}} |date=2017 |publisher=CrazyAss Games}}. Despite its name, {{Cite book}} can be used for anything where you want a title that shouldn't be in quotation marks as if it's a minor work or sub-work; it treats |title= as |work= if |work= is not specified, and this gets around the other templates' error if |title= is omitted. If we want, we can create a "Cite packaging" redirect to it, or better yet, fork it and remove all the parameters that will never be needed for product packaging. Vintage software/game system requirements are one of the few contexts on WP in which we do sometimes need to directly cite packaging as a published work.

Citation parameters:

  • The website name always goes in the |work= (a.k.a. |website=) parameter ...
    • unless it's a |via= for another publication that goes in |work=, as with a blog the site happens to host, an out-of-copyright book it is providing a copy of, a repo it is mirroring, etc.
    • Do not abuse the |publisher= parameter to attempt to game the template into not italicizing.
  • The |publisher= parameter is for the publishing company/organization only. (The |author= parameter can be used for a sub-organizational collective author, e.g. a committee.)
    • It is not even used if the publisher's name mostly (e.g., besides "Inc.", etc.) or entirely coincides with that of the work/website/via title.
  • The |via= parameter is for "pass-throughs" hosting that needs to be named to help people find and identify the resource. It does not impose any formatting. It is also not to be abused as a way to force things that should be (in our citation scheme) italicized to not be.
  • The |at= parameter, in the context of |cite web=, is for identifying the addressable "place" in an online resource that isn't arranged with numbered pages as a skeumorphic book or magazine. It is handy for specs arranged in sections, e-newspapers divided into departments, etc. It does not impose any formatting, and is not a vehicle for anti-italics antics.

If you don't like the fact that |work= / |website= produces italicization, that's just too bad, and life will go on. Any attempts to abuse the citation parameters to force-format for specific individual stylistic preferences may and should be corrected on sight to the proper use of the parameters. This also goes for trying to trick a parameter by including italics around its value in source to get the double-italics at rendering time to turn into non-italics (this screws up both the COinS metadata and the WikiData). People are just going to have to live with the facts that WP is not their personal website to re-style as they see fit, that it has it's own style guide, and that citations are rigidly formatted, programmatic data, not free-form prose. Every citation style in the world is different in minor details, zero of them satisfy 100% of the people, and probably no one is 100% satisfied with every nit-pick in any of them. There are various "visual imperfections" in our cites (e.g. an untitled work has to be given as |title=[untitled] or | and will still be quotation-marked or italicized respectively. People just have get over it and not stress about it at WP, just like they don't have their heads explode when dealing with every other publication that has a house style that doesn't produce the exact output that person would prefer. We do not live in a magically perfect world that revolves around you. :-) If someone insists on taking a misguided WP:GREATWRONGS position against against ever being made to italicize a website titles, the way to not be a WP:JERK about it and get into trouble is to just not italicize them in prose and not use citation templates when citing them, without interfering with others, and with the understanding that others may change this formatting.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I can live with the ideas given above. It may seem inconsistent to readers at points, though, possibly resulting in more arguing, but it makes perfect sense in theory. ~Mable (chat) 09:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: I'll try to iron those out if you say where you think these issues are (may just be a wording issue, as this is a rapid brain dump, not a polished information page, yet). Keep in mind this is not an idealized "wouldn't it be nice" approach, it's a practical approach to working with a sharply limited system and making the best of it. If we trust the templates to just do what they do and to not get our personal underwear in a bunch about formatting nitpicks in the output, the disputes evaporate. Especially if we focus on the role of the website in the mention or citation in question, instead of fixating on false notions like "a website should never be in italics" or "all things online are 'services' in my opinion" or "for a website, the site and the publisher seem indivisible to me", etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I can imagine people getting confused about the difference between a website as a service/corporate entity and a website as a creative work/publication. This isn't a flaw in the suggested rules, but rather something that will probably result in people "correcting" things incorrectly. For example, an article on GameSpot would use italics when referring to its subject as a work and no italics when referring to the website as a service. That would be confusing to those who haven't read these guidelines. It's not really a big issue though, which is why I glossed over it in my post saying I liked your ideas. ~Mable (chat) 12:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I am talking about italics in prose here. These rules are perfectly clear for citations. ~Mable (chat) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
So many paragraphs and yet I didn't see exactly how to deal with the various and sundry review sites. :D Example text in prose (pulled straight out of Myst#Reception):

"The PC version of Myst holds an average score of 82.57% at GameRankings based on seven reviews,[33] although the subsequent remakes of the game and the console ports have generally received lower average scores." (italics quoted [or not]).

Is Gamerankings here being treated as a work or a service? Consequently, citation 33 reads like so: '"Myst - PC". GameRankings. Retrieved February 25, 2016.', where Gamerankings is also unitalicized (meaning that it is [ab]using the publisher parameter). --Izno (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
We're getting too hung up on what CS1 does or requires compared to MOS:TITLE where the issue starts from (CS1 should follow what MOS:TITLE gives states). MOS:TITLE does not fully prescribe for all websites how to italic names, only for those that are generally ones that produce creative content. Where it is absent, on websites that do not provide creative content, the practice across WP tends to be unitalicized versions, things like Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, YouTube,, and others (when talking about these as websites, not businesses, etc.), though again, this is not a practice defined in MOS:TITLE, just what I've seen people default too. Now, unless we modify MOS:TITLE to force italics when talking websites, its clear that there's is some editor freedom here, hence why CS1 should not be forcing the issue on this. As I note, all that is needed to make CS1 work with the openness of MOS:TITLE is a parameter that alters the default behavior and doesn't affect its normal use; there's still would need to be discussion between the difference between "creative work", "service" and "business" but the mechanism would be in play to handle them, which right now its not, CS1 is making us force a decision or otherwise use improper parameters (publisher over work) to force formatting. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Interest in a WP:VG Facebook page?[edit]

Yesterday I was checking to see if there were any decent Dutch-language video game discussion groups on Facebook, but there isn't one. For kicks I typed in WP:VG, and found a Facebook page, dedicated to WP:VG. But it's not about the English-language Wikipedia WP:VG, the page is dedicated to our Vietnamese equivalent. It got me thinking, is there any interest in a WP:VG Facebook group? A little while ago there was a discussion where we exhanged some usernames. A dedicated WP:VG Facebook group would allow for more general bantering about video games, but would also make it easier to share and post new sources (especially with game conferences and the like). What do you think? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Facebook certainly seems like a better place for discussion than Steam or PSN; I suspect a fair amount of us use Facebook more, anyway. I think starting a Facebook Group could be beneficial too, for the reasons you stated. I'd definitely join. – Rhain 09:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've joined! Maybe another incentive to join: we could possibly exhange Steam keys (or Team Fortress 2 hats, if that's your thing) and video game literature. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds fun, and I think sharing sources is a good idea. I submitted a request to join. :) —zziccardi (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, if you are strongly attached to the pseudonimity that Wikipedia provides, note that many people I know use pseudonyms on Facebook in addition to a personal account with their real names for family/work/etc. I think that may be technically against Facebook's ToS so I'm not officially recommending you do it, I'm just saying many people do so without issue, so make your own decisions.  · Salvidrim! ·  22:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I joined the thing. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    The thing accepted your request. :p  · Salvidrim! ·  23:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    The thing clearly doesn't understand what it did. --Izno (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I just bought the Humble Capcom PlayStation Bundle, mostly for the Resident Evil PS4 games. I already own a bunch of them so I'll have to give some of it away. If you'd like a code for say, Ōkami HD for PlayStation 3 or a coupon for 45% of Street Fighter V for PlayStation 4, you better join the Facebook group before someone else receives them. (note: this works on North and South American PSN accounts, not European/Asian/Australian etc). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

SNK of America date of creation[edit]


Regarding the citations available about the date when SNK of america was created, i think it is unclear because some citations differ, giving different dates. I started a discuccion about this on an user talk page (and a long time ago on the SNK talk page [2]), but it's better to try here. I think the problem is clearly explained there. Sorry for my english, I'm non-native english, and perhaps it will be easyer for you to find the truth. Best regards. --Archimëa (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hola, the current SNK article has this, "The North American division (SNK Corporation of America) was opened on October 20, 1981." Sadly, the sentence is unsourced. Maybe the guys from the SNK wikia know about it?Tintor2 (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, "Maybe" ? This is enough reliable to accept this as real informations ? --Archimëa (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour Archimëa! Tintor2 voulait simplement mentionner que la phrase détaillant la date d'ouverture de SNK North America comme étant le 20 Octobre 1981 n'était pas référencée et qu'aucune source fiable ne soutient cette affirmation. Il conseille de demander aux usagers du wikia de SNK pour plus d'informations. Entre temps, j'ai ajouté un tag qui souligne le caractère non-référencé de cette affirmation ([3]) jusqu'à ce qu'on puisse trouver une source fiable soutenant une information valide quant à la date de création. Cela nous permettra de continuer à chercher la vérité! :)  · Salvidrim! ·  17:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour, merci pour ton intervention sur la page SNK ! J'ai engagé cette discussion car le modèle {{Citation needed}} que j'avais ajouté a été supprimé et le message correspondant sur la page de discussion a été archivé... C'était aussi un moyen de trouver de l'aide pour découvrir la vérité ! J'espérais que des locaux, en Californie, puissent trouver plus facilement des informations...
Je comprends mieux le retour de ce modèle.
J'ai déjà discuté de ca avec des personnes très actives de la scène Neo-Geo française, et ils n'en savent pas plus que moi sur cette date de création et n'en tirent que des "guess"...
Merci d'avoir faire l'effort de t’exprimer dans un bon français.
Je ne connais pas le système de création d'entreprise aux États-Unis, et c'est peut-être un problème de dates, "date de création" et "date d'incorporation" sur lesquelles les sources ne sont pas claires...
Regards. --Archimëa (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Effort? Sache que je suis francophone de naissance (Montréal, Québec), bien que ça paraisse pas beaucoup ici. ;) Et note que tandis que la plupart des utilisateurs de FrWiki sont peut-être concentrés en Europe francophone (Suisse, Belgique, France, etc.), EnWiki est composé de gens de partout dans le monde, pas seulement d'Américains et d'Anglais. Je ne crois même pas qu'un des contributeurs régulier au WikiProject Video Games soient de Californie. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  23:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Tu pourrais venir contribuer sur le projet jeu vidéo français Face-devil-grin.svg. Il y a beaucoup à faire, beaucoup d'articles essentiels à développer, comme de choses à décider. --Archimëa (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamescom 2016[edit]

Hey, is anyone going to Gamescom 2016? If not, does anyone have any image requests I can try to fulfil? Sam Walton (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It'd be great to have a shot of players at the Halo Wars 2 booth if you're around there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
And the Half-Life: 3 poster... :) --MASEM (t) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Metal Gear Survive maybe? I also like to see pictures of developers. Those can be used on several articles: if they have one, on the article about the developer, the studio they work at and on the games they've created. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be pretty cool if someone could take a shot of that "Half-Life: 3" banner if it's still there. It's gotten quite some attention from RSes (Polygon, PC Gamer, etc), and it's only a matter of time until the whole "Half-Life 3" can't be contained anymore in its main series article :p ~Mable (chat) 09:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I wasn't interested enough to queue up to play Halo Wars 2, but I got a quick picture of the queue and booth exterior. @Maplestrip: Here's a picture of the HL3 poster. @Soetermans: I didn't see anything public for Metal Gear Survive, and didn't see any developers other than for some indie games that we didn't have articles on. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks, Samwalton~ I may add that image to the current Half-Life series article at some point, though it doesn't seem to mention the Half-Life 3 joke/meme/conspiracy at all yet, so I'll have to do some more research first :p Thanks again! ~Mable (chat) 12:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot mate, that was the kind of image I was looking for. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a whole chunk of these were just deleted off commons for containing logos. While I will agree that some did display logos past de minimus use, I'm not sure if that was true for all of them. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I hate how hard it is to find out about deletion discussions happening on Commons... Looks like I'm already too late to contest any of them. ~Mable (chat) 09:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Should we tackle WP:CSC?[edit]

It seems that lately, at least from my experience, that we've deleted/merged/redirected a lot of "List of [x]"-type articles. Thanks to the amazing WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it has never been easier to look up sources. Still, not everybody agrees on what counts as notability, so for some reason the unreferenced and unnecessary List of MySims characters has not been deleted. Most editors who are against deleting/merging/redirecting those articles bring up WP:CSC often, especially the second criterium, which reads:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles (...)

But then it goes on with:

Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (...)

Isn't that contradictory, or am I reading that wrong? "Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic", so a list of MySims characters would "almost always better placed" in the main article. What is "almost" always? When is it not better to do so? What I find ironic is that the two examples given, List of minor characters in Dilbert and List of paracetamol brand names, both have been redirected. I think it is because of this ambiguously way of phrasing that some of these unnecessary are able to pass AfD's. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think an important criteria for a list, and one which is entirely missing from CSC, is that even if every item in the list does not meet the individual notability criteria, the concept as a whole does. CSC doesn't get into that, though it does have a seealso just above to WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTN), which begins:

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group.

I think the idea behind CSC is to say that it's okay if none of the items in a list could have articles, that a list is still okay for that. It doesn't supercede LISTN, which is why we've been purging a lot of the wikia-esque lists this past year. MySims characters as a collective are not talked about in reliable sources, and are not notable as a group. CSC point 2 does not override that. --PresN 17:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • One thing important on all of these is that removing "List of..." from the titles of these, at least to me, makes me think of the ensemble group as a whole, which can help strength the lists as these above examples show. However, this isn't necessarily going to be possible for every game or series where the characters are otherwise individually notable (example would be the BioShock series, where development or reception of the cast as an ensemble is not really there but individual characters are just barely notable not to have a standalone page but to contribute to the notable list overall).
    • I will say that unless you can present the cast in this ensemble approach as The1337gamer's examples given, we never should have a character list as a separate article for a single game. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree, but I feel that by playing the WP:CSC card all other arguments are put aside. "None of these characters are notable? Well, WP:CSC says they don't have to be!" soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I have the feeling that we're getting ahead of ourselves here, as most of the horrible lists simply call notability and can't be sourced properly. I'm not entirely sure what the meaning is of 'tackling WP:CSC', but if the goal is to make the guideline clearer and less ambiguous, we should have this discussion over there. ~Mable (chat) 07:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I was actually thinking of creating a thread here much like this recently, but I've held off. While I wish we weren't so harsh on these articles, even I'm quite surprised that the MySims character list article resulted to keep at AFD. I was expecting a "no consensus" at best.
You know, as someone who has been using Wikipedia since 2006, I remember when we used to have articles on virtually any and every video game character, regardless of how much coverage (or lack thereof) they got. Eventually, notability started to be enforced on those articles more, so then we started just having character list articles. Somewhere along the line, character articles and as of more recently, character list articles, started to have been judged overly harsh on Wikipedia, leading to endless heated debates on their notability. I just wish for a middle ground between the old days of all characters having their own articles and the borderline draconic standards being enforced for character and character list articles now.
I like the character list idea as a compromise when some of the individual characters may not be notable enough for their own articles, which is why I think we should be more lax with those kinds of articles than we are now. But with that said, that's not to say we shouldn't enforce notability on them at all though. Adding something about notability at WP:CSC should at least clear up some confusion. It's just a tricky subject altogether.
Also, I think we should have the editors who have provided the whole WP:CSC argument be pinged here, like @Jclemens: and @Patar knight:. Kokoro20 (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I would imagine that living through the standards of the mid-2000s and then seeing the enforced notability of today would be really jarring, yeah. ~Mable (chat) 09:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I second The1337gamer's suggestion. It's always baffled me that Wikipedia permits list articles, as it seems obvious to me that both conceptually and in practice they're simply a way of getting around WP: Notability. Have an article that doesn't even remotely meet notability requirements and has been taken to AfD? Just merge it to a list article and you're good to go! The "List of" format even encourages readers and editors to treat each item in the list as a standalone article which simply shares a page with other standalone articles. Moreover, it encourages comprehensive coverage, so that even the most minor items on the list get writeups. The "Characters of" format doesn't have those two problems; it treats the article as a single unified subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The context you are talking about is that of a parent article on a notable subject, but with a list with sub-notable entries. I interpret "almost always" in that context as the list is strongly dependent on the parent article and so should usually be in the parent article. One exception is that if the list is so long that it would unbalance the presentation parent article, one might break it out of the article, summary style. But I don't think that absolves the list from having verifiable entries or from the parent subject from being notable. As a hypothetical example, suppose we have an article on "national flag"--the list of national flags would be quite long and unbalance an article. It would be better to break this off as a list, even if some flag entries are verifiable, but sub-notable. I agree with others that rewriting game character lists in prose with good sources, as with some of the "Characters of" examples above, is much preferable and makes for a better read. But there is a place for big lists as supplemental adjuncts to a parent article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
What often happens though with character lists for video games when spun out of an article is two-fold. If it is a game like GTA, editors have a tendancy to insert every minor character or named character into the list. These quickly bloat the list; character lists should be confined to characters that (unless otherwise notable) are essential to describe if you are giving a broad overview of the game's narrative. The second is that when a character list is separated from the game's article where one can reasonably expect to find the game's plot, people will tend to overly-duplicate that plot on the character list article as to explain the plot for each character's stance on it, and that further causes problems on these lists (It's also a problem on valid single-character articles too). Lists of characters aren't necessary a problem but they are the types of articles that attract excessive detail if we're not careful. Aligning them to be about the characters as an ensemble helps towards that, to a degree. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
You raise good points and effectively argue against "list of" articles for characters in video games. I wasn't trying to justify "List of characters in" as a good idea for VG in particular, but give my POV on the more general WP:CSC question that Soetermans raised. Sorry for not being clear. --Mark viking (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So, since I've been pinged, here's my take on it:
    1. If a topic is notable, any verifiable content on that topic is fair for inclusion. DUE applies, but it you're going to write a HUUGE article on a videogame (or any other topic) then anything can be covered.
    2. The only reason we don't cover everything in ONE mondo-huge article is that it'd be unweildy and unreadable. Thus, we have breakouts for certain parts of the article.
    3. And HERE is where it gets tricky: What does "notability is not inherited" really mean? If "Game X" is clearly notable, a list of characters in game X could remain within the article on "Game X"... but if it's broken out into a separate article, does it need to demonstrate notability for the LIST of X? Here's where wikipedians have differed and offered alternative, conflicting, rationales. My take is that a "list of X" where "X" is notable is not a violation of "notability is not inherited" even if no element in the list is individually notable, because it would be legal and appropriate (if only hugely annoying and unwieldy) to merge it back into the clearly notable article.
  • On a more pragmatic note, nothing good is accomplished by deleting these lists. Readers view them regularly, and hopefully anything COPYVIO was wiped out long ago, so that there's nothing left but possibly trivial, possibly non-notable content, which is not hurting anything. The number of people who just don't care about the readership who likes the trivial "cruft" or the dedicated fan base who creates it saddens me. I genuinely believe it has no more merit than older teens kicking down crude looking sandcastles made by enthusiastic if inept gradeschoolers. All that content was put in by people who loved the work, and we can't even be bothered to keep it around? Have we, as Wikipedia, no shame? Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't the only proper reason to spin a list out of a parent article be that there are many sources covering the content of the list that covering everything the source cover _in the parent article_ would lead to undue weight? I think that in the past, people have opted for splitting an article where trimming away original research would have been the right move. ~Mable (chat) 08:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps those sandcastles should be built on a fanwiki instead? Just because someone put a lot of work into something doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. If few or no secondary reliable sources discuss a game's characters, we should cover them accordingly - one paragraph in the story section of the game's article is probably plenty enough in a lot of cases.--IDVtalk 09:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I second IDV's comments. It's not a matter of completely eradicating trivia from the internet; it's a matter of keeping trivia in its proper place. WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, what constitutes as trivia is often very subjective. What could be seen as trivia to one person could be very useful and important information to another. I think that's where Jclemens was getting at. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
To the editors who donated it, their content mattered. Leaving aside COPYVIO or promotionalism, the endless detailed lists mattered enough that those editors chose to contribute their time to write up that information. That's where new content comes from, and a single list can represent tens of hours of various editors' time. Fanwiki is a non-starter as a solution because a) when was the last time you saw anyone "transwiki" anything to a fan wiki? It was dying out as an option 10 years ago: even though there are tons of fan wikis, Wikipedia does not spend time moving NN content elsewher, and b) Per WP:ELNO #12, we can't even link to the fan wikis where that content might be better hosted. Think on that for a sec. Understand that the "crufty-cruft" that seems useless or ill-placed to those outside the specific genre is the reason so many of these editors got into Wikipedia in the first place. When we delete their content, we show them that they aren't welcome, rather than converting them into general-purpose Wikipedia editors who learn to create and improve content outside their niche. It's a sad thing--heartbreaking, really, when we have nothing better to do than this. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Jclemens, by that logic, a new member should be allowed to write an article about anything (as long as there is some primary source, I suppose). What would then stop me from writing an article on clearly non-notable webcomics, for example? Frankly, your suggestion undermines the entirety of WP:NOTABILITY. I have no idea if that would make Wikipedia better as an encyclopedia.
Look, I get what you mean. I always feel uncomfortable undoing an edit my a new person trying to be helpful as well. I can't imagine how painful it would be to see a list get deleted where you put multiple hours into. Luckily, many of the lists we are discussing here are pretty old now, so no one would really miss them, but for new articles... sheesh, should we try not to hurt anyone's feelings or should we try to improve our encyclopedia? I think the answer is the latter myself. ~Mable (chat) 09:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm rather shocked to hear the "well someone worked hard to write it so don't be a meanie and delete it" rationale coming from such an experienced editor - usually that's something a newbie throws out there in efforts to keep their misguided efforts from being deleted. That argument never matters on an individual basis, so I can't believe you're trying to apply it on a general level. (This is coming from someone who supports about 75% of these list mergers - there have still been many I've objected to - just not on the grounds you're arguing though.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't be surprised at all. I'm still here, ten years since my first edit, and I still believe in the volunteer and amateur editor as the base of our pyramid, and the pool from which we develop more active, less niche, and more polished editors. So yes, they will initially write stuff that's mostly useless: but storage and text bandwidth are cheap, that as long as there's no other problem (again: attack, copyvio, promotionalism) we do more harm to Wikipedia's future and vibrancy by eliminating the "cruft" and in the process giving the middle finger to the volunteer editors who donated it, than we do by polishing what's already here. Let's face it: there's a ton of stuff that doesn't belong in Wikipedia... but the scope of this and similar Wikiprojects is where new editors who will become great editors will cut their teeth, and why it's ever-so-important that we do not alienate them by crushing their contributions. Frankly, I think that WP:NOT has become so well developed that there's no real reason to enforce WP:N any longer: if it passes WP:V and doesn't fail WP:NOT, then it's at worst harmless junk. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:V by nature states that an article should be based on reliable sources. I assume you mean verifiable as per primary sources in this case? ~Mable (chat) 20:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. WP:SPS and/or WP:SELFPUB discuss when such sourcing is appropriate. Establishing the basic facts regarding fictional elements, such as video games, is such an instance. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
However, WP:V does warn "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Now, that doesn't necessarily condemn any character list, but it does tell us where to put the priority of information, alongside WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Rambling details of a character in a video game, while wholly sourceable to the game to met WP:V, fail these others policies even if we're not trying to consider notability factors. Major characters in a video game should be documented and should be reasonable search terms, but we dont need to reiterate every plot twist that the main work already covers, which is what a lot of these character articles end up being (because it is one of the most easiest places to get involved with WP, and doesn't require normal sourcing). There's a proper balance of describing characters and summarizing the work as a whole, and standalone character lists, if they don't focus on third-party sourcing, tend to not have that proper balance. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of that. But cleaning up excessive detail or merging NN content into lists is not the same as deleting it wholesale. That's why lists of NN elements are the best balance between allowing rampant trivialism and kicking down sandcastles, in my opinion. Going after lists to delete them instead of just cleaning them up appropriately (to include merging back into a main article if appropriate) is a very, very different and more hostile action. Deletion is punitive and, ultimately, lazy; editing things down to the core of what SHOULD be in the encyclopedia somewhere takes far more effort and I find few people who are willing to work to curate the donated content in such a manner. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally think deleting an article is a lot harder than to just trim away all the original research, plot info, primary sources, etc. However, for a non-notable topic, nothing remains left, as there are no realiable secondary sources to use. I've found that new users hate it a lot more when you just delete all their plot description than if you go through a deletion discussion. ~Mable (chat) 10:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

List of -genre- games[edit]

When I saw WP:CSC being brought up, my first thought was that we were going to talk about articles like List of adventure games and the like. I'm worried that we have a lot of lists of games by genre that simply aren't encyclopedically useful. The first paragraph of prose in WP:CSC makes a comparison to a hypothetical "List of Norwegian musicians", and that's what genre lists tend to feel like for. The recent list of metroidvania games is a god example. This is also an issue I'd like to tackle. ~Mable (chat) 07:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That article reminds me of list of horror games. I'd really like to see that one go away forever. The problem with these lists is that they are far too broad and poorly sourced. Categories serve this function just fine. The horror list is based off theme rather than genre too, so you have games from Castlevania to CoD Zombies to Resident Evil to The Walking Dead. Although these games may share thematic elements of horror, they are completely different when it comes to genre and gameplay style. A list of survival horror games would be much more concise, useful, and notable, but currently does not exist. I would absolutely help with creating a survival horror list if others thought it was a good idea.TarkusAB 14:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip and TarkusAB: How do categories serve just fine if I want to compare publishing dates? Creators? And etc. --Izno (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem with "List of -broad genre- games" is that it is easy for the tables to become far too long if there is no clear metric for inclusion (see the discussion above about List of Metroidvania games); it's only worse for a broad genre like "adventure", "action" or "rpg". Add the plethra of indie games coming out, and unless you require sources, that's just kudzu.
I think that lists of exemplary games in a genre is important to include but at that point it becomes very much an issue with how one interprets or takes sources and to avoid favoritism. I think it can be done if all editors involved have good agreement on when a title should quality, but unfortunately WP is not well-geared towards this type of editing approach. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and semi-related to that note, this issue is kind of "bigger" than WP:VG too. I mean, for example, I recently stumbled across List of albums, which shows many lists of albums by broad genre. List of songs is even crazier. For whatever reason, people just literally obsess over genre and subjective categorization. It's an omni-present issue over at WP:ALBUMS and the other music projects too, not just here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "obsessing over genres and categorizations" is a problem with human nature, so in that sense of course it is bigger than WPVG.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Very true - I sometimes forget that since WP is the only place I try to actually mediate and control it. When someone in real life calls Tool (band) "neo post-progressive psychedelic viking grunge metal", I just roll my eyes, because they're free to their (crazy) interpretation and opinion. Here, I actually bother to argue it, since it usually flies in the face of WP:V, WP:FRINGE, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 19 August[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

13 August

14 August

15 August

16 August

17 August

18 August

19 August

Salavat (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


This idea has been previously discussed, but nothing came of it. What's everyone's stance on adding every single mainspace article into a single category and then listing it on User:HotArticlesBot/Subscriptions? An example of the way this works is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism#Hot_articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this idea sounds really cool, and would love to get better insight in the project's most active articles in real-time. How much work would it be to go through with this idea? Categorizing all VG articles using a bot should be possible, I hope, but it would be a pretty large project. ~Mable (chat) 11:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I was about to say, if this proposal goes ahead then I'll get JaguarBot to sort out all of the categories. JAGUAR  12:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no need for a bot; we just modify {{WikiProject Video games}} to add articles to a single super-category as well as the class/importance ones. Most project do that anyway.
Do note that you'll probably have to hassle the HotBot owner, though- WPSE has an outstanding request from years ago that they never got around to (though it looks like other projects have had requests fulfilled since). --PresN 12:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@PresN: Why would we need to hassle Kaldari? Looking at the history, it seems people are just adding the WikiProjects as they wish. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WikiProject Video games has too many articles (73,000+). The query to generate the HotArticles list is a bit expensive, so it's currently limited to categories with 50,000 or less articles. Kaldari (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, over 28,000 of those are images, and another 5000 are categories, so if we restrict the total-articles category to just articles themselves we'd be fine. --PresN 14:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@PresN and Kaldari: So, what's the process of adding the WP to the list? -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Are the categories meant to be there? Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Anarchyte, yes and no (Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Excluding categories and files from MAIN CAT) czar 15:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for Trickster Online on 22 August 2016[edit]

There needs to be a change that removes the wording from the Trickster online entry that states it is offline. Considering I logged in today, and the website is alive and well, this game is certainly not offline. (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 13:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

TCGs as MMOs[edit]

Interested parties may wish to answer the question at Talk:Massively multiplayer online game#Card games. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about addition of character list to a GA[edit]

I started a discussion thread on Talk:Chaos;Head#Character section about Landingdude13's addition of a lengthy character list to the article. I don't think a lot of people watch the article in question, so I figured I'd notify the WikiProject about it. If you have the time, please drop by and share your thoughts.--IDVtalk 15:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinions sought "the greatest" vs "one of the greatest"[edit]

Please see discussion at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time#Changed to "considered by many to be greatest ever". -- ferret (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox video game series Wikidata[edit]

Discussion started at Template talk:Infobox video game series#Wikidata concerning implementing Wikidata for this infobox, please feel free to weigh in. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Space Marshals[edit]

Space Marshals, 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The first link accidentally went to the good article candidate page here is a link to tne reassessment page Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Space Marshals/1.-- (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Category questions[edit]

Hi everyone,

For the past week I've not been as active as usual, as it is boiling hot here right now. I'll return soon enough though. In the meantime, I did run into Category:Organized crime video games. Does that category make sense at all? "Organized crime video game" is not a video game genre of course, but even narratively speaking, what makes it "organized crime"? For instance, it lists Max Payne, who takes on the Russian mob in New York; Mafia, in which the player character is a member of a mafia crime family; Miami Hotline, a top-down action game with a plot open to interpretation about killing Russian gangsters in Miami; L.A. Noire, a third-person game, in which the player has to solve cases through detective work.

And what about Category:Art Deco games, "games containing designs in the Art Deco style". I'm not sure if that is a necessary category to begin with, but also highly WP:OR-ish. Sure, BioShock features Art Deco, but does Impossible Creatures? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Art Deco" games: definitely not a defining trait. And for the other, games about organized crime or featuring organized crime? I share your reservations but open to other opinions czar 14:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
"Games featuring organized crime" is a valid category from a standpoint of classifying the narrative aspect of the work, and so games like Mafia, Hotline Miami, Monaco, Saints Row, and GTA would readily fit, while games like Sam & Max (which only touch on the idea) or BioShock (where background of the story is based on organized crime but it has little direct impact on the actual gameplay or present narrative) should not be included as it would otherwise dilute the category. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I've CfD'ed Art Deco games. Who is familiar with moving categories quickly and efficiently, so it can be moved to the name Czar suggested? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Razer Naga[edit]

Hi, I'm in need of a few photos of the Razer Naga Hex v2 for the Razer Naga article. Would anyone here happen to own one? Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I found a few YouTube videos with the licensing "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". Would it be able to take screenshots of these videos to upload, and if so, how would it be done?
Razer Naga Hex (Green): at 1:22
Razer Naga Hex v2: at 3:04
Razer Naga Epic Chroma: at 1:51
Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
My Russian isn't up to snuff so first you'd want to make sure the content in the video belongs to the channel and isn't just a repost from somewhere else. Otherwise it wouldn't be the uploader's to relicense. (@Hellknowz and Thibbs, what say you?) Then you'd use {{From YouTube}} and {{YouTube CC-BY}} (see the documentation for how to add the timecode, etc. and of course {{license review}} in case the file is taken down in the future. czar 21:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a review from an online shop. Content/footage seems theirs. 1:22 he's talking about the surface texture. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Overwatch and porn merger discussion[edit]

Talk:Overwatch (video game)#Merger discussion has been open since June, looking for outside/third party opinions to either join the discussion or make a review and close it. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Rush deletion discussion[edit]

Rush (video gaming) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush (video gaming), if anyone involved with this WikiProject might be interested in weighing in. —Lowellian (reply) 04:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)