Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 100

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 95 Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100 Archive 101 Archive 102 Archive 105



File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. It brings up issues on the acceptability of videos for use on articles -- (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Steam powered template

Hi guys,

Does this template Template:Steam powered seem inappropriate to anyone else? A direct link to a specific digital retailer in the external links section, doesn't that cross WP:NOTPROMOTION? --Soetermans. T / C 15:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The feature of using Steamworks (more than just being featured on Steam) is important to note, but it doesn't need a template, that's what categories should be doing. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed once before, here a year ago. Time for a deletion debate? - X201 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You got to be kidding me X, I asked that same question! My mind isn't particularly good apparently. Anyway, I'm for deleting it. --Soetermans. T / C 17:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Didn't notice it was you asking. :-) It just rang a bell in the back of my mind, so I went searching. - X201 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
TFD'd. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems blatently promotional to me, added my delete !vote Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 08:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Retail vs. developer consoles

I'm trying to find a citation for the following claim:

At least one console maker has traditionally sold more expensive 'devkits' or 'debug consoles' that differ from the retail console only by a changed setting in the BIOS or optical drive microcontroller that allows the use of self-signed software or burned discs, and there's a substantial price difference to discourage hobbyists from trying to buy the developer units.

I asked this WikiProject because its regulars are more likely to be familiar with the standard reliable sources about the game industry. I'd prefer a single citation that covers the entire claim, as the steward of the article in question appears to believe that combining many sources to support a claim of price discrimination through deliberate lockdown constitutes prohibited original research. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research".
Also when you buy a DevKit you're not just buying hardware which costs more, you're buying the licence to use the hardware, access to certain developer material and support etc. Looking at the price as the only difference is a misunderstanding of how development works. (I'm generalising a lot here) Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 08:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
So are you trying to tell me that there exists no single reliable source that describes the entire process to become licensed and obtain a devkit for any console? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That wasn't what you asked originally. - X201 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
[1]. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the article's claim, most devkits are so much more than simply BIOS or setting swaps. There are both hardware and software changes on such machines to accommodate interfacing with a computer, among other things. --Teancum (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC in Platform game

Is the amount of non-free content in Platform game acceptable? I've never seen so many non-free images in an article before, and most aren't really necessitated by the prose. I think we can also find free-use examples for any of the gameplay concepts. czar · · 03:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The image use is compariable to other genre articles. This does not necessarily make it right, but I do think that as long as the screens are examples of key games from that genre that highlight that genre, and discussed in that manner in the text, one can justify one screenshot from each "period" within a genre. On the other hand, to just demonstrate concepts, free images from such games should be used, unless called out. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
A formal non-free review would clear out the majority of the images in the platform game article. A lot of them are decorative, I don't think you need screenshots of every generation, when the only thing that changes in most is just a shiny layer of graphics. Revolutions, such as the transition from 2D to 3D, yes. Evolutions, no. - hahnchen 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All the non-free images should be removed and if possible replaced with free images. Enough free alternatives do exist, and the non-free ones are not integral to understanding the article where a free one would suffice. Example: Turn-based_tactics --Odie5533 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Eye of the Beholder

Did the original Eye of the Beholder game come out in 1990, or in 1991 as contended here? (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What do our usual reliable sources say? [2], [3] -- I'm at work and the proxy's being fussy, so I can't check those out directly. :) ·Salvidrim!·  17:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two print sources added, the other is Questbusters vol.VII #2. I checked it online ([4]) but I can't find any mention of the game in the issue. --Mika1h (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@Mika1h:, the link you provided includes a page from Questbusters Vol.VII #2, which is February 1991, and says the MS-DOS Eye of the Beholder game, which "was to ship in late January" (direct link, warning, 12MB PDF); it's towards the bottom of the first page's second column. This seems ambiguous as to whether they're actually talking about the release date and contradicts the other sources. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
(The mix-up is that the article says VII#2 is February 1991, which is actually February 1990 and contains nothing. VIII#2 (February 1991) has the quote mentioned above.) All of the reviews are from mid-1991, for what it's worth. czar · · 00:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, that's tough. I wonder what the real deal was. The article also says that the sequel came out in 1991. (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the CGW used as a source is also the February 1991 issue and refers to Eye of the Beholder as an "upcoming" game. I tried searching the U.S. Copyright database for more info, but could not find an entry (Eye of the Beholder being a common title makes it particularly difficult to check, but nothing came up in the 1989-1992 timeframe that was on point). I'll try to do a little more digging later today, but my guess is that it was released in early 1991 and therefore had a 1990 copyright date on the box and manual, which is where the databases are most likely getting their release info. If publications of the time are referring to the game as unreleased yet in early 1991, I would trust that more than allgame. Indrian (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have not found anything else definitive, but I have yet to find a source discussing the game in 1990, while several 1991 sources refer to it as a new game. A May 30, 1991 article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution refers to Eye of the Beholder as a new game. The September 24, 1991 issue of PC Magazine also refers to it as a new game. CGW did not review the game until its June 1991 issue. Compute did not review it until its October 1991 issue. Also, several newspapers recommend the game to consumers for the 1991 holiday season, while I could find no publications that did so in 1990. None of this gets us any closer to figuring out which month the game was released, but it is more fodder to discredit a 1990 release. When combined with the two sources already presented that specifically state that the game was not released before 1991, I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that the game came out in 1991. Indrian (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I checked MikroBitti magazine and they reviewed the PC version in their May 1991 issue. C-lehti reviewed the Amiga version later in the year. --Mika1h (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Just checked Retro Gamer issue 52, which has a making of retrospective for the whole trilogy. In that article, Joel Billings, the founder and CEO of SSI, says that Eye of the Beholder was released in February 1991. Indrian (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DuckTales: Remastered - Opinions Requested

Can contributors please place their opinion as to whether information on the DuckTales (video game) page regarding the upcoming DuckTales: Remastered, should be made into its own article, here? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alex Kierkegaard's theories are unreliable fringe theories and should not be covered on Wikipedia

Alex Kierkegaard is an internet blogger, I came across his work for the first time last week on Wikipedia. I then removed citations to his self-published works from Video games as an art form and art game only to have them reverted by established editors on those articles.

Kierkegaard has been published in no reliable sources. A book that he self-published three years ago, has had zero reviews, it has been covered by a reliable source only once - given 40 words in passing in a paper by Felan Parker for the Loading... journal. Kierkegaard's entire self-published career has generated at most a handful of mentions, not even in the double figures. These references include - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I don't think there are many more, if any. This is a woeful level of coverage compared to any published writer.

This is where Kierkegaard falls down -

  • WP:SPS - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Kierkegaard has never been published.
  • WP:EXCEPTIONAL - "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources... challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources" - Kierkegaard's theories do not have multiple high-quality sources.
  • WP:FRINGE - "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is." - In the entirety of its publishing history, Kierkegaard's art-games thesis has received only 40 words of reliable coverage. Not a single review.
  • WP:UNDUE - "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all".

This is not an author who's views should receive any airing on Wikipedia. His opinions that I removed from Art game are held only by himself. I am posting this here, because the lack of engagement (aside from User:Thibbs) that I received at Talk:Video games as an art form. I hope that editors that haven't been so up close with this subject can see it with fresh eyes. The Time Cube guy has had more reliable coverage. - hahnchen 17:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hahnchen presents a rather one-sided case here. As I explained to him at the talk page this has been copied from, the blogger in question has been cited by several established RSes and has been cited at Wikipedia for issues related to his own opinion. So WP:SPS is less on point in this case than WP:RSOPINION. I'm happy to concede that this Kierkegaard should not be cited for factual claims. And there are certainly some arguments made by Kierkegaard that are too exceptional and fringey for Wikipedia's purposes. There's no question about that. But there are also views Kierkegaard holds in common with established RSes and those are not fringe or exceptional, although they are often minority perspectives. Kierkegaard is a controversial figure because of his abrasive writing style and his unpopular opinions, but he's been cited by several RSes and I think it's OK for us to cite him sparingly (especially if only for his opinions) at Wikipedia in order to provide the counterpoint to some arguments and in the interest of WP:NPOV.
As I told hanhchen previously: the Time Cube guy is making factual pseudoscientific claims and it would be very inappropriate to cite him as the counterpoint to established physics, but Kierkegaard is making the claim (in this case) that art games lack the craftsmanship to be called "art" and since this is just a minority opinion rather than a factual scientific claim it is fine to introduce it. -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
As per WP:NPOV (subsection UNDUE) "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." This is not the case with Kierkegaard's opinions. Try Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reliable_sources too - "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter." One of the key lines in WP:SPS is, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." I think that information refers to opinions as well, you don't. I've used self published sources, such as a twitter status update in Wiiware#Criticism, but I backed that up with a reliable third party source that covered that tweet.
His comments that you reinserted at Score (game) include statements of fact interspersed with his fringe theories, which were already marked as "dubious" by a previous editor.[5] His claim that art-games are degenerate art or lack sufficient craftsmanship, which was reinserted by User:Diego Moya in the art game article are not significant minority opinions.[6] If these were significant minority opinions, there would be better sources for it. - hahnchen 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Fringe claims of Kierkegaard's have no place in Wikipedia. His claim that "art games are not art", however, is not fringe. It's a notable minority perspective and there are certainly sources that back it up other than Kierkegaard. Just because Kierkegaard has some fringe theories doesn't mean that his non-fringe arguments are banned. To quote from the the Loading... journal you cited above, "Some critics and commentators have questioned the status of artgames as games due to their short duration and limited interactivity, thus questioning their claim to art and legitimacy" (emphasis added). On being presented with several art games (including Shadow of the Colossus, Braid, and Flower), film critic Roger Ebert declared even them not to be art. There are sources galore for that event. The idea is shared by a significant minority and it is quite duly represented in the article in question with a single sentence.
Regarding whether the source in question is usable at Score (game), I believe that question of should be resolved subsequent to this discussion, not in lieu of it and definitely not as a fait accompli. I have no opinions on the propriety of the source's usage at "Score (game)", but at this point you have to acknowledge that you're not an uninvolved party. Please allow the discussion-based approach to proceed before performing dramatic edits like systematically removing all instances of reference to a writer that you are clearly aware is currently under discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Fringe claims of Kierkegaard's have no place in Wikipedia. - So can you please remove them from the art game article. - hahnchen 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The only one that was a fringe theory was removed. As you know, I've suggested that the others that aren't bolstered by additional sources be shifted to the talk section until it can be demonstrated to you that they are shared views and not Kierkegaard's alone. I am short of time right now and I won't be able to locate any additional sources until August, but the placement of these claims in talk will surely not cause any problems. Because you're persisting in the argument (most recently on your user talk page) that there are only 6 sources in the world that cite Kierkegaard, I think now might be a good time to dispel this concern of yours.
The complaint was made above that he didn't even have double digit citations. That's false. See 7, 8, 9, and 10. Now we're at ten 3rd party RSes who cite this guy. Do you need more? How about John Lindholm's Royal Institute of Technology thesis, "Gameplay pipeline, med skriptspråk" (ISSN-1653-5715) as an 11th?
Perhaps it would provide a clearer picture if we were to search for citations to Kierkegaard's website since that's where his writings have resided. And of course we find,... more 3rd party RS citations: 12, 13, 14, 15. Is there a special cutoff number for how many third party RS citations is sufficient to lend him borderline significance on Wikipedia? I can easily locate several more if needed.
And the above is really mostly his earlier material when he was still exclusively running He has now apparently rebranded his blog and is the head of, which which has a brace of editors and notable contributors including Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak among others.
Nobody has ever suggested citing him heavily or taking his word as the ultimate authority on anything. But he's not an internet nobody as you seem to have convinced yourself, hahnchen. As I've repeatedly told you there are clearly better sources available for most topics. Kierkegaard styles himself as a divisive firebrand and he uses a caustic and abrasive rhetorical style that has earned him blanket dismissal in many circles. And I don't blame anyone from reacting viscerally to his essays. Indeed I think they are intended to cause that reaction. So he's not a writer that I feel Wikipedia should be heavily relying on. Is he completely unusable as a source, though? I don't think so. The use to which his writings have been put in the matter at hand are to provide a counterpoint in the interest of neutrality. Hahnchen has expressed great alarm that the sources are being used to promote fringe ideas. If this is true then the fringe ideas should be removed subsequent to discussion. Removing all reference and citation to Kierkegaard, however, is unwarranted. The mere fact that he has some fringe views does not make him ineligible for citation on his non-fringe ideas. -Thibbs (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
None of those sources you provide actually address his theories. The only one that even mentions a theory of his explicitly states that the blog author has not and will not give the theory any thought. If no one is out there dissecting his theories or endorsing and building on them, then they are one person's opinions with no credentials to back them up. That definitely makes his opinions fringe theories. He has no credibility as a scholar. Indrian (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The links are not convincing, other editors should look through them, and ask themselves, "is this the type of coverage that 'an established expert on the subject matter' would receive?" - hahnchen 19:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Citation by numerous third party reliable sources is usually a sign that these sources believe the cited writer to be worth citing. I don't think it's fair to say that the RSes above don't address his theories. It's not like the writer and his website are being referenced for simply hosting images or anything as trivial. Many of the above RSes cover his personal observations or his reviews of games, but there are also several sources that really can only be understood as engaging with his theories. Hahnchen has linked several of them in his initial post. Kierkegaard's theories on arcade culture are discussed in the Simon Carless article (RS#2 above); his views on non-games are covered in both Joystiq articles (RS#4 and #8 above); and his thoughts on the state of video games journalism is directly discussed in the article (RS#1 above) as well as being glossed in this GameSetWatch article: 16. Further theories under discussion by the RSes include his critique of the term "gameplay" (covered in RS#7 and the Lindholm article - RS#11 above), and his views on art games is covered by the Parker article (RS#6).
I certainly agree that fringe ideas of his should not be used in Wikipedia, but which fringe ideas of his are being promoted here? The majority of the Kierkegaard refs at art game are corroborated by other RSes. There are only two bullet points that don't yet have additional sources behind them and I've already suggested that we move those to talk until they've been corroborated. If they cannot be then I wouldn't even mind them being removed from the talk page to repair whatever damage they might cause at that location.
On the question of this guy's reliability, I think it's important that we make sure we're not holding him to the wrong standard. Unlike the repeatedly invoked Time Cube guy who speaks on factual scientific matters, Kierkegaard is making interpretive social opinions. The Time Cube guy lacks the credentials to be taken as reliable on facts and Kierkegaard may as well, but is there seriously any question regarding the reliability of Kierkegaard on his own opinions? What incentive is there for Kierkegaard to lie in this case? How likely is it that he is misinterpreting or misrepresenting his own views? WP:RSOPINION suggests that reliability isn't the real issue here.
What this really looks like a conflation of reliability with notability - a threshold matter for article creation. I acknowledge that a kind of notability (let's say "renown") is expected for sources as well but I think that the numerous RSes above speak to that for Kierkegaard. Actual internet nobodies simply do not have their blog posts dissected and analyzed by multiple RSes - not even to debunk them unless they have some clout. I think this is a case where the writer meets the minimal level of renown to be citable for his opinion on Wikipedia. His book on art games that he's currently cited for at Wikipedia is probably the most comprehensive work at this time on the niche topic of "art game criticism". If you can get past his incendiary language, the book actually offers a pretty comprehensive summary of the major points against the art game. Many of the points he brings up are covered individually by other reliable sources, but the book in question covers them all in one place. I think this perspective should be presented in the article because it comes up so often when you research this topic. -Thibbs (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify Thibbs, I meant the sources you provided did not address his theories. Of the ones Hahnchen provided, the only ones that addressed his theories basically called him an idiot. Once again, if the only coverage he is receiving in reliable sources is both marginal and disparaging, then he and his theories have no credibility. This is certainly fringe material. Indrian (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Why are you making distinctions between the sources I provided and the ones hahnchen found? If RSes do in fact actually address his theories then what does it matter who located them? Anyway it's quite incorrect to say that the only coverage he is receiving in reliable sources is both marginal and disparaging. Have you read through the sources? Just from the ones specifically covering his theories: JC Fletcher calls his ideas "interesting" in RS#4, Simon Carless describes him as "sometimes unfairly ignored" in RS#2, and Joystiq noted that he's "on to something" in RS#8. Lindholm argues through 2 pages that "Kierkegaard har en tydlig poäng" (Swedish for "Kierkegaard has a clear point") in RS#11. From the sources covering his game reviews, most of them are quite positive or neutral. Here's one: 17 that describes Kierkegaard's blog as "delightfully well-written and geeky (looks like [Kierkegaard] is a SiliconEra contributor.)" In fact there are only 2 sources I can think of that are primarily critical and neither calls him an idiot. -Thibbs (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
As to your first question, you argued that Hahnchen's sweep missed numerous reliable sources that helped establish the significance of his theories. My counterpoint was that only one of your sources actually mentioned his theories, so I believed your statement to be incorrect. That is why I focused on your sources. Obviously it does not matter who presents sources when attempting to determine credibility; I just feel none of yours aided that cause. As to your second point. #2 calls his ideas interesting, but also calls them impossible to realize, so the author is ultimately dismissive (though only mildly and very politely). #4 says he is ignored in the sense of overlooked (the lack of RSS feed comment makes this clear), which only adds to the evidence that no one is paying attention to him and that he is small time. I don't read Swedish, so I cannot comment on #11, but I will say that if academia were taking him seriously in general, we would not have to go to Swedish language sources to find coverage. As to the rest, his game reviews are not at issue here. We are examining whether he has the credibility as a scholar that would require us to include his theoretical views on the industry. As his philosophical musings have been almost completely ignored -- and often disparaged when someone decides to mention them -- and his work is entirely self-published, he is not a credible source for theoretical material. Indrian (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
At least 4 of the sources I brought up covered his theories actually, but I'm glad we can agree that it doesn't matter whether we are looking at my 4 theory-specific sources or hahnchen's 4. Anyway it clearly lays to rest the argument that "no one is out there dissecting his theories". I disagree that Kierkegaard is being disparaged in any sense in either of the 2 RSes you've identified, but either way I'm not familiar with any requirement that all discussion of his theories must be positive in order for him to achieve the renown required for citation at Wikipedia either. There are loads of negative reviews of Roger Ebert, for example, on this very topic. Ebert said that "games are not art" and the video game journalists took up the mighty pen to censure him en masse. That doesn't mean that Ebert cannot be cited for his minority views on games. I suppose you could make a stretch and claim that RS#7 offered "disparaging" coverage of Kierkegaard because they discussed him as "controversial," but covering significant controversy is exactly what NPOV requires in cases like this.
My central point is not that he's universally loved and admired, but that multiple RS coverage demonstrates that he's become a distinct part of the journalistic conversation about games. The fact that he's been given the nod by VG journalism notables like Simon Carless (author of that quote from RS#17 among others) and Spencer Yip, and the fact that his current multi-user blog attracts contributing writers like Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak demonstrates that he does have some degree of credibility. -Thibbs (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Ebert can be cited because video game journalists took up the mighty pen and disagreed. Alex Kierkegaard can't be cited, because his book has only generated 40 words of coverage from one paper in its entire existence.
Thibbs claims that with those 10 extra reliable sources which have at least mentioned his name - we can ignore WP:RS, because we've already demonstrated that this guy's opinion is noteworthy. I'm sure he's been retweeted too. I maintain that this is still a woeful level of coverage compared to any published writer. Compare him to John Szczepaniak or Simon Carless if you want. You won't need to dig up some master's thesis to do it. - hahnchen 01:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
In fact Ebert can be cited on any of his opinions even ones that aren't discussed and analyzed by a large number of journalists. Why? Because when judging Ebert's usability as a source we don't look to see if everyone agrees with his opinions all of the time and we don't look to see how many third party RSes have specifically covered each individual claim he is making, but rather we examine whether as a whole his work has been cited by multiple third party RSes. If we apply the same measuring stick to Kierkegaard we obviously notice that he enjoys less of a reputation than Ebert, but we also notice that he has in fact been discussed by a decent number of third party RSes. Not only in 40 words, not only in 6 sources; not just minimally and not just disparagingly. Substantial RS journalists like Simon Carless and JC Fletcher have written praise for his ideas and others have contributed their time to writing material for his blog. He's been cited in reliable VG journalism and in academic sources. There's no disputing this. I know it runs contrary to the theory that he's a complete nobody, but the facts just don't bear out that conclusion. -Thibbs (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that Kierkegaard has been mentioned on GameSetWatch and on Joystiq. I maintain that this is still a woeful level of coverage compared to any published writer. Ebert's self-published opinions would be notable because he is an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Kierkegaard is not.
Other Wikiproject editors - I opened this discussion at VG to get outside input. Look through Thibbs' external links above, does Kierkegaard's mentions establish him as a subject matter expert, whose opinion we can cite - even though they have not been covered in reliable sources. - hahnchen 17:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
No. He has basically only been mentioned in passing in a few blogs. Most of these sources do not mention his theories at all, while those that do generally mention them only briefly and do not engage with his ideas in depth. This is not significant coverage. His work is self-published and not widely critiqued in the academic or journalistic world. I can see no definition of expert that would include him. Indrian (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there in fact an articulable standard of renown that an author must reach before he is considered to meet the minimum threshold for use as a corroboratory ref? I commend elevated standards generally, but it would be good to know how many third party RS citations are actually required before someone is considered citation-worthy for Wikipedia's purposes. Apparently 17 (triple the initial offering) is not sufficient evidence for some. Would 20 meet the threshold? 50? Perhaps we should only allow citations to writers meeting WP:N (i.e. with stand-alone Wikipedia articles)? Whatever the magic threshold, the reliable source board should be informed and the guidelines updated if this is what we're doing because currently there is nothing to suggest that the standards are quite this high for other refs (especially corroboratory opinion pieces offered alongside others).
As far as the particular book in question at "art game", if there is a more comprehensive work on criticism of the art game genre I'd be very interested in hearing what it is. I've researched the topic in some depth and I certainly haven't found one. Although I recognize that Kierkegaard isn't as renowned as video game "expert" Roger Ebert, the fact of the matter is that Ebert hasn't written a comprehensive work on art game criticism. Neither have any of the other more renowned authors listed above. It's quite a niche topic. Does it really seem like excising it from Wikipedia will result in a more balanced and neutral article? Having done the research I think it's considerably more helpful to present the counterpoint even if it comes from a writer whose only credentials amount to citation in more than two dozen RS articles and approving words from 3 or 4 notable video game journalists. -Thibbs (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Counterpoint: Kierkegaard is a mediocre source but he's cited by RSes, praised by notable writers, and is adequate

Kierkegaard is a mediocre source but I think his book on art games is the most comprehensive collection of criticisms of the art game genre that currently exists. I think the fact that the writer has been cited repeatedly by RSes - including direct engagement with his theories in half of the 17 sources presented above - and the fact that he's been praised by Simon Carless, JC Fletcher, Brian Ashcraft (18), and to a lesser extent Spencer Yip, Tim W., and others, and the fact that John Szczepaniak and others (James Cottee, Seth Killian, etc.) write for his new blog all argues in favor of his meeting at least the minimum threshold for corroboratory opinion-based citation on Wikipedia. Holding him to expert standards under WP:SPS as if he were being cited for factual claims instead of holding him to the lesser opinion claim standard under WP:RSOPINION is not helpful. Every one of his opinions that appears in Wikipedia is currently backed up by other RSes so histrionic claims of WP:FRINGE are meaningless and the total coverage amounts to 4 or 5 bullet points in a single article so WP:DUE is inapplicable as well. Am I missing anything? Apart from simply battlegrounding this issue to death I don't see any advantage to removing this source. It won't help the encyclopedia in the least. All it might do is reduce the NPOV. Because the source is mediocre rather than superlative, this is a borderline case but I urge anyone considering it to use a bit of common sense. -Thibbs (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your original dismissal of concerns regarding the source were, "he published a book". WP:UNDUE states:
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.
That you believe the source to be "the most comprehensive collection of criticisms of the art game genre that currently exists." is not relevant and should not be considered. If his opinion happens to coincide with that of a reliable source, use the reliable source and stop promoting the book. - hahnchen 20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A single line out of a 38k+ byte article was not undue in that case. The proof that it isn't Kierkegaard's view alone is evident from the fact that corroboratory RSes were quickly and easily located. It's not as relevant to the topic of "games as art" (the topic of that article) as it is about "art games" (the article to which your arguments have shifted and which represents the current dispute), but the reason I bring up its comprehensiveness is because this was the underlying justification for its addition in the first place. At the "art game" article it is currently being used to cite 5 lines representing roughly 0.89% of the total article. Each of these lines is supported by additional (albeit less comprehensive) sources. The small criticism subsection is in need of expansion frankly, not trimming. I strongly disagree that the minimal coverage that currently appears in the article is undue, and I think the idea that citing a source at Wikipedia amounts to promoting it is complete nonsense. -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note also that when UNDUE speaks of "The relative prominence of each viewpoint", the word "viewpoint" refers to ideas instead of sources. If material is removed as undue it is not because the source is of only middling renown but because the source is the only place the idea exists. In the matter at hand we see several sources backing up each idea. There's certainly room to improve the section without requiring the removal of this detailed and closely relevant source. -Thibbs (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
That his viewpoint is cited at all, that it has any prominence, is down to your insistence. His viewpoint has not been endorsed or even discussed in reliable sources, aside from the 40 words mentioned above. The only reason you seek to keep this unreliable source in the article, is down to your personal opinion that his self-published work is "the most comprehensive collection of criticisms of the art game genre that currently exists." How can this be read as anything other than promotion? - hahnchen 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm really concerned that you're conflating source and viewpoint here. In arguing that a viewpoint is fringe you are saying that the idea does not appear in other sources. In the present situation this is demonstrably false. The presence of corroboratory sources clearly shows that these ideas appear in multiple sources, not just the one. Perhaps if you could identify which idea you specifically believe to be fringe then we could reach a compromise by finding additional sources for it or simply excluding it if no corroboratory evidence can be found, but vaguely claiming that everything Kierkegaard says is fringe is quite clearly incorrect.
The basic usability of the source is established by the fact that its author has been cited by multiple RSes (Kotaku, GameSetWatch, Joystiq, Loading..., etc.), praised by several established video game journalists (Simon Carless, JC Fletcher, and Brian Ashcraft, etc.) and that several others are contributors to his current blog (John Szczepaniak, James Cottee, Seth Killian, etc.).
Compare the use of Kierkegaard's article with the citations to Ebert's, Roeper's, and Havis' articles reviewing the film Doom. These film reviewers are reffed for film articles because their film-related work as a whole has been cited by third party RSes. Holding them to a higher standard by demanding that they be established as experts on Doom specifically or by demanding that their individual articles on Doom be independently cited by large numbers of RSes is obviously ridiculous. The same is true for the less renowned Kierkegaard because he meets the minimum expectation of usability as a source: his video-game-related work as a whole has been cited in dozens of third party RS articles, and he has been approved by established RS journalists including the 6 just mentioned. And of course you're right to point out that even the very article which you are seeking to remove from Wikipedia has been cited itself directly in an academic journal. -Thibbs (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No, Ebert et al's opinion have been published in third party reliable sources, even his opinion on Doom. Kierkegaard's hasn't. I'm holding Kierkegaard to the same standard, he fails.
His book is a promotion of his fringe theory, that only art games aren't art. Every point he makes is to this conclusion. Just because arguments he employs have been discussed by coincidence by third party sources, does not mean they're discussing Kierkegaard's arguments. You would not cite a crackpot conspiracy theorist's book on JFK even if they both agree that he was assassinated.
Removing his book does not lead to the removal of any of the content. - hahnchen 23:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This isn't going much of anywhere, so can we agree to table the discussion for now? As a compromise, I propose putting any of his mentions up for consideration in context on the article talk pages (and notifying the project talk page here, if necessary). If his opinion is used in the context of expert reliability, I suggest that it come in the form of reliable, secondary commentary about his views and not from his primary, unreviewed sources just yet. We can agree that if K's position is important, it will have secondary coverage to this effect. czar · · 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Endorse - Sadly I agree this is basically going nowhere. I'm happy to work toward compromise if indeed Hahnchen is interested in compromising. The talk page at "art game" seems like the natural place to discuss the specific claims at issue. Thanks for your suggestion, Czar. -Thibbs (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The talk page at art game is not popular. I opened a discussion here to get more opinions. As per Czar and Indrian though, I do believe that only when there is reliable, secondary commentary about his views, should they be covered. I think it'd be better if a clean discussion were started below - where Thibbs can make his opinion on why Kierkegaard is an expert source, where I can counter that - and then we shut the hell up an let others make their minds up. Because frankly, if he is considered an expert source, such that his self published unreviewed works should be cited even when unnecessary, we might as well throw WP:VG/RS out of the window and start citing tumblrs have been linked to a few times from GameSetLinks or RockPaperShotgun's Sunday Papers. I'm seriously considering opening up something on the fringe theories or reliable sources noticeboard, Thibb's arguments are that ridiculous. If you can't see that Ebert's opinion is printed in a third party reliable source, and Kierkegaard's is not, you must be blind, or just willfully obstructive. - hahnchen 23:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It's just the same arguments over and over again. Let's close this discussion. You can have the last word here, hahnchen. Instead let's discuss the actual claims themselves at the article talk page as Czar suggested. I've started a subsection just for that purpose. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay images

I've been seeing a lot of cosplay images used in articles. While some are acceptable, most seem to be fluff for the purpose of adding another image to the article. Can I get some comments?

For clarification, I'm seeing this most often in fighting game characters and RPG characters' articles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If the image is used with a purpose such as describing cultural impact, popularity, etc I don't see an issue. Images just there for the sake of it though don't really need to be there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Generally, it seems that they are there to demonstrate that cosplay exists. However, I don't think that you need an image, unless the specific cosplayer is being discussed, to demonstrate this (or perhaps if the cosplayer was employed by the character's company to cosplay). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a cosplay image in all of the articles either, unless, as New Age Retro Hippie, the cosplayer is mentioned or is an object of discussion in the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This was either being discussed here or at ANI not too long ago. A certain user, I forget his name, was adding it to a lot of articles. I think the end result of the discussion is largely what you guys are already saying, and what I believe too; only use it if it has some sort of significance to the character game. (Its hard for me to come up with a great example, as I don't follow cosplay stuff at all, but, maybe something like including it in a "Cultural Effect/Legacy" type section of a Lara Croft type article or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it was Niemti. I think I tried to get rid of the cosplay photo in the article for Lightning, but he put it back in again, and I was tired of reverting edits then and so didn't bother making a fuss. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the incident I'm thinking of was actually the opposite, where someone kept trying to add cosplay pics to an article Niemti was in the process of rewriting. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
[7] I'm all for cosplay pics (I'm a huge cosplay enthusiast), but it was just ridiculous (the same few images in many articles (Tira's in no less than 5), including even... Model (profession), with so absurdly unrelated pic). Btw, Skyrim below is the same person (User:Canoe1967). --Niemti (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I love you too, but contrary to a popular(?) opinion, I'm not ChrisGualtieri. Anyway I will always support a cosplay pic, if it actually fits (and also if it's good enough). --Niemti (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
My feeling is that it is never inappropriate to include free media where doing so is relevant to the topic. Just as I would include developers speaking about a game in the middle of a development section, I might also choose to use an image of costume in either a design or a culture section.
"Adding fluff for the purpose of adding another image to the article", however, is a rather vague statement. Did you have particular articles in combination with the current images chosen in question? --Izno (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Possibly relevant: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Cosplay is not mentioned in the article. The image makes the layout ugly and does not increase the readers' understanding of the article. I think it should be removed. My opinion is images should only be used if they are mentioned in the text, and if they increase the readers' understanding of the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's Canoe's own pictures but cosplayers are just random people who have nothing to do with this spam. --Niemti (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Basically I agree with the above comments that such images are best used if of some special significance to the character/game. I'm sympathetic to the free media argument, but I think it's a fine line we have to tread. Articles shouldn't become image galleries even if they are free images because this harms accessibility for those with slow connection speeds or by simply introducing too much clutter. And along the same lines of what Sergecross73 points out, red flags go up when I see users uploading images of themselves or their friends. It starts to be questionable whether they're here to build an encyclopedia or instead to build a personal reputation. -Thibbs (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there is a very similar discussion on this topic that has occurred on the WikiProject Comics talk page. (If anyone would like to see what was discussed. Very similar answers given per those given here by Darkwarriorblake, Sergecross73, Izno and others). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That's good, it appears its not just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that's building then either. Looks like we're on the same page, except for the inevitable arguments will arise as far as the threshold of how prevalent it needs to be to be included. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It might be a good idea to drop a note at WT:FCHAR linking to this thread as well. -Thibbs (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I was just about to ask the same thing when I saw the picture on Skyrim reappear. I agree with the rest, only if adds something valuable to the article it might be a good thing to add a picture, but not like that one (which would be nice to see on Races of The Elder Scrolls. --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Cosplay images for games are not warranted unless central to illustrating a large cosplay community, and even then there should be a discussion if such is suitable. I mean, a convention or similar photo would suit this better than individual characters. For individual characters, I guess there would be a bigger leeway, but unless cosplay is of really high quality and has a large following, I don't see the value beyond that. Prose can deal with explaining people use cosplay, I don't know how much value an actual image adds to that - would it really show something not already described. After all, this isn't about specific costume implementations and features or specific people, but the fact there is cultural impact. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    The only thing I'd add is that it's often hard to find any free video game pictures, so when there are free ones, even cosplay, it's sometimes nice to have an extra picture. This is obviously case by case; and one case where it is used as such, as I discussed above, it ruins the layout and should be removed (also not a very technically good picture to begin with). --Odie5533 (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thread started at the Village Pump here to discuss the use of cosplay images in character articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Official videos posted on YouTube as references (either directly or indirectly)

This may have been resolved before: if it has been, can someone provide a link to show me the result. Here is my quandary: many game developers are now using YouTube as a medium for showing the public the inside workings of their games. Games like The Last of Us, Tomb Raider and some of the most recent Lego video games are using simple subject-specific videos and things called "Developer's Diaries", which I have watched and found informing. However, I seem to remember something about YouTube being an unreliable source. That was then, but I think, unless it has been decided already, that we should rethink our attitude about videos specially released by the companies in question, videos that might help with creating the development sections for games. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

YouTube basically is an unreliable source for anything except the article on YouTube. But the sources you're describing don't originate from YouTube. In this case YouTube is just the medium and there's certainly nothing wrong with citing a source whose information comes via video instead of in print. So I think you can definitely use these as sources. -Thibbs (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you not transcribe the videos and submit them to Wikinews? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
YouTube is acceptable to use if you are referencing a video directly from a publisher's channel (for example Square Enix's for info on Tomb Raider). Where the issue with YouTube comes in is when you try to cite something from an average user's channel (like AverageJoe's video Top 5 NEEDED Features in Tomb Raider) and claim that to be the source. That is unreliable. But if it is coming from a direct source (publisher channel, IGN's channel (although you can reference all of their videos on their site) etc.) that is fine. That is how I have understood using YouTube as a source. Basically what Thibbs was saying. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It would clearly depend on the context. If the developer diaries are coming from the official channel of the developer, the company that developed the game, or the publisher of the game then it would have a lot more standing than an average YouTube user's channel. The most important question would be who uploaded the video. The other major question would be how the info was being cited since a video of this nature would be a primary source, but that would be an issue regardless of the medium so therefore is unrelated to the YouTube issue.-- (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Developers diaries posted at YouTube where you have reasonably strong assurance that the poster is the company developing the game in question are perfectly acceptable sources. The issue with YT in general is that the poster is not the copyright owner, and therefore would be a copyvio to use otherwise (eg we can't use Lets Play videos to support a statement about gameplay or a bug or the like), but dev diaries are nearly always posted by the developer or in some cases the publisher, who own the game and video footage copyright, so that would be fine to use as sourcing. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Could someone write up the appearances section? I'm not very good at that. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone at WP:FF might be delighted to help, if nobody here has the time or will to do so. :) ·Salvidrim!·  23:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Company of Heroes 2 controversy ongoing issues

In the currently under-written Start-class article for Company of Heroes 2, there has been a section in the reception reporting on the news that apparent inaccuracies have caused much negative reception, particularly for ex-USSR nation players. When I first encountered it, the controversy section was very large and listed in detail the complaints made by one source. This appeared to provided undue weight so as a third-view point on the matter I rewrote the section to it's basic points and quotes while adding further references. Initially I had also removed the mention of the Metacritic user score since these are typically unreliable. This changed however when it was brought up in a news pieces about the controversy. Mentioning the score with context to the protest seemed fair. The other users at the time seemed satisfied as the talk page settled, edit warring ceased and page-protection lifted. However currently the matter is still not settled it seems. While I'm always open to discussion as one should be, due to the somewhat sensitive nature that the controversy appears to have, while attempting to be neutral and polite there are still users who are either not happy despite providing an overview and/or are not assuming good faith on my part, even being accused of vandalism. I worry that if this matter is not settled the article will quickly revert to the previously mentioned state or worse as the controversy risks gaining undue weight as once before. As I did before from the start of my participation on the matter, can someone please provide an additional view point in hopes of reaching consensus? I would like the matter to be settled yet this may be difficult if the users are not assuming good faith. Thank you. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Mafia: The City of Host Heaven, Mafia II and List of Mafia characters articles

Hello. I would like for some help at the articles of Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven, Mafia II and List of Mafia characters. There were lots of excessive vandalism by random IP users in the List of Mafia characters article. Also in all three articles, there are too many overdetailed information written and should be shorten right away. The List of Mafia characters article needs alot more help indeed. IMO I don't think it should exit at all and just write down the main characters in a new section in both Mafia articles respectively. Thanks. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

List of teams in PES

Does this article meet notability requirements? It's clearly unsourced and seems to be pure optimistic speculation in any case but I know that is not grounds for deletion. Could it not go in the PES 2014 article? Spiderone 14:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone already turned it into a redirect, which is probably the right thing to do. That's something that's usually frowned upon including in articles even, let alone being stand-alone ones by themselves... Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Isaac Clarke (again)

Hi guys,

The article on Dead Space protagonist Isaac Clarke has seen quite some action lately. Two months ago I asked the same question, whether or not there should be an article on Clarke. I hope this time we can get to some consensus.

I feel that it should be merged into the Dead Space (series) article, with a character section. Right now, the article is still very, very long, with a huge portion describing the events from the video games and a whole lot of references consisting of dialogue, while the character creation and reception sections, which I believe are what makes it a notable article, are very small. I do believe that Player017 (talk · contribs) and Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) have the best intentions with the article, but I'm afraid there won't be any substantial information to be added. Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There's almost nothing on his concept, and the reception is primarily appearances in "weak" Top 10 lists. Take out the plot and some of the silly Top X things (Top helmet? Really? This is not encyclopedic...), and you have two paragraphs which basically can be merged to the Dead Space series article. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I find that this is probably another case of WP:UNDUE. I don't wish to undermine the efforts of the two editors with good intentions, but in the case of Isaac, there's just not enough to give due weight to his character, and his section is better as part of the series article. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I personally think Isaac Clarke could easily have sources found; it's just that, they aren't there, and in the meantime, the article shouldn't remain as it is. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is that the "Appearances" section needs a clean up, but and so? The perfection isn't required at Wikipedia. For something get a an article here the subject need to attend the notability criteria. The article has coverage by secondary/tertiary reliable sources that prove it even if you think that a lot of "top 10" lists isn't enough. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
We've had the discussion about top 10 lists, and unless there is actually significant discussion about why the element is on that list, it is not part of the topic's "significant coverage". Further, in terms of any fictional character, even outside video games, it is expected to have development and reception sections to be considered likely notable. Clarke's article in its present state is barely at the line. There is a possibility that there are more sources, but unless we're talking something akin to a GI or Gamasutra feature piece solely on the character, I'm really not seeing how we can call this notable. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
But if you look better there aren't only top 10; there is a PSU article dedicated only to talk about him, and he was also listed as 22th "most memorable, influential, and badass" protagonist in games. I think it seems well but if it's not enough more sources can be find as noted by New Age Retro Hippie. I continue to insist that the major problem is the "Appearances" section. It may have problems but they are irresolvable. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Does that merit its own article, Yuji? While Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, there is no use of having an article that has barely any information on it. Merging the notable bits back into the Dead Space (series) article seems more logical to me. --Soetermans. T / C 10:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Talking of the Dead Space series, that article needs a major shakeup and re-edit. It looks very unpolished for an article on an entire series. Not sure I can help do it myself (never got into Dead Space), but it needs doing. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
@Soetermans I do not want to be rude, but I think so. Otherwise, I would not have "unredirected" it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You're not being rude, don't worry about it :) But the question remains, what are we going to do? --Soetermans. T / C 15:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I say merge it. There's too little about the character to make a full-blown article (except on a dedicate Wiki, which this is not). --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I would also suggest merging that particular article as well per the reasonings by ProtoDrake and Soetermans. The Dead Space (series) article is already a mess and I remember having that discussions about proposing a character notability guideline and also concerning the top X lists a year ago (I was the one who started that discussion). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, it's already a consensus. Then, I'll not oppose it. However I still think Isaac Clarke worth his own article. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Sims Task Force has become Maxis Task Force

Recently, I proposed a rebranding of sorts for The Sims Talk Force with two options, which are EA Task Force or Maxis Task Force, and four members commented on Maxis or The Sims but since Maxis initially made The Sims, it has come to Maxis Task Force. I have asked the proposing person of the first time who offered to make the task force page and thus no response. Now I am pleading to the Video Game Project members to help with the setup of the Maxis Task Force since I have returned to Wikipedia after long absence but I am afraid that I would screw up on the matter. So, is there anyone who is willing to make the conversion or make a new task force page dedicated to Maxis Task Force and notify the "Powers at Be" about the change? Thanks. Sundogs talk page sandbox 22:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I can edit the full-protected WP:VG templates to reflect any changes you need done. Just let me know what icon the project will use. :) ·Salvidrim!·  23:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Video gaming industry in... templates

This was originally raised about a single template by ferret.

There are a dozen of these templates now (Category:Video_gaming_templates_by_country). I'm struggling to see the point behind them, they're incomplete and if they are made complete, they will just be duplicating everything in the category and make the template too large. I can't understand what navigation problem they are trying to solve. - X201 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw these created and added to articles recently. I have strong reservations about their usefulness and being basically redundant to categories, certain lists as well as filling up article space. Their contents are also not directly related to the country, rather just games, companies and people from those countries. In my opinion, this isn't a characteristic important enough or strongly linked to other articles to warrant a whole template for it. I would take these to TfD. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, they are of limited usefulness (if at all) and should be taken to TFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm neutral to them, but I can see how they might become problematic. I just wanted to note that I think the continent-by-continent "Video gaming industry in..." templates should be kept. These are an entirely different set of templates but you can see an example of "Video gaming in South America", for example, at the bottom of Video gaming in Brazil. I find that the continent templates provide useful navigational functions and that they highlight needed articles. -Thibbs (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, continent/region templates actually deal with the industry in the region/countries and not just individual companies or franchises. They are focused on their topic (and though many are just a bunch of redlinks), which is why I agree they are fine. I think the intent here was just the individual country templates. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I nominated these at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_11#Video_gaming_industry_in..._templates. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we make sure some of these are in categories. Cky2250 (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mega Man (video game)

I've been looking at this one recently and it looks to be in very good shape. I don't want to place it up at Peer Reviews since you're more likely to expect Mega Man Legends 3 to be released than receiving a response to can I get some second opinions on this before it get its day in court? GamerPro64 03:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Three boxes seems excessive - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, there has to be more reception for the game than that, right? Granted, finding reception for the first game, where you'll have tons of crossover with other Mega Man titles, is going to be a huge burden. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Just don't remove the NA boxart. Not only is it hilarious, but I do think its notorious for being really bad box art... Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Removed the Japanese box art. You're right about it needing more stuff on reception, Hippie. So I'm going to have to start digging for it. GamerPro64 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You might want to ask someone to help with that. It's going to take a very, very long time - I mean, searching for Mega Man reception would give results for Mega Man 4, and trying to narrow that down might make you lose out on valuable reception for this game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Who exactly would I ask for help? Because after researching, people consider Mega Man 2 and 3 to be the better games in the original franchise. Maybe there isn't anything to find on it reception wise. GamerPro64 19:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Me for instance; or anyone else who's noteworthy for digging through link after link for reception information. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If anyone doesn't mind can they copyedit the Mega Man article? GamerPro64 20:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the process of moving right now, but if you have no bites by the end of the week and are still interested, ping me and I'll take a look next weekend. czar · · 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of blank talk pages (previously tagged with WP:VG)

Consensus has been determined that Redirect-class assessments are to be used. It's time to move on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I'm going through the list of articles tagged with WP:VG banners and removing the banners from redirects, I happen to blank the pages at times since they are solely tagged with the project banner. As there's nothing of "historical relevance" there, I assume they should get deleted in some way. How to proceed? Are they tagged with a CSD tag (and if so, which one) or are they just left blank? Moritz37 (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC) (example: Talk:List of Left 4 Dead Characters 12:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC))

Hi there, if there is no content on the page you can tag it with {{db-nocontent}} which will list it for speedy deletion under criteria A3 - Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 08:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I may have misread you actually, do you mean you want to delete the talk pages of redirects after you blank the talk page? If so that would fall under a different area since the CSD A criteria are for article space Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 08:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleting the article doesn't actually save any space, it just hides the page history. I'd just leave the pages blank, create as little cleanup work as possible. czar · · 08:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I'll leave them as they are then. Thanks to both of you! Moritz37 (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to leave them there and change the template code to indicate that they are redirects, like we do for Files and Categories so that we can keep tabs on them? Or at least put them in a hidden maintenance cat so we can keep track of them for a mass deletion, without the template on them we can't find them. - X201 (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been saying for a long time that there doesn't seem to be any solid reason why WP:VG doesn't assess redirects. Let's discuss it formally to see if there are objections, and if not, let's add it to our code... I guess? :) ·Salvidrim!·  16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Should WP:VG assess redirects, like we assess Project, Template, Category pages?

A simple enough proposal. I've seen recent questions about this, and personally wonder about the reasons why WP:VG is not currently assessing redirects. :) ·Salvidrim!·  16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - As proposer, mainly because I am unaware of strong reasons not to. :) ·Salvidrim!·  16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I've followed the practice of not adding our banner to redirects since I realized that's what WPVG does, but I never really understood why and it wasn't really explained anywhere. I see no reason not to. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: As per my comments above. Makes sense from a cataloguing point of view, just so that we know what we've got, even if we only use that info to get rid of some of them. - X201 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - One useful thing about redirects is that they save a page history for something that no longer exists, essentially. If something's been merged or redirected away, there's usually a good reason, but you never know when it may be helpful to "dig into the archives", so to speak, and cataloging our redirects makes all Video game redirects come together in a nice, neat, organized place. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes sense. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending comment from whomever would implement it. Not sure how it really makes a "neat, organized place", but I didn't see any prior discussion in the template's archives and I don't know of the implementation's downsides. czar · · 00:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I know of no downside. It wouldn't exactly be more cluttered, merely one more line on the assessment table. And I'd be happy to implement (I'll seek help if it doesn't work out). :) ·Salvidrim!·  04:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It makes a neat and organized place for redirects because it'll file all of those into a category, which can then be accessed to see all redirects under the project. Also means we know what's where and what is a redirect, and allows for potential new articles if coverage is sufficient enough. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, no real reason to oppose. satellizer (talk - contributions) 23:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per X201's comments on cataloging. I don't think I've ever noticed a redirect that was tagged with any WikiProject banner honestly, but I can't think of a downside and it could prove quite helpful in locating redirects that meet the reasons to delete. -Thibbs (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The only reason you'd really want to categorise redirects is to highlight Redirects with possibilities. Will there be any way of doing this by project tagging the talk pages? If so - it would make a nice link from our requested articles. - hahnchen 22:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess technically you could add a field to the banner for this, akin to "needs-infobox" or something, although it could be simpler to just add that template manually anyways. :) ·Salvidrim!·  23:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Since consensus appears unanimous, I went ahead and enabled Redirect-class assesments. There are plenty of currently untagged redirects and they'll slowly be tagged as we run across them (unless someone figures out a way to do some AWB run?). I'm pretty sure I edited what needed to be edited for them to be enabled, but if I missed anything just go ahead and fix it or let me know! :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Who runs the Video game articles by quality and importance template? I tried to track it down but it appears to be a new template copied daily. It needs to have the redirect category added to it. - X201 (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Additional: Just had another trawl, does this template actually update itself? I can't find any instructions for changing it and the WP1.0 info seems to suggest it will all sort itself out. Wait and see seems to be the order of the day. - X201 (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, and it works! I monitor it, it's updated once every day or so. Used to be you could manually order the WP1.0 bot to run but the toolserver stuff behind that is down, so we just have to wait for the automatic updates. :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

After tagging a few sample articles yesterday I think we need to just clarify the way this should be carried out, as the template can behave in different ways depending on the page. e.g. Adding the template to a page that is just a normal talk page, the template can be added to the top of the page as normal. If the Talk page is a redirect to another talk page or the creation of a new talk page, the template needs to be added below the redirect, else the redirect will turn into a link. Also if creating a new page, a redirect to the main page needs to be added as well. (examples redirect top, template bottom, template top, redirect bottom) - X201 (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A question regarding notability.

Would an indie videogame "The Polynomial" qualify? It has reviews on Eurogamer, LEVEL, PC PowerPlay, GiantBomb (by the editors not by users), GameZebo, and so on and so forth. It has been published on Steam at October 15, 2010 and ran in the main banner rotation for about a week when it was published. I'm asking because I am involved with the game itself and I consequently have a bit of conflict of the interest when it comes to evaluating notability (plus I am not clear on what constitutes reliable sources). (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It definitely seems as though it will qualify for notability, the problem here is your conflict of interest, how involved in the game are you? Samwalton9 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It's notable and I made a stub for you at The Polynomial: Space of the Music. Feel free to ask what content is appropriate. The references currently there are all from reliable VG sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! re: how involved, well, I'm the programmer. I'd cite everything though via one of the reliable sources or the other. (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
That should be fine providing you understand Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Of particular note is to make yourself an account and state explicitly on it and the Polynomial talk page your involvement with the game. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, done that (edit: took me a bit of time to hunt down my original WP account). I'm planning to just add the platforms, dates of releases, and other such general information, backed with already-cited sources, as well as add a screenshot. E.g. currently it lists the early beta release date as the release date, the actual release date was 15th October 2010 on Steam. Dmtrlk (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Display title template

Having an issue with the DISPLAYTITLE template. On the article, God of War video game collections, I want the display title to be "God of War video game collections". I put that in the display title template, but it italicizes the whole title instead of just God of War. --JDC808 22:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been fixed. Thank you Darkwarriorblake. --JDC808 22:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'ma rip off the above post: four codes from Club Nintendo for VC/DSiWare games for specific good article promotions.

Each code can be one of the following:

Mario Golf (GBC on 3DS) Wario's Woods (NES on Wii/Wii U) NES Play Action Football (NES on Wii/Wii U) Brain Age Express: Sudoku (DSi/3DS)

These will be awarded to anyone who brings one of the following to GA:

As an added bonus, for anyone with a PS3, PSVita, or PSP, I will buy a $10 PSN coupon for the first person to agree to help copyedit Glass Joe enough that it makes it to FA. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(note: the $10 PSN code might take a while before I can actually get it to you.) - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Question. Have you thought about posting this up on the Reward Board? GamerPro64 07:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I suppose. Also, I'm going to save that PSN coupon for something that's more difficult. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't have be able to participate from the looks of things, if you went ahead with it. I use Japan PSN, and I'm assuming that plenty of other people use Europe PSN as well. I'm assuming that the reward would have been for US PSN? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Myup. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Birdo manual image

There is a dispute at the moment over whether the manual scan in Birdo satisfies the qualifications for being a fair use image. Please provide input here. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging generation templates

Someone from outside the project wants to merge all the templates back into a single one (they were originally split from that in 2009 via an rfc here). The discussion was announced on each individual template's talk page but not here, so I'm providing a link to the discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors

I'm feeling a little ambivalent about this site. It's been used on Dishonored as references in the character section, and the article is classed as a GA. But the site seems to remind me of IMDb, which, I feel, is not really a very good source for this site. Should we be using as a reference, or should be place it in the same basket as IMDb? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a question to ask at WP:RSN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Here's the section if people here want to voice their opinion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I've already pursued this.
Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.

Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:

The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.

Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.

We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.

- BTVA Admin Team

There is really nothing wrong with using them, especially when the image has the green tick as it means that it has been verified, the site is not publicly edited either. There is no other resource on the entire internet that offers this kind of service. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I can really use it for something like Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series to reference the voice actors? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If the image has a green tick it's been verified according to them, so via the actor, their representative, or the game credits. In the case of Dishonored the credits clearly state who voices who so it's not something hard to verify. So I don't see why not. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Toukiden‎

Am I able to get an outsider's opinion, or some assistance in watching a page? Over at Toukiden‎, there has been a bloke who's been repeatedly blanking sourced content without any decent justification ([8] [9] [10] [11]), and is refusing to engage in discussion on the article talk page. I've given the user two warnings; in response, they've written on my talk page "Do not warn me again, do not undo my edit again and leave me along. Once again I will slay you by 100%. Don't think it's a joke". I'm getting the feeling that I'm talking to a wall here.

Regarding the specifics of what's going on, there are two references, one by Siliconera and another by Gematsu, which state that Toukiden will get a Q4 2013 North American release, as per announcement by Tecmo Koei at E3. This user keeps saying that "there is no official NA website for Toukiden", and insists on blanking parts of the page without elaborating further on the talkpage. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this are unacceptable, as is the demand that he use the Talk page when you have not. Siliconera is a situational source and Gematsu looks rather poor, so it's not as cut-and-dried as you would have us believe. Woodroar (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you really believe that people in the real, outside world wouldn't become frustrated when taken for a fool? Think realistically here for a moment. You shouldn't expect people to be all smiles and sunshine when you browbeat them in the real world, why should you expect any different here? I'm sure there are times when you get upset as well. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few additional sources:

I'm certain that I've proven my points enough. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Before your outburst, User:Ohmamamiya had made a total of 3 edits: [12][13][14], the third with an edit summary of "Do not edit something that is not true." That's not him browbeating you, that's you escalating the situation unnecessarily. At this point, I would suggest civilly asking Ohmamamiya to discuss the additional sources on the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The focus of this problem is not my tone.
He is the one who is making controversial edits that change the status quo; I shouldn't be the one trying to justify the old state of the article. He should be justifying his changes. As for his first comment, that is definitely up to interpretation. Labelling someone's edits like that can be interpreted as browbeating; you might disagree, but that is how I personally took it. Last night, I got angry. That's just how things turned out - there's not much that I can change about an outburst that I made in the past, and not in the present, why are we dwelling on this? If I could retract those comments, I would. Also, instead of focusing on my tone for your arguments, how about sticking to hard facts, namely that we do not remove referenced content without a good reason? If a person cannot handle harsh words in real life, then heaven help them, they're bound to come across plenty of it if they were to live through their adulthood. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 04:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If that doesn't work out, please use WP:AN/EW. That comment on the talk page was pretty upsetting and uncivil. Ohmamamiya is a new editor here. Is everyone forgetting that dates must be reliably sourced per WP:V? I've boldly added the ANN and Crunchyroll sources to the article. I think this should be fixed up now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


Is Niemti the user who has been raised as having issues in the past? Because he is edit warring at The Last of Us now over the formatting of the plot section and when presented with Featured Articles that use the method employed in The Last of Us BEFORE his change he just reverted again then said he would go "fix" the other articles. Gives no reason for the change and seems content to edit war to get his way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. Yes, he is. And here is my prediction: lots of ill-feeling on both sides being vented, maybe some kind of petition or campaign to get Niemti off the site again, which peters out through lack of evidence or support, and then the whole cycle will repeat itself all over again at some point in the future. It's happened three times before you see. Not as bad as Final Fantasy X, but it seems depressingly similar. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, many, many times. He's been to ANI many times, and was almost topic banned from VG articles. I've been involved in many arguments with him, so I shouldn't really really do much Admin stuff against him, but I know PresN has volunteered to help with him in the past, if you want/need assistance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I swear in the future members of this project are going to question the fixation we had on Niemti. Just an observation. GamerPro64 18:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
In the future all that will have survived is the cockroaches and Niemti. He will have to edit war with himself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Serge I will look up PresN and see what he/she has to say. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, not this shit again. As far as the actual conflict goes: Both formats are acceptable, I actually prefer Niemti's Plot/story vs your synopsis/plot, but it doesn't matter. That said, I'm going to warn him for being combative, and I'm warning you here for the same- just because Niemti is being aggressive doesn't mean that you need to escalate the situation- just talk to him, talk to us here, whatever, but you don't need to argue through edit-warring summaries. --PresN 18:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Synopsis ( a compendium of heads or short paragraphs giving a view of the whole) encompassing characters/setting/plot is more sensible than plot (the events that make up a story) encompassing them the other way around, so your preference is noted but invalid. There was no combat on my end, I explained, he combated, I warned, he combated, I talked and he combated some more. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind which layout is used either, but the edit warring is doing the article no good at all. This I know about Niemti: He's stubborn, bloody-minded, persistant, can be offensive and bombastic when he chooses and will not take no for an answer. I try not to be like him. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's one summary, sure. Another is that he made the change as an IP on the 10th/11th, you reverted (summary:"don't know why this was changed") on the 13th, he reverted without comment on the 14th, you reverted (summary: " still no explanation for why this was changed, pretty standard layout and title") on the 15th, at which point he started getting aggressive about it ("stop pushing it") and you, rather than de-escalating the situation or talking to him about hit/talking to us about it, instead got on your high horse (reversion summary:"Feel free to tell me why your method is better beyond it just being so.") and when he escalated again to take it to other articles, you slapped an edit-warring template on his page (Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars). He escalated again and deleted it, to which you responded by doing the templating/deletion cycle twice more. I know Niemti makes it really easy to get angry and aggressive with him, but just because he's escalating the conflict doesn't mean that you have to as well. Also: telling an editor that their "preference is noted but invalid" doesn't paint you as a soul of reason in the discussion. --PresN 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of Niemti, ugh. It's been so long since I've had a discussion with him, and the very first one I've had was completely uncivil. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
IIRC we've had an RFC/U on Niemti (Which he didn't participate) and he doesn't seem the type to be approachable about mentorship. If this type of attitude keeps up (particularly border-line edit warring) then we probably need to talk ANI (with the past attempts at resolution as supporting evidence) or even Arbcom. A productive user that refuses to cooperate is difficult to deal with in terms of what actions can be taken and hence the need to consider something harsher. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Darkwarriorblake, he is. I've had my run-ins with him, also on The Last of Us and on several other articles. On Wasteland 2, he suggested I "learn to read sources". He is a very obnoxious person, but the strange thing is, he is of huge help on Wikipedia, even though his tone and style leave A LOT to be desired. The two most annoying things he does in my personal opinion, is 1) rarely jotting down an edit summary and 2) checking a lot of his edits of as minor. But there's no getting through to him. The one thing he does almost religiously, is follow the rules. My best bet is that how we win this game, to force that rude robot in to be constructive and friendly. --Soetermans. T / C 20:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are using force, be very careful. We may end up making the whole situation worse. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


FYI, there's an RfC going on at talk:Microsoft Minesweeper -- (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fac source check needed

Nintendo DSi needs a source check. Thanks. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

MOBA template

Hi guys,

Does the MOBA template seem unnecessary to anyone else? Making a template based on a particular genre doesn't seem that handy to me. --Soetermans. T / C 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure we don't need genre-based templates. The category and the list article are enough, that's why we have them. Navboxes are for related concepts that don't nicely fit into categories. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback Hell, I've RFD'ed it. --Soetermans. T / C 20:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I was throwing some spaghetti at the wall. It would have been nice to have been pinged first about it before submitting it for deletion not an hour and a half later than this notice was posted. :^) --Izno (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Izno, you're right. Nothing personal of course. In the future I'll be sure to include the creator. --Soetermans. T / C 07:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Add History to Xbox

Hello, I am sending this message because I was just wondering if someone could put a History headline to the Xbox article like the Playstation article. I always wondered how was Xbox invented, and how was it heard? That's why I am willing to ask anyone who reads this message to create a a sandbox and research the history about Xbox. --Blurred Lines 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What you're looking for can be found at Xbox (console), but I get what you're saying. A History section could be added to the article you linked. --JDC808 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you think that the History on the Xbox console article should be moved to the series article?--Blurred Lines 05:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes and no. Main points of it yes, but not the entirety of it. --JDC808 22:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, what do you think we should do about the History thing? --Blurred Lines 23:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Charging connectors

I've looked at a couple of our articles on Nintendo consoles, for example Nintendo DSi, and we don't seem to say anything about the variation on charging connectors, or the fact that some at least are apparently proprietary variants on standard USB types. Can something be added, please? Perhaps it should be an infobox parameter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly say that qualifies as an infobox parameter. If anything, a short mention in the hardware sections or at Comparison of Nintendo portable consoles Cabe6403(TalkSign) 07:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Tomb Raider III

Hi guys,

Not a huge issue, but is Tomb Raider III WP:COMMONNAME enough that the article title is Tomb Raider III, and not the full title Tomb Raider III: Adventures of Lara Croft? --Soetermans. T / C 20:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the article title should be the full name, and "Tomb Raider III" be a redirect to the article. --JDC808 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. On the talk page was a discussion (Talk: Tomb Raider III#Name of the Game?) of almost five years old, I don't think it helped if I replied :) --Soetermans. T / C 07:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Ace Combat 3 is a similar case. --Mika1h (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd second that, Mika. I feel that the argument of WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to video games. Does anyone take the time to fully write (or even pronounce!) Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots? I don't think so. But the article should have the corresponding title. Mention the full title in the lead (and maybe with a bit on how it is commonly abbreviated, i.e., GTA), and drop the subtitle troughout the article. --Soetermans. T / C 08:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is one thing but the games have a definate title which should be the name of the article. Common names can simply be redirected to the full title article. Cabe6403(TalkSign) 07:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
As an owner of the game, I can attest that I in no way have ever referred to it in any way other then Tomb Raider III. I could have gone my whole life without knowing the full title. Although that was a long time ago that I played it, so yeah... Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
After looking, Metacritic and Steam both drop the full title, while IGN and Gamespot apply it. Although i guess I agree with the argument in this thread saying that COMMONNAME shouldn't apply to games like this with a subtitle readily available on the cover and used by most sources. It doesn't really hurt to add it on. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on Babysitting Mama Page

Hi. I noticed that Babysitting Mama has been the victim of vandalism on its wikipedia page. As I am not familiar with wikipedia policy, nor editing wikipedia articles at all, I didn't want to handle this issue myself. I was actually looking for a page where I could report vandalism so someone else could handle it, but I gave up looking when I found this. So I leave it in your hands. Good luck and god speed. (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like only the title was vandalized. Also tagged for no refs and notability though... -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure 2

Hello everyone. With the Sonic Adventure article passing as a GA a few months ago and Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) failing a GA, I am going to try to get the Sonic article and Sonic Adventure 2 to GA status, as with Sonic Adventure. I think we should get the Sonic articles up to GA status and since Sonic has been a popular franchise. The GAN comments and PR comments on the 1991 video game article must be addressed and this is part of the reason for my post here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, ever considered joining the Sega task force? It's kind of just me right now except for User:Simon Alexander Tolhurst who pops in every now and then, but we're devoted to the improvement of Sega-related articles, Sonic definitely included ;) Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I am a member of that task force and I think they should help out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed Simon How can I help? 23:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Odd templates showing up

Can I get an opinion on User:Halvorsen brian/video game temps? Besides the legacy and horrible and inaccessible formattin, my feeling is that these templates aren't useful whatsoever the way they are currently. They've made their way slowly onto some related articles?

Anyone else think the bunch should be TFDd, or is there something to be salvaged there? --Izno (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to be sick. Can you provide examples of in-article use? They must be replaceable by other NavBoxes. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
F-Zero (video game) is the one I first spotted in the user's contribs. --Izno (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Bomb them from orbit. They're a mutated infobox/navbox hybrid that doesn't help anything. :) ·Salvidrim!·  01:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Bin them, they break the image guidelines on fair use. The logos are being used for decorative purposes. They can't be used on the mainspace and they shouldn't be in the user's space either. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
All of the logos are in the public domain. --Mika1h (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Logos do not usually meet the threshold of originality and so they are usually public domain. But aside from that, any other comments? --Izno (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Send them to TFD please. Here are all of the one's he's made already. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen... This? Do you dare to see the template not made by man?! Be weary, only those who are not faint of heart will live to see another day...
GOD, MY EYES, MY EYES. My sanity meter is dropping rapidly. I... I... I need scissors! --Soetermans. T / C 07:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hardly calls for such theatrics, we're not reddit/4chan/take-your-pick...seriously it's not like color co-ordination was ever a requirement to editing wikipedia. I'd simply say delete the templates and inform him that while we're grateful he tried to help, these are not beneficial to the project and why they are not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In the olden days this sort of design would have found a home on MySpace and stayed there. - X201 (talk)
Okay, okay, you're right. Just having a laugh, sorry. --Soetermans. T / C 17:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Another template for review

My feeling of Template:Sierra Adventure Games is that it's a behemoth and that the games are only tied to Sierra... and should be split up to each of the game series (some of which already have very similar templates). Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely pretty huge (when fully expanded), but I'm not sure I understand the problem with "games are only tied to Sierra". Are you saying that they're all Sierra games, but not all adventure games? As far as splitting it up, I'm neutral. In its collapsed form it doesn't bug me too much, and there are ways to condense it even more if needed, but I don't have any problem with seeing it split up either if that's what's needed. -Thibbs (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox alpha/beta release dates?

For a couple of games I've written articles for an open alpha/beta has been released some time before the full release, namely Cube World and Sir, You Are Being Hunted. Should this release date go in the infobox or not? And if yes, how should it be written to distinguish it from the full release? Samwalton9 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know we haven't got a guideline that covers this, but my opinion is that the infobox should only contain the release date of the finished product. - X201 (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I think in cases like these, which the game is still in active pre-release development but the developers have employed a mechanism to allowed users to openly (not closed) purchase and help test and refine the product (eg Steam Early Access, or Minecraft's approach), that these release dates are fine (ideally marked as such), but one a final product and release date has been nailed down, those release dates should be moved to the body where the early availability can be explained. A game with a closed development cycle but where it is known that beta client builds exist, that's not the same thing; its the public access tot he game. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Psychological horror

Hi guys,

The genre psychological horror to me is still a narrative genre, and not a video game one. However, a couple of games have psychological horror listed as its genre in the VG infobox, i.e. Alan Wake, which I wouldn't consider a survival horror, but does action-adventure fully cover it? Or F.E.A.R. on the other hand, a first-person shooter obviously... Or should we consider a Psychological horror video game article? --Soetermans. T / C 20:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would not expect that every game can have its gameplay elements shuffled into the pigeonholes of the limited game genres. The genres should list out the ones that RSs have assigned it, but we shouldn't be creating new genres to fill in the holes. So like the case of Alan Wake, it really is primarily a action adventure game, far outside but borrowing elements of survivor horror, but really itself not a new genre. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
What would you suggest? Take "psychological horror" of the infobox and mention it in the lead? --Soetermans. T / C 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, save for game genres that are explicitly interlinked with thematic genres (eg survival horror), we don't include the thematic genres in the infobox about the game. The fact that Alan Wake is a psychological horror-driven plot can be explained in the lead or plot, but should not be listed in the infobox, but it is not a facet of the gameplay, specifically - though I would suspect that if you look around, you can find sources that suggest that Alan Wake includes elements of survivor horror games within it (similar to how BioShock 1 is said to have RPG elements in it, though not an RPG itself). --MASEM (t) 22:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Cosplay Images

Not trying to pile on Niemti, but the discussion is going nowhere. The issue is the removal by me of the cosplay images on Samus Aran, Jill Valentine, and Princess Zelda. For the Jill image in particular, it is added on the assertion that a citation claims that she is a popular source of cosplay; however, the source never states this, and simply shows a gallery of Jill cosplayers. The discussion can be found here. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss it here. Personally, cosplay is just pop cullture and usually does not merit an image. There would have to be some form of info out there saying that a particular character has made an impact in modern cosplay and even then that would need several sources stating similar statements just to gain an image.
Its a huge issue because sometimes free images aren't always being added to help illustrate something in an article but rather just wanting to "represent" for their respected characters. Cosplaying (objectively) is no different from fan art that gets featured in video game magazines. It can be sourced, but we don't need to show an image of fan art. Same for Cosplay. And this trend has been happening a lot quite recently outside WP:VG such as WP:COMICS.Lucia Black (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It's probably better, but I doubt that Niemti would be willing to participate in the WT:VG disc. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to gain consensus on a talkpage if it would involve more than 2 editors. Still, if Niemti chooses not to, we can still gain consensus regardless. Its up to Niemti to make his opinion relevant to consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If anyone else could give some opinion on this?

  • I believe they're being used far too liberally. We need to start cutting them out unless here especially integral to the characters reception, legacy, etc Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I could see the images being used to illustrate fandom. The crux then is whether or not the article discusses fandom. If it doesn't, then the picture isn't relevant and should be removed. I know of WP:IUP. Is there more detailed image use policy somewhere? It says:
    "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)."
The Samus and Jill pages do not appear to discuss fandom at all. Cosplay images on their articles should be removed. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be "that guy that got everything deleted" but from my reading of the copyright status of cosplay outfits most of these images have to be reclassified as non-free. While not all outfits are equal (an argument can be made that Jill Valentine's outfit is not origional enough for copyright protection, but that argument cannot be made for a Samus suit), at the end of the day we need to consider copyright. Both the copyright held by the creator of the character and the copyright of the creator of the costume do need to be accounted for. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't apologize, if that's true, then you just made the debate even more clear cut. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what's being said here, cosplay images (aside from the copyright issues) should only be used when they are explicitly relevant to the character article. An image of someone dressing up as a character does nothing to increase the readers# understanding of the subject Cabe6403(TalkSign) 07:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
To chime in, Sven's reading of NFCC is correct insofar as wiki-wide interpretation. Commons regularly deletes cosplay photos. That does make 90% of these cases largely moot.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
it would also be great if someone got some input on the necessity of Lightning (Final Fantasy) cosplay image aswell. though cited, it just not strong enough. and in earlier versions some live action promotional portrayals were mistaken for cosplay, so it got cut-down. I also feel like there's the issue of adding multiple info mainly on verifying that cosplay of these characters exist, just for the sake of cosplay images. there should be a form of etiquette to add relevant info but not for the sake of images.Lucia Black (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Are we going to now remove cosplay images unless they are explicitly relevant and add to the article? I've removed the samus one and linked this discussion Cabe6403(TalkSign) 08:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe we should, their only promotional than informative.Lucia Black (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


So I saw this reached Good Article status recently and when looking at its talk page it wasn't tagged for this group. I mean Otaku isn't exclusively for anime and manga. What do you guys think? GamerPro64 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh, it's a few steps removed from our core aspects, and I don't see how we would be able to apply any of our approaches to it. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I find the same difficulty with topics like the various gaming conventions and journalistic works that cover both tabletop and video games. And basically anything that covers RPGs generally - both pen & paper and video game. I think the question to ask is what is the primary thrust of such a topic. If the convention/magazine/subculture primarily covers/emphasizes video games then it should be added to WPVG, but otherwise I'd leave it as is. That said, I don't think it's worth removing the WikiProject template if someone else tagged it under WPVG either. It's in the grey area. -Thibbs (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yea, I wouldn't remove it if it was there, but I wouldn't add it if it wasn't. When we're tagging such articles, its stating that members of WPVG can help with sourcing, knowledge, and guiding principles on how the article should be covered, which I can reasonably say is good for some fan activities like PAX or QuakeCon, but when it gets to things like Comic Con or anime conventions that happen to also cover video games, that's outside of our scope. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Legends of Localization


It was recently cited by Kotaku editor Jason Schrier to make a point of the quality of EarthBound's localization, due to the editor of the above website's approval. Would this constitute it to be a situational source? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably best asked at WT:VG/RS. -Thibbs (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Could use an eye at Jill Valentine and meme section

So a debate came up between me and Niemti regarding the Meme section of Jill Valentine, which he contends is absolutely related to the character while I in turn contend it has less to do with the fictional character and more to do with the game, and that it hasn't contributed to the character being recognizable so much as the game's bad dialogue also (in comparison to the Mudkip theme, which while unrelated did make that character get more widespread attention). Unfortunately the debate fell apart as despite having only two sources tying them to the character, he contended I was instead making OR and he didn't have the time or care enough to add more sources he insists exist.

Anyway, with that said coming here for some outside opinions on the matter, as it would be interesting to know what the consensus is on the subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough one. While I do think you're right, that the line itself has little to do with the fictional character Jill, I do think that it is more suitable for a character article. Having it in the article on Resident Evil or on the series might be too much then. --Soetermans. T / C 19:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Well here's a better way to ask that then: do they contribute to the character's recognition (a la how people unfamiliar with Pokemon might become familiar with Mudkips via that related meme), and moreso is it something that really needs an entire section?

Memes seem to be pop culture stuff. I think the issue is how "gamecruft" it sounds by explaining in detail where these memes appear. So it can probably be shortened to a single paragraph.Lucia Black (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like some of it is Capcom themselves reacting on it, right? In that case, it seems worthy of mentioning in the article... Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4's GAR

So Persona 4 is up at GAR. I personally don't know how to comment on the concerns so it would be nice if someone else can take a look at it. Reviews here. GamerPro64 16:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

VG infobox discussions input needed

Hi guys,

I've started two discussions about the VG infobox. One is concerning the mode field, whether or not single-player and/or multiplayer can truly cover the game modes of video games. Second is about having the engine field in the infobox, whether or not that is useful information. Your input would be much appreciated. --Soetermans. T / C 07:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese title vs. North American title

Hey folks, I'm in the process of converting the List of Capcom games (from this into something like this). I'm running into a lot of naming conflicts going on. Some games are listed by their Japanese names, while others are listed by their North American name. And then some are listed by both their names. For example, one game is listed as Saturday Night Slam Masters (NA) and Muscle Bomber Duo (JP). If this were a North American game company, this wouldn't be hard: I'd just list the North American name and be done with it. But Campcom is a Japanese developer so some of their games may be equally well-known by both names.

So how should I press forward? List both game titles, so they're included effectively twice? Just use the North American title and list the Japanese name in the Description column, like I did with the one above? Or something else? Thanks. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that there will be games on that that have only been released in JP so the english name is the rough title translation, and there will also be games first released in JP and later in the West but with a Western name that varies significantly from its JP version. As this is the, I would list them all by the best English name (either the Western release, and if there's a conflict even there with NA vs EU names, NA first), and then make sure the common alternate names are given in that notes column. This is effectively a navigation list, so the focus should be on how one would expect to navigate on (english titles), but as long as any title that is sufficiently common can be found by a cntf-F find, that should be good. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. And while we're on the subject, if anyone wants to help with the conversion in my sandboox, feel free! It's a lot of work. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I will note that if you ever plan on taking the list to FLC, getting references for the description column will be significantly more difficult than for, say, the developer/release columns in a list like List of Square Enix video games. Your call, of course, that's just a lot of descriptions to write. --PresN 03:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Have to say I prefer the layout of the Square Enix list. I think a description for every game may be a bit much. Salavat (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly possible- List of Looking Glass Studios video games has short-one-sentence descriptions, but it also has 23 games, not hundreds. Each list has to be tailored to what's possible and reasonable. --PresN 04:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Whoah! I LOVE the Square Enix list! What would be the possible downsides if I changed direction and formatted the Capcom list like that? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is a downside, as a list of this type shouldn't really have the game descriptions in it anyways, imo. If anyone wants more info, they can just go to the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Though note that it can be really effing hard to find a source that a game was released specifically in Australia vs. the PAL region in general- in List of Square Enix mobile games I had to drop the EU/AUS split because I couldn't find a source for 80% of the list. --PresN 01:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think the best course of action is to start over, using the Square Enix list as a template. Thanks everyone! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree with the above stated on titles, but taking it a bit further, take the keep-it-simple approach: use the title that the article itself uses. It makes little sense in the SE list for the SaGa games to go by their japanese names when the articles themselves use the english fact for a casual reader that could get downright confusing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Need help at Legend of Dragoon

I don't remember exactly when this started, but the current situation is that The Legend of Dragoon is being persistently vandalized by an IP address (the same one over and over). Discussion seems in vain as he already has numerous warnings on his talk page about disruptive editing. I personally have grown increasingly concerned that I may be violating a revert rule that I don't fully understand, and I'm hoping to have my fears resolved and get some help at the same time. For the purposes of full disclosure, I've never played this game; talk page consensus tells me that the actions of this IP are vandalism. Thank you for your time. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Salvidrim beat me to protecting it, but I'll put it on my watchlist and monitor it. (I loved this game back in the day, so it might even be fun to try to clean up at some point...) Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

System requirements

Hi guys,

What are the guidelines on adding system requirements? It has been removed from the infobox quite some time, but I can't find a consensus on adding it into the article body. I thought that only if it somehow is remarkable that it should be mentioned. It is okay to add that information to Payday: The Heist, which came out almost two years ago? --Soetermans. T / C 10:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it comes under the same argument as why it was removed from the infobox. I don't think it should be in an article at all, it's a lot of technical information understandable by only a portion of readers and serves no purpose but to provide a technical shopping guide. Unless there is something notable about it, like it needs a graphic card that hasn't been invented yet because it's so uber powerful, there is no need to mention hardware specs and if there was it would be in prose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the real question is, does adding it in qualify as a manual for what you need to play the game or not.-- 10:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Well we aren't a technical manual. The system requirements are on the box or the steam page, or Origin, or whatever. Duplicating them here won't make your PC any better. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
System requirements are fuzzy to begin with, rather vague when you get into technicalities and certainly inconsistent between games. Unless there is something special about a particular game's system requirements (which is then sourced and covered in prose), there is no point adding something that will be dated in less than a few years and is of very marginal benefit to a general reader for the understanding of the subject. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Requirements should be listed in a box out. You can tell instantly what the target specifications of a Super Nintendo game is, but not for a PC game. With a console, you can quickly establish that it's a 16-bit era game, with PCs, you can't - going by year alone is not precise enough. - hahnchen 16:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

But, the only readers that such requirements are helpful are actual game players, and not the general reader. Hence why we have deprecated them. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the decision to deprecate them was narrow minded and only considered readers as dumbed down consumers. That's like saying the platform games are on is only helpful for "actual game players". It's not about "what do I need to run this", but "what was this designed for". We actually have a load of Arcade technical specifications fields left in the infobox, they've never been helpful for "actual game players", because that was never the point of specifications to begin with. (I think these Arcade-specific fields are redundant and that we should just put the specify the system board in the platform field instead of "arcade", which also dictates the CPU and Sound chips etc.). - hahnchen 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Our readers are people that will never likely play video games, and to them, the requirements are gobbledygook of abbreviations. Yes, there are video game players that read these articles, but we aren't writing the articles for them. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Then why would we list the Arcade system boards in the first place? Wikipedia is written for a wide audience, but that doesn't mean content for actual researchers/historians/archivists is excluded. We have featured articles on highly technical subjects such as Distributed element filters, I first started using Wikipedia because it was the best place to read about stuff like LALR parsers which I needed at university. We have entire sections with articles dedicated to a game's development, yet removing the system specifications means you have no idea where that development finishes, you have no target platform. - hahnchen 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Game development aspects rarely get into technical specifications that require technical knowledge to understand, though if technical details are part of the sourced discussion (such as the FOV issue in the first BioShock game) then that's included. But it is rarely necessary for the causal reader to know exactly which video card a game requires or the like. The Arcade board specs are likely remenants that should be removed too. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
They don't, and if the game lacks the system requirements, the target platform is left unknown, and lacking a significant level of precision in comparison to to a console game. We shouldn't be writing exclusively for the casual reader "that will never likely play video games", it'd be a shame if our arcade board specs are merely remainders from when we catered to more than soccer-moms. Our continual removal of technical details such as version numbers, which remain in all other software articles, is a disappointment. - hahnchen 22:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
What other projects do does not affect us. And the larger reason about requirements is that it is information that is outdated quickly. If no sources talk about the requirements, does it matter if a game, 5 years ago, required certain video cards or processor speeds? --MASEM (t) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
What other projects do highlight how the video game projects focus on exclusively a casual audience. Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Audience states there are three levels of readership: casual, knowledgeable, and expert. Do casual readers care what day a game was released 5 years ago? Do we list the date anyway? Is considering only what a casual reader cares about in 5 years a remotely good way of determining article content? By removing all mention of system requirements, you leave the reader in the dark about the target platform. You consider the target platform important for a console game, but not for PC.
Sources do talk about the requirements, reliable third party sources state the system requirements. The old PC Zones and PC Gamers I have lying around always mention the requirements, and whether or not they're accurate. Sure, these sources are acting as buyers guides, but then - the whole review is a buyer's guide. It's true that requirement information may move out of date in a world of ever evolving games-as-a-service such as Team Fortress 2, but in most cases, they stay static.
Quake, a ground breaking video game and game engine, we don't even have the target platform. - hahnchen 12:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Video games are not technical articles. There are technical articles within the VG project (eg something like: High-dynamic-range rendering), but the average game article is not technical. Just because sources list out requirements does not mean its necessarily important data for us; only if the requirements are discussed means that there's something important about them. My point about time is the fact that, does it matter what the system requirements for something like Quake are, today? (ANd yes, I see target platforms for Quake right in the infobox. No one is saying we remove those). --MASEM (t) 12:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
"Does it matter what the system requirements for something like Quake are, today?" Yes, because the target platform is important. You know the system specs of the consoles it was released for, but not for PC. The specs have nothing to do with what gamers of today need to run the game, but what the developers were aiming for, I really don't care what gamers today want - they probably want a walkthrough. Even recently, EA announced that their PC games would not be running on Ignite (game engine) because the PC target platform was a lower spec than of next-gen consoles. Removing the system specs means removing the target platform, "PC" or "Windows" is just too vague. - hahnchen 23:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if it is what the developers were aiming for, if there's no discussion of the requirements, then it reflect how little this fact actually matters. I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find games that came out at the edge of the release of detected DirectX 11 cards where the developers talked about optimizing the game for those cards, and that's useful, but most games simply are developed for the PC with broad specs in mind but otherwise not a major factor for them otherwise. It's a triviality for the bulk of games and for the bulk of our readers that we as a general encyclopedia should avoid unless of note. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
In addition to above, if specific requirements are important for that game, then this ought to be covered in prose in a manner that is accessible to a general reader. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm more in favor of this approach as well. Only mention it if its especially noteworthy, and even then, break it down into "English prose", not "tech jargon-ese". This approach better falls in line with we handle most everything else in the project... Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it could make sense in some context. One example could be if the game in question has really high system requirements and there are reliable sources covering criticism that this prevented the average gamer from being able to play the game. Another example could be if the system requirement was some sort of historical first and there are reliable sources identifying it as such. A more concrete example would be the PC version of the Lion King Video game. In that case the game needed a specific Microsoft graphics engine to run but it was mot tested on the Compaq Presario meaning that every one of those computers that had the card installed to play the game crashed and was one of the reasons that DirectX was created.-- (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't really think of any examples off the top of my head, but yes, that's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about... Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a good example, Prose would be more appropriate to communicate that information. Is it safe to assume that some consensus has been reached, and that system requirements infoboxes can be removed from video game articles? --Soetermans. T / C 19:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
My feeling seems to mirror consensus that, unless the requirements are specifically notable, they shouldn't be included. Any notable requirements can be covered in prose as suggested above. Cabe6403(TalkSign) 15:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
if I may chime in, I am pretty sure that an overwhelming majority of readers of an article about a videogame probably have played that videogame, or intend to play it, and thus may well be interested in knowing it's system requirements, at least for the first ~5 years. Dmtrlk (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
p.s. or at least, have played similar videogames. Granted, some games are incredibly notable among the wider audience (e.g. Minecraft, for it's commercial success), but mostly, people who don't play games don't seem to be very interested in reading about them either. Dmtrlk (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Add to guidelines

The opinion to only include System requirements if they are notable appears to be the consensus. Shall we now add it to the guidelines? - X201 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry X201 (talk · contribs), I just noticed your question. That would be a very good idea, thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 11:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No Problem. I have started a discussion on the sctual wording of the guideline here - X201 (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Draft guideline has been on the talk page for a week without comment, so I have now added it to the guidelines. - X201 (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. -- Trevj (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ghost of Sparta FAC

If anyone has some time, God of War: Ghost of Sparta is at FAC. It's been up for about a month and only has one comment. --JDC808 02:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

At least you're not up to archive 5. Sadly, I'm not much of a reviewer. « Ryūkotsusei » 23:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The first nomination was archived because of practically no interest. It has been renominated. --JDC808 15:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hiroyuki Ito as the creator of the battle system in the first Final Fantasy

According to this interview with Hiroyuki Ito, it was him that created the battle system that was used in Final Fantasy I.

However, the following points were raised as reasons as to why this info may be inaccurate:

  • He specifically mentioned the NFL as an inspiration for the Active Time Battle system of FF4 in an earlier interview, his explanation about the pre-planned monster strategies also seems to apply to the FF4 battle system much better than to FF1's
  • Akitoshi Kawazu said that he was mainly in charge of the battle system and sequences of FF1 and that it was inspired by Ultima and Dungeons & Dragons, not professional sports or the NFL in particular
  • For what it's worth, Ito is not listed among the NES version's developers, implying more of a minor support role
  • The Ito interview in the FF9 Ultimania book details Ito's early involvement with the FF series and says that he was responsible for the battle systems starting from FF4. The interviewer asked "There aren't many people at Square that have been involved with the series since as early as FF I, are there?" and Ito replied "I did the debugging for FF I and FF II, but I first became seriously involved with development with FF III. For FF III, I was allowed to create sound effects."

All these points seem solid and were accepted. However, if we return to the source interview with, there's one irrefutable bit of evidence that outright 100% confirms that Hiroyuki Ito did indeed make the battle system in FFI. It's the following quote: Had you played a lot of other RPGs before that? Either video games or tabletop games?
Ito: No. So you came into the genre not necessarily knowing what it was about, and taking a fresh approach to it?
Ito: Yeah.

If Hiroyuki Ito was just coming into the genre with no knowledge of it before making the battle system he's referring to in the interview, how can he be talking about the ATB system he made in Final fantasy IV? That's a paradox, as it's well known that Ito was involved in the debugging of FFI, FFII, and FFIII. Debugging means he had to play through the games and look for bugs and glitches. There's no way he could have never played a RPG before if the battle system he's referring to is the ATB he made in FFIV. As a result, the info in the interview is clearly referring to FFI. There's no mistranslation or inaccuracy. -- (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you are misinterpretting the wording of the 1up interview.Lucia Black (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We just had this discussion- here. And even in your quote, he says that he wasn't "seriously involved with development" until FF3- designing the battle system kinda counts as being "seriously involved", don't you think? Ergo, he didn't design the battle system for FF1, just FF4, he only did debugging for FF1, just as he says in the interview. Also, since I know it's you, do note that I revert G-Zay's contributions on sight, and I don't bother reading them first- there's a reason you're banned, and it's quite pathetic that you've been IP hopping for months on this issue with nothing to show for it. --PresN 03:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Four sources implying the contrary against one interpretation of a source by a former user who was notoriously banned for implementing lies and forged references into BLPs, most of which was Hiroyuki Ito praise and Yoshinori Kitase hate. I'll stick to a "no" until Hiroyuki Ito flat-out says in an interview that he did FF1's battle system.Xiomicronpi (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up on Mega Man templates

I've split the subseries into their own template and reorganized the current one. It's still not in the best shape that it could be but I hope this is acceptable. The new templates are template:Mega Man X, template:Mega Man Zero, and template:Mega Man Legends series. Others are Star Force and Battle Network that already have their own templates. Just so that if it does get reverted (a lot of work) we could at least discuss a compromise.Lucia Black (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


I wonder if this article can be fixed. It is tagged with notability issues. I am planning to disambiguate it, but I couldn't under this article's current condition. --George Ho (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Chronological templates

Is this template okay, or tidy gamecruft? --Soetermans. T / C 20:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like cruft to me, particularly to include it in all the pages as a navigation tool. I could see having a similar list on a single Call of Duty page. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The Metal Gear chronology template (Template: Metal Gear chronology) has existed over six years. Would it be silly to ask if that one is okay? In comparison to the CoD it is way smaller of course. --Soetermans. T / C 07:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
And another one: Template: Grand Theft Auto chronology. Game trivia or useful information? --Soetermans. T / C 08:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It's what navboxes at the bottom of an article are for, and considering GTA games are not dependent on continuity from one game to another, its trivia.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The GTA template is cruft on individual game articles, but on the series article it is a very effective source of information. - X201 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The Metal Gear and Mass Effect templates seem to be more okay. But that's simply because they have a fixed chronology taking place in a single universe, not like Call of Duty, which appears to take the Final Fantasy route of different stories and characters with similar themes (be aware that FPSs are not my domain, I'm just inferring from what I've heard). I think it all depends on the series. But as to the Call of Duty one, it seems like something from a fan site, not suited to Wikipedia. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think publication chronologies and timelines can be helpful and informative for readers, but I agree with some of the comments above that they're best suited for the parent series article, and not as navigational templates on each child article. I really prefer the existing timeline format over the template option anyway. There are several display choices available. -Thibbs (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
There's another way to look at these and this is arguably for games that are part of a running series with non-obvious story (not real-world release) chronology (due to intermediate titles with odd naming/numbering, ala Assassin's Creed), and where the story line strongly runs through said series such that in describing later games it may be impossible to mention the events that occur in the earlier ones, it might be appropriate to include for those series. COD is not one of those (at least, not as a whole, maybe the COD:MW one, but that's numbered in a way that makes sense). Further, these need obvious sourcing to affirm the order is correct and not guesswork/speculation by players (ala the Zelda timeline). I will point out that story- and release- order will often be different, but I do agree that when and where these templates should be used need to be carefully considered as they are not always appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
One thing, the Zelda timeline is not guesswork or speculation. The timeline came from the Hyrule Historia, an official work by Nintendo that includes an chronological timeline. So unless you have evidence that the Historia is in fact not an offical work of Nintendo's the suggestion that the Zelda timeline is unofficial is false.-- (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, before that was published, I know there were tons of speculative theories. Yes, if it comes from the official work, there's no question , but there are other game series where the release and story chronology is a mess (Metroid, Castlevania, for example) and unless there's an RS to affirm the story chronology, we should not be guessing at it. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
To clarify I never meant to suggest that there has never been speculation on the Zelda timeline (It was likely one of the worst cases) but simply thought that based on the original post that you did not realize that the Historia timeline was official. My mistake.-- (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

GRRR, I think Wikipedia and/or Twinkle has some issues; can't seem to nominate them right now. I had this in mind, "Per a WP:VG discussion concerning chronology templates; this template lists games in a chronological fashion, which isn't important for the series' continuity, which it barely has at all. Three "eras" are listed, which in turn don't have to do with each other either (except for the occasional cameo of a character). Template is redundant then, with a infobox on the bottom of every GTA article, which of course lists the games." Seems fair, no? --Soetermans. T / C 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I just nominated the GTA one. --Soetermans. T / C 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
And CoD. --Soetermans. T / C 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion of these templates. They are useful for putting the different games in the series in context in an easy-to-read format. They shed light on the fictional chronology of the different games so the reader can get a better sense of where they fit in. Most people do not scroll to the bottom of the page to read the navigation box at the bottom, and the nav boxes are usually so massive anyways that it's near-impossible to find any meaningful information. I support small templates with clearly defined purposes and actual navigational utility to the reader - all of which this template is. Some additional sourcing would help and would greatly reduce WP:SYN concerns. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Metacritic user scores reliable?

For the second time very recently for me personally, the topic over the inclusion of users ratings on the site Metacritic have once again come up, currently for Total War: Rome II. In past experience these appear unreliable due to potential cases of ballet stuffing, irrational reactionary voting and trolling, particularly with the more popular games on their inital release. The only times where their mention is warranted appears to be in the context of a larger issue such as in the Portal 2 article mentioned as a possible reaction to a controversy in another reference. In the example of Rome II however, there is no context other than the possibility of players simply being unhappy about launch bugs, something that is already clearly mentioned in other sources such as professional reviews and news pieces and I'm getting to impression that the mention of it on wikipedia comes off as an extension of the backlash. Is there actually a standard in regards to user scoring as this can lead to unnecessary edit warring. Stabby Joe (talk)

User scores are only notable if a reliable source covers it. (Ie IGN does an article about the all the user scores complaining about Mass Effect's ending. The user scores themselves are not notable, they violate WP:SPS. It's only worth mentioning if sources are covering the user sources. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, this is what I've been working from in the past and have brought this up in Rome II's talk page regardless. Currently in that game, there is no source and edits are somewhat reactionary, borderline edit war. I would suggest semi-protection for the time being? Stabby Joe (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
One thing I would add is if there is a huge disconnect between user scores and professional review scores, and it can be traced to something beyond groupthink dislike for a company/game, then editors should try to figure out what has the users upset and then look out to professional sources that actually address this. (I think this eventually happened at Civ V, for example). But otherwise, unless called out by sources, user scores should not be included in an article. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What Sergecross73 and Masem said, only notable if covered by 3rd reliable party. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What clearly has players upset in the case of this game example is launch bugs EXCEPT that is already covered in professional reviews and game news sources, both being reliable enough sources. I intend to expand the reception section accordingly in the future. Thank you for the feedback also. Stabby Joe (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this kind of thing tends to come up every time a higher profile game upsets the fanbase. (Mass Effect 3, Aliens: Colonial Marines, etc) You handled it correctly though. I've dealt with this a lot in the past, so feel free to even contact me for help in the future if it comes up again with other titles... Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I dealt with this recently at Gone Home[16][17] which isn't high profile, so keep an eye out. - hahnchen 13:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Rome II, the disagreeing users rather have an issue with professional critics in general, which is just their personal opinion that goes against policy. Stabby Joe (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Need some more eyes on a guidelines dispute

Hey, could I get a few of you guys to look at and weigh in on a dispute going on in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines? User:Wonchop and User:Ryulong are going at it over a proposed new set of guidelines relating to Japanese text in articles, which I've said I think is unnecessary (because the salient points are covered in the general MOS) and too restrictive (there are other languages that should fall under the same rules). But at the moment, it's only part merit discussion and part personal dispute between those two, and I frankly don't feel like trying to moderate it at the moment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On a related note are the most recent changed to Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies necessary or should they be reverted?-- (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Query on notability of Stellar Mercenaries

Someone asked on my talk page and this isn't my field of expertise. The question was "I came across an article that seems to be about a game that is not so notable. There is no reason mentioned in the article of why the game should be on Wikipedia. Stellar Mercenaries is the article I am talking about. The entire article is written from only two sources that are not so credible. I would have nominated it for deletion myself, but..."

Could someone here take a look and I'll direct the editor to this project to get his answer. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I know I've heard of this game outside of Wikipedia, but an initial Google search only turned up the sources that were already cited in that article, and a handful of other sources that are strictly in French. I haven't done MUCH research into it, but so far it does appear this game seems to be lacking a bit in the notability department. I'd like to defer to others who are more familiar with our various reliable sources to see if there's better information available.
The article itself is little more than a stub - it would need to be cleaned up and organized into the standard sections. But that alone isn't a reason to delete it, nor is a lack of citations. But if we can't find good sources and coverage for it, then that would be a good reason to AFD it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

DuckTales Remastered again

It has now been proposed (by myself) that the section on DuckTales: Remastered on the DuckTales (video game) page be split to its own article. Additional input is requested in the discussion here. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment requested on Infobox video game

Your comment is requested at Template talk:Infobox video game#Use of Wikidata. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

MechWarrior Online POV Push

This is a head up that there may be a WP:POVPUSH and brewing edit war at MechWarrior Online. The dispute is over the significance to a controversy relating to the recent addition of a third person view mode to the game. The article does need some general TLC anyways and general copyediting as well. (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Modern Combat 4: Zero Hour Meltdown Update

I'd like someone to update the Modern Combat 4: Zero Hour article to cope with the Meltdown Update, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzkrieg99 (talkcontribs) 12:45, 29 June 2013‎

Limited time offer: 50% off coupon for Killing Floor for any video game related GA

Coupon expired unclaimed

List of multimedia franchises

You might be interested in this list, as it includes multimedia franchises with video game components. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the Mario section (duh!). I'm pretty sure some other franchises originating from video games qualify. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Added Despicable Me (franchise), which I think just about qualifies when considering the short films and books. -- Trevj (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

America's Army1.jpg

image:America's Army1.jpg has been nominated for deletion (this is not an FFD). -- (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013'ss TFA

Tomorrow on the 16th The Simpsons: Hit & Run will be that days Featured Article on the main page. And I for one welcome our new video game overlords. GamerPro64 00:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Japanese text for video game consoles.

Currently, there are people arguing about this over at PlayStation 4. To start off the article, should it look like:

  • PlayStation 4 (Japanese: プレイステーション4, Hepburn: Pureisutēshon Fō) or just
  • PlayStation 4

On one hand, it seems strange to have the translation, because I don't believe it started as a Japanese title, and was then translated to "PlayStation 4". On the other hand, I'm sure others feel that, as Sony is a Japanese-originating company, it should be this way. I don't feel super strongly one way or another, but I wanted to check and see if there was a standing consensus one way or another, and then I'd enforce it as such. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the utility of the Japanese is to our readers in this instance, because as you say the PS4 name is not a translation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, my first instinct too, it offers no value to the reader. But they're already bordering edit-warring over it, so I wanted to confirm my suspicions... Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
If it was the case that the PS4 was only first released in Japan, and later brought to the West/English-speaking world (by the order of months/years), that would likely be reason to include the Japanese name alongside the translated Western Name, but here, because the PS4 is getting (effectively) simultaneously release and the name is effectively the same, it's just extra gobbledygook. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I say it wont hurt to use the japanese name considering the sony consoles usually release in Japan first. Playstation 4 is just a small exception, but doesn't mean we shouldn't add it in.Lucia Black (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Aren't Japanese usually use "PlayStation 4" rather than katakana?[18] [19]--Misaka 10077 (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Sony refers to the console only in katakana form when used in article text 1 2. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

GTA templates

Hi guys,

I could really use some input concerning the GTA templates. I've nominated the chronology one a while ago, with a lot of debating about whether or not the template does communicate any valuable information. I don't care for that particular template, but I wouldn't mind seeing the "universe" layout back into Template: Grand Theft Auto (similar to Template: Assassin's Creed), but I'm not sure how that will be received. --Soetermans. T / C 12:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to go canvassing, but this deletion discussion could really use some new input. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Released dates out of English regions

As with the infobox, [development] section should only include English-speaking regions and the non-English region of first release or development.

Though this is English language Wikipedia, a worldview should be proviced. If a Japanese-executed video game was official released in American and South Korea, the South Korea released date may not be listed per WP:VG/DATE. An example is Tales of Legendia, it was released on Oct 11, 2005 in South Korea, and sources can be easily provided. None of guildline means weight of non-English sources are less then English, so list the date is not failed WP:BALANCE. So why we don't allow editors list this kind of dates?--Misaka 10077 (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Compared to the four major regions: North America, Europe, Japan, and Australia, the number of sales from the other regions are very small. We have selected those primary regions to avoid having huge lists of release dates for every single region a game was released. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's the same for other medias too, Primary and English related only. The reason is basically the sheer difficulty in proving that every info throughout the world is included (release date or broadcast station), and working with another language. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
That is a clear WP:BIAS issue, if not listed in the infobox it should be listed under "Releases" providing it can be sourced. Why omit perfectly acceptable information just because it is outside your region? Singapore is English-speaking, are you saying Singapore is not important? I doubt a huge list will ever be made, but a sourced sentence is not unreasonable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
But this is standard across WP, and longstanding policy. It's data, but can be indiscriminate data when you consider there's 200+ potential countries to list and hence why full international release data/broadcast is not listed. Generally, by covering the aforementioned 4 regions, you have successfully covered the time frame where the game was first released for purposes of an encyclopedic summary. If a region outside those four has a release date that is far different from the others and is the subject of sourced discussion (such a game that might have been banned and later released a year after every other region), that can be mentioned in the prose. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with that "four" assessment because China and Korea are large releases as well, even India which has millions of gamers. Just because they are non-English doesn't mean they are not worth even a passing mention. Also that 200+ potential countries is sorta a red herring because Latin America releases are typically grouped together and Africa, the micros and other places will not and likely never will get any release. Yes, the source and the localization are important, but if we ever have to cross that bridge, let me know - not even Super Mario would have an issue with that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

AFD on Spira (Final Fantasy)

Spira (Final Fantasy) is up for deletion and I am trying to save it under the Heymann standard, but even adding a dozen new sources including academic case studies and covering the localization process, isn't helping out too much. I have numerous sources I do not have access to including English gaming magazine publications and the Ultimania books which will help tie up the loose ends. If anyone has access to JSTOR and MUSE some additional sources may pop up. The article is already likely to meet N/GNG with a proper analysis of the sources, but assistance is greatly appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Glass Joe

I was wondering if I could get a couple of people to do a copy edit on the article. I'm trying to bring it back to FAC, and I feel that with a couple copyedits, URL archiving, minor ref fixes, and image source-fixing, it can pass. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of soundtrack cover art

I think it would be valuable for the project to sort of "crack down" on arbitrary use of a soundtrack's cover in a video game's article. While a soundtrack cover might have justification to be used, this is typically not the case. Besides the fact that almost every soundtrack cover I come across claims that its purpose is to be used at the top of its own article (when it is neither at the top nor is it acting as the primary representation of the subject of the article), in these cases I feel that readers would benefit from hearing an audio clip of the soundtrack rather than seeing a cover. A lot of soundtrack cover art aren't even different from the game's cover art. I think it's important for us to come up with some kind of guideline - either Wikipedia-wide or just sticking to our project - to limit these covers' use. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Per NFCC, if the soundtrack doesn't have its own article but is described in the main game article, and the cover is sufficiently similar to the video game's cover, then the image is duplicative per NFCC#1 + #3a and should be removed. I would go even further to add that unless the soundtrack actually has some type of release (doesn't have to be retail, but it should be something like obtaining the album from iTunes, Bandcamp, or through the various indie bundle packages), the soundtrack doesn't need a cover. Mind you, if the cover art of the soundtrack is discussed in some manner, that's a different issue, but 99.9% of the time, this just isn't the case. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That's part of the reason why I kind of want to get it in stone; I've been having trouble trying to remove soundtrack covers for that logic. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be a neat compromise to add a sound clip on the article which the cover art is removed due to being similar. However that involves a bit more work, does it not? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work like that. We only use non free when it helps the reader to understand the article. If a game's music is critically discussed that a sound clip will help the reader, it can be included, but just to identify the work, no we can't do that. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I think we can all agree that it couldn't hurt to try to find a (legitimate) means of including a sound clip in a cover's place, so long as that sound clip can be shown to be just that noteworthy that it needs inclusion. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Per Masem, it should probably be a requirement then that one of the sources show that the music is worth mentioning. Wouldn't want soundclips on every single article, just those whose soundtracks are noted to be spectacular in the game's success. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest a general choice of just any song; for example, the SMB theme could have use in the Super Mario Bros. article because it is so famous. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
For anyone new to the discussion, we discussed this subject two other times at; [Video games] and [[20]].

This time his biggest complaints seems to center around the rationale that is used for the images. Which varies from article to article, some of which he doesn't seem to have read, but re-pasted the same editorial comments from his earlier edits.

New Age Retro Hippie: Rationale claims to be "top of the article", or "used for main infobox", or "it is to illustrate the subject, when it does not do that".

The only point I agree with Retro about this, is where it says at the 'top of the article', which I changed when I found them, because the uploaders clearly just used the same clip and paste style without reading what they were editing.

As to the other edits without 'top' my views are the "image does "illustrate the subject' of the infobox it represents". Rationale 'Use' should say: "in an infobox dedicated to the work in question". And from the Licensing section of image: 'solely to illustrate the audio recording in question'.

On such articles as Super Mario Galaxy, "the soundtrack has won numerous critic awards, such as "Best Design in Audio" from the U.K.'s Edge Magazine" and others where it talks about the music as "wide variety of different musical styles" one audio clip isn't representative of the whole.

Even in cases where there is one song that stands out alone, like Super Mario Bros. theme there is the repetitiveness that would be present if it was also on Super Mario Bros. because it appears in many more games then just that one, and would be in two articles. But the soundtrack album [21] does represent that game individually. While that one musical piece only represents itself and not the variety of music that is represented in the other tracks of the game, which are thematically different. It would give a false view of the game's music as being in that one style. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

You sure do seem esteemed to claim that I'm not reading the rationales and not showing one single example where that has ever been the case. The SMB clip shows a famous song, while the SMB soundtrack cover does nothing of worth. As it's not depicting the subject of the article, the image - not what it's depicting - needs to be noteworthy. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sure that if you look, many sources will mention the music. For instance, IGN usually says something about it in their ending score. For Super Mario Galaxy in particular, it has a whole paragraph(some about lack of voices, but mostly praising the music) right before the "verdict". The artwork for the music cover is also significantly different then the game's boxart, so it passes that. I literally can't find any reason why it can't be included. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If the soundtrack is notable in its own right and could standalone in a separate article, the soundtrack should have its identifying art omitted. American Beauty: Original Motion Picture Score and American Beauty (soundtrack) could be merged into American Beauty (film), but even if it were - the identifying art should remain. - hahnchen 16:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If this was the case (where both soundtracks were merged to the film article), we would delete the soundtrack cover for the second soundtrack listed above, because it is clearly similar to the movie poster and thus duplicative per NFCC#3a. The first one would likely be reasonable to keep because of the difference between the two in terms of visuals. This would appply to video game article - we would not include the cover of the Gears of War soundtrack (seen here [22]) on the game's page because of thematic similarities. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
But if we were to split out the Gears of War soundtrack article (if it's notable enough), having a cover would be fine? It seems misguided to judge non-free media usage depending on the organisation of articles and highly subjective arguments of "thematic similarities". The Gears of War soundtrack cover is quite different to the game cover (despite similarities). The game cover is unsuitable for the identifying artwork for the album, the game cover does not convey "equivalent significant information". - hahnchen 21:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if it was a separate article, the soundtrack could have its cover used. But on the same page, no. And we consider the Gears game and soundtrack cover "close enough" that there's no branding information to be found in the soundtrack as to not require it if they were used on the same page. Our goal is to minimize non-free, and cover art - game, soundtrack, etc. - are typically only allowed for implicit branding information, not just to have an image there. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I've seen many GA articles about films and animated series that hold a cover art (so long as that it has an infobox). It doesn't really matter if it does, but i don't think having one cover art is needed in general. So long as theres only "one" cover art for the soundtracks.Lucia Black (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Our NFC policy is pretty explicit here. An article about a published work can use a piece of non-free cover art as the identifying image for the published work in the article. Any other cover art - included covers for the same work and/or related works may not be used without discussion about the image itself. We make limited exceptions for vastly different alternate art for retail soundtracks, but that's pretty much it. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
don't find that in WP:NFCC, unless it's an individual guideline from WP:VG, i don't think we should have such guidelines that don't follow WP:NFCC's principle.Lucia Black (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's under WP:NFCI, and trust me, as one of the main enforcers of NFCC, this is standard practice. (Briefly, cover art for identification but otherwise not discussed fails NFCC#8) --MASEM (t) 03:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Then you're enforcing it wrong. If I split out a notable subject into its own article, I don't magic a need for an extra image. If it's a notable subject, it deserves identifying artwork, that need was there from the outset. I can understand the reasoning if the artwork is identical (as per one of the American Beauty covers), but for Gears of War example, the game cover does not convey "equivalent significant information". I would not know what the soundtrack looked like by looking at the video game cover. - hahnchen 23:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

it doesn't mention "related" works, nor does it mention we can't add more than 1 cover art. standard practice, doesn't mean official rule. So all we need it more critical commentary before adding in a cover art of a soundtrack if said sountrack.Lucia Black (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the footnote of WP:NFCI#1: NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article. This is not a new rule, this has been practice for years. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
again, this is still not sinking in, i'm not really understanding how a cover art of a different media applies if related to the same subject. Unless you're trying to connect it with marketing, branding, and identification. in which a different media can offer a completely different set of marketing.Lucia Black (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:Blake, the soundtracks are usually mentioned more then one song or a theme on the soundtrack, and any image/audio should be based on the references of the article. One doesn't necessaily replace the other. (Floppydog66 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

A similar situation exists in New Super Mario Bros. U. It also covers New Super Luigi U and has a cover for each. The rationale I uploaded in August, states "New Super Luigi U is a standalone release and notable in its own right". Articles which cover different notable subjects should have identifying art for all their subjects. - hahnchen 14:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not appropriate to include. It's barely notable as DLC (yes, it has reception, but compared to story changes in the GTAIV DLC (which have their own article), there's very else different from the main game), and the cover is thematically similar in layout, art style, and the like, to the retail title. Thus it is not appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I personally don't believe that video game soundtrack cover images ever meet NFCC #8, and should all be deleted (with the sole exception of if the soundtrack has a standalone article). Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I personally believe the exact opposite. I believe they all meet the criteria, and should all be included (even in the situation where the soundtrack is a section in the main game article). —Locke Coletc 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That's completely against NFC, so not a solution. This is particularly true of video game soundtracks as they are rarely standalone-notable. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it's a solution. I believe they are notable enough on their own, and thus meet the NFC criteria. —Locke Coletc 20:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Most video game soundtracks do not get coverage to meet WP:N guidelines, which is the requirement for a stand-alone article. If they can't meet this, then there's absolutely no way to justify cover art for them (barring the exceptional case where there is actual discussion about the cover art). --MASEM (t) 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
As both Mario Galaxy and Final Fantasy Tactics show the soundtrack does work well with the game. I can see two videogame covers being used for cases like Gauntlet (1985 video game). An article that, right now, has only one image, a advertisement poster for it's infobox, and no other images. The second game Gauntlet: The Deeper Dungeons' is dependent on the original but is a separate game. But according to Werieth's edits even the screen shot of the original game "(file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC)". Which if that is your only guide, can be used for all images, and then you make up any excuse later, as Retro seems to do with his "Rm excessive fair use image." Which explains nothing about why he doesn't think an image should be in the article. When a person uploads a image they have to explain why they think it meets the requirements to be featured in an article. If the image was uploaded for a good reason, and if it should stay there, is what the references of the article show, how important it is to the article, and its sources.
If someone wants to remove an image, they should have to go through the same process of explaining why an image shouldn't be used, and the discussion should be done on that article's talk page. If it doesn't meet the requirements, then others can suggest what would be needed to meet those requirements. Otherwise a few months later someone else reuploads the same image, because it was never explained why the image was deleted the first time.
So here we are again with things like the game Gauntlet not having a single screenshot of the game, because the "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC)". (Floppydog66 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
(this is getting off topic) The Gauntlet screenshots just need better captions. "Gameplay of Gauntlet." is not enough, you need to explain what's going on in the screenshot and how that relates to the text. Here's an example from myself - Wario_Land_4#Gameplay. - hahnchen 15:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Werieth does tend to be aggressive about non-free image removal. You don't need all three screenshots (unless there's some reason the graphics for one specific platform were called out in sourced discussion), we allow one non-free game screenshot to be used along sourced discussion of the gameplay. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
With those two examples, the two key factors are 1) both soundtracks have a physical retail release that use those covers and 2) the art style and approach is significantly different in style and approach, hence there's reasonable allowance to include them (the same would be done if they were film ones). If the soundtrack for a game doesn't get a retail release, the cover art isn't going to help much in terms of branding and marketing. When the cover art is similar (eg the Gears of War soundtrack cover compared to the game's cover, while the format is clearly different, the same elements are there in the same style (namely the text logo, and the skull-gear symbol) that one is basically repeating the branding idea again, and thus not needed to meet the branding/marketing aspects that the game cover already provides. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Need a third opinion on LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series and CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series.

I've made the argument that the CD-i and LCD boxarts are excessive, and only one of each should be featured in their respective articles due to the fact that two images cannot be used simply to identify the subject of the article. I'd appreciate some input on their talk pages. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate some input on this matter, especially from anyone involved in the cover art RfC from a couple years back. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the CD-i games appear to be notable on their own. I may suggest splitting all 3 games and GAN them. I understand though, that they would be very short, but their well sourced, well written, and focused. So i dont know if thats what you want, but it could be a possibility and we don't have to remove any images.Lucia Black (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I've proposed splitting them into two articles, since Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil had almost exactly the same development and most of the reception centers around the two games as one subject. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fair. those two could be split into a single article while the last one be split into it's own.Lucia Black (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Wanna help out w/ the Zelda's Adventure article while I work on the duo article? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to me splitting it, or expanding whats already there?Lucia Black (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Splitting mostly, expanding if you like. I think they all could stand to have some expansion done to them considering that reliable sources have likely discussed them more since the CD-i article was created. The best part of this situation is that we could have THREE good articles making it a good topic. Maybe even throw in Hotel Mario if we want to make it a "Nintendo-licensed CD-i games" good topic. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, that is also what i was thinking, but I'm no expert in GA/featured topic so i wasn't sure if it would have been able to become one. I'll look into Nintendo licensed CD-i games. I apparently hear there are cancelled Cd-i games for Nintendo as well outside Hotel Mario. that could possibly benefit the current Zelda Cd-i article. But that's such a big decision, it may need a stronger consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Be best to keep this conversation in one place. Talk:CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series More input would be nice though. Right now two of the three games are stuck together in one article, despite having each their own 600,000 dollar budget, different maps, different cutscenes, different main characters, you playing as Link in the first and as Zelda in the second, different stories, and having been sold as full price games separately. They also have different reviews covering them individuals, so they would each pass the general notability guidelines just fine. I found additional reviews for each to expand them farther. Any similar information could be changed as the articles are allowed to grow. Dream Focus 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • They split one budget into two. Different maps are not an assertion of individual notability. Different cutscenes are not an assertion of individual notability (and have to contend with being the same art style and creators). Different stories is not an assertion of individual notability (at least in this case where the story isn't mentioned in any third-party source as a notable aspect of the game). The majority of the games' reviews discuss them as one topic. In fact, Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons have more unique divergence between reviews and even development history and gameplay than this; OoA has time travel while OoS has seasons changing. Reliable sources note that the two games even have different purposes - OoA is designed explicitly to be built around puzzles, while OoS is designed explicitly to be built around combat. WoG and FoE have the same gameplay, the same perspective, the same rules, the same items and equipment, the same art styles, the same engine, the same development history, and are discussed as one topic regularly. This is simply way too many similarities to be separate. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK I'm seeing quite a bit of confusion here about what makes a topic notable. Notability is not defined by unique plot, development history, or gameplay, etc. Notability is defined by the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regarding these games, there are indeed reliable sources significantly covering them both individually (in some articles) as well as together as a single topic (in other articles). The fact that there are several articles covering them both has a lot to do with the fact that they were released at the same time, but it's undeniable that there are several individual articles that examine them in isolation from one another. Thus they individually meet WP:N and are in fact independently notable. Does that mean that they require two separate articles? No. Just because a topic meets the GNG doesn't mean that it requires its own article. The similarities between these two provide sufficient reason to merge the topic into one article. It doesn't require that we imagine away their evident individual notability. Practical editorial considerations suggest that both can be covered in a single article to provide context just as they were prior to the split of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
(Frankly I think it was a mistake to split out the third game (Zelda's Adventure) as it shares a pre-history and holds a similar position within the series canon, and because comparisons between it and the first two are more easily achieved when they are together in one article. I think I'm alone in this, though, so I give up. -Thibbs (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC))

WP:RELART, although it's connected to the original 2 games, it doesn't make it a key factor. in fact, a summary of all three games reception should be done as how interconnected they are. for zelda's adventure, it just needs to be reworded to keep the focus more on zelda's adventure.Lucia Black (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thibbs, again, it doesn't matter. GNG is irrelevant if there's no need to have three articles - one for each game - as opposed to two. The two games are so similar that they can be adequately covered without A. missing content, or B. being too large or limited. Your argument for Zelda's Adventure being anywhere near the same amount of similarity is rather reaching. Majora's Mask uses the same engine as OoT and a lot of the same character models. Even more so than Zelda's Adventure, Majora's Mask shares a connection between OoT than ZA does for any of the CD-i games. A history of HOW they came into being is the only similarity they share and is not nearly enough to justify merging all three games together. Both articles can stand on their own without any harm coming whatsoever, meaning it ensures that we potentially have two GAs instead of one. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel like you're not really reading what I wrote because you basically restated my points. We disagree over the question of whether it would be worthwhile to cover all three CDi games in one article, but I'm not pushing to re-merge them. The split has already happened. I'm living with it. Good luck with the double GAs. -Thibbs (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm tired, so I read it as a reply to me. My apologies. The point stands about Zelda's Adventure not needing to be a part of the same article as the other two games still stands however. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
No harm done. -Thibbs (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Request: footage of someone playing WarioWare: Twisted!

(no audio or footage of the game, simply to show the motion of how the GBA SP is turned) Can anyone create this video? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A rather difficult situation. I'm unsure how that can be illustrated. Maybe two screenshots? One showing the gameplay on the screen, and another showing the motion action of the GBA?Lucia Black (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I more just need a demonstration of how one would move the GBASP; to better explain how the motion controls work. It'd be a great free use alternative. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure of how anyone can get such a video. Although it is a good alternativ in theory, wouldn't the fingers get in the way?Lucia Black (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
As much of WarioWare: Twisted!'s controls rely on pure left-right motion, simply showing the way the player moves the SP will tell readers how the game is controlled. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
A gif/video of someone tilting a console left and right is of arguable copyright status; an imeg animation showing hands tilting a console-analogue left and right would be far preferable. :) ·Salvidrim!·  05:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand why it would be considered a copyright problem; what does putting the GBASP in motion have to do with copyright? Is it due to the fact that it's demonstrating WarioWare's accelerometer? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion: Potential article for future game confirmed funded by kickstarter

I'd like a quick opinion on creating an article for the game Hyper Light Drifter. It is a Kickstarted-funded project by a relative single-dev unknown which has been recognized by reliable sources for both the game's concept and art, and the high success of the ongoing kickstarter (guy was asking for like $25k, but has gotten over $200k within the first week). The KS is still going, and all signs is the dev is certain to see this through.

Now, if this was something like the Double Fine Adventure, developed by an established studio, we could at minimum include the game at the developer's page, but we don't have that option here. Further, because being an unknown dev, while I have full trust he will complete the project, that's a crystal-ball approach. And while the KS is well beyond the funding requested, there could still be something that happens that the funding stops or is pulled.

I'm personally against creating the article, at least until the KS is over successfully, but I'd like others opinions here. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I say, if the sources are there, go for it. I haven't specifically searched myself, but I've seen so many articles on it in passing that I'd assume there'd be enough out there. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd personally say don't create it. The success rate of Kickstarters hasn't been altogether stellar as of recent, so I think it would be better for the game actually to be close to release or released before creating an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Also of the opinion WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL. A lot of early product announcements and Kickstarter projects fall into this territory, because there just isn't enough information about it. The only sources you get are blog posts or news feed items, which fail to provide the significant coverage required by WP:N. - hahnchen 14:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Virtual Boy good/featured topic

I've been thinking, since Virtual Boy will never have many more articles that it has, making a GT or FT is within reason. At maximum, the topic would only require 25 articles involved (assuming we don't merge any articles). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Excluding multi-console games and cancelled games, I count about 15 articles that would fit the topic. This number can also be reduced by taking some of the less notable titles such as Virtual League Baseball and Golf (Virtual Boy). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have you thought about taking this to Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions for some thoughts on this? GamerPro64 02:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In theory, I see what you're getting at, but in reality, I just don't know if its possible. Some of the game articles are in terrible shape, and probably stuck there without some phenomenal research. For example, Salvidrim and I worked on cleaning up Mario Clash years ago. While we definitely improved it, we ran out of sources/content well before GA status. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I could try throwing my hat into Mario Clash. Not to act as though I'm better at anything in particular, but maybe a third set of eyes can find things that were missed. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. But the prospect of all of them though...for instance, Red Alarm and Vertical Force have a very long ways to go. Regardless, I can try to help some if you so attempt this, being both a long time editor and an owner of of a virtual boy and about 5 or so of its games... Sergecross73 msg me 03:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've gotten as much as I can into Golf (video game). Was hoping someone could copyedit it; I think it's big enough to bring it to GA status with the work. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Golf (Virtual Boy)? If you haven't had a copyedit by Wednesday night, give me a ping and I'll do it. czar  12:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm really good at tracking down sources of obscure and weird things; I am sure I can do USA/EU releases fairly easy, but I cannot read Japanese well enough to translate those documents and getting my hands on them will require international shipping - so I won't be able to help in that department, but I do remember the virtual boy fondly... for nearly making me puke every time I played it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

New user CHall10006 in need of guidance

User is making good-faith, but massive and unsourced changes to the voice acting portions of Mario-related character articles (one edit summary cited reference as "Super Mario Wiki"). I'm not at all familiar enough with video game/anime voice acting to be helpful in this regard (i.e. info could be right or wrong, I don't know), nor the appropriate Manual of Style for such info within {{Infobox VG}}. PLEASE provide IMMEDIATE guidance to this user!!    DKqwerty    03:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for all the help... oh wait, no one here did a damn thing! Seems like you're all okay with vast and unsourced revisions by novice editors to pages falling under your very project. Thanks for nothing.    DKqwerty    20:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome (just kidding). I just left him a notice at his talk, for now. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 20:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I apologize for my less-than-calm comment above (it initially contained a few F-bombs before I revised it!), but it's frustrating watching someone (especially a novice) make massive changes to infoboxes and not having any personal knowledge of its veracity, nor a reliable source against which to judge the edits.    DKqwerty    17:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Game Developer (magazine)

Game Developer magazine has released its all issues online for free: Might be a useful resource for some articles. --Mika1h (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You might want to consider adding this info to WP:VG/RL#Online resources. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Addition of budget field to Template:Infobox video game

I've put forward an RFC on Template talk:Infobox video game#RFC: Add budget field for the addition of an optional field for budget (and potentially another for revenue), so am inviting comments on that page. I have explained my rationale more fully at the talk page, but it is essentially that the Grand Theft Auto games are now not the only games with 8-figure budgets. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Citing Game Informer

I was just thinking about this. Generally when I've referenced this, I've done the following: |work=Game Informer |publisher=GameStop. However, would this be different when sourcing from the website and not the magazine? In this case, would it be just |publisher=Game Informer? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is a published as a magazine (in addition to any unique website content), you should consider it a work. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto articles and template for deletion

A discussion has been underway since September 4 about deleting Template:Grand Theft Auto chronology. The discussion has provoked a great response from both sides of the argument, but at this stage there is no clear consensus. Any additional feedback to help resolve the nomination either way would be appreciated.

In addition, Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto), Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto III era), Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto IV era) and Vice City have all been nominated for deletion at once. Like the template discussion, there is a debate which has seen a strong response but not clear consensus has been reached as of yet, so feedback on this proposal would be appreciated as well. CR4ZE (t) 03:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this kind of sales in List of best-selling video game franchises are okay?

Like the note in List of best-selling video game franchises, it provides a "precise" sales for Final Fantasy series: 102.04 million. The one million is from it's official, but I'd like to say, one million is approximate number, not exact "100.00 million". Compared with other series, like Dragon Quest has been sold "62 million", Tomb Raider has been sold "35 million", I believe it means "Final Fantasy has been sold more than 100.00 million, but not reached 100.99 million copies"; or just means "more than a millennium count" (Japanese groups 100 million as 1,0000,0000). Thus I think, adds detailed figures to a approximate number not only is unscientific, but reports readers an incorrect information. (It could be 102.04+0.99=103.03 :P) So should there only written "100 million" until official or other RS provided a specific sales?--Check the time (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on that article's talk page as it pertains to just that article—I recommend moving it there and linking to it here czar  13:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments

To all members of this project: Please join and comment upon the following discussion: Talk:Mario_Kart#Collapse_or_uncollapse_characters_table.3F NOTE: This is not an attempt to canvass, I'm merely soliciting any and all comments from more-experienced editors whose reasoning doesn't boil down to "keep everything," but can cite policy to support their position, whatever it might be. Thank you.    DKqwerty    17:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

...Is it really that serious? RFC seems like a bit much for discussion on whether or not a chart should be collapsed, especially since the discussion just started today... EDIT: I guess it's not a formal RFC. Nevermind. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Should game articles about more than one game be allowed to have an image for the cover of more than one game?

Some articles out there have more than one game covered in them. If the games were released as separate full priced games, then should they be allowed to have their own infoboxes and an image of their cover? Should they each be allowed also a screenshot of gameplay, since that's important to understand what the game is about? Or should only the first game listed in the article be allowed that? Dream Focus 15:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I assume we're not talking about a game series where individual games have their own articles as well (which, no, we'd not allowed it). I will say that from an NFC standpoint, we generally discourage it but also acknowledge that it penalizes editors that design keep one comprehensive article instead of separate ones (where there would be no question of a free image). Personally, if we're talking about 2 or 3 games, each that would be notable on its own, sure; on the other hand, if we're talking a barely notable series with 10+ games, no, we'd not. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The argument is currently going on at Talk:Link:_The_Faces_of_Evil_and_Zelda:_The_Wand_of_Gamelon while having previously started at Talk:CD-i_games_from_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series#Images. Dream Focus 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Commented there, but I will note this is one where both covers should share the infobox as we do with the various Pokemon titles since the two titles are so interconnected (more of an IAR than any specific rule) --MASEM (t) 18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
actually pokemon just use one image regardless of two different versions. but i personally don't mind.Lucia Black (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages also uses only one cover. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, let me restate: from an NFC standpoint and how the articles are composed (where both games in the examples are given equal weight due to simultaneous releases), the use of both covers could be found permissible. If editors feel that one cover is sufficient, hey great, but if consensus wants two, it is reasonable in this case. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the best images to use for the article are a gameplay image, a cutscene image, and a visualization image. It occurs to me, however, that the games aren't particularly well-known by their cover arts, so I feel that adding two is pushing it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
On what are you basing the idea that "the games aren't particularly well-known by their cover arts"? We're using an infobox and according to the MoS, English-language coverart is ideal for use in the image field. Since there are two games it makes sense to use both covers. The NFUR for the image currently used only covers half of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I keep asking you to explain why this is okay for articles covering two games but not an article covering say, 20 games. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
How would you suggest putting 20 coverarts into an infobox? The difference between using 2 coverarts and using 20 is that 2 is not excessive and 20 is. It's pretty simple really. -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The other factor here, specifically, is we are talking games that are effectively different sides of the same coin - simultaneously releases, equivalent gameplay, etc. So selecting which cover of the two to pick is a 50-50 call. If consensus does that, great, but if it's split, it's reasonable to use both. On the other hand, if we're talking a series of games all covered on one page and where no individual game is notable, really only one cover is needed. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Usually, a series of games would cover a logo instead of a cover because the art can be vastly different, right? If we're allowed to add two cover arts, i suggest making them smaller. But even so, 3 covers may be excessive too right? and just to give an example of this, there is Mega Man Star Force which as a Leo, Peagesus and Dragon version, and all 3 have their own individual covers. I believe if their too similar, we shouldn't even add an individual cover, we should just say "this is cover A depicting character A, cover B has character B instead" As new age retro hippie said, it's the game play differences that matter most.Lucia Black (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd earlier suggested joining them in a single image. The comparisons to these games with different versions doesn't really make sense in this context, though. Faces of Evil isn't a different version of Wand of Gamelon. It's an entirely different game. The same engine is used and the development of the two games occurred simultaneously but it's no more a different version of the same game than Doom 2 is just a different version of Doom 1. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
but it's not like one is a sequel to the other, and the fact that they were released concurrently, suggest that theres no specific chronology (although i'm just assuming this). Although plot is a factor, and they can be considered two different games (Oracle of Ages and Oracle of seasons for example have the exact same issue). I don't necessarily believe its necessary. if you think Zelda and Link are just a minor exception....then you'll have to prove why. To me, it's just a cover, and they have strong although they have different plots, they aren't played in a specific order.Lucia Black (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
What does the in-game chronology have to do with anything? The two games were intended as separate releases and were sold separately. They have completely different plots and they received different critical reception. The necessity of using both images is to identify a topic that consists of two different games. Using one alone visually represents half of the topic. The interest is shielding Wikipedia from legal challenges is certainly admirable but this minimal use would fit easily within Fair Use. It's not that it's unlikely that Wikipedia would be sued over this. It's quite impossible. There's no realistic reason to delete either of the images because they both meet Fair Use and the article would be damaged by deleting them because together they visually represent the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
you're the one who brought the example of Doom 1 and Doom 2. hich is an issue of chronology. the games were relased together on the same day, which makes them companion games. Oracle of Ages and Oracle of seasons is a clear example of this. To me, it just shows one side of the whole puzzle, but it doesnt mean one side isn't enough....and showing multiple is unnecessary. Let's look at .hack//G.U. which encompasses all 3 games. do we add all three images? it's just excessive, and a cover doesn't really have to encompass the entire topic the exact same way, but an example of what the topic covers. But fine, if the covers are within "2" covers, we keep 2. But if there's more than 2 versions, we just keep 1.Lucia Black (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Doom 1 and Doom 2 is not an issue of chronology but rather they present an issue of the same engine not demonstrating that the games are different versions. This concept that Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil are "companion games" is news to me. Do you have any source that backs that claim up? Meanwhile .hack//G.U. is a series whereas Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil aren't. The article you've suggested so far that is comparable to this one is the combined Oracle of Seasons/Ages article. And I wouldn't have any problems with adding the other coverimage there either provided that the consensus wasn't opposed. -Thibbs (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hardcoregaming101 has considered them a duo. not exactly the most reliable of sources, but the fact that reviews cover them together, also shows that they are duo. Oracle and Ages and Oracle of Seasons. ignore it or address it. but make sure you make us know which one you pick.Lucia Black (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The terms are becoming vaguer and vaguer. We've gone from calling the two games different versions of the same game ala Mega Man Star Force to calling them series members ala .hack//G.U then calling them "companion games" and now "a duo". Yes there are two games. They are different games. They were released individually as separate games. They have different plots and they weren't intended to be played together. I wouldn't like to pick either one as they both only cover half the topic. As I said, I'd be fine with a single low-res image of both as a means to visually represent the topic - two games. This doesn't violate Fair Use so Wikipedia is safe from lawsuits. It represents minimal usage of Non-free content. Removal of either one does nothing to improve the article. -Thibbs (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons. Ill be clear. "Address" that your going to ignore it, or adress it. The naming doesn't necesarily matter, their grouped together despite being separate releases.Lucia Black (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

For cases where the article is about more then one game, I feel things like this are more apropraite File:SherlockHolmes,ConsultingDetective,VideogameSet.jpg.

Where there is one image of all three covers thus taking away the need for having multiple articles. Hopefully User:Masem will take a look at the rationale of this and 'Super Mario Galaxy: Original Soundtrack' and see if they work. Because I'm sure if it says 'a video game cover' and there are more then one Retro will probably claim it is unfair use and try delete it, or do some such thing then argue about it with the uploader/reverter for a while, and then afterward go to the article or project page that it is for and discuss it properly.

"It will illustrate the cover art for three releases of the game, without it there would be three separate images of each release on various articles. This version of the cover art for all three limits the use of such images, and the possibility that they could be used to pirate the cover of any of the games represented."

"Photograph I took of the cover art of all three releases."

But that is also my suggestion for the CD-i Zelda games also, whether they are all on one article or they are split into some having two games discussed in the article, an image of each game should be present. The same developer and publisher are usually used for each game when two or more similar games are disscussed in one article. As with Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon I'd give them one image with two screenshots showing the differances and similarities of the two games. (Floppydog66 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

  1. Hi Floppydog! I'm glad that you decided to bring your oh-so decidedly-not uncivil conduct to this discussion and have made a conscious effort to avoid making a comment similar to, say, "Floppydog's goal on Wikipedia is to have 18 different angled shots of every video game cover art". Oh, wait, you did both of those things. Oh well!
  2. Being grouped together actually makes the image situation worse. If the two games are pictured together, that means that any additional use of the image would be far more limited because the image would only be usable in a situation where both games are discussed. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The Sherlock Holmes covers fail the test that would apply to the Pokemon and the CD-i games, as we are talking sequels, not simultaneous releases; in this case, it is clear the first game's cover should be used and not the subsequent ones (and to note two other problems: photos of covers like this are strongly discourages, since we can usually find or make scans of the cover without the physical media packaging, and in this case, this image counts as 3 separate non-free images as a user created montage). --MASEM (t) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case I'd agree with User:Masem's earlier statement that it is "reasonable to use both" covers, I'd suggest using this advertisement image, it has both games on it [[23]]. Speaking of different angled shots, would the two screenshots for comparison be better as a single image back to back similar to these File:Super-mario-64-camera-system-ai.jpg with one single image having both, possibly two rationale, and one description under the image's caption; or since they are both different games would it be better to have them in a table like chart with two descriptions under them? (Floppydog66 (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
We really prefer the covers to ads, as for one the size of the ad there would make it too small to see the covers in the infobox, and secondary we always can get a clean image of the covers. Yes, it would be nice if there was an official piece of media one made by Nintendo) that put the covers side by side for us as to create the montage, reducing two copyrighted images down to one, but we can do that ourselves if necessary. The SM64 camera image is an appropriate way to incorporate multiple images and the rational is fine; captionwise you only need one , using "(top)", "(middle)", to explain which is which. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Two different notable subjects in one article. Both subjects should have identifying art regardless of "thematic similarities". This is the same argument I gave in the Soundtrack art discussion above. - hahnchen 14:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Which fails our NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet you state above that it's OK for two games. But not OK for a game and its soundtrack. Great application of your WP:ILIKEIT policy. Two separate notable subjects, one article. - hahnchen 15:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Masem's opinion on soundtracks is to remove covers that A. are too similar to the main cover, and/or B. have no commercial release. This is completely different from suggesting the use of two covers for two notable topics of equal standing in the article where both games have unique box art. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The A criteria is WP:ILIKEIT, it's purely subjective. I suggested in the soundtrack discussion that I could accept a simple clearly defined similarity criteria, such as if the covers were identical (or a crop). But the enforcement of policy should have clear lines, and not fall down to how LIKEIT you are of the image. He states above that the cover of American Beauty: Original Motion Picture Score would be acceptable in American Beauty (film) if merged, but that New Super Luigi U is not appropriate in New Super Mario Bros. U. Despite it being a separate retail release, clearly notable, with a different title, colour palette, and lead character. I've been consistent throughout, if it is a notable subject in its own right that is being covered in its entirety in another article for the sake of organisation, then it justifies identifying artwork. This standard is used on other articles with multiple subjects such as songs and their cover versions. - hahnchen 14:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Our NFC policy doesn't allow for that type of consistency, particularly on the fact that the allowance for cover art (when not otherwise discussed in text) is for implicit reasons. The only reason we allow cover art w/o commentary is to provide the reader with an idea of how the publisher has decided to represent their product in the retail market. It is not so a person can go and figure out what a cover looks like before they go shopping to find that item. So, for example, with NSMBU vs NSLU, the NSLU duplicates the way that the main game is presented to the world, so there is no new marketing details to be learned there, hence making the cover unnecessary (ignoring the fact that it is not a retail release to start with). --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The Luigi cover represents how Nintendo represented the Luigi game in the retail market. It is a notable game in its own right. The Luigi cover does not duplicate how the Mario game is presented to the world at all! The Luigi cover would be entirely unsuitable at representing the Mario game. There are two subjects in that article, something you fail to acknowledge. - hahnchen 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Hahnchen regarding the subjectivity of the NFCC standards. Both NFCC#3a's "equivalent significant information" and NFCC#8's "significantly increase readers' understanding" clearly require editorial discretion in order to assess. When goodfaith disputes over these assessments arise, it's completely inappropriate to simply point to the subjective language of the policy and aver that your subjective assessment is superior to that of the other party to the disagreement. Enforcement of the rules under this rationale is simply arbitrary. -Thibbs (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Even after a week of reading through these discussions I still struggle to understand how the use of two cover-art images is inappropriate for an article whose topic is two different games (like Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon or The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages). I don't believe that NFCC effects a bar because I do not find the covers of different games to be equivalent even if they are similar and I do believe that the two covers together increase a reader's understanding significantly more than the use of one cover alone. And I do believe that both cover-art images meets all non-free use rationales both explicit and implicit. The current "Purpose" section of the standard VG coverart NFUR, when filled out by the image-upload wizard provides two rationales: (1)visual identification of the topic, and (2)assurance to the reader that they have navigated to the article on the topic they were looking for. As Masem points out, a third implicit rationale also exists when cover-art provides (3) "marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys". Let's take these three in turn. First, there can be no question that a second cover-art image would visually identify half of the joint topic. Second, it seems obvious that images of both covers would provide better assurance to the reader interested in either or both game than using only a single image of one of the games. The reader will be coming to the article either to read about game A, about game B, or about games A&B together. If both covers are used we assure the reader coming for any of these reasons. If we only use one cover we assure the reader in only a third of the cases. Third, unless the two covers are identical, the use of both images together provides additional marketing, branding, and identification information that one alone cannot convey. Even if they are highly similar, the degree of similarity between them is not something that is easy to convey in writing alone. And similarities in visual appearance are obviously significant to a complete grasp of marketing efforts and branding decisions. If I am wrong for policy reasons then the policy is completely unclear and needs immediate clarification. If I am wrong simply because others disagree with my subjective/discretionary assessments then I'd really appreciate some substantive engagement with them. -Thibbs (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)