Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 116

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 110 Archive 114 Archive 115 Archive 116 Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 120

Contents

When should eSports teams have their own articles?

In cases like FaZe Clan, the team is primarily associated with professional Call of Duty play. The team has plenty of individualized coverage from two niche, though reliable, sources: Red Bull and The Daily Dot. But like most sports commentary, most of the context is useful only in anticipation of the next match and not worth repeating in an encyclopedia article. The team's coverage tends to be in the context of a contest, such as in the WP page's current Guardian and this Red Bull sources. Is this team independently notable (where we should be pulling together the highlights of all of its games into one article), or should it just be mentioned as a competitor among others in a comprehensive section/article about the game's competitive play? I think the latter would cover the team and the sport more meaningfully than the current article is written, but wanted to see what others think. czar 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also noticed that problems keep arising over the notability of eSports related things, its just unfortunate that it seems that the experienced editors around WP:VG don't have much interest in working in the area, and the editors that do have interest, don't seem to have an expert level of knowledge in notability or identifying reliable sources. Sadly, I fall into the former - I just have zero interest in the prospect of "professional game playing" - so I won't really be much help... Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have some interest in this field, but very little knowledge and wouldn't really know where specifically to find sources about teams. I suppose notability can be established the regular way: if a team gets covered by multiple sources in a focused way, we can have something to work with. If a team has multiple big wins (world tournaments in particular), notability shouldn't be too big of an issue, and the same would go if a team has enough coverage of its history. I can imagine a team being as notable as the members of the team combined, if one can write a sensible article with such sources. If neither of this works, though, and none of the sources mentioning the team actually talk about the team, I suppose it simply doesn't meet notability. A list of somewhat notable teams per game might sound like a good idea either way, if we have good inclusion criteria to work with.
But either way, quickly looking over the kind of sources FaZe Clan has, it seems to me like there is enough to work with. The current articles used all have a lot of prose text. ~Mable (chat) 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
My biggest problem with eSports team articles is their exhaustive team histories that seem to go through every game and at time moments of those games. They are typically written in a very fanboyish manner. The FaZe Clan article is serviceable enough, but many of these aren't in their current state. Additionally sources like RedBull are often primary as they host many events, so we need to be careful about using it (along with any other sponsored coverage) to establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 on the main page

On October 18, Deathrow (video game) will be on "Today's Featured Article". Congrats to Czar for getting it to FA status. GamerPro64 01:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Edge Magazine UK November 2008

Can anyone help me with the above issue of Edge Magazine UK. I'm looking for details on the review for Fatal Frame: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse, which was reviewed by the magazine. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

My Google Fu hasn't been able to location an online archive of Edge UK #194 (Nov.2008) (not #94); at best, if you're a BookMooch user you might be able to get a copy.
However, if you're intent on working on the article, I've found a few reviews that aren't already in the article:
  1. StormS, Wpisał (27 March 2010). "Zero: Tsukihami no Kamen (Fatal Frame 4)". Retroage (in Polish). Retrieved 11 October 2015. 
  2. Blundon, Matthew (9 April 2009). "Review: Fatal Frame IV (Wii)". Nintendo Life. Cuttlefish Multimedia Ltd. Archived from the original on 12 April 2009. Retrieved 11 October 2015. 
  3. Reed, Kristan (3 February 2010). "Fatal Frame IV: The Mask of the Lunar Eclipse". Eurogamer. Gamer Network. Retrieved 11 October 2015. 
  4. "Test : Project Zero : Mask of the Lunar Eclipse". Jeuxvideo.com (in French). Webedia. 4 August 2011. 
  5. Eisenbeis, Richard (20 March 2012). "Is Fatal Frame 4 Horrifying or Just Horrible?". Kotaku. Retrieved 11 October 2015. 
If you're not gonna use them, dump them in a refideas template on the talk page. I can translate the French one if you want, but can't help with Polish unfortunately. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  19:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Nintendo Life and Eurogamer should be ideal, and I've at least got issue and page number now for Edge. Thank you for finding those for me. You see, I was poking around online for stuff on Maiden of Black Water, and I found that pretty much every Fatal Frame/Project Zero game article can be brought up to GA standards with some work (also got intrigued by the series generally, otherwise I would just leave it at leaving refs on a talk page). That's my upcoming steady progress project. Mask of the Lunar Eclipse should prove a nice little challenge. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
You can just go directly to the users who have that copy of Edge at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Edge. Had you posted this just hours earlier, I could have sent you my copy, but I now won't have access to my library for two weeks. Try User:X201. - hahnchen 09:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about character lists

I keep running into stuff like DC_Universe_Online#Characters, or Marvel:_Contest_of_Champions#Playable_characters, and, again, Disney_Infinity_3.0#Characters. As is my understanding of WP:VGSCOPE, lists of in-game characters is not appropriate. These characters are an important element to the games, but from an article point-of-view, there is no description whatsoever about their gameplay aspect. Should these lists stay or go? --Soetermans. T / C 12:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If an pre-existing character's appearance in a game is notable, I am sure we can figure out how to let readers know about it through the prose. We're not a game guide or a game wiki; we're an encyclopedia. These kinds of lists are generally useless. In the case of Disney Infinity, it is somewhat more complicated, though... ~Mable (chat) 12:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, we've been more lenient with character lists in crossover type games, where the characters are a little more core to the concept... Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am leaning towards accepting character list for licensed video game, or video game based on existing books/comics/films, but only if those characters are playable. They are something that makes these games different from others after all. I feel like character in these cases are similar to song lists for rhythm games. They offer no new information about gameplay but they are the most important aspect of the game. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless sources discuss the set of characters as important, it is likely unnecessary to address them as a group. With your linked character tables, the stuff about the retailers, wave, release dates, pack names are all video game trivia. But I'd say that even the character names is overkill. The article can mention specific characters with the weight in which they're used in supporting sources. czar 17:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    I agree. Shall we expand WP:VGSCOPE a bit to mention this? --Soetermans. T / C 10:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    VGSCOPE #5 and #6 are relevant. I see no reason for expansion for either. That said, a list of characters is rarely inappropriate, but can usually be covered best in the context of the plot or in a dedicated article/list. Contrast however VGSCOPE #10, which says cast lists are appropriate in some cases--which implies that embedded character lists are appropriate in some cases (I think my point about coverage in the context of the plot is still salient in the case of "cast lists" but on a per-article basis there may be reason to separate that out into its own section, as plots can be cluttered by such things). --Izno (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Lists of characters are always appropriate. WP:IAR any electronic book burners try to come up with any bogus pseudo-policies telling you otherwise! :) --143.105.12.138 (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    IAR isn't a license to do whatever you want though, without any actual rationale or reasoning given, comments like that are just going to be disregarded... Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
GAMECRUFT is not a reason for deleting stuff. The roster helps readers understand who is in the game and it is easily sourceable. Doing a Google search to source the information or even playing the game is hardly "impossible". Anyway, the content has been preserved for the public at this site. --143.105.12.138 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Your comment above is very puzzling - you say "Gamecruft is not a reason for deleting stuff", but then wiki-link to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not sure which one you're referring to, as they're both very different concepts. You're right in saying "not liking something is not a reason to delete it". You're very wrong in saying "Gamecruft is not a reason to delete stuff". By definition, Gamecruft is a valid, policy-based reason to remove content. Gamecruft has nothing to do with liking it or not, its about whether or not its appropriate to be part of an encyclopedia. The items on the list have an active consensus that they are not appropriate, and it would take a new discussion/consensus to change that, not just and IP randomly declaring otherwise. It's also not about whether or not a source can be found, though it does prove another editors point that these sorts of lists are rather easily found elsewhere at places like Wikias or Gamefaqs. Go there if you want your hardcore/specific video game factoids or lists; Wikipedia is meant more for general audiences. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no actual consensus to delete this kind of stuff. It is something shoehorned in by a vocal minority... The fact that so many editors continue to add these types of lists is indicative of the overwhelming actual support for including it by the community. Most editors are not interested in wasting time on silly nonsense terms like "cruft". It is not a word a serious scholar would use to describe anything anyway. Encyclopedias do indeed contain lists and there is no actual reason why the article would not contain such a list. It is not as if anyone is forced to read it if they do not want. And just because it is covered elsewhere is no reason for it not be covered here. --143.105.12.138 (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like to start up a new discussion on this talk page about abolishing WP:GAMECRUFT, be my guest (and good luck.) But unless/until you get a new consensus to change it, its the standard we work by. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Vega Strike

diff – I removed this link from the article as an unreliable source and it was added back as an external link (citing WP:ELYES#3). My understanding is that #3 is for sites like collections of screenshots that would be useful to a reader but cannot be duplicated in the article for copyright issues. Beyond that, if anything ELMAYBE#4 might apply, but I just don't think it's a source worth linking, even from the External links section. Seeking a third opinion. (If discussion is necessary, please put it on the article's talk page.) czar 20:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Czar, please stop redirecting stuff

If you look at my edits today, they're all just reverts of User:Czar's redirects. A not insignificant percentage of my edits the last several months have been the same thing. Czar, stop doing this, I don't want to have to police your unilateral decisions, so I'm posting this here to notify other VG editors.

You're redirecting articles which you deem non-notable without any discussion, you're blanking articles, to the reader - you are just deleting it. But unsourced articles are explicitly WP:NOTCSD candidates. And in many cases, you're getting it wrong.[1][2][3][4] Instead of making your decisions invisible to the reader, you should {{prod}} or WP:AFD articles, that way others actually notice what you're doing. Right now, the only reason any of your edits are even noticed is by luck. If you're right, those articles will disappear following the deletion process, and you won't have to deal with this blowback. - hahnchen 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please. To insinuate that exercised poor judgment overall in going through the project's entire cleanup backlog (550 articles, with help from others, tagged for cleanup since 2007) without exercising sufficient judgment is disingenuous. Any redirects I made were not deletions or CSDs—anyone can pick up the draft (they are almost all prematurely published drafts) where the last person left off, but it doesn't mean we're leaving an unsourced mess for our readers. You don't like some of my choices? That's fine—revert them. I don't expect to get it right 100% of the time, but I expect not to be publicly chastised for initially redirecting unreferenced trash such as the third link you mentioned, Mojo! (current state). And your reverts have not been perfect either. The last time you did this, the articles were either deleted or stagnated at AfD after your challenge. And we kept articles based on vague waves at decades-old trade publications held in only a handful of archives around the world—which, by the way, came in with my interlibrary loan request and did not have anything substantial on the topic. No, you shouldn't have to "police" my work. So don't. czar 22:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why this has to be a public thing. Couldn't you approach Czar at their talk page first? --Soetermans. T / C 13:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Because I've been reverting edits over the last few months, it's clear that I disagree with them, and there's no change. It's on this forum, because by just redirecting articles, his actions are not logged or visible in WP:VG/AA. I'm not that active, this needed more visibility. - hahnchen 09:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
As long as he's not violating WP:BRD and doing things in good-faith (I have seen no reason to suggest bad-faith), then basically he's within his right to do what he is doing. I don't personally agree with all of them, but that doesn't change the fact that he's not breaking any rules, so I don't see anything coming from this other than bickering amongst the WikiProject... Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You happen to have noticed Czar making edits you disagree with. Not everyone has. - hahnchen 09:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mojo!

  • Czar: in reply to your edit summary at Mojo! (the third link in hahnchen's post): yes, Mojo! is on MobyGames (if it matters), and the four reviews from reliable sources make it pass GNG beyond reasonable doubt:
  1. Navarro, Alex (26 August 2003). "Mojo! contains a number of frustrating and repetitive elements that keep it from being truly enjoyable". Gamespot. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 12 October 2015. 
  2. Jeremy, Dunham (29 July 2003). "Does Crave's budget puzzler relive Marble Madness or Consumer Madness? Find out inside". IGN. Retrieved 12 October 2015. 
  3. "Test : Mojo!". Jeuxvideo.com (in French). Webedia. 16 February 2004. Retrieved 12 October 2015. 
  4. Reyes, Francesca (March 2004). "Cheap thrills for all!". Official Xbox Magazine. Future plc (29): 81. ISSN 1534-7850. Retrieved 12 October 2015. 
You know I have great respect for you but sometimes it's worth it to perform (or request) some deeper research. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
My original edit summary noted that MG had two reviews, even though we don't use Game Chronicles. And the other sources you listed are ones that I dug up and added to the article myself—but this belies the reality that the article, tagged for cleanup for five years, would not have been worse off for redirecting to its developer when it had no sourcing (i.e., was in this state) to begin with. czar 22:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
We agree that redirecting was a better option than leaving it in its shitty state, but redirecting was still a bad option when the best alternative is cleanup & sourcing. If you're unwilling to find time to research and cleanup articles and instead opt as a first option for redirection... then don't? Tag the articles, report them somewhere for others to look at, PROD them, I dunno... but an article like this takes 5-10 minutes for a quick cleanup, wikify and add a few sources.  · Salvidrim! ·  22:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Eh, I see where he's coming from, though: "Tag the articles" is the same thing as "do absolutely nothing", apparently- like he says above, there were articles in the cleanup category that had been there for 8 years. Tagging articles means nothing if no one ever checks out the tag.
My personal opinion is that I prefer to merge crummy articles together whenever possible; rather than r to dev, I'd merge to dev so that the content still exists in a readable form. I've been starting up a mini-project to do just that with game series that are wholly made of stubs, like Actua Sports- the initial articles were crummy stubs, and the resulting series article isn't particularly great, but 1 mediocre article that still informs the reader just as much as before is better than 10 scattered stubs that repeat themselves over and over. --PresN 23:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Salvidrim:Let's not pretend that a redirect to the developer was better than an unsourced article. Were you just being polite?
I have no problem with any of these articles going to AFD. That would require Czar to ask questions before firing. I'm not even sure what he's doing on some cases, after reverting his redirect on Beyond the Labyrinth, instead of taking it to AFD, he merely removed the cleanup tags?! - hahnchen 09:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Combo Racer

Hi WikiProject Video games. The other day I came across Combo Racer, which is identified as an orphan. Would it be appropriate to add it to List of Atari ST games and List of Amiga games? Also, the article lede says it is a Formula One video game, however the box art and this review would suggest that it's actually a sidecar racing game. Does anyone here know for sure? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Its kind of hard to tell, as both MobyGames (your link above) and Gamefaqs (the only source in the article) are user generated and not considered usable sources. I'm personally not familiar with the game, and it can be difficult to find information on video games from the mid-90's and earlier, unless they were very popular, as most of their coverage is sealed away in old print magazines. But yes, if you (or anyone) can find a source to verify the platform it was released on, then yeah, the "list of games on x platform" linking would be a good way to remove the orphan tag. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon species lists (a perennial discussion, I'm sure)

So I came across the frankly atrocious lists of Pokemon species (piping the 1-51 one to start, but this applies to all of them), as well as this, a more basic table-list... thing. It seems redundant to have two of these sort of things on WP at once, especially since the "more detailed" lists mostly consist of game/fan/listcruft and the refs are mostly from assorted VG journalists' favorite/least favorite Pokemon... garme jurnalizm references at their finest, eh... not to mention the detailed lists are IP vandal magnets that hardly anyone keeps a proper eye on from the looks of it-- I took out some stupid vandal subsection about Riolu's design originating from an ancient shit-figurine after it sat in the article untouched for almost a month.

I'm planning to try and clean up the articles as best I can at the very least, but on the other hand, it is beyond tempting to just mass-AfD the detailed lists and let the basic list stay, due to the redundancy and the poor notability of most pokemon species as a whole within the scope of WP-- any Pokemon species with enough reasonable coverage could get its own article like Pikachu or Meowth, and good RS coverage of Pokemon-related things in general could go into the main Pokemon article or elsewhere to be put to good use; it would just be better to have a very basic list for the rest and leave the detailed stuff to Bulbagarden... What's the general opinion on this? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 12:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Way back in the day, we used to have articles on every single pokemon. It was a constant issue- the most popular OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for years at AfD was that such-and-such article shouldn't be deleted because there were hundreds of Pokemon articles. Eventually, a compromise was struck between the rabid fans of the articles and, well, everyone else- combine the articles into listicles of about 50 each, consider the whole thing a quarantine zone, and walk away- as long as the lists existed, then random people wouldn't be as tempted to start an article on individual pokemon. And so it has stayed- every so often someone will manage to peel off an article, but since the unofficial consensus is that you shouldn't do that unless you can take the resulting Pokemon to GAN, it's pretty rare. You can see the same thing in parallel in that table list- by 2004 it had become a list of a dozen Pokemon lists, then in 2007 it contracted down to the table, and ever since has been a pack of fanboys and trolls yelling at each other. I'm in favor of AfDing the "detailed" cruft lists; I don't think we need to keep bad lists around just because we think they keep people from starting individual articles. --PresN 14:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Also see WP:POKEMON which describes the history and result of what PresN talks about. For myself, given that we have dedicated wikia that serve a better job, I would have no problem removing the detailed lists in favor of a single table and with the handful of notable pokemon (Pikachu for example) as their own articles. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the old nut of "There are more articles on Pokemon than articles on (insert more intellectually reputable subject here)". Now that Wikia/Bulbagarden/etc has gotten a lot more prolific in recent years and given a place for content like this, I didn't think there would be any issues. Unless anyone objects, I'll start getting those AfD's ready in a wee bit. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 15:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable decision, and the most appropriate one for Wikipedia. I'm almost certain most fans go to Bulbapedia, Serebii, etc., for information on specific Pokémon (at least that's where I go Face-wink.svg). The current multi-page listing serves little-to-no purpose to anyone looking for a general understanding of Pokémon. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You might want to drop a note before AFDing over at the anime project - while the lists are clearly tuned towards the pokemon as video game elements, they might want to chime in. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ooh, Masem, that's a good idea, should have thought of that. I'll probably nip over to a couple WProjects and get their opinion. I'll need a while to get all the steps and template copypastes I need straightened out anyway. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 15:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand your points, and agree that we most likely don't need the lists but how does it stack up against WP:CSC? You would also have to go through all the sources in the lists and show that they aren't reliable. Maybe we should merge the lists and just create one for notable Pokemon? If you want a strong argument for deletion which I am sure will be contested you have to look at what the blockers are if you haven't already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
For the majority of them, it's easy enough. Tons upon tons of primary sourcing to Pokedex quotes in the game and in the anime, sourcing directly to anime episodes, sourcing to some pretty informal opinion pieces by video game journalists... anything usable in those lists might be better put to use in one of the more coherent Pokemon articles, or if they can hold up an individual Pokemon species to the eroding sands of WP:GNG, then it could be an individual article for that species like Pikachu et al. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 16:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
For a majority of them I agree, they can go for sure but in the case of pokemon with good sources but no articles for them what do we do about those? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Uh... create the articles for them as I said above? :? I think I'm misunderstanding what you're asking, though. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 17:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
At any rate, I'm going to leave AfDing them for tomorrow so there's ample time for more editors to throw in their two cents. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 17:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's say we find a number (not all but a dozen or so) of the individual pokemon where there is just a tiny bit of info that is sourced to secondary information but far from making a full article about (it would be forever a perma-stub if one excluded the in-universe details). We could possibly argue that a "List of notable Pokemon creatures" could be made that would only list those that have standalone articles like Pikachu, and give a paragraph or so to those without it. There would need to be a strong metric of inclusion on this page - no secondary sources, no inclusion. But if we can only justify this for one or two pokemon beyond those with separate articles already, we're not losing that much if we don't include it. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That is what I am saying, Pokémon that have the sources but not enough info for a stand alone article. I also don't see how List of Pokémon is any different than List of Digimon if you plan on nixing the List of Pokémon (XX–XX)|Pokemon species lists. Wouldn't the same argument apply if the notable pokemon have their own articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Reading that AFD what appears to be the difference is that we have separate lists of Digimon characters based on their series, and the overall list was considered cruft compared to that. In the case of Pokemon, it would be more the opposite way - the lists of Pokemon by franchise (eg by the individual game pairs, by TV series) would be cruft compared to the overall list.
But yes, I do think that when we have what are "notable but short" pokemon articles can be merged into one catch all with strict requirements of what fits into that (secondary coverage). --MASEM (t) 23:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay so for List of notable Pokémon the process should start. I would do it myself but im no expert on the subject on what would be included versus what wouldn't. Would the ideal thing to look for be those that are sourced by independent reviews as opposed to primary fan like sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be the best way to go about this, yes. See which Pokémon have one or more reliable source, index them all in some file or page, then chose a minimum of reliable sources needed to be listed in this proposed new list (probably around three) and, once you decided on a list of Pokémon, think about what the most efficient way of displaying the entries would be. It would be difficult at first, but the further in the series you get, I am sure the less Pokémon will be covered by reliable sources. I'm afraid you'll still end up with around 200 Pokémon, though, unless you push the minimal number of sourced needed up. It might be useful to discuss specific recurring sources to see if they count up for the Pokémon's notability. I'm sure you could cut some corners during this process, but it'll definitely be a lot of work >.> ~Mable (chat) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Seismic tossing in a suggestion for a potential table-style format that could alleviate concerns about some Pokémon having more notability than others but maintaining all species. Basic premise limits the extent of in-universe prose, which appears to be the desire of most parties involved here, while retaining the bare-bones necessities of a decent list. The suggested formatting allows some flexibility for details from reliable sources via a "Notes" section. Preferably, details here should be as condensed as possible to avoid giving undue weight. I've included examples of various ways the notes section would be utilized.

List of Pokémon species
Pokémon National Dex
number
Type(s) Evolves into First appeared Notes
Primary Secondary
Bulbasaur (フシギダネ, Fushigidane) 001 Grass Poison Ivysaur (#002) Red and Green
Ivysaur (フシギソウ, Fushigisou) 002 Grass Poison Venusaur (#003) Red and Green Playable character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Venusaur (フシギバナ, Fushigibana) 003 Grass Poison Mega Evolution Red and Green IGN 15th-best Pokémon
Skipping entries for convenience of example
Rattata (コラッタ, Koratta) 019 Normal None Raticate (#020) Red and Green Criticized as a "filthy rodent" by GamesRadar and "rubbish" by the Official Nintendo Magazine
Skipping entries for convenience of example
Garchomp (ガブリアス, Gaburias) 445 Dragon Ground Does not evolve Diamond and Pearl Capable of Mega Evolution
Skipping entries for convenience of example
Zygarde (ジガルデ, Jigarude) 718 Dragon Ground Does not evolve X and Y Capable of switching between five formes: Cell, Core, 10% power, 50% power, and Perfect.
Skipping entries for convenience of example
Volcanion (ボルケニオン, Borukenion) 721 Fire Water Does not evolve N/A Discovered through data mining; not officially revealed

Per earlier discussions about the use of {{nihongo}}, it's possible that the listing could just be of the English names since they've become the primarily adopted ones within the focus of en.wiki. Additionally, I opted to include a "Evolves into" column to account for the possibility that fans would want this information upfront (it also maintains the connection between linked species which would be lost with the removed prose). I was a bit uncertain over including Mega Evolution in the column, so alternate examples are included with Venusaur and Garchomp. Sorting is provided for names, National Dex numbers, types (both primary and secondary), and first appearance (force sorted by generation by use of {{sort | [generation #] | [series names]}}). This table should make it possible to condense the list of species into a single article, albeit a very large one. From my experience with WP:MOS regarding tables, all 721 should be listed in a single table. However, this could be split into tables by generation (or articles by generation, if desired). For convenience of other articles already linking to species without articles, {{anchor}} could be utilized for easy HTML access. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(delayed add-on) As for references, a simple {{refn}} tacked onto the table header "List of Pokémon species" indicating that all species names, dex numbers, types, and evolutions are via [insert source name here] (Pokemon.com's Pokédex would probably be the best choice). This will help limit overwhelming the article with a baseline of 721 references to meet WP:V. From there, any additional sources would simply be to supplement the lede—which should cover the basics of Pokémon, the difference in species, some gameplay details relating to why the multitude of species is important, and a general summary of reception—but there will almost certainly be a solid 300+ references present. A rough estimate using 150–200 bytes per un-referenced listing (ex: Ivysaur is 185 bytes in the above example) yields a base size of 108,150–144,200 bytes just to list the 721 Pokémon without any notes. If all generations are combined, which is generally the preferred option, the article will likely far exceed 200 kB, even 300 kB doesn't seem Farfetch'd, in size. Since this is a list, the general 100 kB rule of thumb doesn't apply. But I'm probably getting way ahead of myself since this is still merely a suggestion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely love this! Finally no more useless in-universe Pokédex prose and only actual encyclopdic information and basic details. Awesome idea, Cyclone! ~Mable (chat) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(Reply to delayed add-on) So it seems like a good idea to split it off into a few separate lists regardless, perhaps two or three. It would still cut back on the existing lists a lot. ~Mable (chat) 09:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm digging this idea, too (and the Pokemon puns 718smiley.svg). Whether we divide the tables, or put them into 6 separate articles by generation I-VI, it's still going to be a fat lot better than thirteen articles of a worse nature (fourteen if you count List of Pokemon as well as the detailed lists). Before I put anything through the AfD ringer, should I give us time to parse the articles for usable references, or would it be better to just start over from scratch? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 11:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see the puns and table are going over well~ Definitely would give time to glean any reliable sources from the various lists. It'll help save time down the road for all parties involved and provide some tangible content right off the bat. From a content standpoint, the List of Pokémon article should be revamped to the new style before the push with AfD moves forward. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan, I'll start hoarding good sources in my sandbox for now while I have the time, unless it is more preferred to post them somewhere more centralized. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 11:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hording them there works for now. I've started putting together the tables in a sandbox of my own. Will have to get someone to perform a history merge down the line (don't know how to myself), but it'll make the initial transition to the new format easier. Should also give us a better idea of whether or not multiple articles will be needed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY Done! I've finished perusing all thirteen articles and the basic list, and gathered 17 usable general-context refs, out of hundreds; as I suspected, almost all of it was primary refs from the games/show/manga or VG journalists' fave/least fave lists... that being said, a lot of the older newspaper refs were 404ing or weren't archived anymore, and there are nonetheless a bajillion different articles on Joystiq, IGN, Destructoid et al. about Pokemon that are super easy to find via Google and, depending on context, might be usable for minor things as long as they're not opinion pieces or top 10 triviafarms. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 14:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(1) I can help with any history merges you need. (2) The most useful thing I see coming out of this is the precedent that "Criticized as a 'filthy rodent' by GamesRadar and 'rubbish' by the Official Nintendo Magazine" is not even worth mentioning in an article, nevertheless something to constitute independent notability. There are still more than a dozen individual Pokémon character articles that can be merged into the hodgepodge, and there's even pushback on those because some editors think a compilation of mentions in listicles (e.g., 'filthy rodent' and 'rubbish' quotes) is sufficient coverage for a dedicated article nevertheless its own section. (3) I think this effort is commendable, overall, but I'm also bracing for the 💩☔️. Godspeed. czar 22:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, CZAR. I'll give you a buzz when the page is ready to be arm thrust into the mainspace. @Dracolych: I've finished the bare essentials for Generation I in the aforementioned sandbox. Decided to spice it up a bit by casually "stealing" Bulbapedia's idea of having the in-game type colors as background colors. Helps keep the table from being extremely mundane. Anywho, extrapolating from the size of this one table (49.4 kB), the entire list will be at least 230 kB without any notes or references. I think it's possible to keep everything in a single article so I'll stay the course on that assumption for the time being. I've also opted to remove the Japanese Katakana and Hepburn romanization names as they offer no encyclopedic value and only serve to clutter the table.

Feel free to add information to the notes column for Generation I since I've finished the formatting for it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for your hard work on those tables, biskit-- working with that code is eldritch magic in its purest form to my eyes. I'm wondering if some sort of inclusion criteria should be made for the Notes section so it's only for really notable things that pertain to specific Pokemon (like the Denno Senshi Porygon episode as an excellent example), if a Notes column ought to be included at all. Seems like it would invite the fancruft/this-guy-said-this-Pokemon-sucks to slowly creep back unless it was handled carefully, but I don't know if that's too exclusionist of an approach for me to suggest. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 12:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we should limit the use of the notes column only to the most important note(s) about the specific Pokémon ("Porygon was in an episode that gave people seizures" as opposed to "Polygon is a digital Pokémon," but I do think that if the source is reliable and possibly backed up by multiple sources (the "rodent" critique comes from two separate reliable sources, for example), opinion pieces are actually among the most important things to include in the notes column. Hmm, we could say that we need two or more separate sources voicing similar opinions before it becomes noted here, to keep the subjectiveness at bay? ~Mable (chat) 13:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Maplestrip and Dracolych: I agree that the opinion pieces are the strongest encyclopedic aspects of this giant list. There's a decent amount of interest in the base list article, so there needs to be something substantial to it so it's of greater use to readers. I don't think there's anything else worth including from the in-universe aspect (such as species names, regions, or stats) that's worth adding so the Notes column is necessary to give quantifiable information on a Pokémon's notability (if possible). As a way to balance out issues stemming from all but removing the in-universe aspect, I had an idea to note that the list only covers the basics and readers should refer to respective Wikias for greater detail. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Maplestrip and Cyclonebiskit: Yeah, I can see your points-- and keeping the in-universe stuff out as a rule is a good idea. I figured my suggestion of omitting a Notes column or opinion pieces was erring too much on the side of deletionism anyway. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As one who wrote/rewrote most of the prose of these lists(you should have seen them before I got to them...) it pains me to see you want to delete it all. However, if that is what the consensus becomes, I wish you the best of luck. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blake: I do feel bad seeing a lot of work seemingly go to waste, but most of it simply isn't fit for Wikipedia (evolving standards refining what's considered encyclopedic or not). You're more than welcome to help out with the current proposed version (located here), especially since you're familiar with the base material. I'm still formatting the tables for Generations II-VI, though. Having more people to bounce off ideas with on what we should be including in the "Notes" section would be greatly appreciated too. :) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm really liking what I see with the list right now (I do see a few little issues, but I'll start something on the talk page over there about them). Early in my Wikipedian days, I quite a bit of time trying to fix up these lists by adding more refs, only to have all my hard work reverted within a couple days due to the sources not being reliable. I looked for more, better refs, but was coming up empty, and I pretty much left them alone after that. While I'm sad to see them go, it's definitely better for wiki, and I can't think of anything better than your idea. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I too spend some time with all of the Pokémon content when I first joined Wikipedia, and though I didn't try to edit them (it was obviously a mess I didn't want to get my hands dirty on XP), I enjoyed reading the questionable content a lot. I especially enjoyed reading all the backstage discussions on what to do with them, haha. I too am sad to see them go, but I am happy that we finally have a way to put this issue to bed in a way we can all feel comfortable with. Looking forward to hearing your opinions, Firemind, and I'll try to weigh in here and there as well ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 18:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I hear you @Blake:. I can understand those articles were probably a total shit-show before you got to fixing them up some. I didn't mean to seem like I was impugning on the work you did, if that's the way I came off. I just feel like there's better ways we could be doing this overall, which is no fault of your own. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent IP change to SNES NA release date

In Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System#North American release date: August 23, 1991, the North American release date is August 23, 1991, but the IP changed it to August 19. -- Hounder4 13:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I need other members of the WikiProject to keep an eye out on IPs 166.170.59.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 166.177.184.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that made changes to the SNES article (Edit history), and 166.177.186.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) started all. The source from Nintendo Life says 19 August 1991, but according to Axem Titanium (talk · contribs), this date is totally made up, and the source itself has no primary source to back it up (i.e. where is this "August 19 1991" coming from?). Therefore we should stick to the 23 August date as is, although the nonsense from the IPs are still happening... -- Hounder4 01:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
On the contrarie The August 23 date is made up. The guy above me cannot provide proof that Nintendo Life is lying. Also Nintendo Life is considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia itself. I recommend either we change it to August 1991 or we have an admin set it to August 19.166.170.59.75 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Just because it's considered a reliable source, doesn't mean they can't make mistakes. This is why other sources are important. But I agree, if the date can't be confirmed 100%, just list it by the month. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox backlog

It's been a few months and we now have almost 80 articles sitting in our Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes. I just killed about 25. Feel free to join in – czar 01:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done
100% complete
(155/155)
  • Done! thanks to @AdrianGamer and all who pitched in. There was some really old stuff in there—lots of 2008 tags.
Maybe Category:Video game cleanup next? Could we knock 150 down by the end of the month (or before this thread gets archived)? These requests are a bit more vague, so I suspect that many articles won't need much cleanup at all (besides the maintenance tag removed). – czar 07:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
366.7% complete
(550/150)
  • All right, another milestone down! Do you think we can kill the whole Category:Video game cleanup queue (400 articles) by the end of September? Feel free to jump in wherever: just make the article minimally presentable, remove uncited text and trivia (or add citations), and remove the cleanup tag. – czar 08:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
100% complete
(400/400)
We're in the final stretch now, if anyone wants to join in: Category:Video game cleanup czar 19:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
All right, it's done! The category had stuff as far back as 2007. I don't think it's a great category to have for that reason (I think we'd be better off asking editors to take pages to WT:VG than to tag for cleanup). But it does make a good holding cell if we merge Category:Video games game guide cleanup and Category:Video game articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction up. Any objections to that? I'd also like to retire Category:Video games with suspected incorrect release dates once it's cleaned out. No good in having those categories to languish. We can have one "attention" category but otherwise recommend that editors take their concerns to other editors via this page. czar 22:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest a rename of the category to "Video game(s?) articles needing cleanup" or similar. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with merging the categories into one (under whatever name)- and great job clearing them out! Maybe we should also adjust the templates that spawn the categories to require the user to enter a reason specifying what exactly needs to be fixed, since it seemed to be a common issue when they get too stale that it's not clear what the original problem was. --PresN 14:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! For what it's worth, the issues in the main category were pretty cut and dried, despite their staleness (usu. either unsourced, game guide stuff, in-universe garbage). Apart from getting an article count, we may not need any categories at all... for example, here is a cross section of "Articles needing cleanup" intersected with {{WPVG}} talk page tags (results: 305). We could do the same intersection with any cleanup/maintenance tag. Game guide cleanup might appear more project specific with its template text, but it really performs the same function (and passivity) as just tagging with {{cleanup}}, and the latter already has a |reason= field to explain what's wrong czar 13:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that everything has been completed now, Czar. Is it all right to archive this section now? GamerPro64 15:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that it's October, it will autoarchive 10 days from the last response like the other threads—I was hoping for some more feedback on the category merge question above. czar 16:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Game Informer #200

Does anyone by any chance have a copy of issue #200 of Game Informer? I have checked the reference library, and the only editor who is listed as having it is no longer active on Wikipedia. The thing I'm after is their top 200 list of best video games of all time, specifically the entry for Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. So yeah, I'd be very grateful if I could get access to: the entry itself (scan/photo/plain text... I'm not picky, as long as it is readable), page number, the author (unless it's just credited to "GI staff" or something similar...), and the title of the list. Thanks.--IDVtalk 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I own a copy of the issue but its back at home while I'm away. Wouldn't be able to go back until a month or so. GamerPro64 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting - I'll be unable to get hold of the Phoenix Wright art book until I get home myself in two months, so I won't be able to "finish" the article until then anyway. Thank you!--IDVtalk 18:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I have it, I just checked, there's no entry, it is just listed at #178 on the list. (Past the top 100, only every 5 or so titles in the 100-200 range have descriptions). --MASEM (t) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Oh, okay. Still, would you be able to check the page number and the list's title, so I can cite it properly?--IDVtalk 23:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Story runs from pp44 to 79, AA is on p78. It is called "The Top 200 Games of All Time", there is no given author. Issue is dated Dec 2009. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --IDVtalk 08:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I also still have a copy, but it seems that Masem beat me on this one. Still, nice job. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Biohazard film series

FYI, I have a draft article up for submission, see Draft:Biohazard (film series) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me,  Done. I've also added the article to the relevant navbox. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article title be something like Resident Evil (animated film series)? 3 out of 4 films use the Resident Evil name. --Mika1h (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Eh, I agree. Thanks for the move. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry about plot summaries

Been playing Corpse Party—finally have Blood Drive in my hands after waiting so long for the translated version to come out—and have a desire to help out this poor, decrepit article. Probably getting a bit ahead of myself with this, since I still have to finish formatting the tables for the Pokémon list, but I wanted to get the idea better ironed out. To be blunt, I've never written a plot summary before. I'm not entirely sure how to craft one but from the WP:VG guidelines, I gather that it's meant to be as concise as can be, with as little frivolous detail as possible. Problem with Corpse Party is that its story is interwoven throughout three games, and its not completely clear what events took place first or what took place in the Groundhog Day-esque time loop presented in Book of Shadows. After playing through Book of Shadows again yesterday, it seems that some chapters serve as prequels (such as the one revolving around Naho and Kibiki), while others, namely those relating to the five surviving characters from the first game, are part of the aforementioned Groundhog Day loop. The backstory revealing events that happened 50 years prior to the games are gradually expanded upon as the story progresses. Furthermore, a lot of time is spent on the story of "secondary" characters (particularly those at Byakudan Senior High) with decent time even spent on tertiary characters (such as the characters from Musashigawa Girls' School). Is the plot meant to be crafted chronologically (i.e. full explanation of the death of Sachiko/Yoshie is explained first, followed by the closure of Heavenly Host, etc.) or should it follow the order in which its viewed by the player? I'm assuming the former one is the desired option, but since the story is broken apart in the three games I figured its worth asking. Thankfully Blood Drive is a clear sequel so whatever events take place in it should be easy to integrate. I'm assuming that "Wrong Ends" are not incorporated into the plot summary since they're not part of the complete picture, but merely mentioned as a gameplay element.

Sorry if I rambled too much (I enjoy the series a bit too much Face-wink.svg)...the basic premise of this post is "How do I craft an appropriate plot summary spanning three games with intertwining, branching stories? Additionally, what should the scope of focus be with multiple sub-stories taking place simultaneously?" Thanks in advance! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've always been fond of synopses, where all that gets told about the plot is how the story starts of (character x meets y and z) and what general direction the story then takes (and they go on adventures to fight the evil q). It depends on the story, but I usually feel like summarizing the entire story is ridiculous... But I often feel alone in this regard, so don't listen to me XP You're doing amazing work, by the way, Cyclone! Thanks for all the effort! ~Mable (chat) 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
"Shoot" for the WP:FILMMOS approved number of 700 words at the high end. That's about 200 words for each story and another 100 for backstory. If it turns out you can't get all the information in that you want, either ignore a rule and increase the number a bit, or write more concisely ;). I think if you give yourself a number you'll find that it's a lot easier to write the section than not since that gives you a handle on what may or may not be important to the reader. (Hint: Tertiary and second characters' stories: not so important.) --Izno (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It is true that if you focus only on the protagonists of a story, you can get rid of a lot of filler, though it can be confusing when a lot of character stories start to influence one-another. Usually, any kind of villain background can be ignored as well. ~Mable (chat) 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: Thanks for the tips~ I'll have to play the games again and write down all the story details so I can figure out what's necessary and what can be left out. @Maplestrip: I don't think I can leave out most of the "villain"—roles are rather fluid at times, and change as the story progresses—back story with Corpse Party (certain ones, namely with Blood Drive, I can probably get away with just a sentence); the history behind Sachiko is necessary to understanding why the story unfolded in the way it did. Also, one of the villains, Kizami, is actually a playable character. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel like it would be a good idea to cover each game's plot in their own individual articles, while covering the setting, themes, etc, in the series article. As it is right now, you are going to have to cover more information as new games are released while still being limited to ~700 words. Each Corpse Party game that has been released in English has enough RS coverage for their own articles, so creating new articles for them should not be an issue.--IDVtalk 02:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@IDV: It's a relatively niche game that has a cult following, not really a well-known series from what I've gathered. No major reviews are available yet for Blood Drive in English as far as I can tell—I may just be adverse to making articles that are inherently stuck as stubs—granted it just came out on Tuesday. Should be enough lying around for the reboot to the series, Blood Covered, to have its own article and possibly Book of Shadows. Can't speak for how much may be available in Japanese though...best I can do is use the dreaded Google Translate. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Oh, I can understand not wanting to create articles that are likely to remain stubs, but I don't see that being the case here tbh. Blood Covered and Book of Shadows have a decent amount of reviews, from which you can get reception (opinions) and gameplay (facts), and not every video game article needs a long development section - we got a lot of new GAs recently of which many barely have a development section at all - see Atic Atac#Development, for instance. Weird how Blood Drive hasn't been reviewed yet, though, considering it's gotten a decent amount of coverage prior to its release - perhaps it's because it's niche (and thus lower priority than higher profile games) and story-based (meaning you'd pretty much have to play the whole thing before reviewing it, unlike games like Mario Kart), or maybe XSEED didn't send out a copy to reviewers prior to launch... either way, I'll be really surprised if it doesn't get any reviews soon. Anyway, there's a little bit of development/localization information for Blood Drive on XSEED's official blog, if you're interested.--IDVtalk 03:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@IDV: Thanks for the link! I may also be looking from a fan viewpoint rather than an encyclopedic one, fwiw. Hmm...certainly possible that there weren't review copies sent out and since it is story-driven, analyzing the quality of the game would indeed take a bit longer. My personal playthrough of the main story took about 20 hours total, and that included getting lost for a couple hours. The extra chapters that I've played so far add a couple hours on top of that. So it's not a terribly long game, but from a reviewer standpoint I guess it's long. The voice actors/actresses also give their thoughts on the game through "Soulful Testimonies" in Book of Shadows and Blood Drive (basically a statement by them after finishing their last recording session), which are unlocked through gameplay by completing their respective main chapters. There's some development info, reception (via their own thoughts on the games), and comments on the characters themselves tucked away in there that can be used alongside the XSEED blog. Don't think it counts as enough to make a standalone article on characters, though...Personally I think this series needs one given just how many there are that have fleshed out stories but if there aren't enough sources, so be it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-English release dates removed from infobox?

I have a problem here with the Run Like Hell (video game) article page. You see, the PlayStation 2 version was released in Japan on September 2, 2004, according to IGN, yet 86.44.79.61 keeps removing the Japanese release date, saying that "non-English release dates are only included when they are the first release date of the game, okay?" Yet Famitsu gave it a score of all four sevens for a total of 28 out of 40, according to this Metacritic link here, but without the Japanese release date in the infobox, adding a Famitsu score in the Reception chart makes no sense! What should I do? Should I keep the Famitsu score or remove it altogether?! I'm so confused! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You can still include the Famitsu score even without the Japanese release date in the infobox. It is a game we would not normally include the Japanese release because it was an Western developed game, so if Famitsu reviewed it, its implied it came out in Japan. If it was significantly delayed and that impacted the reception compared to the western release, that might be a reason to call out the Japanese release date in prose. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the removal here. It was not initially released in Japan, part of a Japanes franchise, or made by a Japanese company.--65.94.254.106 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem, for your advice. I had to add the Famitsu score in prose in the Run Like Hell article in adding a GameFAQs reference and saying, "In Japan, where the PS2 version was released on September 2, 2004, Famitsu gave it a score of all four sevens, for a total of 28 out of 40." I hope that makes you happy. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, here it is again! 86.44.79.61 keeps removing the GameFAQs source link, claiming that GameFAQs is not a reliable source, and denying that the PS2 version was ever released in Japan! Can't you do something about this IP editor? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:VG/RS, GameFAQs is an unreliable source. As for the Japanese release of the game, I have no knowledge. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 15:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I had to change the source link to the IGN one, as IGN is reliable. We don't want the IP editor to remove reliable sources now, would we? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait wait wait... what am I missing? Why wouldn't the JP release be in the infobox (as long as it is sourced reliably)!? This sounds to me like what we've always done.  · Salvidrim! ·  15:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the guideline is technically only list the English language releases unless it was a Japanese-made game. I say "I think" because it doesn't seem like that's how most do it. (I could be wrong though, as I almost exclusively work on Japanese games to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The main reason to list the Japanese release is because Japan has a large video game market, but according to that logic, we should also always list any South Korean releases and perhaps Brazilian releases, which we don't usually do. Only listing release dates from English-language areas (US, UK/EU, Australia, Canada) as well as the country of origin is the sensible thing to do. If you want to see when a non-Japanese game was released in Japan, you go to the Japanese Wikipedia, much like how one would go to the South African Wikipedia for South African release-dates of non-South African games. That was a mouthful. ~Mable (chat) 17:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the reason the Japanese release dates were still tracked was because it marked the game's first/original release, not necessarily because of market size. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, somebody at the Japanese Wikipedia should create a game page for Run Like Hell, because I noticed that it hasn't appeared yet, right next to the other-language Wikipedia pages. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
My point, Sergecross, was that adding the Japanese release date for the non-Japanese game would be nonsensical, though I attempted to think of a reason to do so and "market size" was the only thing that popped up. Anyway, if there doesn't exist a Japanese-language article on the topic, then I would brush it off as "not our problem," though feel free to work on it if you are capable! The lack of a foreign-language article is still no reason to list the foreign-language release date here, after all. ~Mable (chat) 07:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I include Japanese release dates in articles. I had always assumed that we included European, North American and Japanese release dates in the infobox as they were historically the three largest markets. I had never considered that we would limit it to English speaking regions, the largest market in Europe is Germany. We might be the English language Wikipedia, but our scope and audience are global. China is now arguably the largest market in the world by some metrics, so that might be worth considering, but that is a market dominated by digital free-to-play goodies. - hahnchen 11:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Should we then also list South Korea from now on? ~Mable (chat) 11:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

VG timeline template

Timeline of release years
1989Shadow of the Beast
1990Shadow of the Beast II
1991
1992Shadow of the Beast III
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016Shadow of the Beast
Timeline of release years
1981Castle Wolfenstein
1982
1983
1984Beyond Castle Wolfenstein
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992Wolfenstein 3D
Spear of Destiny
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001Return to Castle Wolfenstein
2002
2003Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008Wolfenstein RPG
2009Wolfenstein
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014Wolfenstein: The New Order
2015Wolfenstein: The Old Blood

Does {{VG timeline}} look a bit messy and possibly unnecessary long to others too? I noticed on Rare Replay. For some years, three games are listed. I thought this is a bit too close together. Because it also lists years where no game wheres released, on The_Legend_of_Zelda#History or Fire_Emblem#Games there a few unnecessary gaps in between. Wouldn't a template layout like {{ElderScrollsTimeline}} or {{Fallout timeline}} be more suitable? --Soetermans. T / C 08:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The gaps can be a good thing to visually indicate periods in which no games were released, but other than that, I don't have a strong preference one way or another. I think the size of the {{VG timeline}} template is a good argument to use it less, but I also think it has value that a simple textbox doesn't have. ~Mable (chat) 08:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Why do the {{ElderScrollsTimeline}} and {{Fallout timeline}} templates use {{infobox}} as a base instead of {{sidebar}}? sst 08:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That I don't know. I've edited them just recently. --Soetermans. T / C 09:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else? Any input? --Soetermans. T / C 16:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Mable, the spacing and cramped sections add a visual effect that the Elder Scrolls one doesn't have. I'm far from a template expert, so I really don't have any other input. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I like the way the timeline template looks on Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, where you don't have clumping so it just gives a good visual representation of how far apart the games were. --PresN 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think those two are excellent examples of VG Timeline used well. ~Mable (chat) 07:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in having years listed when there weren't games released. Ninja_Gaiden#Video_games has a chunk. Doesn't the reader already see that if one game was released in 2004 and the next in 2007, that there's a certain time in between? To make a point, I made two video game timelines here. --Soetermans. T / C 13:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Shadow of the Beast would be an awful way of using this format. The Wolfenstein one seems pretty effective if an article has the room for it. Aesthetics are important, after all. ~Mable (chat) 13:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Esports article titles are a huge mess

As the title suggests, the titles of several esports players are in disarray. There doesn't seem to be a guideline or cohesion in naming them, which results in:

  1. Some articles listed under birth names, for example Joseph Marquez
  2. Some articles listed under gamer handles, for example PC Chris
  3. Still some articles listed under birth names but with the gamer handle in the middle, such as Jeffrey "Trump" Shih before it was moved to Trump (Hearthstone streamer)

Of these three, the third is a violation of policy, specifically WP:STAGENAME, which states "avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name." The other two are less obvious. The second option of using game handles seems to be generally preferred (see this discussion, for example), and I agree with that; I've already moved some articles but thought I'd better stop and ask for consensus before going any further to prevent a potential trainwreck. So, any thoughts? Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we need any special guidelines or even cohesion, though? WP:STAGENAME says to use the most common name for the person in reliable sources. This would probably be the "gamer handle" most of the time, but not necessarily for every esports player, and I think there's nothing wrong with that.--IDVtalk 02:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I reckon we need a general preference. In some cases it is clear-cut (for example, all sources refer to Kripparrian by his gamer handle) but in most others it is much more ambiguous - for example, Reginald (professional video gaming) is mostly referred to in reliable sources as [Andy "Reginald" Dinh]. What do we do in cases like this, when the birthname and the gamertag are both mentioned by sources? Some sources prefer birth names while others favour gamer handles; and usually there isn't a "most common name in reliable sources" which contributes to the article titles being in as much a mess as they are. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I myself would generally pick the screen name over the legal name in situations where neither is preferred, but this is definitely a situation where we need to follow our sources when possible. ~Mable (chat) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguators

A related point: "(Hearthstone streamer)" is amongst the worst disambiguator I've seen. Others have "(professional video gaming)", "(esports player)", and "(video game player)", "(Halo player)", "(Counter-Strike player)", "(StarCraft player)", "(video gamer)". How about we hold an RfC to decide once and for all how to deal with these? I think including the name of the game is a horrible idea. How about standardizing to (gamer), or if that is too "casual", (video gamer)? Whether one is professional or not, whether he's a player, a streamer, a speedrunner... it doesn't matter. The goal of a disambiguator is to disambiguate using the simplest, shortest possible addendum to an article title. If y'all are fine with an actual RfC, I'll tag this as such and leave a note at WT:NCVG; I think with the rise of streaming and pro-gaming we need to make a 10th point regarding people notable for playing video games.  · Salvidrim! ·  03:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, and "(gamer)" seems perfect. "Professional gamer" could result into issues when a person isn't professional and "Esport player" isn't simple enough. I do think "gamer" really works. ~Mable (chat) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"Gamer" seems okay; football uses "footballer" pretty generically; other sports simply use the name of the sport. I might be more agreeable to "video gamer" more inline with how we disambig video games to "video game" rather than "game". --Izno (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Video games based on tabletop role-playing games

I can't believe no one has thought of this category yet - especially me. Well, I fixed that! Seeing that Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption recently made FA made me think of this. Check out Category:Video games based on tabletop role-playing games and let me know if I am missing anything worth being included. :) BOZ (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the Ultima series in general belongs to this category. ~Mable (chat) 19:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Was Ultima based on a specific tabletop RPG? BOZ (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure - I remember hearing the creator was at least inspired by his tabletop roleplaying at the time and I know much of the setting was based on their "adventures," but looking at the series article, I find nothing to back this up... Well, nevermind then, I suppose. My bad. ~Mable (chat) 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No worries. :) For the most part, I'd be looking for licensed works to go in this category, and I found more than I expected already. BOZ (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:VGSCOPE additions

I'm not sure if these have been brought up before but what do people think about the inclusion of:

  • development team lists (example)
  • regional cover athlete lists (example)
  • regional commentator lists (example)

in video game articles. They seem like things that probably shouldn't be on articles and could be added to the list of inappropriate content WP:VGSCOPE. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree with points 2 and 3, but can you give an example of number 1? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems a dev team list could be okay. What am I thinking, examples right there. Yeah, a list like that, of individual members like that, doesn't look great either. It should just be prose. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
And that's assuming that the dev team has been discussed by outside sources. If we're just pulling the list of all participants based on the game's credits (not leads as we'd do in the infobox) that can get really spammy. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup, exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
This already falls under VGSCOPE#4-6, IMO (depending on how you want to interpret it). And even probably #11. I don't see a need to add these explicitly to VGSCOPE. --Izno (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
None of these fall under those criteria, hence why I am asking. Cover art and development team credits are not strategy guides, walkthrough, fictional details or lists of in-game items or concepts. Official commentaries are not the same as unofficial translations. Your interpretation of the guideline is poor. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, meant #10 on the one regarding #11 (and actually, the athlete lists come to think of it).

As for my interpretation on the athletes, I disagree. It isn't a stretch at all to say that they are a list of fictional concepts since what's being represented on the cover is a real-world copy of the fiction.

As for development team lists, you might be right, but I'm not worried about it. The intent of the guideline is clear, even if that one specific thing isn't listed. If you can't link to WP:VGSCOPE in the edit summary removing the content, you can still definitely link to WP:WEIGHT or WP:NOT.

"Your interpretation of the guideline is poor." is a borderline PA. --Izno (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you cited the wrong number, certainly you could understand how one may think it was not a great interpretation... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Development team lists should not exists in articles, this isn't IMDB/Mobygames. The main members (director, producer, composer, etc), should go into the infobox instead, and anybody else who is notable should just remain as prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anger

Taken care of. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 19 October 2015 (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.

I received a pleasant message ([5]) from a wiki-reader thanking me for removing inappropriate content from sports video game articles. I encourage you all to give it a try, it's so rewarding! --The1337gamer (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2015 (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.

Notability of Triss Merigold (video game character)

So I am mulling whether to nominate pl:Triss Merigold for deletion, or stub it with better sources here. I see some sources, but they seem rather niche, mostly from the video game trade magazines and such (and if anyone wonders, no, there's no notability for her based on her original book appearance). Can anyone find sources which seem solid? She did appear in Polish Playboy, through I am not sure if it is considered a RS :P (List_of_characters_in_the_Witcher_saga#Triss_Merigold) . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting articles on the Polish Wikipedia goes through their own channels, right? --Soetermans. T / C 08:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
We could think about her notability in terms of "should we make an article on her as well," though. I don't know if we should - she probably wouldn't make GNG. Whether her Polish article should be deleted is something you can discuss there by starting however deletion nominations work over there.
Her appearance on Polish Playboy can help establish notability, but it in itself is not a reliable source to work with. Maybe reliable sources have responded to this happening? ~Mable (chat) 10:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, most hardcopy/print magazines are going to be considered a reliable source. I mean, I'm not sure we'd really be interested in using their review on The Witcher 3, but a magazine dedicating a whole article to a fictional character is definitely noteworthy, and a point towards notability. In theory, anyways, it's not like I've seen the article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I only now had the chance to look some stuff up myself, and I find a lot of articles covering the character to reasonable extend by doing a Google News search. That being said, most of these are by foreign websites (I can't read Rusian or German, so that doesn't help) and websites that aren't listed under our standard reliable sources. That doesn't mean that they aren't reliable, though. I'm not sure how much of these articles say something substantive about the character, as I haven't really digged through the sources, but I can imagine an article being made on the character. Nothing really seems solid, though, as you said, so I would advice against creating an article, though WP:GNG might be on your side in any deletion discussion. ~Mable (chat) 13:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: yes, I know that deleting pl wiki article should happen through pl wiki channels, which I am familiar with; I just mentioned this for context on whether we should have an English version of that article or not. User:Maplestrip (and others) - did anyone find any reliable English-language sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I really can't tell whether these are reliable sources. For example, looking over Gamepur, it seems somewhat decent, being more of "group project" but with some form editorial oversight. However, I've never come across the website before and it isn't listed in WP:VG/S. This is the case with multiple sources.
On the other hand, we have sources like this PC Gamer news update. PC Gamer is considered a reliable source, but this "article" is completely worthless, even for establishing notability, and simply can't be used.
Looking at this source, which I don't know is reliable, it seems like this kind of sources are better off in the plot section of the main game, rather than deserving a separate article. This all being said, I still haven't attempted to translate the foreign-language sources. ~Mable (chat) 07:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

CSGO Majors

Hey guys, I'm completely new to the Video Games WikiProject, but I feel as though I should expand my horizons from the soccer articles I normally create. I've been wondering if anyone has any major objections or thoughts as to myself creating articles about the half dozen or so Counter Strike: Global Offensive major tournaments (the ones that Valve fund). I've noticed that Dota 2's The International tournaments have really well constructed pages and I'd like to see something similar available for CSGO. Let me know your thoughts! - J man708 (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I really like the articles on the individual International tournaments (2014 in particular), so they can form a great base. What kind of sources are we thinking of here? I'm not too knowledgeable on Counter Strike, but I'm curious of whether these individual tournaments make WP:GNG. Keep in mind that content such as the background of the tournament, viewership and all that is particularly useful, and that if you want to fill in tournament brackets, be sure to make them complete and base them on reliable sources ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 08:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: Oh, I'm sure that they would pass WP:GNG. Keep in mind, I would be sticking to the $250,000 tournaments sponsored by Valve. The most recent major had over a million viewers for the final and had every match (as well as every qualifying match) streamed on Twitch. Hell, you can even download demos of every match in every major with their commentary at any time, while in the game's menu. Also, I'd be able to use the Official website amongst the sources. There's definitely no lack of information available. I just think that CSGO is more of Valve's forgotten child after Dota's multi-mllion dollar tournaments... - J man708 (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
In that case, go on and make it! :D Start a draft and I'll be sure to give it a look once it starts to take form. Be sure to use secondary sources as well! ~Mable (chat) 08:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha. Thankfully this isn't my first article! :P - J man708 (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: I've worked on the article a little bit and obviously it's a bit raw and doesn't show individual matches, the knockout stages or more info, but it's starting to take shape. - J man708 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it looks pretty decent already. I really like the layout! There are no external sources yet, but I'm sure you can find stuff. I quickly checked Wikimedia Commons for possible images to use, but sadly, there was nothing. ~Mable (chat) 11:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2015

A summary of a WPVG Featured Article will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? "Longest-lived" didn't work for me ... does "has been sold for 26 years, longer than any other game console" work? (And btw, isn't it 29 years?) - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Brazil" is mentioned three times fairly quickly in a row and the sales bit could use some rewording too: "Sega failed to gain a significant market share in Japan and North America, but was more successful in Europe and Brazil. Sales of the console have been estimated at 10 to 13 million units, not including recent sales in Brazil, compared to 62 million Nintendo Entertainment System units sold. (...) The Master System has been sold for 26 years, longer than any other game console, due to its continuing popularity in Brazil. 1) what are "recent sales" in Brazil? 2) doesn't that make it sound like 62 million NES units were sold in Brazil? --Soetermans. T / C 07:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Suggestions? I'm thinking maybe replace "have been estimated at 10 to 13 million units, not including recent sales in Brazil" with "were estimated at 10 to 13 million units in (year)" or "up through (year)". - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Attention : Super Nintendo Entertainment System has been nominated for a Featured article review

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

Also, I am sorry for self-notifying and not notifying you as a project. This was my first time of writing a review, and I should have—and possibly did— know better than just to jump onto writing a review without apparently required instructions and without knowing what I was doing, so I apologize for the inconvenience. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

New Featured List candidate

I just listed List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art as a FL candidate. This is my first attempt of raising something to featured status, so I hope it will go well. I'll be sure to try to give feedback on some currently running FA discussions (though I doubt I can add anything to the discussions ^_^"), but I figured I'd mention this here first! If there are any steps I forgot to take, I'd love to know about it. ~Mable (chat) 10:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread 18: Backlog edition

This has not appeared for some time, but since there is quite a backlog of GAs, FAs and other things such as Peer Reviews, I thought it would be sensible to start it up. If you are free and interested, please take a look at the article nominations below:/archive1

FAC
Peer Review
GAN
Other

Begging thread

To start this: I'll take on a GA that isn't related to King of Fighters or Megami Tensei in exchange for a review of Final Fantasy XIV or a set of comments for Final Fantasy Type-0. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Reminding everyone that there is also a huge backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests. It would be very gracious if we had more people looking at it and either creating or removing article ideas from the list if they don't meet notability standards. GamerPro64 16:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Throwing in a beg for Maniac Mansion. It's absolutely dying at FAC thanks to a lack of feedback. It already failed once—please consider checking it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'll review Alien 8 if anybody else reviews Ash Crimson later. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Alien 8 passed GA.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Also Ash Crimson.Tintor2 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I passed Music of Ni no Kuni to GA. It isn't on the list, but worth mentioning regardless. ~Mable (chat) 16:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dark Angel plot

Hi everyone. I've been working on the article Dark Angel (video game). I'm pretty happy with the article with the exception of the plot section, which is only an extrapolation, based on the reviews of the game, and these non RS sources: [6] (GameFaqs walkthrough, which unfortunately doesn't feature a storyline section) [7] (YouTube video of first level). I can't write a detailed plot as i've never actually played the game; the PS2 emulator i've found just isn't co-operating with my mac. Does anyone either own the game or would be willing to download an emulator and kill an evening playing it to flesh out the plot? Apologies in advance for the game apparently being very repetitive haha. I'd be very happy to help you with anything in return. I'd like to nominate the article for GA but am unsure of its chances of passing without a detailed plot. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried finding Let's Plays of the game? GamerPro64 01:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
To be honest I hadn't even heard of 'Let's Plays' before. Now that I know what they are unfortunately it hasn't been a big help in this case. I've found another person who has uploaded the first level and one person who has uploaded the first three completed and then gets stuck on the fourth. Better than nothing but as there are 22 levels there are still a lot of blanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Keeping the plot section particularly short is always an option. You definitely should discuss everything that happens inbetween those 22 levels. How about walkthroughs? Though obviously not a reliable source (much like let's plays), you should be able to figure some major plot points out that way.
The only walkthrough i've found is the one listed above. It tells you exactly what to do for all 22 levels, but gives little to no indication about why you're doing it. For example the final boss is not mentioned until the walkthrough for the final level, leaving it unclear as to who the boss is (only their name is given, no other details) or what their agenda is. The walkthrough wasn't very helpful unfortunately. Freikorp (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Tone?

Is "critically panned" encyclopedic in tone? Shouldn't we just say "was met with negative reception" or something? --Soetermans. T / C 07:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I always thought panned was a proper term to describe things that got heavily negative reviews. GamerPro64 15:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Critically panned" might be doubly harsh, but "panned" alone - if it is 100% clear from reading the reviews that reviewers did just not like the game - is fair language to use. But that said, we also try to avoid overly favorable language for high-ranking games (praised verses panned), so I would probably say to avoid that term unless you can quote that. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I personally don't have a problem with the term, I think its appropriate for some of those games that are pretty consistently poorly reviewed (Sonic 2006 for example) but I know of other editors that remove it in favor of wording like "Very negatively reviewed" or something, which I also have no problem with. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Sonic 2006 has scores as high as a 8,5 and THPS5 also received a 5. Metacritic says they both received "generally unfavourable reviews" (THPS5, Sonic 2006). Is "critically panned" not going a step further? --Soetermans. T / C 10:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but any 7's or 8's were pretty clear outliers in the reviews scores, most were pretty negative (especially if you look to the actual prose.) I know film articles use the term pretty frequently for poorly received films, though I don't know if its something they've actually discussed/allowed, or merely a term film editors use a lot. Like I said, I have no problem with using it or avoiding it. (In effect, I'd support removing it if someone truly objects that the reception was not that negative, but not necessarily removing every instance of the word on the project.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is, does it "sound" the same. does it have the same meaning? Does "critically panned" mean the same as "negatively received"? --Soetermans. T / C 07:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe they have the exact same technical meaning, though if people start to get a too negative associations with "panned," then that is something to look into. I'm not sure why this would be the case, though. ~Mable (chat) 07:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I think so. Basically that, or the equivalent of saying "very negatively received". Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the input. --Soetermans. T / C 05:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack listings on NBA 2K articles

See Talk:NBA_2K16#Why_the_soundtrack_belongs. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What is this thing?

And what the heck is it used for? Template:Major video game publishers in Metacritic Axem Titanium (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Google to the rescue! [8] ~Mable (chat) 08:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
TFDd. Please discuss there. --Izno (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Miniproject

I was looking at our project quality table - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics - and something jumped out at me: out of the 510 articles that we rate as "high" importance, only 2 are stubs. That seems a shame to be so close and stop there, so how about we clean off that little blemish? The articles in question are:

  • Interactive entertainment - a definition article; can it be improved? Should it exist as a stand-alone article? Should it be rated so highly?
  • OXO - (one of) the very first video game, from 1952! At 5, only 2 more sentences than letters in the name.

GA may be a pipe dream for these two, but if you're looking for a short project, consider bumping one of them up to Start-class! --PresN 01:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about OXO. Looks like you may have to find books about it instead of articles online. Older magazines might have something on it at least. GamerPro64 01:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I say:
Merge Interactive entertainment into Gamification, and re-rate the latter from Low to High(or Mid).
Merge OXO into its section at First video game and re-rate that as Top, as it is doubtful there is much expansion possible.  · Salvidrim! ·  01:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Salvidrim proposal. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I ended up poking at OXO so much that I tripled the length via a bunch of book sources; thank you Google Books. I almost want to send it to GAN, because I literally don't think there's anything more that can be said about it. I agree with merging Interactive entertainment; I'll do it tomorrow unless anyone has another suggestion or wants to work on it. --PresN 03:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice work on OXO, PresN. I suppose it could make sense to reassess it to mid importance seeing as it doesn't seem "particularly" notable among other "first games," though it is definitely notable enough for its own article. I support merging Interactive entertainment. ~Mable (chat) 08:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Now merged, gamification bumped up to mid. --PresN 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Great job! What's next: destubbing our 124 Mid-importance articles? Making at least one of our 49 Top-importance articles an FA? Making our our Top-importance list an FL? :D  · Salvidrim! ·  00:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Seeing how First-Person Shooter is a Good Article currently, its possible that's the closest to becoming a Featured Article in the future. Besides we only have one genre article at FA status anyway. GamerPro64 00:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      • My original thought for the next project was to get out 8 top-importance start-class articles up a bit higher... then I looked at what those articles were, and figured that no one would likely volunteer, since no one ever does when someone tries to get a project going for the "history of consoles" articles. Then I looked at that list, and shuddered. Haven't found another small, short project to propose yet- "slightly fix 2 stubs" was an good starting point. --PresN 02:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, I got one. I'll make a new section for it below. --PresN 02:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the merged material from Gamification, as interactive entertainment seems to have little or nothing to do with gamification other than relating to games. Please discuss on the gamification talk page if you think it is germane to that article. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yokohama Joypolis merge

Requesting input at Talk:Joypolis#Proposed_merge_with_Yokohama_Joypolis czar 19:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting input at Talk:Sakura_Wars#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_Sakura_Wars_characters too czar 05:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Tetris variants

In July I asked this: [[9]] and [[10]] and did not get an answer what-so-ever, so I thought, let's try it here... I don't have the possibility check anything up at all (limited by a white-list) so is there anybody who could help me with this? Oxygene7-13 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the list of Tetris variants, I would hazard to guess that those simply aren't notable variants, or are not considered to be variants on Tetris. For the second, regarding Rise of the Triad, the music changing for Christmas would be considered trivial and unimportant for an encyclopedia. -- ferret (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree on both points, at least it's more than no answer at all. On the other hand, about the second point, easter-eggs are often mentioned and I think that the build-in joke with the music can be seen as one. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally, the "tie-breaker" on whether or not some minor features is considered noteworthy or trivial, is whether or not third party reliable sources discussed it or not. If a third party source or two have mentioned it in preview/review/retrospective type articles, it may be worthy of inclusion. If not, then its probably not worth including. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't have access to any sources because my options are limited by a white-list, so I hoped I could get the discussion started overhere... but thanx! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Rounding values on % scores

Aren't we suppose to round percentages values on GameRankings scores, in the reception section of game articles? I can't seem to find the exact guidelines though, which is why I ask. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In Template:video game reviews: GameRankings − Particularly useful for games that pre-date Metacritic (limit to 2 significant figures, i.e., 83% instead of 83.46%) AdrianGamer (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not a hard rule or anything that someone should get in a fight over, but the consensus on gamerankings, as expressed in the vg reviews template, is to round to the nearest percent, matching the whole numbers of metacritic. It's purely an aesthetic thing- hundredths of a percent is a meaningless detail that makes the template/prose harder to read for no benefit. --PresN 03:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It also discourages people gnoming (normally in good faith but I've seen weirder things) to keep updating the scores some months after release just because a few new reviews pop up, when those scores don't significantly alter the rounded result. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I was looking in the wrong place then. So it's not really worth to enforce it then? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Definitely do not edit war over it, that gets into LAME territory as it is not hard policy but just advice, but if you are bringing an article to GA or better, it's not a bad idea to round to 2 digits. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
What about rounding GameRankings' score in the reception section's prose for consistency? Sure, there's no need to repeat the aggregators' scores in paragraph format, but the reality is that many articles do so. —zziccardi (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The same points apply for the prose as for the table- even more so for readability, I think. --PresN 03:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That's how I feel as well. It probably makes sense to say GameRankings' score should be rounded at WP:VG/S#Review sites, which is much more visible than the template's documentation, especially to new editors. Thoughts? —zziccardi (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedrun.com

I was wondering what kind of reliability "verified" content has on Speedrun.com. Though a community-managed website with moderators depending on the game you're looking at, the website does seem particularly reliable. Moderators include current record holders, such as darbian and andrewg over at Super Mario Bros. (their records have been covered by reliable sources) and the Ocarina of Time section is moderated by, among others, linkdeadx2 and zfg (the latter's 100% Ocarina of Time record and the former's Super Mario World record have both been covered by Kotaku)

Obviously, none of this works for establishing notability, as the information on this website is indiscriminate, but I have been using the site to find out a run's specific time in case reliable sources do not list it, or to see if a run covered by reliable sources is still current. Is this appropriate? I feel it is much more appropriate than linking to raw videos in these situations. ~Mable (chat) 08:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a general consensus in the past basically boiled down to "limited usage". As in, it could be used, but only as one would use a first party source (strictly facts, limited capacity, not things likely to be biased) and only if speedrunning was deemed a noteworthy aspect of the game by other reliable third party sources. (Yes, for something like Super Mario, no for something random like Chrono Cross or Xenogears.) That's just generally speaking though, I don't recall what website that was discussing, or the name of the discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I figured as much - limited usage goes without saying and on its own, it doesn't establish any kind of notability. I was mainly wondering if this was the best place for "if you need some details or want to fact-check." ~Mable (chat) 18:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see, I missed that part, I was just answering based on your first paragraph's content. As for the second part, I'll have someone else answer, as I'm neither a fan of speedrunning, nor is it really much of an aspect of most of the types of games I write about, so I don't know much beyond what I said in my first comment above. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I should note I am mainly talking about articles such as these, or article on specific speedrunners, where this kind of information is an important part of the article. ~Mable (chat) 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If a speedrun is notable enough to mention in an article, multiple RS will call it out. They'll also include any details worth reiterating. We should not have to rely on user-submitted and -managed sites. czar 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

LittleBigPlanet (PlayStation 3)'s GAR

LittleBigPlanet (PlayStation 3), 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 01:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisting the project

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games does not seem to... well.. Actually show all of the project. Can anyone point me to how to fix that, or to a more appropriate method of seeing recent changes for the project? -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't even know that existed. I like it...but you say it doesn't work well? Does it not pick up on a lot of things or something? Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely not catching everything, but I don't know how the inclusion works. It shows the user talk pages for some project members, but not others. I can understand that perhaps feeding off the list of self-identified members. The specific example I have though is that it showed Izno making updates on his talk page, but did not show his edit to Counter-strike: Global Offensive (I spotted it through my normal watchlist). CS:GO is appropriated tagged to the project, though. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that... I get the inclusion. It's literally based off the "What Links Here" including Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. The articles that appear are those linked as Featured, Good Article, etc. While other classes aren't listing directly on the project page so aren't included... Anyone have a solution to include the full project? -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject watchlist would be the way to do it since native MediaWiki can't, but Legoktm didn't port it over to Labs it looks like. (Maybe he did and we just need to hunt on Labs.) --Izno (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I use that link, along with Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:WPVG_announcements, all the time to help keep the todo list updated. I find it to work pretty well. GamerPro64 13:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same thing, but related- Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality log gives you changes in class/importance and page moves/deletion across the project, one day later. --PresN 14:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just do it LOL --CAS222222221 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

First off this almost caused my web browser to off itself. Second, that's insane if that sandbox lists all of the articles under the project (+1,056,000 WTF). Also the NES was Wikipedia's first video game article. The more you know. GamerPro64 03:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure that's true- Wikipedia is missing article history prior to some point in 2001; you'll notice if you check the earliest edit for the NES that it's not the page starter but "noted independent developer community" on September 28, 2001. --PresN 03:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Or do this? But I'm afraid this list is not exact. --CAS222222221 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Much thanks! I think this is close enough, and certainly better than what I had. I have populated User:Ferret/WPVG Article List with it for now.... Might be worth making a subpage of the project, even if it needs to be periodically refreshed. -- ferret (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Space Crusade

Space Crusade clearly has some reviews for it, so is there anything else anyone can add to it? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the gameplay section could certainly use some more information. Even if it is similar to gameplay of the original board game, a bit on how it is played can certainly help without having the reader go read another article to understand this one. It is single-player or multiplayer? Is there a plot or story the game follows? --Soetermans. T / C 13:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Besides the Reader's top 100, the reception-section lists two sources, yet all it says is that the game was praised for being a faithful conversion of the boardgame. Were there any other critical comments on the game? Of course, an article this short can always use more sources. What is this expansion pack, for example? When was it released? ~Mable (chat) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at this. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Starts drooling* Woah... ~Mable (chat) 07:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow! JimmyBlackwing, got anything for the related HeroQuest, and HeroQuest II? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I just added some quick notes from several of the reviews for Space Crusade - thanks! 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem. A quick search on that site for HeroQuest netted me these. If you need more for Space Crusade or HQ, check out the CGW Museum and Computer Magazine Archive—you'll almost definitely find more material. If you're wondering how I found this stuff, I wrote a guide last year with these and other links here. Good luck with your work! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You are awesome! This is more than I have time to work with, but I will do what I can. :) 65.126.152.254 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I put some work into HeroQuest as well. :) 65.126.152.254 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Situational Sources

This being the most active of the talk pages for the project I think this might be the best place to discuss the idea. There are some popular websites that we use that was currently marked Situational, meaning that there are some content on their site are deemed unreliable. These include Giant Bomb, Destructoid and SiliconEra. But I'm thinking that all three should probably be moved up to being Reliable sources. While Giant Bomb and Destructoid has user created blogs and thus are obviously unusable, IGN and GameSpot also has those and we consider them to be Reliable here. As for SiliconEra I think we could use them more beyond their coverage of Japanese exclusive titles. What's everyone else's take on this? GamerPro64 20:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that it should always be noted for any website that blogs with no editorial oversight and user-generated pages never constitute as reliable sources (though the former can constitute as notable opinion pieces in cases where the author is well-known). This goes for Giant Bomb and Destructoid as much as IGN and GameSpot. Besides those situations, however, it does seem to me that Destructoid and SiliconEra are consistantly reliable. I don't have much experience with Giant Bomb. ~Mable (chat) 10:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with upgrading Siliconera and Destructoid, but I still think its better to have Giant Bomb marked situational, just because of how prevalent their Wiki is on search engines. I personally come across their Wiki more often than their articles when I'm source hunting for an article/AFD, so I think it would cause more confusion from newbies to have to frequently explain why its not okay to use... Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if "situational" is the right way to describe it. Any content that is not user generated on the site is fine, but it's just a matter of distinguishing what is user generated content, which I do agree that you have to look for the byline, as they don't do as good a job at distinguishing user content from staff. Other sites we classify as reliable have blogs like this too (Game Informer) so I think it's just that noting that GB requires just being careful to make sure the staff authors wrote the article, as opposed to being situation-specific. I agree on Dtoid and SiliconEra (the latter good for the Japanese market since they rigorously tear through their gaming publications and have consistently provided good translations). --MASEM (t) 18:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I find Siliconera very useful for Japanese translations with places like Andriasang no longer being updated and most other websites not going to the effort of translating. I would also like to add Gematsu to this for consideration. Not only does it document Famitsu review scores, but similarly does good-quality translations of Japanese material. As to Destructoid, I've had a mixed experience. Sometimes, they've had good material of relevance, but I find their reviews to be a mixed bag in terms of good reviews for good-quality pages, and there are too many instances in my memory where I have gone onto a user blog rather than a news article when doing research. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To make it easier on consensus I made sections dedicated to each website (and Gematus) so we can vote on which articles should be upgraded to Reliable. GamerPro64 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors will link back to this "consensus" and only see a vote. I hope that those reviewing these sources will give a little bit more detail about what makes the source reliable. czar 15:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that after this discussion, WP:VG/S should link to this entire section - not just the subsection. ~Mable (chat) 16:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So I think we have a consensus to make all but Giant Bomb be considered reliable sources for the Video Games Project. Giant Bomb will remain at Situational. Sound good? GamerPro64 02:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's how I'd interpret it too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. ~Mable (chat) 10:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Destructoid

Giant Bomb

  • Reliable. GamerPro64 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable as long as clearly staff writers. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable only if written by staff writers. ~Mable (chat) 09:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Situational (no blogs or wikis) Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

SiliconEra

  • Reliable. GamerPro64 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. --benlisquareTCE 04:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. ~Mable (chat) 09:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. (We've basically treated it as such for years anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Gematsu

  • Reliable. --benlisquareTCE 04:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Articles written or explicitly edited by Sal Romano are reliable - otherwise not sure. ~Mable (chat) 09:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. (They nicely fill the hole from the loss of Andriasang for coverage on JP games.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion/notes

Owner and editor-in-chief Sal Romano has written articles for GameZone, VG247, and Ripten. It seems his name is on most of the articles on Gematsu. The websites started as a Blogger-hosted PlayStation blog called onAXIS in 2007, and moved to Wordpress as a blog titled ScrawlFX. The website became Gematsu in 2011 and now "exists to provide readers with the latest games industry news, screenshots, and videos." ~Mable (chat) 17:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If he's the owner/editor of the site, and he's clearly reliable/experienced in the field, can't we say that, in general, his editorial oversight is probably going to make the website generally reliable? Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose :) ~Mable (chat) 15:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Aggregators and describing the general reception of reviewers

In nearly all cases, we do recommend that if you need language to say "The game was (something) by critics" where "something" is "well received" or the like, to turn to MC's statement at the top of the page for a good idea.

However, in the case of The Beginner's Guide (and please note you still be spoiled on this game to get the idea of what's going on here) that you can look at the MC page here [11] and while it comes out mathematically to a 77 and "generally favorable" reviews, I'm hard-pressed to say that a bunch of reviews scoring (per MC) over 80 and a bunch scoring under 60 really reflects a "generally favorable" metric. I would argue having written the reception section myself that critics were decidedly split - they loved the game or they hated it. As such, I'd would think in this case common sense would say to use the language I've presently included, "mixed reviews" upon which the reception expands separately on the high-praise ones and then the harsh negative ones.

Does this seem reasonable for this case? --MASEM (t) 18:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like this game got more polarizing reception rather than just getting mixed reviews. GamerPro64 18:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I hate using Metacritic's "summary".  · Salvidrim! ·  18:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
If the scores fall into a typical bell curve (eg if the bulk of scores are +/- 10 points of the MC average as a rough measure), then the Metacritic statement is a good way to distinguish games between "overwhelmingly positive" and "generally positive", and to avoid original research when it comes to peacock-like terms ("universally praised", etc.) But this is definitely not such a case, which is why relying on the MC term is very misleading. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

21 out of 30 reviews scoring it 80 or above is "generally favourable". I would then follow with a qualifying statement on the game's divisiveness. - hahnchen 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Though the issue is that most of those 21 reviews are extremely positive in terms of how they praise the game; it is difficult to describe that set of reviews as just "generally favorable", even though that's the label that MC applies. That's the curse of statistics when there's clearly two different population sets, the mean doesn't really reflect either. This is where I'm saying that common sense applies and we should consider it a mixed set of reviews. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
"Divided between lukewarm and praise but generally favorable" or similar? --Izno (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, my question is more: in the VG project's mind, is this a situation where the language (specifically) "mixed reviews" is reasonable to use, not falling afoul of SYNTH or the like? I can see language like "The game received a 77 on MC indicating generally favorable reviews. Commentators were generally divided on the game, (etc.)" but I don't think there's a need here to push the MC number into the article. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Mixed implies a flatter distribution. 21 out of 30 is generally positive, but in this case, with caveats, you needn't include Metacritic in the prose. - hahnchen 21:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Need sources for games from the 1990s

Can anyone help me find sources for two games from the early 1990s, both of them adaptations of tabletop games?: Twilight 2000 and A Line in the Sand 73.168.15.161 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mobygames lists five reviews for Twilight 2000 and four for A Line in the Sand, with what I assume are just parts of the reviews posted on their site. Most are in German, though. I don't speak German and I don't have access to any of the magazines, but perhaps someone else on the Wikiproject does? The Joker Verlag präsentiert: Sonderheft review is available on the internet, apparently: http://amr.abime.net/issue_2934_pages (p. 12).--IDVtalk 14:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
perhaps someone else on the Wikiproject does? All of the reviews cited above are scanned and available online via Google search czar 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015's TFA

Happy November everyone. This month the main page will have the Master System as November 6th's TFA. While not as successful as the Genesis, it was still home for well known games like Phantasy Star and Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap. Would be nice to see another Wonder Boy but that's just me.GamerPro64 03:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Guidance for uploading specific screenshots

Hello. I'm helping out the Undertale article. I took two screenshots of the game which can be helpful to the article. Another editor suggested finding screenshots from other websites and using those instead. For comparison, my screenshots are at http://imgur.com/a/uLDQW (though in need of cropping and editing). I can't upload them right now, as my account is new. Is it better to find screenshots from web sources, or to use original ones? Thank you. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The primary reason to use images from third-party websites is that as long as the website is reliable, then we can reasonably be assured they were previously published (even though the act of releasing the game should normally confer that). That said, in considering non-free, if you can cap a screenshot that does a more useful job that published ones to support inclusion, that's fine too. I'm not sure if that is the case here in that I haven't yet played Undertale to know on that factor. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't find many screenshots that I can say were higher quality and of a decent source. The Talk:Undertale page has an active request for screenshots, so whatever is most convenient would be nice. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Pssst GAR

There is a GAR made for recent Good Article Psst that needs some fresh eyes to look at. There's a bit of conflict between the the original nominator and the GARs editor. GamerPro64 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I stepped in to the discussion, and I'm waiting for the outcome of my actions. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Need help with reassessments

Hello. I've recently flagged two articles for reassessment: Undertale, and Fallout Shelter. The former needs a general reassessment, while the latter I've nominated as a Good Article. I've added the two to the task force template. What do I need to do now to contribute to this process? I've never been a part of a reassessment or nomination before. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • For reassessment: nothing. It gets added to a category, and someone will get to it when they get to it (most likely me within a couple days). Technically the only thing required for answering a reassessment request is to set the class/importance to what the reviewer thinks is right; that said when I do them I usually give a few pointers for how to improve the article, which you can take or leave as you wish, it's not really a formal process. Also note that reassessment is completely optional; most people can and do change the assessment of articles they work on themselves, it's just if you want an outside opinion for whatever reason.
  • For the GA nomination: nothing for now. At some point someone will start up a review; it could be tomorrow or a month from now. When the review gets started you'll get a talk page notice, or you can watchlist Talk:Fallout Shelter/GA1 to get an immediate notification. They'll review it, you either fix the problems they bring up or explain why they're not really problems, and then the reviewer does the work of passing/not passing the article.
  • For what you can do to contribute: well, nothing for these two articles for now until they get reviewed; really the only thing to help is that if you review other GANs yours gets up to the top of the list faster and people are more likely to review yours in return. Note that none of that is set in stone; people are under no obligation to review articles in the order they were nominated. If you want to review other GANs, though, the best way to go about it is to a) read the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and b) check out some recent reviews by looking at the recently reviewed articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content - just check the history for recently promoted articles and see how the review was done for an article similar to the one you want to review. --PresN 05:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll be sure to look at some other GA nominees as I become familiar with the criteria. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Doom Troopers - 1995

Does anyone have any sources that can be used to expand Doom Troopers? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find a single period review on the web. There's an article on it in Nintendo Power issue 80, but that's it. I don't think a lot of people cared about the game. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

During the previous AFD, these two sources were dug up. I do not know if they can be considered reliable:

I would say though that the article is likely not notable. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Found a review of it from allgame.

GamerPro64 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, whatever can be found. I am curious about how that AFD went anyway, since the nominator did his own speedy close as redirect in less than 24 hours? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Stub milestone reached

Untracked, we've reached a new milestone: for the first time since article statistics became available in March 2007, the number of Stubs in the Video games project is less than the number of Starts! (13439 vs. 13695). Furthermore, the number of Stubs is lower than we've had since May 2009 (6.5 years ago!), even though the total number of articles and lists has grown since then from 22304 to 32524 (~60% Stubs down to ~41%)! While a lot of the drop in the past month was due to redirections of non-notable articles and merges of Stub series into a single series article (there was a lot of that going on), a ton of it, especially in the months prior, was due to simple article improvement- looking at the quality chart, the quality improvement has been an ongoing trend, not just a one-month blip. Hats off to everyone who helped out, and special notice to all the editors who work on the crummy articles- we celebrate the GA/FA producers a lot, but the people who work on getting Stubs up to Start, C, or B-class status deserve applause as well for keeping an obvious difference between Wikipedia video game articles and crufty Wikia stubs that would otherwise be the best a google searcher could find. --PresN 01:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I just noticed this since you've updated the stats. Our destubbing efforts in 2013/2014 and Czar's recent cleanup efforts (through redirections, AfDs and merge) definitely helped a lot to improve the average quality of our articles. We're almost to 200 FAs too!  · Salvidrim! ·  01:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I noticed the upcoming milestone for FAs as well. That'll certainly be something worth celebrating in the future. Hope we can achieve it by the end of the year. GamerPro64 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've been waiting for the FA milestone as well. And it wasn't just Czar redirecting stuff (since he's been getting flak for that)- I've probably merged 100-200 articles in the past couple weeks, where there were entire series of stubs that mostly just repeated the same few sentences (but with unique infoboxes!). For example, we had 22 articles on EverQuest expansions alone and another 11 on EverQuest II expansions... and now we have ~1 each. Neither one is great, but neither were the originals. --PresN 02:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
No offense, but I think I'll butt in here and say that many, if not, most of the recently merged articles shouldn't have been merged. Notability is based on potential, not current state. Here's three good examples of such articles. Those articles in particular already cite numerous reviews of the games, but were merged into an overly big series article (WP:Article size), all because they were stubs. Just because they are stubs now, doesn't mean they can't be expanded (WP:Stub). While expanding stubs is nice, and I'll give some members of this project credit for doing that, many of these merges are not the answer either. Kokoro20 (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
See, I completely disagree. Taking that first one for example (MX vs. ATV: Untamed) - what content is there? There's a 2-sentence lead (1 sentence not having a use inside of a series article) + infobox, 1 paragraph of gameplay, a soundtrack listing (licensed soundtracks are not generally listed out at all, so that's no good), a riders list (gamecruft), and a 2 sentence reception section, the first sentence completely replicating information in the (absurdly large) reception table. So, basically, the article consists of 1 paragraph, 2 other sentences, and an infobox + reception table. Yeah, there's a lot of cites. That happens when you build a 6 x 16 matrix of review scores, each with a cite, even if you don't use the actual reviews at all in the article. The resulting MX vs. ATV article wasn't overlong- what it needed was the space-wasting infoboxes to be removed, I just didn't want to delete information from an article I didn't plan on maintaining. Notability may be based on potential, but that's exactly why I merged them together without information loss instead of deleting/redirecting them. --PresN 04:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The other two are even worse- Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001 was literally 2 sentences, plus an infobox and reception table. One of the sentences was just a repeat of the metacritic scores from the table! And if we look at PGA Tour (video game series)#Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001 (2000)... we find 2 sentences and a reception table. Yes, an article on that game would be justified... if it had any actual content. But it didn't. The reader loses nothing by having all the games be on a single page instead of across a dozen. --PresN 04:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
But the reviews for the games in question shows that they received the significant coverage required for articles. Merges should be reserved for games which received very little coverage, which those games don't fall under. With those reviews, the articles could easily be expanded if someone were up to it, rather than resorting to a merge (WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress). Kokoro20 (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally agree with Kokoro20. Just because an article is in bad shape doesn't mean we need to merge its content into a parent article. Notability is not about how many useful sentences an article has, but about sources and growth potential. We should only merge/delete an article if it's not notable. Also, I would like to note that merging content of non-notable articles into a big "container" article does not necessarily make the big container article notable. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Merging stubs into bloated lists of stubs is of no value to the encyclopedia. If you're chasing statistics for the sake of statistics, you are doing it wrong. The MX merges have do nothing other than changing a number on a Wikiproject page somewhere, achievement unlocked! The MX articles would be better served as individual articles, with the series page essentially acting as a disambiguation.
Merged articles increase the barrier of entry for new editors. Users are less likely to add to a long, seemingly established article, in case of introducing undue weight, as opposed to adding to articles which are clearly labelled "Stub - Edit me!". New editors do not necessarily know how redirects work - why else would someone create the article at Night in the Woods (video game) instead of Night in the Woods[12]? In 2009, a bunch of Terminator video games was merged together. Development of the list article has not picked up in any way. The most noticeable outcome is that a bunch of identifying images were deleted by a passing non-free box ticker. - hahnchen 15:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I kind of have to agree with Hahnchen here. Though I don't think merging of these articles was a bad thing per se, if a game has enough reviews to possibly fill a decent reception section, even if it lacks one at that point in time, there is absolutely no need to merge it. If the game is an expansion, DLC or episodal, I completely understand the reason to merge, but if it is a stand-alone product, I don't see what it achieves. That all being said, I also don't see much of an issue with merging it if one thinks it improves the content or puts it into the correct context. Lack of prose is never a reason on its own to merge an article. ~Mable (chat) 16:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Lots of people here disagree with you because a while ago I created a series of iOS stubs which were quickly deleted/merged. A link to the Metacritic page (which showed there were many critic reviews) was apparently not enough, so I added Critical Reception sections, which were apparently copyvio. So bye bye articles. The future-potential rule does not apply here...--Coin945 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
We still have a lot of articles at the Request board, including one from 2011, that can be possible articles. Then again, a lot of them are ones you put on the board but still. GamerPro64 16:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Coin's example is different. He's referring to stubs that were WP:COPYVIO stubs since their inception. If there is no way to remove the copyrighted information without reverting it back to a blank page, then yes deletion trumps potential. It's even a WP:CSD criteria. So yeah, not exactly what has been going on here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, they started as one-line stubs, and only became (unintentional) copyvio after I was told there was no proof of notability in the actual article itself, which caused me to go back and reedit the articles to add CR sections. (At least, in the first batch. I continued making articles after being told they'd be deleted for being skeletal stubs and added the CR sections at creation). So it is essentially the same situation here, in which actual trumps potential. Which is why my comment above is valid--Coin945 (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on, you made 150 one-sentence articles, and when people complained, you copypasted the review summaries from metacritic onto ~75 of them. When it was pointed out that that was a copyright violation, you made 10 more tiny articles with the reviews summary now paraphrased instead of copied, and then went off to do other things after posting a list of the articles that got deleted/never gotten to onto the requests page. If people revert all my merges I won't be offended, but it really bothers me that you still won't even admit that people got annoyed at you for making pointless sub-stubs (that you outright refused to expand to even 1-paragraph articles), copyright violations for half of them as a slapdash measure, and a bunch of work for other people, and instead hide behind the idea that you were self-righteously making platforms for mythical editors to expand later but the mean wikicops shut you down. --PresN 18:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I am not trying to pick a fight. All I'm saying is in a Wikipedia when potential trumps actual state, then my "150 one-sentence articles" (as you call them), should have been able to survive without all the kerfuffle that happened afterward. (FWIW, attempting to "expand [150 one-sentence articles] to even 1-paragraph articles" is nearly impossible task on ones own, and unnecessary if the P-T-A rule applied). So my experience proves that there is a lot of opposition to their suggestion. That's all. Please don't extrapolate my comment into a whole thing.--Coin945 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I always wondered why some people had as much problem with merging articles together (no information lost for readers) with deleting an article (information lost for readers, whether it was useful or not). I guess now I know: apparently a lot of editors think that there are a lot of potential editors that would edit a 3-line article on a 15-year-old soccer game that was part of a 20-game series, but that those same editors won't edit a 3-line section in a series article. I'm not even going to argue that you guys are wrong, it's just not often that I hit a situation where my expectations for the competence of the average IP drive-by editor are actually higher than the general consensus. (I think drive-by editors are just as likely to edit a series page as an individual sub-stub. I also think that the fact those articles were still that content-less means that the likelihood in both these cases is approximately 0%.) --PresN 18:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's also the case that for a lot of these older series that didn't get a lot of coverage by individual game standards that you can make a better article focusing on the series than the individual games; it's not just merging for the sake of merging but for what would be a more comprehensive article. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, what is the point of this discussion? Can it be better served in a more summary thread? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's 2-3 discussions at this point, but they're all merged together into one section. :) --PresN 20:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh! :) —zziccardi (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the MX vs. ATV merge referenced above. Will probably revert Men of War (series) too, which replaced a disambiguation page with a harder to navigate mixture of links and stub articles. I haven't reviewed all the merges in depth, but one thing that will inevitably happen is that someone will delete the box art and screenshots under the banner of non-free.[13] - hahnchen 00:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

While I know you're undoing the merge for other reasons, undoing a merge just to justify keeping around non-free images (which we have a reasonable good way of getting again if they did end up deletion) is likely a violation of NFC policy. We definitely should not be taking the attitude "oh no, we'll lose our non-frees this way if they are all merged to one" because that is 100% contrary to the free content mission. Do note that series articles on merged games (or even series articles in general) can include multiple screenshots if there is valid reason and not just to simply illustrate each game in the series. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

FIFA Game Series Soundtrack Listings

User @The1337gamer: keeps removing the soundtrack listings from the FIFA Game Series pages (and others), citing the following 'rule' WP:VGSCOPE. The soundtrack listings have been a fundamental feature of the FIFA Game Series pages since they were first created, and I cannot stress enough their usefulness. The whole point of a Wikipedia page is to contain information, so why this important and informative information is being removed is beyond me. I am under the impression that the majority of Wikipedia users would share my view on this issue, so please prove me right by responding positively to this in order for the listings to remain. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JDFezza (talkcontribs) 18:05, 3 November 2015‎ (UTC)

The current consensus is that, unless third party sources are covering the soundtracks in an in-depth manner, the content should be removed. Most game soundtracks don't, so 1337gamer is probably correct here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
A related recent discussion Talk:NBA 2K16#why the soundtrack belongs came to the conclusion that soundtracks should only included if there is significant coverage for them.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Miniproject 2: History 101

The above Miniproject (clear out the high-importance stubs) went really well, so I thought about what to propose next; the other class/importance intersections aren't so easy. Then it hit me- OXO was really easy to expand, it only took a google books search to find a handful of easy sources; maybe the other early games are the same way?

So here's project 2: improve the roots of video games! The articles on the first video games are generally crummy, but they're also not too hard to fix up to at least a reasonable level. Lets see if we can do something about them! Doesn't have to be much, even a tiny bit is a big improvement for some of these. --PresN 02:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added a bit to First video game, I'll check my other books at a later time. --Soetermans. T / C 08:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Just a question, could "First video game" potentially be renamed to "Prehistory of video games", in order to copy the model used to describe human history? (Prehistory, Protohistory, History).--Coin945 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that "prehistory" actually means "before recorded history", but the time period we're talking about is the 50s-70s and is documented, I don't think it would work. --PresN 04:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In the period where "video games" existed, but werent ascribed as such until many years later, the video game industry didn't officially exist and wasn't recognised, so arguably that was the time become recorded video game history. So I can see how it would arguably fit. But your argument is legitimate. :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Is "first video game" not too definitive? Shouldn't it be more like "early video game" or "video games that are considered to be the first" (there could be some rewording on that last one I suppose). --Soetermans. T / C 07:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"List of first video games"? Barf. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that I've worked up Cathode Ray Tube Amusement Device and Bertie the Brain, and so know a little more about the area, I think that "first video game" should be merged with early history of video games (and that converted from a list to an article). They basically duplicate each other- while it seems a merge proposal was made in 2009, 6 years later there's still no clear difference between what the two articles are trying to show. --PresN 01:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Should we add an infobox to the Cathode Ray Tube Amusement Device page?Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, though ironically the toy infobox fit better than the video game one. --PresN 05:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright! I completely rewrote Early history of video games and merged in "First video game" to there (and bumped the article up to "top-importance" now that it's an article and not a list). I also made a new template that basically covers the above list, and moved "early history" around in all the templates it was in to begin with to fit better. The starting section in history of video games needs to be rewritten to match, but that will just have to wait a bit, I think. --PresN 03:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Action thriller video games

Thoughts on this category? Is this even an extant classification that sources use? It's ballooning right now with little discussion. Lembrazza (talk · contribs), ping czar 16:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty much unsourced. I've never seen this as a genre for video games. It should be noted that Lembrazza also added 'video games' to Thriller (genre) without a source before starting the category. -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a second category Category:Science fiction action video games also created by Lembrazza. -- ferret (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

When the word "action" is used as a genre for video games, it loses 90% of its credibility to me. A huge portion of video games include action of some form. It's not even a genre identifier. Thriller and science fiction aren't either, though the latter on its own is specific and easy to categorize: we all know when a video game is science fiction, but when is a video game "thriller"? Both of these categories seem completely unreasonable to me and I think they should be deleted. ~Mable (chat) 18:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Just to note, Category:Science fiction video games does exist and appears to be appropriately populated. -- ferret (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Also agreed. —zziccardi (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't even notice this discussion and I've nominated them both for deletion. --Soetermans. T / C 14:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Character lists for crossover games

What do we do about character lists for crossover games? I'm thinking that they are more relevant than character lists for most games, as a major aspect of the game is that various characters from different franchises cross over, but also that it can get really excessive. The article that made me think about this is Project X Zone 2 (the original Project X Zone suffers from the same problem). What should we do here? I looked at Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U to see how it's handled there, but it turns out the character list for that is in the series article instead.--IDVtalk 08:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to imagine the character list for Smash Bros. is deemed notable by reliable sources. Though I haven't looked it up, I am sure plenty of sources went "Woohoo, Little Mac is confirmed for Smash 4!" or "Mewtwo didn't return in Brawl", meaning there's plenty of reason to keep that in place. It also doesn't seem to take up that big a chunk in the overall article, which is nice.
But about the question at hand, it seems like many of the Project X Zone 2 characters are sourced. I don't know how reliable all these sources are, though Famitsu and Gematsu are good signs, but it seems like there is a reason to keep such lists in place. Almost all characters listed are notable on their own (much like in Smash Bros.). The biggest issue is that these lists take up most of the article, which makes it look fancrufty and might be considered undue weight. "Cameos" might be removed, if the title of the section is to be believed... Now that I think of it, perhaps it should be split off into a List of Project X Zone characters list? That way, the articles can remain focused primarily on the things video game articles should focus on (development, reception, legacy, and I suppose gameplay and plot), while the list is primarily about the characters themselves. Thoughts? ~Mable (chat) 10:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing is generally not a concern, video game journalists dedicate articles to character inclusion/exclusion all over the place. Years back, I was even able to fully source the character list in a relatively obscure, Japan only fighting crossover game Tales of VS. with all third party sources no problem. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally, whenever the concept of the entire game hinges on the concept of it being a crossover, I suppose using a character list. If it's the foundation of the game, I don't feel its GAMECRUFT, I think necessary to fully flesh out the concept. So, in my book, I'd support it in instances like Smash Bros for Wii U or Sonic Generations, where the whole game is built around it, but not in games like Mario Kart 8, where they just stuck some extra characters in as DLC. ('Smash Wii U had a character list for a year or so, but then consensus changed.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally don't like how we currently make these massive lists at series article like Mario Kart or Smash Bros - I think they're overwhelming and unwieldly, and I think it's backwards to have to go to the series article to find out information about the specific game's characters - the series article should be less detailed, not more detailed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that I love the playable characters section of Smash Bros. for 3DS and Wii U. Explaining the notable character changes and developments in prose is the way to do it there. I don't believe Wikipedia is the place where people should look up which characters are available in which game, but the list in the main series article works well.
The fact that a list can be fully sourced means that it is notable. This doesn't mean that it should or has to be fully sourced. I initially brought this up to keep the current lists from simply being deleted. ~Mable (chat) 14:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I just find it backwards that the series article is the only place to find such a detailed list that what can be found in the game specific article. I would think the more detailed information should be in the game's article. To me, it's more like having a section about Cloud Strife and the gang at Final Fantasy but not at Final Fantasy 7. We don't treat our prose like that, so I'm not sure why we treat some some of our lists like that... Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Myst-clone (currently a redirect)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Through my research for the adventure game articles above, I came across the use of the term "Myst-clone" quite a number of times to described games with the mechanic of navigating through a series of static screens (like in the original Myst), or where the player navigates through a series of 360 degree panoramic screens as seen in later Myst games.

Considering GTA clone exists, could this be an article?--Coin945 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading what sources that are reliable, I'm not seeing a case for a separate article here, yet. I do think the redirect is going to the wrong place - it should point to "First-person adventure" on Graphic adventure game. There's no question that Myst inspired a lot of clones. It's just that as a genre term it is not as ubiquitous in sources as GTA Clone or, at the time, Doom clone (which later became FPS). --MASEM (t) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. I was going to say a "point and click" type genre, but that's a subsection at graphic adventure game, so it seems that's probably better. Sergecross73 msg me

I have never actually played Myst (I know right? Shame on me! :s), but a term that might be related that I have noticed a lot lately is "walking simulator", ([14][15]) to refer to modern games such as Dear Esther and Gone Home. I don't know what term would really fit better for these games than this, besides terms that don't actually refer to video game genres (such as "adventure game"). Dear Esther is currently defined as "a first-person video game", which is obviously lacking in definition. I would approve of some genre to define these experiences. "interactive story", as used in the article for Gone Home, might work, but it isn't very specific on defining the interactivity. ~Mable (chat) 18:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting you say that Mable. Check out this exchange--Coin945 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC):

Interviewer: "To be fair, experiences like Gone Home and Dear Esther -- what you call spectator games -- are relatively novel, I think".

Jeffrey Yohalem: Myst! Myst is Gone Home. If Gone Home had come out a year after Myst, they would have called it a Myst clone with no puzzles. I thought that was hysterical -- that no one mentioned “Myst clone.” I was like “Wow, I must be really old!” [laughs] Myst is a whole world created for you to read other people’s books and look through other people’s stuff".[1]

Some other interesting passages include--Coin945 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC):
  • " It referred, at first, to the gaggle of games that were released specifically to capitalize on that wildly influential 1992 game. Gradually the term evolved to refer to any games in that now-firmly-established subgenre of first-person point-and-click adventures." The site deems first-person point-and-click games as "Myst Clone G", and Myst rip-offs as "Myst Clone L".[2]
  • " Some call it the "Hunt 'n Peck" genre, others call it "PC Adventure" but most will definitely recognize what you mean when you say a game is a "Myst Clone"."[3]
  • "A set of bizarre worlds, almost no inventory, and lots of logic puzzles equals a Myst clone"[4]
  • "Obsidian is a basically another Myst-like game. The game puts you in a very strange but hauntingly familiar setting, gives you puzzles which are tightly integrated into the storyline and make perfect sense, but you are given no information as to the objective of each puzzle nor any rules about how the puzzle works. You are expected to figure out not only the solution, but the objective and the rules."[5]
  • Bajo from Good Game calls games like Gone Home as "point-and-click walk-'em'ups".[6]

References

I suppose something notable for this discussion is the existence of the term "Doom clone", which was huge during the 1990s but was replaced with "first-person shooter" after a while. If a more common, modern replacement exists for this term that does not refer to a specific video game such as Myst, I would give it a slight edge, though of course we are looking for the WP:COMMONNAME (which is why we use Grand Theft Auto clone) -Maplestrip (sorry, forgot signing)
To be clear, I 100% agree that "Myst clone" needs to be a searchable term on WP. It's used enough in sources and still used far enough since its time to be beyond a neologism. But, that said, unlike GTA Clone, it is a term that never really caught on, likely because the existing language was already there to describe games of that genre. In the case of GTA Clone, it captured a very specific feel of an open world game (that being one generally centered on crime, featuring a ton of vehicles as well as on foot action, guns or weapons, a main and side mission structure, tons of collectables, etc.) which made the existing genre descriptors alone difficult to use to otherwise describe that type of game. Clones of Myst were still all adventure games with point and click elements, so there wasn't really a need to come up with a new language. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that outside a few niche groups, Myst clone isn't a commonly used term. Pretty much anything can be called a clone of another (remember when Doom clones were used before first-person shooters?). Though, I find the walking simulator term interesting. Is there room for an article on that? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Besides the two sources I gave above, there are also [16] by USGamer, as well as various reviews of specific games you can find through a Google News search. There is definitely enough to work with for an article, but it is somewhat unclear if the term is inherently negative or not. I suppose not more so than calling something a "clone," though. (Here we have IGN calling the term "garbage", while Forbes said that it stuck because there's a "humorous truth to it, something even fans can’t really deny." Think what you will) ~Mable (chat) 20:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As a note, after reviewing both Graphical adventure game and Adventure game and finding a lot of shared content, I have proposed a merge of the former into the latter, after some necessary cleanup/trimming on the latter. Merge proposal is on Talk:Adventure game#Merge proposal. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I just discovered that the description for Myst under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles reads (bolding mine): "Killer app for the CD-ROM. Spawned "Myst-clone" subgenre. Partially responsible for the decline of PC adventure genre."--Coin945 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just created 11 articles within this Wikiproject.

Any copyedits and improvements are most welcome. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, while Reception sections tend to be written around direct quotes, on the other hand, plot, gameplay, and development sections not so much so. I mean, maybe a key quote or something in the dev section, but there's really no reason that you shouldn't be able to describe the plot or gameplay in your own words... Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think these article can develop well if we add in more detail for each section. Cover art and screenshots are always nice. If you see any useful sources for those games, put them on the talk page, okay? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree that you shouldn't be using quotes to describe the gameplay, but other than that they're a lot better than the articles you used to make. I wouldn't merge these. ;) --PresN 17:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that. :D--Coin945 (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Large barriers for me are translating non-English sources without misinterpreting the source, and finding saved versions of now-lost sources via the WayBackMachine. Even then, I have scant sources at my disposal compared to the breadth of potential sources. In any case, here are my starts.--Coin945 (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a bad effort. I added categories and talk page assessments as many articles had none. You also seem to have a habit of not wikilinking notable sites; i.e Metacrtic, MobyGames, IGN etc; I added a few of these links myself. Just something to keep in mind for the future. Freikorp (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with which Categories exist, so I tend not to add those and leave it for more experienced people to do.--Coin945 (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Add {{uncategorized}} next time you make a page without categories. --Izno (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That said, you can probably just take a look at any one of our FAs and guess at categories that exist based on the categories on the FA. --Izno (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess what was stopping me from guessing at categories, was the fear of making a huge mess.--Coin945 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It is very simple actually. WP:HOTCAT can really help you a lot as it tells you whether a category exists or not. Basic categories for video games are mostly about the game's developer, where the game was developed, publisher(s), platform(s), release year, genre(s), mode(s) (single-player/multiplayer). There isn't much variations and most of them are named like "XXX games", "XXX video games", "Video games set in XXX", "video games developed in XXX" etc. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Just switched HotCat on.--Coin945 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know why anyone hasn't said anything about the sources... for example, [17], MobyGames for release info, [18], [19] are all no bueno. I'd try to pull primarily from the video game reliable sources custom Google search or otherwise be really confident that a site meets the same professional standard. Can you please remove these sources? czar 16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Also back to the quoting stuff: the content shouldn't only be paraphrased in the Gameplay—the Reception should be largely paraphrased too. It's not okay to just dump quote after quote. Here's an example of how it can be done. czar 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Czar, I personally kept it brief on this because Coin has been blocked multiple times for using direct quotes so much that it pretty much equated to a 90% copyvio-like article. He's already been told to tone it down, so I figured a "probably cut it out of gameplay/story/dev sections" would probably be enough. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Czar is correct though, the reception that was just written today at Legacy Dark Shadow is almost entirely direct quotes again. It's better than before, but still, like we've requested before, please slow down and flesh the prose of these article out rather than slapping out these copy/paste jobs... Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sergecross73, you said above that "Reception sections tend to be written around direct quotes", so why is it a bad thing that "the reception [for Dark Shadows] is almost entirely direct quotes"--Coin945 (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly, it's to be written around direct quotes, not just be direct quotes. Beyond the WP:COPYVIO concerns that come up when you do it heavily (a past problem), its just plain bad writing! I mean, come on, don't you read/write outside of Wikipedia? Did you write school essays/term papers that were 90% direct quotes? Would you expect a good grade from your teacher if they knew you did that? Are IGN articles just all direct quotes of other articles? Would you write a love letter to a loved one that was just direct quotes of love letters you found on the internet? Do you think they would like that if they knew? Stop trying to defend your laziness and write in your own words! Don't get blocked for this again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment Serge. FWIW, a bad essay/paper/love letter isn't the same thing as plagiarism. I actually discussed this with one of my tutors once on a theoretical basis - an essay made entirely out of quotes cannot be copyright violation because every piece of information is correctly sourced. You can claim the articles are badly written (which is understandable for stubs), but you can't claim it's COPYVIO. In any case the latest one I made doesn't have any quotes at all.--Coin945 (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do think you're avoiding the COPYVIO issues this time around, but its still really bad writing though. And these are rather obscure subjects. Many of your articles we deleted the first time around had sat in their same shoddy-state for months. Its one thing to create a stub for the new Super Mario game - you know that's going to get plenty of attention from others - but there's no realistic reason to believe there's going to be any sort of substantial clean up effort on something like Jazz and Faust, a 13yr old, poorly reviewed (but not lambasted) PC title. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Compared to GAs and FAs, yes. The articles I created are really badly written. But as stubs, I don't think they're that bad. They don't have tonnes of trivial information on levels and characters. Everything is sourced accordingly. The grammar and spelling may sometimes have slight errors but on the whole by verbiage and use of wiki-code is good. These games may be old, but they are important entries in the adventure game genre, and each is independently notable. (Compare with current GAN Amerzone, a game from way back in 1999). So even if the article is never edited again, I don't think that what is there currently is the worst thing ever.--Coin945 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not comparing them to GAs (I personally am not interested in the GA/FA process other than pointing to them to show consensus's created through their peer review processes) and I'm not saying they're not notable. I'm saying that they're short, sloppy stubs that are too heavily dependent on direct quotes, and in subject areas that are not likely to find improvement from others. Czar and PresN have noted similar things, so I'm not alone in this. I agree that they're no longer in danger of deletion or COPYVIOS, but you're still cranking out "D+ work" rather quickly, and prolifically - I'd be less bothered if it were an article here and there, but its grown from a handful to 11 in just a few days, and based on in the past, its just going to increase, with you never going back to flesh them out. You asked for input, and that's mine. I'll let others handle it from here, unless my intervention is requested. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's the problem. You need to put dedication or more efforts to your article. Your goal shouldn't be creating stubs, especially when you are not going to work on them anymore. To be honest, you are basically leaving them to rot after they get created. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is somewhat of an issue. There's nothing particularly bad about these articles - I frequently create articles that are just as mediocre, but they lack effort and substance. A wave of stubs just isn't worth much. Those interested are better off looking these games up on Metacritic directly, as these articles as you create them don't offer anything of value. If it's about feedback, I recommend trying to figure out details on the development of these games: who created them, what was the inspiration, how were they create, how were they released. Even sales numbers would add something to them to make these stubs encyclopedic. ~Mable (chat) 15:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As an example to show that these articles aren't going to get a lot of attention after you leave them, see Chop Chop Runner- this is what it looked like when you left it in October 2014, and this is what it looked like when I merged the Chop Chop series together in October 2015, one year later. See the difference? Because there isn't much of one- after a year, the only change was that someone ran a bot to clean up the references and some semi-automated template changes. No one worked on the article itself at all. And why would they- it's 4-5 year old iOS shovelware, briefly played and then forgotten, of note mainly as part of a series of cheap games made by Gamerizon. That's why we're pushing you to try to reach a minimum level of quality- because most likely, no one else will ever edit these articles that you are creating. --PresN 9:52 am, Today
  • Thank you all for your feedback. It is sobering to read things about your own work. I want to contribute to Wikipedia, but I am also content with making stubs. I am doing this for free, and I have dedicated many hours to improving the quality of VG game coverage here, so I legitimately believe my stubs are helping Wikipedia. You might be able to easily crank out GAs, but I like to instead make starts and stubs, covering breadth instead of depth. To be fair, this life has chosen me as much as I've chosen it. Due to the oldness of many of these games, and the fact that many sources are not in English, plus the fact that I dont have access to any gaming magazines, I am limited with the amount of information I can reasonably sift my way through. (Not to mention I've actually never played any of them before so can't use my eprsonal context to help my comprehension of the sources). In any case, I'm glad to see the articles I created do not fall into the Speedy Deletion category. D+ is not ideal by any means, but it is a legitimate way for an article to start it's life, and I enjoy being a Wikipedian as a hobby.--Coin945 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's not... ugh, you're not reading what we're saying. Creating stubs and starts is perfectly fine, there's a lot of people who do that and don't try to write longer/better articles. You do what interests you. We're not saying that you should be writing GAs, or C-class articles. But "a lack of quality English sources" has nothing to do with you not paraphrasing quotes. Or you not slapping on a few categories at the bottom. It really feels like you're saying here "I'm willing to put in 4 minutes of work on an article, but asking me to put in 5 minutes is unreasonable; after all, the 4-minute article isn't so bad that it could be deleted on sight." And that... is honestly a really baffling stance to take. Why would you be willing to volunteer your time to writing articles, and then not care at all about the quality of what you produce, even just a little bit? --PresN 17:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Games.On.Net closure

Just a heads up. Another video game website is closing down. Games.On.Net will be shut down on November 30 and all of their content will be wiped off. The site is used sixty-nine times here so there might be a chance they will be unusable due to robots.txt. GamerPro64 13:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose this means we'll have to remove the citations from their articles. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Or we can use WebCite, make emergency back-ups in case the robots.txt scenario happens. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Archived the first 5 at webcite; it's running pretty slowly so I'll wait and try some more later. Right now a lot of the 69 appear to be from user pages/talk pages, so it's not that big of a job if anyone else wants to knock some out. --PresN 17:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, how do we make emergency backups, and why is robots.text important? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Robots.txt file is a standard method for websites to tell automated tools like search engine scanners to "go away" to avoid indexing or caching pages in search engines and other tools. We have found that archive.org respects the robots.txt, even if the site did not use robots.txt before. I want to say it was 1UP that we found this out, that the new hosting site (IGN?) enables robots.txt on 1up.com links, and while they had been at archive.org before, they suddenly were not available because of the retroactive nature archive.org takes. (They'll still cache the pages but they can't serve them to the public) As best I know, webcite does not do this (it will cache, robots.txt or not) hence the need to use it instead of relying on archive.org here. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Cosmo/Narcissa Wright

We had a discussion on the talk page of speedrunner Cosmo Wright/Narcissa Wright and we just reached consensus, before @Materialscientist: started undoing everything without discussion. I'd like to ask for help. Please see Cosmo Wright's talkpage. I honestly feel insulted at this point, as they just pasted some standard "hey, you might be new"-message in the middle of a discussion > ~ < ~Mable (chat) 21:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: since you were part of the discussion, what's a concise form of what the issue is? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Narcissa Wright came out as transgender a short time ago, though the message wasn't entirely clear. This resulted in a short edit war where duplicate articles "Cosmo Wright" and "Narcissa Wright" came into existence. We discussed it on her talk page and decided that, per WP:Identity, we should treat Narcissa Wright as female. Of course, the situation was awkward as both articles existed at the same time and I just Cosmo Wright into a redirect. Immediately and without discussion, this was undone by Materialscientist. I pinged him and they responded with the automatic message on Cosmo Wright's talkpage. ~Mable (chat) 21:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
So [[WP:COMMONNAME] for the title and MOS:IDENTITY for the gender. Maybe a site like Kotaku will pick up the transgender message and make a reliable source out of it. Do you think it is wise to wait a day and see what else Narcissa/Cosmo says? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought so at first as well, but there seemed to be clear consensus, so I just went ahead and did it. I would expect Kotaku, with its precedent of covering speedrun-related topics, to cover it, but a few days later, they still haven't. It's somewhat awkward, but I'm mainly frustrated that the move was undone again without any discussion, just seconds after I said "stop edit warring and discuss here first." ~Mable (chat) 21:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist is correct. If you want to move the page, you should use the "move page" button; cut & paste moves are bad times even if they are entirely merited. (They present a misleading article history, which is required per the GFDL & CC3.) If the move is merited, just use the move function and you won't be reverted.

It looks like somebody filed a requested move now anyway. SnowFire (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it correct to just move an article back without any discussion after consensus was reached or should he have just aided in the move? From the perspective of everyone in the discussion, Material was simply edit warring without discussion, at least until he pasted the automatic message, which was simply uncivil.
...Also, I think I made my point and leave before I get angry. Sorry for the ruckus, this is just really frustrating me... ~Mable (chat) 21:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a stake in this, so I'll figure this issue out after doing some reading on WP policy. The only comment I got so far was implying I was discriminating against trans people. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Not commenting about anything else, the original copy+paste move by User:Sqronce was the incorrect way to do it. In the absence of citing reliable sources, an edit like this looks like vandalism and/or libel to someone who is not intimately familiar with the subject matter (and Materialscientist reverted it as good faith, initially). If I were in Materialscientist's position, I would not have continued to revert the same changes coming from multiple editors without finding out a little more about the (verifiable) truth of the situation, but he was not wrong, strictly speaking. You should not continue to try redirecting to Narcissa Wright in any event, because that might be construed as edit warring (even if the article remains in its prior state that is not to your liking in the interim). This will shake out soon enough when reliable sources arrive. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase mess?

Hi everybody,

At Disney Infinity: Marvel Super Heroes the references and external links section show up a font size smaller for some reason. You can see that easily comparing the two section headers Disney_Infinity:_Marvel_Super_Heroes#Notes. The references aren't that important, but the external links, including the navboxes, are also made smaller. I can't seem to figure out how to fix this. --Soetermans. T / C 13:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Refbegin template in the notes subsection did not have a closing Refend. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Ferret:! --Soetermans. T / C 14:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Data Design Interactive

Stewart Green, the founder of Data Design Interactive (under the name StewartGxyz) keeps trying to spin the article's history of the company into a more positive one. Here's what he's added:

History

Data Design Interactive (DDI) is one of the longest established computer games companies in the world, founded in 1983 in the United Kingdom. Starting in the earliest 8 bit days, developing titles for Spectrum, C64, Gameboy, Megadrive, Genesis, NES, SNES, Amiga, Atari Jaguar, PC, PCW, CPC, Gamegear, Gamecube, Wii, PS1, PS2, Xbox and even arcade cabinets. DDI have helped create and expand the entire history of the games industry. They have published over eighty titles, with just about every type of game, arcade, racing, strategy, sports, puzzle, platform and adventure and for age groups aimed at kids to 18 rated products. The games industry is littered with companies that come and go quickly, the fact that DDI managed to not only survive, but to grow and prosper over a thirty year period is an amazing feat, and testament to the creative work that they produced. We can think of no other development company that has manged this level of sustained success. This small one man company grew to over a hundred staff, and it should be noted that in the early days when the industry was often accused of long hours of 'crunch time' of unpaid overtime, and obligatory through the night and weekend work, DDI was a company that pioneered fair treatment, paid overtime, bonuses, and even a pension scheme. Becoming a licensed publisher is a huge feat for a developer, only a small handful of developers have ever managed to prove to a manufacturer that they have the ability, and skills to manufacture, market, promote and sell product. DDI became licensed publishers for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. Like all companies they have had highs and lows, with award winning titles, such as Lego Rock Raiders, (which still has an active fan base [1] and reviews 4.5/5 [2])and animations for games which had them classed as one of the top ten developers in the UK, it is a shame out of a thirty years career, that they are perhaps best known for a short two year period when they published a collection of budget Wii titles, the infamous popcorn arcade collection was a huge commercial success, they were the largest Wii publishers in Europe, with 30 titles released and selling many millions of units. DDI were pioneers in many areas, You know all those free to play games on your smart phone, paid for with advertising, well the DDI Licensed LONDON TAXI title, was the first title ever to contain interactive real time advertising.[3] Their Wii title Battle Rage was the first video game to utilize 3D glasses to give a real 3D view of the game.[4] Crazy Mini golf used the angle/rotation of the Wii remote rather than the accelerometer, to accurately detect small swings, this made the control far more sensitive than Wii Golf, which only used the accelerometer and thus requires a harder, longer swing. Mini Golf 2 improved on the sensitivity and was one of only 4 titles with Motion Plus support demonstrated at the Launch of Motion Plus at E3 2009, DDI also produced the most expensive Wii Title, the "My Personal Golf Trainer, with David Leadbetter and IMG academies". while £200 was high for a game, this was actually a ground breaking Biomechanical Golf swing simulator, utilising the Wii remote to get the swing arc, angle, direction and rotation, and then the balance board to report body movement, rocking or twist motions, it received overwhelming positive response, CGW REVIEW: "Remarkably accurate", "This sees things that you don't see on a $40,000 golf simulator for a tiny fraction of the price"[5] 4/5 [6]
In May 2008, DDI expanded opening new offices in Sarasota, Florida, USA,[7] the headquarters of which are described by them as a "stunning Class-A 10-storey glass elevator building which has an open-air courtyard, a fountain and overlooks the beautiful Sarasota Bay" .

References


As you can tell, most of that is biased and badly written, with a few bits of good information. He has addressed the Conflict of Interest on the talk page, but seems unaware of how biased his additions are. What should we do? Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You're correct by removing that stuff, Harryhenry1. @StewartGxyz: should stop adding unnecessary POV to the article. --Soetermans. T / C 12:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be that bad if the person would read up on WP neutrality. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's what Stewart said about the COI:
"I do have a COI as the CEO of DDI, and I am declaring it openly. We have been subject to numerous attacks on the company by people who want to discredit DDI, we have had to get false bad reviews removed from Amazon, due to rogue elements mass spaming bad reviews. This article has had all of the 30 years of development removed and reduced to just a opinion on one range the 'popcorn Arcade' which is a very small part of our many years of design development and publishing, not mentioned at all are some unique and important parts of gaming history. The reduced article does in no way provide a complete or accurate picture of what DDI has done. For example our list of 150+ Skus have been reduced to 5 titles, that is a major ommission, we have not tried to censor or remove the popcorn-arcade critical review, we have added the additional detail which gives a more complete story behind the whole company. COI is not ideal, but it is NOT against Wikipedia guidelines and in this case provides a more detailed content with a lot more citations, where the reduced reviews doe snot have the citations, overall it is more informative, more accurate and more more complete, without a bias. - Please dispute the parts you believe are biased, without removing the facts and detail."
That was taken from the talk page of the article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you want us to do about this? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing right now... I think we should wait to see if Stewart responds or not. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Kill Screen Reviews Policy

So I stumbled across Kill Screen's Review Policy which was made last October. This does explain a lot about how they score games these days at least. GamerPro64 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"We like to stay away from the word 'gameplay.'". Sounds pretentious to me, considering how they're writing about video games with "games" as the second word. Is this considered a reliable source? I've never seen it in a Wikipedia article. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes Kill Screen is a reliable source Discussed it here. And yes KS is pretentious. We also determined that we should not use their scoring at all. GamerPro64 00:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Kill Screen does reviews, but they're not really about "reviews" like IGN or GameSpot would be; basically everything they post is just an article or thought piece about a game or whatever. If that article happens to cover a game that they just played then it's a review or whatever, but it's really just the author talking about how they felt about the game and what their experience was like, and they stick a number on it without explanation or justification. Personally I love it, but I wish they would just drop the number altogether- they use the whole 0-100 scale, and don't justify themselves, so for example they had a review of Undertale that was essentially "I didn't like it; I felt that they didn't really accomplish what they set out to do and it didn't resonate with me, though I liked the idea. (65)" or whatever, and because of that number it attracted people off of metacritic (avg: 94) who wanted to complain about the number, when it really was just about how the author felt about his experience playing the game. --PresN 04:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh man- I almost wanted to say that they wanted to be the Pitchfork of video games, if you know that reference, but nowhere near as pretentious, and then I read the Duke Nukem Forever review they link from their reviews policy page. Turns out, 4 years later, that the present KSD is way, way less pretentious than they used to be. --PresN 04:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
If we're having fun, I want to say they're The Economist of video games - they don't make you smart, but they like to pretend. Also, I think Hemingway would have a field day if he read the first paragraph of this review. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Moral of the story is Kill Screen should be more suited for news stories rather than its reviews. If you do use a review from them, don't use their score. Consider that to be like Kotaku with more pretentiousness and more credibility than Kotaku. GamerPro64 04:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: Halo

I have created a new portal at Portal:Halo and nominated it for featured portal status at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Halo. Comments will be much appreciated. Thank you. sst✈discuss 07:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

SSX is getting more messed up and convoluted than ever!

I'm getting confused! I noticed that the 31.48.227.216 keeps messing up the SSX article, most notably by putting all the aggregator scores back into prose and putting GameRankings scores back in decimals! All the other games like Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom and Clash of the Titans (video game) have the aggregate scores dropped from prose, and I tried to fix the SSX article, but 31.48.227.216 keeps reverting it and making the prose more convoluted than ever! He even warned me not to use this talk page, claiming, "If you even dare go to the video games talk page and ask help from mommy and daddy, I will be VERY angry at you. Seriously, do you really need that talk page to guide you through everything? No, you don't. Don't rely on it ever again." Seriously, he is threatening to ban me! I'm so confused! If he keeps up, then I'll never do video game articles again! What shall I do? Should Gamerankings' scores be rounded to the nearest decimal, or not? And could somebody do something to this condescending IP editor? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My tolerance for threats is zero percent. That's a flat zero. I made an incident report on the admins noticeboard:
--Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Angeldeb82: you're right, GameRankings scores should be rounded to two digits of precision, per T:VGR. I'm not so sure on the guideline regarding aggregate scores in prose, but I'm fairly sure it's usually preferred to exclude them. The IP editor is acting very immature, and you should definitely not let this incident disparage you from contributing to Wikipedia; your contributions are very useful and appreciated, and letting something small like this get to you would be unfortunate. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with what Rhain1999 said, you shouldn't quit because of these minor things. The above thread suggests that it is not something worth fighting over. I do not really think that the IP is sufficiently warned though. Taking him to ANI may be a bit too aggressive, even though I agree that the IP's action is immature. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that aggression applies in the face of fair morality. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't let the trolls get you down, @Angeldeb82:. I drop by WT:VG all the time for advice and input. --Soetermans. T / C 11:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, it seems your advice is comforting me. Thanks. I will continue to follow the rules and not get discouraged from making right edits again. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation error: duplicate reference keys

Over 500 video games articles have citation errors caused from duplicate reference keys. This is when a named reference is defined multiple times with different content. It's a simple fix, it usually just involves changing a ref name or removing a ref definition. You can read about it here if you're unsure how to correct the error: Help:Cite errors/Cite error references duplicate key. Here's a list of the articles if anyone feels like doing some fun citation cleanup: User:The1337gamer/sandbox/duplicate_reference_keys. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've come across a few myself and always fix them when I see them. I'll look through some in the list, but not rigorously. ~Mable (chat) 21:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Template deletion

I've nominated {{Call of Juarez chronology}} for deletion, if anyone from the project is interested in commenting, the discussion is here. Bertaut (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Move request for the original The Legend of Zelda

Hi, all. I'd appreciate if others could weigh in on this requested move's discussion. Thanks! —zziccardi (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting List of video game genres from scratch

Due to the amount of OR and poor referencing in the current List of video game genres article, I have started a rewrite here. Any suggestions, copyedits, or additions would be appreciated. Thanks, Esquivalience t 00:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As a comment I would avoid trying to include "Notable (genre) games", and instead rely on two, three at most obvious-to-everyone examples of that genre. Doom and Half-Life as FPSs, World of Warcraft as an MMO, Final Fantasy as an RPG, etc. Otherwise, as I've seen elsewhere, editors trying to wiggle their favorite title that may be a fringe case of being "important" into these types of lists. Let the genre articles speak to the differences. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this - many music related articles I work in suffer from terrible "list-bloat" issues with examples of genre when given the opportunity to list them. Everyone wants to add their own personal favorite fringe example, then arguments of inclusion and readability ensue, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
To follow up, the approach as done here [20] I fully agree with in terms to hallmarking key titles, by using historical perspective and/or financial succeed. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"List of PlayStation 3 backward compatible PlayStation 2 and PlayStation games"

See List of PlayStation 3 backward compatible PlayStation 2 and PlayStation games.

Some questions/concerns:

  1. Aren't virtually all PS1 games compatible with the PS3? Does this really need to be documented? Should the scope just be refocused to the PS2 games that are compatible? But then again, weren't most PS2 games compatible with the old PS3's that could play actually play them?
  2. That's...a really awkward article title. Suggestions on a better one? (May be easier addressed once we address point #1.)

At first, I was going to just redirect the article as one of these obscure/poorly designed list articles nobody ever even comes across, but then I noticed it gets 400 to 500 views per day, so people do apparently view it. At the same time though, it seems weird to document this. When compatibility is more spotty, (360 compatibility with Xone), sure, but this seems more in line with documenting "Gamecube games playable on Wii".

Any input is welcome - I feel like I could go in a number of ways with this, but I don't think its good in its current shape/scope. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think at least the article should be renamed to List of PlayStation 3 backward compatible PlayStation 2 games, as all PS1 games are compatible with all PS3 systems. If all PS1 games are already compatible then it defeats the object of having them in the list. The lead should add a note stating that PS2 games lost their backwards compatibility after certain models. JAGUAR  19:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I would probably agree this list is not appropriate for WP, though I am 99.9% certain that there exists a usable EL that summarizes the information that we can link somewhere. I very much doubt you will find usable sourcing to say which disc-based PS1/PS2 has problems on the emulation side that would be able to support this list, and it is better to simply have a section in the PS3 hardware article that "All PS3 support PS1 BC, and initial PS3 units included direct PS2 BC." --MASEM (t) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

New Ron Gilbert interview

[21] from USGamer. As it touches on most of the games he covered (similar to the one from Tim Schafer a few months back), this can apply to a lot of potential articles. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I'll take a look at it tonight.--IDVtalk 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)