Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 106

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 100 Archive 104 Archive 105 Archive 106 Archive 107 Archive 108 Archive 110


Assessment tables for task forces and possible task force consolidation?

Assessment tables

Intelligence task force assessment statistics


Do we have a resident template guru who can add {{Task force assessment}} templates to our task force pages (e.g., how MILHIST uses {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment}} on pages such as Intelligence TF)? I would find it helpful and it looks like it just needs a little setup.

On another note, is there interest in a possible task force cleanup/consolidation? I have some ideas for how this could go (broadly, removing small, inactive series and keeping/adding main platforms/companies and genres, etc.), but I wanted to get a temperature read first czar  18:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean adding class and importance ratings to task force markers? I'd be okay with that, I guess. Regarding task force cleanup, I have indeed noticed that most of ours are inactive and would be okay if, after we ask on their talk pages and receive few to no responses, we either merge them back here or relegate them to a separate "old, dusty task forces" subsection alongside our active ones. Tezero (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I added an example to the right czar  18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a template guru, but I'd gladly add one of these to the Valve Task Force sidebar. It was something I meant to ask about but forgot. --Nicereddy (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Splitting this into two sections to keep the different discussions from merging into each other. As far as templates go: So, MILHIST is a bit messy since it doesn't use the WP Banner Meta template, but it looks like we don't need {{Task force assessment}} at all. If you create all the categories (i.e. for Indie games the Category:Unassessed_Indie_game_articles etc. cats) and name them all consistently (category:TYPE_Indie_game_articles), then the only thing you need to do is add "|TF_9_ASSESSMENT_CAT = Indie game articles" to the {{WikiProject Video games}} template. We already have that for the Adventure game task force, but not the other ones- e.g. King's Quest is rated start and tagged as an adventure game tf-supported article, so it's in Start-Class video game articles, Start-Class Adventure game articles, and Adventure games task force articles categories. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Adventure game articles by quality statistics gets built automatically off of those categories, then. Looks like you tell the bot to make those templates by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.

Summary of above: Any task force that wants to have their own assessment tables needs to create the assessment categories with a common name structure, and add one line to the banner template. Tell the bot to start running, and you get a table. --PresN 22:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@PresN: Thanks for the explanation. I put an edit request on the {{WPVG}} talk page so we can try it out. czar  23:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Done, let me know if you need any more. --PresN 23:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@PresN: I appreciate what you've done (actually, what have you done here? Something, I know...), but I notice that the Sega categories, at least (technically they're redlinked, but you know), are massively underpopulated. For example, it says there are only five Sega FAs. Do you know of a way to fix this? Tezero (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
(I made the code work and looked up how to set everything up for the categories/bot table) Yeah, I don't quite know why that happens- if you look in a category, it has a link that will tell you that it can take hours/days/weeks for things to show up sometimes if the category comes from a template on the page. You can force it to populate by doing a "null edit" on the talk page of the article (hit edit then save immediately), and I did that for a bunch of Indie articles, but other than that I guess you just have to wait. The indie categories seem to be adding a dozen a day, which means it will take a while. --PresN 02:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the main Sega redlinks. I also think the 1.0 bot is down or something, which is perhaps why the template tables aren't updating. czar  03:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Task Force cleanup

Also, I have a few suggestions on how we should go about doing this renovation of our task forces.

First, here are all our current Task Forces:
  • Adventure games
  • Arcade
  • Atari
  • Atlus
  • Bethesda
  • BioWare
  • Call of Duty
  • Castlevania
  • Command & Conquer
  • Devil May Cry
  • Dungeons & Dragons
  • eSports
  • Gears of War
  • Grand Theft Auto
  • id Software
  • Indie
  • Insomniac
  • Mega Man
  • Mortal Kombat
  • MUD
  • Nintendo
  • PlayStation
  • Retro games
  • Sega
  • Silent Hill
  • The Sims
  • Soul
  • StarCraft
  • Valve
  • Visual novels
  • Warcraft
  • Xbox

We need to combine or just get rid of a lot of these. My suggestions:

  • Deprecate Atlus, Command & Conquer, Devil May Cry, D&D, id Software, Insomniac, MUD, Silent Hill, Soul, and The Sims.
  • Probably get rid of the Call of Duty and GTA task forces as well.
  • Warcraft and StarCraft should be merged into a Blizzard task force.
  • Merge Atari, Mega Man, and Castlevania into Retro games (or delete them).
  • Merge Mortal Kombat into Arcade.
  • Merge Gears of War into Xbox.

If these changes were made, we'd end up with the following:

  • Adventure games
  • Arcade
  • Bethesda
  • BioWare
  • Blizzard
  • eSport
  • Indie
  • Nintendo
  • PlayStation
  • Retro games
  • Sega
  • Valve
  • Visual novels
  • Xbox

This is extreme, but we really need to clean this mess up. As far as I can tell, all the TFs I suggested have been mostly unused for a while and serve no real purpose. Many of them serve only as a means of organizing a collection of articles in a single place, and I think we should create a system to serve that use-case and transfer these lists to a new system. Would it be possible to utilize a system similar to the current "Featured Topics" but with a more "casual" approach, wherein articles are just organized by editors as a means of tracking quality for all games by a single company, games in a series, etc. This would replace the functions of a lot of task forces and clean up the project a lot. --Nicereddy (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

czar task force cleanup proposal

This is what I had in mind for later proposal:


Platforms & companies

  • Blizzard (merge StarCraft, Warcraft), Nintendo, PlayStation (merge Insomniac), Rockstar (merge GTA), Sega, Valve, Xbox

Genres & types

  • Action & adventure (Is "action-adventure" okay? merge adventure, Castlevania, Devil May Cry, Mega Man, Mortal Kombat, Silent Hill, Soul), eSports, FPS (merge Call of Duty, Gears of War), Indie, MUD, Retrogaming (merge arcade), RPG (merge D&D, not the separate project), Strategy (merge C&C), Visual novels

For discussion

  • Merge Atari with retrogaming or leave standalone?
  • Mark the following as inactive & historical: Atlus, Bethesda, BioWare, id, Sims, Ultima?
  • Add Platforming genre TF? Fighting? Sports?
  • Merge Rockstar Games WikiProject?
  • Redirect all TF talk pages to the main talk page like MILHIST (otherwise messages can get lost)?
  • Separate projects

Any feedback? czar  22:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

How would we deal with the ones of WikiProjects under our jurisdition, like the Pokémon Species TF? Leave those up to the individual subproject? (Sorry for not commenting on any other proposal, organization's far from my strong suit) Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 22:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon species is under the Pokémon WP and outside my proposal's scope (WPVG TFs), unless of course they wanted to merge. czar  23:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: Alright, that's what I figured, thanks. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: I like this solution, and I definitely agree with the Talk pages redirect idea. The Valve Talk page doesn't real get any traffic and discussions don't receive many participants. Why do the Pokemon and Square Enix projects run outside of ours? Seems a bit silly, really. --Nicereddy (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's their prerogative to organize as they'd like. I'd recommend setting up TF tags for them in the banner (which would save us time later if we need to merge), and redirecting our task force page to their main page. czar  23:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@Nicereddy: I dunno about Square Enix, but I know there's so much stuff about Pokémon that, even having been so trimmed down since the old Pokémon test days that the Book:Pokémon is a 1083-page-long PDF, and I'm pretty sure it's incomplete (Needs to be split up, but that's an issue for another day). I personally would be against a merger due to the scale and extra layers that would confuse things (Pokemon Species Task Force under WikiProject Pokémon (Pokémon Task Force?) under the Nintendo Task Force under WikiProject Video Games). Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd discourage merging the Pokémon project here since there's so much outside the canon of the games (anime, manga, TCG, etc.). They can if they want, but... Tezero (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Square Enix gets its own because we've been historically as active as all of the task forces/projects combined. We also have ~390 articles, with none lower than Start (and 71% C or better) and over 150 GAs, FLs, and FAs, so we actively support enough content to stand alone. --PresN 23:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've always been impressed by how active WP:SE is considering it's comparatively narrow scope. Definitely don't mess with that. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed; they absolutely maintain enough vigor to stick around. They fit much more neatly into WP:VG than the Pokémon project would, but plenty of independent WikiProjects exist that are wholly nestled inside other project's umbrellas. Tezero (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to un-derail this conversation (re-rail?), I like Czar's proposed organization scheme. As to the questions- merge Atari with retro, mark those 6 as inactive, redirect the talk pages, and do not add new ones right now- without a basis of support right now there's no point. --PresN 19:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm about 60% on redirecting the talk pages; it would ensure messages get read, but possibly clutter up this one. (And not everyone's interested in what the Sega TF is doing.) Tezero (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I should probably point out that the visual novels TF is a joint TF with WP:ANIME, so just simply redirecting its talk page to over here might not be the best idea.-- クラウド668 05:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I second this. The talk page for the visual novel TF, while less active than it used to be, should probably be kept because it is a joint task force and deals with content from both WP:VG and WP:ANIME.-- 08:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The proposal looks good overall, but I'm not sure about the inclusion of Mortal Combat and Mega Man within Action & Adventure, especially if we were to hyphenate it into "action-adventure" since that's a distinct genre that doesn't match those games. I would support creating a Fighting TF (merging Mortal Combat) and Platforming TF (merging Mega Man) as was suggested in the discussion in order to solve that issue. I realize there are a few spinoff games in each series that don't match those categories, but given that the projects are inactive anyway, I don't think that's going to be a problem. I'd also support hyphenating "action-adventure" in order to match the way it is spelled on the Wikipedia article for the genre. -Thunderforge (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll second Thunderforge's thoughts above. I'm wondering, is there a precedent for happy, co-operative overlap between task force groups?BcRIPster (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how I feel about redirecting all of the talk pages of the task forces here. Working over at WP:SEGA, I know that we happen to use the talk page quite a bit to coordinate activities and discuss articles. The space allows us to really focus our efforts as a team, and we used it in putting together the Genesis featured topic. I'm not really sure what's left to allow a task force to work if that's stripped out; the main page only really serves as a repository of links and listing of information at that point. Red Phoenix let's talk... 13:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I realized that not long after I posted. Perhaps task forces aren't needed, but if they're around I say we should keep the talk pages. For me, for example, the Sega talk force talk page has helped me get input on various possible GTs. Tezero (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
TFs without talk pages are also a grouping to track article alerts in a subtopic. I don't think anyone would want to force talk page redirection for task forces that really want them. Here's an updated proposal, accommodating the suggestions above:

Platforms & companies

  • Blizzard (merge StarCraft, Warcraft), Nintendo, PlayStation (merge Insomniac), Rockstar (merge GTA), Sega, Valve, Xbox

Genres & types

  • Action-adventure (rename adventure, merge Castlevania, Devil May Cry, Silent Hill), eSports, Fighting (merge Mortal Kombat, Soul), FPS (merge Call of Duty, Gears of War), Indie, MUD, Platforming (rename Mega Man), Retrogaming (merge arcade, Atari), RPG (merge D&D, not the separate project), Strategy (merge C&C), Visual novels


  • Mark the following as inactive & historical: Atlus, Bethesda, BioWare, id, Sims, Ultima
  • Redirect all TF talk pages to the main talk page (like MILHIST) except Sega, visual novels

czar  14:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As the founder of the Atari task force, I have to say merging with "retro" would be completely inaccurate as the brand covers all the modern titles published under Atari SA (Infogrames) as well. Titles like the Roller Coaster Tycoon series, Riddick, Test Drive series, and many more modern titles. We went through this the last time this was discussed when people mistakenly thought the same thing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with Marty Goldberg; Atari is a good Taskforce as a company-based topic; "Retro" taskforce is by definition subjective (where does retro stop, NES, SNES, N64, NGC, Wii?), I'm not sure it serves a purpose. I say we should merge the D&D taskforce towards WP:D&D, not as a TF of WP:VG. Classifying by genre, again, introduces subjectivity and potential disputes. eSports, Arcade, MUD and Visual Novels are generally unambiguous and have more to do with topic than genre. Company taskforces are also good. I'd be in favor of merging WP:SE as a Taskforce but don't feel too strongly about it, especially if they don't want to. I'd like to see the Sims taskforce and the Ultima be kept alive instead os marked historical because it encompasses a topic broader than a single company (as opposed to Atlus/Bethesda/id). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  13:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't genres be clear enough by what the article uses as its main genres? The idea is to group by topics that would encourage participation. Marking Sims and Ultima as inactive wouldn't be a big deal because they can always be brought back. We can change it if you feel strongly. I'd be fine with scoping Retrogaming as the TF so wanted, either everything fourth gen and before, or at least the more clear-cut third gen and before. (In this way, there wouldn't be too much pruned from Atari if merged, but I'm fine with keeping it unmerged if insisted upon.) Thoughts? czar  21:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!, ping czar  02:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You should consider referencing Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup, which is probably where this piece of the discussion should have been held. :) --Izno (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

...that page's talk has had no activity in three years, so I don't know about that czar  01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

moving forward on task force cleanup consensus

Platforms & companies

  • Atari, Blizzard (merge ✓StarCraft, ✓Warcraft), Nintendo, PlayStation (merge Insomniac), Rockstar (merge ✓GTA), Sega, Valve, Xbox

Genres & types

  • Action-adventure (rename adventure, merge Castlevania, Devil May Cry, Silent Hill), eSports, Fighting (merge Mortal Kombat, Soul), FPS (merge Call of Duty, Gears of War), Indie, MUD, Platforming (rename Mega Man), Retrogaming (merge arcade, Atari), RPG (merge D&D, not the separate project), Strategy (merge C&C), Visual novels


  • Mark the following as inactive & historical: Atlus, Bethesda, BioWare, id, Sims, Ultima
  • Possibly keep? Sims, Ultima
  • Redirect all TF talk pages to the main talk page (like MILHIST) except Nintendo, Sega, visual novels

Okay, I'm going ahead for now with the consensus on (1) merging the company taskforces, and (2) redirecting the talk pages of all but Sega and visual novels. Looking for feedback on what Sal said above because I'll be getting to that next (i.e., does anyone agree with him that we shouldn't make genre task forces? I still think they'd be a good idea and the genres are distinct enough as to not be subjective) czar  01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The talk pages are now redirected (except for Nintendo's, which was contested, which is fine). I'm waiting for the bot approval to do the final merges for the first task, but is there any opposition to rough consensus and original plan of consolidation into genres as outlined above? Otherwise, I'd like to move forward with that czar  01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Change "This month in gaming history" to "This day in gaming history"

I think "This month in gaming history" should be changed to "This day in gaming history". (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it lists notable events for the entire month, not just the day. I assume you are refering to the section in the video games portal. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
As one of the few people on this project that has actually built such sections from scratch, what you are asking for is a time commitment ranging from most of a day (if all of the dates are in easy to find and copy from lists already in existance) to several days (if someone has to find five things that happened on October 22nd without any guidance). When I say "days", I am talking about putting twelve hour shifts adding dates. In short, unless you're willing to do most of it yourself, this is too much of a time commitment to be asking other people to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Video games change from March 14th

Hi, I happened to notice someone made a change on Category:Video games so I stopped by to see what happened. While there I noticed that back in March a bot purged all the multi-lingual Video games cross links. Was this a reasonable change change? Or was this part of some other restructuring that I missed? Thanks! BcRIPster (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the bot's edit summary. --Mika1h (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I did, but I didn't understand the statement "Migrating 78 interwiki links, now provided by Wikidata"... and yes, I read the wikidata page as well. I'm not familiar with the initiative and this is the first time I've run across it. BcRIPster (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It means that interwiki links, instead of being maintained on each page of whatever language, are now kept centrally at wikidata, so there's only one place that needs to be kept up to date (automatically, mainly). It also includes other structured data for external services to use that will eventually be hopefully invoked inside of infoboxes (like geolocations for cities); it's basically Commons for data rather than images. It's been handling interwiki links since February 2013; bots like that one handle the physical migration for everything, which is still ongoing, though I think it's just categories now that are left to migrate. --PresN 22:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! I guess I learned something new today :) BcRIPster (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Anybody familiar with Tales of Vesperia?

I need help expanding the appearances section Yuri Lowell. I haven't played the game so I'm not familiar with it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

F-Zero Climax game development

F-Zero Climax game development information wanted. This game is related to the anime F-Zero: GP Legend. See Talk:F-Zero Climax#Development for more. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Process for additions to VG Reviews template

I've started a discussion regarding an additions process for the reviews template, mainly so that passing admins have something to work to. Feel free to chip in. - X201 (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Add The Escapist to Template:Video game reviews

Consensus reached here on reliable source. Objections or comments on including it in the reviews list? Zero Serenity (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they should go on the reviews template, or at least as a dedicated entry. For one, as we are saying that Escapist as a situational source means using reviews from them should not be automatic, and thus I would be very wary of having a line that would be easy to include them. Of course, if the review is legit we do have the additional extra lines for which the Escapist could be added if needed. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Seconded, for the same reason. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was promoted from situational to reliable. That's what the discussion was all about. Zero Serenity (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you put in the template encourages people to use that field. The template should only be highlighting choice reviews, and I don't think The Escapist's content rises to that threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Not that, at times, Jim Sterling nails something ("Earth Year 2066", I think it was, Jim's take on that was picked up by many basically saying what others really couldn't that the game was an insult to the Steam Early Access process), but most of the time I find the Escapist's reviews by anyone on the staff to be on par (not an outlier) from the main 6-8 that we usually defer to. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not like there are only a dozen reviewers in that template; there's about 50 and I see no objection to adding a field for The Escapist; I mean, if it's reliable, people are gonna use it as a custom field anyways, so might as will make life easier for everybody. I requested the template edit. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is just a note to let all involved editors know that the template has been returned to status quo – The Escapist has been taken back out of the template – pending the outcome of this request and discussion. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Paine's comment, I'm going to ping the above editors (and hopefully get some others), as per mine and Paine's discussion on the template talk page, consensus was not obvious (we both came up with a different head count). @Masem, Sergecross73, and David Fuchs: You three appear to disapprove of the change to me. Can you confirm? @Zero Serenity and Salvidrim!: You both appear to approve the change to me. Can you confirm? @X201 and Technical 13: You both look like you were making comments from a process/technical perspective to me. Can you confirm? --Izno (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I misread the scenario. Don't let me hold things up. Sergecross73 msg me 10:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure why I was pinged here. Don't see any comments from me on this page at all and digging from mobile is too inconvenient. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I think its because of your contribution here. On a separate matter, could we move the add/don't add part of this discussion to the actual template page and not have it here. Anyone tracking down the decision in the future is going to hate every single one of us for spreading it over two different talk pages. - X201 (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Approve - Since I requested it in the first place. Zero Serenity (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Replacing to do with announcements

I've been working on a replacement for the to do box that graces the top of our pages because I find it kind of ugly. I modified a version of the MILHIST announcements board (and sprung a new template in the process). I think this gives us some room to grow and is generally a better template for this stuff. Also you'll notice that I have two different listings for GANs—that's because I tried two different methods of adding GANs: the current manual system of adding commas or bullets between items, or the flatlist system of making a bulleted list that is converted into a nice listing. I think the latter is a little nicer and much easier to update, but the trade-off is that the bullets are a little less bold. I'm looking for your feedback on this. You can see how the list would be updated in either format by editing {{WPVG announcements}} (as you would Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do). And voilà:

My question: Are y'all interested in using this as a replacement for "to do" in the {{WPVG}} banner? Open to feedback, czar  01:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
In either case I've modified Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content to use the GAN link template. I like the new format, and I support the flatlist. Any reason why the FACs aren't using an FAC link template as well? --PresN 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Since I was making it from scratch, wanted to test it and get feedback before making the rest—done czar  04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It's better this way. Tezero (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It looks great. My only concern is that it might not look as good condensed inside {{WPVG}}. Otherwise, go for it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

All right—it's up. I did some fancy stuff to make it play nice with the banner, so I think you'll like it, Jimmy. As for this page, are there any thoughts on removing the project banner up top (wasn't it added only somewhat recently?) and just having the announcements in its stead? It's a lot of wasted space for a high traffic page . czar  15:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. It's a huge improvement. And yeah, I'd agree with removing the banner and replacing it with announcements. I always thought it was kind of strange to have both of them up there. MILHIST only has announcements on their talk page, so it should be fine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, remove the pointless "This is a Wikiproject" banner. - hahnchen 11:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

PresN recently boldly went ahead with this. Would there be any opposition to using an arrangement similar to the mock-up currently in my sandbox? czar  22:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC) To clarify, that would be using {{WPVG sidebar}}, which includes the shortcut and archives box templates czar  06:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I boldly agree with this. --PresN 23:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I boldly merged all the header stuff (besides the archive bot setup params) into "/header" and merged the archives and shortcut templates into a new {{WPVG sidebar}}, which displays neater and cleaner (and, if wanted, can replace the normal sidebar transclusion on the other pages. Anyway, I think it's a definite improvement, but I've only done it for this page, so if anyone objects we can discuss it here czar  14:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sega CD needs a source review

It's at WP:FAC, and just needs a source review for reliability to pass. Spotchecks shouldn't be needed. Thanks to whoever can snag it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've done one. --PresN 21:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment requests

Right now we do reassessment requests by manually requesting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests, which seems a bit antiquated to me. If there is any discussion about the rating, it gets lost in the page history. Instead I propose adding a "reassess" parameter to the {{WPVG}} banner that would add a category for articles requesting reassessment. Then discussion about the reassessment could happen at the article's talk page, if any is necessary at all, and the flag can be cleared once the reassessment is done. Thoughts? Objections? czar  15:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to go about it. Theoretically, then, it would compile all reassess requests in one place, that would then be removed should the parameter be removed? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, correct. The count will show in the bottom of {{WPVGA}} like the rest of the backlog czar  16:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Its a decent idea. However, I like being able to "Watch" the requests page to get updates on new requests. Or can you automate that page by monitoring additions to the category, so it can still be "watched"? Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not possible to "watch" a category in such a way that changes of its membership are tracked. It sometimes gets requested at WP:VPT, and there's nothing that we can do except direct you to WP:Bugzilla. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The watchlist is just for article changes, but you can monitor changes to cats czar  17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I mean like a bot which would update the page, similar to how Video game articles by quality log works. It is not required, I just think it would be nice. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: The "Recent changes linked" feature, when used on a category, doesn't track when pages are added to that category, but lists any change to a page, provided that it is currently in that category. So, if a page has 6 edits listed, the first of those might have been the one that put the page into the cat. But if an edit is then made which removes the page from the cat, not only is that edit not listed in Recent changes linked, but all six of the previous edits are removed too. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64, but it serve the purpose of showing what articles were added to the cat, no (among other edits)? Would you have a different recommendation? czar  21:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it's implemented in the {{WPVGA}} above czar  21:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mentor for newbie in the topic area

Some of you may know me, most of you don't. I was hoping that I could get of a bit of a crash course in this Wikiproject's standards and workings - I think I could do some good here. I've been big into content production and I've only did one GA that was not on a game in the usual sense. Though my personal library and collection would be up for sharing, as always. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL is where we keep our guidelines and our inappropriate content list. As for your library, have a look at WP:VG/RL. And WP:VG/RS maintain a list of sources and their suitability. - X201 (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This game doesn't actually exist

Apparently we're doing pre-KickStarter appeal articles now. "Elysian Shadows...The team is currently promoting the game in preparation for a Kickstarter crowd-sourcing campaign during Q2/Q3 2014." Its just chock full of their plans for the game, the, at first, impressive references, are nothing more than links to their own Facebook and Youtube channels and there is only one third party review of note, and that is commenting on their Youtube videos rather than the game itself. This looks like pure advertising fluff, effectively "our game will do this this and this". Its going to need massive hacking back if it stays, but I think the easiest route is nominate for deletion. Opinions? - X201 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Took a look at it, and it's got tons of content, but almost all of it is promotional. I'd say nominate it and see what the community thinks. --McDoobAU93 14:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, not existing isn't always a problem, but if the third party coverage isn't there, then it is. I'd send it to AFD, but beware of fan-based votes. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: Thanks. Saved me the typing. - X201 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

inb4 "There's a new Sonic character; watch Tezero go nuts"

Sticks will get f**k-all attention from me until there's some kind of consensus that she's notable aside from the show and game. There are a few articles so far just about her, but that doesn't matter. Tezero (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • All right. This stuff about Sonic characters is getting ridiculous. Do we have to get the Mediation Committee on this or something? GamerPro64 17:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Tezero (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • He's saying you bring it up all the time, and this one in particular is worded more like whining and complaining than a constructive discussion. I don't think mediation is necessary, I think you just need to drop it for a bit, because all consensuses are coming up against you or inconclusive right now, and your arguments, like this one, are devolving on quality. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite the contrary. What I'm saying here is that because of the unfavorable nature of most of those discussions, I'm not about to waste my time with any more of these articles. In other words, I'm telling the project in advance not to groan in my direction. Tezero (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Except the project wasn't going to groan in your direction; unless I'm missing something, you haven't gone and created a stub article on a non-notable character or done anything else complaint-worthy. I'm actually not even sure what character you're talking about; you never mentioned a name and most people don't follow Sonic characters. This really is seeming like pre-emptive complaining. --PresN
  • A new character has been confirmed in Sonic Boom which is going to appear in the game and most likely in the TV series. Usually there is always coverage on new characters that make it into the Sonic series, so it could be entirely possible for her to be notable. but i dont know why you're reacting this way, so suddenly over a new character that has an equal chance of not being notable as there is that she is. i think we have to take them as we go. It looks more like you set your mind that this character is notable, and are willing to tell the wikiproject before even knowing yourself if she is. Lucia Black (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly, PresN. There was no effort to actually prove a point here, no sources given, no real rationale, just a bunch of negatively worded complaining. Tezero, slowly read over what you wrote. How in the world could you possibly hope for constructive discussion to stem from that? Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A reasonable complaint. Let me rephrase: It seems that I have a reputation for being over-enthusiastic with creating Sonic character articles, and because of recent revelations about this project's true attitudes toward notability, I'm uninterested in creating an article for this newly announced one at the moment. I'm letting you all know so you don't tense up too much. Factually, though, several dedicated articles on her are available - but again, even this much has not been enough on at least one occasion. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Minecraft Series?

What do you all think of a series on Minecraft? I think it is terribly underrepresented on Wikipedia; it is the best-selling computer video game of all time, and only has one article focused on the game itself, Minecraft. I previously proposed a Minecraft Task Force and my idea wasn't very well received, but this time I'd like to create a series. I'm thinking that many more articles are needed, including:

and much more

If you don't think this should become a series, do you think these articles should be created?

Thanks, -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

None of those are good article topic, as given. The concept of server play is better described in a broader article, with the main Minecraft article should simply explain where the persistent state is saved, etc. "List of blocks" immediately fails GAMEGUIDE, as does "List of enemies". "Development" focused on the version history of the game, is inappropriate, though an expanded article on the broader details of development (ala Development of Oblivion ) would be appropriate. That said, "List of Minecraft mods" *could* be one of potential as long as the only mods that are included are those recognized by third-party sources (akin to List of Source engine mods where the requirement to be on the list is a notable article or a good secondary source.). --MASEM (t) 04:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I completely concur with Masem. Chambr (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Future Publishing closing Edge Online and C&VG websites

MCV report that Future Publishing intend to close the websites of Edge, C&VG, and their official Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo magazines.

It might be a good time to ensure that any references to reviews/news/articles on those sites also link to WebCite/Wayback Machine copies, or at least specify the equivalent features in the printed magazines. --Nick RTalk 10:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Importantly: Edge Online has a robots.txt that blocks caching at Wayback. CVG does not, so there's no rush there, but losing Edge's content is a huge issue, including material we haven't had a chance to capture. I will note that "closing" and "taking down" can be two different things (eg Television Without Pity was "closed" but its site remains open but not intereactive to remain a resource). --MASEM (t) 13:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Scratch that, I typo'd in Edge's site to Wayback. It's there, as well as CVG. All three "Official" mags are on there too. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014's TFA

On June 5th, thatgamecompany will be up as that day's Featured Article. It should be noted that it is the 108th video game-related Featured article as the Featured Article, still baring the status or not. Number 100 being Sega v. Accolade back in October. Just a bit of trivia to remind us all on how much we've gone as a project. GamerPro64 03:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

108 , eh? Remind me not to take any Oceanic flights that day... --MASEM (t) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
And a note to all- thatgamecompany is a TFA because I just went ahead and nominated it at WP:TFAR. It only took a little bit to pull together a nomination and stick it in a "nonspecific" slot, and it got approved a few days later. You don't have to calculate points or worry about if a better article comes along anymore. If any of you have a featured article you'd like to see on the main page, if you nominate it right now you have about a 100% chance to get it on the main page. The next TFA that anyone has "called" in advance isn't until September 17. (GTA5) --PresN 03:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Did that for one of mine. Thanks for mentioning! Tezero (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I called for GTA V, but I wonder how it would fare since it's a very recent FA. Still, it's first in, best dressed, right? CR4ZE (tc) 08:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Culling down plot section

I'm gauging as to whether anybody is available to have a go at wikifying/cutting down the Plot section of Infamous Second Son. I'm working away at the other sections with the hopes of getting up to GA/FA quality, but I'm yet to finish the game and don't want anything spoiled by having to read it. To me, it's currently the biggest detractor of the article. CR4ZE (tc) 08:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

F1 Career Challenge

Hi WikiProject Video games. Are F1 Career Challenge and F1 Challenge '99-'02 the same game on different platforms? If so, should there be two separate articles and two entries in Formula One video games and {{Formula One games}}? Or should F1 Career Challenge just redirect to EA Sports F1 series#F1 Challenge '99-'02 and there only be one entry in the list and template? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. They are the same game, one is the PC version, the career mode was added to the console versions. I've merged the two articles, as the career one was weak and should be paired with the other game for clarity. - X201 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Source update

After taking over User:Mitaphane's magazine archive, I decided to index all of his Official U.S. PlayStation Magazines at the reference library. There's a ton of great information in these, including lots of sales stuff (the monthly charts don't include exact numbers, unfortunately). Most people don't watchlist the page in question, so I figured that I should let everyone know here.

Also, User:Electroguv just turned me on to this thread at Hardcore Gamer 101, where the poster roushimsx has uploaded scans of PC Gamer US sales charts from 1997 to 2000--with exact numbers. He's also scanned a lot of stuff related to Daikatana, StarCraft: Ghost, Diablo, Deus Ex, Bethesda and other topics. A treasure trove, to say the least. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The delightful and interminable Featured Content status thread

New month, new section, new style! Here, I'm assuming a successful FAC needs 4 supports + an image review + a source review, and an FLC needs 3 supports. The color-coding is dependent on how old the nomination is, and how much it needs. The more red, the worse off the nomination is. --PresN 18:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In more-or-less desperate need of reviews (last updated June 10):

  • To be quite honest I question if Anachronox will pass its FAC, considering that User:Zeality knows more about the game than I do and the GameSpot robots.txt issue has taken down some important information for the article. GamerPro64 18:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Most Sega-related articles seem to use this site, I've used it myself, part of me wishes it were reliable, and it would take some work to remove all references to it; but I just don't feel good about I accept that Ken Horowitz is a published journalist, and maybe my judgement is affected by my personal opinion that most of the articles on the site are horribly written and poorly informed, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Horowitz fact-checks any of his work or that of his staff (none of whom have any credentials outside of being Sega fans). Just as a random example of the quality of this above-average fansite, take a look at this article on Eternal Champions, a 16-bit fighting game series generally remembered as a mediocre attempt to copy Mortal Kombat with even more over-the-top violence. Horowitz's opinion that Eternal Champions was actually far superior to Street Fighter II and Virtua Fighter is pretty far out there, and his logic is often nonsensical (claiming that the very prospect of a Saturn Eternal Champions might have been "the best 2D fighting game ever made", arguing that "Sega's eventual decision to farm out the development of Virtua Fighter 3tb on the Dreamcast is proof" that Virtua Fighter "would not be able to compete with Eternal Champions" in the US, and most bizarrely asking why Sega cancelled Eternal Champions while approving "Criticom, Rise of the Robots, and Zero Divide"--in other words, a random collection of third-party games that happened to appear on Sega consoles), but what is particularly jarring is that the four sources cited in the article include the thoroughly unreliable Eidolon's Inn and even a plea to "Save Eternal Champions!" from "Dave's Sega Saturn Page". I've heard that the site has improved in recent years, but the more I look at Sega-16, the more I feel guilty of taking the easy way out for having used it to source things few RS cover. What do other editors think? Even if it is a RS for interviews, or has become a RS in recent years, we need to have some criteria for when it is acceptable rather than it being officially unreliable yet still widely used.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so let me make some points of order here: Horowitz' opinion is strictly that: his opinion. That doesn't diminish his credentials; it just means he offers a different opinion. It's important to consider that. We know Horowitz is an established journalist; when he cites clearly unreliable sources, it's clear the facts in the article are unreliable. Contrast that with this article, which is a core source of Sega Meganet, a little-known internet service of the Sega Genesis before Sega Channel came to fruition. With the exception of the Sonic Eraser bit, all of the sources he's listed can be considered reliable by our standards (Lost Levels Online is written by Frank Cifaldi, who contributes to and is also an established video game journalist). There are certain spots that really need to be looked at case by case, and I think some agreement could be made to the following:
  • Interviews with Sega staffers are reliable.
  • Horowitz' own opinions are reliable as opinions and reception given his history as a published video game journalist. It's important to keep in mind they're opinions, though.
  • Feature articles posted by him need to be scrutinized and ensure that content does not come from unreliable sources.
I think it's a bad idea to stick a brick on it and call the whole thing not reliable. Some selectivity is probably the best answer because Sega-16 has a huge wealth of information and extremely useful content. They've been cited by Retro Gamer as well. IMO it may not be an easy source to be with it, but careful care with each feature will be the best resolution. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am on the sage page as RedPhoenix.--SexyKick 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DK Rap

I have a problem - I can't figure out why the archiveurl reference (fourth ref) has a problem. The second ref should correspond to the fourth rep. Can someone fix it? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - you had a ref tag that cut off a couple sentences before you defined the kirkhopeinterview ref. --PresN 19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition's GAR

Since Czar is on vacation and I have no clue how to add this to the announcements template, I am letting everyone know that I have placed Lost Planet: Extreme Condition up at GAR. I do not believe it to meet the GA criteria anymore, as well as noticed that the editor who placed it up for nomination hasn't edited for two years so hopefully someone else with help clean it up to todays standards. GamerPro64 21:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Added the GAR to the template; looks like Czar forgot to add in a GAR section to the announcements template so I fixed that. Didn't use a short {{garl}} template since it expects a formal GAR link; I'll fix that in the garl template sometime. --PresN 23:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
My intention was to later merge the two article review sections together (GAR & FAR) since we don't have the activity to justify separate sections. Should I go ahead with that? As for the {{garl}} stuff—I have a question about your preferred implementation on the template's talk page czar  20:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Answered there; yeah, makes sense to merge the two sections. --PresN 03:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Soundtrack listings

Taking a cue from the film project, I would recommend that - save for games using licensed music and/or when the soundtrack itself is independently notable (which would include separate music articles like Music of Final Fantasy VII)- that we do not include soundtrack listings in articles. In most cases for us, they are random titles with little significance to the game and generally weigh down the bit-count size of the article. This is not to say that discussion of the soundtrack (composure(s), etc.) should not be included, simply that the tracklist is of little use in most cases. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You're saying we dont include the tracklist in the article unless its in a separate, more music-focused article? Lucia Black (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically, if the soundtrack could be a notable article per GNG or the music notability guideline, the soundtrack listing should be included, even if included on the article about the video game. If the soundtrack doesn't have stand-alone notability, like for example that of VVVVVV, then yes, the tracklist should be omitted. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense, i support this idea. Lucia Black (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I support it as well. It seemed like soundtracks always muddied up the article I clean up, and as Masem says, they're typically just random titles without any explanation, meaning, or reference to them in the rest of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the issue in general, but would it be appropriate for Tony Hawk's Underground? I'm trying to squeeze out one more GA before I leave for a bit, and in its case, a few critics remarked on the soundtrack (it even won an award for it) and mentioned specific artists. Tezero (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
If it's using licensed music, that would be excluded from this idea (that is, it would be reasonable to include particularly if there's commentary on the soundtrack). --MASEM (t) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, also because licensed music would commonly have wiki-links to the bands name and/or songs used, providing some background or context. (Opposed to the song titles from a random JRPG, which would largely be random engrish words strung together. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
God, I wish you two hadn't said that; this is taking forever, ahaha. Tezero (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And to be clear, I'd see this keeping the soundtrack to Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan, than even while most of the titles are Japanese, they are notable songs by notable bands (albeit covers). --MASEM (t) 02:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. I'm referring to things more like this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I support this. I'd also support adding a recommendation along these lines to the guidelines. Sometimes the names of the tracks add nothing. czar  20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to stand over here with my tracklists in FAs and disagree- I certainly don't like lengthy tracklists in non-music articles, but that's exactly why I fought so hard to keep the "collapsed" option on tracklists earlier this year- so it ends up taking one line of text. --PresN 03:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • In each of those three cases, I suspect that you could make a standalone article on the soundtrack if you wanted that would easily meet WP:N (from what I remember on general reception). Because I would consider these notable, I would not target that type of soundtrack for removal - they are fine as is. (and no, I'm not saying you have to separate it out, it makes sense to keep it together). --MASEM (t) 03:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I guess I would say that if you can make a proper music section in the article (you all do that... right? Right? It's not just me?), like 2+ real paragraphs, then you should be able to have a (collapsed) tracklist. --PresN 03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the one thing you'd have to add but it should be possible based on my recall of the reviews would be a paragraph about reception, and all three you have listed there are ones that I'm pretty confident you can expand on that way, which is why those soundtrack listings are fine. As someone above mentioned, this is more aimed towards random JRPG soundtracks, for example. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont think its a big issue. if we can't void a tracklist in a page not-related to it (because their not notable), the tracklist can still be there, (and you can still defend the collapsibility). this applies to music sections that direct to the article to the main music section. Lucia Black (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep a watch please

It's that time again, low edit count user whose only edits are Edge Games, has turned up to remove all referenced material and complain that it shows Edge Games in an unfair light.

This time they're supported by a new user that apparently pays a company to watch the page for them.

Stick it on your watch list please chaps. - X201 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Watched and warned on the talk page. --PresN 20:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. - X201 (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A lack of African video games?

I feel like too many people in my country know English-language and Japanese video games. That's a bias. Similarly, too many Japanese know German instead of Afrikaans, another bias. I think the reason why we haven't covered most non-Japanese/non-English language media is the global digital divide. I wonder of the South African video game industry's existence, and at least someone would research South African video games. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 14:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a piece on the most prevalent South African indie developers; I don't know of any "mainstream" ones. And that country's probably by far the most active in its continent for video game development; maybe there are some developers in Botswana, Egypt, and Morocco or something, but that's about it. It'd be an interesting topic to find material on, but remember that Wikipedia can only cover topics that reliable sources do. If there aren't any (or "enough") covering certain African games, it's not our fault if we can't cover them. (Well, it is, but only because of our standards, not any bias against Africa.) Tezero (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Minecraft comes from a guy in Sweden and sold over 35 million copies. The nation a game comes from doesn't matter. If its developers have any sense, they'll translate it to the languages spoken by those in the most profitable markets, and have the same chance of getting noticed as everyone else. Dream Focus 18:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The point is that reliable sources could exist which document the games but only in non-English languages. Just because the game or its coverage isn't in English doesn't mean we shouldn't write about it. Saying a game isn't notable because the developers didn't translate the game into English is hardly accurate. Sam Walton (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
There's an article called Video gaming in South Africa. --Mika1h (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I suspect it's just a case of you cover what you know. There are quite a few game developers in Africa. But PC is a rare commodity whereas Mobile is the predominant computing platform and absolutely huge there. Mobile is actually where the majority of development is occurring and there is an inherent bias in the US to down downplay mobile gaming as somehow not on par with PC/console gaming. Here are some links though Top 10 African game developers, The growing business of African mobile gaming, 8 startups taking the African gaming scene to the next level. BcRIPster (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I also wanted to note, the biggest problem stifling the African market has to do with financial transaction management, and this has been a huge barrier for lots of companies, not just gaming businesses. Mobile is one of the few spaces where there is cutting edge thought around new ways to implement payment systems happening. So, beyond just plane market penetration by the devices, they are also one of the few ways people can actually conduct financial exchanges... so you go where the money is. BcRIPster (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as we can source it, "Video games in (Country/region)" (outside of NA, Europe, and SE Asia) would be great topics. And remember that sources don't have to be in English, only that we are able to reliably translate them into English, for --MASEM (t) 20:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I already know plenty of European indie games like Minecraft. Well good job finding references about African video games. I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 21:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
When you made your edit summary, I read it all in my watchlist as "A lack of African video games? Good." - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"A lack of African video games?" is the section title, followed by a colon. "Good" is the expression that I feel happy for people researching the African video game industry. I already do play some South African video games, and I know plenty of European video games like Minecraft. However, now I know Africa has an existing video game industry. I remember looking up "south african video game industry" back in 2011, but I like this discussion. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 21:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on Punch-Out!! character articles.

Recently, I went through the lot of them and took out what reception I could find that I felt was insufficient to demonstrate notability (ie, sources which state in passing comments about them, often comments that simply pertain to their difficulty - and not even to the extent of, say, "hardest boss ever"-type comments). Afterward, a number of articles appeared to no longer fulfill WP:GNG, and I merged them as a result. The articles that were merged included Mr. Sandman, Super Macho Man, Great Tiger, Bear Hugger, and Disco Kid. @Niemti: objected to both the merges and the removal of insufficient sources and reverted them in several cases. I would like to get comment from the WP:VG community, as well as users involved in the discussion of character notability, including @Czar: @Gabriel Yuji:, and @Tezero:. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the redirects you did. If it's difficulty to see, we can start by removing the more obvious non-RS or discussing source-by-source/statement-by-statement. Disco Kid still redirected, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; Disco Kid was an older merge than the other articles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel ready to give a position. The general character notability discussion is still open with nothing close to a consensus reached; bridies just stopped showing up. Tezero (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I wouldnt count on much of a resolution. It strikes me as one of those arguments like defining the console generations succinctly - no one can ever agree on a concrete definition, so we default to the WP:GNG. Probably the same with the VG character guidelines. It may be a point of contention for you recently, but it's something that's been argued about for years and years... Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
That's the thing, though: we can't agree on how to interpret the GNG because it doesn't give explicit, concrete instructions for fictional characters. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to discuss it much at all. Tezero (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
But, we do know from not only hundreds of other video game and other fictional characters, what minimum expectations there are. Specifically for video game characters, per our guidelines, the minimum needs to be some type of reception about the characters, and ideally something about their development and creation. We also know from past issues that resolve around Niemti and vg characters, that simply being name-dropped in "top 10" lists is rarely sufficient for meeting the GNG, since that requires "significant coverage in multiple sources". --MASEM (t) 15:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly: that's just a minimum. There's still a colossal amount of ambiguity and disagreement about how much over that is needed. How many sources is enough for "multiple"? How much coverage in each one is "significant"? How much can passing mentions pad the notability of something that's otherwise close to being notable, but not quite there? What I've been trying to do with these discussions is come to some kind of objective standard, but it looks like that might be all for nothing. And using the existence or nonexistence of other character articles, if you're not citing actual, preserved discussions about whether to keep them, is OTHERSTUFF. Tezero (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there something outstanding to which I should've replied? Must've just missed it if so. bridies (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Merge was completely appropriate. Fictional characters have to follow the GNG and these were nowhere close. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You did the right thing with the merges that you made. If not even for the merges. The removal of the sources that clearly are not reliable was a good thing. Wikipedia after all is clearly against using bad sources for the sake of using a source. Niemti once again is just being Niemte *shrugs* NathanWubs (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources were mostly reliable. The articles were crappy written, though. So I rewrote them. Like that. Like that. (Also, reading throught it again.) For Disco Kid, there just wasn't much to work with. --Niemti (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On one hand, several of the sources were sketchy at best. Cracked is blatantly not an RS, so I question why you mass-reverted my edits and ignored all changes. On the other hand, most of the rest of the sources said very little of value. This is why they were merged in the first place. Articles like these are why articles that do fulfill GNG are getting targeted. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Cracked: it's not about any facts, it's a clearly fake interview and is noted as such an opinion (and I don't even like the today's Cracked and their rampant social justice warring). All the other Punch Out need to be rewritten, too: major problems include massively tl;dr lead sections with randomly repeated parts of reception and other unimportant stuff, generally awkward writing, and overlinking everywhere; minor problems include lack of linking and/or italics for many sources (example). Oh, and one more touch (did I mention how awkwardly written these articles are? "MeriStation stated that unlike the previous battle with Bear Hugger, which they state did not require much effort." didn't even make any sense at all). The end effect of clean up rewrite (without adding anything new): Great Tiger - if anyone's still going to say things like "Fictional characters have to follow the GNG and these were nowhere close" they're just being dishonest and/or fundamentally biased against the very existence of such articles at all, wanting to rid of them instead of creating more and contyinously expand Wikipedia as it should be. --Niemti (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. I know that you subscribe to a sub-Wikipedian standard for RSes, but your view on RSes is explicitly not acceptable. Saying it many times wastes my time and yours because it's factually incorrect. Your argument necessitates that every single opinion ever uttered on the Internet can be used. RSes is not just for facts.
  2. Besides the fact that your article editing skills are not nearly good enough to be criticizing others', I'm curious the relevancy of article quality in a discussion about article reliability. The fact that your responses are almost entirely based around off-topic discussion tells us a lot about your argument. So please, do us all a favour and talk about GNG in a discussion about GNG. Much in the same way I don't talk about my favourite foods in this discussion.
Articles that I created in the first place are articles that I clearly wish to have removed from Wikipedia? Please make arguments with more thought in the future. But since you used Great Tiger, let's assess... The first two reception sources merely say a "favourite of the series." An empty and thoughtless reception that tells us nothing about the character. Sarcastic Gamer is not identified as an RS (and no, opinions are not exempt from having to be RSes). The GamePro source is a listicle that makes a brief comment on him not being politically correct and discusses his combat abilities. The next one is the stupidest source ever. 10th best headwear? The quote isn't even reception! By the way, you'll have to explain the quality of explaining a function of his turban in the reception. Operation Sports is not identified as an RS and only discusses him as a difficult character in passing. IGN basically only calls him memorable (I don't really get the use of a semicolon after that either; the next line doesn't continue the previous thought, it's merely the same publisher). The second IGN source is a listicle that again focuses only on combat ability and his role in Punch-Out!!. MTV Multiplayer and The Daily Sentinel merely call him difficult, while The Globe and Mail does the same thing and merely makes an observation of things that aren't even that outlandish. The Onion is a brief mention of him in a general Punch-Out!! parody, as is ESPN's humour article. The Escapist, GamesRadar, Crispy Gamer, and Bitmob are the only sources that successfully demonstrate serious notability. While none of the articles are explicitly about Great Tiger, they do discuss him to a non-trivial degree. Broken record perhaps, but doesn't get a free pass as an RS. It's a very bad source to use. Do not imply standards in your editing where there are none.
As you are the only editor among several who feels that these articles pass the GNG, I will be redirecting them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually you apparently didn't know, but I do subscribe to Wikipedian standard for RSes. Including for merely opinion things.[1][2] And now you know. I'm glad I could help you fix this misconception. Godspeed. --Niemti (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
And this explains what, exactly? It explains to me that your argument of "it's an opinion" is inconsistent. Why is Cracked different? Sounds like the only difference between it and gaminrealm is that one isn't powered by Wordpress. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Cracked is not a small Wordpress-powered amatuer blog run by a couple of black friends who couldn't even write teir "About" properly. Cracked is a continuation of looong (half century) standing magazine, professionally run, with a very high Alexa ranking of 845. A difference is obvious. And I don't even like Cracked. --Niemti (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The majority of Cracked's content is designed to spoof and provoke. They may be incorporating factual details and some reasonable opinion, but the manner of their writing immediately invalidates it as a reliable source since you can't tell easily fact from fiction, or honest opinion from baiting statements. They may be a premiere comedy magazine, but for being an RS? BS. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Old, popular, etc. do not have much value in this situation, where the article as featured on Great Tiger is user-created (and not even an active user; it's the user's only article). Professional that is not. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if it's a random user-blog thing or whatever, as you say, then of course it shouldn't be used in any situation unless the author was otherwise notable somehow. I just checked and it seems it was a regular article actually, but I'm not going to defend the current Cracked and their typical social-justice whining (this article is about it too, what a surprise), so I'm going to give it to you and it's out. --Niemti (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As a note, I would appreciate it if assistance could exist to ensure that any demonstrated consensus by the end of this discussion was maintained. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've called out Punch Out character articles before. No sources offer significant coverage of the subject. The reception sections are culled from bits and pieces for reviews of the game, or pieces on the characters as a whole. So instead of criticism of racial stereotyping being found in the Punch-Out!! or List of Punch-Out!! characters articles, it is split across every single standalone article. Our (Wikipedia as a whole) character articles are mostly dreck, they take snippets from listicles and reviews so they have an excuse for existence, then proceed to pad out the article with enormous amounts of fan service cruft. So yes, Punch Out characters should be merged, but it's the same crap everywhere. - hahnchen 10:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe it's conducive to the discussion to be so utterly critical. As I would tell Niemti, tone it down a notch. Anyway, I agree to an extent. The majority of Punch-Out!! character articles are in a state, as are a number of other character articles. I do want to make clear that I oppose the idea that all Punch-Out!! character articles are non-notable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Great minds... bridies (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Couple of points that've been made elsewhere need addressed (again): first, deletion, merging and redirecting are not the same things (yet again...). An article can pass an AfD, it can meet the GNG, yet still be merged. Second, comic books and star wars are not "wiki-wide standards". Comics, anime and god knows what else are other niche topics which attract pop fandom. Go canvass some natural science and medicine editors and see what they think of these articles. These points have now been made in detail, by multiple editors across multiple discussions. Consensus couldn't be plainer. bridies (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • To the original question, I also agree with these merges. Super Macho Man#Reception could not be a better example of a pile of incidental coverage. If a point is to be made about stereotypes, it is not in quoting each character's one sentence in respective articles but in treating the characters as a whole (which is what the articles are about—not the individuals). I'd also say that Great Tiger has more of a fighting chance (rimshot) than the others for its own article, though I still lean towards merge. {{la}} links since it's hard to find what has and hasn't been merged:
Mr. Sandman (Punch-Out!!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super Macho Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Great Tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bear Hugger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Disco Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
czar  16:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just chiming back in to say Bear Hugger was full of false/falsified content. Like that was just blatantly false, and [3] isn't described him as "one of the wackiest opponents you'll ever see", the quote is manipulated and the sense is completely different. I don't know who wrote it (I have my sneaky suspiction, and it can be checked), but it changed my perception of this particular article and I think I'll have it merged. --Niemti (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and this falsified quote wasn't even from what GameSpy wrote, it was from a text that was some sort of adverting/press release, used also by IGN, G4tv, etc. So you guys better check out who pushes bullshit like that. --Niemti (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just checked for you who writes falsified things like that: [4] (look for "anyone would recognize him" and "one of the wackiest opponents you'll ever see" and then check in the links what really is there). You're welcome! --Niemti (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh no! How dare he change "some of the wackiest opponents you'll ever see: Bear Hugger, Piston Hurricane, Bald Bull, Mr. Sandman, and Super Macho Man" to saying that Bear Hugger is "one of the wackiest opponents you'll ever see." He shouldn't have quoted the "one", but that doesn't make it "falsified" and "manipulated". Although, it was what Gamespy wrote- IGN owns Gamespy; they share a database. G4TV does not use that quote; no other real sites come up when you search Google for what I quoted above (without quotes). We all get that NARH is your latest enemy, but do try to keep your snide remarks correct. --PresN 17:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
That's falsification of the quote (a quote in quote marks), offering a completely false impression. "G4TV does not use that quote" - haha, yeah, except at (taken from the same ad/press release/whatever, and including the first 2 sentences that GameSpy cut). But nice try. Almost. Try to keep your snide remarks correct. --Niemti (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The word "falsify" has an inherent value to it that suggests malicious intent, that I intentionally manipulated the content of the article to make notability seem stronger. So watch it when you're making bad faith accusations against your fellow Wikipedian, and watch it when you're making a discussion about notability... not about notability.
Anyway, since consensus clearly is in favour of merging, I think we should go ahead with the merges (sans Great Tiger, with whom I am grasping onto for dear life just because stricter-Czar seemed to see a gleam of light from it). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if Niemti's semi-relevant rantings are the only opposition, I say go for it. (I support the merges as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I say is a fine article that crosses WP:GNG requirements easily. Which is unlike Bear Hugger after I actually checked the sources and found out they're either largely just bogus or ridicalously insignificant and passing mentions (like this article said about another character "Weighs as much as: Bear Hugger" and that as seriously all), besides all the "he drink syrup so Canadian lol"; the original article gave men an entirely wrong impression. So, I'd like to hear about the "other venues" that will allow me to break it out of an elitist separatist clique and reach out to general Wikipedia community of editors. Where are they? --Niemti (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You're quoting the words "other venues" as though someone said that. I'm sorry that you don't want to work with the project. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It was me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punch-Out!! characters, which I closed as an inappropriate use of AfD. Other venues for non-deletion discussions that pertain to the project rather than individual articles (off the top of my head) would include the village pump, other media-related WikiProjects that include fictional characters, and a general RfC possibly listed as a centralized discussion. czar  05:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
General RfC maybe? I believe you have some acquaintance with those… bridies (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
And this is why I say let's wrap things up and do the merges. Niemti probably has a point in there somewhere, but it's lost amongst the ragey ranting and the off-topic tangents. No ones going to be persuaded by these tactics, it'll just leave people confused or upset... Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, close it and do the merges. Consensus is merge one editors ranting should not stop such a thing. NathanWubs (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Autofailing unreleased games

Good article nominee Videoball (nom) does not have a release date, but the article includes all coverage of the game from development to hands-on prerelease reviews. Its GAN was quickfailed by virtue that it could not pass 3a or 5 (see WP:GACR) until it is released. Since this is a recurring concern (I've brought up a variant before), I'd like outside and informal input from the project.

My position is that a review is done on the sourcing available at the time, not off of what it could be. I recently passed Automonopoli (nom), which didn't have sections like development or even a very thick reception, but it used the sources available—and under the same logic, Videoball used all of the sources available and shouldn't be penalized for want of sources that don't exist. Likewise, we've been discussing the need for a development section in F-Zero Climax (nom) when none of us can find such coverage. (I'd review the article otherwise, but this is a gray area.) Thoughts? czar  20:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You go with the sources possible, and I agree with you on Automonopoli that it doesn't fail 3a just because development info doesn't exist, but it is certainly standard practice to fail unreleased media articles that are not vaporware (DukeNukemForever) on criteria 5- they are not stable. When the game comes out, the whole article has to be majorly rewritten- a reception section needs to be created/drastically changed, gameplay generally gets a drastic overhaul since so much more information becomes available, Plot generally does the same thing (not applicable in this case), and development typically expands as well. Even assuming that the game does not drastically change from pre-release to release (which is not a given for any game, and certainly outside our ability to know/predict), the article post-release is a very, very different thing than the article pre-release, which is the definition of unstable. People have previously proposed that we allow GAs for unreleased media and require a re-review when it's released, but that was considered unworkable; instead, they just aren't passed in the first place. If you want to change this, I'd recommend bringing it up at WP:GA, since it would really encompass movies and books and such as well. --PresN 20:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what PresN said, just because he beat me to it. NathanWubs (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with above - as long as the release is known pending, a quickfail GA is completely reasonable. It can't hurt to have any other peer-review process done on that pre-release version of course. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with PresN and the above. The isue isn't necessarily sourcing but rather than article written before release is inherently unstable. It also results in an issue where the article is unduly weighted post-release to feature pre-release content and info. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Quickfailing unreleased media czar  21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think PresN hit the nail on the head with his comments. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 00:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
So do I. I would be conflicted if there was no release window announced at all, because then there likely wouldn't be much chance of information being released anytime soon to render the subject unstable (realistically, the possibility of a famous person dying or getting convicted of a serious criminal offense doesn't prevent us from getting their article to GA, even if they're elderly or sketchy), but "TBA 2014" I think pushes it into the unstable zone. There will probably be quite a bit coming out before too long. Whether such instability should be part of the GA criteria is a different matter, but regardless the subject does not seem stable to me. Tezero (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

:::This sounds like a serious can of worms. There is a staggering quantity of games that don't get finished, even from AAA studios. Are we setting up a promotional engine for prospective projects where all they need is a name drop in a reliable source and they get a page? Wow. BcRIPster (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC) thoughts moved to GAN talk page. BcRIPster (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How short is a GA video game allowed to be?

There is a GAN, Dishaster and it is very short. How short can an article be before it is ineligible for GA status. wirenote (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no hard limit, beyond that notability is met, best by having a reception section and possibly a development section. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Notability is not actually required for GAN, though it should be kept in mind so time isn't wasted. As for the original question, I recently passed Good article nominee Automonopoli (nom). Sometimes the extra sourcing isn't there. I didn't take the Dishaster or the other one because I wasn't sure what other hidden sourcing might exist that should be included for the completeness criteria. czar  22:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll review the article. BTW, @Czar: I added some comments to the Ziggurat GAN. wirenote (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As above, there's no length requirement as such; it just has to give a good summary of the secondary research. At first glance, it looks like it might be about the minimum for a GA but looks a bit scant. That said, I wouldn't be too concerned about the near lack of a development section: from experience old games don't have much coverage in that area unless it's an impoertant title and it's been done as history, later on. More concerning is the fact that all the reviews come from several years after release. But then again, 1983... perhaps there was no criticism back then, I wouldn't know. bridies (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, this is interesting. I wonder what Wikipedia's absolute shortest and longest GAs are? (I'm pretty sure MissingNo. is the shortest of the FAs.) Tezero (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Here ya go. And here is one for Featured Articles (Spoilers: It's not MissingNo.) GamerPro64 05:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Those lists are seriously screwed up; a number of the articles listed have never been FAs or GAs. Still, an interesting read for what's salvageable. And I stand by MissingNo. being one of the few shortest, since the ones I've clicked on that outrank it have contained longer amounts of text but fewer bytes, maybe because of fewer or less complicated citations. Tezero (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
My sole FA How Brown Saw the Baseball Game is much shorter. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

E3 2014

So E3 is about to start up again on the 9th which means that there will be an influx of new articles involving new or existing IPs, new information about announced games, or cancelled projects. And seeing what just got cancelled, it's gonna be an interesting year. So long The Last Guardian. [5]. GamerPro64 05:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A Sony rep just countered that claim [6]. IGN jumping the gun yet again. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
At least we won't need to worry about Final Fantasy XV and Kingdom Hearts III for once. They're confirmed as no shows until unspecified events later this year. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
We should also keep an eye to make sure people don't try to add info about susposed leaks before the show starts either (X's full name being Xenomech saga, the alleged picture of Nintendo's E3 booth showing a poster for something called Mario Maker, etc).-- (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope, that isn't what my X stands for. - X201 (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
And a very silly fake poster about a next-gen collection of the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy. I'll be watching the pre-show myself tomorrow night from 5:30 until (hopefully) 2:00 AM UK time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Mirror's Edge 2 is being teased by EA today, eyeballs there might help. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone, feel free to contact me if you need any help during the E3 hectic times. I'll be around a lot, and probably more quick to protect page due to all the craziness that usually occurs. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I PC'ed E3 2014 but I'm not sure that was the best option; I don't wanna be elitist and prevent useful IP editing, but I don't want to be flooded by the vandals either. If the PC remains and some of you aren't autoreviewed let us know. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Xbox E3 Show

I'm going to jot any notes I can't possibly keep up with for inclusion. I added Combo to the KI list, but I'm going to throw some rather unsourced items as the media briefings go by. If you can help putting them into articles, please do. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. T.J. Combo for KI 2013. Yes check.svg Done
  2. Happy Wars for Xbox One. (Not Done)
  3. COD:AW will have timed content, Xbox One first. Just like the previous COD games. (Not Done) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero Serenity (talkcontribs) 16:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Nurburgring for Forza Motorsport 5. Yes check.svg Done --McDoobAU93 16:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Forza Horizon 2 launch date September 30, 2014 (not done). I'm at work and following on Twitter, so getting tweets --McDoobAU93 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. Evolve betas first on Xbox One and gets DLC first (Not Done) --McDoobAU93 16:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  7. Dragon Age Inquisition is getting timed content for Xbox One. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  8. Sunset Overdrive October 28th. (Not Done)
  9. Super Ultra Dead Rising 3 Arcade...thing. Comes with all the DR heroes. Fuck that name is long. It's available now! (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  10. Fantasia releases October 28th. (Not Done)
  11. Dance Central Spotlight, New Dance Central Game. September 2014. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  12. Fable will have a multiplayer beta coming this Holiday. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  13. Fable will have the player be a villain if you want, kinda like a dungeon master. Turns this into 4v1. (Not Done?) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  14. Conker (of the bad fur day) will be in Project Spark. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  15. New Game: Ori, the blind forest. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  16. November 11th, Halo: The Master Chief Collection. It's exactly what it sounds like (Halo 1-4). Xbox One. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  17. Related, all maps for every one of the above games, running on Azure and also includes 4,000 Gamerscore. Also includes Halo: Nightfall, the live action series. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  18. Halo 5 gets a multiplayer beta this Holiday, available with the Master Chief Collection above. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  19. Playdead studios will have a timed exclusive game that looks like a survival horror-stealth-2d platformer...thing.... called Inside. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)  Done - already knew this was coming, but w/o name. Redirect made, disamg updated, add'l discussion on Playdead article. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  20. New Tomb Raider game in the same dark vein as the reboot. Rise of the Tomb Raider it's calling itself. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  21. Kenn Lobb announced a reboot of Phantom Dust for Xbox One. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)  Done because I now totally have a reason to get an Xbox One. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  22. Tom Clancy's the Division will have timed content for Xbox One. (Not Done)
  23. Hideki Kaymiya (SP!) announces a new Fantasy Action IP named Scalebound. Features dragons as allies. (Not Done) Zero Serenity (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  24. Xbox One Exclusive: Crackdown 3. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)  Done partially - Not keen on a series page for this, but for the time being, CD3 is mentioned on the main CD article. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And...done. Ugh this'll be fun to list out. The QA won't be available for me so somebody else could expand this list. Zero Serenity (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this list was a great idea, Zero Serenity. I wish someone would have done it for the other conferences as well. Either way, great idea. Chambr (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to be able to do Sony's since I don't think I have a way of watching it on my phone. (WP8.1 device) Zero Serenity (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

GameSpot broken references issue resolved

First timer here, Just wanted to Thank Odie5533 and Torchiest for clarifying what really was happening with the robots.txt implemented (i.e. blocking all the site data archived but not deleting it) and where to bring up the issue (in this thread). I was able to piece together a fix based on Internet Archive's exclusion policy and posted it in said thread, within a day the solution was implemented and the archived content was accessible again! I'm posting this here in case other sites (gaming or otherwise) suffer from a similar fate. —Machinesmith talkedits — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I just checked to verify this and you are right. And I want to say thank you! Now that there isn't anymore issues with robots.txt for GameSpot articles, I think the FAC that I have up might stand a chance. GamerPro64 22:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You're welcome! Just curious, what's a FAC? Looked at one of your previous conversations and figured it out, Good luck on your Featured Content stuff! —Machinesmith talkedits
  • That's wonderful! Does it work for sites beyond GameSpot that use robots.txt? I remember seeing it on a page for GameZone or something... Tezero (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it does, the fix is universal, in GameSpot's case their new Robots.txt is aggressive and disallows ANY bot that isn't on their whitelist. However, most sites just disallow specific sections, using your example, they've (at the time of writing this) disallowed only the 'screenshots' section of a review/article and a specific directory that ends in '/videos/test', the rest of the site is open to bots. The issue, like I suspected in GS's case, is more with Internet Archive and its Goody TwoShoes policy which makes their Bot respect robots.txt at insane levels. Ideally it'd work where all previously archived content is still available only disallowing stuff after a new change has been made to the robots.txt file but it doesn't work that way. The Archive Team make an excellent case to why they ignore and actually use the Robots.txt file (mentioned indirectly) as a source of what to archive first! Machinesmith (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Great work on this.
Also, we probably should have a list of known "sites on the edge", where either they are known to be shutting down or that have had questionable archiving/link policies in the past, such that - not so much in general day-to-day but for GA/FA , and even possibly for A-class review - that these are all affirmed to be a webcite or have links. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The archived conversation (when this GameSpot issue was actually noticed) had a really excellent idea for a {ArchiveThis} command, while this doesn't really help archiving whole sites on the verge of dying it can have the IA bot start the process of crawling the site beginning with the page being used as a wiki reference. (of course this has to exist first!) IF, however, you know of sites that need a-savin' I definitely recommend dropping a line over at the Internet Archive forums OR The Archive Team. I did it when GameSpy was killed by IGN and got a quick response Machinesmith (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This is really great news. I was despairing at the prospect of sources like Knee Deep in a Dream being lost forever. Huge props to the people who made this happen. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nintendo E3 presser

Like yesterday, I'm starting a list of features announced during Nintendo's press conference. Feel free to add in details if you're watching! --McDoobAU93 16:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. Mii Fighter and Palutena added to Super Smash Bros. for Wii U  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. NFC figures for Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and other compatible games, called "amiibo" (not done)
  3. Amiibo figure functionality to be added to Mario Kart 8 (not done)
  4. Yoshi's Wooly Yarn (not done)
  5. Captain Toad Treasure Tracker (not done)
  6. New Zelda in 2015 (not done)
  7. Pokemon Omega Ruby/Alpha Sapphire dated November 21, 2014 (not done)
  8. Bayonetta 2 includes remastered Bayonetta and dated October 2014 Yes check.svg Done --McDoobAU93 18:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  9. Hyrule Warriors name confirmed and dated September 26, 2014 (not done)
  10. Kirby and the Rainbow Curse Wii U claymation-style in 2015 (not done)
  11. Xenoblade Chronicles from MonolithSoft in 2015 (not done)
  12. Mario Maker custom course generator in 2015 (not done)
  13. Splatoon team multiplayer game in 2015 (not done)

No Man's Sky

I need a bit of help on No Man's Sky chaps. A number of new editors keep adding Windows as a platform when there is no reliable sources to support it. I've already accidentally passed 3RR and need to steer clear of the article for 24 hours. - X201 (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for outside input on Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire

User:Ryulong has been aggressively reverting and edit warring to his preferred version on Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire in regards to new information about the games being added. Please see the discussion at Talk:Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire#"CoroCoro leaks". I would like to include outside perspectives to help resolve this content dispute, because it appears I cannot get anywhere alone. Artichoker[talk] 00:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Artichoker has been adding content that is being cited to websites that are not within this WikiProject's internal guidelines on reliable sources (also everything can be tracked down to which has never been considered reliable for Wikipedia). I have explained this to him but he keeps adding the information despite my arguments against it as the internal guidelines here do not constitute a policy that he accepts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong's statement is incorrect. My edits are conforming to this WikiProject's internal guidelines on reliable sources as I show here. However, Ryulong is aggressively reverting with flawed reasoning. Artichoker[talk] 00:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So, to break it down, since I don't believe either side is doing a good job at explaining: The situation is: A reliable source (GameSpot) is reporting on leaked information - is this usuable or not. Ryu says it's not okay because the leak is unpublished. Artichoker says it's okay because a RS is reporting it. Thoughts? Is Ryu's approach supported by precedent? Or is this just his personal stance? Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any precedence for not including the source or content because it's a "leak". I believe my comment here sums up the crux of this dispute and why I believe Ryulong's argument is simply an opinion not based on any sort of policy. Artichoker[talk] 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually I have discovered that they are reporting information from what we do not consider a reliable source so the unreliability is being inherited by what WP:VG already considers unreliable at times. Serebii is not reliable and no one that uses them as a source should be considered reliable either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
"the unreliability is being inherited" Err what? Is this a thing? I'm not following you at all. Also, please see hahnchen's reply here which I believe answers this dubious assertion. Artichoker[talk] 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Previously established consensus on a similar issue suggests otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Huh? I just read the linked discussion, and unless I missed something big, it appeared that the dispute was resolved in favor of included the information along with those reliable sources. I am genuinely confused? Did you just provide precedent that supports my position? Artichoker[talk] 01:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

On precedence: I had reports of EA signing on for future Titanfall releases removed from the article even though the original report was backed by Polygon (and some other source) and written in the prose as such. The idea is that if the report is true, it will eventually be confirmed anyway, and truly isn't vital to the article's current state. All in all, I don't think it's worth the wasted breath. On that note, could you please link the exact edit that is being disputed (complete with its source) if you want our input? czar  01:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the edit in dispute. Artichoker[talk] 01:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • But is there any reason why the content can't be added? Sure it could end up being wrong at a future date, but that argument could be made about any sort of source. My position is just that, at this point in time, we have a reliable source giving this information about the subject, so since the information is verifiable, I don't see why it can't be added to the article. If it later turns out that the information was incorrect and there are other reliable sources that corroborate that, I would be in no way opposed to the content being removed. But we are here and now, and Wikipedia is a work in progress. Artichoker[talk] 01:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Not by rule, but by gut (IAR). Is this information something that would even stay in the final article? My recommendation would be to forget about this not because anyone is wrong or right but because it matters so little towards the end article. If it absolutely must be kept, keep it much shorter and less specific (e.g., "News of new Pokémon evolutions and mega evolutions leaked in June 2014.") czar  01:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to shortening the content wording to something similar to what you suggested above, but I'm still a little confused as to why this sourced content can't be included. Sure, it will change in the future; maybe even be removed from the article eventually when more pointed or detailed information is released. But as I've said, we are here now and Wikipedia is a work in progress, so I'd like the current article to have more relevant, sourced content for viewers. Artichoker[talk] 01:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
We should be recent, but we don't need be to-the-minute "accurate" to sources and holding too close to sources may cause us to be wrong. People edited the Last Guarding article yesterday - in good faith - to add in this cancellation news whereas if they waited a few hours they would have been proven wrong. Here, I'm emphasizing that the information that we're talking about does not have a good path of authority. Contrast that to E3 this week: if EA says in their press event that Mirror's Edge 2 is coming this year, that's something to add to WP immediately. But here for those Pokemon, you simply don't have that path. Others have pointed out that if the rumors do turn out to be true, I could see you then add "Rumors of its release were raised in June 2014" as part of the development section. If they don't prove true, we'd not include that. Hence, it is better to wait until verification comes to include this stuff. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't care whether it is included or not. Just wanted to clarify that GameSpot is a reliable source regardless of who it is citing. That's what reliable sources do, they take otherwise unreliable information and make it reliable through their editorial process. If they're wrong, they'll issue a retraction. The NSA hasn't come out and officially declared what its programs are, but when the NYT report it, it's reliable. - hahnchen 02:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you on this one, this is pretty much my stance as well. If it's typically okay to include rumors on articles, as long as they're backed by a reliable source and explicitly as a rumor by the source, then I don't see why this wouldn't be allowed in the same way. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone be absolutely steadfastly opposed to me adding back the original content to the article then? Artichoker[talk] 02:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
A question to ask before readding: as I have no experience with this CoroCoro mag which is what Gamespot is referring, to, what is their reliability when they report these things? That's the source that should be under the microscope, not Gamespot. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
CoroCoro appears to be a preeminent source on reporting new information about Pokémon games. Sources such as this and [7] seem to corroborate CoroCoro's importance (and incidentally are also reliable sources that could be used to back up the disputed content that I want to include in the article). Artichoker[talk] 03:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In particular from the International Digital Times article, is this bit: "Judging by other CoroCoro scans from past X and Y Pokemon games, we're hoping to get at least a screengrab or two of some gameplay. The magazine already ran a piece comparing the differences between Groudon, Kyogre and the new art renderings on the games' box art." Artichoker[talk] 03:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I was under the impression that CC was reliable, and the issue was more that it was a "leak" than about the source itself. (It's a print magazine, right? Aren't they just about always reliable?) Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's a print magazine and is reliable as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/C33. Artichoker[talk] 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In response to using GameSpot or not, one must always look back to the source of origin for the info. If GameSpot is only reporting on the info, which is gained from an unreliable source, without adding their own confirmation or reporting, then you can't use the GameSpot source. But if something was said along the lines of "We (GameSpot) can confirm/have learned X info that was first reported by Y unreliable source", then it would be okay to use the GameSpot source. That's how I see it and generally go about adding information that may be questionable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
As a response, I'd like to quote User:Hahnchen above: "That's what reliable sources do, they take otherwise unreliable information and make it reliable through their editorial process. If they're wrong, they'll issue a retraction." Artichoker[talk] 03:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
But in this case the editorial process is just "Look at what posted". And I believe that part of my stance on this has been misinterpreted.
CoroCoro Comic is indeed a reliable source. However, it seems that every month, someone in Japan illicitly gets a hold of a copy of the magazine about a week before the magazine is sold to the general public (in this case the new issue is not sold in Japan until June 13, which makes this edit factually incorrect anyway), takes out their cellphone, and takes low quality photographs of sections of the pages about Pokémon and posts them online. Then and all of the other Pokémon fansites leap onto these small snippets of information and present them as fact to the fan community, which for some reason has since been reported on by other gaming websites with a better editorial track record that vets them as sources that are normally considered reliable on Wikipedia.
It has been my argument that because the information from this particular issue of CoroCoro Comic cannot be independently verified yet (as in I cannot yet buy the issue from my local stores, nor can anyone else living in Japan) the information cannot be considered reliable, in addition to the status of the posting website as being unreliable. For all we know at this time, these are extremely convincing photoshops. Until anyone can see the magazine for themselves (or when all of this is revealed at Nintendo's E3 presentation on June 10), this information should not be on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
CoroCoro's reliability is irrelevant. GameSpot have already vouched for it in this specific case. We don't need independent Wikipedian analysis or confirmation when we already have CNET's. - hahnchen 11:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
CoroCoro is reliable regardless. The issue is that the CoroCoro issue won't be out until Friday and there is no reason anyone should have the information that has been posted, which was attributed to which is not reliable. GameSpot's editorial decisions should not vet's bad reporting, and also Artichoker's text is factually incorect because he attributes the CoroCoro release date to the leak date and acts as if the CoroCoro has been released, which it hasn't. Let's just wait 24 hours for the Nintendo Direct.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
GameSpot can vet whoever they want, that's why they're a reliable source. When the Guardian reports on Wikileaks material, we don't have to query Wikileaks. We already have GameSpot's opinion, we don't need yours. - hahnchen 12:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Remember, an RS, reporting information that no other source can corroborate, can be wrong, case in point, IGN and "The Last Guardian"'s story from just this weekend. Gamespot's reporting of what some fans have said is in an upcoming issue of a magazine that has not yet hit public stands is extremely suspicious and should not be used until the magazine hits public stands and the information can be verified. It doesn't matter that Gamespot reported it, they're reporting a poor chain of authority of information. It would be equivalent to quoting Neogaf threads - they're not necessarily wrong but until information is public knowledge (this being the newsstand date of CoroCoro), they are highly suspect. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The information is verifiable, there's a GameSpot article on it. It absolutely matters that GameSpot reported it, because GameSpot is a reliable source. What doesn't matter is the opinion of Wikipedia's ILIKEIT source policing. GameSpot is owned by CNET, who have a team of lawyers and are legally liable for what they publish. Everyone here is just some guy on the internet. And in a week's time, Ryulong will be some guy on the internet with a copy of CoroCoro, but that's irrelevant. If Rolling Stone reports of a leaked album, you don't need to wait for the actual album to be released. - hahnchen 13:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No it is not verifyable. I (nor anyone else in the public) cannot go right now and get the issue of CoroCoro to look up the information. What is verifiable is that some users have claims that the next issue of CoroCoro has this information, but that doesn't verify that what is being said about what is in CoroCoro is correct. That is what Gamespot is reporting. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Also to add: reporting what other sources say in the manner they did it removes any legal liabilities that could even be inferred here (they point right to the sources that said it). It would be different if they reported some inside scope about a company's big plans, otherwise kept under wraps until some reveal date, and refused to give a source that said that. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't see the fuss here. Hanhchen is correct, "unreliable" doesn't mean automatically wrong, and if an RS repeats the claim we can cover it; especially if both we and the RS qualify it as rumours. Mainsteam publications "follow" others, both reliable and not, per our standards, all the time these days. Though as others have said, if it's a question of a day or two, I dunno why anyone would fight about it either way. bridies (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's one thing if it was an industry rumor that two or more RS's picked up, separately. Here, we are talking about word-of-mouth from users that happened to get their hands early on an issue of a magazine that no one else can see. This is not the type of rumor mongering that is allowed on WP. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Your definition of verifiability is broken. Which, given how core it is to the project is worrying. You (and everyone else in the public) can go to GameSpot right now to verify the information. That you can't verify GameSpot's source is irrelevant, you can't question Snowden/Manning/Wikileaks/Ellsberg/Deepthroat either. GameSpot are reporting this as fact. - hahnchen 15:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No, wrong. Working on the presumption that there are these features coming to the next Pokemon game, the reliable source for that is CoroCoro. (When Famitsu reports something, we usually use an English-reporting website to get the proper translation, but Famitsu remains the RS). The problem is that what CoroCoro is being credited with is not available to the public until Friday, and we (most specifically Gamespot) is using word-of-mouth from people that claimed to have seen it. Far different situation. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's irrelevant when it's available to the public when GameSpot have reported its contents as fact. I don't care what GameSpot are using when GameSpot is the reliable source, their editorial standards confer reliability on what would otherwise be unreliable information. Edward Snowden was an unreliable source, until The Guardian reports on it. And here you are claiming that we can't use The Guardian because the public don't have access to Snowden. It's ridiculous. I don't care when Wikipedians can get their hands on the information, GameSpot have already done your job for you, a job you are not qualified to do. - hahnchen 15:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me clarify one thing: it is the middleman of the user reports of what was in CoroCoro that is at issue. If a Gamespot editor himself saw the CoroCoro mag ahead of time and wrote the article on what he saw, this would not be an issue; as has been said, Gamespot is an RS and we assume good faith that the editor was truthful on what they saw; GS becomes the RS and the point of verifyability until CoroCoro comes out. But when Gamespot specifically mentions that these are what others are reporting, they've tainted the reliability of information by using unreliable user messages as their source. Those users may be correct, and come Friday we'll know for sure, but until then, we have information that is tainted with unreliability. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
GameSpot are a reliable source. GameSpot have mentioned what others are reporting, and have reported it as fact. That "guy on the internet" thinks that it's tainted is irrelevant. - hahnchen 15:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Masem, your arguments are starting to mirror Ryulong's in the same flawed regard. Reading your last comment, you appear to be arguing about "inherited unreliability", which put quite simply, is not actually a thing and is not backed up by any Wikipedia policy. Your assertions appear to constitute your own opinion, but don't have any basis in a policy. However, WP:V is very clear on the matter for adding this content in. Also, as I mentioned before, there are multiple reliable sources aside from GameSpot that are also reporting on this issue. Artichoker[talk] 23:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
They're not flawed. Gamespot is situationally a reliable source and in this situation it is clear that there is something problematic here. All of these other sources are still reporting on the same shit that Serebii and all the fansites posted (not to mention you are picking up shit from last month's issue which came out around the time those articles were posted). We can wait for the E3 Nintendo Direct conference in less than 24 hours to post all this information. Gamespot's reporting of Serebii's bullshit is not a valid source on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This is getting a little bit frustrating. You once again stated that GameSpot is situationally reliable, when I already explained to you multiple times that is indeed reliable in this case, per our guidelines [8]. It's getting a little bit ridiculous how I have to keep going in circles and explaining this to you. Please once again read up on our guidelines and what it actually says for when GameSpot is not reliable (when the article is user-submitted, which this one clearly was not). Stating something like this: "Gamespot's reporting of Serebii's bullshit is not a valid source on Wikipedia" doesn't mean it's any more true just because you try and say it sharply. Once again, that is nothing more than your opinion and has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Artichoker[talk] 23:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't get why you don't understand is that in this situation none of these sources are reliable because they are reporting on content from an unreleased magazine that was half-ass translated by a website we do not consider a reliable source. We can wait for the digital conference tomorrow morning when we'll have more than the low quality photographs posted here and repeateded ad infinitum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Plus we know how trigger-happy gaming journalism can get [9], so why not be careful? « Ryūkotsusei » 23:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I don't understand it, because it's not true, and there is no policy about this. Really the argument is quite simple and all of your qualms are irrelevant. Put simply, the GameSpot source is clearly reliable per Wikipedia and WP:VG's guidelines and therefore can be added to the article. There really isn't much more to it than that. As for the timing argument, as I mentioned before, it's really a nonfactor because Wikipedia is a work in progress. The information can be added in now, and if it changes soon, that is perfectly fine and after that fact, the article should be further updated to reflect the changes. But there really isn't a basis I'm seeing for preventing the information from being added now. Just because you don't like the content doesn't mean you get to stall and prevent editors from adding it for the sole reason of "you should just wait". Artichoker[talk] 23:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No it is not reliable, because their source is not reliable and somewhat problematic. If the source is known and not reliable it invalidates anything that is quoting them. I am tired of repeating myself and tired of you dismissing my arguments and Masem's just because policies and guidelines do not (yet) explain what we are trying to say. Clearly in this case, WP:IAR shows that we cannot accept GameSpot or SlashGear or anyone else reporting on content from the as of yet unreleased July 2014 issue of CoroCoro Comic as fact because it is not out yet and because all the E3 hype has already proven to have some false information released.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No one cares about your self-important Wikipedia sleuthing. I value GameSpot's editorial judgement over yours. That's why GameSpot is a reliable source, and you are not. It's that simple, and I've been repeating that since the beginning. Only for Wikipedians to jump in and tell me how their amateur self taught divinations somehow trump GameSpot's editorial policies. If that really is the case, then you should be making the case that GameSpot is not reliable at all. Following your example, we can't publish anything on the Edward Snowden stories because the NSA hasn't officially published what they're up to, and you can't get your hands on it. - hahnchen 10:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you really been comparing this bullshit to Edward Snowden this whole time? This isn't someone finding confidential information and making it public. It's someone in Japn illegally getting early access to a magazine and then posting about it online which is then picked up by a bunch of other English speaking services. Because this is not a reliable source it makes all other sources reporting this same information not reliable either. As Masem stated on the article's talk page "being published in a reliable source does not 'bless' the information as [verifiable] if it is being relayed through several other sources as the case here". And you certainly had no consensus to add the content to the article as you have done twice now. The Nintendo E3 conference is going to be in an hour. Wikipedia can wait until after that because we are not posting the CoroCoro leaks because their sourcing is problematic and not verifiable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It is verifiable, GameSpot have verified it, you can verify it at GameSpot. GameSpot is a reliable source. They can certify what would otherwise be unreliable content as reliable due to their professional editorial policies. You are not in a position to discount GameSpot's editorial policies. Just because you don't have access to Snowden's illegally gathered material, you don't get to discount the New York Times. Masem is wrong, and admittedly confused. - hahnchen 15:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
FFS, it's not verifiable just because GameSpot posted the information. Because I cannot go to my local bookstore in Japan and buy the magazine that this information comes from until Friday, it is not verifiable. GameSpot's posting of the information does not bless it as verifiable and reliable. And besides, one hour from now this information will available for the whole world when Nintendo has its Digital E3 conference. We can wait until then and not claim that GameSpot is posting confidential information like when Snowden called out the NSA's spying.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The rewritten content has full rights to be in the article, as it states that GameSpot is reporting on a leak in the article. The leak can be mentioned, but it must not be stated as fact. Nothing is wrong here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work either, because part of the chain in this link is an unreliable source, We have no way to validate if the rumor/leak is even true or not because this unreliable source reported it. If it was the case that Gamespot themselves directly learned of this information, then yes, as them being an RS, we can include that. But we cannot include rumors that extent from an unreliable source that has no present corroboration. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. GameSpot reporting on the leak makes the leak notable, and able to be mentioned in the article. It doesn't matter where the leak came from. It could have came from a user on the GameSpot forums, or even Bulbapedia. GameSpot reported on it, so we can mention GameSpot's report. The main issue here is that we can't treat it as fact. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Across the board (not just video games) WP does not report on rumors, in general, particularly if only from a single unreliable source, that being On the other hand, if multiple RS's suddenly report, independently of each other, on a rumor, with no apparent same common source, that's usually something to consider including, if the rumor's inclusion to the article is significant enough.
And remember, we do not require articles to immediately reflect new information as soon as it is available, and in fact we discourage rushing to insert new material until enough time has settled to affirm the information is true. In either.. 1.5 hr from when I write this (nintendo direct's conference) or 4 days (CoroCoro's release), we will have all the confirmation that is required to include it, so I see no need to rush something that is otherwise questionable. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Wikipedia does not require perfect sourcing, it requires reliable sourcing, and GameSpot is reliable. This is a Pokemon article, not a BLP. Any amateur sleuthing into where GameSpot got their information is irrelevant, being a reliable source, GameSpot's editorial processes trump anything a Wikipedian can come up with. And if turns out to be wrong, we can edit the article again. There's a difference between "seeing no need" for the information and actively suppressing it through all caps edit summaries. When someone is trying to add reliably sourced relevant material to an article, information that is not defamatory, and largely (even by Ryulong) considered to be correct, we should not be inventing new ILIKEIT sourcing standards on the fly. - hahnchen 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT explains the whole situation, sort of. If we source the GameSpot post, we would have to say that the information is from GameSpot's report of Serebii's report of CoroCoro. We can't say ourselves that CoroCoro indeed has this information. We must explicitly mention that the information is from a leak. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Section break

And as I just saw in Nintendo Direct, now the information can be verified. That's the patience we ask for. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem was, what if this information wasn't fully announced until... 2 months from now? We need to set a precedent for future rumors like this. If the information gets leaked on the 7th of every month, but released on the 15th, I would personally be fine with waiting a week, but there will always be other users who will argue the fact with Ryulong, as this happens every time a leak like this occurs. If multiple reliable sources report on the leak, can we use them to report on the leak ourselves, considering we treat it as a rumor? Or under content guidelines will WP:VG as a project disallow that type of content? It fully passes WP:V and WP:N, content guidelines is what we need to create. WP:VGSCOPE currently specifically disallows this, but stuff like Kingdom Hearts 3 contained notable rumors, so we must determine whether this is the correct thing to do so this discussion can be linked as proof of consensus. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly why I got involved in a Pokemon dispute. Awaiting official confirmation, or some kind of perfect ILIKEIT sourcing is ridiculous. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If relevant information is published in a reliable source, it can be included. In this case, it wasn't even posted as rumour, GameSpot were confident enough to post it as fact. - hahnchen 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That's the whole problem. It was presented as fact with no consequence. For all we knew it could have been a photoshop that decived the team at Serebii. And Blake it's not a "leak". Someone posted random photos of what was believed to be this Friday's issue of a magazine and because it's not out yet we had no way of corroborating the evidence until the press conference an hour ago or with the actual magazine on Friday.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't include it if the information is not traced from a reliable source, regardless of how long it might take to become reliable. We don't publish rumors. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
And I am fine with that, I just wish that was stated sooner. The problem was you and Ryulong are trying to treat this as Wikipedia guidelines, but the fact that a rumor exists can be verified by reliable sources, so it is allowed under that. The core of this discussion should have been whether WP:VG article guidelines allow rumors. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It is WP guidelines, this is nothing new (see WP:NEWSORG for example). What's happening is that people are only looking at the final source of the chain of information and claiming that reliability is established by that, but in reality, as long as there is a stated chain of information, we have to consider the reliability of each piece to judge how valuable the rumor is, as well as how well it can be corroborated. And that simply wasn't the case here. Again, I stress that we don't have to be up to date as we place higher value in reliability and verifyability than being up to date. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No we do not have to consider "the chain". Amateur sleuthing has nothing on GameSpot's editorial policies. - hahnchen 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes we do have to consider the chain. GameSpot presenting something as fact could backfire terribly. Again, look at what happened with IGN and The Last Guardian.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Being a reliable source does not mean they don't make mistakes. And if they do, they'll issue a retraction and we'll edit the article. This is not a BLP, the information is non-controversial, non-defamatory, even you believed it to be true. I can't see how anything could "backfire terribly" in the world of games reporting. GameSpot were confident enough to report the leaked information as fact, I trust them more than I trust you. You'd trust them over trusting me. That's why they're the reliable source. - hahnchen 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that mistakes could be made means we shouldn't post everything that comes from Serebii and makes it to the bigger websites and present it as a fact or rumor. It was proven to be true an hour after the last revert but that doesn't mean that's how it will always work. In the case where only 48 hours is needed to officially confirm unsubstantiated rumor mongering, it's better to err on the side of caution and wait for the official confirmation and third party reporting on that official confirmation than post anything that can be directly linked to a known unreliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Remember, it is not that Gamespot is reporting anything wrong. They said "We got this news from Siliconera which got it from Serebii which claimed to have it from user-taken scans of CoroCoro that wasn't on the market yet". If the scans turned out to be fake, Gamespot has nothing to apologize or retract; they still stated something factually correct about the chain of authority for the information. But that's why the chain of information is important and not whoever touches the information last that sets how reliable it is. WP uses an approach comparable to police evidence - if the evidence is not handled and transferred with sufficient authority between sources, it become invalidated and inadmissible for court case. Similarly, information chains are tainted by unreliable sources. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Still think we can just say there are rumours XYZ and cite GameSpot. bridies (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you read any of this? Because the answer to that is a resounding "no". Unless GameSpot calls it a rumor, we cannot call it a rumor. All of these websites (except SlashGear) have been reporting the content as fact and vetting Serebii's reporting despite the fact we at Wikipedia do not include Serebii as a reliable source and are aware that the content's acquisition is problematic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure he's read it all and realised that yourself and Masem repeating the same FUD does not make GameSpot unreliable. GameSpot have every right to vet Serebii's reporting, a right you do not have. The Xbox One's specs were leaked months ahead of time, unsanctioned information that came from unreliable sources. They were unreliable until covered by reliable sources. Masem's amateur clueology adds nothing, it's not a trail of evidence, it's GameSpot's word. We'll take GameSpot's word. - hahnchen 18:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. Being published in an RS does not bless the information as reliable. Now, in the case of the Xbox One, yes they were rumors, but because there was so much interest in the console there was a lot of coverage saying "If these are the specs, then X". That's a case where we would report the rumor given 1) no one published the rumor as fact, and 2) the large coverage was secondary and reviewed the implications, basd on the RS's opinion, where MS was going, and not stating it as fact. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Would you stop verbally fellating GameSpot already, Hahnchen? If we at Wikipedia are aware of the chain of information and know something is off (GameSpot reports on Serebii posting, Serebii reports on CoroCoro posting on 2ch, CoroCoro isn't out yet), then we can ignore all rules and say that the source is not reliable in this instance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Facts published in a reliable source does not make it reliable? If that's the case, why have reliable sources at all? You're asking me to trust your judgment over the professional editorial guidelines at GameSpot. And that's the same argument Ryulong makes, that his judgment is better than that of our reliable sources. This is not an argument supported by our policies, and rightly so. - hahnchen 18:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We're allowed to use our judgement on these matters. That's why we're all editors of this encyclopedia. We are the editorial oversight as much as GameSpot's staff is for their website, which you need to stop raising on a pedestal. And they're rumors presented as facts from an unreliable source (explicitly stated by the source itself) posted in what we normally deem a reliable source. It's supported by WP:V that sources have to be published, which in this case we are aware they were not. Maybe we just need to have situations like this one explicitly described in the policies and guidelines so we dont have this shit happen again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Journalists use sources that we'd consider unreliable all the time; they use anonymous sources; peer reviewed papers use anonymous sources; do we have to start second guessing the IPCC because of climategate, for example? The notion that we have to establish a "chain of information" and subject that to our RS standards in turn is unconvincing. bridies (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not "establishing a chain of information". We know exactly what it is because every single website that was reporting this content referred to Serebii (an unreliable source) and CoroCoro (a source that isn't published yet). With this knowledge, we can determine whether or not any particular source is reliable regardless of its previous track record on Wikipedia. Simply being posted somewhere that has editorial oversight in place is not enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This debate is ridiculous: After Ryulong does multiple reverts on an article like this, an editor speaks out. Then Ryulong responds, and the discussion descends into chaos. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. I began the discussion on this issue after I first saw the content that I objected to on the article's talk page days ago. It was only after hours of Artichoker edit warring to restore the content and a circular argument with myself did he bring it here for wider discussion and Hahnchen entered the fray because he agreed with him and felt there was a consensus because I had difficulty describing what was wrong with the content in terms of website policy, or rather they dud not agree with my interpretation of WP:V.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
How can you possibly warp this so obscenely to make it seem like you are some victim and I am this huge criminal. You have gone past the point of disagreeing with me and are now actively being dishonest about the situation. "It was only after hours of Artichoker edit warring to restore the content" What in the world? By "hours of edit warring", do you mean two reverts with discussion and thirty-four minutes of the whole ordeal before I brought it here? In addition, I strongly admonish you for having the audacity to accuse me of edit warring when the edit history of the page looks like this. Yes, that's over seven reverts by Ryulong in less than two days all regarding the same dispute. I'd say your comment above summarizing the situation is completely inaccurate, and considering this is after you were just warning for edit warring from the report at AN/3RR today, its clear to me that you have learned nothing from the ordeal. Artichoker[talk] 05:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Multiple, recent blocks and warnings for edit warring and disruption. Yet there has been no change in behavior. What can be done? And then warping the summary of our dispute. Never before have I been so frustrated during my time at Wikipedia. Artichoker[talk] 05:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It's because every single god damn time I try to stick with WP:BRD it backfires because the other party insists that they are right as much as I am. You made a bold edit to the ORAS page to add the content. I reverted it. I began a discussion. You began the edit war by putting it back in because you assumed that anything posted on one particular website which is chosen as a reliable source is a reliable source. I wasn't right in continuing the edit war but you weren't right in starting it in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bridies: We're not journalists, however, we're writing an encyclopedia. Journalists want to get the freshest information out to readers ASAP, though a good journalist will try to corroborate rumors (How many "We've reached out to X" do you see in many sources nowadays?) Our purpose is to write good encyclopedic articles with verifyable information and probably on the opposite end of the journalism spectrum. We take the higher road in making sure what we report is factual and can be backed up, and don't have to be up to the minute, and as such we have a higher requirement of sourcing. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
We cite journalists all the time though; I imagine climate articles cite the IPCC (which is not in the business of publishing rumours) all the time. bridies (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes but we are not here to report on the latest news. We are here to report on things that are notable and verifiable. In this case, there was a question of verifiability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:V - "Verifiability is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". GameSpot is a reliable source which directly supported the contribution. Verifiability means access to the story, not access to their sources. In Bridies example, just because you cannot independently assess raw data from a scientific paper, does not mean that it is not verifiable. Whether or not you can physically get your hands on a source is irrelevant. (it might be relevant at Conservapedia)
Masem's point, that we are better than journalists, is laughable. All through this discussion, I have argued that the professional editorial standards at reliable sources are superior than yours or Masem's amateur sleuthing. I think everyone else in this conversation agrees. GameSpot is a reliable source, it is not even a questionable source. Journalists have editors and legal departments, you are a guy on the internet.
We already have policies in place at WP:V and WP:RS. We don't need the imagined and unworkable guidelines that you two have been creating on the fly. No, we do not have to wait until "official" announcements. (With the Xbox One specs, months. In the NSA case, forever.) No, we do not need to independently vet every source in a story, nor do we have the capability. No, you are not a policeman. No, you are not better than a journalist.
This is a video games project. It's not a BLP. The information in this case is not controversial, not defamatory, and is supported by reliable sources. Even by its detractors, the information is believed to be true. Yet it was suppressed from Wikipedia in order to enforce an undefined standard which only exists in your mind. - hahnchen 11:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
We should be as good as BLP, or more the case, we should strive to make sure our sourcing requirement meet the goals of what BLP sourcing requirements have. We can't settle for less otherwise that just blows the idea of any type of quality for out of the water. We're not here to keep up to the second with gaming news sites but to end up with articles that will cover topics about video games once they have long since been released for historical documentation purposes. If you think different, then is not the place for you to be writing.
I never said we were better than journalists, but only that take a higher road in considering the quality of sources; we're not trying to break news here.
And once again, on the specific issue: Gamespot only verified that (via Siliconera) said what they said about CoroCoro; they could not claim what CoroCoro said because Gamespot did not have access to the magazine. Gamespot did not directly check CoroCoro so their article does not directly support the claim that MegaEvolutions would be in Pokemon. We as editors have every right to consider if what said was verified or legit, and because they are an unreliable source working off a copy of magazine that we know hasn't hit the shelves, every red light about the reliability of that information should have gone off. Consider how many stories there are based on claims made by anonymous NeoGAF users; we would never allow those stories to be used if the only authoritative source is the NeoGAF user. Add to the fact that we nearly always are talking future rumors that are resolved within a month or so (often much less) by official announcements or reveal, and because we are not a news source, we can afford to discount these highly questionable resources and wait for the actual news to come out. We are simply not a rumor farm as some want this to be. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
GameSpot were confident reporting the information contained within the leaked magazine as fact. That is direct support for the claim made in the article. GameSpot, as a reliable source, has the ability to confer reliability onto what otherwise would be unreliable material, even if it is an anonymous source. GameSpot has editorial oversight to do that, compare the tone of the Pokemon article to one where GameSpot has no confidence. We're not a rumour mill, we're a fact factory. - hahnchen 13:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop stroking GameSpot's metaphorical dick already. It's getting old. What they published does not automatically confer any sort of status to the content. Masem and I presented enough information and arguments saying that the posting of the information was problematic but all you give a shit about is that it's in GameSpot and it's written by a staff member so that means it's a reliable source without addressing any of our concerns.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You'd clearly prefer if I joined in your circle-jerk instead. Only no one (outside of Conservapedia) agrees with your standard about vetting source chains. You've now joined in with Masem's Kafkaesque argument that facts published in a reliable source does not make it reliable. So what, only facts vetted by Masem and Ryulong make the cut? - hahnchen 14:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Gamespot did not report "The next Pokemon will have MegaEvolutions" as fact. They did report "Site A reported that Site B reported that an unreleased magazine claims that the next Pokemon will have MegaEvolutions" as fact, but they phrased it enough that covered their ass in terms of integrity. If Serebii falsified the information, GS has no skin in the game to lose because it was reported by someone else, not them. If Nintendo got upset the news was leaked before Tuesday's event, GS is not at fault. Of course, if the information was right (Which appears it was) they look like good journalists. GS's fact checking only went as far back as what Serebii said, not what CoroCoro said. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Also to add: If GS had reported "The next Pokemone will have MegaEvolutions", and didn't mention CoroCoro, Serebii, or Siliconera, but instead treated it like "their" find, that would have been fine to use as a source, because we assume GS is a reliable source and if they present things without attribution, we assume they've done the rigor of fact checking on it. But that also puts a lot more of their integrity on the line as well to make that as a direct claim. The point from this is that we have been given enough of a line of authority of information (as most good RS's do) we follow that line to make sure there's no weak links and if there are, have to consider the piece as suspect and not appropriate to include. Just being an RS doesn't mean every piece that website puts out is completely usable as reference for WP. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not "the next Pokemon will have MegaEvolutions" it's "the new Pokemon games will have new Mega Evolutions not in the previously released games and the cover art depicts new [translation of a Japanese word not ultimately chosen by the English localization team] forms of old Pokemon".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Read the article, GameSpot reported it as fact. Not as rumour or speculation. They took the information from the leak and represented it as fact. They don't say, "this could be true", or "rumour has it", they are saying - the information in this magazine is correct. You are not in a position to judge Gamespot's editorial process (and you have no insight into it), but as a reliable source, we accept that they can confer reliability on what would otherwise be unreliable information. - hahnchen 14:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
All Masem and I have done is call into question the reliability of sources reporting on information we know was not available to the general public until yesterday after 15:00 (UTC). There's no rule against this on Wikipedia and no amount comparing us to Conservapedia or Gamespot to Edward Snowden is going to change that. And no, they are not reporting on this information as fact. GameSpot reported on Siliconera reporting on Serebii reporting on the unreleased July 2014 issue of CoroCoro. The general public still does not have access to that magazine issue. That is the issue here. Because we know that the secondary source is problematic, that means that everything else in this whole set of information is problematic. There's nothing in WP:V, WP:RS, WP:VG/S, etc. that gives carte blanche editorial integrity to a whole website's postings as you've been claiming here. That's why we have WP:RSN for general queries.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied that Ryulong is a grumpy user who makes lies about his increasingly disruptive edits. To quote from one ANI debate: "Anyone can compare and/or contrast Ryulong 8 years ago to whatever he is today." I've seen in his "user talk" a low number of super-happy events since last year, psychologically different from his nicest days in 2006. I wonder if he did any mistakes before 2013, and I think he edited Pokemon-related articles for a long time before this debate started. Remember anything about him prior to this discussion? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 13:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Gonna: And as in the discussion at ANI you are barging in with completely unrelated evidence and advice to this current debate. How I acted when I was trying to be a mostly amicable administrator between 18 and 20 has no bearing on my activity as a run of the mill editor at age 26 and 27.
Hahnchen: WP:RS gives us guidelines as to determine reliability. Just because GameSpot is generally considered a reliable source when its content is written by its staff members does not mean it was a reliable source for this bit of information in this situation because of the knowledge we have separate from GameSpot that suggests that the original source (which we should be citing instead of GameSpot and the like) is questionable (because it's not available to the public yet). I am completely allowed to call into question the reliability of sources on this subject. Simply being published in something that's listed on WP:VG/S does not grant everything in that publication automatic reliability. It's not a blanket policy that vets everything all of those websites ever say. And in the case when we could have just waited until yesterday morning for the official press releases and people reporting on those press releases, or in two days when every five year old boy in Japan (and those five at heart) have their hands on the newest issue of CoroCoro to verify it as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
One of your quotes ("Yes but we are not here to report on the latest news. We are here to report on things that are notable and verifiable.") is poorly conceived because the "latest news", like "other things", can be notable and verifiable. I believe there's not enough trial and punishment for you. Why everyone is talking about journalists and video game news sources like Gamespot instead of improving this article. Read the title of this section: "Request for outside input on Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire". I want the definition of the term "outside input" because everyone is ignoring what the title commands them to do, which is make helpful edits to the Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire article and discuss peaceful solutions to the issue that Artichoker explained in the first paragraph of the section. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 14:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
What Artichoker wanted was a third voice to outnumber me in the discussion over the reliability of the GameSpot source in regards to its reporting on content from an unreleased magazine issue. Now that the same information was revealed outside of the photos taken of this Friday's issue of CoroCoro Comic that were posted to and repeated on Siliconera, GameSpot, SlashGear, Kotaku, and a plethora of other video game websites makes that moot. Now we are just in a circular argument over the apparent sacred status of GameSpot as a reliable source instead of examining reliable sources on case by case bases. And your ad hominem and completely unrelated discussions of my character.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
How "unrelated" and "ad hominem" is my information here about you? It's not that way, but you believe it's so. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 14:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
"What Artichoker wanted was a third voice to outnumber me in the discussion" You're going to continue making things up and attacking my character? No, your statement is incorrect. I came here to request a outside opinion because I could make no progress with your childish and disruptive edit warring. And no, I wasn't edit warring myself; I reverted once and the second time added an additional source to my edit, both times after discussion. Of course, this can be contrasted with you, who made over seven reverts to the article (you know, actual edit warring). But back to my point; no I didn't come for the sole purpose of finding another voice so I could gang up on you. I was simply continuing the dispute resolution process, since there was no possibility of me making headway against your constant aggressive reverts. Artichoker[talk] 01:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes you most certainly were edit warring. It doesn't matter if the exact text is different, the fact is you inserted the same information that was being contested. I should not have felt the need to revert so many times if the status quo was kept while the discussion was ongoing. But instead you insisted that I was inherently incorrect because I didn't refer to a policy you thought was valid and kept restoring the content despite no consensus to include or exclude. It is not inherently important for Wikipedia to have had the content about Mega Sceptile, Mega Swampert, Mega Diancie, Primal Groudon, and Primal Kyogre last week when all we had to show for it was a bunch of gaming websites reporting on a fansite reporting on a bunch of illegally obtained photos from a Japanese magazine that won't be available until tomorrow when we could have easily waited for Tuesday morning (US time) to have all of the English language press releases and reactions from a known event. The content will probably be erased further along the line in the article's history when people realize that it wasn't important to discuss all the hype train stuff that happened before release. But no, we had to have this information on the article five days ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Reverting twice during and after discussions, and following the dispute resolution process is not edit warring. It is BRD. However, immediately and aggressively reverting seven times against multiple editors is the very definition of edit warring. So sorry, but you are the sole, disruptive edit warrior here. Artichoker[talk] 23:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
BRD should have happened after the revert I performed of your bold edit to add the leak. Anything after that on either of our parts is edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Artichoker: for providing your point of view. I'm happy with you! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the discussion of reliable sources which is what everyone has been talking about a day now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 14:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
And if we're going further off topic, then you really need to reign your signature in a bit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you are perennially incivil and have repeatedly behaved like a giant child for years is entirely relevant, given that you've told Hahnchen, among other things, to stop fellating and stroking dick in the thread above. You really are completely risible.bridies (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Metaphorical dick. And raising on a pedestal somewhere. Matters regarding my personal behavior as my patience wears as this conversation drags on should not be matters of discussion here which regards sourcing of a particular article. Perhaps I should not be using these phrases, but I'm discussing the behavior rather than the editor directly as far as I am concerned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh that's all right then. Just call him a metaphorical faggot and be done with it. bridies (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Now that's putting words in my mouth. There are only so many ways one can say "raise on a pedestal", but I will refrain from the phallic imagery from now on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Hanchan: "GameSpot reported it as fact. Not as rumour or speculation. They took the information from the leak and represented it as fact. They don't say, "this could be true", or "rumour has it", they are saying - the information in this magazine is correct." That's not correct. They reported, as fact, that X said Y is true, but they did not report directly that Y is fact. This is standard journalism practice, not just in video games but in newspapers, magazines, and news sources that purport to have journalistic integrity. If one is not privy directly to certain facts but want to cover that information, standard journalism practice is to do exactly what GS did, cite where the information came from before adding their own spin on it. This does two things:

  • It first applies proper credit where credit is due. Information doesn't magically appear and if you're not the one creating that information, you are supposed to cite who did to give credit.
  • It second is a "cover your ass" move in case the original source is wrong. GS loses no skin if CoroCoro or Seberii is mistaken or the like, because they presented the information as of those parties, not of GS's, so their journalistic reputation is intact. Consider the IGN/The Last Guardian piece. Lots of sites jumped on IGN's original story before Sony's clarification came in. Nearly all the sites I saw started their pieced with "IGN claims..." or the like. As soon as Sony's response hit, those sites quietly added Sony's statement (again, sourcing Sony). In IGN, who presented the information as theirs (coming from IGN Russia) they, properly, issued a retraction and apology for the false information. That would be the only site I'd expect to issue such since the other sites all used IGN's story and were able to cover their ass by attributing the story to IGN.

So GS reported the CoroCoro piece in exactly the way I'd expect for a reputable source. They did nothing wrong in terms of journalism. However, we have a different standard in that we aren't a news site and don't need to be up to the minute, and focus more on verifyability and accuracy than punctuality. We don't rumor-monger per WP:NEWSORG. So when a reliable source picks up a story citing it to elsewhere, we have to evaluate that other site - and any other site or source along the chain - to make sure each is a reliable site for WP's purposes. And in this specific case, Serebii is the deal-breaker (Siliconera is generally okay as a situational source). So because we have no assurance of reliability of Serebii's information, the information as reported at GS is unreliable, but that's not because GS is reporting it, but because it's based on Serebii's information without additional corroborating evidence. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues to consider here. First, the idea of a chain of reliability. I agree with Hahnchen, Bridies, Blake, and others than we are not in a position to decide a reliable source is suddenly reliable based on how they get their information. If we have previously determined they have an acceptable vetting and editorial oversight process, that's that. The more pertinent question, I think, is exactly what Gamespot reported. If they truly reported it as a fact, that would be enough. If they couched their phrasing in a lot of caveats and CYA wording, such that they essentially say "someone else said this is true", that's entirely different. But on the general question, if a source reports something as true, and it's reliable, we can use it. Anything else is essentially WP:OR. —Torchiest talkedits 16:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
But we are allowed to call into question the reliability of a source contextually. That's why WP:RSN exists. In this case it's one website (a "questionable" source according to WP:VG/S) reporting on another website (again "questionable") reporting on another website (a known unreliable source) rumor mongering based on photos they found on yet another website (even less reliable than the first). The last in the chain's journalistic integrity should not vet the problematic nature of the secondary sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I cannot accept Ryulong's tremendous failure to properly abide by Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Disappointing because with the debate, not much progress has been done to the Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire article. I also saw him taking down the blue background used for closed discussions to continue the rampant debate. However, I agree with @Torchiest:'s opinion, which I'm happy about. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 17:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Gonna, this whole thread was intended to be a discussion over the verifiability of sources citing an unreleased issue of a magazine. That has since been rendered moot by the conference from Nintendo yesterday that announced everything in the unreleased magazine issue and updates to information on various official websites and the like. There is no new information that would add any new material to the Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire at this time any more. And there were no rules or guidelines I was not adhering to. I called into question the reliability of the source, and Masem agreed with me on this matter.
And there was no reason or consensus for GamerPro64 to archive the thread (giving it that "blue background") considering Torchiest felt the need to raise his opinion here, nor for you to give these frivolous and unfounded reasons to revert my reopening.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I know whatever this thread is about already. I agree with Torchiest's statement here, but you keep going on and on about this topic of discussion. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 17:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This is because it's from your point of view a futile attempt at changing general practice on this project when it comes to the apparent infallibility of what are considered reliable sources in most contexts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 17:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The Gamespot story in question, Pokemon Omega Ruby/Alpha Sapphire Remakes Add New Mega Evolutions presented the information in the leak as fact. It was not tagged as a rumour, they do present the source "New information about the remakes, entitled Pokémon Omega Ruby and Pokémon Alpha Sapphire, has surfaced online from Japanese magazine CoroCoro". They validate the leak and present it as true. Compare this with an actual rumour, Rumor: Borderlands "pre-sequel" coming to Xbox 360/PS3/PC - where the word "rumor" is presented in the headline and includes 'CYA' phrases like "Of course, this is purely a rumor right and it should be treated as such until we receive confirmation one way or the other." - hahnchen 11:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
They also mention that the scans are on Gamespot by way of Siliconera and originally Serebii, which isn't a reliable source. When they present the information as such it causes reliability problems. There should have been no "[validating] the leak".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no way Gamespot could have validated the claim "New MegaEvolutions in next Pokemon" unless they either looked at the same issue of CoroCoro (impossible since the magazine wasn't out) or spoke to Nintendo directly (highly unlikely N would confirm this before the reveal at E3). They did likely validate that possible scans of that CoroCoro mag were posted to Serebii, which anyone else could too, but we still have to take those scans as suspect. And no, not every "rumor" is going to have the word "rumor" in it - for us, anything that doesn't come directly from a developer, publisher, or from a website speaking on its own behalf - is hearsay and rumor. And remember, there are different editors for a website, some that are a bit more careful; add that there is more possible speculation claiming something about a brand new game as opposed to a new version of an existing feature in a game's series that will be in the game's next known iteration. And finally, I don't care how "amateur" you think we are in vetting sources, but sets its own requirements for source verification and validity; I'll note most of that is set by advanced degree persons (including myself) that know how to do research and write about it, and we're apply those same standards to video games to treat them in an academic manner too. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no way you have any insight or are in any position to judge Gamespot's editorial processes. Our policies such as WP:V mean that we rely on reliable third parties rather than the word of a Wikipedian. The argument you've just made, is that "despite GameSpot reporting it as fact, it's still a rumour, because I, Masem, as an 'advanced degree person' deem it so." GameSpot were happy reporting the CoroCoro information as fact, you are not. We go with GameSpot. - hahnchen 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You're mixing two issues here: Gamespot as in general a reliable source, and the information GS published on one article. We do use external sources to validate GS as a reliable source and they do show appropriate signs of editorial control, so they are reliable, no question. But reliable sources are not infallable, and not everything they publish is a usable source. On this specific article, it is clear they didn't confirm it outside of checking This langage "New information about the remakes, entitled Pokémon Omega Ruby and Pokémon Alpha Sapphire, has surfaced online from Japanese magazine CoroCoro. As translated by (via Siliconera), ..." is them telling us they did no additional legwork to verify what Serebii said. Perhaps they trust Serebii (and again, we're not saying the information is wrong) to assume that's true, but for that uses academic sourcing approaches, this is not good enough for us. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Our policies are encapsulated at WP:V and WP:RS. We do not use the "academic sourcing approaches" that you've been inventing on the fly (though when an academic publishes a peer reviewed paper, they too have the right to validate otherwise unreliable information). You have no insight into GameSpot's editorial processes, so stop guessing. They've said that this information comes from CoroCoro.
Note my first statement, "That's what reliable sources do, they take otherwise unreliable information and make it reliable through their editorial process." You clearly disagree that reliable sources can do this. You prefer a standard where only 'advanced degree persons' such as yourself can do this. Everyone else on this thread aside from Ryulong has considered your stance ridiculous, I'm not sure there's anything else for me to add, I've essentially repeated my original statement throughout while you've come up with ever more esoteric arguments. - hahnchen 23:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely wrong here. We're an academic work, we're using academic sourcing requirements and evaluation. Just because information is published in a reliable source does not make the information reliable. It means that we probably don't have to worry too much about any original claims made by that source. But this is not an original claim, they specifically identified the source,, which allows us to validate that. We are allowed -and should - question anything published by a reliable source if there's anything iffy about it; this is the IGN/The Last Guardian piece for example. What you are arguing would allow the statement "Half-Life 3 is coming next week" as "fact", if Gamespot posted an article that points to a NeoGaf or Reddit user that made that claim. The type of sourcing and reporting you are describing is great and acceptable if we were a news site, but we are an encyclopedia, and we have vastly different standards for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, GameSpot stated as fact that the information came from CoroCoro. Wikipedia is right in citing IGN saying that The Last Guardian was cancelled. IGN are a reliable source, and they published the story, allowing it to be verified. If reliable sources disagree, we give each side its undue weight, as per WP:V. If GameSpot are confident reporting Half-Life 3's release date as fact, we could cite it and it would be verified. Why ask for you and your divining rod, when you have no insight whatsoever into their editorial processes? Why don't you tweet Half-Life 3's release date (2015-04-01) at GameSpot and see if they bite? I also have the specs for the Xbox Two and concept art for Mega Ditto if that helps. - hahnchen 15:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It is completely fine for us,, to say "This source claims X". with the cite to that source, as long as the source is reliable. That doesn't make "X" true or verified, however, only that anyone can verify the source made that claim. Whether that statement should be included really depends on the importance, timing, and several other issues, keeping in mind we are not a video game news site but an encyclopedia and should be looking towards the long term. For example, in the case of IGN and the Last Guardian, even when Sony quickly reaffirmed that IGN's claim was wrong, I wasn't going to add it because the IGN messup didn't change anything about the article. But what did come out, particular in light of no E3 news, was a restatement from Sony that the game was still coming, which basically for us is the last best data point on its long history that the game's still coming (eg we have an "As of ..." date to show the game hasn't dropped off the radar). In the case of Gamespot and Corocoro, it was one of those that knowning that between the magazine's actual release and the likely news of the new Pokemon from Nintendo at E3, there seemed to be no reason to have to include that information until we have it direct from the source (Nintenod or CoroCoro), because again, in the long-term future for the article on the Pokemon game, that information would immediately become outdated once the game itself was out. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Shawn Layden

I recently started an article for Shawn Layden, the guy who replaced Jack Tretton as the head of SCEA. Feel free to add any input you may have. Thanks! Chambr (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You're gonna need a lot more than that to establish notability. I hope. Tezero (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
After a cursory search, I think he'll be okay. czar  14:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Need help with Japanese reception for Mischief Makers

I need help finding Japanese reception for Mischief Makers. Does anyone have copies of Famitsu or Dengeki or otherwise know how to lookup, locate, and translate their reviews? (Or any other ideas?) czar  00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  • You might try neogaf, or reddit, or look for a web forum where people discuss retro Japanese games (retro jRPGs are popular, and a forum that discusses them might be open to such a request). I think scans of the mag are shared around on Japanese p2p like Perfect Dark (P2P), but without knowledge of Japanese it would probably be a fruitless venture. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not active in those communities—would someone else more familiar with the NeoGAF, Reddit, and jRPG communities be willing to start a few threads for me (on finding and translating Japanese reviews of Yuke Yuke Troublemakers)? I'd do the follow-up, but I don't know their norms about starting threads. czar  13:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? Just need someone with thread creation privileges and community experience at NeoGAF and Reddit to ask my original question czar  14:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
My Reddit experience is mostly limited to the endless Death Grips/Neutral Milk Hotel idolization at /mu/, but why not actual game forums, particularly Nintendo ones? Tezero (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Half-Life 3 RfC

After the somewhat inconclusive discussion the other week I've started an RfC on the draft's talk page to get a clearer consensus and more input. Please share your opinions there. Sam Walton (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move of Nintendo DSi

Should Nintendo DSi be moved to Nintendo DSI (requires an admin) per WP:mostm? DSi was briefly mentioned here: Talk:IPhone 5S#Requested move. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No; in that case, it was the fact that there was Apple's way (5s) and what the press used to do (5S) but now the press are going to Apple's way. In our case with the DSi, I am unaware of any major sources that even briefly called it "DSI"; everyone was consistent with Nintendo's scheme, so I see no reason to move. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Also see Philips CD-i. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dragon's Lair

So there's an issue with the talk page for Dragon's Lair, in that there is an edit war of it getting repeatedly blanked without a reason in the edit summaries. This is mainly caused by User:SNAAAAKE!!, AKA, Niemti. I know that this project has had problems with him, and most likely this thread might be closed to prevent drama, but this is just too much. GamerPro64 18:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk page has been restored and user has been warned that their last revert put them at 3RR. Hopefully it will stop. If not, it's off to AN3. --McDoobAU93 18:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Details: Niemti/SNAKE decided to split the Dragon's Lair page (ostensibly about the first game) into "Dragon's Lair" (the series) and "Dragon's Lair (video game)"- the latter already existed as a redirect, so he just cut and pasted out the video game content to "DL (video game)", then moved that page to "DL (1983 video game)". The talk page thing is because he then did a cut-and-paste move of the talk page from "DL" to "DL (1983 video game)". The page histories are now all screwed up, and rather than fixing it he's just reverting over and over. If anyone tries to do something this in the future- ignoring the page rename, he should have just moved "DL" to "DL (video game)" over the redirect, and then started a new "DL" page about the series- this would have kept the histories correct, and moved the talk pages correctly as well. --PresN 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional background information. Is there an experienced user/admin who can help clean up this mess and get everything where it's supposed to be, or is the damage done and we just need to move on? --McDoobAU93 19:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
If you can outline what should be where, I can fix it. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@PresN: I think you did a good job explaining where things need to be, so could you help out Masem? --McDoobAU93 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe everything should be in its in proper place now (Both articles and talk pages). --MASEM (t) 00:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to WikiProject Video games team for opinions on external links to open source game articles

After we tried to get some opinions of this without much success:
Hello, I am asking here since I was not able to find any guidelines for external links for open source game articles and after in the non-satisfying discussion, I had in the articles discussion page yet , this project was mentioned I think that the experts for this case are to find here. The case is about a formerly commercial video game called Meridian 59 which went open source end of 2012. Now there is a group of players of this game which formed 8 months ago together to modify the game code and opened their own server. The homepage of this group and their server is now linked in the external links section of the original game article Meridian59 as "Open Meridian Project, a fork of Meridian 59".
Since there has not been any medial coverage or other independent secondary source yet which is acknowledging this "open meridian project"-group or their server, which could give them a prominent feature, the question I am asking is: Is the linking their homepage on the games article appropriate or not? Is this group and its project encyclopedic relevant enough? The only independent source which is in any way mentioning this group (I think its refering to them) is a recent article from May 2014 of the The New Yorker which covered the history of this game and shortly mentions the development after it went open source. But also there this group could be only referred as "a group of dedicated players" without any mention of their server. I think the linking is not appropriate and that it serves the reason to help to promote their own server. Other changes in that manner have been done and already been reverted like listing this group in the articles info-box as developers for this game and the creation of an own wikipedia article (Open Meridian Project).
I may be oversensitive so I am hoping to be able to find some opinions of not involved people here. My opinion here is if its ok to link their homepage (without any reliable secondary resources acknowledging them) in the article it should be also ok for other people I know which also already contributed to the open source development of this game (and also could be refered to with the new yorker article as part of this "dedicated group of players") and even me and everyone else to open an own server with an own homepage and to link it in the article. Kind regards Seader (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You'd be allowed to put it as an external link. In other words, we can't talk about that group in the main body text of the article, but we can curtain them off to the side and furtively suggest, "Hey, go look here for more information - but you didn't hear it from us!" Tezero (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
so it does not matter if it's relevant or prominent at all? Any server with homepage could be linked? Kind regards Seader (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Based on my understanding of WP:EL, I'd link the open sourced code but not the new project, especially if the new project has not received coverage in reliable secondary sources and isn't cited in the article. The article is about the game itself and its offshoots are only peripherally related czar  14:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I share this opinion. A relevance for the article appears to be not given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

well I thought so as well. That's why I am asking here for some opinions on this. Kind regards Seader (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@Seader: you closed WP:EL/N#Open Meridian Project URL on Meridian 59 yourself on June 9th, saying that the link is acccepted. To pursue it further is tendentious and disruptive. Please stop it. --Stfg (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stfg::I told on article discussion why I closed the ELN discussion and that I opened this discussion here which is not primary about the external link guidelines anymore but about the general problem of non existing secondary resources which acknowledge this group and their server and could give them any prominent feature or even relevance and other reasons I explained at the beginning of this topic. I only said there in a sarcastic way that it seems to be the fact that every homepage and server of everyone and his dog could be linked if we let the link in the article. I never said that I accepted the linking without any further discussion. At the moment we have 3 opinions yet about the linking which are not all in one line. So there does not seem to be something like a real consensus about this yet. I am willing to accept a consensus but for this we need more opinions. I still think that without any secondary sources or any prominent feature this server should not be linked since its not relevant for the games article like Czar claimed but I do not see a reason to pursue this on daily basis. I stopped editing about this and switched to another field of interest for the moment, to give other users time to give their opinions here about this situation. I am curious what the people think about this case ( not necessarily only the linking of the server on itself but what should be linked and what not in open ). I am asking for opinions here since there are no guidelines about something like this, or at least I could not find some and the normal external links guidelines are not really suited for cases like this. Kind regards Seader (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Seader: you do realise what you have just admitted to, do you? Someone else raised this issue at EL/N and you admit you made an involved non-admin close of it, not to accept the result you stated there, but to be "sarcastic". And then, having closed it, on the same morning you started a new thread on the same topic here. It would be hard to find a clearer example of WP:Gaming the system and WP:FORUMSHOP. --Stfg (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stfg: I have not admitted anything. At ELN was no result. It was one answer from one user which has not shown any real activity since then and even his answer is not really usefull to argue for the linking since he stated that it has to be a prominent fork which it is not. Because I lost hope that we get any more answers there and you mentioned the forumshopping guideline I opened this discussion here where I am sure of is a better place for this, since its not about the link guidelines but about the relevance of this group whcih is on qestion and closed the other one. I have not seen any rule that an eln discussion can be only closed by an admin. Please dont let us stretch this discussion into unnecessary complexity with non relevant discussions. Kind regards Seader (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The general rule is, if reliable sources are linking to it, then it could be worth a mention. If not, then no. See WP:VG/RS for some potential reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Well at the moment there are no reliable sources even mentioning them. Thanks for the link. I will have a look into it. Kind regards Seader (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: actually, neither Wikipedia:External links nor WP:VG/EL state any requirement for reliable secondary sources to justify an external link. The only question here is whether the link to is a spam link. I confess I've always been unsure: on one side, WP:VG/EL's list of appropriate external links includes "the developers' and publishers' home pages" (second bullet; the official web site is the first bullet, and this second bullet is plural -- the Open Meridian Project is certainly a developer). On the other side, WP:VG/EL's list of inappropriate links includes "links to modern remakes (homebrew clones)". However, as the Open Meridian Project is a code fork, not a clone, I suspect that that exclusion doesn't apply -- this is the point made by APL in this post in the thread on EL/N. Finally, since WP:ELNO deprecates external links to "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material ...", and the official Meridian 59 web site misleads by falsely stating that there are only two servers, perhaps we need to include either both links or neither, to avoid this misleading.

Anyway, I'd be really grateful if you or another admin would take a close look at this whole issue. It has been so badly obfuscated by edit warring, COI editing, forum shopping and gaming the system, that it needs admin attention. Or is the only solution to make an RFC? --Stfg (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you mentioned APLs comment on the ELN discussion: Please read carefully what he wrote. He mentioned that it is not too uncommon to link prominent forks in external links. So under the assumption that this fork has a prominent feature it would not be uncommon to link it, but this prominent feature is completely missing yet. So APLs comment on this can not be used to argue for the linking.
I think that the decision (if we link servers or project team homepages of an open source software) should be decided by prominent features of this servers or teams, like medial coverage (like other users already mentioned).
About misleading the reader: Following this logic the article is still misleading the reader since both homepages are not mentioning the known korean server or other existing servers, like the german one I know of. So by linking both homepages no misleading has been avoided.
If there is not something like a prominent feature premisse then everybodys and his dogs server is allowed to be linked here. If its really going into this direction than I clearly tend to remove all the linked servers from the external links instead of linking all non relevant homepages and servers in the article. But lets see what kind of other opinions we will get here. Kind regards Seader (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Seader, I addressed Sergecross73. Could you please leave room for him to reply if he wants. Everything you mentioned just now has already been discussed ad nauseam on the article talk page. Briefly: (a) APL also wrote, "In that case it probably does make sense to have a link." (b) WP:EL doesn't require media coverage either; (c) the non-US servers are why we removed the words "and as of June 2014, all active servers are in the United States" from the article, which now says nothing about the number of servers or where they are; (d) did you mean you want to remove both server links -- and -- so that we have no links to server-hosting sites at all? I suggested that idea, and could live with it, but it was opposed on the article talk page. --Stfg (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(aw B): I already said that I dont think that the normal WP:EL are well suited for links to open source software. Thats also a reason why I started this discussion here to get an impression how things like that are managed here and if there is no general approach yet to start a discussion about that. (aw D) Yes if for the linking of open source software "teams/projects" no prominent feature at all is required in WIKI, so that even anybody who runs a server in the basement of his parents house can put his link into Wiki then I would rather tend to not having any links to server-hosting sites at all. Thats what I try to find out with this discussion since I could not find any clear guidelines for this case. Kind regards Seader (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh, I'm not following all of that, but to answer the part that was asked of me:Requiring third party coverage on unofficially related things like this is commonly used as inclusion criteria - otherwise, every other kid with a half-hearted fan-fiction/mod/fan-game would try to promote their creation, and we're not here for promotion. Third party coverage proves importance beyond an editors potentially biased or misguided claims. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, Sergecross73. That being so, I'll accept it and bow out of this discussion. --Stfg (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Italics in vg reviews

The {{vg reviews}} talk page recently discussed how the template lost the italicization on some of the titles during its transition to Lua code. I implemented a fix in the module's sandbox (as pictured to the right) using the italicization exemplified in the vg reviews documentation. I wanted to run it past everyone here since it affects such a wide array of templates, but, yeah, this is just implementing something that was lost in the Lua translation. Any further discussion of which should/should not be italicized is best discussed at the template's talk page. (The change also corrects links for Dragon, Hyper, and Play and moves the parenthetical country distinctions outside the wikilink for OPM, OXM, and PC Gamer.) Any thoughts on adding italicization back? czar  22:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the guideline on why some need italicization and some don't? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Because someone will have to present a very solid argument to convince me that out of GamePro, GamesRadar, GameSpot, GameSpy and GameZone, only two of the five are italicized. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  00:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think italics are only used for magazines/books. Some of them are magazines, so i can see why. Lucia Black (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
GamePro is a magazine, so it gets italicized. GameSpot is a website, so it should not be. --PresN 00:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to discuss this here, but here it is for the record: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". (Note that this includes news websites, e.g., Polygon.) I'm of the opinion that even more should be italicized, but it's another conversation. I used the list as italicized in the current vg reviews documentation and we can discuss what gets added/removed later, but I'd like to move ahead with at least restoring what was lost with the Lua update. czar  01:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that italicizing Game Informer's name is falling out of fashion a bit. Is there a reason for this? Is the website becoming more popular or something? Tezero (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It's still a magazine, so I imagine it's just an honest mistake (popularity has nothing to do with italicization of the title) czar  02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with the italics. I think it's weird that GameSpot is in italics and IGN isn't. I generally leave GameSpot without italics, but if you're going with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles (which we probably should), you may as well go all in and italicse IGN/GameZone/GameSpy/et al. I've no problem with that. - hahnchen 23:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, when I referred to the website gaining popularity, I meant it in the context of gaining popularity over the magazine. That could be a legitimate reason to drop the italics. Tezero (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow—even if the website somehow becomes better known than the print magazine, it's still a video game news website, and as thus would still be italicized (according to the MoS quote above and non-WP general practice) czar  01:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Cancelled games

FYI, a user with IP Address keeps adding a slew of "cancelled" platforms to game articles that don't mention cancelled versions for these platforms. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading up on cancelled games is a hobby of mind, and off the top of my head, none of those sound familiar. (And Comix Zone for the GameCube stands out as being especially unlikely.). I'll say something. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Comix Zone was technically released on Gamecube (on the Sonic Mega Collection compilation). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was just wondering if it had been left off of some compilation like that or something. But that makes even less sense. Some of the others, do seem possible- Like Croc 2 for N64 - but nothing I remember hearing about. (Contrary to something lik 40 Winks, which I recall actually being announced and cancelled for 64.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Does anybody know how to get scans from this Czech journal? Their "making of" section is a gold mine of info on retro games and I'd like that to work in our favor. Specifically, I need scans of their Monkey Island 2 feature from issue 194. Electroguv (talk)

Cancelled Games 2: The Return of Jafar

So, the title of the first section led me on a train of mental associations, and I remembered an issue we've had in the past: the ineligibility of upcoming games without a release date for GA status. I want to ask: is there any length of time a product can go without an update to "TBA" (or any further coverage) before we can just assume it's cancelled and proceed? If not, would there be a reasonable such length? Tezero (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There comes a point where you assume it's cancelled, but at the same time there's also that nebulous subject of vaporware. If coverage is significant, the game could become notable because it is vaporware, even if it ultimately never releases. --McDoobAU93 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, this isn't about notability (for once); it's about eligibility to be a GA. With the premise of being "upcoming" comes instability, which makes this accolade impossible. Tezero (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a case to ignore the rules, if the article is otherwise at GA-status. --McDoobAU93 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think a good idea in this case would be to see if either the developer/publisher has announced that the game is cancelled or a reliable source has stated that the game is cancelled and no one involved in development of the game has refuted it (ie when Sony quickly refuted IGNls claim that the Last Guardian was cancelled). I think that is more important that time. That being said some common sense is needed because while I am not sure if Nintendo ever officially announced the cancellation of Star Fox 2 (set for a 1995 release) I would not question the fact that it was cancelled even for a second.-- (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about cases in which the game has been officially confirmed canceled; those are obvious. What I'm getting at is more like what you talk about with Star Fox 2, but extending to games for which, say, nothing has been said one way or the other since 2010. Tezero (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn Peer Review

Over the past four months, Sega Saturn has gone from a poorly organized, rumor-filled, POV mess to a well-organized, thoughtful, and comprehensive treatment of one of the more controversial consoles in the brief history of the video game industry. Credit for this transformation largely goes to User:Red Phoenix and User:TheTimesAreAChanging, who brought the article to GAN and FAC respectively. Unfortunately, the article failed to achieve promotion to FA last week. Times is not interested in nominating the article again, so I plan to take up the mantle after the waiting period for renomination has elapsed. In the meantime, I have started a peer review in the hopes of ironing out any remaining issues. All comments and feedback are welcome. It has been a long journey to get the article to the point it is at now, and I would really like to get it over the hump. Indrian (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, it seems that the FAC bot has not gotten around to officially closing the Saturn FAC yet despite it being concluded a week ago, so now the PR bot is trying to archive the PR since the article is technically currently at FAC. So this PR may only be intermittently available until that issue is resolved. Feedback still welcome. Indrian (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe you should consult the FAC delegates in getting that closed. It's a pretty big deal that this is preventing something like a Peer Review to get started. GamerPro64 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Contact me if you're still in need of reliable sources. My Next Generation and EGM issues contain a lot of information about the Saturn. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@JimmyBlackwing: Red Phoenix used a couple of EGM sources in "Reception" and I did some digging to find the handful of EGM sources used elsewhere, while early Next Generation from the Internet Archive is actually one of the major sources used for "Development". That said, there are huge gaps in our access to contemporary print sources; while I am confident everything in the article is well-sourced, the available sources were used as many times as possible and may not cover every angle. Because you may know things we don't, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could look through the article and offer any constructive criticism, or even edit it yourself if you have valuable sourced information we neglected. In any case, while looking through those of your issues that contain descriptions, the EGM review of Sonic R caught my eye. That review may not be absolutely necessary for the Saturn, but I would certainly be much obliged if you could provide a copy, as I have been planning to rewrite the article on that game's "Reception" section sometime in the near future. Thanks in advance,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I received my magazine collection from User:Mitaphane just last month, so I don't really know what's in it. If you guys want, I can look through the early EGMs and summarize any Saturn news that I find. If it sounds interesting or new to you, I'll scan it. Be sure to browse the Next Generation issues for anything that catches your eye, too. As for Sonic R, I'll grab scans of the EGM and Next Generation reviews tomorrow. Here's an online version of the Game Informer review in the meantime. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Did someone say Sonic R? Here, have this jazz. Tezero (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That's quite an archive. @TheTimesAreAChanging: let me know if it's still necessary to scan the Next Generation review, given all the other print reviews Tezero just provided. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Suffice it to say that I will definitely make use of any source I have available.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

After consulting with the delegates, I closed the Saturn FA manually, so this peer review can finally go forward. Feedback welcome. Indrian (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

inXile Entertainment

How should we write names like this in articles (lowercase or uppercase like - [10]) ? Thanks in advance for opinions. Sir Lothar (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

EVERYTHING ALWAYS begins with a capital letter in an infobox, you're welcome. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Only in infobox ? In the main text I'll write just inXile ? OK, thanks for clarification. Sir Lothar (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be how all the iPhone/iOS related infoboxes work... Sergecross73 msg me 11:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
See MOS:TM. It should be written "Inxile Entertainment" in prose, with the mention of the casing in the lead. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Check that, "inXile" is fine per MOS:TM, both prose and infobox. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirects

Hi, I would like to point out that two multiplatform games currently redirect to "List of Xbox One Games" both games are also being released on the PS4 and the PC. I know about RFD but that process could take up to a week, and I feel there must be a suitable page we could redirect these pages to now.

The games in question are


If anyone has any ideas on what to do with these pages please let me know. Thanks --Deathawk (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Czar just created stubs for the games, so I would say problem solved! Both stubs require expansion, of course. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands#EA Sports logo. Heymid (contribs) 18:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC) RFC 2

A Request for Comment has been started at the above link to discuss removing the archive site from the blacklist. Feel free to join the chorus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)