Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 105

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 100 Archive 103 Archive 104 Archive 105 Archive 106 Archive 107 Archive 110


Reception infoboxes involving Metascores

Aggregate scores
Aggregator Score
GameRankings X360 - 70.47% (# reviews)[1]
PS3 – 66.15% (#reviews)[2]
Metacritic X360 - 69/100 (# reviews)[3]
PS3 - 66/100 (# reviews)[4]
Review scores
Publication Score
Destructoid 7.5/10[5]
Edge 6/10[6]
Eurogamer 8/10[7]
Famitsu 37/40[8]
Game Informer 7/10[10]
GameSpot 5/10[11]
IGN 7/10[12]
OPM (UK) 6/10[9]

I want to see what you guys think about a possible mass edit.

  • First, I know that this is a huge proposition, that would consume a lot of time.
  • I am wondering what you guys think about adding the number of reviews involved with a select metascore in the reception infoboxes. Let me explain why this may need consideration. A Metascore (from Metacritic) is a value that averages a number of reviews to assign one review score. The problem with this is shown clearly in many games, for example, Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII has an Xbox 360 metascore of 69 while the PS3 version has a 66. This can be misleading, causing people to think the game runs/plays "better" on the X360, while the actual reason for the difference is that the X360 version only has 21 reviews while the PS3 version is based on 61 reviews which draws the metascore down. Just like the Xbox One version of Titanfall is lower because it was reviewed by twice as many reviewers. What do you guys think? Do you think this would be a productive project to start, or should we just allow the scores to stand without reviews. I just feel it is extremely misleading. Rilech (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you asking if, along with Metacritic scores, the number of reviews be used as well? If so, I would not be opposed to that. It is what the Film project does for reporting on film scores. However, maybe the number of reviews could just be mentioned in prose, when giving the Metacritic scores. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I mean. I think either in prose, or maybe even in parentheses in the infobox itself, next to the Metascore. Rilech (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
See the infobox I added. Rilech (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Standards say it needs to be mentioned in the prose, but honestly I bet people would be better about including that if it was part of the chart... Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
At least for now, I would focus on including it in the chart. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to go ahead and start? Rilech (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd wait just a bit, just since the Wikiproject is pretty active, and there are some people here with some strange interpretations of things. But it seems like a good idea to me. Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Rilech (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a good idea to me. It might help address some of the problems that arise from the practice of quoting Metacritic without explaining its unusual jargon (i.e. using "universal" to mean 90%+). -Thibbs (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd support it, and I don't see much of a reason not to. --Nicereddy (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not usually into these sort of propositions, but I think this is a good idea. (While you're doing the work, is there a standard for using "(X360)" vs. "X360:"? I've done the latter since it's what the template demo used. Also, wherever that box came from, the GameRankings should only have two digits of precision.) czar  00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal too. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I will support this too. However, like Czar, I have a question if they can be addressed (or pointed out to me) for issues that I have come across. Is there a set order for listing console scores (and I guess the infobox too) across multiple platforms? I have always done alpha order for consoles, then PC(s). Should it just be alpha order regardless of this separation? Sorry for diverting a bit, but it somewhat applies if we are going across and reformatting these. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: This will be a boon to our work on this project. But I also raise the same question as Czar and Favre1fan93. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I really don't care one way or the other whether this standardization is undertaken, but is there a way to commission bots to do this? Tezero (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Well each entry will have to be handled individually since each game received a different number of reviews. So no, a bot couldn't handle it. But there may be tools that could be used to streamline the process. -Thibbs (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mass edit - Not sure that we need to include the number of reviews every single time. Support updating the guidelines at Template:Video game reviews or even introducing a new parameter into the aggregate scores to standardise number-of-reviews. I generally include number-of-reviews if there aren't that many (see Ballistics), but for games like The Stick of Truth, there are dozens of reviews across all three platforms. Each additional review has less of an impact on the overall score, and in many cases, it'd just be bloating the table. - hahnchen 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support However, maybe do it in a bit of a smaller font so it will not clutter things when its over 100 reviews. Or if its in the triple digits that its just not mentioned, as the number does not change a lot anymore then anyways. NathanWubs (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if it's not already in the prose I've been noting the number of reviews in the prose recently, and I don't see a need for it in the review box if it's in the prose. I do, however, believe that it needs to be noted somewhere on the page, because it gives context to the score. For example, Out of the Park Baseball 2007 is the second highest rated game of all time for the PC, according to Metacritic, but that's based off of five reviews. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Civilization: Beyond Earth

Good work guys. - hahnchen 16:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, its like my dream is coming true. Good work indeed guys NathanWubs (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
They're making a modern Civilization version of Alpha Centauri? And they took inspiration ideas from a well-written Wikipedia page? It's like Christmas and my birthday all combined! --PresN 18:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Nolelover and Vyeh: czar  18:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow...that's incredible. It's amazing that work may have had a tangible effect on this game. Very much looking forward to it. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I've created a draft for the game at Draft:Civilization: Beyond Earth, if anyone would like to contribute. --Nicereddy (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Unless you don't want me to, I can go right ahead and move that to mainspace - I've seen the coverage of the new title and it is completely safe (far surpassing GNG) to make a mainspace article for it. I had created the redirects this morning when news broke just to cover it. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: Feel free, I made it so that there wouldn't be a half-complete page in the namespace, but it's decent enough to move it now. --Nicereddy (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Now a DYK nominee: Did you know ... that the team developing Civilization: Beyond Earth, a spiritual successor to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, visited that game's Wikipedia article to find inspiration? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing a coverdisc

Does anyone know how one would go about citing a magazine coverdisc? In my case, I need to cite the coverdisc of PC Gamer UK issue 193, which contains a "making of" video relevant to a fan expansion of Thief II: The Metal Age. The making of is available online, but it's fan-made and unpublished. The coverdisc version is the only notable one. Any advice would be appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Use {{Cite AV media}}. key would be "publisher" as PC Gamer UK, "volume" as needed, and use "at = Coverdisc". --MASEM (t) 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need Reception charts for multiple consoles?

I've been wondering, do we really need Reception charts for multiple consoles? Because someone called has gone and changed the multiple-console Reception charts! I've seen the changes in Oni, Enter the Matrix and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. He is changing the Reception charts for that matter. But do we really need them? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Reception infoboxes involving Metascores. There's an ongoing discussion there. Besides, this is why other video game articles have the standard reception box format rather than the multiple console reception box format because it saves the trouble of having duplicates and misleads to which console is which, like for instance a PS2 score link in an Xbox score, which really is troubling for people as it doesn't really link to the same console score. (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... maybe you're right. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
For more info on the topic of why coverage of multiple platforms is important, see Wikipedia:VG/RS#Editorial discretion should promote broad coverage and reduce POV. -Thibbs (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The order of the scores across platforms

I am by no means trying to end the discussion above, but many, such as @Czar:, @Favre1fan93:, and myself, also are interested in the specific order the scores should be listed. I have always done it alphabetically. I am going to open a poll to find out which you guys think is better. Remember though that polling is NOT a substitute for discussion. Along with these options, feel free to add your own. These are just the three most prominent I have seen. Also, a few raised the question above as to whether the console should be in parenthesis. I think because the (# reviews) will be in parentheses, the console name should not (see infobox example). Rilech (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(added option D -Thibbs (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

  • I think any of these would work as long as it's done consistently. There are certain advantages to C and D as well, though. With Option C you can easily see which is the most critically well-received version of a game, and with Option D you can see how critical reception of the game changed through time. Just something to consider. -Thibbs (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree and I think that is why Option C is already the most used. Rilech (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Option A: Alphabetically including PC

  • This is what I do. - hahnchen 16:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Use alphabetic. It will save numerous edit wars positioning one console above another. Its an instantly recognisable ordering system. The release dates will be miles away at the top of the article and release date order may not be instantly obvious. - X201 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Thinking now, this seems to be the easiest to avoid edit wars. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per X201. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support also. Rilech (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't like it, but it's the easiest and thus how I do it. czar  19:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Me fifth! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Option B: Alphabetically with PC at the end

Option C: Numerically by score

Nope, because that gets us back to the reason stated at the top of this discussion. - X201 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Option D: Chronologically by release date

Option E: Chrono by release date, with (PC then alphabetical) for common release dates

Note this matches how we present the platforms in the infobox (or at least how they should be presented). --MASEM (t) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Very good point. Rilech (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see Windows or Win instead, since PC is an ambiguous platform. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I currently think that most list the PC platform specifically such as Microsoft Windows or OS X, like here. Rilech (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright with this. I think I'd go with "Windows" rather that "PC". PC is a shortening of "Personal Computer", which is not a gaming platform but rather a.. well, a personal computer. Also, something we might have to remember is that Windows and Xbox are both properties of Microsoft. Not sure whether that's relevant or not, it just sprang to mind. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
As as note, yeah, I'm using PC for shorthand, it should be give as "Windows" or "Win". By this point in the article, if it is not clear that a game is available for "Microsoft Windows", something is very wrong in the prose above it. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is my personal preference out of the group, though I grant that opt A is the most sensible. czar  19:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Computer release short hand

Creating another poll based on the short discussion in Option E above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Option 1: PC (Windows release) and/or OS X

  1. (OS X has a space) I typically write "Windows PC" in the prose, especially if that's what the sources say. Moreover, I think this is a nonissue since Metacritic doesn't even separate Windows reviews from OS X's, and we'd rarely need to clarify. This said, we're in a poll within a poll. czar  19:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support: I didn't vote above because I really don't have a preference, as long as it's standardized. However, when it comes to stating the computer scores, it's better to spell out "Windows" due to possible confusion with winning the game, and also the occasional person here who doesn't know what Win means will need it spelled out. Just leaving it as PC also has the vagueness factor (Plenty of people I know, myself included, just use PC for the generic desktop computer, same as using Kleenex for whatever type of tissue it is). Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Good arguments above. Rilech (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Option 2: Win and/or OS X

Help with Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2

I managed to expand the article Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2, cited almost everything but the development section is still bare bones. I couldn't find any English interview about the making of the game. Is there somebody skilled in regards to finding Japanese interviews? It could be of great help. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I found a whole bunch of Japanese interviews on the official blog. Interview with Suzuhito Yasuda, Interview with Sound Team, Interview with Director and Art Director, Interview with Kenji Ito, Interview with Mohiro Kitoh #1, Interview with Mohiro Kitoh #2. There might even be a few more if you poke around the site a bit, but these ones stuck out. Nall (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Article clean up (Template code) - Bot Request.

Sorry this has taken a while. - I've finally made the request for a Bot to move the redundant fields from the 11,000+ articles that need it. The request is here. Not sure if they'll be able to take it on, but we'll find out. - X201 (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth saving in the hopes that WikiData may eventually scrape it, and then we'll later need to go through all the articles to remove the hidden template once WikiData has scraped it. Better to just delete the unused fields. If WikiData really thinks the information is worth digging for, it will still be available in the edit history. Additionally the hidden content would no longer be curated, and we'd have this old data hiding on the articles. So just remove the defunct fields entirely. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Personally I'm not living on the hope of them eventually scraping it. After this bot operation is complete and WP:VG have got what we want. I'll push that we give WikiData 6 months to harvest the old data, or it gets deleted. We've already gone to the trouble of attempting to save it for them, the bot people will have the awkward task of writing a bot that will do the job, the least WikiData can do after that is harvest it promptly afterwards. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Update No news basically. Wikipedia Bot request suggested asking at WikiData BotReq. WikiData BotReq haven't replied after request being up for a week. I'm going to start deleting defunct code next month, with the massively improved AWB code that Wikipedia Bot request created for us. - X201 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Armello, DYK?

A few days ago I created the article and subsequent DYK suggestion for Armello, and upcoming indie game that, while totally notable, hasn't gotten a lot of attention (less than 200 hits since the 14th). It's just one of those projects I'd like to see succeed, especially since it has a Kickstarter going, and if anyone wanted to give the DYK a look or suggest a better hook that'd be great. If not, that's fine too, this is just really more for my benefit of knowing I did everything I could to help it out, even if its just a one-day main page plug. (This message is in no way endorsed by League of Geeks. They aren't even paying me in Vegemite for this.) Nall (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The original hook is great; the second exhibits slightly confusing phrasing and isn't as interesting. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I liked that one too, I just picked another one that sounded more important since I didn't know exactly what reviewers tend to go for. If someone familiar with the process wants to do a review, that'd be great. Not trying to advertise here (exactly), I just got smitten with this indie project and want to support in my own way. Nall (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Capcom games

A user, Come on body, is unhappy with the new format of the list (just as a refresher, the old list was several lists, separated by platform; the new list is a table sorted by name with all the platforms the game was released on). I discussed it here before changing it to the new format. He keeps reverting it to the old list. I can't keep reverting it (because of the 3 revert rule). The current version of the list is his last revert, here. He doesn't seem willing to talk about it. Since I don't think the list is heavily watched, I'm escalating it here. Any ideas on what should be done next? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted him. Maybe he will read my edit summary and read the link I left and stop. If not, an edit warring case is very likely. Rilech (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Help at the Stubcheck Project

I would appreciate any help at the Stubcheck Project where we are currently reassessing the Start-Class articles under this WikiProject's scope. Let's move towards our project goal of maintaining a C+ rating on 20% of our articles! Jucchan (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference library online archive

While adding some details of PC Gamer UK copies I own to the library today, I discovered that many (not sure if all, but it's certainly not just the major ones) PC Gamer UK reviews and previews back to 12 December 2006 have been imported to the CVG website here. Not sure if this is common knowledge already, but it doesn't seem to be included in the reference library. If it's useful, where would I include it? The Online Resources section that seems most appropriate for PCG articles seems to only deal with Internet Archive links. —Vanderdeckenξφ 22:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a great find. You can include it under the "Platform specific" header in the Online resources section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

PETA video games (e.g. Super Tofu Boy, Pokémon Black and Blue)

Could this be a viable topic for an article? They've gotten a good deal of coverage from the gaming media, some mainstream journalists, and in some cases even the creators of the original games PETA's satirize, but this attention tends to be short-lived for each game. Tezero (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that could be good topic. It would need to be written carefully as the topic generally receives negative coverage I would imagine. Sam Walton (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well the games getting negative coverage is not a bad thing. After all look at the articles on creationism and intelligent design. They are mostly negative as well. Intelligent design is even a featured article. 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanWubs (talkcontribs)

Nah. Try to just add a section to the Peta article on them. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think they could be made just fine, if you can scrounge up 4-5 reliable sources covering it in detail, but they're definitely the type that you'd want to go all out on. If someone just went and made one of those "2 sentence, 1 ref" type articles, it would be redirected pretty quickly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Sergecross. This sounds like an interesting topic, Tezero. It's got DYK written all over it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The RS's would be the big issue, as per User:Sergecross73, as well as convincing the others that this is indeed encyclopedic (I can hear WP:Pokémon test coming from all directions), but that should be solved by the refs that've been talked about. I'm honestly surprised that {{Template:Video game controversy}} doesn't have anything about it already. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

FAC is near its end

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon Channel/archive1

Ian Rose has told me that more support is necessary if the FAC is to escape archival. Come on, WP:VG, I know you can do this. Or if you oppose for some reason, say that. The FAC is just... it's so close but, per how much support is needed, not quite there. Tezero (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Its been promoted, congratulations! :D --Nicereddy (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup! I have another article I'll be taking there soon, so stay tuned. Tezero (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Mewtwo maybe? I've been kicking that idea around for a while since it's already A-class. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 09:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

Is anybody available to conduct an image review of Grand Theft Auto V's non free content for its FAC? A delegate is requesting an image review done (presumably as a last spot-check before closing). Thanks. CR4ZE (tc) 13:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I can do it later today if someone doesn't beat me to it czar  15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I did get to it, but there is one image that I think needs discussion (listed there). --MASEM (t) 15:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Proteus Peer Review

After two empty Peer Reviews and an FAC which received no supports or opposes before it was closed, I've opened a third Peer Review and would love comments from you with the aim of starting another FAC afterwards. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A bunch of FACs closed in the past solely due to interest. There seems to be more activity now and hopefully that keeps up. I'm going to try my best to review everything that comes through FAC, but I'm going to be honest if it will take more work than I can offer. (Reviewing is time-consuming enough, but I do a heavy review for copy and don't have the time to outline every instance of a thing.) Anyway, I'd be happy to take a look at this, but might I suggest just putting it up for A-class review (if you feel it's ready)? czar  15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Adventure (1979 video game)

There is some discussion occurring on this article's talk page about some of the sources used to reference the game's release date. In particular, the section closer to the top titled "Wrong release date" and the section about POV and source overkill at the bottom. If anyone else would like to comment there, it would be appreciated. —Tourchiest talkedits 05:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've commented there, but have reached a sticking point. One editor is very concerned that there is insufficient evidence for the release date and he wants to include an article from Hardcore Gamer 101 (a situational source according to WP:VG/RS) where the release date of the game is covered in depth. The issue is complicated by the fact that the HG101 article is essentially a hatchet job or smear piece tearing up Wikipedia and highlighting certain of its members for special abuse. Obviously that's not really an issue that touches the academic content of the source, but external views would be appreciated. The concerned editor has raised some valid points, but several of the editors that have argued the issue in talk are now "involved" so we need a few uninvolved third parties to help find a compromise of some kind. -Thibbs (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Just in case it isn't clear, Derboo is the author of the piece on HG101. —Torchiest talkedits 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I noticed his name in the blog post he linked, but I hadn't noticed his name in HG101. I suspected as much of course, but now I see his name too. The issue is clearly very much in need out neutral 3rd party views since it basically boils down to a clash of the egos between Derboo and Marty. At times the facts become lost amid the personal jabs. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note - I've drafted a summary of the factual part of the dispute here. Neutral 3rd party views are welcome. Failing that I say we launch an RfC. -Thibbs (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Guys, I've purposely been staying out of this new discussion, the previous one was some time ago. I'm not sure what you mean by clash of egos, my only concern at the time was that Deboo's assertions contained a lot of synthesis and OR, and were not as cut and dry as he wanted to present, let alone satisfying Wikipedia's own guidelines and needs. Really not much different than everyone else has been pointing out. Upset, he decided to turn to his hg101 blog and write his thoughts which included disgusting personal attacks at me and questioning my ability to do research, and at Wikipedia in general. I still hold no I'll will, but I will say that after repeated direct interviews with the game's author for our book and the copy of the internal ROM release list we have (which gives the ROM release date as 1979), his opinion and interpretations on the matter are still not cut and dry. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Posted my opinion there. I'm rather disgusted that he tries to present his blog post as a reliable source (while carefully not mentioning that he's the author), while casting aspersions on several published books (and their authors) simply because he personally disagrees with them, especially after the blog post goes off on a rant about Marty rather than presenting good evidence based off of reliable sources. Not that he's put any of his "scholarship" towards actually, you know, fixing up the article. --PresN 04:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of digits allowed for GameRankings reviews

Czar edited an article I had written, taking the GameRankings score from four digits to two, and leaving the comment "Please only use two digits of precision, per Template:Video game reviews/doc#Guidelines".

I disagree with this guideline, because the logic behind it is flawed. It argues that because review scores give two digits, anything after two digits in an aggregate score is extraneous. Aggregate scores, however, aren't review scores; they're a reflection of the review scores. While there isn't a terribly large difference between 91.02 and 91.52, there is still a difference. If GameRankings feels that it is worth expressing the average in four digits, I don't think that we should overrule that. I would like to amend the linked guideline to remove the restriction on digits.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In terms of the example, that would be rounded from 91 and 92 , respectively, and in the larger scope of the world, that's also a trivality in differences. The reason we include the aggregate score is first to provide a reference to other reviews a work may have gotten, and second to give a rough measure how those scores were across the board. In broad terms, that's recognize that there's a difference in reception between a game aggregating 95 and that aggregating 85, but not that much between at 95 and a 94. Additionally, mathmatically, there's no way 4 significant figures can be obtained from scores that have 2, maybe 3, digits of precision. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, is there anything we don't argue about? Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Sergecross73 Editors make decisions in writing articles based on what they think is best, and what they are comfortable with. WikiProject Video Games has a large set of guidelines, many of which editors uninvolved with the WikiProject have never encountered, and has a group of people that attempt to enforce those guidelines on articles that they are otherwise uninvolved with. In articles that are not under the purview of a strong project, people do what they think is best, even if it goes against a guideline, and leave it at that. With video game articles, however, if you don't follow all of the guidelines, someone will eventually come along and change the article. If an article has serious problems, that's one thing, but when you get down to the level of minutia where you are saying, essentially, "the only acceptable way of quoting aggregate scores is to round them to two digits, and per such and such guideline everything else is wrong", you are going to wind up with lots of discussions by people that want to change the guideline.
TLDR: If an area of the project is heavily built around following guidelines, so much so that even minor decisions can only ever be done one way, you are going to wind up with lots of discussions about altering guidelines. High volumes of such discussions is the natural consequence of creating an environment where there is such an emphasis on uniformity and obedience to guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, it's not like I just swung around to Charlie Murder to enforce rules—I copyedited the article as part of my FAC review. czar  01:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Czar: While this post itself was created in response to your copyedit, my response to Sergecross73 regarding the general atmosphere wasn't. It's an ongoing problem that I've observed from watching this page and hearing people discuss video game articles. It wasn't aimed at you. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm surprised how little ruckus there's been over the years about the (fairly rigid) standards by which we structure game, character, and (to a lesser extent) series articles. Tezero (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Save for ordering plot vs gameplay, for the most part. We follow similar structure used for modern media, so I think we're satisfied on that. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sven Manguard. There is no possible reason to not list the full number. Is that's what's reported, that's what should be there. How many other articles have people rounding off something because they don't like big numbers? That's just ridiculous. Dream Focus 01:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Our MOS encourages using only 2-3 digits of significance for large numbers per MOS:LARGENUM and this is regularly done in most articles. This would fall into that. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It says "Very precise values should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context:" then list examples such as the census data. If you are going to quote a source like this [1] then you need to quote exactly what they say, not round the number off. You don't alter the facts because you think it looks better to have shorter numbers. Dream Focus 03:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
        • With Gamerankings, we know exactly how they calculate the aggregate number (it is a straight up, unweighted average). From anyone that's done calculations with significant figures, knowing that they are starting with values of 2 digits of significance, the best that the average can be calculated with is 2 digits of significance. So while they report it as 4, that's pretty much not proper, if this was a calculation done with engineering/scientific precision. Even if we didn't know the formula, you cannot create digits of precision in calculations. And yes, we can round numbers off when presented in sources, our MOS allows and recommends it. On the other hand, say if there was a source that included a quote of Gameranking's numbers for a title and we wanted to quote that source, we would not change the GR number as presented in the quote. But pulling the number off GR's site, we're completely fair to do so. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
          • You don't believe we should report what the referenced source said, but instead just change things simply because someone feels like it? That has never been how Wikipedia works. WP:STICKTOSOURCE Dream Focus 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
            • We do this all the time with text, it's called "paraphrasing". Reporting "84%" instead of "83.78%" is the same mechanism. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Film articles list the exact number of the box office results, town articles list the exact number of the population, and most game articles list the exact numbers for the reviews. And I believe in an article listed poll results or anything else with a number like 83.78% it wouldn't be rounded off. Dream Focus 17:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Those numbers have that many digits of significance - there's no loss of precision in counting up the dollars from box office receipts or respondents to a census. But I've demonstrated how there is precision loss in the averaging calculation that GR does. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • So you don't like the source being referenced, so you decided to calculate things your way instead? That's WP:SYNTH and Original Research. We quote what the referenced sources say, not what we want them to say. Dream Focus 18:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
                    • No, rounding is not a calculation that involves synthesis, no recalculating what GR has already done. Anyone that knows about significant figures should be aware that reporting their calculation results to 4 digits is flawed - not that the calculation was wrong but what they report. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm with Masem's logic. I also think it's fine to have standards as long as there's continual communal consensus around them. czar  01:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I lean toward supporting Dream Focus. While the four-significant-figure averages aren't completely "stable" per the MOS, neither are the two-digit ones – unless there are a large number of reviews already, a new addition is likely to upset both averages. As for "appropriate to the context", well, it could go either way. The merit in preserving what GameRankings and Metacritic actually say—this really hearkens to WP:V at its core—tips the balance in favor of 4 sig figs for me. Tezero (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've always used the full number as shown at the aggregate sites, and I assumed that everyone did that, since it seems like just reporting what the source says. I checked a couple dozen FAs off our list, and about 3/4 of them use the full value, for what that's worth. —Torchiest talkedits 05:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We're quite content to use rounding on Box Office figures for film since reporting down to the dollar is both unnecessary and impossibly accurate. There's no reason not to round. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

E3 2014

I have recently created the article Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014. Feel free to add and help me improve it. Thanks for the help! Chambr (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The table at Wisp (Sonic)

Well, this is it. hahnchen has placed the dreaded Oppose vote at the FAC page because he considers the inclusion of the table at all to be in violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE. Seeing as he's not going to be the only one to bring that up, I'd like to form some kind of consensus here about what's to be done with the table. Ideally, me posting this will get the issue resolved more quickly, so I'll have more time to address other complaints at the FAC. (Particularly relevant since he isn't the most active editor around.) I mentioned it once here and at the PR, but without any kind of resultant consensus. Time to give it one more shot.

Anyway, these are the general categories of plans of action I can think of:

  • Keep the table roughly as is. (If so, someone will have to explain why hahnchen is incorrect—if indeed he is—about its relation to WP:GAMEGUIDE.) What are you, chicken?
  • Keep it, but auto-collapse it.
  • Keep it, but cut the listings of the various Wisps' appearances. (I figured at the time that this was justified per Super Smash Bros. (series), but hey, that ain't an FA.) Perhaps stick it on the right side of the page like an infobox or image.
  • Keep it, and cut both the listings of their appearances and their descriptions. Stick it on the right side of the page.
  • Scrap it, and find a way to merge the blurbs about individual Wisps that are mentioned elsewhere in the article to the loci of those mentions. (Easier said than done, I presume, as far as keeping the body text balanced and free of tangents.)
  • Scrap it altogether, as well as mentions of individual types. Sorry, Wisps, if you ain't anthro animals or robots, you all look the same to me and I want you out of my country by sunrise or I'm callin' the squad.

To everyone considering voting at the FAC, which would you prefer and why? (Per Wikipedia guidelines, anyway. I'd prefer a giant, blatantly copyvio'd picture of all of the Wisps with the text "ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE SONIC COLORS IS A SQUARE" superimposed in giant, hot-pink Comic Sans, but that ain't happening.) Tezero (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've commented there and have to agree with hahnchen about that being GAMEGUIDE-ish. There is a way to summarize the general ideas of that table into a paragraph as a worst-case scenario, but there might be a middle ground too. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Its difficult to remove, but its definitely possible. I think the problem is that it combines two purposes at once. Lucia Black (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
What two, and how is this a problem? Tezero (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
1) Describing what the Wisps do and 2) saying which games they are in. The first is the gameguidish bit, since it says what effect each one has in the game, and even at that short level it becomes an issue of too much information if you're not a player of the game; I think that whole column should be pulled, maybe add a couple sentences of text that says "various wisps do things like blah blah blah". That should make the appearances table about half as tall, which may be fine. --PresN 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It'll be somewhat shorter, but more noticeably it won't be as wide. In that case, would it stay in the middle or should it go on the right and the text wrap around it? Tezero (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that indopug has also opposed over the use of primary sources. I believe that, per WP:VG conventions, they're appropriate in context, but if she (?)'s right, I need to know, and if not, I'd like someone to help me convince her and, more importantly, the FAC coordinators, that it isn't a viable reason for opposition. Tezero (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the table's pretty much gone. Hop over if you have a chance, everyone. Tezero (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Allods Team

Is this developer really notable? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System)

The above article is currently a FA but someone appointed problems. As I know nothing about it to help, I'm wondering if someone can opine at Talk:Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System)#Issues with sources in development and release sections. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Aria of Sorrow TFA May 6th

Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow has been scheduled to go on the main page on May 6th. I've given the article a go over a few times to prepare it for the main page. Would anyone else be willing to look it over to ensure that there are no more outstanding issues? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source?

  • Hi all, I'm participating in the FAC for Flotilla and an interesting conundrum has come up. The developer has sent information via email (which has since been forwarded to OTRS) explaining the role of cats and other animals in the game's development (previous sources just mention them as an inspiration). However, as this would be OR I suggested that the developer post a blog or something similar. The nominator, a video game journalist, has suggested that he can write the information at Novo Adagio.
Since this source is not on the current RS list, I was wondering if anyone here could weigh in regarding whether or not said website can be an RS (possible COI aside, as previous discussion at WT:FAC has indicated that comprehensiveness comes first). It would be much appreciated if you could weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flotilla (video game)/archive1 regarding the source's reliability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Battlefield 5

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Battlefield 5 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Primarily, no sources or mention apart from IMDb which is unreliable as well as meeting reasons 1,6,7,8 in the reasons for deletion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chambr (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably should just be hit with CSD G3. Pretty sure the IMDB is faked, based on the bios on the rumored cast. Henry Pavel has had quite the life. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I had hit it with a CSD request this morning, so apparently that was removed and the PROD added. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedy was declined. If the PROD is declined, then someone should start an AfD. Currently there's no reliable evidence to prove that this thing is real. --benlisquareTCE 17:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Welp, that was fast. --benlisquareTCE 17:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just tosses a message to the admin that declined the speedy - they claimed there were a large number of ghits which is true - but they're all forum posts, and I've ask them to look at that again. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I was the one that proposed the deletion as soon as the CSD was declined. Thanks for the assistance and help throughout this process, Masem. Chambr (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Midtown Madness

I've detailed a few problems with this article on its talk page, and am planning to nominate it for an FAR before too long. If anyone's interested in fixing the issues or telling me why I should screw off, please head over there. Tezero (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations in video game characters' Appearances sections

CalvinK has questioned the use of quote citations in Wisp (Sonic), as a tangent to indopug's (IMO unjustified, but lingering) oppose vote based on the use of primary sources. This has been brought up numerous times, including at some of my past GANs and FACs, and we've reached no clear consensus on when and how, if ever, citing game quotes is necessary. If possible, I'd like us to create some kind of standard we can reference in the future rather than having to argue everything longhand. There are only a handful of game characters at the FA level, so this discussion will probably have to rely a fair bit on non-game FA characters' articles. Tezero (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Characters or plots, the only time sourcing is 100% required is if it is information that a normal player, playing the game to completing performing only the required tasks, will not see, but essential to explaining the topic. For example, there's plenty of world information hidden in voxophones in BioShock Infinite that we'd need to site them if we incorporate that information. If it is part of a normal cutscene or the like you don't have to source it, if you can only source it from the primary. If you can do any sourcing of plot or character from secondary sources, you should take that opportunity to do so. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not 100% required, perhaps, but CalvinK wants me to remove it. And yeah, I think I've about exhausted what secondary sources can offer. Tezero (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll just clarify on my position on this. In respect of the criticism that the majority of the article is based on primary sources, I only suggested removing unnecessary citations so it would reduce the number of citations to primary sources. Just for the benefit of everyone else, the best example of a fictional minor character that is a featured article (that I could find) was Nikki and Paulo. Comparing the article in question with various other FAs, plot and storylines are not generally cited as much as they are in the article in question. It's also worthwhile looking at what WP:V says about this, which is that only material that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be cited. It isn't necessary to cite things which are accepted through normal gameplay, in my opinion, something that is applied in GTAV. Calvin (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Arguably, there's only 2 primary sources - the two games themselves, only repeated to provide exact quotes. If you consider that factor , then the ratio of primary to secondary is fine. Yes, as long as the information is obvious to anyone that plays the game in a normal manner front to back (Doesn't have seek out story parts, not a secondary/secret ending, etc.) it really doesn't need to be sourced but it does not hurt. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This may sound like devil's advocacy, but i believe that all "appearances" should be cited. Yes, plot related information doesn't need to be cited, but that should only apply when presenting the plot, not highlighting when a character appeared. So if there's a "plot" section in media article, it wouldn't be necessary because its based entirely off of a single media which is what the article is about. However, if the same information provided to support the fact that a character appeared in specific media, it would be better to cite sources, even if they are first-party sources.

Keep in mind, we have to target all readers, not people who have played the game. Lucia Black (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I just feel as though some of the citations are cited for the sake of being cited and are not really necessary. While I'd rather an article be sourced too much than not sourced at all, for a featured article we should (in my opinion) be looking at whether we are citing things that don't really need to be cited in my opinion. If you look at the Creation section every sentence is cited. Similarly with Appearances, but for things that would probably not be cited in a plot section of a video game. If that makes sense?
WP:V is pretty straightforward in making clear when something should be cited. I doubt anybody would be challenging that Tails created a time machine (to use an example) if they played the game. If we are aiming at non-players then we could (to take it to the extreme) go as far as requiring citations for every single sentence. The policy has it right in my opinion and we should be looking at the policy for guidance, not creating a policy that goes against Wikipedia's policy in order to create more work for ourselves. Calvin (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
i dont care what you want out of a featured article. if its cited, let it be. If this is you "opinion", then i dont see why we should stand behind it if its not based on anything on the policies of Wikipedia. Another point is WP:V isn't proving anything for you. and the exaggeration of needing to cite every sentence for appearances is unnecessary because the goal isn't plot-relevance, its just to cite that the character appeared in that game. Keep in mind this is a common practice in most articles. Just because its plot-related does not mean it doesn't need citing. Although i agree plot sections in media articles dont, more intricate multi-media related plots do. And you make it sound like its a hassle to make this article helpful for non-gamers, which is already a huge problem. Lucia Black (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait, back up. In what ways is the article still inaccessible? Please tell me. This FAC is probably going to fail even when all issues are fixed and a consensus is formed, just because of the negative environment, but I'd still like to know about what you think is necessary so it doesn't come up even later. Tezero (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Calvin's assessment in terms of what we want for Featured is correct, though. If most of what's given in the appearances is clear by playing the game without any possible misinterpretation, sourcing that statement is a waste of time if its just from the primary source. Ideally, any points that are not 100% clear from playing the game should only be sourced, otherwise the rest is implicit and would make the source list appear better for something Featured. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion, not a fact. i consider it incorrect. and if the game itself is the source, then add it in. If this was just one game and involving media, then yes, you would be correct. but its not. we're talking about characters that make multiple appearance across a number of video games. Lucia Black (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that in discussing characteristics that might span several games, that if specific qualities are called out, they should be sourced to the specific game. But if you look at the Appearances section, which is the section of concern here, there is clear language "In this game, they do this:" which implicitly is the reference source. Again, when written in this fashion, if they do something that is not 100% apparent to the average player, a source is needed but everything else is otherwise fine to leave unsourced if you only can be sourced to the primary works. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Whats unnecessary is adding the sitations in the table, but the citations should still remain in prose (and not so specific). thats theproblem with how its done int his article. however, citing just the game itself, should be enough. release date, title, developer, publisher. thats it. no quotes, nothing too specific. Lucia Black (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest Lucia Black, have you read the article in question? Take a look at the Creation section. Do we really need a citation to source where the name of Mother Wisp comes from? Do we really need to source that Tails built a translation device? In the Appearances section, do we really need to source that Doctor Eggman built an amusement park? Or that Tails built a translation device - again? That Mother Wisp expressed gratitude to Sonic? I would argue not.
I do not agree that those citations cite the appearance - to any person reading it, it is for plot relevance! As for the comment regarding WP:V, the following is pretty clear. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. A lot of the content in there does not apply.
I also refer to current Featured Article, Nikki and Paulo. That is relevant as it is a fictional character (or two, if you want to pedantic) that had a minor role in a number of episodes of Lost. There are some citations but there has not been a need to cite every single sentence in the appearances section. A simple citation to acknowledge the episode, or in this article, game, should be sufficient, and only in places where there might be challenges.
I'm also going to make clear that it doesn't bother me either way. Like Tezero, I am interested to see some consensus as to how to apply WP:V to this article, as there are clearly differing views. I read your reply as being a little hostile to me, this may be me misinterpreting your reply (alas, the wonders of text only!) but I just wanted to nip it in the bud and just state my intention is not for bad feeling or to cause contention, but to put the opposing side of view, which in my opinion is also valid.
I've just read your latest update - I agree to an extent with that. I do not believe we are required to be so specific with the quotes.Calvin (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind, that i'm only suggesting that we do not remove citations only becuase its plot related and that they should play the game to find out. i'm not saying that refs shouldn't be so extensive for plot related (unless absolutely necessary). i've read the article before. But what i'm saying is we shouldn't remove them in general. should we reduce the number of refs? yes. like Masem said, we would only need two because they appeared in two games. the more obscure appearances however, might need a little more verification. Lucia Black (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we are somewhat in agreement. I think the refs should be reduced to a less specific reference of the whole game, similar to how the appearances section was done in Nikki and Paulo. That makes a lot of sense to me. If there is anything that is likely to be challenged then there should be a reference to the quote itself. Is that along a similar vein to what you were thinking? Calvin (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, i am in agreement with that. Lucia Black (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus is forming that Appearances sections for game characters should use quotes sparingly, for unexpected or controversial details, and cite the rest to the game itself, if I'm understanding right. Again, this should be a precedent whose influence extends beyond this article and those of other Sonic characters. To other editors, though, please chime in; even if you add no additional arguments, I want to confirm that this actually represents a number of editors' views. (We'll also need a name for it. Hmm. How about Wisps' Law?) Tezero (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am in agreement that Appearance sections for game characters (although to be fair it should be probably apply to all fictional characters) should use quotes only for anything that may be challenged, otherwise cite everything else to the episode/game/book itself. I do think we should wait for other editors to chip in, if we're looking to set some sort of guideline for future articles in future. Calvin (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I will add that this is assuming no secondary or third-party source goes into that type of detail. If there is a secondary source that can be used to cite some of the otherwise obvious info in the primary work, then one should consider using that, depending on the nature. For example we'd not have to cite a secondary source that says "Sonic is blue and runs fast" in the article on Sonic, but on the other hand, "Miles Prower is an inventory and builds many of the machines Sonic uses", if mentioned in a secondary source, is completely reasonable to include despite being something that you learn reviewing the entire Sonic franchise. But this is optional stuff when it meets the usual can-be-sourced-from-primary information. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • How does one actually go about using a game to cite an appearance? Let's say you wanted a citation for the claim that Princess Toadstool appears in Super Mario Sunshine. Wouldn't you need a source that makes that direct claim? I can see using an instruction manual or perhaps a game guide, but in my experience it's quite rare that the game itself will make narrator-like statements like "Princess Toadstool appears in this game". So is the idea to just cite the game as a general reference and hope that the audience will draw the obvious conclusion? This seems like a very slippery slope... If an appearance is obvious then I agree with some of the above arguments that it doesn't need a source and I don't think we should be citing sources that don't actually make the claims we're presenting. -Thibbs (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the consensus is that, yes, we can cite the game for obvious details like a character's presence. (I really would prefer a quote as it's more specific, but some appearances are silent ones, and this discussion isn't really concerned with what I think of including quotes.) Regardless, I see that one draw to including the general game as a source as opposed to nothing, if that's what you're suggesting, is that it doesn't give anyone the inclination to add a "citation needed" tag. Tezero (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If that's the consensus, I don't think it's a correct interpretation of WP:V. A silent presence does not a claim make. There's an infamous scene in The Wizard of Oz where folklore has it that one of the Munchkins hangs himself in the background. Sure enough if you look closely at the specific scene you can see something like that in the background. It's hard to tell for sure, but if you're allowed to consider silent actions and presences as claims, then what would stop some good faith editor from citing that scene in The Wizard of Oz in support of the claim that one of the Munchkins died during the making of the film? That's a silly and imperfect example, but my overall point is that direct claims are required. We can't be using references as invitations for the reader to come to the same original conclusion that we have based on primary analysis of the source. When a citation is used in the encyclopedic context, it must provide the reader with a reliable authority who is the source of the claim. Referencing a silent presence in a game provides no such authority. -Thibbs (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • When we say that a video game is a primary source, that includes audio and visual elements. So if there's a character that is plainly obviously (foreground, more than a few seconds of screen time, etc.) present in the story that the average player would see during the game, but there's no hint of dialog that names that character or asserts they are there, the video game source is fine. On the other hand, if we're talking about the appearance of character in a few scenes in the background which would require careful analysis, that's going to need a source. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. It's original research to interpret any non-claims as if they were claims. If it's plainly obvious then it needs no source. If it's challenged then it needs a better source than a vague hand-wave at the game and a suggestion that the reader make up his own mind on the issue. Let's say I wanted to make the claim on the Sonic the Hedgehog page that Sonic actually was a cyclops with two independent pupils. Could I cite the games' visual appearance to support this nonsense? If you look, he is clearly depicted with a connection between the eyes. But yet two different people providing primary analysis of the image could easily come to two different interpretations. Why? Because there is no claim that is being made at all. It's a mute image. Claims can only be made verbally or through text. If we're citing a non-claim like this, we're asking for original interpretation and I really think that violates WP:OR. -Thibbs (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • When I say obvious, I mean that the viewer (for all purposes, a non-gamer), armed with no other information about the game but the game itself (no extended cut scenes, no manual, no script) and with similar knowledge of any other games in that series, what conclusions they will make. I'd have a hard time accepting that the majority of such viewers will conclude "Sonic is a cyclops" in that case. There are always ornery folks that will want to challenge anything, but these type of extreme challenges are once that are allowed to be dismissed via WP:V (eg we do not need to source "The sky is blue" no matter how much someone demands it.). --MASEM (t) 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well we're generally in agreement when you say that we do not need to source plainly obvious claims like "The sky is blue". But what I'm saying is that if for some reason we decided to provide a source for that claim it would be inappropriate to link an image of the blue sky and defy the reader to disagree with our interpretation of it. If we are sourcing a claim (even redundantly) then our source has to actually make the claim. -Thibbs (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This has gotten to something of a standstill. Further positions, anyone? Tezero (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a guideline/essay page at Wikipedia:Wisps' Law. Make or discuss changes as necessary, such as if the consensus changes. Tezero (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Block request on Rhythm Tengoku (or possibly semi-protect due to a non-static IP)

Someone has been vandalizing the article with no apparent end in sight, so I'd appreciate it if an admin could deal with it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected, I'll leave it to you to see that the vandalism is fully removed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with

Is anyone else having trouble accessing Gamespot pages on I've been going through and updating dead links in some articles, and I can't get ANY Gamespot pages to come up, even one's that I personally retrieved when updating in the past. Here's an example from just now when I was trying to update the Super Mario 64 article. But it's throwing the same error for archive urls of Gamespot articles already used in Wikipedia articles. Is anyone else having this problem, or is it maybe on my end? --chrisFjordson (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we discovered earlier that Gamespot has enabled a "robots.txt" on their site to prevent caching, as such, links to archived GS content are now gone. Someone was going to try to get Gamespot to adjust this to allow such cacheing. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh dang, I just saw the previous convo. This looks like a really serious problem. I hope Gamespot gets back to whoever contacted them. I guess I'll be updating with WebCite in the meantime. --chrisFjordson (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Does WebCite bypass robots.txt when archiving pages that are currently up? If so, I'll have to start using it going forth. Tezero (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you can still access Gamespot pages previously archived on WebCite, but I don't think they can make new archives. Although, I tried using WebCite just now to update the Majora's Mask article and it came up a little short; I don't think WebCite's crawlers are as active as Wayback's. I hope the problem is eventually resolved. There are other archiving services, but it seems like Wayback is the most consistent. --chrisFjordson (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've also noticed that most of the articles I can't get from Wayback are on []. I've even found a snapshot of a Wayback snapshot of a Gamespot article on there (go figure).--chrisFjordson (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that WebCite respects robots.txt so trying to archive anything on GS now is going to end up unsuccessful. Robots.txt isn't legally binding but it a way to keep to a safe harbor clause under DCMA. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible that, in the event we can't get Gamespot to modify their Robots.txt, we could get to at least allow access to pages that have already been archived? I'm not a programmer, but I don't understand why a new Robots.txt would prevent access to previously archived articles. Or is it possible that those archives have been deleted? --chrisFjordson (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That might constitute a copyright violation. In all sense, it shouldn't—if GameSpot didn't want us to look at those for years to come, it shouldn't have put them up, just like with print sources—but it could. Tezero (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Chrisfjordson: I imagine that either GS contacted them or the archive retroactively respects new robots.txt. For those interested in this thread, it appears that Penny Arcade Report's site is back up. czar  13:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just made an archive of a GameSpot page with WebCite, and it worked for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Looks like WebCite hasn't been blocked by the robots exclusion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bohemia Interactive template for discussion

Hi all, there's a few templates up for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 30#Bohemia Interactive templates which could use some further input. Sam Walton (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling PC games#Expansion packs

Requesting comments on the topic of adding expansion packs to the list of best-selling PC games. --Mika1h (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely support adding them, especially seeing as how many of the expansion packs include more content than some stand-alone games. Also, if I am looking to buy an expansion pack, I could come to Wikipedia to see which were well received, like a lot of people do for stand-alone games. I know I do.. It definitely would enrich the content of the article. Chambr (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd list them in their own section perhaps, but on the page nonetheless. Tezero (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Midtown Madness is at FAR

I have nominated Midtown Madness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tezero (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Release platforms for new CoD

I seem to be having a disagreement with a couple of editors over Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. I have maintained that the only confirmed platforms at this time are 360 and XB1. Could use some additional input. CR4ZE (tc) 11:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Oakland area

I've been tracing some leads to get better magazine coverage for us. Does anyone live in the Oakland, CA Bay Area? I have a few mega-collector contacts there that may let visitors borrow/scan magazines, but I first wanted to check if any of the WTVG regulars actually would actually be interested. czar  21:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm nowhere near Oakland, but just out of curiosity: which magazines are we talking about here? What date ranges and what kind of coverage? -Thibbs (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's dangerous to go alone!

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help track down examples of the quote in other works. It's proving to be a lot harder than I expected, mostly because the custom Google search is filled to the brim with examples of authors using it as a clever title, drowning out actual examples of its use. I'll have to actually manually examine every single website in our RS list to find examples. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This GameSpot video might be of help. Sam Walton (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I've actually got that already saved, but I appreciate the assistance anyway! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a decent collection of instances where the phrase crops up. You may want to check Zeldapedia as well since they usually have only partially duplicative material. -Thibbs (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure enough. -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Note: Both the Zeldawiki and Zeldapedia claims should be verified because both sites are frankly riddled with errors. -Thibbs (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm hoping someone includes Starbomb. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there'd be a justification for actually utilizing those titles, perhaps "The phrase has frequently been appropriated for the titles of video game-related articles, such as..." Tezero (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's already there :) Sam Walton (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also 99% positive I remember the King of Dotnia saying it in 3D Dot Game Heroes. -Thibbs (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I feel like someone says a variation of it in either the prologue or chapter 1 of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey good memory! I didn't remember that at all. It gave me the idea to check Mariowiki as well, though, and they claim there's a reference to the line in Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D. Then I decided to check the wikia circuit generally and found a claim for the line in a Spiral Knights ad as well as a claim that it appears in Borderlands 2. So OK. This is what I'm seeing for pop culture refs so far:

And that's just kind of a brief looking about online. To me this list is a bit much. Fun looking for 3rd party shout outs, but it seems like it starts to fall afoul of WP:TRIVIA if we list too many... -Thibbs (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Fez referenced the quote at one point, can anyone confirm? -Nicereddy (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Not that I recall. Plenty of Zelda references, though czar  05:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Of that list, I think Another Code would be too vague. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles about video game levels

I'm considering writing an article about the infamous "Robbing the Cradle" mission from Thief: Deadly Shadows, whose contents, development and reception have quite a few third-party sources. It's just too much to fit in the Deadly Shadows article. The only problem is that I know of no other articles on video game levels that I could base this on. I looked up Call of Duty's No Russian and Mario's World 1-1, but no luck. Is there any precedent for this kind of article, or am I on my own? I would really appreciate any advice. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No Russian was bundled with other CoD:MW2 controversies; I'm not aware of articles about specific missions or levels within video games that generated enough individual coverage from reliable sources to warrant an article, so am unsure if a precedent exists. I'd recommend drafting it out first to see how much content there would actually be. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Closest thing I can think of would be Super Mario Bros. theme, a standalone article about a specific creative element included in a video game that is independently notable; however, the SMB tune unambiguously has more notability than Robbing the Cradle, so I'm not sure it's very comparable. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  01:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Closest I know of is Rapture (BioShock). I've been mulling over starting a Green Hill Zone article (withhold your groans, everyone), as it's certainly a well-known level, but that may not translate to significant secondary coverage. Tezero (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The Goat Puzzle was what I had in mind. And yeah, I'm planning on writing the article out on a draft page first. I suppose I'll have to improvise the structure. Thanks, guys. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I thought about bringing that up but decided it wasn't quite what you'd want. Sorry about that. Tezero (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not mentioned once by name in the game's article as it is. I'd start there and build it out summary style if necessary. czar  02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Now I wanna try making the Dam (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) article. :P - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Possible rosy retrospection on my part, but this project seems to have gotten way more DMR-y among Wikipedia as a whole. Tezero (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Having just created I am Error a few hours ago, I agree. I don't think that Broken Sword needs to have several paragraphs of content dominating its article, especially when the subject is not exclusive to the first game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The Goat Puzzle is exclusive to the Broken Sword series, where you could cut down the amount of unnecessary detail. The key to the puzzle is that it involves gameplay which is inconsistent with the rest of the game, but explaining exactly what steps you have to do to solve it adds very little to the article. This project hasn't gotten more deletionist, the detritus is on the rise. - hahnchen 13:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And yet the reception would still be a problem. It would be undue weight because the Goat Puzzle simply has a lot that people have said about it. The article is already quite big. I also disagree with the overuse of series-page merging, as it almost always leads to a pretty bad series page. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Went ahead and wrote the article out at User:JimmyBlackwing/cradle. I think it will work. The only question is what to name it: Robbing the Cradle (level) or Robbing the Cradle (video game level)? What do you guys think? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Went with Robbing the Cradle (video game level). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Christ, you've built that up fast. I thought I was a hard worker after Wisps made it from a redirect to GAN in three days, but I had it temped for a couple days before that. Tezero (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I had fun on it. Also, that's impressive--I didn't even know that there was enough material on Wisps to make an article, let alone in a time that short. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the new "Robbing the Cradle" article could serve as a model for future level articles. (I agree with Hahnchen that "No Russian" would be an obvious level article, and there are a few others I can think of that would be pretty noncontroversial.) Given that apart from this new one we don't really have any articles on individual levels yet, I think the appropriate model for us should have been to analogize from the way WP:TV handles its episode articles. And that's basically exactly how it turned out. Just looking at today's Featured Article, we can see that the structure used is 1 - Plot; 2 - Production; 3 - Reception; 4 - References; 5 - External links. That's closely tracked by "Robbing the Cradle"'s 1 - Overview; 2 - Development; 3 - Reception and legacy; 4 - Notes. So it looks like a good model to me. -Thibbs (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Does the Water Temple from Ocarina of Time have its own article? That'd be the best precedent I can think of. -Nicereddy (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't but it easily could. There are a few examples of likely notable levels. The Harris levels used to have an article on Wikipedia before it got merged. The same is true for Diablo's Secret Cow Level and Rainbow Road (Mario Kart) as well. Another angle would cover articles on certain expansion packs that consisted of only new levels for an old engine. An example would be Master Levels for Doom II (which also used to have an article before it got merged). There were loads of these back when the world wide web was young. In particular I recall the level-only expansions released by WizardWorks as being ubiquitous throughout the 90s. -Thibbs (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Rainbow Road could totally have an article, considering how well-known it is as an absolutely infuriating track. Inspired by this conversation, I started up a Green Hill Zone article about two and half hours ago and... heh, got kinda carried away. Tezero (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. In thinking about notable levels I purposely ignored all "first level of a popular franchise" levels since I figure it would be hard to get any specific coverage of them, but it looks like you found some good sources. -Thibbs (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually working on Rainbow Road (Mario Kart) and Water Temple right now. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I was also on the cusp of Touch Fuzzy Get Dizzy, but it just fell a little too short. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Haha, wow, you guys are really pushing the limits on the perception that "WP:VG is too lax about notability/sourcing". I won't oppose it or anything, but best of luck if any of these things start to get targeted by people outside the Wikiproject... Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's the perfect opportunity to make people look silly. :> Basically in making these articles, I prioritize that the articles are able to stand on their own, and have enough content that they would be given undue weight. When you think about it, Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man is an article about a level, but works because there's so much to discuss. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

() I'm with Serge on this. I'm not as confident that these article topics meet the GNG. Sure, we can cobble together articles on anything that has recurred enough, but topics that haven't been targeted in-depth by even a single feature are going to appear piecemeal and possibly be a target for AfD later down the line. You're welcome to try, but I'd keep this in mind before sinking tons of time. czar  15:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - remember, we were critical of character articles that had their only secondary sources from "Top 10 Hottest Babes in Video Games"-style references. This doesn't rule out the possibility such articles can be created, but let's make sure we're being internally consistent here. Note though that redirects are free, and "famous" levels could be called out within their article. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we're taking a fair amount of care w/ the creation of these articles. For example, the Water Temple has had numerous articles made especially about it, so I feel that it would qualify pretty well for GNG. I don't think that any of the articles made or suggested as of yet have pushed the limit too far. Green Hill Zone spans so many Sonics that it can't go to one article (and if it goes to the series article, it risks making the series article a hodgepodge of tacked-on content). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd call the Water Temple at least a weak keep based off of the WP:VG/RS search sources alone (an interview and multiple articles, even if they largely appear to be one-liners), but you'll see that Green Hill Zone doesn't have the same coverage in a similar search. There is no in-depth analysis or even (as far as I can find) a breakdown of the differences and dev process behind its remastered version. I had already started this discussion at Talk:Green Hill Zone, for those interested. I'd put Rainbow Road's coverage somewhere between the two—I'm not sure where its development and actual reception sources would be. Last thought: we sometimes forget that the top priority for the lede is to establish why the topic is notable (its impact). We have coverage that says what is unique about the Water Level, Robbing the Cradle, even "No Russian", but we don't have the same for Level 1-1 or Green Hill Zone, as iconic and recurring as they may be. (This doesn't preclude this coverage from existing in the future.) czar  16:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, come on! "One-liners" are EXACTLY what you keep saying isn't enough for the articles I create. How is it for the Water Temple? (If it matters, I think the Temple also satisfies WP:N.) Tezero (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
So I'd call "culture" stuff like [3] or even [4] one-liners, but there is substantive (significant) coverage for articles about the actual design/dev such as [5][6][7][8]. (I'd call it a "weak" keep because I don't know if the sourcing is enough for a full article, specifically re: Reception.) The World 1-1 analysis from below is also good for sigcov (though the sources mentioned below may not be reliable)—that kind of stuff would help GHZ's notability. czar  16:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I've got a fair amount of reliable sources that touch upon the Water Temple in depth as to whether the level is good or not. I wish I could help on GHZ, but I'm not the biggest Sonic fan so it would be difficult to muster up the initiative. Also, to a link below, I'm pretty sure p4rgaming is satire. :P - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The p4r translation has been cited by Wired, among many other sources. It isn't satire, to my knowledge. Also, to Czar, is the site of Anna Anthropy, a noted game designer who co-wrote A Game Design Vocabulary: Exploring the Foundational Principles Behind Good Game Design, published by Addison-Wesley. Definitely reliable. Theory of Gaming is up in the air, I agree—but I was just trying to throw out a few source examples. Plenty more exist. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, looking a little deeper, it turns out that you're right. A large portion of the Internet was pranked by this article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see a push for articles on video game levels, but I agree that selectiveness is important. The Water Temple is probably fine, given the plethora of sources—same with No Russian and World 1-1 (just see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). Piecemeal articles can verge on synthesis quite easily. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't run into too many problems as long as we model these articles on the "1 - Overview; 2 - Development; 3 - Reception and legacy; 4 - Notes" model from "Robbing the Cradle". Specifically, I can't imagine non-notable level articles having significant third-party sourcing covering "Development" and "Reception and legacy". The bigger concern, I think, is that of 1st party sourcing giving the mere appearance of notability. Just being reliable doesn't mean that a source can demonstrate notability. Game guides, game manuals, and games themselves are perfectly fine as sourcing, but they don't mean a thing at AfD. -Thibbs (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair point. What frustrates me is that first-party sources seem to actually hurt articles' notability here, in that they raise the ratio of primary to secondary citations and thus garner harsher scrutiny than the articles would otherwise get - yet you also can't just leave them out if there's an important fact that no secondary source thought to mention. Tezero (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Individual levels. They will hardly ever be notable. User:JimmyBlackwing/cradle is just sourced to one off mentions, they don't really discuss the level itself. Green Hill Zone is half sourced to primary sources and one of mentions. Instead of creating new WP:FANCRUFT, try and improve articles already created. Some of the content you want to write about can already go in pages that exist. Of the 30,000 VG articles, just under a 1,000 are GA or higher (Wikipedia:VG/A#Current_status). That's only 3.5% of articles are of reasonable quality, and that figure is only going to get worse when there's on average 5 new VG articles a day. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:GAMEGUIDE.--Vaypertrail (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's circular reasoning; it assumes that video game levels are inherently a form of fancruft. Moreover, as others have mentioned here, game levels don't necessarily always fit in their associated games or series articles; the content can be too different. Also, I expect that more level articles would raise the percentage of GAs; I, for one, nominated Green Hill for GA only after I'd realized how close it was after writing a Reception and legacy section to keep it from getting speedy (no pun intended) deleted. Tezero (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
In my experience categorical opposition is best saved for more significant policy matters like paid advocacy or censorship. I think there is room under WP:VG for articles on anything that is supported by significant independent coverage by multiple RSes. I recognize the concerns here, but hardly think this has risen to the level of a problem yet. -Thibbs (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I would also suggest that legitimate B-class articles are of a reasonable quality. Often a B-class article is held back by not too many things. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the development and/or reception of this one particular level has to rival the reception and development of the overall game. It also has to be completely independent from other games. For example: There are only 3 Bowser boss fights in Super Mario 64, but we can't split one particular one boss fight because its not exactly "unique" as there are two others. We can't split them all as they make up an entire aspect of the game. I also believe some form of "legacy" is necessary despite the reception section being satisfactory. Lucia Black (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear that Vaypertrail has not read Robbing the Cradle, since he suggests that it is "just sourced to one off mentions, they don't really discuss the level itself". Almost the entire article is based on two long-form sources about the level, one of which is the legendary "Journey into the Cradle" feature in PC Gamer UK. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Murder's FPC

We got another image up for Featured Picture candidacy. It's on a gameplay still for the video game Charlie Murder. Go Support or Oppose on the nomination here if you're into that. GamerPro64 03:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sales figures

Hello gentle folk. Quick question. Does anyone have any ideas where one might obtain reliable global sales figures for PS2 games? I know VG Chartz is not considered reliable. I've checked the Sources page here at the project, but there's nothing there of much use. I've worked on several PS2 articles of late, and getting sales figures is blind luck; I came across a GameSpot article with rough figures for Cold Fear for example, and some articles have references to Famitsu. But would anyone have any hints on somewhere I could use consistently? Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamasutra sometimes does some charts w/o numbers attached. The MagicBox could also work. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
For Japanese figures, you can often find some at Famitsu by Googling the game's Japanese title with "famitsu" and maybe the year it came out. That's how I scrounged up data for Pokémon Channel and a number of Digimon games. Tezero (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay guys, I'll have a look around those sites. If I find any mysterious sites residing in the dark underbelly of the internet that have reliable figures I'll post info about it here. Thanks for the advice. Bertaut (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Video Games At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

EVE Online - Expansions of Eve Online article format change?

With Fanfest currently going on I have been updating the Eve Online and Expansions of Eve Online articles as they are very much out of date. One thing I noted was that the page Expansions of Eve Online is going to start to fill up rapidly, very soon.

At Fanfest 2014, CCP Seagull announced the the move from a two expansions per year development cycle to ten expansions per year on a rapid release cycle of six weeks per expansion. This is roughly the same speed at which Firefox updates are released.

Because of this I am wondering if the Expansions of Eve Online page should be updated to be similar to Firefox release history or Android version history. In order to keep it clean.

That being said, a lot of the material on EVE Online is out of date or not cited properly. Am I able to take it on myself to update and cite anything I want? The Eve Online page itself is in need of a major rewrite rather than just additions and I would be happy to work on it but I am just wondering how you go about doing something that large.

Astrel (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not an official statement of any kind here, but if you really want to be tactful on your work and you really think it's that significant of a change in the content of the page, you might want to setup a sandbox version of the page in your Userspace and make a notice to the Talk page on the article letting people know about the restructuring work that is being done and where they can view the rewrite. BcRIPster (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Jumping Flash! development

The PS1 game Jumping Flash! is currently at the GAN and the only thing standing in the way is its development section. I've been searching the web for hours and I can't find anything on its early development, I'm wondering if anyone has any information they would like to find/give me on its early development? If anyone can help it would be very much appreciated, thanks! Jaguar 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mid 90s release → print sources ahoy. Have you tried any print leads? I can attempt to help find scans if you know where to look and have hit a wall. There's bound to be at least one print feature on this, no? You could also add more info from the print sources in the Reception—certainly there's more to those than their scores. czar  16:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I've got at least 4 articles on the game that don't appear in the Wiki article. A preview in Edge, a preview in GameFan, a review in Edge, and a review in GameFan. Let me know if you want them. -Thibbs (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
If you still having a ahrd time with development info, try adding release information along with it and make it "Development and Release". Lucia Black (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, this may or may not be helpful, but I seem to recall Famitsu did a fairly extensive technology piece on the game when it came out. I'll see if I can find the issue but I'm not sure when I'll be able to dig out my magazines to search. BcRIPster (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick note, I had to change the header for this section to remove the Wikilink to the game. Something was causing it to break the edit links on this section and all of the ones following it. Might be a bug worth reporting but I'm not sure specifically where to report it. BcRIPster (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, it's much appreciated! Thibbs, if you can possibly share that information I can put it into the article as now it's only the development section standing in the way of passing the GAN. Unfortunately I myself don't have any magazines/sources on Jumping Flash or any PS1 game of that time. It has to be worth noting that Jumping Flash is quite possibly the first PS1 game released as it was a technology demonstrator for 3D graphics at the time. Anything related to that would be very helpful! Thanks, Jaguar 17:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Jaguar, FWIW, while the site didn't reach consensus on Reliable Sources status yet, there's a period review of the US release and also a short, period blurb about the Japanese release on the Game Zero magazine archive that's of note. BcRIPster (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

PETA satirical browser games

Finally got around to creating this. I realized something during the process, though: PETA's made other browser games that didn't happen to satirize existing ones, but still with an animal rights focus, as expected. These have received little to no press coverage, however, only appearing on PETA's website. How, if at all, should I work them into this article?

(Also, weird thing happened today: New Age Retro Hippie and I both created pages for Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire unbeknownst to each other. I merged mine into his after realizing, and there's an unrelated discussion on the talk page about information speculation that might be worth checking out.) Tezero (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some coverage of Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes in the academic sources (Google Scholar, Google Books), and there is some mainstream VG coverage of the Cooking Mama spoof (e.g. this and others). For others it depends how many there are. If we're talking about a handful of other games then it might be appropriate to document their existence and source them using as an SPS on itself. If we're talking about 10s of other games, though (20, 30 other games, etc.), and there's little or no coverage of them then I'd say just leave them out. Interesting article, by the way. It looks great so far. -Thibbs (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) struck out after finding the list of all 26 of them. -Thibbs (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
If you cover them all you should do it in a single sentence or so and use as an SPS. I don't think you need to, though. The earliest one (Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes), and the ones that received RS coverage would probably be sufficient. Speaking of which, here's RS coverage of PETA's River City Ransom-style Cage Fight too. -Thibbs (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Added that stuff; thanks, by the way. I'm planning to add a section that briefly covers the gameplay and plots of the individual games, possibly with a screenshot, or just add this as part of Development history. With that said, what else do you think would be necessary before I GAN this? Tezero (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Which Reception box format is the best?

Basically, I tried using the standard Reception box format for multiple consoles in X-Men Legends and The Da Vinci Code, but some guys reverted it back to multiple console reception box formats (like this one for example)! claims that "this is why other video game articles have the standard reception box format rather than the multiple console reception box format because it saves the trouble of having duplicates and misleads to which console is which, like for instance a PS2 score link in an Xbox score, which really is troubling for people as it doesn't really link to the same console score." But Teancum claims, "Don't see why the multi-console review table cannot be used. Stretching it out so tall ruins the flow of the article anyway." Which of these claims is correct, and which Reception box format is the best in reviewing multiple consoles? Please help me! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Either one COULD be used, although I do prefer the one you are supporting. Chambr (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks anyway, Chambr. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thing to remember on those reception tables is not to exhaust the score format for every possible console and source, but to give a broad enough overview of the reception to be able to discuss the reception in that section. Whether that needs the long form or short form will depend, but I suspect most cases can use a short form version to simplify matters. As long as at least one aggregiator is sourced for each major platform of release (assuming such exists), the readers will be able to find the other reviews. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Use the one which makes the most sense for the particular article. I'm inclined to go with the regular review box in this particular case since most versions display similar scores. The solution to the "stretching so tall" problem is to trim the number of entries in the review box, not to switch review box formats. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • My biggest issue is that there's no need to change it, especially after passing GAN. There are so many other articles in need of real attention rather than just a preferential change. And as I stated before a vertical, non-multiplatform table in the case of X-Men Legends creates a huge amount of unused space, giving the article an unfinished look. --Teancum (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC) blacklist

Over at the Admin noticeboard there is a discussion ongoing about the blacklist. Input is appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

C-class articles

So, we have as one of our goals to get "20% of articles C-Class or better: 54.4% complete". I'm quite impressed with a statistic Sergecross73 mentioned a few sections ago: that the Square Enix project has 71% of its articles at that standard. That level of completion isn't realistic for us right now, but would anyone want to start a task force or other organized initiative to attain our 20% aspiration? Tezero (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For those curious about the numbers, that's 274/390 to 3316/5861 (20% of 29306) czar  00:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not gonna be a quick weekend job or anything, but I feel that it could be useful overall to readers in a different way from getting smaller numbers of articles to GA and FA status. (Not that I don't value that as well.) Tezero (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
As a relevant note, if anyone wants to boost a Top-class article to C-class, Sixth generation video game consoles seems like in pretty okay shape. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with Yakuza (video game)

I've been cleaning up Yakuza (video game) and I've been wondering. Should the characters section be kept? I also have some doubts but better leave it to the peer review.Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no. Just mention the characters in the plot that need to be mentioned. The list as is doesn't seem to provide anything of real value that wouldn't be presented in the prose. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I've never played the game (I ought to add it to my list) but I'd say the value rests on whether there's background or other information on the characters that would further the reader's understanding of the story and the game's place in the series' chronology but would disrupt the flow of the Story section or bloat it. Your call. Tezero (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit for Good Game - (Australian gaming show)

Hi Wikiproject Video Games. I started heavily working on this article Good Game a while back, but unfortunately I often struggle with the copyediting side of things. I'm good at collecting sources and doing info dumps, but I just find it hard to get rid of any information once it's in there. I know it is a bit of a mess so I was wondering if anyone would mind going through it and helping me fix it up. I would be really grateful. This is a show I am really passionate for, so as well as Wikipedia having awesome information on a TV show, it would be a personal win as well. :)--Coin945 (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Deathrow FAC

I'm looking for a final review (or two) on the Deathrow FAC, if you can take a moment this Sunday. It's a quick read (maybe even fun?) and doesn't have any boring minutiae. czar  13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Likely not reliable, but...

Could either of these two be useful for the Sonic: After the Sequel article? I've never heard of either site, and neither is listed anywhere on WP:VG/RS. The first one's author, Mat Growcott, "has been a long-time member of the gaming press"... according to Mat Growcott, presumably. The second author, Casey Scheld, also looks to have done a decent number of reviews. Not sure if either of these sites is recognized much by its peers, though. I wouldn't be using them for factual information, only to bolster points about the critical consensus regarding the game, similar to how Cheat Code Central was accepted for Big the Cat's article. Tezero (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

For the same article, I'm aware that forum posts are tolerated if they're deemed reliable, and these are from the developer of the game himself, but this thread details fixing various glitches and things... is that likely to be anything above trivial? Tezero (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WT:VG/RS is the place to take discussion about those first two. I wouldn't trust their reliability. Same for Growcott just yet. Forum posts are sometimes okay as self-published sources when no other info is available about a topic, but very rarely. czar  01:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
(Yes, and even CCC's use as a course was met with more of an "indifference" than a real "approval", really. )Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I've gone without either of them. Tezero (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability criteria for inclusion of videogame review websites?

Hi, this is about a videogame developer called "Bplus" with a less than stellar track record: Its past games have not been reviewed well, with typical metacritic scores between 44 and 52: [14], [15], [16], [17].

Now this company has released a new game called "Bit Boy!! Arcade", where there aren't yet enough reviews to warrant a metacritic rating, but it's not looking good either: [18].

This videogame creator has its own promotional page on the web where it seem oblivious to its track record, featuring lots of positive reviews from pages that I have never heard of: [19]. Which is fine, of course they can do whatever they wish on their own website.

But please take a look at this article: Bit Boy!! Arcade. In the section "Reception", the same pattern of only featuring overly positive reviews is present. ("received almost only positive reviews", quickly followed by "universal praisal").

Now I've asked several of the big videogame review sites to review this game. All of them declined. So there are only reviews from small review sites. And these small review websites are all conspicuously positive. So this is a question about "not enough good data". There is data, but it might be tainted, or obscure.

My question: Are there inclusion guidelines how notable a review website must be to be included in a reception section?

Or my question In other words: can I create a videogame that is so obscure as not to be reviewed by the big boys, get a few positive nods from unknown review websites, and then write on my wikipedia article that I've "received almost only positive reviews" and "universal praisal"?

Thanks. Srezz (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

For games with Metacritic/GR scores in the 50% are, it's simply WP:Undue weight to state the reviews were mostly or exclusively positive. In the case of the latest release, it may not be considered notable if it hasn't been covered by any major publications, which may solve the problem itself. However, if the reviewers were notable and had been bribed to give positive reviews, we would still have to acknowledge them and note the game's universal or near-universal positive reception. Perhaps it's unethical for the developer (although I personally think the whole giving-scores process is bunk anyway and this is what you get as a consumer when you rely too much on numbers), but it's similarly unreasonable for us to try to judge the game's quality ourselves rather than simply summarize the available reviews. Tezero (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Srezz: Short answer to last question: no. Long answer: nooooooooooooo. The Nintendo World Report and NintendoLife reviews are ostensibly okay. The other ones not on the WP:VG/RS list should be removed, or at least debated on the list's talk page. You'd be in the right to remove the unreliable sources as of now. Two sources may be enough to keep the article at AfD, but if there is literally no other coverage (I haven't looked), the article might be better off redirected elsewhere. czar  20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I took some of the content out, but I'm not going to try to rewrite the article. There are editors that are willing to work with games that have that few usable reviews, but I am not one of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Great answers, thanks! Srezz (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


I like how we have 8 FACs and only 3 GANs. Tezero (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I only do reassessments. It's all you guys fault for wanting this project to be more presentable. I'm just here to take the shiny stars aways. Gosh. GamerPro64 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that it has something to do with that FACs take longer. Face-wink.svg Sven Manguard Wha? 01:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not necessarily true; plenty of GANs have been up with no review since 2013. Maybe it's that we've gotten especially efficient with ours lately, while FACs tend to take a set amount of time. Oh, and it's 2 GANs now, heh. Tezero (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Mhmm, yes. It would appear that mine was passed. I shall have to write another one. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm waiting to finish Sonic X, which should be tonight, before I resume working on Sonic character articles. I expect to have another GAN up within a few days. Tezero (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of FACs, from oldest to newest:

  • Flotilla (video game) (nom) - 6 weeks old, 3 supports, 1 oppose, image review yes, source review yes, 1 review not concluded
  • Sega CD (nom) - 6 weeks old, 2 supports, image review yes, source review no, 2 reviews not concluded
  • Charlie Murder (nom) - 4 weeks old, 0 supports, image review yes, source review yes, 1 review not concluded
  • Wisp (Sonic) (nom) - 3 weeks old, 5 supports, 2 opposes, image review no, source review no, 1 review not concluded
  • Deathrow (video game) (nom) - 3 weeks old, 3 supports, image review yes, source review yes
  • Sega Saturn (nom) - 3 weeks old, 0 supports, image review yes, source review yes, 1 review not concluded
  • List of Mass Effect media (FLC nom) - 2 weeks old, 1 support

Please drop by one or more of these, even if it's just for an image/source review- the oldest three especially could use some love, as no one wants to see articles set there for months only to have to take another run at it. --PresN 17:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Updated the list. Specific call-outs for older noms: GTA5 looks fine; Flotilla could really use another full review or two; Infinity Blade needs an image review and a source review- remember that they don't take as long as a full review does. --PresN 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Updated again- Infinity Blade really, really needs an image and a source review, while Sega CD and Charlie Murder need some full reviews. --PresN 17:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I've put down part of a source review. Never done one before, but since no one else is taking it... Tezero (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I was planning to do the IB extra reviews this weekend. I'll do the image review now czar  22:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wisps is in a weird place: it's kept both of its opposes from the beginning (hahnchen still thinks it's not notable and indopug just isn't interested in coming back), but has gone from zero to four five supports. I really wish there was an easy way to clear this up. Tezero (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Updated again; only changes are that GTA5 and Infinity Blade passed, and that Wisp got +5 supports. That said, 4/5 supports are all quick supports with a small bit of commentary, and as much as it officially doesn't matter the supports don't seem to be from people that the directors will recognize as usually giving thorough reviews even if their commentary is short, so it's not as well off as a numbers count would say. I'd try to get CalvinK to dome back and !vote. Flotilla needs to get Czar's oppose addressed, and Sega CD needs more reviews. --PresN 23:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That's true, though one of Wisps' opposes is from a user who doesn't seem interested in coming back (and her [?] concerns have been demonstrably fixed) and the other has nothing to do with quality (I also feel I've responded adequately to that one, but who knows), so I'm really not sure what to think. Thanks for the Calvin help, though. As for Flotilla, talk to czar about that; I remember him offering at the FAC to copyedit the article if no one else would. Tezero (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in ur sections, updatin ur FAC lists. I've also added a VG FLC. Incidentally, I saw a confirmation from FAC director Ian Rose as to what exactly you need (generally) to get an FAC promoted- 3 substantive (non-driveby) reviews with supports (usually 4, though), no un-addressed actionable opposes, and source/image reviews. This is similar to FLC, by the way- there it's 3 or 4 supports, no un-addressed actionable opposes, and the FLC director who promotes it has to agree that it's good enough. --PresN 18:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I've long had the impression that FACs were typically quicker, but maybe that's because they don't really draw any prose-related complaints. Tezero (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
FLCs, you mean? FLC used to be 2-3 weeks (like, 2 years ago) but now its typically about 6 weeks start to finish if you don't run into major rewrite issues (most don't). The whole process kinda ground to a halt this past month, though, so there are a few 2 month+ nominations down at the bottom. --PresN 19:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone near or know anyone near the Atari burial site?

They've affirmed that the site in New Mexico holds the old ET and other Atari carts - it would nice to get some (Free) pictures from the event. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to move some influences around to get my hands on some free pics. Though as far as I know, only authorized people can go in at the dig site. → Call me Hahc21 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Weird, I read reports saying it was open to the public (at least, to areas at the fringes of the site). But there's definitely a lot of twitter images going by with the evidence. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I would be surprised if there weren't a bunch of photos uploaded to Flickr in the next few days. Ping me if you'd like me to contact a few. czar  19:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Do we have an article on this yet? There are a lot of sites covering it, The Verge, ArsTechnica, etc. --Nicereddy (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
We have this. GamerPro64 03:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if we can contact Larry Hryb (@majornelson on twitter) and ask about getting access to one of the pictures he took under a CC-BY-SA license. He seems fairly responsive to fan messages, and I can't imagine this'd be seen as negative for the documentary Microsoft are making. --Nicereddy (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I sent him a message. As for the article, it would make sense to first build out the Excavation section and then spin it off summary style if it gets too large. czar  03:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
For the less knowledgeable (like me), or less psychic, this is about Atari video game burial#Excavation. Whoops Face-blush.svg Just noticed there is a link in ProGamer64's comment. :-\ --220 of Borg 03:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
ProGamer64… Not sure if that'll be the cause of me changing my username here or not. GamerPro64 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Voilà: commons:Category:Atari video game burial czar  19:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks! --MASEM (t) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
These are some pretty impressive images we have at our disposal. Think any of them can survive a bout at FPC? GamerPro64 20:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Boss Fight Books

I just added that I have copies of the books Chrono Trigger and Earthbound from Boss Fight Books ([20]) to the book section of the reference library and thought I'd post here to 1) let people know if they want information from them (mainly the new interviews are the new information) and 2) remind people that the video game reference library is a thing that exists, and if you have or want bits from physical/digital books/magazines, you should totally post them there/ask people there for them. --PresN 21:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles on Generations of video game consoles

Fourth generation video game consoles for instance. All eight of them have had their names changed with no consensus that I can find. They've all had the "s" removed from the end of the title, and I feel like this is not accurately representative of the articles content.--SexyKick 18:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make the moves, but I kind of support it. According to the MoS, article names should be singular whenever possible, and this move enforces that. Can the article be logically updated to reflect a singular subject? If so, it should be singular. Otherwise, I guess it should be plural. But whoever did it should have left the plurals in place as redirects AND reworked the leads so they reflected the new name of the article. They also should have discussed it first too. So, I support the move, but not the way it was handled. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, he did this before and they had to be reverted and was told to cut it out. BcRIPster (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
These articles have been moved twice in the last month or two, both times with no discussion that I'm aware of. Always possible I missed something though. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
He did this move after trying to get an consensus back in 2012. Unilaterally made the changes, they were changed back. It looks like he just sat around waiting for the dust to settle and did it again with out discussion. BcRIPster (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Sneaky. Who was it? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
InternetMeme. I already posted a complaint to his Talk page and moved them back. I noticed he also changed their templates from VG History to Video Game. Not sure what to do about that yet. BcRIPster (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
He actually did re-writes of the tops of the pages as well, for more than just "grammer" as he indicated in his comments. Can someone simply apply a bulk revert to these pages back to before his renaming pass or does this need to be done manually? I mean, I guess, we're only talking 8 pages, and I've already started undoing... BcRIPster (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Still working on 4 and 7, other people slipped edits in while he was making his changes and I need to pick through the diffs. BcRIPster (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Harizotoh9 moved the paged on April 20th, from the original "History of video game console" format to the current "x generation video game consoles". I may have missed a discussion but didn't think there was one. -- ferret (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Harizotoh9's edits just fell in the middle of this, this has been going on since 2012. If you look at InternetMeme's talk page you can see he did this twice before, at the least (without scanning his contribs), going back to 2012 and was asked to cut it out. There was also an attempt to work it out at the time on this page but he didn't seem to want to participate from what I can tell. BcRIPster (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
These articles should be at "History of video game consoles (x generation)". We've established from the past that the current industry scheme for generation numbering is, in part, influenced by how we called it, so its a very inform system. As such, breaking them up as parts of a larger History narrative is better representation of the generation concept noting how it does lack any official means or designation (as well as how we include handhelds and other developments). --MASEM (t) 19:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
That's may be the case but that's what he changed them to the first two times and they were reverted. This latest move didn't even follow that form so I'm not sure if that's relevant at the moment. There were also major changes made to the head of each article changing templates and and removing referenced date spans from some of the articles. Note that the second complaint from December 2012 also featured him being told then that this was rising to the level of WP:ANI. I just reviewed his history back to where he started doing this in November 2012 to try and understand what is going on. MASEM Can you point to where this decision on "History of video game consoles (x generation)" was made? BcRIPster (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There were these edits as well in conjunction with the above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Just took care of them too. BcRIPster (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been reviewing this users past some. It seems like he does a lot of blasting through, changing things as he sees fit on pages, not following conventions, etc... when he feels the current versions don't make sense to him and generally upsetting people along the way. I was a bit frustrated to see him fishing for support and in my eyes, miss-characterizing what he's been doing in his message on Smuckola's Talk page. I've invited him both through his and Smuckola's Talk pages to swing over here and engage the community on the subject. I guess we'll see what happens next. BcRIPster (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

help Can someone help unravel all these template changes he made?

  • Template:Video game development
  • Template:VG Industry
  • Template:VG History
BcRIPster (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I find this rather irritating. I've given InternetMeme 2 formal, stern warnings against changing these very article titles unless he discusses and finds consensus first. He should absolutely know better. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I changed VG History to correct the reverted links. Video game development looks like it as a test stub he built, them merged to VG Industry. The VG Industry changes seem innocuous but should of had some kind of discussion. I left that one alone though for now but honestly it probably needs revisited. On a secondary note, has anyone looked at all of his WP:EASTEREGG edits? I read a dozen or so and it's no wonder he's getting heat from other editors. I've never run into something like this before and I'm not really convinced he's really making valid choices with this sweep he's doing and he's push back on people who revert his changes. I hate being this way, but someone probably needs to escalate this for review by a higher power. I'm going to sit on this overnight and may write up a complaint to WP:ANI for review but I'm really interested in hearing from everyone else. Anyone else have thoughts here? BcRIPster (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to enter the chaos that is ANI, I've already blocked him for a week. Per WP:BRD, you're all within your rights to revert his changes if they're disagreed upon. He still has talk page access, so you can discuss on his talk page if he actually decides to use it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
That's fine then, Sergecross73, I'll follow your lead on this if you think that is adequate. FWIW, I just saw Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever just changed the titles to insert the word "of" then changed them right back. Not sure what that was all about. BcRIPster (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I did that because I want to create redirects. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 20:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You know you don't have to move a page to create a new redirect to it though, right? BcRIPster (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So why aren't these sitting at "History of video game consoles (x generation)" again? They shouldn't have been moved without consensus czar  20:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 moved those page titles from "History of video game consoles (x generation)" to "Xth generation video game consoles". Did he ever post a comment about that? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 20:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Czar, I personally support putting them back, as did Masem above. I was just hoping someone else would do it, I'm a little short on time at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You should tell Harizotoh9 why did he move the names of articles on generations of video game consoles. You should do that here. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 20:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I'd do it myself, but it's a technical move and requires the bit. Here's my draft edit summary, if you'd like: "article was moved without consensus, replacing per conversation at WT:VG—please discuss on talk page before unilateral action on a WPVG top-importance page" czar  20:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: Did you respond to my comments yet? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 20:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Harizotoh9 has already been pinged about the conversation, if that's what you mean. Any other admonition would be beating a dead horse—the users involved know by now that page moves that have the smallest possibility of being contested should be discussed on the talk page first. Otherwise, this is standard bold, revert, discuss. czar  21:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Czar! I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 21:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so where does this leave us and why is there a hold/block on the old redirect pages preventing the move back to that title? I'd also like to get them back to the original state as well and I've got some time to do the fixes today. I'm surprised that Harizotoh9's changes didn't get caught until now as well. BcRIPster (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Either an admin performs the technical move (over the redirects that have edit histories), or an admin approves the {{db-move}}s I have set up and I do the technical moves. It'll be done soon. I think this thread is more or less wrapped up, no? czar  22:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that should about do it then. Thanks. BcRIPster (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Titles like History of video game consoles (first generation) are just bad... It doesn't follow the "Naturalness", "Conciseness" and "Recognizability" aspects of Wikipedia:Article titles. --Nouill (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Nouill: I agree with you. (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
While these titles are a bit clunky, using more precise ones would require use to strip us the info on handhelds and other facets of non-console hardware; with the present format, this is more apps for use to break out the history of all VG hardware, which includes those handhelds and others. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
What about appending them by years like on {{History of video games}}? So History of video game consoles (first generation) would be History of video game consoles (1972–1980). Also, I noticed that the talk pages for these history articles didn't get moved. History of video game consoles (first generation)'s talk page is still at Talk:First generation video game consoles, as are the others.-- 05:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Watson uses WP content to debate violent video games

FYI czar  07:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys, let's talk about this. "List of commercial failures in video gaming"

Some background first: The page List of commercial failures in video gaming has been around forever starting out as a battleground where people commonly posted failure entries for whatever systems and software they wanted to bash (eg, Microsoft vs Sony and everything from Nintendo was a failure, sigh). Given that many of us felt is was a truly viable topic for expansion, there was a significant clean up that also introduced a scope statement to constrain the hardware section of the list. Since then, the hardware part of the page has been pretty stable but ten years later, the software section still doesn't have a similar scope statement.

In light of the recent discussion that was triggered on the talk page on the subject, we've had a couple of opinions, initiated by a complaint from an IP user that did nothing more than post the complaint (sigh). In the ensuing conversation the concept of comparing this to a list of movie failures set me to thinking and I went over to see what the comparable movie pages look like (eg, Box office bomb / List of box office bombs ).

I know we don't have the same level of raw financial data as easily on hand for video games as the movie guys seem to have but I'm inspired by how they've tackled the topic. So, if you're inclined, please stop by and join the discussion. I'm not suggesting some super star go build out a comparable set of pages. I'm just looking for a larger input pool to see where this goes and if we can improve the page quality. Thanks for your patience in reading through this and I'm eager to read everyone's thoughts. BcRIPster (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The list is determined by arbitrary editor standards rather than any set criteria. There's not a single MMO on the list, yet pretty much everything Tim Schafer has touched is on there. Okami's "least commercially successful winner of a game of the year award" doesn't actually equate to commercial failure. Nor do MadWorld's disappointing sales, or EarthBound's not-homerun. The sources are poor too, I don't think any of the Earthbound sources are good enough to deem the game a "commercial failure". I'd keep the list to obvious stuff like APB, Hellgate: London, Glitch and Udraw, where a game's failure can be clearly sourced and so can its outcome. A game falling short of publisher expectation is not strong enough a criteria for listing on the page, or it'd be absolutely full of them. - hahnchen 22:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make myself. Please feel free to replicate your comments in the discussion over there as I think it benefits everyone to have consolidation on this feedback. My worst fear is that too few people participate on this discussion and end up leaning towards a definition that has been worked to fit the current list of titles instead of the other way around. BcRIPster (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article is way too general. We seriously need to trim it down to what we can actually verify are "commercial failures." - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cathryn Mataga

Would anyone have any reliable sources to add to this about Cathryn Mataga (born and most often credited as William Mataga) who worked as a video game programmer for more than 20 years for Broderbund, SSI, and more? BOZ (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I searched and found nothing in reliable sources outside of this mention in a Gamasutra article. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I added that, thanks. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Sailor Moon merge

Hi everyone. An RfC has been started a couple of weeks ago regarding the possible merger of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RfC. Your input on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Computer and Video Games website faces closure

Future are reorganising their web properties, C&VG faces closure.[21] We have around 3000 links to the site. - hahnchen 18:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick check shows we do have available for a few spot-checked links. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, dear. Don't we have access to a service that archives things proactively? Tezero (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean, unless CVG pulls the robots.txt that Gamespot did, we can use links for archiveurls just fine should the CVG site go down permanently . We should still consider archiving the links we do have via webcite for example. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about infobox release dates

In considering an extreme case such as the present Telltale episodic games (like The Walking Dead: Season Two) where there are multiple episodes and multiple platforms (and arguably multiple regions, NA + EU), I really would like to see if we can find a way to limit how much we have about release dates in the infobox in favor of pushing as much of the excessive (but still verifiable) data to the article's Development section even if this means carving out a table for the most complex cases. TWD may be atypical, but even for a normal multiplatform game, you've got 2 axes: the platform and the region, that can create anywhere from 4 to 12 different release dates, depeneding.

I'm personally one of those that feels that a release "window" is how the industry considers dates - that a game that releases within the same week though not necessarily on the same day across multiple platforms/regions is still being released, for all purposes, "simultaneously", which as such should simply things as they work in the infobox. Rarely is the difference by a day or so going to make a big difference (and where it does, this can be highlighted via sourcing elsewhere). But how to define this to be simpler in the infobox with a set of consistent rules-of-thumb is where I can't easily draw a line. If I had my optimal way, I'd consider the first day of release on any platform in each region to be the primary dates to present, with all other dates summarized later. For remakes (like the resent number of HD ones) that would be appropriate to mark as a separate date step, but things like Apsyr ports of PC games to Mac (as one example) would not be.

The reason is two fold - first, to simply the data in the infobox in the first place. Second, this is to avoid having release date inline references flooding the infobox (look at the source for TWDS2 and you'll see what I mean). Lead sections - including infoboxes - don't need sourcing as long as the sourcing exists elsehwere, and we should always be mentioning the release dates in the Development section, so the sourcing can be offloaded there. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. I think when you have a hammer infobox every release date looks like a nail. It would be enough to mention either the first date (especially if they're close enough) or I'd say even to use just month+year (e.g., December 2013). Main thing with TWDST is that it has those citations, but ostensibly those can/should be offloaded into the prose anyway. Even without the refs, that infobox is the epitome of unwieldy. Didn't we come to some local consensus along these lines recently? Don't remember where czar  16:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

L Final Fantasy Dimensions uses the initial release on the infobox, while Final Fantasy IV: The After Years uses the first and last. Both however use a table to list every single episode release. Perhaps that could be a happy medium. Lucia Black (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A table in the article body is perfectly fine, and again, we should have the accurate dates in the dev section regardless. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I do like the idea for episodic games that the release dates should be the first to last episode release period within the infobox, offloading other dates to a table. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Individual Pokémon

I have created a new discussion on whether to merge several Pokémon to their respective List of Pokémon articles. I understand that some people may feel reluctant to participate since we just finished the Sonic characters discussion, but I think that this is the optimal time to discuss these articles that come up time and time again in notability discussions. Jucchan (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that. Jucchan (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Sonic characters

Hello all. There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters regarding the notability of individual Sonic the Hedgehog characters, and whether or not certain articles should be merged. The thread is "Notability". Best, Mz7 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

More input would definitely be appreciated, as both main conversations are basically split around the 50/50 at this point.
  1. The discussion of merging various side-characters of the Sonic series is here.
  2. The discussion of merging an article about a singular level from a Sonic game, the "Green Hill Zone", is here.
Thanks to anyone who can help. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Too bad discussions that actually address WP:N in detail seem to scare facilitators into quick-closing. I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up. Tezero (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It was open for a week. That's pretty standard practice... Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
But it's not standard practice to close something if critical discussion is still ongoing. Artichoker[talk] 19:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I can kind of understand closing, say, Gamma's, Omega's, and the Rogues' anyway, as there was a pretty clear consensus that wouldn't likely have been helped by Niemti's and my points about what WP:N actually says. As for the rest, though, I'm really not happy. Tezero (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If people from outside here were invited to participate in this discussion, you can bet they would tell you're being absurd with your memetic misunderstanding of Wikipedia and the articles are perfectly okay. Go and see some average non-VG character article on Wikipedia, randomly. For example, when I purged Bond characters (there used to be like over 100 of the articles there), I wasn't even allowed to do it with Le Chiffre because reasons (the tags are mine, and one article that I created instead of merging is Wai Lin for a comparison) and a quite typical reaction looks like that (but at that point I've already stopped caring). Nobody acts like that, outside of here. That's just a ridicalous level of overzealousness, and a lack of respect for some people's hard work of trying to make proper articles. --Niemti (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pokemon navbox mess

There current organization of the pokemon navbox templates is a mess. Considering that there is Pokémon (video game series) and Pokémon (anime), i propose keeping anime/manga information separate from the video games by merging template:Pokémon spin-offs with template:Pokémon and splitting the anime/manga info into template:Pokémon anime and manga. Thoughts? Lucia Black (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it may be worth while having a chat with that @Niemti: fella. He's our resident navbox cleaner-upper. - X201 (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not knowledgable in anything Pokemon. --Niemti (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I meant in a provide tips sense. Things you've done to get other big navboxes under control. - X201 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC) is so huge it's too intimidating to even look at it. I say you've certaainly got to change it into several sub-templates, it alone exceeds 7 kb which is ridicalous. Then you have links to the other templates at the bottom. I once did something like that with for example (notice the 'see also' links to the novel, film, music etc. templates that I also made). This inter-template linking also can be made better as in (look at where "characters" was). Maybe: Main template - video gmes (including spin offs) - other media. Or just everything else - manga & anime like LB said. Whatever works better. --Niemti (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of such a title to such a user in this wiki project. Nonetheless Everyone can do navbox cleaning, but because this involves making more drastic changes and involving more than one navbox, i thought it would be best to ask the whole wikiproject before making the bold edits myself. Lucia Black (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Tales of characters

I created an article for Luke fon Fabre as I've been playing Abyss and found enough real world information about him. What surprised me is that this is the first Tales character article. There are lists but no articles. Still, I can't work in any other since I don't have much knowledge about the series. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:VG may be in for a drastic downsizing of its character coverage, if this notability discussion ends in some kind of formal precedent. (Well, I'm being optimistic: it could also be that people here just hate Sonic and the discussion is never spoken of elsewhere.) Tezero (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed this too; I saw you added Luke to a somewhat awkward part of the tales template, and was going to change it, and then realized that you had done that because there wasn't a character section to put him in... Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy Talk:Luke fon Fabre#Notability.Tintor2 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
One other character I believe could have his own article is Yuri Lowell from Vesperia. I keep hearing how outstanding the character is a MC and even the staff acknowledged it. However, I'm not really good finding articles (that are not reviews) about the character. I wonder if User:New Age Retro Hippie is familiar with the series or has collected a group of sources knowing how good he is.Tintor2 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I've got a couple of references from an acceptable site for both Yuri and Luke. They are interviews with their English voice actors by RPGSite (I have checked and it seems admissible as a reference site for GA and FA articles). This is the interview with Yuri Lowenthal (that has a slight titbit about the character Yuri's name in there), and these two are a two-part interview with Troy Baker, Yuri's voice actor. Does that help with the western side of the story? I can also scout around for references on Yuri Lowell. I'm quite good at finding things like that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the interview.Tintor2 (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much at all about Yuri or Tales of in general, but I do know that I have seen Yuri mentioned a few times in my journey. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I would think there's enough out there for Lloyd too, between the popularity of his game in English sources, and its recent HD re-release. Just speaking in general terms though, it's an untested theory... Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Had a thorough look-round, but I can't find anything about Yuri. That interview is the only thing about him. The Tales series as a whole, whether it be games or characters, hasn't gotten as much close attention as things like Drakengard, Kingdom Hearts or Final Fantasy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This may sound hypocritical coming from me, but I think it'd probably be best for us to improve as many existing characters and merging/redirecting ones that fall short. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not hypocritical at all. It's sound common sense. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What I found about Yuri is that he waas voted seventh best character by Famitsu readers. I wonder if reviews of the game mention the character a lot.Tintor2 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Tintor2: look at the #36 here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I made a Google doc listing all of the characters that may or may not need help improving their notability. I left off some that were rather obvious (and included some that were rather obvious), and I think that interested content creators should assist in the effort and take a break from creating new content like I am going to do. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@New Age Retro Hippie, did you intend to link said gdoc? czar  18:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I just want to organize it better before I link it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is the list. I tried to organize it, though I left the "Others" section of characters kind of disorganized. Anyone who participates in the cleanup/review process will be granted access to edit the document if they want. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I know you're not saying they're not notable but I just want to point out what I think, and of course everyone can help to decide if they are good enough to stands on its own, right now. I may note that I improved (or tried to improve) some of those so you can't say New Age Retro Hippie was so much strictly. I disagree (more or less depending o the character but) regarding (all) the following characters:
  • Agent 47: GamesRadar 47th "most memorable, influential, and badass" protagonist in video games; one of the most notorious anti-heroes according to IGN and The Daily Telegraph; Empire's 21st "greatest video game character"; WhatCulture isn't that good but...
  • Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad: 24th best character on 2011 Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition, and 4th best Xbox character by The Age. IGN's "Stars' 2007 Badasssss!" award; IGN said he is "more realistic and efficient version of the Prince" (with sure a classic character), and also listed him as one of the most overrated character (through by possible fail thought to be overrated implies he is considered by many a great character).
  • Captain Olimar: The Observer's "The 10 best video-game characters". Expected to appear in Super Smash Bros. and praised for its appearance on it (and criticized too). His omission in Pikmin 3 was also commented.
  • Captain Price: included in Game Informer's "30 Characters Who Defined a Decade", 2011 Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition, 8th on The Age's "The Top 50 Xbox Characters of All Time", GamesRadar's "Best game characters of the generation" and 8th "most memorable, influential, and badass" protagonist in video games.
  • Daxter: except for, MSN Entertainment, WhatCulture, and the Ready At Dawn's president, all 8 other sources are listed at WP:VG/S (I would say those are reasonable sources and they are used in several of our articles, though). And, they're not merely mention or something like that... Best character of 2002 by GDC. IGN, GameSpy and Game Informer consider him one of the best sidekicks in video games.
  • Ezio Auditore da Firenze: included in the 2011 Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition, GameSpot's "Best New Character" in 2009, an award and a nomination at the 2010 Spike Video Game Awards. Seventh "most memorable, influential, and badass" protagonist in games according to GamesRadar, which also placed him among the 4 best game characters of the generation.
  • Frank West (Dead Rising): Popular in the West, says Seth Killian, Capcom community manager. Among The Age's "The Top 50 Xbox Characters of All Time", UGO Networks's "Top Heroes in Entertainment", GameDaily's "Top 25 Capcom Characters of All Time", GamesRadar's "100 best heroes in video games, "The 30 best Capcom characters of the last 30 years", and "Best game characters of the generation".
  • Garrett (Thief character): except for Blistered Thumbs and Cheat Code Central, all other sources are excellent. GameSpot's "Ten Best Heroes in Gaming", GamesTM's "The Greatest Ever Game Characters", Empire's "The 50 Greatest Video Game Characters", GamesRadar's "100 best heroes in video games", PC Zone's ninth best character in PC gaming history.
  • Navi (The Legend of Zelda): the "Reception" is fairly decent enought although it mainly focus on her nuisance (but after all it isn't her main role haha). There's praise from The Escapist and IGN, too. (Wow, and it's incredibly to see how Ganon's article was neglected in comparison to other Zelda's characters)
  • The Nameless One: maybe there's some undue-weight on Kasavin's review, but it's valid. Both Empire and GamesRadar called him one of the best characters of video game history, as well as did RPGFan declaring him "as a character, The Nameless One exceeds every video game protagonist to date." Eurogamer's best Male Lead Character in 2000.
  • Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank): comments regarding his intial attitude, with both praise and criticism, and then his devolpment. (It's interesting to see that Clank (Ratchet & Clank) is somewhat better than this one even Ratchet is the protagonist)
  • Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell): 2011 Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition, The Age's "The Top 50 Xbox Characters of All Time", GamesRadar's 37th "most memorable, influential, and badass" protagonist in video games, PC Zone's eighth worst character in PC gaming history.
  • Sweet Tooth (Twisted Metal): GamesRadar, PlayStation Official Magazine and Joystick Division (not sure about the latter)'s best clown lists. Among IGN's most notorious anti-heroes, Entertainment Weekly's coolest videogame characters, UGO Networks's "Best Twisted Metal Characters and Their End Game Videos", GameSpy's top villains in games. Icon/mascot of the series (according to reviewers, not me).
  • Tommy Vercetti: a project of "Influences and analysis", and excellent reception: IGN and CraveOnline listed him as one of the best GTA characters, and The Age as one of the best Xbox characters. GameDaily, The Daily Telegraph, and PlayStation Beyond (the latter probably not good) list him as one of the best anti-heroes.

--Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

    • This is not just a matter of notability or verifiability, it's also a list of characters based on work needing done. A lot of these are a matter of strong reception, but limited reception. I'm not trying to imply that these articles aren't going to have the sources that they need, I'm saying that they need to be stronger. Also, the Olimar justification is kind of weak. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      • They DON'T "need to be stronger", seriously to hell with this stupid meme. I just skipped through your list. You know where Heather has more of the "lack of" sources? Here: (and more). You know what Garrett (Thief character) ACTUALLY needs? EVERYTHING BUT THE RECEPTION. And so on. Jesus. --Niemti (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Niemti, you're clearly not in this discussion to provide a valid contribution to the discussion, so do me a favour and don't reply to this unless you're prepared to treat this as a discussion and not some kiddy GameFAQs flame war. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • In conclusion: this farcical meme must die already. --Niemti (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
            • Niemti, I'll ask again: please choose to participate in an even remotely civil way, or stop trying to troll this discussion. (PS: only one of these constitutes a valid choice) - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
              • It's not 'trolling'. Ask basically anyone not infected with this meme and they'll tell you how it works for the whole rest of Wikipedia (where people don't have such invented 'problems'). You don't even see such discussions ANYWHERE else. Also, the people like me and Gabriel Yuji are already policing the character articles and actively merging/redirecting these that actually do fail the standards (one recent example: tagged by me, redirected by GY). We also work on these articles. So you can leave it with us. --Niemti (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN - I do not leave articles with someone who flagrantly violates both of these guidelines. Further, I should hope that if I left the act of creating, merging, and/or redirecting articles (which you seem to think this is a key component of the list or the discussion) with you, that you would stop using really, really bad sources as you are want to do.
                  • So again, Niemti. I invite you to perhaps what is literally the first response in any discussion by you that isn't about you being snide, condescending, insulting, and/or disrespectful. If you can't do that, then I'll tell you what any other member will: you could contribute the best content to this project, and your absence would be a blessing if you can't even respond to others without acting like a self-righteous ass. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • What are these "really, really bad sources", you not-"self-righteous ass"? Okay, yes, I am guilty of sometimes using Kotaku (but remember their motto, "at least we're not Rock Paper Shotgun"). --Niemti (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
                      • As I said, the below. I went through and cleaned out around seven articles for untested and flat-out unreliable sources, of which you had contributed to all of them. Anyway, congrats Niemti. As per usual, your participation in a discussion caused harm to Wikipedia. I will no longer be replying to you in this discussion, as you have made it clear that you will not make a single valuable reply and will do nothing more than the typical troll behaviour that should have gotten you permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia months ago. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

PlayStation Universe, YouTube, Tekken fansites, Gaming Front, Screw Attack, Joystick Division, Blistered Thumbs. Trust me Niemti, you're on way too high of a horse considering how many flaws existed in articles that you've put so much effort into. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to another popular but false meme, there's nothing wrong with "YouTube" (Wikipedia:YOUTUBE), it all depends on the uploader and the content (and the same goes for the social media such as Facebook and Twitter that are also included in the same meme). As for ScrewAttack, there were some user blogs posted but I think we've removed them all by now (a recent example: [22]). "Tekken fansites"? But thanks for the dose of insults, threats, and this cute "harm to Wikipedia." --Niemti (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
User:New Age Retro Hippie, User:Gabriel Yuji ProtoDrake. I managed to create Yuri's article but it still needs work to expand appearances and it would be in great need of character creation information.Tintor2 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, since I suspect that Niemti will seek to destroy any attempt at conversation on the subject, @Tezero:, @Czar:, and @Gabriel Yuji:, I'd like to at the very least work with you all at tightening up the articles. Especially considering how many bad sources exist on a number of these articles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh-oh, "destroy any attempt at conversation" (next goal: to "destroy Wikipedia", after "harming Wikipedia"). I'd like to assure you I only seek to "destroy" false memes that still continue to spread. And GY and me are actually working together. (Tezero not but only because I have no interest in Sonic.) --Niemti (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@New Age Retro Hippie: I'll help if you want, but I'm going on Wikibreak (albeit a somewhat short one) as soon as all the discussions and candidacies pertaining to articles I've worked on close, which could be in a few days. Tezero (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Niemti: and sources

Oooooh no, no, no. I'm nipping this in the bud; nothing ever comes out of these discussions and nothing ever will. Everyone is aware of "attitude problems" and Niemti will not change because some users discuss it. If Niemti violates actual rules, find an admin willing to block, or seek arbitration, but for the sake of everyone's sanities, no more vague "behavioural" discussions about Niemti on any noticeboard or project-talk-space. Thank you. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  20:14, 21 May 2014 (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.

User:Niemti has recently gotten into a dispute with me over the validity of certain sources. Instead of attempting to have them listed on the video games reliable sources page, he has declined to even defend them on their own merits. This, on top of Niemti's characteristic bad attitude and behaviour, strikes as Niemti yet again doing the things that got him in trouble in the first place. I'd like to open a discussion on the user and what to do about the behaviour. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh sweet lord a new Niemti thread. This is gonna hurt. GamerPro64 19:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • A reply like this really helps to demonstrate my point. Honestly, Niemti has been getting away with this kind of behaviour for a really, really long time. I don't want to have to not work on an article just because he will harass me if I do something that isn't to his liking. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, then since you brought up the issue here in WP:VG< what you could do is bring up the matter yourself on what makes these reliable/unreliable. If we all deem it unreliable and he continues to disrupt the process, then ask for administrative action. Lucia Black (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • This is one possibility, but it's far from ideal. Sure, I could go for administrative action if he continues to disregard the findings by WP:VG, but it would be another case of Niemti getting away in his attempts to not work with anyone else and for us having to go through that much effort just to get a user to stop. It wouldn't be the first time people have had to go to great lengths to stop Niemti from doing something. Honestly, if Niemti were to continue the way he is, I would recommend a permanent block or a topic ban for video games. No one should have to avoid articles that he works on, no one should have to take his pretty constant incivility and personal attacks, and he should not be able to so consistently ignore the community opinion on so many things. It is a net gain for him to no longer be working on the subject of video games. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't feel strongly about Niemti one way or the other, but, like Salvidrim! (talk · contribs), I would discourage discussing a user vaguely rather than on specific, easily identifiable issues. Tezero (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC) This thread is pretty hilarious. My favourite parts is how my rhetorical proposal to delete almost all Amiga references was taken seriously like if it was a proper thing to do, and how Ada Wong's article from 2010 (with "no" fansite sources! nope, no sir!) was GA-worthy stuff but then I came and "made the article poorly". --Niemti (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2014 (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.

The Subspace Emissary's Worlds Conquest

At over three and a half million words, this Super Smash Bros. Brawl fanfic is the longest of its medium ever written and surpasses numerous works of "real" literature well-esteemed for their loquacious nature. I'm thinking of creating an article for it, but I can only find four sources that look like they could be reliable - they're all (except the last) rather in-depth, though:

The only one of those I know for sure will be reliable is Kotaku... Perhaps there's more out there I just haven't been patient enough to come across. Tezero (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds to me like it would be well-placed at Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Reception and legacy. --Izno (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
That works. Despite the stereotype, I'm not wedded to things having their own pages if it really doesn't look like there's much of anything out there about them. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability of video game characters in general: one more RfC, possibly the last

Here's a link. Per suggestions, it's on a new subpage of the project's talk page so no one has to dirty their eyes. Tezero (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


I'm biased because I'm a fan, and I definitely do not want my name involved with this to avoid revenge by the fandom. Please take action as needed, probably an PROD, followed by an AfD with a "not a vote" banner. If you delete/nominate this, please make sure to have your user and talk page semi-protected for a month, and hopefully your Wikipedia account isn't linked to anything off-site. Siglemic's fans are currently posting this in chat (guess how I found out about it?), whatever happend to it WILL be noticed. Take care! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  06:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werster for a similar recent situation. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  06:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
What about Cosmo Wright? He created popular website SpeedRunsLive, which adds a bit more notability, but otherwise he would be in a similar spot. If anything, I would search for sources for them and expand the article before trying to delete, but I assume you have already tried this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As mentionned before, Cosmo is probably the only speedrunner who can make a strong claim of notability on Wikipedia; there have been numerous articles about him and his work in reliable, independant media sources (which is not the case for practically any other speedrunner). I'm thinking maybe Trihex could stand at AfD due to his many sponsorships and all but that's another matter. Siglemic sadly doesn't have any significant media coverage. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Q2 article competition/drive

I was digging around in the WTVG archives for another discussion and I came upon this discussion about a WPVG content creation competition, which sounded interesting but didn't get off the ground for want of organization. Would anyone be interested in something similar? Or a summer ("Q2", for X201 ho ho) competition? I was thinking something like restoring demoted FAs and GAs instead of something full blown like a GameCup, but I wanted to take a temperature read. Thoughts? czar  05:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Q2/Q3 actually. :-P -X201 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Anna maree manciet

Does Anna maree manciet pass GNG? I don't know what sufficient coverage is for a gamer, but Icepheonix5 is creating the page on behalf of her and it has been CSDed per A7. Thanks. Jamesx12345 08:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You can find her website here Icepheonix5 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Pair of TFD discussions for Infobox modules

I'd like to request feedback from the quorum at the TFD for Infobox StarCraft character and the TFD for Infobox Metal Gear character. They are modules used only in video game articles. A TFD for a similar template, Infobox Sonic character, closed as delete. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Marking Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion as historical

Is anyone still using Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion? I think it's being maintained for no one since article alerts supplant its helpfulness, and AA are automatic. Any opposition to marking it as historical? czar  17:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Some people prefer to be able to see the AFDs all on one page (not that I do). I don't believe there is anything similar and automated. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I have it watchlisted to monitor WP:VG AfDs - prefer to just watch these than the whole load of article alerts. Plus it updates as they come in rather than once per day. Sam Walton (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I still monitor/use it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I exclusively use WP:VG/AA and didn't know there was another way to track these. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I use it as well. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not a member of this project but I like to keep tabs on video game related deletions so I use it quite regularly.-- (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

GameSpot robots.txt?

It looks like GameSpot might have enabled robots.txt. Hopefully a false alarm. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you list why you believe this and since I don't know what a robots.txt is can you mention why this would be a problem?-- (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
(robots.txt) It prevents web crawlers (robots) from indexing a page either in part or whole. This would likely mean that GS is preventing web archivers from archiving its content. This said, GS is working fine for me in WebCite. czar  21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. WebCite still works fine, but the Wayback Machine has stopped allowing GameSpot searches. Every article with an archived GameSpot link now has to be fixed. This is going to be a serious problem with content that GameSpot no longer hosts, such as its "Behind the Games" and "TenSpot" features. And every article that uses Computer Gaming World links from the late 90s will have to be updated, as these were hosted on is blocked as well. I suspect that WPVG is going to be cleaning up this mess for years. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
So its come to this. Can we contact GameSpot and ask for this change to be reversed? It's destroying potential history and the validity of thousands of Wikipedia articles, and I imagine the writers don't want their work to be so easily lost. --Nicereddy (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've emailed GameSpot via their Contact page, I'll comment again if they reply with anything. I really hope they fix this, I hate to think of the damage this could do to thousands of articles :( --Nicereddy (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If GameSpot goes down, I think Wikipedia will need to reconsider its policy on archiving copyrighted materials. Tezero (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait, if Wayback indexed content before robots.txt was on, does Wayback wipe the archived stuff out? It'll make recent stories more a problem, but the archives not so much. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Just checked the Team Fortress Classic and Day of Defeat pages. It looks like all GameSpot archives were wiped D: --Nicereddy (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well this is a blow, but I guess it shows us the value of getting things archived by a third party like WebCite which works fine (I'm guessing) because GameSpot hasn't yet affirmatively opted out. If GameSpot wishes, it can presumably pull the plug on the WebCite archived versions of its pages too. For all we know WebCite may not yet know about GameSpot's decision. Does anyone know WebCite's policy on the grandfathering in of material now under robots.txt? -Thibbs (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
A nice alternative if a web crawler doesn't work is, which will make an archived copy of prose only on demand. I used it a couple of weeks ago with 1UP when we were afraid it was going down. It can serve as a nice backup if needed. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

# New additions. April 3, 2014.
# Too many bots, being bad.

☺ · Salvidrim! ·  13:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Gamespot has had multiple redesigns over the years and is not terribly good at keeping archived material available. At the Dishonored FAC which closed only last month, I suggested the inclusion of Gamespot's GOTY 2012 series, which despite only being a year old were already 404ed from their current website. A search for "Gamespot. Archived" returns just over 300 results, some results may not use, but this does not catch the cases where it was used without following the standard {{cite web}} parameters. It's a fucking disaster.
There's some mitigation in that WebCite still works (and its already-archived links should continue to work even if Gamespot want to exclude it in future). But our default behaviour when we find a deadlink is to go to, and without competitors, we can't really change that. We can however, prevent deadlinks from appearing in the first place, by using WebCite. But manually archiving every link is a massive chore that should be automated. And it is automated, with User:WebCiteBOT, but that only runs once in a blue moon when User:ThaddeusB is active. How is it that the only automated webcitation bot is on the Russian Wikipedia? Can we kick up some sort of fuss about this? - hahnchen 19:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason why we can't have a bot to handle sites that meet two criteria: employ a robots.txt to avoid archiving, and have "flighty" content policies (frequent redesigns, known breakages of URLs, etc.), that when they are added via a standard template to have the material tossed to webcite and the archive link added. This is a much smaller task than archiving every reference, particularly to sites that are less a problem about content retention. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd love it so much if could put an {{archiveplease}} inside of a ref and have a bot come by and archive it later; right now I try to archive my stuff with a local script but it's flaky and non-scalable. --PresN 20:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Hellknowz, you're a botter and VGpedian, what needs to happen for a replacement Webcitebot? - hahnchen 12:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I am actually pretty active now - thanks for reminding me to get WebCiteBOT back up and running... If there is an immediate need to archive GameSpot URLS, let me know and I can do a special run like I did for GeoCities and Encarta. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I had long planned to add an archive on demand feature to the bot - the "archiveplease" template idea is a very good way to implement it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
User:ThaddeusB, good to see you back. Is there any reason why Webcitebot is not running right now? Is it to do with your capacity, Webcite capacity or other server issues? - hahnchen 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The computer it was running on died. I have a new one ready to go, it is just a question of puttign aside the copuple hours necessary to set everything up. I hope to have it up and running within the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to -- good to have a army of tools available (as I've found sometimes Webcite can choke on certain page layouts and archive crud instead of the content.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I realize I may have given the wrong impression when I talked about Wikipedia's policy. I was referring to the policy against linking to direct image scans of copyrighted sites rather than its policy in favor of web archives. Tezero (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It should be mentioned that some of GameSpot's work from the late 90s and early 00s is still available: portions of the site were hosted on ZDNet during this period. I've already salvaged a few links from this cache relevant to the Looking Glass Studios topic. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm late to this, since I've been horrible at checking discussions these days, but does adding robot.txt actually wipe the archive or just make them unviewable? Similar instances to this have led me to wonder if the Wayback Machine could change their implementation to only disallow archives from the point after robots.txt was first encountered, unless of course this is their intended behavior. At least in this instance it's the same website, but this behavior seems particularly wrong when a domain name completely changes its owner and focus. —Ost (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • @Ost316: Changing the robots.txt does not wipe's internal archive of the site, it only blocks viewing to the public. If a website could be convinced to re-allow crawling through robots.txt, the old archived pages would return. Also, it is intended behavior that the robots.txt disallows historical archive viewing, including when the domain changes owner/focus. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been comments here about what a pain it is to archive. The following bookmarklets will cause the page you are currently viewing to be archived (copied from WP:Citing sources/Further considerations#Archiving bookmarklets):
Bookmarklets to create an archive of the current page
(all open the response form the archive site in a new tab or window)
Archive site Bookmarklet javascript:void(''+location.href))
WebCite javascript:void(''+escape(location.href)+'&'))
Note: WebCite requires that you provide an email address. You will need to substiture your email address for the text "" in the WebCite bookmarklet above. In addition to displaying the archive URL, WebCite will email you confirmation that the archiving has occurred.
Bookmarklets which will search for archives of the page you are currently viewing are available at: WP:Link rot#Internet archives.— Makyen (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, though this doesn't really address the robots.txt problem or older pages that weren't archived. It doesn't help casual readers and also requires editors to look at the links to archive them. I'm much more in favor resurrecting a bot that makes those archive requests, ideally adding the archive into the references that are using the citation templates and setting deadurl=no. —Ost (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering has a vast collection of working GameSpot archived pages, I think VG should get behind the growing consensus to have it removed from the edit filter. One bad sockpuppeteer spammed valid links with a bot and the site was edit filtered after some fearmongering over ads or malware (both utterly false). Currently every GameSpot link I check seems to be good with it - apparently made a snapshot of the links back in 2012-2013. And they do not disappear just because of the current Robots.txt as does. There is no "spam attack" or anything since that one incident 6 months ago - I think its time to stop purposely adding to the linkrot problem and cite it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm currently arguing with someone who has removed links from a game related article, killing one of the links. I'd fully back any movement for this. works faster than the other two. If removes even archived pages based on robots.txt then it has no more longevity to it than the original site and its worthless. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • One worry is that there's no reason to believe is going to stick around. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Is anyone a Gamespot forum member? - If so, could you please start a thread on their feedback forum pointing out the issue with, and refer them to this thread? I don't think there's any better point of contact. - hahnchen 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    I started a thread here, if anyone else wants to monitor it for updates. —Torchiest talkedits 12:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, I'm having trouble archiving and [23]. Any ideas? czar  02:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC) links working for Gamespot right now

Although I can't see any update to Gamespot's robots.txt, the Internet Archive is displaying Gamespot's archive up to and including today.*/ I have no idea whether this is a bug or by design, so if you are relying on any Gamespot references, send them through WebCite even if they're already archived. - hahnchen 13:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And it's blocked again. Looks like some temporary bug. - hahnchen 11:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Half-Life 3

Hi all, looking for some opinions. There is currently no article for Half-Life 3, likely almost entirely because of WP:CRYSTAL; there is no official announcement from Valve that the game is coming out or even being worked on. That said, there is a huge amount of reliable source coverage of the potential game, with every speculation, interview, and rumour getting a story on sites like IGN, Kotaku, and PC Gamer. After a fresh rumour of the game being worked on I thought I'd try writing an article to see how it went. The result of my efforts is here and I wanted to get some thoughts on it. Though I definitely haven't written everything that could be, do you think it's sufficient as an article considering the large amount of reliable source coverage, or is it all too speculative? Sam Walton (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I emphatically support the creation of this article. Chrono Break exists because of a trademark and people responding to it, there's no way that this can't be at least as strong as that. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think it can hold up on its own. Duke Nukem Forever has been an article since 2004. However, I expect there to be so much vandalism if it gets made. GamerPro64 20:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism shouldn't be a problem, I'm sure we can manage, after all that we've come across this far. --benlisquareTCE 20:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I can see the rumour mill going into overdrive every time a vandal edits in a release date though ;) Sam Walton (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I would personally expand the development section of the Half-Life series rather than creating a new article. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Niwi3. Go summary style czar  20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
My vote's here too. 99% sure its coming, but I'd dare not create the article until we've got confirmation on its announcement and expected ship date. This is far different from DNF as it was always known as a project in the works, but here everything for HL3 is rumor. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand that sentiment, but on the other hand I feel that the idea of "Half-Life 3" as a subject to gamers and even to the occasional non-gamer is a very real thing, regardless of whether it gets confirmed or not. I mean, we've had developers suggest certain things, such as a deaf character which would involve the use of ASL, as well as many many mentions and requests and discussions. Heck, there's also a joke about Half-Life 3 in the employee manual. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Certainly it should be a search term. Certainly we should have more than a passing mention and in fact at least 2-3 paragraphs describing the known history (as based on RS inclusion). The reason a full article now doesn't make sense is that it does invite excessive rumor mongering and duplication of material from the Half-Life series page which should stay there until we can go into more detail on what HL3 is. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, look at OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire. How much is there on those? I haven't seen any proposals to delete that one, but more information is likely to become available soon, as is the case with this. Tezero (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Once Nintendo revealed them, that made it fair game for a standalone article (though here's more where I would have kept the details with the original games until we could write more than a few paragraphs). HL3 fails all existence tests that apply, so until Valve announces it formally, creating an article would be a problem. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I dunno about "all existence tests"—there have been several reliable published articles about the informal release of information about it, which have claimed that everyone knows about it (whatever that means)—but I guess I can see why publisher acknowledgement helps. Tezero (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Although they are reliable sources, their content is useless. A few random rumors don't warrant a new article. Also, keep in mind that sites like IGN like to build hype to attract readers. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: I disagree with adding it to the Half-Life series article, as the article is already horribly bloated as it is. The article covers way too many topics and needs to be cut down, not added to. A mention of Half-Life 3 is fine, but not in place of an entire article on the subject. I think there's enough to be covered that warrants its own article, and a single section wouldn't do it justice. --Nicereddy (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
We can't yet write a full article on HL3 - literally only a few paragraphs when you distill down to RS. Once Valve announces it proper, that's different. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not all the content is useless, there are plenty of sources discussing the lack of official word on the game. I also just found an 'official' confirmation from Valve from 2006 that the game would be released, by the way: [24] Sam Walton (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make it a standalone article, make it at Development of Half-Life 3. That way, it does not imply that it is a confirmed existence. We have been working at the Film project on this idea, for high-profile films that have substantial info out, but have yet to enter production. Just a possible idea if going the article route. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was a brand new game without any existing IP to build on, I would agree with this. But we have a clear target for anything about the series that's not specific yet, the series page, so it makes better sense there. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Just a suggestion if going the article route. But if it is better as a section somewhere, by all means. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Fully support its existence. There's enough coverage, much like Kingdom Hearts 3, which has existed for years, and still does t even have a release date. (It's also survived multiple AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC))
  • I support the article, but are we definitely doing it on HL3 and not, say, Episode 3? I'm sure no one believes Ep3 is ever coming but wasn't the last word from Valve that Ep3 would be the next title? Яehevkor 14:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I ended up including both in the lead for that reason, but considering that most sources refer to the game as Half-Life 3 went with that for my title. Sam Walton (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth starting an RfC for this? It seems to me that there are arguments to be made on both sides and a more formal process for this discussion might help, along with outside editor's input. Sam Walton (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with an RfC, although I don't think this is controversial enough to really require one. I'd expect that this page will eventually be split from Half-Life 3 itself (assuming the game is actually announced and released at some point) as to avoid an overly long History/Development section, and we may want to do that prematurely to avoid turmoil when the game's article is under heavy viewing and editing. I'd suggest something like "History of Half-Life 3" or similar? Not sure.
I'd also recommend we get the page protected before moving it out of draftspace. I've already gotten protection added to Half-Life 2, I can only imagine the vandalism we'll have to deal with on Half-Life 3. --Nicereddy (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to have an individual article on HL3. Not including speculation, what can you tell me about it? Nothing, but because there is no known information known about it, which Draft:Half-Life 3 pretty much is. Before having an WP:RFC, try getting WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS removed first which removes any chance of this article existing right now.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference gr360 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference grps3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference mc360 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference mcps3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference DESreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference EDGEreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference EGreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference FAMreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference OPMreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference GIreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference GSreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference IGNreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).