Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 107

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 100 Archive 105 Archive 106 Archive 107 Archive 108 Archive 109 Archive 110


On the closure of the project's peer review mechanism

I think it's rather unfortunate that this project's peer review process has been made historical. Video games articles have a (to me, surprisingly) extremely specific set of guidelines for a general topic area that makes them difficult to write and to review for non-content experts (I know I generally decline to do so on this basis), and the loss of a project subspace for dealing with that is, I think, particularly unfortunate. ResMar 14:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a practicality thing - the problem is the imbalance of work being done. There's a ton of GAN's being pumped out, but no one wants to be the one to do the reviewing. (No judgement on my part, I don't really mess with all the GA/FA/PR anyways. Just an observation. ) Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
To me, it's more that the sitewide PR process makes a project PR redundant. If you're interested in the peer reviews, there are a bunch in queue in our announcements up top—not sure why it matters whether they're in projectspace. I wouldn't say there's no one to do the reviewing, either. I used to do a lot of peer reviews before I realized that the effort was unproportional—I'd copyedit and write suggestions for multiple hours only to have the peer review close with no feedback. Now I prefer to partially review at first and follow-up later if the feedback has been useful (and if there's time). As for the GANs, there's no rush as far as I'm concerned, unlike all the other timed review processes. czar  16:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Though I think I agree with you, I wish there was a better feedback loop here for inexperienced editors, given the dichotomy between the regimentation of video game article-writing and the attractiveness of choosing to write about them for the younger crowd. I suppose the real issue here is that there's no way to target reviews at the project space except to do so manually, which obviously would never work. ResMar 20:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mention it, but I'm also a fan of A-class review for what you're talking about (internal review, threshold of quality, sincere nominations). I've found that they've been more slow-going in the past, but that was with the old system. On one hand I wonder whether it'd be different with the new announcements format, but on the other, a recent WTVG conversation showed little interest in actually doing A-class reviews czar  22:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
From an organizational perspective A-class has always struck me as an odd half-step of a quality rating. Personally I believe that its applicability is proof that the bar for featured article criteria has run away from the more or less still constant (and really, variably enforced, because of the individual reviewing) criteria for good article status. I get its use as a stepping stone, but I've always resented it, since it's a particularly poignant demonstration of the too-great distance in article quality at the top of the usual GA-to-FA hierarchy. This is a really good suggestion, though, I'm surprised it didn't generate more discussion. ResMar 02:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll add that I also see A-class as a way for projects to pre-load two towards the minimum of three supports necessary at FAC czar  04:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, the gap between GA and FA quality seems to have shrunken, not grown. I remember when I was nominating GANs back in 2009-2010, they passed easily, often without even going on hold. Now they typically go on hold with a good number of comments regarding stuff like awkward wording, paragraph/section sizes, and even seeing things in the sources that aren't stated unambiguously and outright - which never would've held them up back then. (And I don't think I've just atrophied as a writer; those GAs really weren't that great back then, now that I look at the old revisions.) With FACs, however, I see pretty much the same issues brought up now as I did then - maybe the demands for source reliability have gone up a little, but that's about it. If the A-class process affirmatively helps stir up support for hopeful FACs, I don't have a problem with it, but as an intermediate ranking for its own sake I'm not sure it'd be needed. Tezero (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Famitsu leads

I'm still desperate for Japanese reviews from the 90s, so I'm entertaining all leads for anyone who may think they know where I may find them. I'm specifically looking for Famitsu #446 from 1997 (Mischief Makers review), but this is going to be an issue for all other Japanese games from the 90s—anyone have any leads for where I can find copies or scans of Japanese video game review magazines? czar  22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Would this help for MM? Tezero (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That page indicated that the review is in #446—the problem is getting that now czar  23:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The issue is apparently from July. That's all I could dig up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that. The game received a score of 32/40. I might find more later. If you want to search the Japanese sites I was looking through, Google "ファミ通 1997年6月 ゆけゆけ!!トラブルメーカーズ". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, that corroborates the Famitsu link ("ゴールド殿堂 (32点)") and it appears that Final Fantasy VI doesn't have more than the score listing itself, so hopefully that should be enough for immediate purposes. Thank you both for your help! However...

I am still interested in what anyone knows about finding Japanese print sources from the 90s. I'd contact whomever necessary, but I'd like to secure these sources for all of us to use in the future. Any leads? czar  01:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Annoyingly, this site looks to have hosted them, but all of its categories are empty now and it's not covered by web.archive. Might be worth contacting its owners, though; my guess is that they were taken down per copyright claims (or fear of those) and the site's kept up for archival purposes. Tezero (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not confident that the category was ever once populated, but I'll give Enetirnel a try anyway czar  01:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This piece seems to indicate that categories currently unpopulated have been, although not necessarily Famitsu's. Tezero (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I've already heard back "maybe", so it was a good lead—thanks czar  02:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I have several issues of Famitsu from 1993 through 2000, but I don't have #446 unfortunately... Anyway I'd be glad to share what I have if you have need for others in that time period. I plan to get the details posted to the Reference Library at some point. -Thibbs (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for a potential FAC of limited coverage

Okay, so I'm interested in taking Sonic: After the Sequel to FAC, but two users have separately raised the point at its PR that the coverage given by secondary sources may not be sufficient to explain the gameplay. The reason, naturally, is likely that the authors of what secondary coverage there is didn't think to explain the gameplay much, because it's so obvious and anyone who's reading the articles has likely played Sonic 1 through Knuckles or at least understands their formula. Given this inconvenience, what does everyone think of the idea of me starting a forum discussion and asking LakeFeperd to explain necessary gameplay points (collect rings as health, use arrow keys to move, special stages, etc.)? I'll email him and thank him for his time, yada yada. Tezero (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If the secondary coverage doesn't already exist, I don't think we are obliged to cover it. If one literally can't understand the basic gameplay without decribing the basic mechanics of proceeding sideways through a level, smashing up enemies and collecting rings, until one reaches the finish line, I'd say just add a description in using the game as the primary source. bridies (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Could that be considered OR? Tezero (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Bridies's approach would probably be good enough for a non-contentious, general article, but probably not something aimed to be FA quality. However, I've never heard of Tezero's approach being used before either, especially for a FA. Not such it would pass the scrutiny that comes w/ an FA... Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
If entirely descriptive, no. bridies (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No what? Tezero (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it could not be considered OR. >_< bridies (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've heard of the game being used as a source before in FAs. Journey uses the game as a source - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Journey (2012 video game)/archive1 for a discussion. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's only for the plot, though, at least now. For some reason, gameplay is treated differently. Tezero (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The bit about the scarf being torn off isn't supported and was discussed during the FAC. I think secondary sources are preferred but citing the game is deemed acceptable in moderation. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't think this would be controversial information requiring more meaty backing, considering that we already have that the game plays like the Genesis ones. Is citing the game itself for that information unlikely enough to work that I should start the forum discussion now just to be safe, though? Tezero (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Better safe than sorry, I guess. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Retro apparently takes forever to authorize its users to post, so I've stepped forward and tried to fill in Gameplay with necessary details, citing to the game in general what I can't to anything else. Does it look good? Tezero (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC) @Czar:@Bridies:@Taylor Trescott: Does what I've used the game in general for look okay? Tezero (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I'd tend to yes. I'm not going to get into figuring out whether it's FA quality content, though. bridies (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with image issue

So I've been told on Anachronox's FAC that the gameplay image in the article is "incomprehensible" and that I should replace it with a more representable screenshot. I agree with them on replacing the image and am trying to find a more suitable image to demonstrate the gameplay better. The problem is I have no exact clue on how to upload an image on the site. Or rather, do so properly. Can I get some help on the matter? GamerPro64 01:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just go to Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard and sally forth. If any of the FUR fields don't make sense compared to the actual template, then just fill them out with whatever and then go back and edit the image page once it's live. --PresN 02:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That looks like it can work. Thanks PresN. Now to find a replacement image. GamerPro64 02:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
There's also a place to upload a new version at the bottom of any file page. Generally this is reserved for revisions on the same image, but if you're replacing one screenshot with another, the previous revision will be deleted anyway czar  02:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

G-Zay is back

Hi, all. Despite attempting to find an WP:EDITFILTER to circumvent issues with the banned user G-Zay (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), he has returned yet again, this time as Disaster999 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). He's already been taken care of. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll gladly help you block future socks too, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of external link discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WP:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dispute on Spyro (series) external link. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

June 30th on the Main Page

We will not only be having Pokémon Channel on the main page as that days Featured Article, but also Today's Featured List for the 30th will be List of Square Enix companion books. I believe that is the first time the project has had a TFA and a TFL on the same day. Too bad that there won't be a video game-related picture as the Picture of the Day. But who wants to bet that there will be a thread on the main talk page about this? GamerPro64 21:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Too bad that there won't be a video game-related picture" - I guess that this is now a new goal for this project then. Total and complete mainpage domination. --benlisquareTCE 00:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's high time we bully Nintendo into releasing the mushroom growth sound from the original Super Mario Bros. into the public domain. Featured sound, bitches. Tezero (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Featured Sound project has been inactive for years. Though it would've be great for our project to have one under its belt. GamerPro64 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Shucks. What if we got Portal 2 to FA by April 1, 2015, and used it as the Featured Portal? (That still around?) Tezero (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes Featured Portals are still a thing. You should probably talk to a Today's Featured Article delegate about that idea. And maybe start a collaboration to get Portal 2 to FA status. GamerPro64 20:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Congrats on the Featured Article of the Day, Tezero! I remember copyediting it like it was just yesterday... --Nicereddy (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's kind of a shame that only one FAC can go up per user at a time; I've got one that's ready for when I get back and two more that are close, plus more than one that I want to see become an FA soon. Tezero (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well shoot. The Main Talk Page didn't blow up after all. Maybe having a Featured Article, List, and Picture all at once would make that happen. GamerPro64 00:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure outrage is something we should be aiming for... How about instead we take it as a sign that those days are over, and that we can contribute in peace? July 1 is our Independence Day czar  01:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that's an interesting notion: Our project having a self contained holiday. Seems like a good idea. This project is one of the more interactive around here, as well as us usually getting along civilly. Can that be a thing? GamerPro64 01:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean: a day when we reserve several sections of the Main Page for our own work? Tezero (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
An interesting idea but not one that I was thinking. What I meant was just a holiday to mark some sort of occasion in the project. Whether i'd be centered on the work of former missed editors, or the day the project was first founded. Something just for fun. GamerPro64 02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I'll celebrate our Independence Day by taking the day off czar  02:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Video Games at WIkimania 2014

Please Note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made here

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Adikhajuria: I would gladly help out with this. Would you like us to design our own pamphlets, or will you be doing that? I can design one for us (no gradients, Comic Sans, or WordArt, I promise), assuming someone can help write our description. I'd also ask that you remove the "https://" from the URL on the pamphlets, if you haven't already.
As to the actual printing of these, will it simply be double-sided, or a folded paper with 4 sides?
Thanks, Nicereddy (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No WordArt?! But that's the best part! Never fear; I can help you pick out the finest clipart and low-resolution JPEGs the Internet has to offer. And if you don't like Comic Sans, I know how to make effective use of Papyrus, Souvenir, Brush Script, and Hobo. With Tezero's help, you won't even miss the WordArt. Tezero (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Nicereddy, If possible, it would be good if you could design it please. Be advised that the submission deadline is 1st July. To answer your other question, we will be printing them double-sided.Adikhajuria (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Adikhajuria: Thanks, I'll get to work on it. The deadline shouldn't be too much of a problem. Two questions though: What size (in inches or centimeters, preferably) will each side of the pamphlet be? The WikiProject Medicine pamphlet has an odd resolution. And what format would you like it in? PDF, TIF, etc? --Nicereddy (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: Amateur. No Wingdings? No Syncopate? No Curlz? --Nicereddy (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nicereddy: Playing in the big leagues, eh? Looks like you're ready for the intermediate-level techniques. For a nominal pennance, I can tutor you privately in the beauty of yellow text on a white background, 72-point Times New Roman, placing images so that they partially cover text and run off the page, and what I like to call the O.H.M.Y.E.Y.E.S. process. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Adikhajuria: I've got a rough draft down, same size ratio as the WikiProject Medicine leaflet. Here's a link. I've used all free fonts, tried to limit myself to a simple color scheme, and the Space Invaders alien is iconic, copyright-free (the simple shape can't be copyrighted), and shows no obvious preference towards any platform or company. I didn't use the WPVG logo because it's outdated and hard to work with, and likely would have scared contributors away, since it'd be the primary graphical element on the pamphlet. I still need more for the second page, but I figured this was a good enough draft to share. Feedback is appreciated! --Nicereddy (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nicereddy: I've sent off the design to the people making the leaflets. I had a look and a I really liked the design, I think it looks cool and will attract a lot of people.

As you know, the deadline to submit a leaflet has passed. I know that Nicereddy sent me a rough design. However, nobody has submitted a leaflet to the link that I shared nearer to the top of the section. With that said, if you do submit before 3rd July 2014, then we will still accept your submission.
Kind regards,
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Review begging thread

Can anyone (besides Tezero- thanks!) take a look at the List of Mass Effect media FLC nomination here? It's been in the queue since April 29 and just needs one more support. It's a list, so it doesn't take much time to review. I'm willing to do a review back, in whatever venue you want. --PresN 21:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I can take a look at it. Least I can do for your help doing an Image Review for Anachronox. GamerPro64 21:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Have dumped some comments as well. I have a PR open if you're interested. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Will do. --PresN 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I dropped off a review as well. Here's my shameless request for a review of Flight Unlimited II. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, now I have a wealth of reviews! I'll try to take a look at Taylor's and Jimmy's articles today. --PresN 17:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm all good on the review front- instead of one more, I got three more! This worked out well (for me)- looks like review-backs are the way to go. --PresN 22:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

On the review begging front, can someone other than PresN, Tintor2 and CR4ZE please take a look at my nomination for Drakengard? It's had an image review and two okays so far, and has been stuck at its current status since 18th of last month. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

JimmyBlackwing and ProtoDrake, I can look at both of yours.
While I'm here, all of my GANs are done except Sonic X. I'd appreciate a review so I can put it up for PR and get... even more comments! Heh. Tezero (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Trevor Philips

Not notable outside of the games. Sources are about the game... what does the waterboarding mission have to do with his character? Beerest 2 Talk page 00:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

From reading the article the waterboarding appears to be performed by this character. You probably want to post your question at Talk:Trevor Philips for now. You can propose an article for deletion or merging if you believe it is non-notable. -Thibbs (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Credits Database

Hi there, fellow editors! I've recently ran into some problems on referencing game developers in video game articles. As such, I'd like to ask the community on how to reference video game credits (staff rolls and such). Additionally, I'd like to propose the creation of a video game credits template to be used on video game articles in order to not only enrich the article but also to help the referencing, such as produces, directors, composers, etc. (mainly infobox and development stuff). Thank you!--Arkhandar (TalkContribs) 18:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How would a credits template help with referencing? --PresN 18:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be hosted on Wikipedia instead of other websites (potentially reducing errors and typos) and would be another source of information to the reader.--Arkhandar (TalkContribs) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
One thing to consider - we have generally discouraged "filling in all the blanks" in the infobox for video games unless these people have been noted by other sources. This is because most of the designs outside of the creative lead and music lead are unknowns (non-notable people) and thus will be just a unlinked list of random people. That said, the game itself should be sufficient to use as a source to source credits, if they are presented in game; if not, the game manual might have them too. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there could be notability issues with this. Is there a specific way to cite the video game software itself or is it just implied in the article?--Arkhandar (TalkContribs) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The few times I've resorted to citing the game as a whole, I've just used the "cite video game" template. Normally that's intended for quotes, but you can leave that field out with no errors. Helps to type "Credits" into the "level" parameter of that template. Tezero (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero:Thank you! I've already started using it and it works perfectly. Thanks.--Arkhandar (TalkContribs) 22:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Screenshots or photos?

There is a discussion on the media copyright questions page about whether the airport aerial images listed there are video screenshots (possibly pilot simulation software), and therefore quite possibly copyright violations, or are they actual photos the uploader has freely released. Any and all comments appreciated. ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Game Informer Issue 214

Can anyone help me here? I need to get a piece of information in Issue 214 of Game Informer from February 2011. The information I need is the page numbers and wording for the section relating to the "Top Ten Best Fighting Game Characters" or such similar title. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have the issue but I currently do not have access to the issue since I am at school. If no one else can help you sooner, I can get you the needed info in the middle of July. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I can wait. You can contact me on my talk page. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I will. If you do not hear from me by the end of July, please get in contact with me to give me a reminder. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I'm going to have access to this issue over the weekend. What do you need in terms of wording for the section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The wording is already there: it's for the article on Lightning. It was that the reference was too vague, not citing the issue or the page number for the information. The sentence I want to back up properly is (from Reception section) "In Game Informer's list of top ten heroes of 2010, Lightning was ranked eighth and praised for her as the only protagonist in Final Fantasy XIII who seemed capable of taking on the corrupt government of Cocoon and that her no-nonsense approach to her mission made her the game's standout hero.", with some modification in light of the article's name. The exact quote of what the magazine said about her would be nice. There are other places the information would be useful, such as for Sol Badguy and Scorpion --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Great. I'll either transcribe it for you or get a photo of it up for you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey ProtoDrake. Here's what I have for you. Only the info on Lightning is in the 214 issue and I don't have the issue for the two other information. So for Lighting: "8. Lighting - Final Fantasy XIII: Amongst Final Fantasy XIII's cast of lackluster protagonists, Lightning is the only character who seems capable of taking on the corrupt government of Cocoon. Lightning's no-nonsense approach to her mission makes her the game's standout hero." And your ref tag would be: <ref>{{cite journal|title=Top 50 Games of 2010 - Top 10 Heroes|journal=Game Informer|publisher=GameStop|volume=XXI|issue=214|date=February 2011|pages=29|accessdate=July 4, 2014}}</ref> The whole feature (Top 50 Games of 2010) nor the subfeature (Top 10 Heroes) had specific authors. Hope this helps you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm working towards getting that article featured by the end of the year. Your reference has plugged the only big hole there was in its list of references. Once again, thank you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem! Glad I could! Good luck on getting it featured! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Indie task force icon

The Fez icon was implemented for Indie Task Force at {{WPVG}}. Consensus to have an icon for the task force is clear. For the choice of an icon, while alternatives were suggested, there is little opposition to the Fez icon. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fez (video game) "BIG GOMEZ".png The indie task force doesn't have a {{WPVG}} icon. I tried looking for one before but I couldn't find anything great. I realized today that we have this image from Fez that could be really good. Consensus? czar  16:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Channeling a specific game rubs me the wrong way. Could we create a generic 8-bit puzzle-platformer protagonist or something? Tezero (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The task force really doesn't need an icon. Plus what good will it do? it would be too obscure to appreciate. Lucia Black (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The icons ostensibly call out the item in the {{WPVG}} banner. I figure that Fez and Super Meat Boy are the most iconic as far as indie games go (at least in its current definition), but we have free use images for the former and not the latter. I didn't think anyone would be against it, but I thought I'd ask in case someone had a better suggestion. czar  17:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Its something that's just wasting time, we should be improving articles, not worry about an icon to represent indie games (which no matter how iconic they are, will never represent completely what indie games are). most taskforce don't get an icon and that's fine. its not like a fully established wikiproject. Lets just please drop this and move onto something more important. Lucia Black (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Calm down, its a volunteer project; there's no such thing as "wasting time". You can't assume that any time spent on something you don't care for would have otherwise been spent on article writing rather than, say, playing video games. Anyways. I agree with Tezero; I'm not a fan of using a specific video game character for an icon. --PresN 17:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You can volunteer to waste time. And you know you didn't counter my point. Lets move on. and not speak of it again. Or would you want to waste time arguing about the obvious for the sake of devil's advocacy? I'm not wrong, only in theory. Lucia Black (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not playing devil's advocate- you're wrong in fact, not theory. Why is it a waste of time? For bonus points, make sure your answer doesn't implicate the time you spent responding to this thread as also a waste of time. --PresN 03:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not a waste of time. If you don't want to "waste your time discussing it", then don't. Do something else, and let them handle it.Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with PresN and Tezero too. Shouldn't single out a single game/series. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a more neutral image? czar  03:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As kind of an unconventional idea, what about a cursor dragging a generic enemy (maybe resembling a Goomba/one of those lion things from Braid) onto something, with a dotted square around the enemy to show that it's being selected rather than clicked on? This would all be magnified to cover most of a computer screen. Y'know, level design. Tezero (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, though it sounds a bit complicated for low resolution. Alternatively, here are some Noun Project hits: independent, 8-bit, i. I also still think the Fez icon is iconic enough, if anyone were to change their minds czar  05:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No, false representation of indie games. Fez isn't the definition of indie games, and again, visually, there is nothing that defines indie games. this is pointless, and should be dropped. Also, poor reasoning to use Fez. there are NFC rules that can't be used for wikipedia. which is why Nintendo's icon isn't the complete logo, and the Xbox image is also made by someone else. Its a real issue. No image is the best option. Lucia Black (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the Fez images aren't NFC; they're freely licensed. That being said, I wouldn't put it past Phil Fish to try to re-invoke a copyright claim on his game's imagery, which adds slightly to me being uncomfortable about the use of the Fez logo. Tezero (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@PresN: @Sergecross73: I wont back down on this if it means not seeing another pointless discussion again. I will stay here to prove how much of a waste it really is. @PresN, i KNOW you're playing devil's advocate by the way you structured your question. This isn't for the better, this is just an additional extra that wont optimize editing articles. It provides no benefit whatsoever to wikipedia. With that said, if i can get the consensus that this is a waste of time, it will optimize editing in the wikiproject for more relevant discussions, rather than pointless ones.

Objectively, we are talking about creating an icon to represent a taskforce focusing on video games that are not supported financially by a video game publisher. Now what image could we possibly add to represent indie games where editors would know instantly the meaning of the image? Indie games aren't bound by cult status or by genre. Its too obscure, and not "necessary", and has no real "benefit" (especially for a taskforce), therefore a true waste of time. And rather than playing devil's advocacy, you should go do something constructive, like fix a real article, or provide images to articles that need it. And if you try to deny that you're not playing devil's advocacy, then where's your evidence? where's your reasoning? I'm not playing around, i'm dead-serious, this is a genuine waste of time that shouldn't get the light of day to even get an answer. No image is my vote. Why? because theres no possible image where we can find that represents indie games with editors/readers understanding it. If you look back to the whole changing the icon of the wikiproject, that ended up being a waste of time too because the proposed images weren't neutral enough as they resembled other series. How are you going to over-generalize indie games to the point of making an image? Lucia Black (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether he's playing devil's advocate? If the devil's advocacy reasoning is valid, maybe we should take it seriously. (To be clear, I don't think he is.) Tezero (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thats like asking why does it matter to provide reasoning at all. Devil's advocacy would work well if its used to improve articles, not look waste time. Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it's more like asking why it matters whether he's typing it high. The conclusion being valid does not depend on mental state. Whether the task force icon is a waste of time is a separate argument - and, again, you can leave (or go back to improving mainspace articles) anytime you want; we're interested in hobnobbing about this for now. Tezero (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What possible image can you provide that provides what indie games are? the meaning is obscure and difficult to even illustrate. you would end up with probably a bigger image to describe indie games.
I still 100% believe this is a waste of time, and i wont stand to see these discussion in this wikiproject anymore. come on, give me a damn answer. what possible image can you provide that represents what a general indie game looks like? Lucia Black (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not just have a big old "I" as the icon? Because God sakes this project has had one another go at each others necks lately so let's just have an answer and be done with. GamerPro64 04:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem using the Fez icon, at least at the present time. Fez, SMB, Limbo, Braid, Bastion, and a few other games are clear short-list titles when one thinks indie games (today), and pulling a recognizable character from them that happens to be free is fine to represent indie game development. If tomorrow's next big indie comes out with a much more recognized element that happens to be free, we can swap it in then. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an issue, i know you've been apart of in the past, such as nintendo and other using direct logos or sprites. Indie games aren't defined by the most popular indie game there is. and that really doesn't make sense to do. if you're all looking for an answer, i suggest not having one at all. Elephant in the room. don't ignore it. kick it out. Lucia Black (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm going by the gaming press that when they do overviews of indie gaming, nearly always use the lead characters from these games with their articles because they represent the success of indie gaming toay. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
They provide is as an example, not to represent all indie games. and this happens for every genre aswell such as First-person shooters, and RPGS. But we don't put sprites of Call of Duty or Final Fantasy now do we? lets be reasonable. There really isn't anything that can concretely define indie games visually other that they are games which the current VG controller on this wikiproject suffices fine. Lucia Black (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The story of Fez is the key matter of the Indie Game Movie, and it's well documented to be one of the poster children for the industry. As there is nothing else concrete that can be used, there's zero problems in using what happens to be a free image of this poster child for the task force. (if we didn't have one of these poster-children games with any free resources I would agree we would forego the icons. Similarly, if the only free resources we had were of non-important indie games (ala the free resources we have from Dustforce), I would also say forego. But to be able to use the Fez icon is a matter of the stars aligning correctly that we have a near perfect icon to represent the task force. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
A few points: 1) Final Fantasy actually has a unique, editor-created icon: (File:FF project logo.svg), as does the Square Enix project: (File:Wikiproject Square Enix.svg). I'm not sure what your point was there. 2) I'm not playing devil's advocate, as I explicitly told you; I think making an icon for a project is a fun, harmless project and I can't imagine why you or anyone would flip out over the idea that someone else would spend time doing so 3) You "won't stand to see these discussions in this wikiproject anymore"? This is the first time anyone's discussed a task force logo here. Ever. You've now literally spent more time ranting about this issue than the entire history of VG taskforce logo discussions. 4) Are you seriously ranting and freaking out about a tiny logo for a taskforce? --PresN 06:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, mainly due to bizarre opposition- I'm now in favor of the Fez icon for the indie task force. Unless someone comes up with a better idea, I'll help out with the implementation in a few days when this tempest in a thimble peters out. --PresN 06:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@PresN and Masem: you know there's a difference between FF representing FF, and SE representing SE. what we don't have is Mario representing platformers, and we shouldn't have Fez representing Indie games, especially when it doesn't really describe what an indie game is. This is the part you all seem to ignore: that visually, indie games have nothing to identify itself. Not even Fez, because even if you could make the claim that Fez is an iconic indie game, the game does nothing to describe what an indie game is visually, so the icon is useless of Fez is useless...i think you're all just wanting an image to represent the taskforce more than caring how you represent the term. Lucia Black (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of having a character from one game represent such a diverse subject, good icons are ones that boil down to the common things in the group; The WPVG logo isn't Nintendo or EA, it isn't Sonic or Mario, its a controller, something common to everyone, across all game types and all platforms. I think the Indie logo should be a generic or symbolic icon, the fact there are no copyright issues with the Fez icon seems to be skewing the debate and the addition of the pig-headedness (both sides) that's flying around isn't helping one bit, in fact this thread is starting to look a bit like the Mega Drive talk page.

Now as regards suggestions for the icon: How do we find an icon for an article that starts "There is no exact widely accepted definition of what constitutes an "indie game"."? Listing the characteristics of and 'Indie' from the article we have the following:

  1. individuals, small teams, or small independent companies
  2. smaller than mainstream titles
  3. not financially backed by video game publishers
  4. little to no budget available
  5. no creative limitations
  6. innovation, creativity, and artistic experimentation
  7. can be of poor quality
  8. may not be made for profit

not much to work on, but some suggestions:

  1. One to three people, half of the icon black and white, the other half a riot of colour (think File:User icon 2.svg icon) (signifies small teams and creative freedom)
  2. A crossed out dollar sign (to signify low budgets and labour of love)
  3. 85% (to signify the cut of sales indies get over publisher controlled titles)
  4. A giant letter I, with a riot of colour and artistic styling (Creative freedom)
  5. A puppet with it's strings cut(e.g. File:Puppeter template.svg) (to signify independence)

Nothing spectacular I'll grant you, but other people can bounce off them. - X201 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The most technical true term is that they have no publisher supporting the game financially. the rest is really up to debate. whats to say a normal non-indie game can't be innovative, creative, and provide labour of love, or have any freedom? I will say that some notable and iconic indie games usually are innovative, or just interesting, however i disagree that innovative and creativity defines all indie games. all those ideas for indie games taskforce icon only highlight the "indie" not the "games" part. And need i remind that its really obscure meaning.
I still say we move on, let this go, and stop trying to prove a point. Indie games can't be represented visually because its not determined by the visuals of the game, or even what console its on, its determined by the roots of the game. Lucia Black (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree; that's why I suggested the level design idea, and actually, I'm rather fond of the Noun Project's "Independent" logo, one of czar's suggestions. Me opposing the use of the Fez image doesn't mean a whole lot consensus-wise, but I'll try to draw up what I'm talking about anyway. Tezero (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that I'm not against another idea if it captures the idea of Indie well, just that I think that there are also good arguments to use the Fez image if we can't find another. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm swayed by Masem and PresN. I don't oppose Fez's use here. It's the closest thing to indie games having an iconic image, and it can be changed if something better comes up in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The closest thing would be no image at all. I swear, you all intentionally disrupt wikipedia just to get your way. Lucia Black (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No one here is being disruptive. This is all good, on-topic discussion of a valid topic. Pretty much the opposite of "disruptive". Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
You pretty much ignored every point i made, and right now, the argument is "hey, any image regardless of how inaccurate is better than no image" which really, doesn't mean much. Lucia Black (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That wouldn't not mean much; it'd simply mean that we're desperate to have an image. But I don't think "any image regardless of how inaccurate is better than no image" is what any of us are saying; I, for one, wouldn't support representing indie games with an image of a maple leaf, an alligator penis, or the hat Aretha Franklin wore to Obama's inauguration. Fez, however, does do a pretty copacetic job of representing indie games, since it's a recognizable game with a pretty typical indie aesthetic. I just happen to think we can probably do better. Tezero (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
"Not siding with Lucia", as much as you don't like it, is not a form of disruptive editing. Ironically, you're the one who keeps getting us off-topic, and you've helped sway at least two people against your stance. You probably want to rethink your approach here... Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:I'm trying to optimize the wikiproject, here's the only compromise i'll consider: have these irrelevant discussion in the taskforce page. And whether you claim its not disruptive, it truly is a waste of time. It really is disruptive in the sense that you're not going to find an image that's going to be perfect for indie games, and in the past we've had similar issues with other and their better left not provided.

@Tezero: Although Fez is a popular series and iconic one of what a successful Indie game looks like, the vast majority aren't successful and don't always look like Fez. This is the reason why i strongly insist on "no image" because the reality is no image could possibly represent what an indie game looks like, because again, indie games aren't bound by appearance. There's nothing we can possibly use. and like X201 has also reasoned with not using other series to represent other genres. and yet we have other taskforce within the project that don't have images, such as the Adventure game task force, and Visual Novels.

Another point not to use an image is that our WP:VG box is already pretty big. an additional image would just be unnecessary. If i had to think of any image that can possibly work is having the controller with a business man and a dollar sign together crossed out. but thats about it. But thats the only image i would support that i believe best explains what an indie game technically is. but even then, i'm still against using one at all....Whether you get an image or not, i ask this be moved to the taskforce discussion and keep more broader issues relating to articles here. Lucia Black (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(This falls under the scope of WP:VG, and moving the discussion to a much less populated discussion area, mid discussion no less, isn't going to solve anything. The discussion will not be moved, its fine right here.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Moving it to a much less populated area doesn't matter, unless you 'want' more outside input, no one else seems to care. And you can always "canvass" the discussion. here. but having the actual discussion here is pointless. And its not really up to you whether it gets moved. You can say you dont want it to be moved, but you don't get to make the decision. neither do i, which is why i'm suggesting it.

Regardless, i gave my input of another option that makes more sense. and its far more technical, will it come across perfectly? no, but its as close as it can get. thats the only idea of an image i can support. but Lucia Black (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there is no task force talk page. They were redirected here with the recent cleanup. I didn't think anyone other than the indie task force regulars would even care to chime in on this czar  04:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Which makes it even less necessary for an image of a taskforce that has no purpose but to show off that it exists. Lucia Black (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
All the more reason why moving the the discussion was a terrible suggestion. Alright, Lucia, it's noted, you're against the idea. Now please allow for others to have heir input and stop derailing the discussion. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 10:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, all the more reason why this is pointless to even search for. look its a difficult thing to even do, the image will either be innacurate, or obscure (uness you like my idea of the image), but overall useless. you're avoiding discussing it because you just don't want to admit to the truth, but it has to come out. Thats whats going to end this discussion. If you wont, i'll stay here, unti other members realize the it. Lucia Black (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
While your contentious persona does not nullify your arguments, I think it will predispose new viewers of the discussion against you; you may be waiting until it closes for "other members [to] realize the [sic] it." I don't mind if you continue to counter others' claims as necessary, but please do not belittle those users or the fact that this discussion is taking place - it's clearly controversial, so by definition it makes sense for us to try to reach an agreement here. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Admit this is a waste of time (because it really is), there's no benefit to it, the current options for an image are either A) obscure, or B) misleading, and finally that you're just doing this to satisfy yourselves. (and thats not belittling you, its the hoenst truth, admit it, and i wont reply back). Lucia Black (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tezero that highlighting a specific game - even an iconic or representative one - rubs me the wrong way. I prefer GP64's "big old 'I'" or X201's "giant letter I, with a riot of colour". I also agree with Lucia Black that having an icon in this case probably primarily serves "to show off that it exists," but I don't understand why this causes any consternation. The same rationale applies for WP:VG's userboxes, the other taskforce icons, etc. Showing off that taskforces and wikiprojects exist is how volunteer groups gain volunteers and organize. Icons, userboxes, and banners, etc. also foster community spirit and identity. Even if there is no ultimate resolution to this discussion it should be obvious to any cynic that there is benefit in such a thread as something to point to should the issue arise again. I think it's time to drop the stick, Lucia. -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that discussion pages are gone for these task force makes me believe we should remove them altogether. unless there's a need for them. But again, i have "multiple" concerns. the banner is already big as it is, another icon would already make it unnecessarily bigger. And i personally find the fostering of community spirit enough in WP:VG itself not the taskforces. keep in mind, i'm the biggest concern is also that no image could possibly illustrate what an indie game is because again...for like the billionth time....indie games aren't a genre, their just like any other game technically....they are games that have had no real publisher financial support. Not all indie games are like Fez, or like Minecraft or even shovel knight. Lucia Black (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I see no need for the icon to define the taskforce's scope with specificity exceeding that of other taskforces' icons like the big "M" for the MUD task force, the jigsaw puzzle pieces for the Adventure games task force, or the knight piece for the Strategy games task force. As far as size is concerned, the full banner is never used so readability shouldn't be impacted. As things stand now there is already an empty spot waiting for an icon. No additional space would be needed. Are you just talking about the page's number of bytes (currently at 13,920 - well below previously identified page size issues)? -Thibbs (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Letters just don't convey anything. So having an "i" for indie could be interpreted wrong, and having an "M" for mUD is even more obscure as its an acronym. A jigsaw puzzle piece for adventure game wouldn't fit unless it was a puzzle game, and maybe a chess piece would work for strategy. but that's a concrete genre. So i'm highly against all that is proposed except for strategy, but even then is there really a need? if someone likes indie games and works on them, wouldn't it be enough to have userbox to identify yourselves?

Its a really unnecessary thing, and i honestly believe its harmful because the ideas given are just too obscure and misinterpretation of what makes these genres/terms. Lucia Black (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But i'm talking about length, especially when an article takes up to two banners for being part of multiple projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talkcontribs)

For the record the MUD task force's "M" icon, the Adventure games task force's jigsaw puzzle pieces icon, and the Strategy games task force's chess piece icon aren't currently proposals. They were implemented in 2010, 2012, and 2011 respectively. -Thibbs (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see a case where one of our banners will take up more than three lines (even more than two) for task force representation. And if that is a case, we still have the WP Banner Shell template that can collapse that. But that's also on a talk page so size is not an issue there. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
there are other points you're not addressing. But i believe we don't need task forces if they just direct to here. but again, the fact that the best options (according to the consensus) are the more harmful ones. Lucia Black (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I'm not sure there's too much point to maintaining the task force pages if their talk pages were redirected, either. I suppose it depends on whether anyone's still active in them, on a case-by-case basis, but in those cases they should probably get their talk pages back as well, if they want them. Tezero (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"Harmful" strikes me as rather melodramatic. We're talking about an image for a task force here... Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Harmful for a lack of a better word for: "Someone who selfishly just wants any image, even if it misinterprets what an indie game is." Lucia Black (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
"Selfish" sounds like a poorly chosen word too. No wonder I can't understand your doesn't seem like you do either... Sergecross73 msg me 10:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This only benefits your own personal wants, not the overall needs. Selfish indeed fits the bill. So whether you think selfish is a poor choice of word, the point still remains the same. I'm sure you "can" understand my POV if you chose to listen to the points against it. and i believe this wikiproject needs to ostracize these type of discussions. Right now we have the worst icons for these taskforces. a puzzle piece for adventure? an M for "M.U.D" (really? converting an acronym into another for the sake of an icon?) Really, VG has one of the worst icon images for taskforce, and i'm not even exaggerating and its probably for the sake of having them, not because they need them. Another problem is why even have taskforces when they direct back to here? Lucia Black (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing remotely selfish about coming to a community discussion page to request peer input on the design for a taskforce's group icon. Selfishness is better illustrated by an editor whose only contribution to a valid thread consists of efforts to silence her peers so that she gets her own way. -Thibbs (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thats how it started, but when theres no need, the ignoring phase begins, and trying to ignore all real points. And for your own "personal" desires. again i say these images (most taskforce images) are really poor, and dont illustrate anything, they dont even give a proper name to you, the editors who claim are part of these taskforces. And you've admitted this in the past. And i'm trying to get you all to admit the heavy truth. Once its admitted, i'll let it go. But if not. don't expect any less of me. Lucia Black (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Certainly a new icon doesn't represent the topic yet. But by adopting it, it will come to represent the topic. That's how everything in life works. The "Nike Swoosh" was just called the "swoosh" before Nike adopted it. The "MacDonalds Golden Arches" were just an ugly yellow "M". The Apple logo was just an apple with a bite taken out. All of these logos came to be identified with the parent organization as a result of their adoption by the company, not due to the fact that a swoosh is international code for sportsshoe manufacturer or that there is something intrinsically humburger-related about the letter "M" or that bitten apples are any part of the definition of user-friendly PCs with rounded corners.
So yes I think we're all cognizant of the "heavy truth" that the proposed icons don't yet represent anything. But again, just as in the rest of life, there's no requirement that a proposed icon must define a complex topic in a single image. It's great if we can find such an image. If not, then a more abstract logo will quite adequately serve the same purpose of raising awareness of the taskforce and giving it identity just like all of the corporate logos do for their respective companies. In my view it's really not something worth getting all worked up about. -Thibbs (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way in wikipedia. If not, then no image at all. and i'm considering this for the even more obscure ones for M.U.D., adventure game, and other taskforce that made it in for the sake of representing "something". And it gets me worked up by really trying so fricken hard just to bend the truth of it all. Lucia Black (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Given your views on other currently in-use taskforce icons that offend your sensibilities (MUD, adventure, etc.) it's evident you're aware that it does in fact work that way in Wikipedia. It seems that you are hoping to make a stand here to change what is evidently customary. I think you'll need to locate some kind of policy or guideline that supports your vision for only using icons that can be said to "define" the entirety of a taskforce's topic even when complex. If instead of personal opinions you have actual policy or guidelines that you can point to which would bar the use of icons employing any degree of abstraction then your views will gain a lot of weight. -Thibbs (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Than this wikiproject (not the members of the project) is the biggest hypocrite in Wikipedia. If you're going to deny a different icon for a controller because it strongly resembles, than why push your way just to get your own personal satisfaction? This is indeed a waste of time, for one, do we even need a M.U.D. taskforce to erroneously use an ambiguous "M". Or do we need a Puzzle piece for Adventure games task force when the coverage is so incredibly broad that it overlaps most of the general wikipedia edits? Why even make taskforce if their not that different or have a specific strong following of editors that makes a clear distinction between WP:VG.
I recognize that these are errors continuing to influence more errors. but i will not say that this is how wikipedia should do it, because its not. and you've admitted that you're willing to endorse it as an indie-icon for the sake of having an image. and i know endorsing isn't the perfect word either, but it fits the principle. Lucia Black (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, you're free to have your own point of view, but you absolutely must stop putting words in other's mouths. Stop telling people "what they know" and stop calling people hypocrites or selfish. Stick to your own viewpoints, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You know what i said, so dont go saying i called anyone anything. Selfish applies to who fits the bill. if you feel offended, its within you, not me.
You've intentionally ignored points, because you have A) no real reason to have this and B) will hurt your argument if you did. Like thibbs argument that intentionally admits no real benefit and more harm but in a more "who cares if we plaster a name to represent games that don't have that" (and there's no point saying thibbs didn't say it exactly like that because whether he used that wording or not, it doesn't change the meaning anymore ). denying there's no intention will have to mean that at this point in time you will have to bring up everything i discussed. I can believe the discussion to use these images for the other taskforce were low-key and people didn't care, but suddenly when it comes to the main wikiproject image, people suddenly care? And the reasons used for not having the WP:VG image was because of the very reasons i'm providing now. At least WP:VG should be "consistent" with the major decisions.
No image to erroneously label indie games, is better than having the closest thing but not good enough. Lucia Black (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure you're following things correctly. I'm not offended, I'm warning you to follow basic policies like WP:AGF. It's also advice; as per usual, you're just wasting your time with long, bad faith responses that don't persuade anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you're trying to make this about me, not about the issue. And the issue does have to do with why you're all ignoring the big issues with this. So I'm warning you to stay on topic. What are the benefits? Why Fez? Which although fairly popular, after doing some extensive search of my own, isn't that iconic as an indie game. Other games are pretty close to Fez's popularity and known as indie games such as Journey and of course, Minecraft. And also the idea of going to change the image when a more iconic image comes to mind is also a very bad one. This means we'll be getting another Discussion sometime in the future, especially when people are saying this is the age of indie games. We recently rejected a WP:VG icon that the only reason was that it was closer to a specific game console's. But now suddenly that argument goes out the window? I ask, what can i possibly assume in this situation that is good? You tell me, i'll believe it. Thats good faith.

I know you all enjoy making me the topic just because i'm the only one actually bringing an argument. Lucia Black (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're the only one with an argument against this. That makes your actions more akin to WP:TE and beating the dead horse. We get it, you don't like the rest of consensus' idea to use a specific icon for the Indie force, that's your opinion and fine. But as consensus seems to be on the side to include it, that's the way we will possibly go. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There it is. Again, ignoring the points provided. so for the sake of staying on topic. i'll quote myself.

What are the benefits? Why Fez? Which although fairly popular, after doing some extensive search of my own, isn't that iconic as an indie game. Other games are pretty close to Fez's popularity and known as indie games such as Journey and of course, Minecraft. And also the idea of going to change the image when a more iconic image comes to mind is also a very bad one. This means we'll be getting another Discussion sometime in the future, especially when people are saying this is the age of indie games. We recently rejected a WP:VG icon that the only reason was that it was closer to a specific game console's. But now suddenly that argument goes out the window? I ask, what can i possibly assume in this situation that is good? You tell me, i'll believe it. Thats good faith.

I would like this to be answered, because there are REAL redflags. Not only is the claim that Fez is currently the most iconic indie game, it also means that the image will have to change when a more iconic indie game comes to mind. if you dont enjoy making a topic out of me, then dont do it. Starting now. Lucia Black (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I said above - there is no problem if down the road a better icon that the lead Fez character comes along. That's a discussion for another day, and discussions never hurt anyone. Your attitude is clearly what is hindering this discussion here, since everyone else seems fine with this. That's beating the dead horse to try to get your way. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. Czar, consensus is clearly in your favor here. You're in the clear for making your suggested change. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that we will have to focus on the image time and time again, and lets not play devil's advocacy to redefine problem either (because i know how discussions like this go), it indeed a problem as it will be tedious, and not necessary.
Second, Fez isn't even the most iconic indie game. Is it featured in several indie game articles? perhaps, but other games aswell. Other games such as Shovel Knight, Journey, and Minecraft. To find out which is the more iconic is really not going to be a good idea. Or if you really want to cut corners, just not care and make the claim that "Fez" is the most iconic regardless of truth.
Third, (and this is important), you're all throwing out the previous discussion for VG icon a few months ago. So this is most important overall. Why practice one thing, and suddenly not practice it because theres something more closer to someone else's liking? And this is a bigger issue that i'm branching out to: The horrible images that currently represent tasksforces. MUD, adventure, and other taskforce probably have one of the most erroneous icons. And i don't believe taskforces are the exception. Lucia Black (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The previous discussion was about replacing a perfectly acceptable icon with a new one. That certainly would have caused confusion because the adoption of the original WP:VG icon had given it representational characteristics. In this case we're talking about adopting a new icon where none existed before. I agree with you that I'd prefer something more generic than the Fez icon, but ultimately it hardly matters what is used. Maybe it would be easiest to demonstrate this by analogy. Consider how the Gravis PC GamePad icon has come to represent WP:VG: Even though its original meaning in no way defined the entirety of the group, it gained representational capacity as a result of its adoption and it now gives visibility to/raise awareness of WP:VG and serves to identify the WikiProject to gain recruits and to give the members a common banner. That adoption wasn't against the rules and it hasn't caused anything to melt down (yet). The same is true for the proposed taskforce icon. History shows that your concerns that a non-definitional icon will confuse and mislead editors are ill-founded. -Thibbs (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
See my previous argument as to why Fez, at least presently, is a well recognized title representing indie game development. Minecraft may be the most recognized of any indie game, and the pixelated dirt block or pickaxe would be a clear candidate, but we have no free assets from it, and since we're talking a project icon it has to be a free resource. That immediately limits what we have available from any indie game, and Fez is pretty much the top of that shortlist. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That was not the reason why the discussion was closed. And i understand your analogy, but i don't agree it falls with Wikipedia principles at all. Anyone can change any image icon so long as it has consensus (and obviously if the community believe its for good reason). This isn't the case for this taskforce. Members (and they have admitted to) just wanting an image. Icons can change and have changed regardless of history. Although i would like to believe the discussion in the past was because the current one was good and had no need to change, the real reason was that all the proposed ones were too close to other real console controllers.
And at the time, members didn't even know that the icon was a gravis PC gamepad. they assumed it was a random made-up one because of the issue of the other game controllers resembling real ones, and that could cause issues. And i have seen members use this discussion in the past. So now that you revealed it. I will happy to provide a bigger discussion into removing ALL erroneous VG icon discussions and replace them (or not at all for taskforce icons). Perhaps creating a new one. And before this becomes a debate of hypocrisy, my intention is still to end all discussions of adding or replacing future discussions. I believe if it does end up going toward my proposal, we will not be seeing these discussions again. And that is a good thing.
And again, although not as important in my book, it is definitely important enough to be a deal breaker on its own: The claim that Fez is currently the most iconic indie game is false. There are other games highlighted as indie games just as much if not more than Fez. its counter-intuitive to even choose one that will not even stay in the long run. And i don't buy that Fez is currently the best (of the worst) option at the moment.
No image is still better than having a bad image. Because after all, indie games aren't established by what they are visually. The only option is a video game console with a businessman and a dollar sign crossed out together. the only option i can see viable enough to make sense and not endorse another series/company. But even then, its not necessary. And any other option is more harmful. Lucia Black (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You just ignored what I said. I agree there are other indie games with more visibility than Fez, such as Minecraft, but we have no free resources from Minecraft. Considering what indie games we do have free resources from, Fez is arguably the one with the most visibility. If we use Fez' image now, and then tomorrow Notch decides to give WP some free assets to us, I'd be first in line to suggest a change. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ignore it. I know what you said, but keep in mind i wasn't going to wait another 5 minutes to edit my comment just to get another edit conflict. And although you're keeping you're integrity of it still being ok to have more discussions about this, i'm going to keep mine and say they are not ok for something so trivial. And to me, it looks like you'll support it for the sake of having an image. Its counter-intuitive and i will not be ok with that in this wikiproject or any wikiproject. I know discussions are good, but not all of them are necessary and if their not necessary, their not good.
So convenient to ignore the alternate. Lucia Black (talk)
That really sounds like you're just trying to be stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. And consensus is clearly against you here, so its not going to work. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
How the hell are we having an argument about this? Is this conversation going anywhere at this point? Of all things, this should be something that isn't an issue and yet here we are now. Good God! GamerPro64 02:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Because now, this discussion reveals more erroneous decisions for previous taskforce icons and even the WP:VG icon. SO really the obvious choice is no image. Lucia Black (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense, and no one, beyond yourself, is advocating such a ludicrous conclusion. Please stop trying to fake some sort of consensus here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No, i'm not faking consensus. NO image is better than a best of the worst. And i consider that the "obvious" choice. but again, this icon is really here only to please the ones who want it. The task force talk page redirects to the main talk page, so the point of even having a task force isn't necessary either. SO many red flags willing to be ignored. Lucia Black (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So why not just make a thread to have the task force merge with the project? You're making it sound like you're on the right side to this argument. Then again, I'm not on anyones side in this conversation. But anyway, its not like the icon is going to offend people if there's consensus of use (Unless you hate Phil Fish). So what's the point in continuing this? At this point this thread could've been in the archives by now. GamerPro64 02:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this thread is as good as done. There's clear consensus. I'd close/archive the conversation had I not been involved in it. I hope someone uninvolved closes it soon. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, hah, I wouldn't rely on not hating Phil Fish as a condition for the icon being acceptable... Anyway, I'm okay with the Fez logo as a solution for now. Not ideal, but I suggested the abstract icons and they didn't catch on, as well as my own potential design, which it's my own fault I haven't put together. Tezero (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we have an image of pac-man, mario, sonic, or any other series/video game icon into any VG taskforce that isn't directly about such series? The problem is the choices and consensus process that settles for "bad images". I dont like Fez, but thats not why. I would be against a Minecraft image, or a journey image, or a Shovel Knight image to represent indie games. Because its "misinterpretting" what indie games are, and that can most definitely offend someone who has a real love for indie games. And not that it matters but indie game fans and developers really do hate Phil Fish. But here are other issues.

There are big issues. First redflag: it unveils the inconsistency of choosing VG image icons in the wikiproject and how taskforce manage to get away with it. In the past, the VG icons were rejected for resembling real console controllers and wasn't "nuetral" enough. now that idea seems to be out the window for this particular situation.

The second reflag is the idea of using this one until another more well known indie game overshadows Fez and have another discussion about it to replace the icon. So its not one image stays for a while (it wont), its one image for the moment until members find another more appropriate and this is a problem.

Also, i'm promoting the idea of if no image represents something appropriately then the best of the worst is still one of the worst and no image is best.

But i do fully intend to merge certain taskforce and a better way of deciding what image stays and what doesn't. Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt about it, but you aren't allowed to just merge taskforces without consensus to do so. Neither am I, and hopefully neither are the admins. czar, as little as we've gotten along recently, made the honest and amiable move of asking all of us before merging the taskforce talk pages he did. I and a few other WP:SEGA frequenters weren't fond of that one going all male-anglerfish, so it, along with another one (Visual novels, I think?) stayed. Really, this—along with the Indie icon—ties into the general theme of not doing anything unless the community, by and large, supports it. Sure, that ideal gets corrupted from time to time, but darn it, we can still try.
On a related note, I don't think there is that much consistency for non-specificity among WP:VG taskforce icons. Could there be? Should there be? Maybe, but for now we've got a mushroom for Nintendo, a crudely rendered spin-dashing Sonic (or is it Metal Sonic?) for Sega, a Pong cabinet for Arcade... I mean, you're channeling a precedent that just isn't there.
You do have a point that we shouldn't just pick whatever image we feel like (although I maintain that indie games would be represented quite nicely by an alligator penis or Aretha Franklin's Obama inauguration hat), but continuing with that point as you have is begging the question by assuming that Fez is among "the worst", which most of us dispute. Tezero (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be silly for Lucia to be arguing against the use of an arbitrary icon when no such thing was suggested. All of the proposals including the abstract ones are quite clearly related to indie games. Anyway Lucia's unique view that "nothing is better than something" notwithstanding, I agree with Serge that there is a clear consensus here. Let's close this thread. Lucia should feel free to propose new policy or guidelines covering genre-defining taskforce icons. In the meanwhile she must respect the consensus that her irascible and absolutist rhetoric frankly helped to create. This has been an excellent demonstration of the old saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. -Thibbs (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is better than something that will never be good enough. And quite frankly, its not. And i dont care that you call it absolutist, theres no reason why i should find leeway in this particular situation. And this isn't honey and vinegar. paint it however you like Thibbs, it is what it is. a group of isolated members wanting to satisfy themselves in wanting an image despite red flags. And again, this shows how inconsistent it really is. I shouldn't have to make a discussion for how to determine a free image should be used, theres already principles that were defined in previous "recent" discussions. Lucia Black (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC) And for the record, i'm not the only one who found this to be an issue. Lucia Black (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a law court. Prior consensus-based decisions like this don't exerting controlling precedent. The question in the previous discussion (if you re-read it) was whether there was consensus on WP:VG to change icons and whether it would be a good idea to change it and whether anyone wanted to change it. The question was never whether WP:VG must change the icon. The consensus was ultimately formed around personal opinions, not around policy and guidelines. But opinions may differ when topics differ (in this case different images and different groups) so even WP:NOTLAW aside, there is really no precedent to apply here. You're taking two unrelated events and two unrelated consensuses and coming to a conclusion that makes no sense - i.e. if WP:VG doesn't want to change its old icon then none of its taskforces can adopt any kind of new icons for complex topics. That's bunk. Your claim that in the previous consensus "the only reason was that it was closer to a specific game console's" completely ignores all of the other arguments made in that discussion and also fails to address why a more abstract generic icon would be forbidden for the indie task force. You've pointed to zero policies or guidelines to support your vision that no icon would be better than any icon. You're alone in that absolutist view. Now as many people have already suggested, will you please drop it? It's time for this discussion to end. Your views have failed to win over any minds. You can process that internally. Next time maybe use a less acerbic rhetoric. -Thibbs (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"any" is not upto debate, the idea of majority means "everyone" isn't true. I'm not claiming this to be a law, but rather a form of consistency. And you've provided zero policies to help further your discussion either. This is common sense, and if you want to argue what common sense for the sake of getting what you want, thats not what i plan on doing. This is something ALL wikiprojects do, not just WP:VG. I can drop it, so long as you admit the truth. Lucia Black (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The only policy that is relevant here is WP:CONS. Call them truths if you want, but this is a matter of individual personal truths (AKA opinions) and if there is consensus to use an icon (any icon) for the taskforce then that's what should be used. You've expressed your view and I think everyone thoroughly understands your POV. -Thibbs (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is consensus, and for now i claim it to be local. I dont believe any member should get what they want just because they want it, especially when theres no perfect image, and a more "standard" less specific to a series isn't a bad image, no matter how much you paint that its ok to endorse a series as the image of indie games is a good thing. Consensus has made their point, i'm only defending mine, and continue to promote it as reasonable. A perfect image or no image. I want the truth to come out, and the truth i'm asking is not about opinion of how you all see it, but the reason why you all want it that badly that you're willing to ignore other viable options. Lucia Black (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

{{Request close}}

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

I don't see how there is "little opposition" to the Fez icon. It just makes it look like Wiki wants to promote Fez - the article is decked out in all sorts of images, and now we have the character on tons of talk pages. wirenote (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Little opposition" as in, only one person actively objected the decision, versus a strong consensus that supported it. If you read the actual discussion, you'll that "promoting Fez" was not one of the rationales listed. (Certainly not by me - I've never even played the game.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No! This thread closed already. Start a new topic instead. Why can't this thread be archived in peace? GamerPro64 15:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Why hasn't it? It was closed a week ago now... Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It says on top that "Threads older than 10 days may be archive". So I guess it needed three more days. But there's always manual archiving… GamerPro64 15:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Dragon magazine video game reviews

Problem has been resolved for the time being. Just another notch in the Niemti saga. Who knows what will happen next. GamerPro64 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does anyone have access to old copies of Dragon magazine, either in hardcopy or in some electronic format? One user has been removing notes from reception sections about reviews in Dragon, as seen so far on Battletoads, Another World, Civilization, Arcus Odyssey, and Elvira II. The user insisted on my talk page that he felt the reviews were presented as "useless trivia like from a bot" because in some cases it was only a note stating how many stars the reviewer gave the game. The user suggested I write what exactly the reviewer liked or disliked - which I would be happy to do if I had the actual magazines (and I may need to figure out how to download them in order to keep the info). He even pointed out that I could add this score to the infobox, but he made no effort to do this himself and simply removed the info. I disagree that the info is useless, even though I admit it could be presented better or more completely. First of all, it provides notability to a borderline article if we have WP:RS reviews from notable sources. Secondly, it is a clue that someone at least liked or disliked the game. Still, rather than fight with this user, I am asking that if anyone has access to these sources in some form, would you be able to add a sentence or two from these reviews? Thanks! (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC) czar  02:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
God Bless You!!!!! :) (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe User:BOZ has a good collection of them in hardcopy as well. -Thibbs (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, mine are on CD-rom, but my computer has been down for a few months. I originally added a lot of those little quick reviews years ago, and even just doing that was a huge project. I wish I had the time to go through there and add more info from each of the reviews to each article, but I am glad to see that a number of the articles have improved significantly over the years! Thanks to Czar for that link - now anyone can fill in the reviews. :) BOZ (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see. When I hear Dragon my mind just immediately goes to BOZ. :) -Thibbs (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
SNAKE apparently has no idea what he's doing, if he thinks that BOZ's work is spam. Someone should revert him and link him to this discussion. What he's doing is vandalism. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
SNAAAAKE!! is Niemti, if that helps. And LOL, thanks Thibbs - I will certainly take that as a compliment. :) My computer will be back up and running sooner or later! BOZ (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked Niemti for 2 weeks, for this, some incivility, and some edit warring earlier in the week. --PresN 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm not necessarily saying that was the wrong thing to do, but blocking a user partly for edit-warring, when you've recently reverted their content in the midst of an apparent edit-war, that's quite likely to blow up in your own face if/when that block comes under scrutiny... ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't blocking him for a Battletoads edit-war, he was correct that the article was about the franchise so reviews of game 1 don't belong. Blocked him for the Ghost in the Shell edit war, and his usual habit of disruptive and dismissive edit summaries and statements. Honestly, Niemti passed his last chance 5 chances ago, and the exact same issues keep popping up over and over. We should drop it here, though, this isn't a good venue for discussing a problematic editor. --PresN 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hidden revisions? Scandalous! Maybe I'll keep an eye on this for a bit. Be civil, everyone. Tezero (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't that bad, I think Salvidrim overreacted. Not going to re-establish it, though, since it was still a personal attack. --PresN 02:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
For context, person from the future reading this, Salvidrim! blocked Jimmy for 31 hours for a personal attack that has seen been hidden. Since this is a Niemti-related topic and you are going through the archives, its not at all shocking that editors are losing their cool. Salvidrim has since unblocked him but let this be a lesson on being civil, no matter how upsetting seeing something like this happen. GamerPro64 02:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to apologize to everyone who saw that comment. It wasn't intended to be a flame, but my own sloppiness and irritation turned it into one. Definitely one of those moments where you shouldn't click "Save page". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Man, you should apologize for me not seeing it. Frickin' censorship... Anyway, it happens. I'm of the mind that it shouldn't be treated harshly unless it persists for a long time and is disruptive, but hey. Tezero (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, become an admin and you can see whatever you want! (Warning: most revdeletions have no redeeming value or interest. Adminship may have other hidden costs or fees. Do not take while driving.) --PresN 04:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I hear the pay's pretty good, though. -Thibbs (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Question about FAC reviews

I have an opened FAC review that received quite a bit attention within its first week, with everything commented on being addressed in full and one editor who has been regularly making suggestions, but I am concerned that after said editor completes his review and votes, that there will be no more attention and it will go stale. I was tempted to post about it here, but I was worried that asking for further input of any kind for an FAC here would count as forum shopping. What is the input of the project? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 22:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that as long as you're not reminding us, like, every couple of days. There's an unspoken rule around here that if you're always nominating articles for GA and FA status, you should help out with others' reviews; to that end, it's fair game to remind us what's available. Tezero (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, honestly, the most reliable way to get reviews (at FAC or elsewhere) is to do a good review on someone else's nomination and ask them if they'd be willing to do one back. It's actually a psychology thing- people have a harder time saying no if you ask them directly than if you ask them as part of a group (e.g. by posting here), and editors tend to be grateful for getting a solid review anyways. To all: the nomination he's talking about is Dota 2. --PresN 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It's like how if you urgently need someone's help (I assume it's for if you have a stroke, fall down and get injured, get attacked, etc.) on a crowded downtown street you're supposed to focus on one person and ask them rather than call out aimlessly. Gratitude for telling us what review that is so it falls out of the realm of abstraction; I'll try to take a look tonight or else tomorrow. *cough*cough*reviewsonicxforgan*cough* Tezero (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, since I've received the answer I'm looking for, it is Dota 2. However, my top priority is to of course understand how to approach this in a general way, so I didn't want to draw to much attention to the FAC in question until I did understand this better. Thank you everyone for letting me know. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 01:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I'm looking for the last few comments on Mischief Makers (nom) if anyone has the time. I'm finishing business in the next two weeks and I'll have plenty of time to review everything else I've missed then. czar  02:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Need one more support, czar? I'll check it out today or tomorrow and make an appraisal. Tezero (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent—I'd appreciate that czar  03:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I've included myself in your review, as well. I hope I'm of help! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

New EarthBound articles

A couple of articles covering the game EarthBound have been created or significantly restructured, all of which are currently rated B-class: EarthBound, Marcus Lindblom, EarthBound fandom, and Mother 3 fan translation. However, I have concerns about the content and tone of these articles. Keep in mind that this is a list of my immediate thoughts and not a full explanation. Prose-wise, they're all rough drafts at best. They're often very wordy and mostly repeat, not summarize, what sources are saying. The leads of all articles don't really summarize the subject and its notability, they mostly seem to pluck random statements from the article. The vibe I get from the articles in general is that they put really heavy weight on the game's fan community in an almost editorial way, like they're undergoing some sort of repression or struggle. While these are covered by citations, there isn't an attempt to make them their inclusion in the article objective and rather state them as is. Sometimes the article prose actually declares "Their efforts are ignored by Nintendo" (which has been addressed) or "their requests are unanswered."

Another thing is that they're copies of one another, almost to the point of filler, and makes me think they should be merged together. I feel like they're trying to cover a lot of ground but there isn't much focus. The EarthBound article goes into the fandom, but is duplicating the EarthBound fandom article and even going on about topics, such as the Mother 3 fan translation, that have nothing to do with the game itself. Likewise, the fan translation section of the EarthBound fandom doesn't summarize the main article, it just copies most of its lead. The bulk of the Lindblom article is just a verbatim copy of the original draft used for EarthBound#North American release. The article also barely talks about Lindblom without the context of EarthBound, which makes me question his notability in general. Likewise, there is nothing notable in the Mother 3 fan translation that hasn't already been covered in the original Mother 3 article. It's mostly covering the translation's development in minute detail with very little on the translation's actual reception, which I believe better establishes its notability. I have tried to fix or address these issues myself, but I and Czar, the primary editor, have disagreeing views. Given that most of these articles have been nominated for GA (and barely any of them have received any input from individuals other than myself or Czar), I want to get more opinions from the project on the current quality of these articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cripes! The Marcus Lindblom article uses only five references? And one of them is used 21 times in the article? This project may have some of the smallest articles promoted as Featured Articles, but that's just ridiculous for an article trying just to become a Good Article. GamerPro64 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Lindblom would have the least notability of the group. While he's primarily known for his work on EB, I felt that he had enough coverage as to justify his independent notability. If not, let's discuss. The others are summary style expansions that go into depth not appropriate for any other article's section. Also I believe you're quoting previous drafts of the articles. All of the summary style sections should fully reflect the content of the expanded article. As for the article rating, if you disagree, rerate them. I'm not sure what to do with your prose quality comment. I'd be curious to see if others agree with TO's stance on neutrality. I feel that I gave the due weight to the available references and have yet to find a defense of Nintendo's silence. "Unanswered" is completely appropriate. NPOV should be the way it's written, not relying on sources that don't exist. czar  15:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I really think the fan-translation one ought to be merged. As Thomas stated, there's a lot of "fan commentary" filler that should be trimmed way down. The "reception" would fit just fine in the game's reception section too, since there probably aren't many English language reviews for the game anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

When I saw Lindblom come up in the GAN queue I was pretty confused... he looks plainly NN to me with a bad case of WP:ONEEVENT. Sent to AfD wirenote (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering modifying the infobox to include "remakes/remasters" sections

I'm only toying with the idea that we add in for the infobox to create sections for remakes/remasters of video games; this section would be within the same infobox, blocked off somehow from the main game details, to reiterate the release platforms, dates, and persons involved.

Note that first, we want to have explicitly what a remake or a remaster is, in contrast to a port. That might be its own discussion to make the distinction properly, but, for example, a remake/remaster would require more than just redoing the game for the different system but include new content, updated art assets, etc. I would also include special release editors, ala "Another World" 15th and 20th anniversary editions, since they add some content.

But by doing this, while this will require some reworking (backwards compat) of the infobox, this would simplify some of these game's release details, plus make it a lot clearer. Take "Grim Fandango". It is essentially it is a PC game, but with the announced remastering, it's got PS4 along with that as well as other yet-announced platforms and that's a bit misleading. By moving the remake/remasters to a separate block of data, it makes it clear how the title is generally known, as a PC game.

But again, the first issue is whether we can come up with concrete rules on determining a port vs a remake/remaster. If we can't do that, then it's not really worthwhile to progress on this when it will be contested at all levels. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea, and would be willing to help craft some text regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This is harder for 8-bit and 16-bit series that have been remade countless of times and then those versions ported again a numerous amounts. Games such as Final Fantasy (video game) and Dragon Warrior makes things difficult to utilize such a section. Often times there are even scaled-down remakes too. Perhaps we should have this for one definitive remake/remaster of a game, or one that only uses one. Lucia Black (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Another issue i find in Final Fantasy Adventure that has received two different types of remakes, a re-imagine, and just a visual remake that updates, recolors the sprites. Lucia Black (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, this is the type of thing that would make it difficult to just say "remake/remaster" and let people guess at that definition. And I would not be surprised a publisher's claimed "remake" is simply a reskin with HD textures. I'd like to encourage discussion to see if we could make something relatively objective towards that. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose that this should be done if the remaster/remake in question has a dedicated section in the main article. For example: Kingdom Hearts Re:Chain of Memories that has been fully remade and oddly enough the remake has been fully remastered into the HD Remix. I believe if they have their own article, then they should be a minor link in the infobox. Lucia Black (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as we're in the area, can I throw the re-release problem into the discussion? Games are regularly re-released on newer platforms, and then categorised as being a PS3/Xbox 360/Wii/etc game despite the fact that it is basically just being run via an emulator, and is not a native PS3/Xbox360/Wii/etc version. If we could keep the Release date field for the original release and then have another date field to take care of remakes, ports and re-releases that would be a step towards getting the categorisation problem fixed. - X201 (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, those are ports that aren't covered. But really, this is too difficult to decipher....Posibbly we make a section for Original console, then we make a section for ports and remakes. the problem is when a remake gets its own port as well. Perhaps we should give up on this idea. Lucia Black (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This affects only a handful of games, it's not something that needs to be in the Infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps we should avoid them until they are the norm. Lucia Black (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the number of games where this can be legitimately applied is small - probably in the couple dozen or so. My concern is, taking specifically the case of Grim Fandango, it looks very odd to say "Platforms: PC, PS4", knowing very well this game predated the PS4 by at least a decade. I know we have traditionally used small titles in the infobox to denote remakes, etc., but I feel there are a small number of remakes that aren't sufficiently different in wikipedia-oriented details to require a separate article, but should be treated more than just a random new port (ala DreamCast games going GameCube or PS2 or PC route). But how to spell out exactly when that is the case is not something I can say with any assurance right now - it is very much "I know it when I see it" test. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we make an alternate mini-infobox similar fashion to how Anime/manga infoboxes group other media together? So a remake/remaster could have an alternate developer, release, and platform. Another that comes to mind is maybe Final Fantasy III. Lucia Black (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Quickly thinking about a mini-infobox seems like a good idea. It would not force a change to the current infobox, and could have the parameters of:
{{Infobox video game remake | title = | italic title = | collapsible = | state = | developer = | publisher = | distributor = | engine = | platforms = | released = {{Video game release|}} | modes = | media = <!-- The following could appear under a further collapsed part, and be optional only if different from the original's. --> | director = | producer = | designer = | programmer = | artist = | writer = | composer = }} - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"River Riders", Q*bert and IP users,,

Someone seems to have an unhealthy obsession with the name "River Riders". An editor with the IP has removed content from the Argonaut Games page and replaced it with that title. The same phenomenon could be seen with IP a few weeks ago, it had inserted the "River Riders" in various articles, each time deleting existing (although mostly unsourced to begin with) content without justification. No citations in both cases and the only game that can be found with the title is "River Riders 3D" for Java cellphones.

There is one blog post that mentions "River Riders" for the PC Engine, but given the posting date, there is real danger that the blogger was mislead by the current state of the Wikipedia article ( and have also vandalized the Q*bert article with obvious fabrications. has also edited the Q*bert article - not vandalism, though still questionable edits. I've reverted the "River Raiders" edits in some places, but I'm not sure how to proceed with articles that have been edited twice. Could someone who's more Wikipedia-savvy go in and repair those articles that still have "River Riders" listed?

Both and have showed up just at one point and not made any edits since, but given the similarity of behaviour, there is the danger of one user with changing IP addresses. Derboo (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Two more IPs: and -Thibbs (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Clyde Mandelin redirect

Looking for some feedback on the independent notability of Clyde Mandelin at Talk:Clyde Mandelin#Redirect czar  22:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Atari 2600 development sources

Where would you theoretically go to get development information on Atari 2600-era titles? Are there certain magazines, sites, or repositories that tend to have coverage, or is it left to Googling for interviews? czar  09:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Taylor Trescott: has been doing some work on Atari 2600 games recently, and by the edit history so has @Dream Focus:. What game(s) are you trying to work on? --PresN 15:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I was asking figuratively—I was doing a preliminary review of TT's Atari 2600 articles and plan to review more as they appear in the future. I noticed that the current Atari GANs very short on "development", but that I would not have a suggestion on how to expand them, so I wanted to throw the question of how one would theoretically find 80s development sources to the project czar  15:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
They have an archive of all these old magazines somewhere, I just can't remember where, and you can search through them for information about any game, Atari 2600, arcade, or computer game, from decades ago. Dream Focus 16:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dream Focus, is it one of those listed in User:JimmyBlackwing/Sourcing video game articles? czar  16:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For the most part it depends on the game. Most Atari 2600 games were easily forgotten bland shovelware. You're very rarely going to find huge info on development, because let's face it, these games are usually extraordinarily simple. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the magazine archives linked in that Jimmy Blackwing link, Digital Press has a bunch of interviews, some of them with Atari developers: Video Invaders by Steve Bloom from 1982 has some interviews, too. Scans can be found online. Derboo (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

PC and Mac

More than a dozen Wikipedia articles contain the clauses "PC and Mac" and "Mac and PC". Even preceded by the word "for" there are hundreds. "for PC and Mac" OR "for Mac and PC" -"Wikipedia Talk" As far as I know games are released for operating systems. Android, for example, is an operating system. So are iOS, Linux, OS X and Windows. The abbreviation PC stands for personal computer. Mac, short for Macintosh, is a personal computer. It is possible to install the Linux operating system on a personal computer. Sometimes a (typically) reliable source says "PC and Mac" or "Mac and PC". There are several problems with the clauses "PC and Mac" and "Mac and PC". First all, games are released for operating systems. A "PC" is no operating system but a computer that can run a variety of operating systems, including Windows and Linux. A "Mac", Macintosh, also a PC, can run Mac OS and (Mac) OS X (and even other operating systems, like Linux). In my opinion, we should not assume that readers will understand what we're trying to say - usually: PC=Windows, Mac=OS X - but we should endeavor to be accurate. Is it possible to get consensus on whether it's okay to rewrite those clauses? What if the (typically) reliable source says "PC and Mac" or "Mac and PC"? What about Windows NT, that supported for example DEC Alpha and MIPS, should it say "Windows PC"? Curious to read what you folks think. -- (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

PC is generally synonymous with Windows. I, for one, don't think there needs to be a cleanup for consistency and would advise anyone who wants to do so to remember to respect local consensus if a given article decided to phrase it a certain way. I think it's safe to make the first mention "Microsoft Windows" and/or "OS X " in the lede and infobox, but I don't think the other mentions are a big deal. I personally prefer to use "Windows PC" on first mention in the prose and then either is fine for the rest of the article. czar  00:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
When I come across an article that uses "PC", I change it to either DOS or Microsoft Windows, depending on the case, unless it is in a direct quote. You're right: PC is not an operating system and shouldn't be listed as a platform. That being said, I don't think we need a task force to go out and change all occurrences. Just changing them when you see them is good enough.
I think it's going too far to mention specific versions of Windows, however. The big reason is that usually we have no way of knowing what version of Windows something will run on. For example, some games written for Windows 95 run fine on Windows 7, but only after some serious tweaking and cracking or running on a VM, for example. Technically, a user can get it to run on Windows 7, but it doesn't run on Win7 easily. Just Windows as an OS is generally as far as we should go.
And as long as we're on the topic, games shouldn't list MS-DOS as a platform unless it really only runs on MS-DOS (which is probably never). Most games of the era were written for DOS, whether it be PC DOS or MS-DOS or some other variant. I change these uses when I run across them as well. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, here's in the thing the common use of "PC and Mac" today, for most people means "Windows and OSX". Gaming in the last year has seen a huge amount of grown in Linux support and most software sites have now started to make the distinction of "Windows, OSX and Linux". As well, browser games are often cross-platform in a fractured manor and can be up to and including anything that can load a web browser. Just 10 years ago, "PC and Mac" would have been "Windows and Mac" but Mac could have still been a PowerPC based OS of OS 9 or OS X and no Linux at all. 20 years ago it meant "Windows/DOS and OS 8", etc..., etc... For a while there it looked like we were going to break things down as "x86 or RISC" or "x86 or Mobile". Even for a small window a few years ago there when OSX (since it is a Linux variant) started getting games and opening the door to Linux ports, some people were shorthanding Linux support implied by OSX support until it became more clear that support for one does not mean support for the other, sigh.
So my rambling is getting to the point that "PC and Mac" is so context sensitive to the time of use that it probably deserves greater distinction at this point if we want to be more specific where it is used. IDK. That's my 2 cents. BcRIPster (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to get direct input on moving Castlevania (1986 video game) back to Castlevania (video game).


I feel that the article should be at the latter title, as the only other game called Castlevania is a less well-known game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • This is something about which there is bound to always be debate: is the NES or N64 the near-magical absolute "primary topic"? I think it is a reasonable and appropriate compromise to have both articles under distinctly disambiguated titles, and having Castlevania (video game) redirect to the first one chronologically + hatnotes. It used to be NES at (video game) and N64 at (1999 video game). N64 was moved to (Nintendo 64) years ago because the release spans more than a year but only a single console, thus it was more precise. NES was just moved from (video game) to (1986 video game) by Niemti (pinged above). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  20:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it's clear that "Castlevania" "video game" immediately evokes the NES title over the N64 for most gamers, and thus is fair to maintain the "(video game)" title. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
For what precedent's worth, Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) links to the series and Sonic The Hedgehog (video game) (capital "The") links to the original czar  21:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no way this isn't a result of the original game's article having changed titles. I wouldn't call it precedent. Tezero (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I meant the former as the precedent (the latter is there just because I didn't know how else to note it) czar  22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with incomplete disambiguation. Castlevania (video game) has more than one meaning, so it would not be inappropriate to have it as a title. I wouldn't support a move. But Castlevania (video game) should redirect to the NES article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Taylor Trescott. -Thibbs (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to have to second that. And FWIW, that Sonic reference is terrible. Different redirects based on capitalization? Seriously. That's an absolutely awful example. These shouldn't be linked that way. I'm glad someone fixed it since then. Wow. BcRIPster (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments wanted at Development of Fez

Development of Fez is up at GAN, after being split out from Fez during its GAN (reviewed by me). Its split is now being questioned, and we're at 2-2, so it'd be nice to get some wider comments about whether or not the split is warranted. Comment at: Talk:Development of Fez. --PresN 22:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Serebii "leaks", again

I've been trying to foster a discussion against the inclusion of the event previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 106#Request for outside input on Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire. That discussion went back and forth and was made moot when official press releases came out for the leaked content (cell phone photos of an at the time unreleased comic book issue). But now, Artichoker and I have been arguing over teh inclusion of a statement regarding the fact the "leak" happened because he believes that the event of the leak was important because reliable sources cross-posted it from another website which has never been a reliable source, while I have been disagreeing with this because it is not a unique event within Pokémon news to begin with and the sources are not reporting that there was a leak but simply that the information had been posted without acknowleding that it's early (as if they believed that the content was previously published, which we established in the old discussion that it was not). This argument between myself and Artichoker has invariably been punctuated by the presence of two other editors, one on both of our sides of the discussion, so WP:3O will probably be denied. What should be done here? Should this event be acknowledged as an event in the history of these upcoming video games?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a "leak" by any stretch of the word. The magazine has to be printed, it will be seen by some before it actually reaches the public and so it's more just a case of privaledge. And it appears to only happen a few days before the actual news, so again, not much of a "leak". So not necessary at all to include. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Masem, the only one calling it a leak is Ryulong. Not even the article wording refers to it as a leak at all. Besides that, there are multiple reliable sources that source the disputed content. Artichoker[talk] 05:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The sources are themselves what you want to discuss and I'm disputing that it's even necessary to discuss the event that happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If it was a true leak - that is, information that Nintendo never intended to make public at that moment (eg someone hacked their servers, or intercepted an internal memo, or spoke with someone on the design team outside NDA allowances, etc.), and it got wide coverage, that would be something to consider. Here we are talking information that Nintendo/Game Freaks shared with a popular magazine (at least, that's how it seems that magazine operates), and someone got their hands on a copy a week before it hit newsstands. Big whoop. That is not a leak by any stretch of the word, and those details should not be included at all. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Masem, I agree. It is not a leak. Not once have I ever said it was a leak. What I don't agree with is why it can't be included. As I stated in the discussions on the article's talk page, this is part of the release history of the games' and the event was covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Why can't this sourced information be included? Artichoker[talk] 22:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The "Early reveal" (not a leak, but the best term for what I think happened) was not covered in multiple sources. They simply reiterated the details and didn't discuss anything more than just what the magazine stated. That is, there is no secondary sourcing about the fact that this information was out a few days before the magazine's publication. In the larger scheme of this, it will be forgotten. Compare to when something really is a leak, the fact there was a leak would probably be discussed to some degree (how it happened, any impact on it, etc.). One thing that I do notice common to VG editors is the way people want to write WP:PROSELINE (and yes, sometimes that is the only easy way to cover something like I've had to do with The Last Guardian's history) and not consider how the article would need to be structured well after the game's release. It is rarely important the exact dates that something about a game is revealed if the game isn't out yet. And this type of information is exactly the type that should be polished out of an article because of the little relevance on the long-scale aspect of game coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to get too meta here, but if the leak itself was important, we'd be able to quote a RS that discusses the importance of the leaked reporting. In the absence of that, and if this is the diff in question, I don't think it's necessary to include. czar  02:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    I was also arguing against the use of the 4 refs but I figured just deleting the sentence would have been a good enough compromise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Has there ever been a time where this early information is wrong/different from when it's officially out? I mean, if not, it seems like a lot of wasted time to keep opposing it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Whether it has ever been wrong is not really the issue. It usually precedes an official press release by a couple of days and we just don't need to note that the early access happened in the grand scheme of things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'll take that as a "no". What a waste of time and effort, especially considering none of it appears controversial or BLP related. Sergecross73 msg me 10:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Fakes have appeared but it's just someone who illicitly got an early copy of the issue, which has photos that get disseminated online, and in this case these photos were picked up by more than fansites. The "leak" or "early access" or whatever is just as inconsequential as this dispute in your eyes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    And the fact of the matter was that the early information isn't published yet so we shouldn't technically have access to it and the posting of this early information online is such a non-event that we do not need to include it in the release history of the video game. Like no one right now outside of fansites cares that Metagross has a Mega Evo as featured in the CoroCoro issue that will be available for sale on Tuesday. It was just the E3 hype that made GameSpot bother to take shit from Siliconera who in turn took shit from Serebii.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


There were probably other users who asked this...

I want to know what should be written in the Plot and Gameplay sections for video games released on different platforms. For example Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video game)... It should contain subsections like this one and the plot and gameplay for every platform?--MJ for U (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, obviously, if the gameplay and plot are the same for all platforms, only one summary needs to be written. If they are different, as appears to be the case with the Harry Potter game you linked, then I think they handled it fairly well: different subsections for each different platform. Normally, a video game on different platforms isn't so vastly different, so I think the occurance of this situation is very low. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I like the approach on this page as well. It makes sense to have a break out like this especially like in the case of so many of the 90's PlayStation games where the console was version 3/4 or 1st person perspective 3-D and the Game Boy release was either top down or side scrolling 2-D. Or even when there is a console game with a on-line Flash variant. It's probably not enough to warrant separate articles, but significant enough it should be mentioned. BcRIPster (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The International 2014 phase three brackets

I'm having some trouble finding a suitable template for the brackets of Phase Three of The International 2014 playoffs. You can see what I want it to look like here under the 'Today's bracket' heading. Any help finding a way of incorporating that kind of design into the article in the same way as I did for phase one would be appreciated. Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

For historical purposes

I'm sorry but this was just too ridiculous not to have it referenced ever again. Such a silly sock puppet/trolling event. And personally speaking, I do not believe this project needs a "leader". We're competent enough to know what to do. GamerPro64 19:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Too bad I missed this! I'm sure I could've campaigned successfully against this chump. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Japanese translators

Hey—does the project have anyone who can translate Japanese? My unlikely ILL just came in with the 90s Famitsu review of Mischief Makers: [1] Know anyone who can help? czar  18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Xiomicronpi, he's great at it from what I've seen. You could ask for a translation there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoDrake (talkcontribs) 20:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:JAPAN? - X201 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to translate it. Jucchan (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Guacamelee! free use

We just got a big haul of free use images from DrinkBox's Guacamelee! and I wanted to share them with y'all. If you have a moment, perhaps you can help me find non-Guac articles that could benefit from the illustrations? czar  14:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

One of these could replace the first non-free image in Beat 'em up. Indie game, Independent video game development, Platform game and Digital distribution in video games are also potential candidates. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added images to Boss (video gaming), Beat 'em up and cooperative gameplay. Great work, czar! --MASEM (t) 16:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
In May the Dragon Fin Soup developers were kind enough to share images of their game as well: Commons:Category:Dragon Fin Soup Art. All the non-free images from general gaming articles should be removed or replaced with free ones. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't that give Wikipedia a slight indie-leaning bias though? Think about it - big name companies are very unlikely to release free license images, which often forces us to use non-free fair use images. Indie development studios are much smaller, rely more on word-of-mouth marketing, and are more open to the idea of donating images. By switching out all the images in general gaming articles, we're giving indie games some rather WP:UNDUE weight. --benlisquareTCE 11:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Ben on this one. Replacing images of games people might recognize for indie games that are for free. That's how I perceive this at least. GamerPro64 16:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Free images should be used over non-free whenever possible on game concept articles. They should be used preferably over non-free on genre articles but keeping in mind that some titles are so core to various genre articles that free replacement would be wrong. (Eg, a screenshot of Wolfenstein or Doom on first-person shooter is irreplaceable by free images due to the importance of these games to founding the genre.) --MASEM (t) 16:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not use both—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You can mix-and-match on the genre articles. There's no reason that free images can be used to demonstrate common elements of a FPS while still showing Doom/Wolfenstein shots as key titles in the genre. Not every genre has key titles like Doom is to FPS, and in such cases, that's where free images can be used instead. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're just using the screenshot to illustrate an FPS or generic mechanics, you should use a free image. If the image is to illustrate a historically important game in the FPS genre, you can't use anything else but a screenshot of Doom/Wolfenstein etc. since they are irreplaceable. I don't think this is giving undue weight to indie games because the images are being used to explain concepts. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Creation of a Dota franchise article

Okay, I need to find consensus so we can as a whole decide if a certain article is necessary. My question is: do we want to have an article that covers the Dota franchise?

I'm asking this because it's occurred to me that there is a considerable number of articles pertaining to Dota now in existence, including, but not limited to: Defense of the Ancients, Dota 2, The International (video gaming), Free to Play, The International 2014, etc. This article would read like StarCraft (series), with details about the original mod and the stand-alone sequel, the development process that took place from the beginning of the mod all the way up to Valve's acquisition of the intellectual property and continued development. Additionally, there would be a section about the cultural impact and what-not.

What sparked this interest is that I was thinking about all the articles about Dota that have arisen and the potential necessity of creating a template to put at the bottom of the page. In case you were wondering, I would propose that this article would take up the space at the redirect currently occupied at Dota, as the term is more commonly referring to the franchise, rather than the original mod.

Thoughts? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 01:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It feels like it should be something else, like "Competitive DOTA" or the like, as opposed to a "franchise" or "series" (since it really isn't either). I'm not 100% sure though, and only toss the idea in for brainstorming. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Nah... competitive Dota could potentially be its own separate article, but I think that an article to encompass both titles is more necessary at this point. I won't make it until I know what the general consensus is, though. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 01:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Consider we have Multiplayer online battle arena which is the best connection between all the articles you have presently. I'm a little worried about trying to make any commercial/series tie between the Defense of the Ancients mod and Valve's DOTA2 due to the issues of the term, etc. that came out when DOTA2 was revealed, even if the same guy built both. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There are few, if any, articles for game series with only two entries, excepting ones where the individual games do not have their own pages. Tezero (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's an acceptable answer as to why an article shouldn't be created at this time. Saying it should be on the MOBA page or else that we're worried about offending people who don't like that Valve has the I.P. rights is nonsensical. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 00:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, technically speaking, the franchising issue has been solved, with Valve gaining the intellectual property rights. I would consider it quite the stretch to include content about tournaments, documentaries and players on a general article about a genre, rather than a centralized article about this specific, interconnecting context. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 01:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What kind of sourcing do you have that discusses Dota as a series? czar  01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much the sources from the main two articles, with a special emphasis upon Valve's acquisition. This is similar to the way the StarCraft franchise article is constructed, which is a combination of sources from the StarCraft articles. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 01:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about what is a reliable source for video game articles

@Toa Nidhiki05: moved List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller to List of Wii and Wii U games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller on the basis that this BestBuy product listing [2] says "Play a variety of games on your Wii U using your classic GameCube controller." I moved it back as it is my understanding that retail websites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. I wanted to bring this to the community to get this confirmed. (Also, it should not go unnoticed that the phrase on the page is very ambiguous, as it could easily mean Virtual Console or play games in Wii mode). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that for this information (like if a game can use a specific controller) that retail websites are not reliable sources; this should be information sourcable to a game manual or even for Wii/Wii U games, the back of the box art (which I'd source as the manual). The only real information I'd trust to a vendor's website is the date of release, and even then that's assuming the vendor was around when the game was released. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. I'd say that a retail website is authoritative only on information about itself. It's classic SPS. A first party retail website would be a lot more usable than a third party retailer which could only be used to source its own pricing info (if this wasn't generally barred by WP:NOTCATALOG anyway). A first party retailer (like Nintendo) could potentially be cited for release date and other claims like those you mention related to controllers. -Thibbs (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What's Up People

Not that anyone's noticed, but I'm back. What have I decided I will do differently? Well, this'll sound odd, but I'm going to expand outside video game articles. I'm very much interested in working on the article about Czech, the language of the most of my ancestors, and those of a number of bands I like. I won't be ditching game articles altogether, but taking Sonic X to FA, if possible given its sources (which I still believe are enough - but hit up the PR if you have concerns), is the only such project I plan to work on right away, not counting Freedom Planet when it releases in a few days.

I'd also like to apologize for anyone I've been unduly blunt or unkind to, particularly czar, during the discussions of Sonic character articles that I have created and worked heavily on but that will soon be, or already have been, merged. The WP:GNG just doesn't make any sense to me with all of its endless exceptions and nuances, which I hope you can all understand is frustrating. As a result, I do not plan to enter any notability-related discussions of any kind or work significantly on pages whose ability to stay around isn't near-certain anytime soon. And... that's about it. Wahoo. Tezero (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking a break and shifting gears is always helpful to keep things in perspective. And 100% support for not ditching game articles altogether. This project needs editors with a passion for expanding and improving VG topics so I hope to see more of your WP:VG work before too long. -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Assault (gametype)

Should this kind of article exist? I've already removed a huge section of WP:GAMEGUIDE material which was copied directly from an UT wiki. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

On the same note - Onslaught (gametype). Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hell no. There's nothing close to the all-esteemed "significant coverage". Boot it. Tezero (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This exists. If I can throw a couple suggestion balls in the air, how about either zapping this article as well or a generic article titled something like "Shooter Gametypes"? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I feel like that's closer to being acceptable. The Assault and Onslaught articles were, as far as I can tell, unique to one game. Deathmatch as a game mode seems to have received some specific coverage. I could see arguments for a 'shooter gametypes' article if said coverage isn't that broad though. Sam Walton (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Another joyous reliable sources discussion

Crisco 1492 has made the helpful step of reviewing Sonic: After the Sequel for FAC nearly as soon as I put it up. I have fixed, or tried to, the rest of his non-prose concerns, but I'd like to get input on the following sources that are not used now and whose reliability is unclear: GenGame, RetroCollect, Flayrah, TrenchPlay, DSO Gaming, Gaming Momentum, ScrewAttack, GamesReviews (the name Mat Growcott rings a bell) Tezero (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Flayrah, looks pretty lowbrow. A "furry" fansite that accepts user submissions? Not sure they'd meet the requirements of an RS, or that they'd especially be much of an authority on video games either... Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at any of these in more detail; I just pulled them up and slapped 'em in. Tezero (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • DSOGaming when last discussed at WP:VG/RS was unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The ScrewAttack source is just a random userblog written by a "MrLange". That wouldn't be useable either. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait a second. I knew that name sounded familiar; Mr. Lange was one of the composers. He even refers to himself and LakeFeperd as "we". ...Granted, I don't know how useful this source would be. Tezero (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight Unlimited II TFA

I don't really understand, but the TFA Protector Bot just dropped by Flight Unlimited II in preparation for its upcoming TFA. I didn't nominate this article for TFA, and no one told me that it was nominated. On top of that, I can't find the nomination archive. Something similar happened with Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri a few months back, and that mystery is still unsolved. Can anyone fill me in? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You must be one popular guy with the bots. *giggle* I heard TFA Protector Bot and SineBot gushing over you in study hall; I couldn't even concentrate on my Referencing homework. Man, I'm never gonna pass Mr. Koavf's class at this rate... Tezero (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ha! I got a laugh out of this. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: only about half the TFAs that appear are actually nominated. The rest are picked by Bencherlite from a list of them that haven't appeared - these ones are not nominated. If you don't want it to appear you can ask him. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; never heard of this before. That must have been what happened with Terra Nova, too. I won't tell him to remove it from the queue—I think the idea of a flight simulator on the front page is awesome. Flight Unlimited would have been a better and more interesting TFA, but I can't complain too much. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Quick question, would this affect Thirty Flights of Loving which is currently nominated for the 20th?-- (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point. Someone should probably bring that up on the articles request section. GamerPro64 18:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that depends. How serious are they about the whole "no two articles of the same topic too close" deal? How important is it to them? Tezero (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I selected Flight Unlimited II in full knowledge that 30 Flights is nominated for later in the month and I'm quite happy to select that too. There's normally one VG TFA per month, but July missed out, so think of 1st August as being 32nd July and the pattern continues.... BencherliteTalk 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Mmmm. July 32nd. The date every one will remember. But getting back on track, as long as it doesn't a huge stink all around, this will work out fine. Also, having two VG articles related to flight is a fun coincidence. GamerPro64 02:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for rewrite/cleanup help - Xbox One

I've been having writer's (editor's?) block for a while on this. There are some major issues with the article that I'm having a hard time writing about. I'm requesting for some people with extra time to have a jump on it. Here are some of the major issues I see from here.

  • The article is outdated. Several references to stuff writen in future tense have already come to pass, such as integration.
  • The release reception section is too short, which is pretty sad.
  • Software and services section is missing some features, such as the idea of applications. The software developer in me wants to hammer in the idea of Universal Windows Apps (This is really a thing) as some apps and games are already using the idea (Halo: Spartan Assault and Skulls of the Shogun are two comming to mind.)
  • The pre-release reception section is excessively long and too much in focus of the article. This represents the biggest problem the article has, as it focuses too much on the controversy of the console before it even came out rather than the hardware itself. I have trimmed it down as best I could but I find it hard to determine what is notable enough to include. (Or in this case, not include)

This is what I see for now. I own an XOne so I can check just about anything if needed too. Comments? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I lost interest in the article when the anti-Microsoft and pro-Sony forces took over the article and insisted on including every single Microsoft misstep. I may get back into the article to see if we can reduce excessive coverage and make the article more neutral. I've got a One as well and can double-check. I've been finishing up the creation of Ori and the Blind Forest and could use some more eyes on that one, too. --McDoobAU93 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hive the pre-launch stuff off into a launch article, Microsoft's daily gaff from the initial reveal through E3 and up to launch is a notable phase in the life of the console. - X201 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with separate article on the launch woes. The highlights (lowlights?) can be covered in the main article. --McDoobAU93 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm on the fence, leaning against. To me it kinda seems like bashing out said article might exacerbate the problem, since it might just expand and bloat even harder. On the other hand, it does shrink the pre-release reception in the main article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It worked with the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. Hiving off the launch, controller info, system software updates etc, makes room for the main article to be the general overview that the average person would expect, the specific articles then go into detail for users that need to research a specific aspect. - X201 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
How about an article genericly labeled "Controversy"? It could also allow us to cut out some of the Kinect requirement and bundle stuff. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds terribly POV to me. This said, the Xbox_One#Pre-release section is way too long and goes into way too much minutiae—just needs to be cut back, not spun out czar  23:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you Czar, but since the idea came up I thought I would throw the compromise ball into the air. I'll try harder to slim down the section some more and try for a master rewrite, provided I don't get a nice writer's block again. *Groan* Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 03:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally disagree with a cut, but am on-the-fence about a page split. I think we have to accept the fact that, basically, the entire launch was an unbelievable fuck-up. Don't get me wrong, I got an Xbone at launch (and a PS4 early this year), and love both, but the negative backlash was so widespread that trying to edit out some of that out would be sailing closer to POV than having it all there. I think the section looks disproportionally long because the rest of the article is outdated and in need of expansion, namely Critical reception. We could solve that with a page split, yes, and I think the Xbone's controversy in and of itself would meet the GNG. CR4ZE (tc) 04:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Application List

Which leads me to a different point. I think we should have an article for the available apps. Half the work is done here. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(Goes to check article)... For gods sake, do it yesterday. - X201 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Done! (Started, really) Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Good stuff, I'm a big contributor to the Xbox One games list, and create the List for Xbox Original Programming, so I'll help with the app list as well. --Mordecairule 11:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talkcontribs)
Do you use any special software to edit grids? Generating such a large list by hand looks daunting. Advice? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for Mordecairule, but I use Excel and the concatenate function. You can import the table data into Excel and then create the table code around it by dragging cells.- X201 (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you go into some more details? I'm not exactly Mr. Excel over here. (Developer by trade, but not for Excel) Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: Yep, no problem. Just remeber to prod me if I haven't got back to you soon. - X201 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Outside input here: Why not merge both List of Xbox One games and List of Xbox One applications into one article and name it List of Xbox One software, like it was done on List of Wii U software some time ago? Keeps things all in one place. No pun intended ;) ~ Arkhandar (TalkContribs) 01:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Xbox 1

I am assuming bad faith on the part of this Crosswords person. His...insulting edit summaries coupled with how little his argument makes sense irks me. Can I get a third opinion on this article going from a redirect to Xbox One to anything else? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked him for edit warring...though you had your fair share of reverts too. Please be careful not to get blocked yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I shall await consensus on this page before taking another stab at fixing it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems he's not getting the message. Getting him to come to a discussion without insulting people/groups is challenging. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Video games produced in collaboration with Walt Disney Animation Studios

Some games like Disney Infinity are produced in collaboration with the studio. Could someone help finding an RS for the information? Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject-wide help page on that topic located at WP:VG/RS#Locating reliable sources. If you are interested in using the custom google search engines that are linked, I'd recommend excluding the New York Times because it has a broader focus and you will get a lot of information on Disney's animated films instead of its games. You can exclude these from your results by searching on "Walt Disney Animation Studios" -nytimes. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Using Boxart that Already Exists in Another WP

Taiko no Tatsujin: Don to Katsu no Jikū Daibōken and zh:太鼓之達人 咚和喀的時空大冒險

The English article could use a boxart, which the Chinese article happens to have one. Fair-use rationale looks a bit malformed there IMHO, but it can be probably easily reworked when used here. So could it be borrowed/taken and what steps should be done? Thanks in advance for any help :D --Nigelliusnitrox (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You can download the file to your computer and then re-upload it to en.wikipedia at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. That will walk you through the fair use portions. That's a good start you've made on the article, but honestly the most important thing you have to do at this point is to find some third party sources for the game to demonstrate that it is a notable topic. I'm sure there would be coverage of the game in Japanese sources like Famitsu because it's a popular series, but unless reliable third party sources can be found the article is in risk of being nominated for deletion... -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That was easier than I thought, surprisingly. As of notability, the nice Mika1h has brought to my attention on other Taiko pages, and I will be working on that too. --野郎院ひさし//Nigellius Nitrox (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Elite series

A novice editor (HyperspaceCloud) started a draft for an article on the Elite series of games. I did what I could with it, as did McGeddon. I'm not sure it's ready to be moved to article space yet, as there are huge gaps in information, such as development, reason for the gaps in releases, consistency in the universe, etc. I know next to nothing about the series, having not played any of the games. Does anyone think it can be moved into article space (under the name Elite (series)) in it's current state or does it need a lot more work yet? Are there any editors here who could take a stab at improving/expading it? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't help (never played it), but given how this is "critical" for the upcoming "No Man's Sky" (which gives credit to the Elite series) I think this does need to happen. Suggestions would be to add a summary of the basic gameplay concepts, and if possible a reception table. I realize the sourcing won't be easy for it, but it's on the right track to get there. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that all the Elite articles already almost contain all the necessary content for the series article. The current series draft look like a good start, but shouldn't go live yet, because it's missing stuff about the planetary landing and shift to more realism in the sequels, also Elite: Dangerous isn't exactly the same as the original Elite 4 idea. I will try finish the article in the coming days. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that as long as the article demonstrates its notability (which I will not comment on, as a rule), it can go live. The average reader probably isn't going to care that much if it's not complete as long as it exists. Tezero (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

New Yorker archives

While the New Yorker is not a usual spot for video game details, it is a high quality source that if it has covered a game we have an article for, we should have that as a source. They have recently opened up their archives for free for everyone (yay). Polygon has highlighted some of the bigger stories they've had here [3] but there may also be more there. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As a note, this appears to be only for the summer (eg for a few months from now), so if you do include them, please make sure to webcite the article as well. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ion Storm Improvement

I've been expanding and reorganizing the Ion Storm article. It's a really important company in the history of video games and more importantly, there is a large variety of sources out there for it. It could, if one were interested enough make it to FA status.

Much of the article can re-use material from other articles. The section on Deus Ex for instance can use material from Development of Deus Ex. So if you are improving an article on an Ion Storm related page, please think about giving the Ion Storm article itself a look over and possibly port over some of your additions. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What a coincidence. User:Czar, User:JimmyBlackwing and I are trying to get a Ion Storm topic made. Starting with Deus Ex. That's good to know. GamerPro64 14:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
While you fellows are on the subject of Ion Storm, I think Dominion: Storm Over Gift 3 could use some work. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, some of us are trying to get a Featured Topic made for all games involving Ion Storm. If you would like to get involved as well it could be helpful. GamerPro64 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've collected a bunch of sources on Dominion's talk page already. There's more than enough for the article to be written. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For sources, be sure to check out Masters of Doom which covers the Dallas office of Ion Storm in detail. It does not really focus much on the Austin office much, or Tom Halls game. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Disney's Aladdin

I am trying to find reliable sources for the Disney's Aladdin (1994 video game) article, and I am finding it particularly difficult. The search is complicated by the fact that two better-known video games with the same title were released in 1993 (one by Virgin Games and one by Capcom), so most of the reviews I can find are about the 1993 games. If anyone is able to help me find sources, it would be greatly appreciated. Even if you know the citation information for a review in an obscure magazine, if you let me know that information, I should be able to request the article through my local library. Thanks in advance! Neelix (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video games Reference library lists a "Making of" for this game in games TM issue 57. Sega Force Mega and Electronic Gaming Monthly have reviews in the RL, too. Grab the GamePro review here and Mean Machines Sega review [here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I see now that you're working on the Game Gear version. Scratch the above. I'll see what I can find. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Game Gear version should be reviewed in one of the 1994 issues of GamePro listed here. I should be able to find the EGM review in my magazine collection, too. However, given the dearth of sources on this version, it would be a good idea to merge it into one of the other Aladdin articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly! Please let me know if you find any reviews through GamePro, EGM, or any other magazines. The 1994 Game Gear game is a completely different game than the 1993 games; it had a different developer, it has very different gameplay, and it is simply entirely different except for the title and the fact that it's based on the same 1992 film. Because it is a different game and not simply a different version, a merger isn't an option. I appreciate your help in finding sources. Neelix (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Merging is almost always an option when it comes to games in the same family. For example, Destruction Derby 64 was made by a different developer than the original, many years after the first game's release. Plus, it featured totally new graphics and gameplay. But it got merged because there wasn't enough material for a standalone article. I guarantee you that an obscure Game Gear game is going to be in the same boat. I'll look for a review in EGM (no guarantees that I'll have it), but I think it's a lost cause to make this more than a subsection of the main Aladdin game article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Found the EGM review. Issue 58, May 1994, page 40. Reviewers (in order): Ed Semrad, Danyon Carpenter, Al Manuel, Sushi-X. I have no other magazines from 1994, so that's all I'll be able to provide. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for finding that review! If the article were to be merged elsewhere, the only appropriate location would be List of Disney's Aladdin video games. Neelix (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've checked my back issues of Sega Power and can't find a review or a mention of it. Only thing I found was a review of the Master System game. - X201 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania needs consoles. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this?

I've created an article for Drakengard and Nier director Taro Yoko. Could someone give it a rating? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick check shows it's pretty decent for a new article, meets BLP, and thus should be fine. It's at least C-class, though I'd say it's low-importance. You might want to consider creating a DYK nomination since it's a new article. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. To hit B-class, it needs a lead and some more biographical detail- right now it's almost entirely about what he's worked on, rather than him personally. It's hard, since game dev work is what he's known for, but compare to Jenova Chen (GA), where it doesn't even get to his first published game until the middle of the third paragraph, while Taro only has two paragraphs to begin with. +1 on nominating for DYK. --PresN 21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, I'm not that interested in working much further on the article, mainly for the simple reason that the information referenced there was all I could find. I think I was lucky to find the information on where he studied and what companies he worked at before Cavia. All I wanted to do was create a modest article on him. I can look through his blog. And what kind of DYK could I do, and how could I phrase it? I've never done one before. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The details of the process you can find at WP:DYK. As for the hook something like "Did you know ... video game developer Taro Yoko usings a "backwards scriptwriting" to craft the stories for his games" would work. Basically something that would catch a viewer's eye, which I think that backwards scriptwriting concept would catch. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this link appropriate?

A single purpose account [4] has added in mention of an unofficial way to play a game online to two articles [5] [6]. Their only reference is a page on the steam community which they created themselves using the same username as they did on Wikipedia. [7] Dream Focus 05:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, so it doesn't belong in the body text, but I wouldn't object to it being placed in External links. Tezero (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Input wanted

I have raised a question on the Square Enix WikiProject talk page about the recently created page for Rinoa Heartilly. Imput is needed and wanted. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Some help needed at Let's Play (video gaming)

It might be one editor or a couple, but there are edits trying to override the generally accepted fact (something I just found a good source for) that LPs came out of Something Awful, by pointing to a random video playthrough that was posted a few years earlier by a random website. Smells like COI or similar. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out. Do not forget to also start a SPI, considering the edits from these "users" are copy pasted. NathanWubs (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Could use a few more inputs here. This editor refuses to acknowledge a book and a GameInformer article that note that the name "Let's Plays" started at Something Awful (to the point where the editor is demanding we include the images of the GI table of content to proof the article was published in it). We have tried to write the lead to explain better that the concept of such videos did not actually start at SA but this editor rejects this. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Masem's discussion with the editor is only going in circles, to the point of IDHT. The editor has even threatened legal action and has called other disagreeing editors in the discussion "cohorts." It is reasonable to assume that this discussion is not going to go anywhere soon. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Threatening legal action? That doesn't even make sense. On what grounds would legal action be a thing? I myself have read this GI article so I know the facts are straight here. What exactly is his problems besides denying SA started Let's Plays? GamerPro64 00:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC) The legal action was in regards to the individual (Masem) being accusatory and stating I have a conflict of interest in regards to the information posted, which is demonstrated to be not the case. The accusation was defamatory in nature and manipulative on the editor's part to draw a conclusive result. We are beyond that now. I recommend that if you decided to discuss another editor in a passive sense within this resource, you inform them. M wikifacts (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • So now the "wikifacts" individual is indefinitely blocked for making legal threats and such. Hopefully we can all now continue with our lives. GamerPro64 02:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Just a quick note that there were at least two other SPA users, NevermoreJames and some IPs, that were engaged in the initial edit war. They may or may not be sock puppets of wikifacts. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming so, but as long as the socks stay dead... I also supposed he might be unblocked after discussion with whichever admin patrolled his unblock request, after agreeing to some conditions, but seeing his unblock request makes me doubt any admin will be inclined to offer much help or guidance. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll just list them here so I can find them later if needed; if either of these edit again, we need to think about a potential SPI: - AHiFi - NevermoreJames. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Already made an SPI when the issue was ongoing, so the socks will probably be blocked in a week or two NathanWubs (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI for everyone, making legal threats is an instantly-bannable offense - WP:LEGAL. While it's technically for "the duration of the legal threat", in practice, like this time, it's indefinite, and then the user has to request an unblock while withdrawing the threat and de-escalating. WP takes threats to sue either WP itself or specific editors very seriously. --PresN 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with writing gameplay summary for Loved (video game)

I've finished writing the draft for my first video game article, Loved (video game). The subject is about a browser-based platform game that was released four years ago, and I would like to submit it to DYK, but the "Gameplay" section is empty, and I'm not sure how to approach it. If anybody could possibly write it out or make an outline of what to include based on the sources given, that would be greatly appreciated, and I'll give you credit on the DYK nomination. Thank you. 23W 08:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. It's not great, but it's something. I welcome others to edit mercilessly. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :D It's great, although unsourced; I'll tweak it in the morning, but again, thanks! 23W 10:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


So, what projects are more active than us other than Military history? That's the only one I really see brought up. Tezero (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I notice that the list there compares WikiProjects by the edits of its members. I wonder how each compare when it comes to WikiProject talkpage activity? After all, the point of WikiProjects seems to do more with collaboration, rather than simply a bunch of groups that people associate with. I've noticed that WPMED, WPMILHIST, WPVG and various country WikiProjects' talkpages move quite fast, while WPEASTASIA seems rather dead. --benlisquareTCE 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of talkpages; otherwise I assumed by a clear shot it'd be Biography. Med is a good answer in either case, though; I hadn't realized. There are plenty of projects that aren't formally inactive but have basically nothing going on, though, like WP:WikiProject Animal rights. Tezero (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't compare WikiProjects by edits of their members. It compares WikiProjects by edits to their project pages and sub-pages, including all WikiProject talk pages. I assume WP:FOOTY is slightly inflated recently for obvious reasons, and that on a yearly average it may rank lower thank WP:VG, but I'm not surprised in the slightest by the fact it is amongst the most active projects. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I wasn't thinking edits of their members, but edits on all pages that are in the project's scope. That could be misleading as some widely applicable projects, like Biography, Albums, and Songs, have very little centralized activity. Tezero (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yea, that would unnecessarily inflate the figure. For example, for WP:VG it counts edits to these and those pages. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

EA Access

Hey guys, I have just created an article for EA Access. Feel free to loan me a hand in helping enrich it. Thanks! Chambr (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Went in and added details of the service, reduced the weight of Sony's refusal (including cited rationale based on their competing service) and wikified it with an infobox and categories. --McDoobAU93 19:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the contributions. I couldn't believe it wasn't already created so I went ahead and made it on my work break. Just got off and I am glad to see it's been expanded so much. Chambr (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a good article! I've nominated it at DYK here, as it's new enough and expansive too. 23W 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Milestone discussion

750 Good and A-Class articles: 199.5% complete

As of this posting, we have 741 Good/A-class articles under the projects belt. Which means that we are close to reaching the milestone above. Since we are about to cross said goal, its probably best to discuss what new milestone we should have next. Any ideas? GamerPro64 02:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I vote for 5% of articles/lists GA/A/FA/FL class. --PresN 03:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5% of articles and lists GA-Class or better: 100% complete
I like it czar  04:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

How many new WPVG articles are created per day/week/month? Switching to a percentage based measure could mean that you are paddling furiously just to stay still. - X201 (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could make it just out of 1500, instead of the currect 1544.85. Not sure we'd actually be outpaced by the rate of article creation, but it did seem like the 250 FA/750 GA bars got completed easier than the percentage ones, though it may have just been that the numbers were lower. --PresN 21:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
1500 articles and lists GA-Class or better: 120.8% complete
The flat number bar is more practical, but the percentage one is more impressive. It's a tough decision, but I think I prefer the percentage. 5% of your project's articles being GA class or higher feels like a huge accomplishment, and I don't think that we create enough articles for it to be an unreachable goal. My two cents. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't want the looming threat of dishonoring your tribe by creating articles you can't GA to dissuade us from creating pages that ought to be around. Really, what it boils down to is: do we care more about getting things done for the reader or looking spiffy for other projects? We're already one of the most active projects on the site. I mean, look at WP:FA and see how many we have compared to, say, mathematics, linguistics, or even physics/astronomy. (Granted, those fields require a certain level of scholarly know-how to write about, but on the other hand, I feel that we have stricter demands for accessibility.) Tezero (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Assuming I understood your meaning correctly, it's not like we don't also have "75% of articles start-class or better" and "20% of articles C-class or better" as goals as well. --PresN 00:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We've hit 750/750; going with 5% GA+ as the new goal, since in three weeks the total count needed to hit 5% has only gone up 3 articles and we're well outpacing that in GAs alone. We can switch back if it turns out to move too fast. --PresN 22:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

750 GAs

We've done it gang. We have reached the goal of 750 Good Articles (including A-class Articles). This time I know which article was promoted to help reach the milestone: Trevor Philips. Congrats on User:URDNEXT for getting the article to reach the criteria. GamerPro64 22:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It was my pleasure, and it wouldn't be without User talk:Rhain1999 and User:SNUGGUMS that we could do this. URDNEXT (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If I had known we were closing in on a milestone, I might've waited a bit longer before reviewing Czar's Solipskier!! ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I was expecting Czar to have gotten the milestone. He has so many articles at GAN so I was expecting one of them to be the lucky winner. GamerPro64 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
We are all winners czar  05:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


I have just created the article "NewBee". Please edit it as you see fit. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the team notable for doing anything other than winning TI4? Sam Walton (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
More importantly, are there any full-length articles exclusively about the team? That isn't supposed to be required per the GNG, but then again, we're a pretty exceptional project. Tezero (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this considered a reliable source up to and including FA articles? I'm trying to improve Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, and this site now appears to be the only one left hosting news-type info about the game, I assume at the time it was more in magazines but I can't locate those magazines so I'm struggling to go more in depth on the development side of it beyond what I already have, and noone has replied to me on the Reliable Sources noticeboard in like a week. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the website and saw that it was owned by UGO Networks, which is deemed reliable. However, I checked its About page, which includes a section on submitting info. Not exactly reassuring on reliability. GamerPro64 14:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes that was my issue as well, the info seems reliable but the self-submission stuff hurts it and I know that under contest it won't pass FA with that. I also can't find evidence that it is still owned by UGO at the moment. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
If the GameBanshee source is old, just use an archive from its UGO (and pre-user submission) days. It was never a great site, but it was definitely usable in certain situations. Also, if it's an interview, then you basically have carte blanche. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
How about RPG Codex? The rest of this particular interview at GameBanshee is posted at RPG Codex. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
RPG Codex is a fansite, so that's a strike against it. But I've had luck putting fansite sources through FAC before, in the case of Through the Looking Glass. As long as it isn't a fly-by-night operation, and the cited interview is unquestionably real, then you have a shot. Examples of the place being mentioned by reliable sources are important—so this, this, this will help you justify it if it's challenged. Also, RPG Codex was used as a source in the GA Geneforge, for what that's worth. I say go for it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Look needed: Tales series

I've been doing extensive work on the article, the latest in several large pieces of editing. Can someone take a look a see what class the article is at at the moment? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

B-class, definitely. My only major concern from a very quick look is that History could be expanded. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. You took what I had done and really took it to the next level. Thanks ProtoDrake. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Marge Be Not Proud GAR

Marge Be Not Proud, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 20:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a stretch.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I know. Just slapped this notification on here just because its tagged for this project on its talk page. Personally, I don't think it should be part of the project. GamerPro64 00:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Tezero tagged it this morning for the project, and added it to our good articles page; I also disagree that it's a VG article but not strenuously enough to do anything about it. --PresN 01:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Eh, remove it if you want. I figured, if Wreck-It Ralph is in our scope despite real video game characters having only an ephemeral presence, why not this? (Mario, Sonic, and I don't remember who else appear in one of Bart's visions.) Tezero (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
So all media that features video games is within this project's scope?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
...Well, that isn't quite what I meant, but actually, why not? I mean, as long as it isn't just, say, a Pong machine appearing in the background of one scene of a That '70s Show episode. We are WikiProject Video games. Tezero (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I find that Wreck-It Ralph be have more merit to be part of the project than this Simpsons episode. The movie is about a video game character and has actual characters from video games in it too. In "Marge Not Be Proud", the use of the video game is just a plot device. GamerPro64 15:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The pervasive video game setting of Wreck-It Ralph could be the key factor, but as I said, existing video game characters don't have much more of a presence in that film than in this episode. It's just short cameos in either case. Tezero (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2014


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2014
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2014, the project has:


To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Duplicate article weirdness

While editing, I stumbled upon this: EA Los Angeles and EALA. I have no idea why this happened, or how to fix it, so I figured it should be mentioned here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably the work of my evil twin, Zetero. She loves driving hapless Wikipedians to madness through bizarre stunts like this. Sometimes I wonder if half of Wikipedia's users are her socks or extremely convincing bots she's set up. All par for the course for a Mario fan, of course - last I checked she hadn't eaten anything but mushrooms in years. Tezero (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Redirected EALA to EA Los Angeles. The article expander (Akatkin) copied what he wrote in the latter to the former for some odd reason. 23W 06:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I reverted to the last viable version, a disambiguation, and added other uses of the acronym. I think it could be moved to EALA (disambiguation) and a new EALA created to redirect to EA Los Angeles with a hatnote since it seems to be the primary topic. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  06:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

While you're on the subject, a brand new user has prodded Iron Warriors: T-72 Tank Commander after creating an almost identical article with a different name. It's all good-faith stuff but there's some sort of fix needed and attribution issues as well. Would try to fix myself but don't know what the hell to do and haven't the time to learn. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

System Shock TFA

System Shock is likely going to run on the main page on Sept. 22nd, to mark it's 20th anniversary of release. The article needs a copy edit and various improvements. It would be appreciated if anyone were to give it a look over. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Feedback request - Path of Exile vs. permanent death

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Permanent_death#rfc_ADF653E. Please help us determine whether of not Path of Exile belongs on the list of games featuring permanent death. Thanks. I really need that username (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass category changes, Dystopian Fiction versus subcat Dystopian video games

Will someone glance over User:Allen7054's contributions? He's making mass changes to categories and replacing the Dystopian video games category with it's parent. I've fixed several but don't have time to check all of them. It appears this has gone to SPI as a possible sock as well. -- ferret (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that Allen7054 is a suspected sockpuppet of CensoredScribe, who was topic banned from making mass changes to fictional categories, later topic banned form making any changes to categories because he was WP:GAMING, and eventually indefinitely blocked for repeated violations of his topic ban. An SPI case has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe. —Farix (t | c) 02:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

mentioning unofficial fan made way of playing an old game

[8] The most popular of the three mentioned "has over 50 players in any given time of day." Meanwhile this article has about a thousand views a day, and the game sold millions of copies. Anyway, I don't want to waste time edit warring with this person. Someone else want to explain to him why this is a bad link to add? Dream Focus 23:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to jump in out of nowhere, but you might mention that this hasn't been covered by secondary sources. And really, that's the pertinent objection here, not the mod not being popular enough. JonTron's YouTube channel has over a million subscribers, but that didn't allow him to survive AfD. Just goes to show that you can't rely on Wikipedia for getting a truly accurate picture of the video gaming world, only a five-second glimpse through the periscope of the almighty notable publisher. Tezero (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Tezero's bitterness aside, the basic idea is correct. Whether a reliable third party reports on it is the typical inclusion criteria for this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
If it is covered by secondary sources (eg such as SCUMM VM being able to play most old LucasArts games, or various emulation platforms for standalone game units), then yes. But if it is a port without any attention by other sources, it's not our place to document it. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Finding there was an article listing all of the ports at List of Doom source ports, I just put that into the article instead. [9] Dream Focus 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V TFA?

At WP:TFARP I indicated interest to have Grand Theft Auto V as TFA for 17 September 2014, marking its one-year anniversary. Now that requests are open at WP:TFAR, I wonder if it's better to hold off. For one, the upcoming next-gen/PC version could release around that time. There's also System Shock likely to be TFA on 22 September, only five days later, and I'd happily give it to an article whose TFA date is much more significant (20 year release date anniversary). What does everybody else think? CR4ZE (tc) 09:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to hold off based on the next-gen version releasing around then. Sam Walton (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait, the next-gen version will be released around then and the article could/will become unstable for a while. - X201 (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if System Shock is having the 20 year anniversary of its floppy version (which no one played), Looking Glass still had a TFA just last month. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass Effect chronology

Hello people, I would like to hear some thoughts on Template:Mass Effect chronology as I am considering to list it at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. In my opinion, the template has many issues, including original research, fancruft, the fact that most of its pages do not exist or are mere redirects, and redundancy as we already have Template:Mass Effect. Besides that, the template is ridiculously huge and its size will increase further as the series keeps growing. What do you think? Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've deleted chronology templates before (eg [10] for Assassin's Creed). If the chronology is the subject of discussion, as the case for Legend of Zelda, a prose section or a separate article may be appropriate. But if users have to guess at the order, it definitely is original research and should be nixed. Particularly at that level of detail (eg with all the extended universe works). --MASEM (t) 20:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly what Masem said. That's really far too excessive to be put into each article. Nomader (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd say add the hide/show contents button & set the template's contents to be hidden by default until we figure out a way to make it more visually appealing. Removing it completely seems even more excessive than keeping it the way it is now. I really need that username (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Original research and fancruft are the two major issues in the template, not its appearance. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The template contains useful information that the reader might be looking for, and as such is worth preserving in some form. Deleting the whole thing without providing a suitable replacement for it first is something I'd have a hard time justifying, but that's just my two cents. I really need that username (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks like Wikia stuff. There need not be a replacement for it because half of the entries don't exist on Wikipedia and it's pretty obvious that 1 is before 2 which is then followed by 3.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Chronology doesn't always correspond to the order of publication. ME might've been released before ME2, but there's no real way of knowing if the events portrayed in it precede or follow those in its sequel just by looking at the title. And as for the missing articles, who's to say they won't/shouldn't be created at some point in the future? I really need that username (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I really agree with Ryulong on this one, there's already a template for all of the Mass Effect universe at the bottom of all of these pages. The chronology order is way too much for an encyclopedic entry. Nomader (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The form in which the template is preserved can be discussed and a consensus reached. Nobody's saying anything about keeping it exactly the way it is now. At least I hope not. I really need that username (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't we have templates for other game series chronologies, like Metroid? Tezero (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
True, but it doesn't include that level of detail (like any outside Metroid manga or comics) and the Metroid series has a number of major installments in it. Mass Effect has three that are easily numbered in order. Is it really necessary to have a list of this kind of detail? Nomader (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. Is it necessary for Wikipedia to exist? Some things are just nice to have I guess. On a more serious note, I hope the creator(s) of the template we're planning to delete will be given a chance to weigh in on the dispute before any decision is made. I'm sure they didn't create it the way it is for no reason. I really need that username (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
We are trying to write about video games to the non-video game reader, which means the nitty gritty of the details of the ME chronology - itself not the subject of discussion from other sources - is not helpful for us. But there are plenty of other game wikis where that information can be placed for the game player to read. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? I thought we were writing for everybody, i.e. both gamers and non-gamers. I really need that username (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
But if we're writing for everyone, then that means we should assume that we're writing for folks who only have a basic grasp of what the video game is. You'll notice that even for a series as widely varied as The Legend of Zelda, we list only the video games in the chronology section and even then, the chronology section only exists because of the amount of attention that has been used to discuss it in outside sources. The Metal Gear article also has a similar template but it only lists the video games as well. But with only three major storyline releases which are part of the same trilogy, it only serves to add extra information that can just confuse a layman and really isn't needed. Nomader (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The way I see it, we are mostly gamers writing for non-gamers, recognizing there are sites outside of WP that do a much better job at documenting the gamer's experience for a given game than we could do as an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
That being the case, I don't see why it roasts so many behinds to include fan wikis in external links. It's just a provision of more in-depth, though less verifiable, knowledge, bam, gloves off, right? Tezero (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I listed the template at tfd here. Thank you for your feedback. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I jut check it's not there.-- (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed games article titles

I was wondering if I could get some input on some of these article titles. Specifically Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. The question is if the colon should be in the title or not. I was wondering what others thought or a way to officially find out. I thought of going to the rating sites (ESRB and PEGI) to see how they are submitted there. I have also checked, for the record, the manuals that come in each of these games and all do not use the colon. (Figured that was an official writing of the title in these). I've been wondering after working on the two new titles, Assassin's Creed Unity and Assassin's Creed Rogue, both of which do not use the colon, and I believe to be correct in not using it. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What about reviewers and other online articles? I wouldn't really trust official depictions of the title; we could be getting stuff like "ASSASSIN'S CREED™ Brotherhood® ©2010", which is by no stretch of the imagination suitable for Wikipedia nor information extractible from it. Tezero (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem with reviewers is they sometimes use their own formatting, so I may find some with the colon and some without. For films, we have classification sites that are good to check how titles are submitted for ratings, so I didn't know if there might be an equivalent for video games. I can see what review sites give me to start. And just for comparison with the manuals again, I checked my game of Batman: Arkham City, and the formatting throughout does show it with the colon, so I think that may be of some help to see how the Assassin's Creed ones are done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
We go with what the RS use. From my cursory searches, I say it's right to use the colon with Brotherhood and Revelations, and wrong to use the colon with Unity and Rogue, at least for now. czar  04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests and its backlog

Most likely there are some potential articles to be made from in requests list, so why not take a look at some of them on here. Would really help out the four year backlog it has accumulated. GamerPro64 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That backlog is huge. I'll start chipping in there on the regular if I have time. Is there any sort of process for deleting requests that are not notable enough? Nomader (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Not really. Usually if someone points out that its not notable I just remove it from the list. GamerPro64 01:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

1Up alert

Attention all editors: appears to have finally ceased to function. Please remember to archive all references. Also, it might be best to treat the original urls as dead. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Even archived pages from 1UP don't work. What gives? Tezero (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I went on to archive a link involving Deus Ex and it worked. GamerPro64 14:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC) seems to still work with 1up content, but that's just spot checking. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The archive references are being slow for me, but I haven't actually encountered one not working. It's only the original URLs that aren't working when I try them. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The one on Pokémon Channel doesn't work. Tezero (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, can confirm, though I see it is archived here [11] (and it is not much of an review in the first place). --MASEM (t) 15:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well we can hardly use that. From what I remember, is now a no-no. I remember having to go through several articles to restore archive references and update urls after a massive deletion of those urls. I was going to try WebCite, but it's down at the moment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
It was down for me, too. Nice to know I'm not just nuts or in possession of egregiously poor Internet. Tezero (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I've carefully avoided citing 1Up because of its robots.txt exclusion policy, just in case something like this happened. Unfortunately, this is going to cause major problems outside of the handful of articles I've worked on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The main site appears to be up though some things don't appear to be there like the Pokemon Channel. It it possible that this particular removal is a glitch since not all the remviews are gone.-- (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see that since a few weeks ago, almost all the links are dead except the Main Page. Same thing happened with the PALGN website. Since over a month ago, the entire website has ceased to exist altogether. Its game reviews now live on in old archived links. And towards the end of June, the U.S. version of the Official Xbox Magazine website, formerly, is now the UK-only, with reviews only from Official Xbox Magazine UK! Its U.S. reviews still live on only in archives, but what gives? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This has happened a lot with other sources in the past. It's the price of editing for a medium that's still in its relative infancy compared to a lot of the other subjects on here. Not much we can do but try to archive as much as we can. Nomader (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

RS question

Would the official blog of the Library of Congress be a RS? It's a blog, which tend to be unreliable, but then again, it's the Library of Congress. This page describes the preservation of an unreleased Duke Nukem game for the PSP titled Duke Nukem: Critical Mass, at the Library of Congress. --benlisquareTCE 09:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's officially from the Library of Congress, I don't see why not, as long as you're not using it for in-depth video game information, which they're unlikely to be experts on. (I relish these rare opportunities when I can do the reverse of "such-and-such a video game journalist isn't an RS for talking about government, politics, literature, etc.") Tezero (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
In this specific case, having seen other third-party bits about the discovered game, it's sufficiently fine as an RS. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. A primary source being corroborated by more reliable sources doesn't make the primary source more of an RS; it means you should use the others. Tezero (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Eurogamer have covered it. Tie the Primary with a secondary. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely useable. Some blogs are useable. (Andrisang, Joystiq, Siliconera), its just these non-notable ones run by a random person unheard of person with no credentials in the industry. Library of Congress is obviously not falling in that category. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Marvelous AQL name change

On July 1, 2014, Marvelous AQL changed their name to simply Marvelous [12], and the Wikipedia page for them should reflect that. I'd do it myself, but Wikipedia's rules on image copyrights make zero sense (the Marvelous AQL profile picture says it lacks copyright protection because it "does not meet the threshold of originality", even though it is trademarked by a major company)

If somebody does that for me, I'll edit the rest of the page and any new product released after July 1 to reflect the name change. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Wikipedia's copyright rules (well, copyright in general) are complicated and can be pretty overzealous, so I usually refrain from uploading anything. I also updated the article to reflect the new changes, but it's in a pretty bad need of a re-write (seems like it was just copied over from the Japanese article) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The new logo is definitely copyright free; I've moved it to Commons. 23W 00:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion closure request

Hi there- could someone who was not involved in the discussion (and preferably someone with some experience in these things!) close the merge discussion at Talk:Development of Fez#Why was this split? so that we can have a clear conclusion of the issue? J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Article Infobox code cleanup

You may remember a tale from many moons ago, about tidying up the template code on articles and removing all of the defunct fields... Well, WikiData have taken what they wanted, and over 1000 user pages have been removed from the category, any possible errors from the way hidden list works have also been removed, as have numerous other potential mine fields. Until now, we're left with an easy to work with category and we're ready to start the clean-up proper. Please trust me on this, I've already edited over 3000 articles during the above preparation and the AWB semi-auto human in the loop way is the best way to do this. There is stuff out there you wouldn't believe, plus having a human look at a low view/edit count article is worthwhile. All of the info and the AWB script is at Template talk:Infobox video game if you want to join in. There is no rush to get this done, take your time with it and enjoy the odd side-journeys it will send you off on. - X201 (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Rise of the Tomb Raider article is started

I have started the article for Rise of the Tomb Raider, as we have some solid sources now, feel free to add any input at the article page. Chambr (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Game Studies/Video game research

It seems like the general topic of Game studies is not really on the radar of this project. This is the (mostly) academic research field of studying gameplay activity, gamer behaviors, etc., which is encompassed by people in the WP category of Game Researchers - Nick Yee, T. L. Taylor, etc. It's linked to - but not the same as - game usability, game testing, etc. Likewise for game user research, much of which is more marketing -oriented. I believe that the roles of games in education is pertinent, and Educational video game is on our list, but Video games in education is not. There are probably other articles that are relevant, such as DIGRA, which might also bear some coordinated attention. Any thoughts about refining this overall topic area? jxm (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more of an overlapping topic, but when working on rhythm game there were quite a few academic papers exploring the health and cerebral effects, use in physical and musical education, etc. bridies (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

ColecoVision FPC

There is a Featured Picture nomination for an image of the ColecoVision up right now. If anyone is interested in participating in the nomination, please take part and Support or Oppose the decision. GamerPro64 04:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 and the main page

Tomorrow, on August 15th, List of Sega Genesis games will be on the main page as that days Featured List. Five days after, Thirty Flights of Loving will be present there for Today's Featured Article. All together, we will have three articles of Featured Content on the main page, with Flight Unlimited II being on there on August 1st. GamerPro64 19:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Great stuff. I'd say that the stigma is finally leaving, but I know that there'll be pushback from this soon enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Just created this article on an iOS Pokemon knock-off entitled Micromon. It's actually a pretty good game. Just wanted to notify you guys in case there were any Pokemon fans who wanted to help improve the article.--Coin945 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)